6 ms·
There's a similar phenomenon in ocean shipping called Slow Steaming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming F
by CalChris 2y ago
There's a similar phenomenon in ocean shipping called Slow Steaming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming
First, the hull shapes of container ships are tuned for a particular cruising speed. They accelerate up to that speed and cruise across the Pacific. In particular, the ship's bulbous bow is shaped to create an efficient counter bow wave at that speed.
Before 2007, that cruising speed was faster, maybe 27 knots. This is just like the 707 doing 525 knots in the article. It was faster but not efficient.
Enter Slow Steaming. They redesigned the hulls for a lower cruising speed, maybe 18 knots. They actually took ships into dry dock and re-nosed them. The result was better fuel economy. Fewer shippers (some still are) were willing to pay extra for the 27 knot speed. With Slow Steaming, the results are lower costs and significantly less pollution.
The economics of flying and shipping are largely the same in this case.
- consp 2y ago> The economics are largely the same. Did the crackdown on cheap sulphurous bunker oil have no effect on it? Or was there no real crackdown and it was just media hype? (This is a genuine question).
- rob74 2y agoThe crackdown was so successful that some scientists attribute the even-warmer-than-expected weather we have had in the last few years to additional warming due to the lack of light-reflecting sulphur in the atmosphere (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shippin...). Oops...
- buildbot 2y agoTerrible hypothetical idea: Let’s engineer a bunker fuel additive with even more global cooling properties than sulfur! We should probably just reduce consumption and emissions though.
- iamtedd 2y agoWe can't even close the hole in the ozone layer. We were all patting each other on the back for a job well done (which it almost was), but then took our foot off the accelerator and now it's opening back up again.
- noname120 2y agoNot true: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/Ozone https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/Ozone Chlorofluorocarbons stay 50-150 years in the atmosphere, once they are there it takes a while for things to go back to normal. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are also now banned pretty much everywhere, replaced with hydrofluorocarbons and hydrofluoroolefins which both have an ozone depletion potential of 0 (zero).
- Sniffnoy 2y agoNote that if you did want to directly compensate for the decrease in sulfur (exclding reductions in emissions), I think you could just, like, spray water in the air?
- jounker 2y agoWater is a greenhouse gas. That might just make things worse.
- hoseja 2y agoNo, degrowther, we should power shipping with onboard fusion reactors.
- Earw0rm 2y agoNot sure if that's sarcasm, given the existence (or, not) of practical fusion technology. We do of course know how to power large ships with nuclear fission. The US Navy has been doing so - for generations(!). Only issue with that is the US military is a "money is no object" scenario. Price container shipping at the unit cost of hauling it on a naval nuclear reactor, and we'd be looking at degrowth anyway. It's proven, practical technology, but very very expensive. (Other countries with nuclear deterrents run their sub fleets on fission, but even those with nuclear subs have found it too costly for their surface fleet).
- CalChris 2y agoBunker oil is an orthogonal issue. Generally, it's restricted to offshore use. For example, ships have to switch to low sulphur 60 miles outside of San Francisco Bay. As for the IMO 2020 restrictions, I've read that they have significantly lowered pollution but that would be in addition to Slow Steaming.
- AdamN 2y agoI've always wanted turboprop planes to become more common for long haul flights. Many people would gladly pay for premium economy with spacious seating in the entire cabin if the price was competitive even if the flight took an extra 2 hours. In fact a 10 hour flight can be more nice than a 7 hour flight in terms of consuming a whole cycle of the day.
- mnky9800n 2y agoI find the most onerous part of the flying experience to be the invasive searches at the airport followed by the corralling and grouping of people onto the plane penny pinching everything from a bottle of water to whether my bag goes in my lap or the overhead bin. The size of the seat area and length of the flight haven’t come to mind as travel complaints for a long time.
- Snoddas 2y agoYou must be of size medium to small then because legroom is definitly an issue for me, especially for longer flights and I'm just 180cm. (just below average hight) Or alternativly you can afford better seats than me.
- Toutouxc 2y agoThe "just below average" caught my attention, and it looks like that that's probably not true about most countries in the world..? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_countr...
- 4gotunameagain 2y agoYeah but the person you are replying to is Swedish, according to a previous comment of his.
- happymellon 2y agoI am of the same height as you, and I managed a Ryan Air flight to Madrid a couple of weeks ago with enough legspace that I was able to put my bag under seat in front and pull it out without having to shift around noticeably. On the other hand, I took an Iceland Express flight many years ago, and my knees were uncomfortably pressed against the seat in front. It does seem to be all over the place.
- eleveriven 2y agoBoth industries optimized for efficiency once fuel costs and environmental concerns became bigger factors. The difference is that in shipping, slow steaming is more flexible
- mrec 2y agoIt's still kind of surprising that the optimal design / speed for fuel efficiency has plateaued though, given how much more powerful the modelling tools are now. The FAA certification overhead presumably has something to do with this. I was very struck recently looking at the Wikipedia pages for the KC-135 Stratotanker (first flight 1956) and its ongoing replacement the KC-46 Pegasus (first flight 2015). Just from the pictures of the two planes, I'd have no idea that one was more modern than the other.
- bell-cot 2y agoModeling & optimization work just as well at slow speeds as at fast ones. They can't change the aerodynamic/hydrodynamic drag equations.
- newsclues 2y agohttps://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262518765/prime-movers-of-globalization/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262518765/prime-movers-of-globa... This short book is a great work on the topic
- xhkkffbf 2y agoIs the cost of pushing the water out of the way proportional to the square or the cube of the speed? I think with planes it's the cube. But I think that's a naive model.
- cyanydeez 2y agoWhat if galactic travel is the same and there's no tech out there to get anyone anywhere.