3 ms·
So, they're saying it cannot possibly be cost effective, with a global fleet of around 5000 ships, and conservative savings of at least $3000 per day per ship?
by CHY872 12y ago
So, they're saying it cannot possibly be cost effective, with a global fleet of around 5000 ships, and conservative savings of at least $3000 per day per ship? It cannot be cost effective to develop a product for which the savings would be at least $5 billion per year (of which most can be claimed back in more expensive ships)? Sounds like at least a few people are trying to maintain the status quo already.
- dredmorbius 12y ago$5 billion on $375 billion is a 1.3% savings, with considerable technological, social, political, and other risks. Seems that there's an argument toward more automation, but a full adoption of the technology to the extent described in the article strikes me as unlikely, and could well have downside costs well in excess of the claimed benefits.
- vidarh 12y agoThe potential savings are substantially larger. The article cites a 12%-15% reduced fuel use, as well as increased cargo capacity from losing the bridge.
- dredmorbius 12y agoI was simply contextualizing CHY872's claimed savings. The stated crew savings should account for a sizable chunk at 44% of operating expenses, unless capital expenses are an even larger share. I don't know the numbers and the article doesn't supply them.