2 ms·
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
by 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 agoGenerally 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 agoThe 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.