5 ms·

I know I'm extraordinarily biased in this situation, but I really hope that sailing makes something of a comeback as an eco-friendly means of international trav

I know I'm extraordinarily biased in this situation, but I really hope that sailing makes something of a comeback as an eco-friendly means of international travel. Not flying shouldn't mean no more travelling, just that travelling happens at a bit more of a sedate pace. The act of sailing doesn't harm the environment at all, and even now some yachts have eliminated their marine diesel engines altogether in favour of a sail/electric setup which I imagine could scale up as massive battery banks get more and more feasible. There's also been nearly a century of innovation in materials science since the last clipper ships and even they were pretty fast.

mellavora 5y ago
Wow, this would be so amazing. The supposed problem with sail is that it takes "too long" (what, 2-3 weeks NY to London?). But if you could work remotely that whole time, you haven't lost the time. This would be such a beautiful future!
- ubercore 5y ago
  If you're worried about the environment, though, think of all the consumption and waste generated by people traveling at sea for two to three weeks.
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    Comparative reasoning seems valid here. It’s not like consumption and waste are zero for a person sitting at home for two to three weeks.
    - entropicgravity 5y ago
      Exactly, these people are emitting CO2 24/7 regardless.
i_am_proteus 5y ago
There's already a viable-but-not-utilized intermediate step, which is travel by motorized ship. Queen Mary 2 travels various transatlantic (and other international routes), but rates are rather high. One can also book passage on cargo ships, but price comes out to $100-120 a night, which, given that passage includes room and board, isn't unreasonable. Ship travel trades off cost of fuel (and aircraft) for cost of accommodations for the duration of the voyage. Add in that most people who can afford international travel cannot afford to take off 2-4 weeks from work just for the travel. Satellite internet might be able to obviate this for some employees, but even novel smallsat-based approaches have bandwidth limitations and latency that is too high for useful video calls.
- BoxOfRain 5y ago
  The kind of fossil fuels used by modern ships still aren't great from a climate change perspective though, which is usually the motivation for not flying. Having said that I expect it'd still be better in terms of grams of CO2 per person!
  - mc32 5y ago
    Also for cargo ships, adding one person to the cargo load really adds very little to the margins. the ship was going to "sail" regardless of whether you were getting on or not.
    - rhn_mk1 5y ago
      Aren't margins the only thing that matters, per passenger? It's not free, after all.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    If you're burning fossil fuels for travel anyway, burning bunker fuel is actually pretty good from a global warming point of view. Because it contains so much sulphur, which has a cooling effect, it contributes a little less to warming that the CO2 tonnage suggests. Compare this with flying where the warming effect is magnified by a factor of two or three, because the emissions happen high up in the atmosphere. Of course acid rain is a concern, so the picture is more complex than my two sentence comment makes it seem.
pnut 5y ago
It takes like 3 weeks on average to make a one-way Atlantic transit by sail, only retired people / gap year / independently wealthy can swing that.
- chana_masala 5y ago
  The above isn't suggesting that it remain that way, but instead become more available.
- yardie 5y ago
  You can do it in less than a week but it's going to be a terrible uncomfortable and fast ride as you skim across the top of the Atlantic at 20-30kts.
  - glitchcrab 5y ago
    As someone who has been sailing for 25 years since the age of 10, this sounds like an incredible way to travel.

mellavora 5y ago

Wow, this would be so amazing. The supposed problem with sail is that it takes "too long" (what, 2-3 weeks NY to London?). But if you could work remotely that whole time, you haven't lost the time. This would be such a beautiful future!

ubercore 5y ago
If you're worried about the environment, though, think of all the consumption and waste generated by people traveling at sea for two to three weeks.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  Comparative reasoning seems valid here. It’s not like consumption and waste are zero for a person sitting at home for two to three weeks.
  - entropicgravity 5y ago
    Exactly, these people are emitting CO2 24/7 regardless.

i_am_proteus 5y ago

There's already a viable-but-not-utilized intermediate step, which is travel by motorized ship. Queen Mary 2 travels various transatlantic (and other international routes), but rates are rather high. One can also book passage on cargo ships, but price comes out to $100-120 a night, which, given that passage includes room and board, isn't unreasonable. Ship travel trades off cost of fuel (and aircraft) for cost of accommodations for the duration of the voyage. Add in that most people who can afford international travel cannot afford to take off 2-4 weeks from work just for the travel. Satellite internet might be able to obviate this for some employees, but even novel smallsat-based approaches have bandwidth limitations and latency that is too high for useful video calls.

BoxOfRain 5y ago
The kind of fossil fuels used by modern ships still aren't great from a climate change perspective though, which is usually the motivation for not flying. Having said that I expect it'd still be better in terms of grams of CO2 per person!
- mc32 5y ago
  Also for cargo ships, adding one person to the cargo load really adds very little to the margins. the ship was going to "sail" regardless of whether you were getting on or not.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    Aren't margins the only thing that matters, per passenger? It's not free, after all.
- adrianN 5y ago
  If you're burning fossil fuels for travel anyway, burning bunker fuel is actually pretty good from a global warming point of view. Because it contains so much sulphur, which has a cooling effect, it contributes a little less to warming that the CO2 tonnage suggests. Compare this with flying where the warming effect is magnified by a factor of two or three, because the emissions happen high up in the atmosphere. Of course acid rain is a concern, so the picture is more complex than my two sentence comment makes it seem.

pnut 5y ago

It takes like 3 weeks on average to make a one-way Atlantic transit by sail, only retired people / gap year / independently wealthy can swing that.

chana_masala 5y ago
The above isn't suggesting that it remain that way, but instead become more available.
yardie 5y ago
You can do it in less than a week but it's going to be a terrible uncomfortable and fast ride as you skim across the top of the Atlantic at 20-30kts.
- glitchcrab 5y ago
  As someone who has been sailing for 25 years since the age of 10, this sounds like an incredible way to travel.