4 ms·

Plenty 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 4

Plenty 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 ago
Regulation 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Starting 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 ago
Bunker fuel should be taxed at at rate that makes its use prohibitive.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  That would prevent innovations which could make bunker fuel more efficient or clean.
IkmoIkmo 6y ago
Once the tech is there, working, viable, EU will start a gradual move towards tax optimisation to include the externalities and level the playing field.

markvdb 6y ago

Regulation 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 ago

The 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 ago
Starting 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 ago

Bunker fuel should be taxed at at rate that makes its use prohibitive.

aww_dang 6y ago
That would prevent innovations which could make bunker fuel more efficient or clean.

IkmoIkmo 6y ago

Once the tech is there, working, viable, EU will start a gradual move towards tax optimisation to include the externalities and level the playing field.