3 ms·

How much fossils fuels will be consumed building (and then operating) the thousands of clipper ships need to replace one massive cargo ship?

dredmorbius 12y ago
First off: fossil fuels are going away. They're going to be too costly to extract, to rare to utilize, and/or too harmful to the environment. Take your pick. It's not as if there's a choice. Secondly: the question isn't "how much fossil fuels", but "how much energy" EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is what makes the economy tick, and it's almost certainly the most significant factor in the economic growth and expansion of the past 250 years or so. Absent the energy surpluses provided by fossil fuels, yeah, we'll likely be doing less. As for what it takes to make ships -- electrical energy (from renewable sources) can substitute for much fossil fuel use. Coking for steel is an exception, though that can come from where it did initially: charcoal. Or synthesized coke. Mind that exhaustion of forests for both lumber and fuel was among the key reasons England turned to, first seacoal, shortly after mined coal, as its energy needs grew. And there's no guarantee that the Universe is going to provide humans with the energy we've become accustomed to.
dredmorbius 12y ago
And while we're at it, your "thousands of clipper ships" per single cargo ship. Via Wikipedia, the maximum gross tonnage I can find for a clipper is 4,000 tons for the Red Jacket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Jacket_(clipper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Jacket_(clipper) The Emma Maersk, a monster among cargo ships at 11,000 TEU. During the Panamax era, 3,000 - 5,000 TEU was more common. Max weight for a 20 foot container is 14 tons. This gives the Emma a capacity of 154,000 tons, or 38.5x the capacity of the Red Jacket. The largest cargo ships are the Maersk's Triple E class class, such as the Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller, with a capacity of 18,270 TEU, or nearly 64x the Red Jacket. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A6rsk_Mc-Kinney_M%C3%B8ller_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A6rsk_Mc-Kinney_M%C3%B8ll... The more common Panamax hull would be 10-17.5 clipper cargoes. I'm not sufficiently versed in shipbuilding research to know what size ships are being considered for sail (or sail-hybrid) propulsion, but it seems likely that designs larger than the best clipper technologies of 1853 might be possible some 160+ years later. The Star Clipper looks to be a 7,400 ton vessel, delivered in 2010: http://www.marinetalk.com/articles-marine-companies/art/Worlds-Largest-Sailing-Ship-STA013124350IN.html http://www.marinetalk.com/articles-marine-companies/art/Worl... Other large sailing ships of note: The STS Sedov, laid down in 1920, with a cargo capacity of 5,350 tons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS_Sedov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS_Sedov The Royal Clipper, 5000 GT, completed in 2000, operating as a cruise ship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Clipper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Clipper The Preußen, ~5000 GT, completed in 1902. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preu%C3%9Fen_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preu%C3%9Fen_(ship) The Great Eastern, a steam sailing ship, 18,915 GT, launched 1858. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Eastern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Eastern GT isn't directly translatable to cargo capacity, but that's nearly 1/8th the size of the Emma. It wasn't surpassed until the RMS Celtic in 1901 at 20,904 GT, a steam liner (no sails). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Celtic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Celtic For comparison, RMS Titanic was 46,328 GRT.

dredmorbius 12y ago

First off: fossil fuels are going away. They're going to be too costly to extract, to rare to utilize, and/or too harmful to the environment. Take your pick. It's not as if there's a choice. Secondly: the question isn't "how much fossil fuels", but "how much energy" EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is what makes the economy tick, and it's almost certainly the most significant factor in the economic growth and expansion of the past 250 years or so. Absent the energy surpluses provided by fossil fuels, yeah, we'll likely be doing less. As for what it takes to make ships -- electrical energy (from renewable sources) can substitute for much fossil fuel use. Coking for steel is an exception, though that can come from where it did initially: charcoal. Or synthesized coke. Mind that exhaustion of forests for both lumber and fuel was among the key reasons England turned to, first seacoal, shortly after mined coal, as its energy needs grew. And there's no guarantee that the Universe is going to provide humans with the energy we've become accustomed to.

dredmorbius 12y ago

And while we're at it, your "thousands of clipper ships" per single cargo ship. Via Wikipedia, the maximum gross tonnage I can find for a clipper is 4,000 tons for the Red Jacket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Jacket_(clipper) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Jacket_(clipper) The Emma Maersk, a monster among cargo ships at 11,000 TEU. During the Panamax era, 3,000 - 5,000 TEU was more common. Max weight for a 20 foot container is 14 tons. This gives the Emma a capacity of 154,000 tons, or 38.5x the capacity of the Red Jacket. The largest cargo ships are the Maersk's Triple E class class, such as the Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller, with a capacity of 18,270 TEU, or nearly 64x the Red Jacket. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A6rsk_Mc-Kinney_M%C3%B8ller_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A6rsk_Mc-Kinney_M%C3%B8ll... The more common Panamax hull would be 10-17.5 clipper cargoes. I'm not sufficiently versed in shipbuilding research to know what size ships are being considered for sail (or sail-hybrid) propulsion, but it seems likely that designs larger than the best clipper technologies of 1853 might be possible some 160+ years later. The Star Clipper looks to be a 7,400 ton vessel, delivered in 2010: http://www.marinetalk.com/articles-marine-companies/art/Worlds-Largest-Sailing-Ship-STA013124350IN.html http://www.marinetalk.com/articles-marine-companies/art/Worl... Other large sailing ships of note: The STS Sedov, laid down in 1920, with a cargo capacity of 5,350 tons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS_Sedov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS_Sedov The Royal Clipper, 5000 GT, completed in 2000, operating as a cruise ship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Clipper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Clipper The Preußen, ~5000 GT, completed in 1902. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preu%C3%9Fen_(ship) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preu%C3%9Fen_(ship) The Great Eastern, a steam sailing ship, 18,915 GT, launched 1858. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Eastern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Eastern GT isn't directly translatable to cargo capacity, but that's nearly 1/8th the size of the Emma. It wasn't surpassed until the RMS Celtic in 1901 at 20,904 GT, a steam liner (no sails). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Celtic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Celtic For comparison, RMS Titanic was 46,328 GRT.