[HN Gopher] Largest cargo sailboat completes first Atlantic cros...
___________________________________________________________________
Largest cargo sailboat completes first Atlantic crossing
Author : defrost
Score : 370 points
Date : 2025-11-08 19:57 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.marineinsight.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.marineinsight.com)
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| > The 136-metre-long vessel had to rely partly on its auxiliary
| motor and its remaining sail after the aft sail was damaged in a
| storm shortly after departure.
|
| Well, that's a bummer. That said, this does seem the way of the
| future. We just need to either figure out maintenance robots
| and/or find a way to keep human crew happy on long, slow voyages
| across the Pacific.
| rdl wrote:
| The rigid aerofoil sails seem more maintenance-free. Some of
| those are inflatable as well.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Apparently late 19th to 20th century wind cargo ships had their
| crew essentially subsidized by the fact that some countries
| (IIRC in Scandinavia?) required commercial sailing experience
| to get a pilot's license. For bulk cargo (e.g. grain or guano)
| the economies worked out.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-hulled_sailing_ship
| bergie wrote:
| These trips happened all the way to late 1940s. Here's a good
| book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Grain_Race
|
| If you get the chance, the _Pommern_ is a beautifully
| preserved ship from that era in Mariehamn 's excellent
| maritime museum.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > or find a way to keep human crew happy on long, slow voyages
| across the Pacific.
|
| The few people I know who pursued jobs on boats did so because
| they liked being out at sea, away from land.
|
| Combine that with the modern availability of high speed
| internet via Starlink and entertainment is not a problem.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > The few people I know who pursued jobs on boats did so
| because they liked being out at sea, away from land.
|
| Maybe it wasn't just the land they were getting away from.
| ozim wrote:
| Not sure if you ever been at full sea. I was once, well I
| wasn't working just visiting but it was kind of outer world
| feeling.
|
| I lived by the sea my whole life so sea on its own was not
| much special for me but being on the ship anchored in the
| middle of water with no land in sight was just different.
| HardwareLust wrote:
| Spent 13 years at sea, loved every minute. I actually liked
| it better before phones and Internet came onboard.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| What did you do with your time and enjoy?
| HardwareLust wrote:
| Work out, read, video games, watch movies, play cards or
| chess, etc. Plenty to do!
| waltbosz wrote:
| > find a way to keep human crew happy on long, slow voyages
| across the Pacific.
|
| Makes me think of Rory Sutherland's ideas for getting
| passengers to be ok with a long ride duration on the Eurostar
| https://www.instagram.com/reel/C98_wbssLjG/
| nradov wrote:
| You've got to be kidding. Using a fully sail powered cargo
| vessel is a PR stunt, not the way of the future. Regular
| motorized cargo vessels will probably use some form of sails to
| slightly reduce fuel burn on downwind legs but it's physically
| impossible to move huge volumes of cargo purely by sail power
| in an economical way. There just isn't enough energy in the
| wind.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's both wrong and right at the same time. There is
| _plenty_ of energy in the wind, but when it isn 't blowing in
| a favorable direction for your journey it will cause you to
| have to considerably lengthen your trip or end up in places
| where you don't want to go. It also isn't as constant and/or
| reliable as a motor. But until a few hundred years ago wind
| was all we had, and there is no reason why you could not make
| a containership that is wind powered just like it used to be.
| It's going to be interesting to see what kind of hull that
| would be. When the wind _is_ blowing, favorable direction or
| not and it exceeds your expectations you 're going to find
| out that there is more energy in the wind than you are
| prepared to deal with. If you've ever been on a sailboat in a
| storm that is the last thing you would write.
| nradov wrote:
| Nonsense. Even if the wind is blowing the right direction
| it doesn't have enough energy to move a huge merchant
| vessel at economically viable speeds. Do you have any clue
| about the mass and drag involved with something like a
| 20000 TEU container ship? There is no magic hull shape
| which can ever make sail propulsion alone make sense. This
| is basic physics.
| skylurk wrote:
| Those same 20000 TEU container ships are famously
| susceptible to being blown about by winds when they loose
| power.
|
| The stronger argument is that wind is not consistent or
| reliable enough for logistics. At least, not without
| doing a lot of extra math.
|
| So I agree that sail propulsion alone won't happen at
| large, but it's an interesting question of how far in
| that direction commercial shipping can go with modern
| technology.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| There's more than enough energy in the wind, and modern
| sailing technology has come a long ways. Some modern
| recreational sailboats can cross an ocean as fast as a cargo
| ship on just wind power, and speed isn't even much of a
| factor for a lot of shipping. With the right tech I think
| fuel free shipping can disrupt fossil fuel shipping just by
| being cheaper.
|
| Back when engines first replaced sailing fuel was nearly
| free, and sailboats were incredibly slow, dangerous,
| unreliable, and didn't sail upwind well, and all that has
| changed- time to take another look.
| nradov wrote:
| Bullshit. We're not talking about recreational yachts here.
| There is not enough energy in wind alone to move huge
| merchant vessels at economically viable speeds across
| oceans.
| fgfarben wrote:
| ...how do you think trans-oceanic trade was done before
| steam or diesel powered ships?
|
| Plenty of customers don't care about latency, just cost.
| No fuel = no fuel cost.
| nradov wrote:
| You're really missing the point. The volume of cargo
| carried by sailing vessels in the old days was orders of
| magnitude lower. Not even remotely comparable to the
| current global trading system.
|
| Customers care about total cost, not just fuel. There is
| also crew wages, maintenance, insurance, capital
| depreciation, etc. Sailing vessels that carry useful
| amounts of cargo are much slower than equivalent motor
| vessels so all other costs go up. Fuel is cheap.
| solresol wrote:
| > The volume of cargo carried by sailing vessels in the
| old days was orders of magnitude lower.
|
| Surprisingly, no, it wasn't. I'll slightly fudge the
| numbers and talk in terms of proportion of world trade
| that was carried by ocean-going vessels (because if you
| double the population then it's reasonable to talk about
| doubling the number of ships).
|
| The world economy was very globalised in 1913. That level
| of globalisation in trade wasn't matched again until the
| 1990s.
|
| We're only a little more global now than we were in the
| age of sail.
|
| The British navy and merchant fleet was a wonder of its
| era.
| adwn wrote:
| Show your work. Without numbers, those are all just
| assertions. And the assertion that the world's economies
| were more globalized before WW1 than after the Cold War
| is particularly dubious.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| > You're really missing the point. The volume of cargo
| carried by sailing vessels in the old days was orders of
| magnitude lower.
|
| At the end of commercial merchant sailing, the largest
| steel hulled merchant sailing vessels were about 1/10th
| the cargo capacity of a modern container ship, but
| actually pretty comparable in speed, which is limited
| more by the physics of displacement hulls in the water
| than the propulsion method.
|
| Historically, sailing ships risked becalming, but that is
| no longer a risk, with improved weather routing and
| backup engines that allow them continue at full speed if
| the wind dies.
|
| Considering that the cost of modern shipping is 50-60%
| fuel cost alone, and that in principle with modern tech
| sailing vessels won't require large crews, it is not
| clear to me that it can't be economically viable nowadays
| even at the scales already possible a century ago, nor
| that it would be impossible to develop tech to scale
| merchant sailing up to modern container ship sizes.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| It is much harder to get consistent high speeds on a
| smaller sailboat than a larger one. Back in the "golden
| age of sail" the highest cargo capacity sailboats were
| also the fastest. It will absolutely require new boat
| designs and engineering to create massive modern shipping
| boats, but the fact that recreational boats can sustain
| high speeds across oceans at small scales proves it is
| possible at larger scales needed for shipping. There
| absolutely is a lot more energy in the wind than you need
| for this.
|
| Even with old sail tech it was already closer than you
| might expect to modern container ships. Look up the
| Preussen, launched 1901. It could do over 20 knots and
| carry 8,000 tons of cargo. Although small by modern
| standards, there are economical viable smaller container
| ships operating today in that speed and cargo capacity
| range.
|
| Even if you still had an old low tech boat like the
| Preussen nowadays, modern sail technology and hardware,
| plus better weather routing data would make it
| substantially faster, and require a tiny fraction of the
| crew that was initially required.
| forgotusername6 wrote:
| When engines first replaced sail, sail boats also required
| far higher crew numbers to operate. That's not the case
| today
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| In principle, with modern solid wing sail technology and
| computer controlled sail trim, a sailing vessel needs no
| more crew than a motor vessel.
| mlhpdx wrote:
| Modern sailing technology is amazing, and you may want to
| check it out. Speeds are, literally, 10 times faster (or
| more) today than the recent past. It's absolutely
| astonishing.
|
| The even better news is that the technology is becoming
| available to the general population and also commercially
| viable for projects like this.
| nradov wrote:
| I am familiar with modern sailing technology. Very little
| of it is applicable to huge merchant vessels. This project
| is a cute little stunt but it's never going to be
| economical for moving bulk cargo. Sails will be a minor
| supplement at best. Seriously, do the math.
| bloudermilk wrote:
| Sincere question: have you done the math? If so, this
| conversation would be a lot more interesting if you
| shared it.
| nradov wrote:
| How much sail area would it take to move a 20000 TEU ship
| at, let's say, even 12 kts? How tall would the masts have
| to be? Would they fit under bridges? You guys are talking
| about total fantasies here.
| mlhpdx wrote:
| The power required would be the same as that provided by
| the bunker fuel engines in common use. Modern, computer
| controlled sails are efficient and very powerful. It's
| obviously working for this ship, which is a conservative
| build.
| throw-qqqqq wrote:
| I think nradov has a point about the physics.
|
| > The power required would be the same as that provided
| by the bunker fuel engines in common use
|
| And that is a lot of power! Emma Maersk has an engine
| output around 80-90MW.
|
| The largest off shore wind turbine today is 26MW with a
| rotor diameter north of 300m/1000ft(!!). Common (modern)
| offshore wind turbines today are about 10-15MW with rotor
| diameters of ~220m/720ft.
|
| I will not conclude it is impossible at this end of the
| scale, but you need a huge foil area to match such engine
| output.
|
| IIUC, the physics work against us as we scale up in size,
| because of the square/cube-law
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law
| (weight of the foil/sail + mast is cubed when the area is
| squared).
| hvb2 wrote:
| > Would they fit under bridges?
|
| You do realize that none of those ships could get into
| any port, right? We've made modifications to accommodate
| that.
|
| I tend to agree with you that putting a fixed sail on top
| of a container vessel won't fly.
|
| Maybe ships would need to be smaller. I think the size of
| ships was mostly increased because it makes it more
| efficient. But if fuel is free, you could have smaller
| ships take direct routes instead of the layovers we do
| now. That might compensate for time lost as well due to
| lower speed.
|
| This is a PoC not a finished product
| adwn wrote:
| > _I tend to agree with you that putting a fixed sail on
| top of a container vessel won 't fly._
|
| Of course it won't, it's not an airplane.
| mlhpdx wrote:
| Perhaps sardonically, sailboats do "fly" these days. Not
| literally, just terminology.
| throw-qqqqq wrote:
| > > Would they fit under bridges?
|
| > You do realize that none of those ships could get into
| any port, right?
|
| Container ships sail under bridges all the time. Check
| YouTube for videos of this or just Google it if you want
| proof.
| hvb2 wrote:
| Yes I understand, my point was that we've adjusted ports
| to make room for container ships. So making some
| adjustments isn't out of the question.
| hnaccount_rng wrote:
| But you don't need 12kts, right? The ocean logistics is
| ~only about costs, as evidenced by the reduction in
| travel speed. That being said, cost is currently not
| dominated by fuel cost either. That means unless you
| reduce crewing requirements or build cost, there is
| probably not much savings that will pencil out. Plus
| you'd need more ships and the physical capacity to build
| more is limited
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Absolutely. There's a reason steam replaced sail immediately
| when the technology was invented.
| Aurornis wrote:
| I love that they're trying this. It appears the more practical
| goal might be retrofitting existing vessels with large sails to
| augment the motors, but making a point with a fully wind-powered
| vessel is a good show. Well, it would have been fully wind
| powered if not for the damaged sail. Good on them for sticking
| with the journey, though. I hope they keep running the vessel and
| get a few more fully wind powered journeys.
| defrost wrote:
| I have a dim recollection of exactly this as a VC proposal
| likely put to YC in the past 24 months or so.
|
| I _think_ the notion was to fit masts to existing container
| ship and stacks, and I gsve it scant attention as my intuition
| (I once studied actual civil /mech engineering prior to jumping
| ship for applied math) suggested masts are better as integral
| parts of ships rather than bolt on after thoughts.
|
| EDIT: _Wingsails to reduce cargo ship fuel consumption_ (April
| 2023)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35426482
| I'm Joseph, and along with Arpan and Bailey we are the founders
| of OutSail Shipping. We're building a sail the size of a 747
| that rolls up into a shipping container.
|
| https://outsailshipping.com/
| https://www.linkedin.com/company/OutSail-Shipping/
| When deployed, it will generate thrust from the wind to reduce
| the fuel consumption of a cargo ship. An array of these devices
| will reduce fuel consumption on ships by up to 20%. These sails
| are easily stowed and removed to cause no interference with
| cargo operations. Here's a short video showing our
| prototype:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUpVqzpym54
|
| Not quite as I remembered .. kite sails, et al. are a good
| idea, I'm still a bit torn by the physics of a container
| deployed boom extension sail and the thrust transmission to the
| ship. Still, I haven't modeled it, so take my thoughts with a
| grain of salt.
|
| EDIT2: Both links appear dead, so I guess that was a swing and
| a miss. Still, good to see such ideas pursued.
|
| EDIT3: Also related
|
| _350 tons of of chocolate and wine arrive on world's largest
| cargo sailboat_ (April 2024)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40022801
| tengwar2 wrote:
| This is an area I have some peripheral involvement with. For
| retrofitted sails on bulkers, the figure of 10% saving in
| fuel is the usual one mentioned rather than 20%. However
| given the long life of ships, there is much more interest in
| retrofit than in new build.
|
| You mention container ships. I haven't seen anything explicit
| on these, and I think the reason is probably that they cruise
| much faster than bulkers and tankers, which means the
| potential savings from sail is smaller. I would have thought
| 20% optimistic even for a new-build.
| defrost wrote:
| Retro fit is clearly a preferred path for a new approach
| given ship life spans and size of existing global transport
| fleet.
|
| My gut objection to the container approach taken above in
| the first link was existing container locking mechanisms
| for ships can struggle in severe weather to keep the boxes
| on the boat .. additional forces from a sail (in good
| weather) might well mimic the forces that break stacks in
| bad weather.
|
| Your point is well taken, I might suggest that container
| ships could be segregated into fast and slow cargo and that
| might help somewhat with total fleet fuel consumption.
| (pure spitball notion).
| Maxion wrote:
| I'm sure there's plenty of businesses out there who'd
| love to advertise near zero or zero emissions transport
| for their goods, with the caveat that they have to plan a
| few more months ahead.
| komali2 wrote:
| Wasn't the main issue with this that fuel is paid for by
| cargo ship customers (the container owners), not the shipping
| company? So the shipping company doesn't want to spend a ton
| of capital to get a 10% discount to all their customers, and
| there was no way for thousands of random customers to exert
| pressure on the shipping company to do so. Basically the
| economics didn't make sense.
| kadoban wrote:
| The economies of this make sense if there's more than one
| shipping company (they'll be cheaper and get more business)
| or if they just change how they charge, neither seems that
| hard.
| gerdesj wrote:
| "suggested masts are better as integral parts of ships rather
| than bolt on after thoughts."
|
| It seems quite mad that we even need to debate this. Wind is
| free power and we have at least 2000 years of engineering to
| draw on how to use it.
|
| Any propulsion unit needs to be effectively attached to a
| ship. Screws are attached longitudinally, low down and push.
| Sails are a bit more tricksy. A triangular sail mounted along
| the long axis will generally work best because it can handle
| more wind angles but a square sail mounted across the long
| axis will provide more power on a "reach" to a "run" (the
| wind is mostly from behind, so pushing).
|
| The cutting edge of sailing ships that carried stuff are the
| tea clippers. Think "Cutty Sark" which is now a visitor
| attraction in London, Greenwich. Note the stay sails - the
| triangular sails at the front. Then note the three masts.
| Each mast has several main sails that are huge rectangles for
| "reaches" and additional extensions. There are even more
| triangular infill sails above the main sails.
|
| It's quite hard to explain how wind and sails work but you
| need to understand that a sailing ship can sail "into the
| wind". Those triangles are better at it than those rectangles
| but those rectangles can get more power by being bigger. Even
| better, you can use the front triangular sails (stay sails)
| to moderate the wind to feed the other sails with less
| turbulent wind.
|
| Wind is free power and it is so well understood. How on earth
| is this news?
| Noumenon72 wrote:
| This is all interesting, but is there a reason trianglular
| and rectangular sails can't be bolt on after thoughts?
| snowstorm82 wrote:
| They likely can but with reduced changes for being
| optimal. Sails, keel and rudder should be balanced so
| that adjusted sails cause minimal pivoting force to
| mitigate with the rudder. Also the supports below the
| mast and plates for the stays likely need planning to
| allow sufficient structure without limiting the working
| angles of boom too much.
| Maxion wrote:
| For the sails to be an effective means of propulsion they
| need to transfer a lot of force through the mast and
| stays to the hull. This require the attachment points to
| be very solid. Not something you can easily do as a
| retrofit. You'd need to reinforc the hull aroud the mast
| and stay attachments.
| Zacharias030 wrote:
| I thought (and think) that the teaclipper's square sail
| rigs wouldn't be considered state of the art for any course
| the ship might sail.
| algo_trader wrote:
| > EDIT: Wingsails to reduce cargo ship fuel consumption
| (April 2023) > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35426482
|
| > I'm Joseph, and along with Arpan and Bailey we are the
| founders of OutSail Shipping. We're building a sail the size
| of a 747 that rolls up into a shipping container.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| Rotor[0] retrofits already have been done on full size
| tankers[1].
|
| This is probably a more reliable and practical solution than
| traditional sails.
|
| 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship
|
| 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maersk_Pelican
| cl3misch wrote:
| But why would you use a motor to spin a rotor instead of a
| submerged propeller?
| Ekaros wrote:
| No mechanical linkage. Basically just installing rotor on
| top of the deck and some electric connections are needed.
| Much simpler and much less error prone. Plus keeps all the
| usable space on decks below.
| jna_sh wrote:
| Seems an interesting solution to whales being cut up by
| ship propellers
| wongarsu wrote:
| Spinning the rotor allows you to generate more power from
| the wind than what you would have gotten by putting the
| same energy into spinning a submerged propeller.
|
| From what I understand it's not hugely more efficient, but
| something like 10-20% fuel savings. Not really equivalent
| to traditional sails, but also much easier to retrofit and
| doesn't need additional crew
| speed_spread wrote:
| For the same reason you use electricity for a compressor in
| a heat pump. It's a lever. You extract more energy from the
| ambient air than you've spent on the motor.
| callamdelaney wrote:
| It's not as easy as throwing a sail on top of a boat. Having
| done a quite a bit of sailing on a yacht, the sail and its
| supports literally run from the top of the mast to the bottom
| of the keel.
|
| I suspect for any great deal of efficiency gain you'd need a
| similar system on cargo ships to support the forces generated.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Made me think of this a couple months back
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/11/shipping...
| ForHackernews wrote:
| There are even more crazy steampunk ideas out there, like pulling
| ships with giant high-altitude kites
| https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/giant-kite-sai...
| HardwareLust wrote:
| Cool link, thanks! Unfortunately they went bankrupt and the
| tech now belongs to what was their first and only customer, K
| Line.
| Epa095 wrote:
| That's such a disappointment, I always had higher faith in
| the kites than the sails. Just seems easier to retrofit on
| existing ships witouth taking too much of the cargo capacity.
|
| But are you sure they are bankrupt? The Internet claims "The
| company says the purpose of the acquisition, for which the
| price was not reported, is to strengthen the development and
| commercialization of "Seawing," the automated kite system".
| That might be bs of course.
|
| There also seems to be anther company trying it out,
| https://cargokite.com/
| HardwareLust wrote:
| https://www.offshore-energy.biz/k-line-buys-out-kite-
| manufac...
|
| They are still developing the technology:
|
| https://www.offshore-energy.biz/k-line-automated-kite-
| system...
| fjd wrote:
| Thought I may go see it in person but looks like it's about half
| way home already.
|
| https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:96...
| fHr wrote:
| like so much smaller then biggest conventional ones irrelevant
| moron4hire wrote:
| This is just an unresearched idea so no for of feasibility, but
| what about helical windmills to generate electricity to augment
| power to a motor, ala hybrid gasoline/electric cars?
| wffurr wrote:
| More efficient is something that directly provides thrust like
| a flettner rotor.
| titannet wrote:
| E-Ship 1 exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Ship_1 They
| report fuel savings up to 25%, so it may be viable for some
| ships types and voyages. But a long way from propelling the
| whole ship.
| Towaway69 wrote:
| It's probably one of the best understood methods of crossing
| oceans, just that all the knowledge has been forgotten.
|
| Recall how slaves were transported from Africa to the Americas.
|
| How gold was transported from the South America to Europe and
| sugar from the Caribbean.
|
| And not forgetting how opium was transported to China by the
| Europeans from India.
|
| So transporting stuff by sail is definitely not "unresearched"
| rather it is a forgotten technology.
| moron4hire wrote:
| You have misread my comment. It was a preamble to the rest of
| my post, not a criticism of the original idea.
| mlhpdx wrote:
| Fun fact: the fastest way to get around the world by boat is on a
| sailboat. Wild, but true.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| Faster than an American attack submarine or aircraft carrier?
| mlhpdx wrote:
| In a word, probably (but without documented speed runs who
| knows?).
|
| Circumnavigation is a longer voyage than those craft would
| travel in one go, and the stops would increase their transit
| time. Even without that it would be a close competition with
| the latest class of racing sailboats that are able able to
| maintain very similar speeds, and the next generation will be
| decidedly faster.
|
| Things have changed.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| American submarines and aircraft carriers are nuclear-
| powered. They can sustain over 30 knots without stopping
| effectively indefinitely. They make their own water and,
| where needed, breathing air. The only thing they need to
| stop for is food, and they have enough aboard to
| circumnavigate the globe easily.
|
| It would be really hard to sustain an average speed of 30
| knots in a sailing vessel for the entire journey. Certainly
| you'd need the assistance of the wind deities of your
| choice. Central to commercial travel by wind is the
| predictability or lack thereof with wind power. It would be
| tough to run a tight supply chain when you don't know when
| one's ship will arrive within a reasonable window. For that
| reason, I think the future can't really be purely wind-
| powered for most commodities, it's just not predictable
| enough to build schedules around.
| mlhpdx wrote:
| That's correct, but look up the Gitana 17.
|
| > The Gitana 17 is a 100ft trimaran designed to foil
| offshore at sustained speeds of 45 knots or more.
|
| Also, 1964, the all-nuclear Task Force One, including the
| USS Enterprise, completed a high-speed circumnavigation
| in 65 days.
|
| The winner of the Vende Globe did it in 64. And that was
| solo (one person on board).
| skylurk wrote:
| The Vende Globe is ~44k km (Mm?) and Operation Sea Orbit
| was ~49k km.
|
| But the Vende Globe is restricted to monohulls (i.e. no
| hydrofoil trimarans) and as you wrote, is more about
| individual skills.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| "The Neoliner Origin is designed to reduce greenhouse gas
| emissions by 80 to 90 per cent compared to conventional diesel-
| powered cargo ships."
|
| Is it cheaper?
| bloudermilk wrote:
| Are you pricing in the externalities of GHGs?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| No.
|
| If it isn't cheaper it isn't on the board for the next decade
| or two outside niche routes. The hard part is in making it
| economically viable. We already know sailboats work.
| bloudermilk wrote:
| That's a decision we, as a civilization, need to make. I
| personally hope we manage to enact transnational policies
| that effectively price environmental and social
| externalities in my lifetime. Or else witness "free market"
| capitalism continue to degrade our planet and the lives of
| millions of less privileged people.
| SJC_Hacker wrote:
| > That's a decision we, as a civilization, need to make.
| I personally hope we manage to enact transnational
| policies that effectively price environmental and social
| externalities in my lifetime. Or else witness "free
| market" capitalism continue to degrade our planet and the
| lives of millions of less privileged people.
|
| Name one decision that the entire human civilization has
| ever consciously made
| throwaway198846 wrote:
| Banning CFCs
| newsclues wrote:
| EVs are sinking ships.
|
| If you could build mass fleets of smaller ships that are
| sail and electric powered to move electric cars and
| containers of batteries.
| happosai wrote:
| That really big question for society is how to force GHG
| emissions externalities to the polluters. In the current
| political climate it doesn't appear possible...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _how to force GHG emissions externalities to the
| polluters_
|
| Not happening for decades. Not until America's boomers,
| Xi and his wolf warriors and Putin and his circle are
| dead.
|
| Solar is a success because it's economically viable. We
| need more solutions like that. Not conference
| presentations wrapping a regressive carbon tax as a
| sailboat.
| happosai wrote:
| Solar wasn't economical until China made the strategic
| decision to invest into cutting solar costs and scaling
| production up. Putin isn't relevant, nobody really
| listens to him (the reason why he is so mad). It's really
| the American boomers who are happy the cook the planet to
| own the libs.
|
| Taxing CO2 isn't regressive - poor people don't fly to
| vacations or commute in unnecessarily large single-
| occupancy trucks.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| > Taxing CO2 isn't regressive
|
| It certainly is. Everything poor people need is
| manufactured and delivered with fossil fuels. Rich people
| could afford extra costs for carbon without blinking.
| api wrote:
| All consumption taxes are regressive.
| kaashif wrote:
| What about the positive externalities of sulfur dioxide
| emissions reducing temperatures?
|
| We need more container ships polluting or the post 2020
| global warming rate could double!
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01442-3
| thrance wrote:
| If you take climate change externalities into account, it just
| might be. Sure, your chocolate might be a bit more expensive,
| but at least your descendants will have _some_ chocolate at
| all.
| Ekaros wrote:
| If you took climate change externalities into account you
| wouldn't allow selling of chocolate.
| thrance wrote:
| I was specifically talking about chocolate because I
| remember an interview of TFA's company's CEO where he would
| haul chocolate by sailboat, from South America to France.
| He would explain that even in an oil-less world, we'd still
| have chocolate in Europe. Just (way) less of it.
|
| Ultimately, people should be free to choose how to spend
| their carbon budget. I haven't flown in years, I think I'm
| entitled to some chocolate from time to time.
| TheMagicHorsey wrote:
| This seems to be a tiny vessel ... just 5000 tons of cargo. Most
| container ships carry more like 200,000 tons of cargo. Can sails
| scale to carry that much cargo? If not, I fear the economics will
| not work out for sails alone. Perhaps sails plus something else
| makes more sense?
| gerdesj wrote:
| Sails scale. You can make them out of steel if necessary - the
| wind does not care what it pushes.
| therein wrote:
| It's not like the issue is with the windspeed. I'd imagine
| you'd only need stronger materials if the windspeed goes up,
| it's not like the sails break if the ship is too heavy. It
| just would get accelerated less by the amount of force
| captured by the sails. At least in my mental model of things.
| The only case in which you'd need to make the sails
| themselves stronger should be if the wind speed is somehow
| scaled.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| You can put a helluva lot of sails on a ship. The Preussen
| (1902) had 73,200 sqft of sail area on a ship 482 ft long. The
| Very Large Container (VLC) ships that hold 200,000 tons are
| over 1,300 ft long. And wind is a very, very strong force (it
| damaged these mechanical sails!). You could definitely make a
| VLC ship that could be powered by sails, in theory.
|
| But wind's biggest downside, besides it sometimes being too
| strong, is it can completely stop. That and the complexity of
| sails, and its potential for failure, would probably not make
| it economically viable. Even if it was technically cheaper, the
| inconsistency and potentially poor performance would lead
| customers to continue chartering motorized vessels. There's a
| reason everyone switched from sail to steam.
| forgotusername6 wrote:
| That's still roughly 5 Cutty Sarks (1100 tons at 15 knots
| average speed)
| titannet wrote:
| It's a Ro Ro ship for rolling cargo. Not a big one and without
| the additional car decks an ocean going Ro Ro ship typically
| has, but for what it is the cargo capacity is reasonable.
| beezlewax wrote:
| Why does that cargo all have to be on giant ships vs tons of
| smaller ones?
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| "World's Largest Cargo Sailboat Completes Historic First Atlantic
| Crossing Using Auxillary Engine"
|
| Fixed it.
|
| I am pretty sure there is a reason why the very fast Clippers
| were replaced by steam engines 150 years ago. I guess we can
| learn why again.
| gpm wrote:
| Crew requirements? And we can learn that technology has change
| in the last 150 years so those same requirements no longer
| exist.
|
| No ones suggesting building a sailing ship like they did 150
| years ago. Just that the wind is still an interesting source of
| power.
| turpialito wrote:
| Napkin calculation:
|
| The Neoliner Origin cruises at 11 kts (20Km/h). "Straight line"
| on Google Earth from Saint-Nazaire to NY is about 5300 Km, so it
| crosses the Atlantic in 18 days.
|
| The Emma Maersk (which I am aware plies a different route, but
| just for comparison's sake) cruises at 25kts (46Km/h) and
| therefore takes about 5 days.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I wonder what the savings is on fuel cost. I mean there are a
| lot of things that would be interesting if shipping costs were
| slashed -- two more weeks is not important.
| turpialito wrote:
| It is when you're shipping perishables. And market trends
| could fade away during crossing time. The cargo could be
| worthless before it arrives at port.
| deepsun wrote:
| I worked with maritime shipping folks, and they always say "We
| don't care how slow it is, but we care A LOT to estimate the
| time it takes right".
|
| The logistical chain is long, so delaying one link breaks the
| whole chain, and that's costly.
| ainiriand wrote:
| This is one thing my company tries to solve!
| contrarian1234 wrote:
| that doesn't really make any sense. You'd just overestimate
| the time and if you arrived ahead of schedule you'd wait out
| at sea for the "correct" time
| dvratil wrote:
| But that's extra time when the ship is sitting idle, while
| it could've already been on its way with new cargo, making
| more money.
| caconym_ wrote:
| Another interesting comparison: the Emma Maersk can carry
| ~154,000 tons of cargo, vs. this vessel's ~5,800 tons (if i'm
| juggling my tons and long tonnes and tonnes correctly).
| namibj wrote:
| For comparison, I calculated the J/(kg _m) for both the Emma
| Maersk (at the numbers I could find in the Germany Wikipedia
| article; they seem to be for higher power levels with less
| efficient hydrodynamics) and a generic battery electric truck
| like a Mercedes E-Actros ( "1kWh/km"; realistic net payload
| on/in trailer: ~20t): Emma: 0.0406 J/(kg_m) E-Actros: 0.18
| J/(kg _m)
|
| If we'd only carry modern LiFePO4 at 150 Wh/kg, their range (at
| zero remaining payload) would be: Emma: 13300 km E-Actros: 3000
| km
|
| Thus while a substantial payload mass fraction, the heavy
| engine could be mostly avoided (the Emma's main engine has a
| specific power of about 34 W/kg; contemporary power-dense
| electric motors/generators around even just 1 MW are slightly
| above 10kW/kg; a factor of 300).
|
| IMO rather look at whether the approach to battery packs of
| Form Energy allows for this level of specific energy, and if
| so, how to hook container crane swapped battery packs to the
| ship's electrics. If that's too heavy, see how such a ship
| could be plugged in while in port with 1000 contemporary
| E-Actros worth of charging power (400 MW instead of 400 kW;
| gives 1 day recharge after 5 days at sea). By the time that's
| solved, batteries have gottwn cheaper. Those 5 days of battery
| capacity would cost in the high triple digit million USD today;
| for comparison, the Emma build cost inflation-adjusted around
| 233 million USD today.
|
| A container train on flat track in Europe seems to be rated to
| 0.15 J/(kg_m) while being grid powered, over twice as fast as
| the Emma (also faster then the truck), though that consumption
| is what the traction system needs to be rated to to reliably
| make the train schedule; fleet efficiency should be much
| better.
|
| Sadly there's oceans either side of north America unless you
| want to take a great circle through Alaska and Siberia or
| through Greenland and Norway.
| theendisney wrote:
| 11 knots seems a good speed.
| infinet wrote:
| Indeed, it's a very impressive speed. I have been on few ships
| of similar size as this sailboat. With their huge, extremely
| loud, hot, and diesel hunger engine they usually cruise at less
| than 15 knots. Container ships are outliers. Not sure how much
| more fuel they burn when sailing at 25 knots vs 15 knots. But
| they use cheaper heavy oil so perhaps are less sensitive to
| fuel cost.
|
| Also the same speed feels faster at sea than on the land
| because waves make sailing like drive off-road. A small boat
| can feel like fly at 30 knots. 11 knots makes a joyful ride.
| ofalkaed wrote:
| As someone whose goal in life is to be blown about the oceans by
| the wind, I have mixed feelings about this. With the
| "traditional" freighter I would have the right of way, my being a
| sailboat under the wisdom of the wind, they have to make
| allowances for me and change course, but things are different
| when that freighter is also under the wisdom of the wind. The
| same goes for things like offshore wind power, my life is made
| more difficult because most people expect their home to be 70F
| when it is 60F outside and 60F when it is 70F outside, anything
| else would incur undue hardship.
|
| It is a complex situation, should I be penalized for wanting to
| live a life that has little or no environmental impact at cost of
| those who want to live in reasonable comfort while being a part
| of/contributing to, society? Probably not but I can't help but
| wonder about what happened to the first 'R' of the three R's
| (reduce, reuse and recycle), no one seems to reduce anymore
| unless technology gives them a way to do it without any
| inconvenience no matter how small that inconvenience is.
| Unearned5161 wrote:
| I think "reduce" has always been pipe dream by the de-growth
| sector. At its core I'm not convinced that humans can ever
| willfully engage in managed decline. When I say this I mean
| societies, large groups, cities, etc. Not individuals. De-
| growth has a serious scaling issue. It's fundamentally
| incompatible with the bedrock of why humans come together.
| ofalkaed wrote:
| Maybe? I don't think this is beyond societies, but it does
| require society to expect it. The idea of reducing had an
| effect on society back in the 80s and into the 90s, people
| did reduce, but it didn't last. This is not "de-growth,"
| unless you think growth is a measure of the number of people
| who live a life a leisure.
| agentultra wrote:
| A freighter is always the stand on vessel when you're sailing.
| They don't have the turning radius to even try!
| ofalkaed wrote:
| In a bay, sure, but in a busy bay this is not much of an
| issue, the solo sailor is not going to be asleep in their
| berth when sailing about the bay.
| bergie wrote:
| That's true only in constrained waters. But obviously they
| need to see you from afar to be able to make that course
| change. That's where AIS transponders help a lot.
|
| We've crossed some of the busier shipping lanes of the world,
| and have had to call the bridge of a freighter on radio just
| a couple of times. And usually the watchstander immediately
| confirmed seeing us and clarified their intentions.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| > _" With the "traditional" freighter I would have the right of
| way"_
|
| In theory, perhaps. In praxis, might makes right, bigger wins,
| and if you in your sailboat want to play chicken with a
| freighter of any kind, you're taking an unreasonable risk.
| Actually, commercial boats get priority over pleasurecraft, so
| even in theory it's probably your job to stay out of the way.
| ofalkaed wrote:
| Not even in theory. Sure I may loose my boat but they will be
| liable for it and will not even question being liable, the
| cost is tiny to them and I would get a new boat if they ran
| me down. Things are more complex when that freighter is also
| under sail and most of the world lacks any legal bearing
| here.
| wewtyflakes wrote:
| You can be right, and dead; your posthumous estate would
| get a new boat.
| ofalkaed wrote:
| A large ship is very unlikely to just instantly destroy
| and sink a small sailboat, bow wave pushes it aside and
| destroys the rigging leaving the boat adrift, crew either
| abandons it or scuttles it when rescued unless they are
| near land and can be towed.
| davidjade wrote:
| Having witnessed a large commercial ship going 15 kts run
| over a smaller 30 foot sailboat I can assure you it was
| not "pushed aside" unless by aside you mean pushed under.
| ofalkaed wrote:
| If hit just right it would destroy the boat but that is a
| one in a million hit. The shape of displacement hulls and
| their need to part and push the water aside so they can
| move through the water will almost always mean that small
| boats will be pushed aside and damaged but not sunk. An
| open boat (which a small number of 30' sailboats are)
| would be a different story, the hit would almost
| certainly heel them enough to flood and sink them, but I
| think it is obvious that I am not talking about open
| boats but boats with a deck and a cabin that you can live
| in. I could be wrong in that assumption, many do not know
| the difference between an open and a decked boat and I
| could have been more clear there.
| brk wrote:
| You might want to read more about the right of way rules
| and USCG apportionment in maritime accidents. In the
| scenario you describe you most definitely would not be
| getting a new boat.
| ofalkaed wrote:
| What makes you think the USCG has any bearing on my life?
| Even if I am an American I stated that my dream was to be
| blown about the oceans, which strongly implies that I
| will be out of USCG jurisdiction the majority of the
| time. You are right in context of a busy seaway like New
| York Harbor but in that situation a sailing freighter
| will be under power, not under sail and anyone in a small
| sailboat will be very alert. Most of the ocean is not
| under jurisdiction of the USCG and the rules for open
| water are different than those for near the coast or in
| the harbor.
| mlhpdx wrote:
| I'm not sure where people get the idea of the rules don't
| apply in international waters. The COLREGs clearly state
| commercial vessels have right away over recreational
| sailboats. End of story. You get run over by a commercial
| vessel, it's your fault for being in the way but it's
| their fault for running you down.
| ofalkaed wrote:
| Here is the COLREG order: Not under
| command Restricted maneuverability
| Constrained by draft Fishing (actively dragging)
| Under sail
|
| Ignoring not under command; in the open sea only the
| fishing boat has right of way over a sailing boat because
| the rest are not restricted by maneuverability or draft
| when in the middle of the ocean unless the crew is
| negligent. Fishing vessels in the open ocean tend to give
| way unless they can raise the boat on the radio and get
| them to change course because they really do not want the
| sail boat to foul their lines, especially the long line
| boats. In restricted waters boats under sail often have
| the right of way because they have restricted
| maneuverability (restricted by the wind) and their deep
| keel means they are restricted by draft but it is not so
| black and white here; if the sailboat can fire up its
| engine it is more maneuverable than that tug pulling a
| bunch of barges so if that sailboat has less draft
| restriction than the tug and its barges, it has to fire
| up its engine and get out of the way.
|
| But COLREG is not the rule of the sea, just the rule for
| countries who are a part of the UN. But the truth is that
| a collision with such a sailboat will not phase these
| boats and generally writing a check is an insignificant
| cost and rare enough that it is what they do.
| rkomorn wrote:
| I find it somewhat inconsistent that you feel people's choice
| of indoor temperature is an imposition on you, but also that
| your choice of sailboat should entitle you to having something
| that is literally hundreds of times larger and less nimble than
| you have to make the effort to go around you.
| ofalkaed wrote:
| I didn't say that I am entitled or that it was an imposition,
| just that it was complex and I have mixed feelings about it,
| literally said that I don't think society should make
| allowances for me.
| rkomorn wrote:
| Yeah idk. Maybe it's the tone of stuff like "it would incur
| undue hardship" (re indoor temps) that comes across to me
| as a bit holier than thou and makes the rest of your first
| paragraph seem more self-centered.
| ofalkaed wrote:
| I plainly stated that society should not bow to my needs
| and that those who contribute to society and are a part
| of society are more important than me, what more do you
| want?
| rkomorn wrote:
| I know, I know. Look, I'm sorry for nitpicking.
|
| I actually agree with the idea of having a lower
| footprint, reducing, etc. I think you're doing a good
| thing, and I hope you stay safe at sea.
| ofalkaed wrote:
| We all get hung up on such things on occasion, realizing
| it is probably better than never doing it.
| bergie wrote:
| > that your choice of sailboat should entitle you to having
| something that is literally hundreds of times larger and less
| nimble than you have to make the effort to go around you.
|
| That's how the rules of the road work. See: COLREGs.
|
| We also travel by a small sailboat, and it is always
| reassuring to see huge tankers make small course changes tens
| of nautical miles away. That way everybody stays safe and
| nobody is majorly inconvenienced.
| rkomorn wrote:
| I know it's the rule of the road, but that's not the point.
|
| The point is the inconsistency in tone between "your life
| choices make me go around your wind farm, that makes my
| life difficult", and "my life choices make your giant
| freighter go around me, I have right of way".
| ofalkaed wrote:
| Small sail boats do not need to go around wind farms,
| they can just sail right through them assuming the
| weather is agreeable. The problem is more that if you are
| caught up in a storm anywhere near a windfarm (within
| range of the storm carrying you into it) it makes
| everything very dangerous for you; instead of dropping
| sail and letting the boat find its way through the storm
| from the safety of below decks you have to stay on deck
| and fight the storm. To put this into metropolitan terms,
| it would be like routing the main pedestrian path through
| the most dangerous part of town for the sake of a
| highway.
|
| Either way, to repeat myself again, I did not say I was
| right or better and plainly stated my mixed feelings.
| chocalot wrote:
| > The same goes for things like offshore wind power, my life is
| made more difficult because most people expect their home to be
| 70F when it is 60F outside and 60F when it is 70F outside,
| anything else would incur undue hardship.
|
| This is an overly simplistic view of demands on energy, but it
| might be one of the easiest for people decry. (As it happens,
| comfort is nice though.)
|
| > should I be penalized for wanting to live a life that has
| little or no environmental impact at cost of those who want to
| live in reasonable comfort while being a part of/contributing
| to, society?
|
| No, but it's also unrealistic to expect to be sheltered from
| all externalities of society.
|
| After all, switching to sail cargo ships is itself reducing an
| externality incurred by others.
|
| > what happened to the first 'R' of the three R's (reduce,
| reuse and recycle)
|
| This is a good principle, but it's not universally accepted,
| and it still permits things that involve cargo via ocean.
|
| As more and more people are pulled from poverty, they too will
| begin to use more energy to improve their lives, perhaps to the
| point that they can choose to follow their dreams upon
| retirement.
| ofalkaed wrote:
| I admitted or strongly implied everything you used as
| rebuttal with the exception of your final point, I don't
| believe using more energy improves ones life. Also, this is
| not a retirement dream, this is going to happen in the next
| year and I will be pulling over to work for ~6 months every
| couple years.
| chbbbbbbbbj wrote:
| >I don't believe using more energy improves ones life
|
| That's a very interesting perspective and I would love to
| hear some arguments or examples supporting it.
| ofalkaed wrote:
| Why do my beliefs require anything to prove them? My
| beliefs are not fact and I never represented them as
| such, I said plainly that I have mixed feeling and that
| society should not bow to me. The exchange in response to
| my post are a good example of why my goal in life is to
| retreat from society, everyone ignored what I said to be
| "right." Admittedly I did not actually say that society
| should not bow to me, I said probably not, but that is
| simply because I don't actually know and I don't believe
| I ever implied that I did, putting on a sweater seems a
| small sacrifice to me.
| rkomorn wrote:
| Not OP, but in general, while some things do improve my
| life (climate control, hot water, cooking), I'd say there
| are also plenty of things that don't.
|
| I don't think my device usage habits or media consumption
| actually improve my life. I'm not sure the energy that's
| been dumped into producing the many gadgets I've bought
| over the years really improved me life.
|
| I'd say that a lot of energy goes into distracting me in
| a way that I can't genuinely say is an improvement.
| Unearned5161 wrote:
| I think the point is larger than any individual. It
| involves the environment in which you're located.
| Infrastructure changes require energy, lots of energy.
| Increasing quality of life for most things we've built in
| our world requires investing lots of energy at the state
| level. You reap the benefits of this by living in the
| state.
| rkomorn wrote:
| Yeah, but even looking beyond individuals, my personal
| take is I'm no longer convinced, for example, all the
| massive amounts of electronics, fast fashion, and other
| consumerism-oriented production (which definitely do all
| use energy) are actually improving life. Same goes for a
| lot of online businesses that are occupying data centers
| and using electricity.
|
| eg I'm unconvinced smart phones are truly improving life,
| let alone getting yearly incremental updates from every
| manufacturer.
|
| So yes, to some extent, most life improvements are going
| to use some energy, but I wouldn't argue that most
| increases in spent energy lead to quality of life
| increases for a majority of people.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| This ship carries 5300 tonnes of cargo.
|
| The average transoceanic container ship carries around 150,000 to
| 250,000 tonnes.
| sneak wrote:
| It also broke shortly after beginning and didn't make the trip
| by sailing.
| scuff3d wrote:
| 1 of their 2 sails broke. They completed the trip on one sail
| and their back up engine.
|
| Especially in a prototype, proving something can go wrong and
| you can still complete the mission is valuable data.
|
| You wouldn't prototype something like this at full scale.
| opdahl wrote:
| Does anyone know how well this scales? I assume it just doesn't
| make sense to actually make one of that size when they are
| testing out the concept.
| titannet wrote:
| A "normal" ocean-going Ro Ro ship would be over 200m long and
| quite a bit higher. Typically only the lowest deck can carry
| trucks and heavy loads and the upper decks carry cars. Their
| solution of only having the heavy load deck is sensible since
| they need a low center of gravity to counteract the sails and
| any added deck height hurts the sailing characteristics. With
| all that said, there is not much to scale it up. They could
| make it a bit longer but probably mostly easily: risk in bad
| weather, structural integrity demands from the added sails
| and all that may quickly add up.
| xmcp123 wrote:
| I did some searching around for this (not a subject matter
| expert).
|
| Basically the sail area grows with length squared, but ship
| mass and resistance grows roughly with length cubed. So
| propulsion gets weaker with size.
|
| To move a full sized freighter, you would need a mast the
| size of a skyscraper and we don't currently have materials
| that can support that.
|
| If we did have a material that supported sails that large, it
| would still be a problem because you are functionally making
| the ship top heavy (when wind is applied) increasing how
| likely it is that the freighter rolls over.
| rmah wrote:
| It scales horribly. Essentially, as the ship gets larger, the
| sail area has to be even larger (proportionally) to maintain
| the same speed. Further, the larger the sail, the more
| susceptible to damage and the harder it is to control.
| adriand wrote:
| Could you have autonomous ships this size, like a waymo for the
| ocean?
| gtowey wrote:
| What would be the point? Ships are complex machines and the
| ocean is an incredibly harsh and unforgiving environment. You
| would need crew to simply maintain the ship while underway
| and fix things that break (which pretty much always happens).
|
| Next, these ships can be downright dangerous for other,
| smaller ships. It has happened before that large cargo ships
| have killed people on sailboats when they didn't keep an
| adequate lookout. I wouldn't trust an autonomous system to
| have enough accuracy to avoid running over other boats.
| jopsen wrote:
| Also if the ship is large enough to send economically
| feasible, the value of the cargo is so huge that a few crew
| won't affect the bill.
| hgomersall wrote:
| There are plenty of reports of crews being overworked and
| underslept, so clearly some shipping companies still cut
| corners as regards staffing.
| rdtsc wrote:
| Use it for luxury goods! "Why _my_ iphone arrived in Baltimore
| on a clean cargo ship, so yeah, ..."
|
| I am only half joking. Anything luxury of vanity related, just
| add the fact they've gotten to the consumer on a clean ship and
| you'll find some people to pay extra for it. The more expensive
| the better. They can brag about it to each other.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Conspicuous nonconsumption of fossil fuels... Hmmmm.
|
| I doubt Apple is lunging to do this tbh.
| urig wrote:
| Bottom line: impressive optics, zero impact for this
| technology on global warming, it's a distraction.
| lukan wrote:
| Or an experiment? Maybe eventually finding its niche, even
| if it doesn't solve climate change, but why would the
| impact be zero? If it does not use oil, then this is CO2
| not released.
| theultdev wrote:
| Well it does use oil.
|
| > The 136-metre-long vessel had to rely partly on its
| auxiliary motor and its remaining sail after the aft sail
| was damaged in a storm shortly after departure.
|
| Used the motor "shortly after departure".
| lukan wrote:
| Yes. Experiments have a tendency to show where problems
| are.
| theultdev wrote:
| Sails are not a new experiment.
|
| Hundreds of years of progress and known limitations.
|
| They failed immediately because of a storm.
| snowstorm82 wrote:
| Last summer we motored ~10% of the miles.That includes
| full day leg when there was practically no wind and few
| hours occasionally with combined powering. Working
| towards less or fractional oil based power can have
| significant benefits.
| Gud wrote:
| You always start small.
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| I expect that it's much worse than zero impact. Don't
| forget that they've got to build and maintain the ship,
| feed the crew, and so forth. It seems likely that what
| they're not using in the actual propulsion of the ship,
| they're expending anyway - and then some - because they've
| lost the economies of scale of giant cargo ships.
| prmoustache wrote:
| My observation is that prople interested in luxury stuff are
| usually those that have the least interest on their carbon
| footprint.
|
| It's rather more interesting to them if luxury stuff is made
| out of the rarest and most undangered species possible. Also
| diamonds mined by kids are more popular and expensive than
| fabricated ones.
| rmah wrote:
| luxury goods are shipped by air
| rdtsc wrote:
| But that's burning fuel and pollutes the air! It's not good
| if they want to show off how conscious they are about the
| climate, and also how much they are willing to spend just
| for that.
| euroclear wrote:
| I can recall an 'artisinal' chocolate brand in Brooklyn doing
| this about fifteen years ago, taking cocoa from the Dominican
| Republic to Brooklyn via sailboat.
|
| https://ediblebrooklyn.com/2011/the-mast-brothers-live-up-
| to...
| scuff3d wrote:
| You think they're gonna take a first crack at this and jump
| straight to the biggest they could go?
| brudgers wrote:
| https://www.ship-technology.com/projects/neoliner-origin-ro-...
|
| Apparently Neoliner Origin capacity is 265 TEU (twenty foot
| equivalent units).
|
| That's tiny by cargo ship standards and bulk, not weight, is
| the bulk of bulk shipping costs.
| segmondy wrote:
| The real question is how much does it cost to transport a ton
| of cargo compared to the average transoceanic ship?
| nullhole wrote:
| They have a passenger service too!
|
| EUR3200 for France <-> Baltimore, 13 day trip. But with that you
| get three meals a day, a decent looking cabin, private bathroom,
| private balcony, and internet service (though how solid the
| connection is / what surcharges there may be is a question).
|
| ~EUR250/d doesn't sound too bad, and you could get work done
| along the way. Kind of sounds nice...
|
| https://www.voilasailcoop.fr/transatlantic/
|
| https://www.voilasailcoop.fr/transatlantic/transatlantic-a-b...
| dhosek wrote:
| The first thing I thought when I saw the article was, I wonder
| if they have passenger service.
| sillyfluke wrote:
| Due to longterm conditioning from reading tech article
| headlines and discussions, my brain now autocompletes the
| word "cargo" to "cargo cult" every time it sees it in a tech
| context.
|
| So I read "Largest cargo cult sailboat completes first
| Atlantic crossing" and was immediately intrigued...
| namibj wrote:
| Many freighters have space for the 12 passengers they're
| allowed to carry before they get reclassified to passenger
| ship with all the post-Titanic SOLAS requirements those
| incur.
|
| The first 12 however are easy, they self-select to be low-
| maintenance, they just get their breakfast/lunch/dinner
| portion from the ship's cook, and have their cabin. A little
| electricity, reasonable running water, and they're contend.
| Essentially a hotel room plus partaking the staff dinner/in-
| House-catering.
|
| Most people just can't handle the boredom these days, and
| many don't have that many days to spare, either.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| The passenger capacity is mostly expected to be used by
| people related to the shipping industry, basically
| repositioning people the same way airlines do.
|
| Like you'll have two guys being repositioned and another
| guy will be there with a clipboard and tasked with
| something.
| jonah wrote:
| I have a friend who is a writer and he has taken passage on
| freighters a few times. He really liked it for getting work
| done.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| My brother did this (Southampton -> Baltimore). It's a lot
| slower than the Queen Mary. He told me when he arrived "You
| don't know what time is until you've already watched all
| the movies you bought with you, read all the books, done
| all the work, and you realize you've still got 5 days
| left".
|
| And he's probably the most able-to-handle-boredom human
| being that I've ever known.
| ttoinou wrote:
| I crossed the atlantic twice, each time for 650 euros the 13
| days... add 250/300 euros for internet
| nullhole wrote:
| What type of ship was it? And how was the experience, did you
| enjoy the trip & find enough to do to stay busy/not bored
| along the way?
| ttoinou wrote:
| Big commercial cruiseships from Norwegian NCL and Costa
| Cruises
|
| It was amazing ! Perfect to relax, take a step back and
| think
|
| There's plenty of things to do, you can hang out with
| others, read a book, work online, look at waves all day
| long, go to the gym etc.
|
| The real danger is eating too much, food at restaurants is
| unlimited, even at official table service you can order
| multiple mains, multiple desserts etc. they won't say
| anything
| baxtr wrote:
| Something like these?
|
| https://www.costacruises.eu/destinations/transatlantic.ht
| ml
| ttoinou wrote:
| Yes those are the ones, although not all transatlantic
| are "repositioning cheap", it depends on the current
| market. You can also look at cruise comparators / cruise
| resellers to see all of them, and sometimes you have
| better prices with them.
|
| Something to take into account is that USA residents have
| different cruises prices, usually cheaper, the rest of
| the world usually has to pay more
| HowardStark wrote:
| Have long been interested in something like this. From where
| to where? How did you arrange the trip?
| pell wrote:
| Same and always wanted to be completely offline for that
| length of time.
| gpm wrote:
| I'd recommend a long canoe trip in Algonquin park (or
| somewhere similar nearby if there is something similar
| nearby) if offline is your goal (though obviously not
| entirely similar to an ocean crossing in other ways as
| well).
| imglorp wrote:
| Is Algonquin that big? How long we talking here?
| gpm wrote:
| Yeah, it is. Basically just up to your route planning...
| I feel like at more than 2 weeks people start going
| farther north but I think that has more to do with "we
| can" than there not still being good routes in Algonquin.
|
| I'd probably not recommend more than a week for a first
| canoe trip anyways.
| imglorp wrote:
| Sounds amazing, thanks.
| mjlee wrote:
| The easiest way to do it is on a repositioning cruise where
| at the end of the season the cruise lines take their ships
| from one market to another. The positives are a cheap
| cruise, the negatives are that you're right at the end and
| beginning of ideal seasons so your experience at each end
| might not be great. Also you'll have a lot more sea days
| and fewer port days which could be in either column.
|
| Weather at sea can be considerably worse than coastal
| weather. Cruise ships are pretty stable and it's unlikely
| to be awful, but plenty of people do get seasick. I used to
| be a professional sailor and so obviously can't see what
| the fuss is about, but probably half the passengers I spoke
| to felt ill on at least one of the days, and a few people
| spent the entire ocean transit in bed. If you're prone to
| motion sickness take some medication with you.
|
| The atmosphere is different to regular cruises. Typically
| less of a party and the clientele skew towards older and
| more independent travellers.
|
| To answer your actual question - go to cruisemapper and
| seascanner and you'll find them easily enough. They're all
| over the world.
| ttoinou wrote:
| Yes exactly repositioning cruises ! I confirm what you're
| saying. Sometimes you also get people who were visiting a
| continent going back home. For example Brasilians going
| back home in December for their summer
|
| Modern ships built in the last 10 years have stabilizers.
| I've been in a big cruiseship without stabilizer before
| and it can indeed move a lot laterally up and down (in
| the directions orthogonal to the direction of the ship).
| So, for people afraid of that just research if the ship
| has stabilizers
| ttoinou wrote:
| As the other said I was looking for repositioning cruises
| like 2 months in advance, from one continent to the other.
| Like I did Europe -> South America 550 euros Costa Cruise
| last year and Miami -> England NCL 650 euros early this
| year
|
| The difficulty is finding good prices for a solo cabin. For
| a cabin of 2 it's even easier to find good prices for
| repositioning cruises
|
| As the other said, there are more days at sea (less
| stopovers), and it can happen that some stopover port get
| cancelled (for example they cancelled my stop in the Azores
| because they didn't want to bother entering a big Atlantic
| storm, it was risky)
| madaxe_again wrote:
| I took the Queen Mary across a few years ago and it
| suuuuuuuucked and cost a frigging fortune.
|
| Their main target markets appear to be mennonites and uptight
| assholes.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Sure sounds like captive audiences for a resourceful
| prankster...
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| Now _that_ sounds like a vacation worth my time and
| money. I like the way you think.
| happyraul wrote:
| What sucked about it? I've been considering it for a long
| time as an alternative to flying across the Atlantic.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I did it in 2018 and it was wonderful. It wasn't incredibly
| expensive (about the cost of a roundtrip flight, for the
| one way trip). Food was great, we had the good fortune of
| being on a Blue Note Jazz special so the music was
| incredible. Not sure I ever want to do it again - felt more
| like one of those one-and-done lifetime experiences - but I
| have nothing but good things to say about it.
|
| Also, unlike cruise ships, the QMII is a bona fide ocean
| liner, capable of crossing the N. Atlantic even in winter
| storms.
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| Considering it's a roll-on/roll-off ship, they're _this_ close
| to providing a transatlantic passenger+vehicle ferry service,
| which would really be fun.
| gsf_emergency_4 wrote:
| Interviews with CEO, where he stresses that the main problem
| is not sailing upwind but to get there on time.
|
| https://youtu.be/qhAlImSIDyU
|
| https://youtu.be/QfHJE1UwMTw
|
| Another contender https://youtu.be/xsFc3pro8Y8
|
| (Also FR based, cultural reason?)
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Getting there on time is just a figment of the fact that
| you have to effectively sail further when sailing upwind.
| fsckboy wrote:
| so what you're saying is, there's no problem sailing
| upwind, you just need to worry about getting there on
| time?
| simgt wrote:
| There's also Grain de Sail. Not only French, all these are
| from the region of Britanny, sailing is very cultural.
| pablomalo wrote:
| Nit: Brittany. With greetings from Saint-Malo ;)
| mrlonglong wrote:
| Bear in mind that US cars are designed to cope with poor
| quality fuel with sulphur in it. Bringing an European spec
| car with engines not designed for use in the US may result in
| expensive damage.
|
| This is based on what I learned 30 years ago so this may be
| out of date now.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| This is still true for diesel vehicles. I don't think it
| was ever true for gasoline vehicles since lubricity doesn't
| really matter for them.
|
| That said, a lot of the relevant key components are
| technically capable of operation on either though doing so
| in reality can be more complicated.
| tibbon wrote:
| I've been looking for a reasonable way to get me and my
| motorcycle to Europe and back (rentals of my bike are
| $300/day, and I want to ride off-road occasionally, which
| isn't great for rentals). I've also always wanted to sail the
| ocean. This could be a win.
| MezzoDelCammin wrote:
| Have You checked the validity of registration/insurance?
| I'm kinda curious about doing it the other way and trying
| some BDRs) maybe in a few years)
| jonah wrote:
| I regularly see groups of riders with European plates on
| their bikes, traveling up and down Highway 1 - a very
| scenic and twisty road up the California coast. So, it
| must be doable without too much problem.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Often when you see people on TV doing "around the world"
| stuff, they actually buy separate motorcycles for each
| continent, often moving accessories and such over to the
| next bike. Given the logistical costs for such endevours,
| the extra bikes are not a big deal and bypass most all the
| registrarion/insurance issues.
| brucehoult wrote:
| No reason why they wouldn't have Starlink today. Or you could
| take your own Starlink Mini.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| And funnel my hard earned funds to a Mars-obsessed wanker? No
| thanks.
| namibj wrote:
| As always capped at 12 passengers by SOLAS: the convention
| classifies every merchant ship with more than 12 passengers as
| a passenger ship not merely a cargo ship; AFAIK the worst (to
| profitability) effect is that the ship suddenly needs to carry
| a doctor.
| afh1 wrote:
| You get a glimpse of how dislocated from reality the HN crowd
| is when "EUR250/d doesn't sound too bad".
| mejutoco wrote:
| Many hotels in the US cost more than that per night. Of
| course everything is relative.
| rconti wrote:
| You get a glimpse of how dislocated from reality the HN crowd
| is whenever they assume their reality is the only reality.
| akamaka wrote:
| On the contrary, that's exactly in line with how much the
| average American spends on holidays:
|
| https://www.pacaso.com/blog/average-vacation-cost
| lewo wrote:
| More precisely, this is the price per person but if you travel
| alone, you have to share a room with someone else. Or you would
| have you to make private a double room which costs about 5400E.
| f_allwein wrote:
| You could also take the Queen Mary2 from Southampton to New
| York. 8 nights, from 920 GBP: https://www.seat61.com/queen-
| mary-2-transatlantic.htm
| thelastgallon wrote:
| I wonder why we don't have nuclear cargo/container ships.
| dmoy wrote:
| There is at least one
|
| This article gives a decent overview though:
| https://thebulletin.org/2024/09/why-nuclear-powered-commerci...
| contrarian1234 wrote:
| Or a tug to pull N cargo ships during calm seas
| dragonwriter wrote:
| There have been four nuclear powered cargo ships built and
| operated, but none of the former are currently in active
| service.
| wazoox wrote:
| It's coming :
| https://interestingengineering.com/transportation/thorium-po...
| Epa095 wrote:
| Probably the same reason for why there is not more nuklear
| power on land as well. Cost.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| And crew training, certifcation, etc.
|
| Not to diminish the skills required to run a conventional
| ship powerplant but running a nuclear reactor would take
| years more training and education and also command higher
| pay.
|
| The ship would also be a prime target for pirates/terrorists.
| speed_spread wrote:
| It would make for interesting special effects playing Fallout
| infinet wrote:
| There were four: NS savannah (US): 1962 to
| 1971, too expensive to operate NS Mutsu (Japan): 1972 to
| 1992, neutron leak Otto Hahn (Germany): 1970 to 1982,
| converted to diesel power Sevmorput (Russian): 1988 to
| 2007, converted to world's first nuclear powered drilling ship
| froh wrote:
| List of large sailing vessels - Wikipedia
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_sailing_vessels
|
| not the longest
|
| but top notch tonnage
|
| the French Wikipedia lists it at 13 278 GT
|
| https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliner_Origin
|
| and
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> He added that wind propulsion offers an advantage because it
| is a free, widely available, and predictable energy source
|
| Written by someone who obviously has never owned a sailboat.
| krasin wrote:
| In the meantime, China is constructing nuclear cargo ships ([1],
| [2]) that will be able to transport 14,000 containers at full
| throttle (200MW) without a need to refuel for years.
|
| Obviously, it's still not done, and yet to prove to be
| profitable, but their reactor design does suggest that they have
| a chance to make it work and replace a lot of CO2 emissions.
|
| 1. Original article, but paywall:
| https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3331031/chin...
|
| 2. Derivative (+based commentary), but no paywall:
| https://www.chosun.com/english/world-en/2025/11/07/MND3QUGUT...
| SirHumphrey wrote:
| Nuclear ship propulsion is not a new technology so I have no
| doubt they will succeed. But where this will and all previous
| attempts have (see: N.S. Savannah) failed is that ports do not
| want to accept such ships, because of environmental and
| insurance issues.
| pmontra wrote:
| China owns some ports abroad and probably they have enough
| leverage in some of those countries to let their ships dock
| there.
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| How ironic, a huge "EMBRACING NET-ZERO FUTURE" logo on the
| behemoth filled with cheap plastic crap that will chill out in
| landfills for generations to come.
| mcdonje wrote:
| How ridiculous they're solving one part of the problem when
| other parts aren't solved.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Aren't all military submarines and aircraft carriers using
| nuclear power already? No reason they couldn't make it work as
| long as regulations allow them in ports.
| infinet wrote:
| As much as we want the next generation ships with less CO2
| emissions, that nuclear cargo ship is not coming anytime soon.
| It will use a Thorium melting salt reactor, which although not
| new, is still in experiment. US first proposed melting salt
| reactor in the 1940s and had operated one briefly in the 1960s.
| China is building and testing an experimental Thorium reactor.
| It made the news earlier this month for been successfully
| converting Thorium to Uranium, perhaps means it is actually
| burning Thorium as compare to rely on Uranium in previous
| melting salt reactors. The news also states the plan has 3
| stages: experimental reactor, research reactor, and
| demonstration reactor. The current one is at first stage. The
| third stage, demonstrator reactor, is scheduled to build in
| 2035. Therefor that nuclear cargo ship is at least another 10
| years from now.
| shevy-java wrote:
| > The ship can carry up to 5,300 tonnes of cargo
|
| Ok but ... what was it carrying? I mean there may be a government
| active right now that is bombing civilian ships, in particular
| when they carry fish.
| yard2010 wrote:
| That sounds fishy!
| michelb wrote:
| Looks cool! What's the latest innovation in 'sails' (shape/tech)
| development? And what would it take to scale a cargo sailboat to
| take >100k tonnes load?
| Boglander wrote:
| Bring back the Onedin Line..
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IuPjpAHnI
| Boglander wrote:
| Bring back the Onedin Line...even just for the theme tune.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IuPjpAHnI
| 2b3a51 wrote:
| Just wondering if there is any potential for coasting with these
| smaller ships? Replacing lorries for port to port travel say in
| med or along Atlantic coast of Europe.
|
| Coasting ships were the main cargo transport before trains and
| for some time after in the UK. Even as late as 1950s a fair
| percentage of cargo came in and out of London on relatively small
| ships from UK ports and Europe mainland. Before containerisation
| of course but I'm not sure it was containers that killed that
| traffic off. I suspect it may have been motorways and lorries.
| ViewTrick1002 wrote:
| The problem is always multi-modality.
|
| Switching modes of transport increases cost and complexity.
|
| The volumes also needs to be very large for it to be worth it.
|
| Switching from just point to point trucking to truck -> ship ->
| truck needs to have extremely large efficiency gains in the
| ship portion to be worth it.
| ungreased0675 wrote:
| We'd need to automate cargo handling, which is something the
| longshoremen union fights very hard against.
| georgehaake wrote:
| the ministry for the future
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-09 23:02 UTC)