10 ms·
Sweden's new car carrier is the world's largest wind-powered vessel
- rawland 6y agoHere the prototype (made by partner KTH) having mounted the first wing on top of the model while testing: https://www.walleniusmarine.com/blog/ship-design-newbulding/first-wing-on-deck/ https://www.walleniusmarine.com/blog/ship-design-newbulding/... There is also a video showing the setup and operation. Released just two days ago...
- Gwypaas 6y agoTo clarify what KTH is: KTH Royal Institute of Technology (Swedish: Kungliga Tekniska högskolan), abbreviated KTH, is a public research university in Stockholm, Sweden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTH_Royal_Institute_of_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTH_Royal_Institute_of_Technol...
- bserge 6y agoOh, this is amazing! I don't think I've seen solid sails before, although now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense. Hopefully this kind of design can be adapted to more ships and maybe even retrofitted to existing vessels.
- VoxPelli 6y agoClosest I can come to think of is the Maltese Falcon, but it doesn’t have solid wings, but still pretty unconventional in similar ways: https://www.marineinsight.com/boating-yachting/maltese-falcon-a-fastest-super-yacht-with-sails/ https://www.marineinsight.com/boating-yachting/maltese-falco...
- gomox 6y agoThey are way more efficient than conventional sails, although a lot less practical. The F1 of sailing uses wing sails. https://youtu.be/926yzLioIxQ https://youtu.be/926yzLioIxQ
- darksaints 6y agoThey can be less practical but they can also be more practical. The only autonomous sailboats in the world use solid wingsails, but with a different control scheme than traditional sailors are accustomed to. This allows them to be operated without any of the complexity or danger that you'll see in an AC50.
- aww_dang 6y agoPlenty of talk about CO2 and green energy etc. Didn't see anything about the actual fuel costs saved. According to the article, the equivalent ship would use 40 tons of fuel per day and cross the Atlantic in 7 days. Assuming this is bunker fuel at approximately $340/ton, the total savings would be $11200 USD. With an added delay of 5 days, I can appreciate why this hasn't been attempted for purely economic reasons. Who knows what the actual costs and maintenance will add up to in the end?
- markvdb 6y agoRegulation could change this equation very very quickly. There might also be unexpected sweet spots for this kind of technology. Things that come to mind: - shorter stretches where speed is a bit less of an issue - promotional value for the brands transporting their goods this way - ...
- rsynnott 6y agoThe real problem with shipping isn’t the CO2 emissions of the fuel as much as the dirtiness of the fuel. It doesn’t seem crazy to gamble that this will eventually be restricted heavily, particularly in Europe, and thus that it will become more expensive (fossil fuel ships aren’t going away anytime soon, but we could definitely see greatly increased standards). The article does concentrate on CO2, but I suspect that’s not the real story here.
- credit_guy 6y agoStarting in January 2020, marine fuel’s sulfur content was reduced 7 fold, from a max of 3.5% before to 0.5% now, out in the blue waters. Within 100 miles of the US coast, the limit has been 0.1% since 2015. https://www.epa.gov/diesel-fuel-standards/diesel-fuel-standards-and-rulemakings https://www.epa.gov/diesel-fuel-standards/diesel-fuel-standa...
- newsclues 6y agoBunker fuel should be taxed at at rate that makes its use prohibitive.
- rtlfe 6y agoKind of funny that this "clean" ship is being used to transport cars.
- _ph_ 6y agoBy the time the ship is in service, the cars it transports might be all electric.
- tpmx 6y agoWild idea: Power the ship with the batteries in the 7000 cars it carries, partially (speed up) or fully. One cable per car to its charging port - power can be transmitted in that direction too. Edit: Quick reality check: About 500 MWh from the batteries. An oil-based ocean crossing of a similar sized vessel uses 280 tons oil, corresponding to about 3 GWh. So, meh. Probably not worth all the hassle - the cabling, recharging the cars after the crossing, dealing with various extra fire risks, etc.
- _ph_ 6y agoThat might be an idea, at least for the loaded parts of the travels. Also, for a ship mostly driven by sails, solar-electric propulsion for the rest suddenly becomes more feasible.
- _ph_ 6y agoAbout your edit: If you mostly sail, you cut the energy requirements from the engines by 90%, according to the article. Suddenly alternative power sources, like the car batteries, become literally 10 times more feasible :). Add to the batteries any internal batteries the ship might carry and solar on the wings, and you can reduce the need for other fuels further, even if you are not able to replace them alltogether.
- tpmx 6y agoThe batteries could be used to make it use 0% oil - use the batteries in the ports and in emergencies. Is going from 90% to 100% reduction worth the hassle? Probably not. I was first hoping the batteries could be used to reduce the extra crossing time (12 days vs 7 days for oil) significantly, but I'm guessing it would only reduce it by 0.5-1 day or so.
- inquirerofsorts 6y ago> is the world's largest wind-powered vessel Nothing but CGI models. Surely a news agency as reputable as CNN can get the nomenclature right here? It will be the world's largest wind-powered vessel once built in 2024.
- eplanit 6y agoCNN has a reputation alright, but it's not for depth or accuracy.
- thefounder 6y agoWhich one has a reputation for depth & accuracy?
- ciarannolan 6y agoThat was your takeaway from the article? Nitpicking the grammar?
- Judgmentality 6y agoThat's not nitpicking the grammar. It changes the meaning of the sentence. And if that's the only sentence you read you'd have no way of knowing it's wrong.
- mmrezaie 6y ago
- _ph_ 6y agoThis is fantastic. Shipping goods is one major source of CO2 and other pollutants, as most ship engines are way dirtier than any car engine. If this concept works out, we have an almost magic bullet to cut ship emissions by 90%. And at that level, suddenly other concepts for the remaining motor power required become feasible. Those wings could be covered with solar cells for electric populsion and ships can carry large batteries. Or biofuels, hydrogen etc. Not only the emissions, but the requirement for motor powers have been cut by 90%. On the other side, as someone who likes sailing boats of all kinds, it is just gorgeous. Imagine the seas populated by those great ships.
- JorgeGT 6y agoWe really don't need this concept to work out in order to have clean shipping. We've had the technology for 70+ years, we just haven't implemented it because oil-fired ships are cheaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion
- berkes 6y agoCertainly cleaner than oil-powered. But doubtfully cleaner than wind. For wind you don't need mines, and extremely expensive storage facilities. For nuclear power you do. Edit: obviously such a ship needs mining to get the metal to make such a ship, but so does a nuclear ship: after that, the wind-powered ship sails virtually for free forever, whereas the nuclear ship needs a small stream of plutonium in- and a small stream of highly "dirty" waste going out.
- JorgeGT 6y agoConsider however that a modern sailship needs a thermal engine for practical and safety reasons: you want to be able to avoid storms, calm periods or inconvenient winds that can make you drift hundreds of miles from your original destination, all of these big problems during the Age of Sail. This is in fact why we abandoned sailing ships for merchant fleets: they run on the Sun's free nuclear fusion energy, but they are very inconvenient! So a modern sail ship will need to use its engine, and therefore I'm not sure they would be cleaner than a nuclear fission ship.
- FrontAid 6y agoThe article does not really explain how it works. From my naïve understanding, those wings sails do not seem to be ordinary wings but are shaped like the ones in airplanes. When they are rotated to the right angle given the wind direction, the vessel is pulled forward. The topic reminds me of the Flettner rotor [1] and other wind-assisted propulsion systems [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_rotor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_rotor & https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner-Rotor https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner-Rotor [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind-assisted_propulsion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind-assisted_propulsion
- chrisseaton 6y ago> The article does not really explain how it works. It's a sail. Being rigid instead of a piece of cloth doesn't change the basics of how it's working. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sail
- nabla9 6y agoThey work just like normal sails. A sail is just a wing sideways. It moves the ship by generating lift. The ship moves forward when the angle of attack is adjusted correctly. See the picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_sail#/media/File:Points_of_sail.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_sail#/media/File:Poin... The ship can't move directly against the wind, but it can close-haul 45 degrees against the wind assuming it has enough keel.
- FrontAid 6y agoNot sure about that. Normal sails "bend" away from the wind and thus have a much stronger lift. This concept's sails are "beant" outwards and would lose much of the wind's force. This source [1] states that "The futuristic sails are like airplane wigs using the same level of aerodynamic technology" which would imply that they absolutely do not "work just like normal sails". [1] https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/swedish-collaboration-unveils-world-s-largest-sail-powered-car-carrier https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/swedish-collabora...
- timck 6y agoThe figures are overly optimistic here. As a sailor, i'm certain that no one is crossing the Atlantic in 12 days at 10kts. The fastest cruiser- performance catamarans in the annual ARC Rally, sailing with the tradewinds from east to west are taking 12 days at 15kts daily average. (50% faster boat speed than this ship). And they are very experienced sailors with expert weather guidance. And the winds when coming from americas back to europe are often against you, which is likely to make the trip 50% longer. (Tacking longer distances) When you take the upper c02 level forecast for this ship, and assume a more realistic 20-25 days for this ship.. suddently the c02 savings are only around 50 to 60%
- throwawayForMe2 6y agoThe sails are 260 feet tall, they say they measured the winds at that height on previous crossings, maybe the winds up there give them some advantage, maybe a more direct route? Just guessing. Another thought is they can use the engine and the sails at the same time, possibly avoid long tacks but still getting fuel savings. I used to have a small sailboat with an inboard electric motor. You can do neat things with both available, the electric motor needs no warmup or startup and I could add a little push here or there if needed, or use both together.
- fuzzfactor 6y ago>the sails can be retracted to 195 feet in order to clear bridges Ruh-roh. Didn't think it looked like it would fit under the Houston Ship Channel bridge last month. >Wind Power Breezes Back into Shipping with New RoRo Concept https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24458271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24458271
- wffurr 6y agoAlso take into account the latitudes for sailing versus motoring. I don't know what shipping corridors typically are for diesel-powered cargo ships, but I doubt they go down to the tradewinds. On the other hand, a 650' cargo ship can handle a lot more weather than a 40' sailing sloop or catamaran, so perhaps sailing the North Atlantic is more feasible.
- 6y ago
- aristophenes 6y agoThe problem with this is the diesel powered boat delivers, on average, 1,142 cars per day. The wind powered ship, being slower and with a slightly lower capacity, delivers 583 cars per day. Therefore, to deliver the same number of cars, you need two of the wind powered ships. This extra 35,000 ton ship will be offset by saving 100 tons of CO2 per day (120 tons created by the diesel, minus ~20 tons created by the two sail ships). Is this worth it? How much CO2 does it take to build a 35,000 ton ship? And then of course the cost of a ship vs. diesel fuel. Plus I presume the sail ships are now dependent on weather, which introduces logistical problems. I suspect that coating the top of the diesel ship with solar panels and using the energy to supplement or replace the diesel engines might be a better use of resources?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- zaroth 6y ago> Can we challenge the assumption we need as many cars delivered in the future as we do now? Personal transportation is a key driver of economic growth and prosperity. We should leverage technology to ensure that the cars that people need become ever more clean, environmentally sustainable, and affordable.
- the8472 6y agoPersonal transportation doesn't mean we need exactly the amount of cars we do now. One scenario is autonomous taxi fleets significantly reducing the need for personal vehicle ownership, especially in cities where the majority of the population lives.
- newsclues 6y agoWhat if we do wind/solar hybrids? While double the ships is more costly to procure, it’s more flexible and fault tolerant, so there are benefits! Ultimately I think the question is, what is the price difference to transport a car, and if higher would customers pay more?
- lebuffon 6y agoI didn't get the 40 tons of fuel makes 120 tons of CO2. The optimum fuel/air ratio is 14.5:1 for a diesel fuel. Is bunker C fuel burnt at 3:1 ratio? Sounds wrong.
- dmurray 6y agoHydrocarbons are mostly C by mass. Carbon dioxide is 27% C, 73% O (one C atom to two O atoms). So the output of one ton of hydrocarbons (coal, gasoline, paraffin, it doesn't matter) is three tons of CO2. Some of the rest of the 14 parts air goes to burning the H atoms, which don't weigh much, and producing water. Most of it is nitrogen which isn't burned.
- dogma1138 6y agoIn an ideal burning reaction in atmospheric air for C4H10 you get 4 CO2 and 5 H2O (and a bunch of N2) at fuel ratio of 15:1. So for 40 tons of fuel with C4H10 you’ll get around 120-130 tons of CO2. Once you do the math and convert from mol for each product to KG it more or less comes out right. Hydrogen is 2 g/mol, Oxygen and Carbon are 16 and 12 respectively. So you are essentially tripling the mass simply because you are adding a heavy molecule (oxygen) to the mix.
- anticristi 6y agoAfter clicking 5 times on "Object to Legitimate Interest", I lost my own interest. Damn you OneTrust! Why can't you just respect GDPR without needing to constantly invent new dark patterns?
- yason 6y agoWouldn't it make more sense to equip the ship with vertical axis wind turbines that either drive a propeller or a generator which drives an azipod? Doesn't matter which way the wind blows you can still generate energy. Less efficient sailing headwind of course but you could still do that without tacking, too.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y agoConversion losses make the generator idea lackluster. Vertical axis turbines would be a lot of complexity and weight for dubious benefit. Freestanding wingsails like this already have very wide response to wind. Tacking isn't that great of a concern.
- danans 6y ago> the sails can be retracted to 195 feet in order to clear bridges or withstand rough weather. That's awfully close to the clearance under many bridges. The SF Bay bridge for example, which has to be crossed to reach the port of Oakland, has a clearance of 220 ft.
- flyGuyOnTheSly 6y agoEngineers work in terms of 10 thousandths of an inch. 25 feet of difference is massive.
- geon 6y agoI'd love to watch a ship clear a bridge by 10 thousandths of an inch.
- tpmx 6y agoWell, not quite like that, but here's Allure of the Seas passing the Great Belt Bridge in Denmark, with a few feet of clearance (I think 2 or 3, but I'm not certain - sources are unclear.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1Cs0C8LkeU&ab_channel=MogensHallas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1Cs0C8LkeU&ab_channel=Mogen...
- willcipriano 6y agoThat one rivet that didn't quite go all the way in...