6 ms·
These newly built traditional ships are simply insignificant in the face of the volume of goods transported globally. They are passenger vessels for people who
by Gwypaas 4y ago
These newly built traditional ships are simply insignificant in the face of the volume of goods transported globally. They are passenger vessels for people who want to experience forgotten time while also delivering some feel-good. Definitely a viable business, but it does not replace global logistics.
The EcoClipper in the article is said to take 500 tons of cargo, that is 23 TEUs (Twenty-foot equivalent unit) [1] by weight. Ever Given the ship that got stuck in the Suez canal carries 20 000 TEUs. That is by volume. Not all can be fully loaded by weight, but still. There is a factor of about 1000 between them. Add on the reduced speed for the EcoClipper, and you need ~4 000 sail ships to replace it.
Now we haven't even gotten into cargo handling since the EcoClipper can not easily be unloaded directly by crane.
Simply, it is too low scale.
What is truly interesting is, for example, the Oceanbird program by Wallenius and Alfa Laval [2]. That is making Ro-Ro vessels aided by the wind, ensuring that you get the efficiency gains and hit the slot times in port. The Ro-Ro, Roll-on, Roll-off, part is important since that means you do not clash with unloading requirements coming from cranes.
The shipping industry is also looking into synthetic fuels and hydrogen since the infrastructure is relatively centralized, and they rely on the energetic density of chemical fuels. Where the trips are measured in hours rather than days or weeks batteries are being deployed.
A nice short film from the latter parts of the era of sail is "Around Cape Horn" from 1929, when the narrator worked on one of the large four-masted barques. [3]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-foot_equivalent_unit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-foot_equivalent_unit
[2]: https://www.theoceanbird.com/blog/orcelle-horizon/ https://www.theoceanbird.com/blog/orcelle-horizon/
[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tuTKhqWZso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tuTKhqWZso
- _hcuq 4y agoNobody is claiming that sailing ships will solve the environmental crisis. But neither will minor improvements to Ro-Ro fuel efficiency.
- gvb 4y agoAt the end of the article, after the picture "The mizzen of the 'Grace Harwar'; view aft from the main crosstrees", is the calculation: The amount of cargo that was traded across the oceans in 2019 equals the freight capacity of 22.4 million EcoClippers. Assuming the EcoClipper500 can make 2-3 trips per year, we would need to build and operate at least 7.5 million ships, with a total crew of at least 90 million people.
- detourdog 4y agoDoesn't sound beyond human capability and I would rather work on a EcoClipper than Amazon.
- leesalminen 4y agoAt 2-3 trips per year that means spending 4-6 months at sea per trip. That’s a lot of time away from family. I would definitely rather work for Amazon and see my family every night.
- nradov 4y agoWould you still rather work on a EcoClipper if they pay you less that $11 a day? That's about the starting wage for entry-level seamen on foreign registered merchant ships. Sailing ships would have to pay even less than that in order to be cost competitive. Outside of maybe a few twee luxury goods, shippers aren't willing to pay more for the privilege of having their goods moved by sail.
- detourdog 4y agoI think the ramp up between now and when a EcoClipper job becomes available it's really hard to judge the tradeoffs you present. If one extrapolates that ramp-up and time and applies it to the future quality of a job at Amazon... maybe it will be a job at Amazon.
- skyfaller 4y ago
- qikInNdOutReply 4y agoThere is also drag reduction via airbubles blown beneath the ship and keeping them distributed via ultrasound. Its pretty cool.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoThere's hi tech options here, which also split the large vessels into many smaller vessels. The benefits include being able to deliver to smaller ports that are close to the final destination and smaller batches for continual delivery and faster end to end time when something is an expedited. The large size is partly a factor of fuel costs so cheap future fuels might rebalance away from that design aspect. Automation is another force that works towards smaller vessels.
- detourdog 4y agoYou are right trade routes could have exchanges at the most efficient waypoints. These vessels could meet smaller vessels for the final destination delivery. These waypoints could be accessible to any form of transportation causing another distortion in the time efficiency of goods delivery.
- hef19898 4y agoSo, like today?
- mschuster91 4y agoWe could also get rid of a lot of global logistics by going back to local manufacturing. There's absolutely nothing that dictates that iPhones can be built only in China, or that every grocery store needs to keep strawberries or other agricultural products all year round (which have to be sometimes flown around the world [1]). The key problem is that CO2 emissions still aren't priced anywhere near to true externality cost, and so no one has incentives for local, low emissions production - instead, everyone goes to the lowest bidder by employment costs (and sometimes, environmental regulations as well). [1] https://lufthansa-cargo.com/industries-agriculture-food https://lufthansa-cargo.com/industries-agriculture-food
- nradov 4y agoThat's no "going back" to local manufacturing. Most places never had any real manufacturing in the first place, and the notion of replicating manufacturing infrastructure for consumer goods in every area is absurd. That idea is based on a complete lack of understanding over how supply chains work. The CO2 emissions for transporting an iPhone from Asia are insignificant. The real emissions cost is in the manufacturing, not the transport.
- mschuster91 4y ago> That idea is based on a complete lack of understanding over how supply chains work. Before extremely cheap overseas shipping was made possible by the standard shipping container and giant container ships to match, almost all production was local (i.e. actually regional or at least continental) by necessity. Silicon Valley is named after all the semiconductor fabrication ffs, and a ton of that has migrated off to Taiwan. And a lot of regions in Western countries got absolutely wrecked as they couldn't compete with cheap, environmentally destructive manufacturing or mining in China / India any more. It's high time to reverse that, not just because China is an increasingly hostile dictatorship, Taiwan is under constant threat of a military invasion and India is going off the deep end as well under Modi, but also because we need the jobs back domestically to prevent even more people falling to far-right scapegoat bullshit.
- mojomark 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- caycep 4y agoWasn't there some effort to design sail, or sail-augmented supertanker/freighter/container ships? I vaguely remember seeing renderings w/ hi tech airfoils mounted on the deck of the ship....
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y agoThere's been a few different efforts along those lines. Free standing wing sails are surprisingly practical. They can be designed to be self trimming: that is you set a control surface once and then it tracks the wind so long as the ship doesn't make a 180. But as cool as that technology is, it simply isn't economic vs burning the cheapest oil available. Because international waters are a no man's land pollution wise, most freighters burn extremely dirty but cheap oil, ie bunker oil. This stuff is so thick it often needs heaters to liquify it to get it into the engine. So long as that externality is unpriced, sail augmentation simply won't be interesting to ship owners financially.
- nradov 4y agoJust because a fuel is thick doesn't necessarily mean it is dirty. The IMO has required ships in international waters to use low-sulphur fuel or exhaust scrubbers since 2020. Some smaller ships occasionally break the law but the large shipping companies are fairly good about compliance now. CO2 emissions remain an issue, but large diesel engine merchant ships are still the most energy efficient mode of transportation ever invented. There are a few large wind-assisted cargo ships in commercial service today. This trend will probably continue as sail technology gets cheaper and fuel gets more expensive. But it only improves efficiency by something like 5-10%. https://splash247.com/mols-wind-assisted-bulk-carrier-enters-service/ https://splash247.com/mols-wind-assisted-bulk-carrier-enters...
- ElevenLathe 4y agoIf you take the people off them, 4000 little self-sailing ships seems actually much better for logistics than one big tub that will clog up Suez if there is one pilot screwup. Send your stuff when it rolls off the line, no need to wait until you have 20,000 of them lined up.
- dtgriscom 4y agoIt isn't just caprice that's made ships bigger and bigger and bigger; they're cheaper to operate. The loss of flexibility seems to be well-compensated by the lower cost.
- ElevenLathe 4y agoAre they not cheaper to operate because of economies of scale for staff (fewer sailors per ton-mile of cargo) and fuel (one big hull is less drag through the water than tons of little ones)? I assumed those were the main reasons but maybe there is some bigger one that dwarfs these, perhaps construction costs? Docking fees?
- mcnrny 4y agoDoes the author not make the same point at the end of the article? > Of course, none of this would ever happen. > We should not be fooled by abstract relative measurements, which only serve to keep the focus on growth and efficiency. It seems unreasonable to try to fix the myriad issues with global supply chain without adjusting the expectations and consumption habits.