13 ms·
"bigger is better" is true in many cases, not just wind turbines. This can be because of economies of scale, for example a bus and a taxi need only one driver,
by GuB-42 5y ago
"bigger is better" is true in many cases, not just wind turbines. This can be because of economies of scale, for example a bus and a taxi need only one driver, so if you want to move many people, buses will be more efficient use of drivers.
But it can be just physics, usually some variation on the square cube law. For example a large container will generally be lighter per unit volume/mass. Similarly, if you want to prevent heat losses, the easiest way is to go big.
It is no wonder why engineers like it big, it is not just ego, it is efficiency. Of course, there is a limit, but progress is made by pushing these limits. The romans were right with their huge ships, as proof, today's ships are even bigger, it is just that they were at the limit of their technology.
- inglor_cz 5y agoThis article, on the other hand, argues that precisely ships are severely constrained by existing physical limits: * maximal depth of many important ports, * maximal width and depth of Panama and Suez channels. It isn't as efficient to build an übergiant that must take longer routes around the globe and can only fit into a handful of ports. In case of crude oil carriers, there is also the question of maximum environmental damage if they founder. I wouldn't like to see 5 million tons of crude spilt into the ocean. Even current sizes are pretty big. Also, when you take a giant anything (ship, nuclear reactor) out of operation for repairs, which may be urgent and unplanned, you reduced your available fleet by a massive amount, thus disrupting normal operations.
- nradov 5y agoWorldwide we have plenty of merchant ships. Taking a few out of operation has no significant impact.