4 ms·

Nuclear powered ships would be to putting a crew of ~20 low cost workers assembled from around the world with the inherent communication barriers that brings re

Nuclear powered ships would be to putting a crew of ~20 low cost workers assembled from around the world with the inherent communication barriers that brings responsible for a reactor. That does not sound feasible. Regarding sailing, scale is not the issue. Rather what limitations port operations impose. Combining containers with sails are indeed a challenge. Thus, shipping companies are looking into hydrogen, methanol, ammonia or synthetic fuels. We bult sail ships weighing 10 000 tons a hundred years ago. Switching the sails to rigid and using modern engineering principles and there's no issue going the x10-40 of that which are current ships scale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussen_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preussen_(ship)

adolph 4y ago
Still yet to see the math comparing low atmospheric kinetic energy to ship displacement through water. Yes, a large sailing vessel can be created. Can one be operated with sufficient cargo density? The question of whether 20 odd folks of different nationalities can operate/maintain a reactor seems also to apply to sailing vessels. The change is maybe a matter of degree so is the continuation of current staffing practice more important than decarbonization?
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  > Still yet to see the math comparing low atmospheric kinetic energy to ship displacement through water. Yes, a large sailing vessel can be created. Can one be operated with sufficient cargo density? They will likely slow down a bit compared to current vessels, but slow-steaming is already what everyone is doing. The most challenging part is both having the surface area and being able to pass under any bridges to the ports you want to enter, and have enough maneuverability to get through tight channels even when facing adverse wind conditions. > The question of whether 20 odd folks of different nationalities can operate/maintain a reactor seems also to apply to sailing vessels. How so? There is about zero 3rd party risk from operating a sail ship, a nuclear vessel can cause huge amounts of contamination if things were to go awry in say Long Beach. > The change is maybe a matter of degree so is the continuation of current staffing practice more important than decarbonization? Who is going to pay for the extremely specialized crew required to operate a nuclear reactor when you can take the same ship and put synthetic fuel in it?
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The largest ships output about 30MW when slow steaming. The largest wind turbines (which are considerably smaller) average about 8MW. A 100m wing span kite with a swept region of about 500m diameter is equivalent power to the engine. Comparing potential staffing fuckups that will cost the ship owner half a million to potential staffing fuckups that will make a city uninhabitable is also completely facile.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
To play nuclear shill's advocate, there might be a space where the crewing issues aren't a deal breaker. If your fuel is comparatively cheap, there's no reason to slow steam anymore, and hull speed for a 400m long vessel is quite high. If your crew costs 20x as much but you're moving 5x as fast with half the fuel costs, it may pencil out.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Generally people do not pay extra for faster deliveries, that has never penciled out. If you need it fast you spare no expense and use air freight. For the rest it is all about cost. Your scenario can happen if the nuclear setup cost less than synthetic fuels, ammonia or hydrogen. But seems incredibly unlikely in the coming decades.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    The speed wasn't mentioned as a profit per freight thing, more that moving at hull speed rather than slow steaming reduces all the non-fuel costs. If you make n times as many trips with the same salaries amd same capital expendature then paying times as much per unit time may (or may not) be a net positive. Plus seeing as you brought it up there is probably a small niche for a premium of 2 weeks over 2 months (even if it's minor). It hasn't pencilled out in the past because fuel costs are quadratic, but might increase revenue per unit slightly if marginal fuel costs are reduced. Still pretty sceptical on the niche being big enough to justify the R&D though.

adolph 4y ago

Still yet to see the math comparing low atmospheric kinetic energy to ship displacement through water. Yes, a large sailing vessel can be created. Can one be operated with sufficient cargo density? The question of whether 20 odd folks of different nationalities can operate/maintain a reactor seems also to apply to sailing vessels. The change is maybe a matter of degree so is the continuation of current staffing practice more important than decarbonization?

Gwypaas 4y ago
> Still yet to see the math comparing low atmospheric kinetic energy to ship displacement through water. Yes, a large sailing vessel can be created. Can one be operated with sufficient cargo density? They will likely slow down a bit compared to current vessels, but slow-steaming is already what everyone is doing. The most challenging part is both having the surface area and being able to pass under any bridges to the ports you want to enter, and have enough maneuverability to get through tight channels even when facing adverse wind conditions. > The question of whether 20 odd folks of different nationalities can operate/maintain a reactor seems also to apply to sailing vessels. How so? There is about zero 3rd party risk from operating a sail ship, a nuclear vessel can cause huge amounts of contamination if things were to go awry in say Long Beach. > The change is maybe a matter of degree so is the continuation of current staffing practice more important than decarbonization? Who is going to pay for the extremely specialized crew required to operate a nuclear reactor when you can take the same ship and put synthetic fuel in it?
Schroedingersat 4y ago
The largest ships output about 30MW when slow steaming. The largest wind turbines (which are considerably smaller) average about 8MW. A 100m wing span kite with a swept region of about 500m diameter is equivalent power to the engine. Comparing potential staffing fuckups that will cost the ship owner half a million to potential staffing fuckups that will make a city uninhabitable is also completely facile.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

To play nuclear shill's advocate, there might be a space where the crewing issues aren't a deal breaker. If your fuel is comparatively cheap, there's no reason to slow steam anymore, and hull speed for a 400m long vessel is quite high. If your crew costs 20x as much but you're moving 5x as fast with half the fuel costs, it may pencil out.

Gwypaas 4y ago
Generally people do not pay extra for faster deliveries, that has never penciled out. If you need it fast you spare no expense and use air freight. For the rest it is all about cost. Your scenario can happen if the nuclear setup cost less than synthetic fuels, ammonia or hydrogen. But seems incredibly unlikely in the coming decades.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The speed wasn't mentioned as a profit per freight thing, more that moving at hull speed rather than slow steaming reduces all the non-fuel costs. If you make n times as many trips with the same salaries amd same capital expendature then paying times as much per unit time may (or may not) be a net positive. Plus seeing as you brought it up there is probably a small niche for a premium of 2 weeks over 2 months (even if it's minor). It hasn't pencilled out in the past because fuel costs are quadratic, but might increase revenue per unit slightly if marginal fuel costs are reduced. Still pretty sceptical on the niche being big enough to justify the R&D though.