5 ms·

I have the feeling that technologies like this (including these kites and also Flettner sails) are too little too late. While a 20% saving on fuel is great news

I have the feeling that technologies like this (including these kites and also Flettner sails) are too little too late. While a 20% saving on fuel is great news for the operators of these ships (if the sails themselves are low-maintenance), the world as a whole seems to be moving off carbohydrates in the next two decades. For shipping this inevitably means to switch to green fuels (e.g., Ammonia). Once the production of such fuels has reached a certain scale, sails might not be necessary anymore. The reason here is the extremely low cost of energy from photovoltaics: We see less than $0.03 per kwh [projected prices for some currently planned large scale farms] - that's about $0.3 for the energy of 1 kg of bunker oil. Bunker oil sells for about $300 to $500 per ton, so roughly $0.4 per kg. That means that a replacement fuel with more than 66% conversion efficiency could already be competitive right now. High Temperatur Hydrogen Electrolysis is reportedly available with 80% energy efficiency. As far as I know, there is no indication that solar costs could stop falling anytime soon, so in the next 20 years we will probably see it drop well below $0.01. So if I did not misplace a decimal somewhere, the future should be in relatively cheap large-scale green fuel.

signal11 5y ago
> the world as a whole seems to be moving off carbohydrates in the next two decades. I know Keto and Atkins are popular but I’m not sure the world as a whole will move off carbs… :-)
- choeger 5y ago
  Well, for a truly carbon-free society, everyone has to do their parts. So no pasta for you anymore after 2030 ;).
Closi 5y ago
This doesn't have to be instead of Ammonia, and could clearly be as well as Ammonia. If it decreases 20% on the current fuel, I don't see why it wouldn't also decrease 20% of any future fuel. Besides, although it's a possibility that we will have abundant solar within 20 years, let's also build on the basis that we might not and solve the problem from multiple angles!
- pwagland 5y ago
  Ops point was that if the cost of fuel drops by 75% (using the numbers from their comment), then things like sails may no longer be cost effective. For example, it saves 20% of your fuel cost, great! But its cost is 10% of your fuel cost. At current fuel prices, you still come out ahead, since you are saving more than you are paying. However, if fuel is 1/4 the cost of now, then you still save 20% of fuel cost, but the sails now cost 40% of your fuel cost… aka the sails now cost you money to run. To be clear, while these sails are profitable, they will be used. Op is just saying that they think they will become unprofitable sooner than expected.
freeflight 5y ago
> For shipping this inevitably means to switch to green fuels (e.g., Ammonia). Once the production of such fuels has reached a certain scale, sails might not be necessary anymore. Green fuels will need to ramp up their production to meet the demand, better actual efficiency (not just financial) means that ramp up wouldn't need to be as steep as the demand won't be as high so we will have an easier time actually filling that demand. It's a bit like not changing to more energy efficient light-bulbs based on the assumption that in 20 years green fuels will make electricity so affordable, and emissions neutral, that it allegedly won't matter. One could do that, but if the cheap green energy doesn't end up materializing in that time then you did nothing to reduce to problem and end even further removed from an actual solution.
MrYellowP 5y ago
It's not too late. I don't even know why you would think so. Even if it takes them a year to equip all their fleets with these sails, they'd still be saving money and fuel for the time until they're not needed anymore.
- hytdstd 5y ago
  Without knowing the financials related to the product, it's really not possible to say that it's definitely worth it for, for example, 1 year of service.
hellbannedguy 5y ago
These greedy Globalists are probally clamoring for the day diesel gas drops in price due to most everyone else trying to green. They will just need to act lije they care about burning fossil fuels, and happily pay for lower diesel fuel. Until then--they will do stunts like this in order to show they care. (20% savings in fuel is big though. "Stunt might be to cynical?) I feel the companies that use shipping are scared. They are afraid of tariffs/taxes tacked on to their cheaply made products if the public starts complaining. They got away with manufacturing in the cheapest country. We just gave up trying to buy reasonably priced products at home. I imagine they are very scared of their perceived culpability in Global Warming though? I am all for the sails. They don't seem copacetic with container ships though? The filthy loucres couldn't carry as many containers with sails?
umvi 5y ago
> carbohydrates You mean hydrocarbons?
- jwdunne 5y ago
  Yeah, that seems to be an error. There are more than a few claims about the effects of a ketogenic diet, but I don’t think lower fuel costs is one of em!
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Well, if enough people lose their extra fat, at least the airlines may save some fuel when transporting them, no?
    - jwdunne 5y ago
      And/or using the extra energy levels to walk or cycle instead of drive, reducing fuel demand.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Is there really any difference?
animal531 5y ago
Also, just looking at the wing it seems to block you from using 2/5'ths of the top of the ship, which doesn't offset the 20% gain.
- Retric 5y ago
  I think your missing the key feature: inflatable sails. They don’t take up much space when not in use. That said, ships aren’t limited to container ships. Oil tankers have a lot of available deck space.
Retric 5y ago
Your assuming the only cost for Hydrogen/Ammonia fuel is the energy. Even if energy was free you still need to charge for infrastructure, workers, transportation, and profit.
pjc50 5y ago
> For shipping this inevitably means to switch to green fuels Dunno, as with all of these things we have to look at the lifecycle; how long is a ship in service? How many are being built with non-hydrocarbon fuels, or converted, today? It's a very small number. Mostly short-haul ferries on government-influenced routes e.g. https://www.cruiseandferry.net/articles/scotland-explores-feasibility-of-hydrogen-powered-ferries https://www.cruiseandferry.net/articles/scotland-explores-fe...
kumarvvr 5y ago
Great analysis. I would like to add a few more points. Energy extraction from oil is typically a low efficiency cycle. ICEs are around 30% efficient. Gas Plants are around 40% efficient. Energy from solar -> batteries -> application usually hovers around 70 - 80% efficiency. Motors are around 98% efficient. That covers most of our requirements for manufacturing. Conversion of electricity to heat is almost 96-98% efficient.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Combined cycle gas plants are about 60% efficient (on a LHV basis). Large marine diesel engines can have a thermal efficiency > 50%.
- folmar 5y ago
  > Energy from solar -> batteries -> application usually hovers around 70 - 80% efficiency. Nope, energy from solar is around 20%, batteries are at around 90% efficiency.
  - creato 5y ago
    The dollars per unit energy already includes this inefficiency of photons to electricity though. You are double counting it.
jmartrican 5y ago
20% savings on fuel is still good regardless of what fuel it is. So these sails seem relevant in a green energy world.

signal11 5y ago

> the world as a whole seems to be moving off carbohydrates in the next two decades. I know Keto and Atkins are popular but I’m not sure the world as a whole will move off carbs… :-)

choeger 5y ago
Well, for a truly carbon-free society, everyone has to do their parts. So no pasta for you anymore after 2030 ;).

Closi 5y ago

This doesn't have to be instead of Ammonia, and could clearly be as well as Ammonia. If it decreases 20% on the current fuel, I don't see why it wouldn't also decrease 20% of any future fuel. Besides, although it's a possibility that we will have abundant solar within 20 years, let's also build on the basis that we might not and solve the problem from multiple angles!

pwagland 5y ago
Ops point was that if the cost of fuel drops by 75% (using the numbers from their comment), then things like sails may no longer be cost effective. For example, it saves 20% of your fuel cost, great! But its cost is 10% of your fuel cost. At current fuel prices, you still come out ahead, since you are saving more than you are paying. However, if fuel is 1/4 the cost of now, then you still save 20% of fuel cost, but the sails now cost 40% of your fuel cost… aka the sails now cost you money to run. To be clear, while these sails are profitable, they will be used. Op is just saying that they think they will become unprofitable sooner than expected.

freeflight 5y ago

> For shipping this inevitably means to switch to green fuels (e.g., Ammonia). Once the production of such fuels has reached a certain scale, sails might not be necessary anymore. Green fuels will need to ramp up their production to meet the demand, better actual efficiency (not just financial) means that ramp up wouldn't need to be as steep as the demand won't be as high so we will have an easier time actually filling that demand. It's a bit like not changing to more energy efficient light-bulbs based on the assumption that in 20 years green fuels will make electricity so affordable, and emissions neutral, that it allegedly won't matter. One could do that, but if the cheap green energy doesn't end up materializing in that time then you did nothing to reduce to problem and end even further removed from an actual solution.

MrYellowP 5y ago

It's not too late. I don't even know why you would think so. Even if it takes them a year to equip all their fleets with these sails, they'd still be saving money and fuel for the time until they're not needed anymore.

hytdstd 5y ago
Without knowing the financials related to the product, it's really not possible to say that it's definitely worth it for, for example, 1 year of service.

hellbannedguy 5y ago

These greedy Globalists are probally clamoring for the day diesel gas drops in price due to most everyone else trying to green. They will just need to act lije they care about burning fossil fuels, and happily pay for lower diesel fuel. Until then--they will do stunts like this in order to show they care. (20% savings in fuel is big though. "Stunt might be to cynical?) I feel the companies that use shipping are scared. They are afraid of tariffs/taxes tacked on to their cheaply made products if the public starts complaining. They got away with manufacturing in the cheapest country. We just gave up trying to buy reasonably priced products at home. I imagine they are very scared of their perceived culpability in Global Warming though? I am all for the sails. They don't seem copacetic with container ships though? The filthy loucres couldn't carry as many containers with sails?

umvi 5y ago

> carbohydrates You mean hydrocarbons?

jwdunne 5y ago
Yeah, that seems to be an error. There are more than a few claims about the effects of a ketogenic diet, but I don’t think lower fuel costs is one of em!
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Well, if enough people lose their extra fat, at least the airlines may save some fuel when transporting them, no?
  - jwdunne 5y ago
    And/or using the extra energy levels to walk or cycle instead of drive, reducing fuel demand.
CRConrad 5y ago
Is there really any difference?

animal531 5y ago

Also, just looking at the wing it seems to block you from using 2/5'ths of the top of the ship, which doesn't offset the 20% gain.

Retric 5y ago
I think your missing the key feature: inflatable sails. They don’t take up much space when not in use. That said, ships aren’t limited to container ships. Oil tankers have a lot of available deck space.

Retric 5y ago

Your assuming the only cost for Hydrogen/Ammonia fuel is the energy. Even if energy was free you still need to charge for infrastructure, workers, transportation, and profit.

pjc50 5y ago

> For shipping this inevitably means to switch to green fuels Dunno, as with all of these things we have to look at the lifecycle; how long is a ship in service? How many are being built with non-hydrocarbon fuels, or converted, today? It's a very small number. Mostly short-haul ferries on government-influenced routes e.g. https://www.cruiseandferry.net/articles/scotland-explores-feasibility-of-hydrogen-powered-ferries https://www.cruiseandferry.net/articles/scotland-explores-fe...

kumarvvr 5y ago

Great analysis. I would like to add a few more points. Energy extraction from oil is typically a low efficiency cycle. ICEs are around 30% efficient. Gas Plants are around 40% efficient. Energy from solar -> batteries -> application usually hovers around 70 - 80% efficiency. Motors are around 98% efficient. That covers most of our requirements for manufacturing. Conversion of electricity to heat is almost 96-98% efficient.

pfdietz 5y ago
Combined cycle gas plants are about 60% efficient (on a LHV basis). Large marine diesel engines can have a thermal efficiency > 50%.
folmar 5y ago
> Energy from solar -> batteries -> application usually hovers around 70 - 80% efficiency. Nope, energy from solar is around 20%, batteries are at around 90% efficiency.
- creato 5y ago
  The dollars per unit energy already includes this inefficiency of photons to electricity though. You are double counting it.

jmartrican 5y ago

20% savings on fuel is still good regardless of what fuel it is. So these sails seem relevant in a green energy world.