4 ms·

I had the same question. I suppose they might be referring to newer technology to limit emissions and maybe bio-diesel? Other than that I don't see why removing

by winslow 13y ago

I had the same question. I suppose they might be referring to newer technology to limit emissions and maybe bio-diesel? Other than that I don't see why removing the crew would be less polluting. Edit: According to the quote [1], it seems like the engines wouldn't necessarily be more efficient but rather more cargo per ship increasing the shipment to fuel ratio. Somewhat similar to CSX's fuel saving slogan "Trains can move a ton of freight nearly 450 miles on a single gallon of fuel." [2]. [1] - "By replacing the bridge -- along with the other systems that support the crew, such as electricity, air conditioning, water and sewage -- with more cargo, ships can cut costs and boost revenue, Levander said. The ships would be 5 percent lighter before loading cargo and would burn 12 percent to 15 percent less fuel, he said." [2] - http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/projects-and-partnerships/fuel-efficiency/ http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/projects-and-partners...

cratermoon 13y ago
> The ships would be 5 percent lighter before loading cargo and would burn 12 percent to 15 percent less fuel, he said. And what's to say the amount of cargo carried wouldn't simply be increased by 5 percent or so, offsetting any gains?
- winslow 13y ago
  They aren't necessarily worried about the cargo simply offsetting the weight. It's the fact that the space previously used for the bridge and human living area is used for cargo instead. Ultimately this would increase the shipment to fuel ratio per cargo ship.