On 3/22/2024 2:26 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:38:24 +1100, TimW <timw@nomailta.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 20/03/2024 17:14, Andrew wrote:
>>> On 19/03/2024 11:06, SteveW wrote:
>>>> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>>>>> On 19/03/2024 09:10, Soup wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/03/2024 20:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18/03/2024 18:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have always wondered why wind power isn't used in moving sea cargo
>>>>>>>> around since I was a lad ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because it is shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How so ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There was a very good reason why large sailing ships became mainly obsolete 150+ years ago.  Even the hybrid vessels of that time (full sail plus steam engine) were soon abandoned as a design.
>>>>
>>>> The reason sail disappeared was the unreliability of the wind
>>>  Hence the term 'The doldrums'
>>>
>>
>> The doldrums actually a particular lattitude between a belt of relaibly East wind and a belt of reliably West wind
>
> No such animal.
>
>> which are prone to calm and need to be crossed in a North - South passage, illustrating how constant and dependable ocean weather is.
>
> Fantasy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertropical_Convergence_Zone

Paul

On 3/21/2024 7:56 PM, SteveW wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 23:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 15:21, SteveW wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 14:55, Spike wrote:
>>>> Soup <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 21/03/2024 07:39, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>> On 20/03/2024 18:00, Soup wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was a very good reason why large sailing ships became mainly
>>>>>>>> obsolete 150+ years ago.  Even the hybrid vessels of that time (full
>>>>>>>> sail plus steam engine) were soon abandoned as a design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah but early steam engines were 'pants' (shit has been used too
>>>>>>> often, to my mind, in this thread already).
>>>>>>>     But even rubbishy steam engines were 'better' than pure sailing
>>>>>>> ships which is why, as far as I am concerned, dual drive systems will
>>>>>>> come to the fore .  Engines when docking, in "The Doldrums" or facing
>>>>>>> a wind. sail (or rather a suitable variation) wence running with the
>>>>>>> wind .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So ships with early rubbish engines were better (for trade) than the
>>>>>> sailing ships that they made obsolete so why would sailing ships now
>>>>>> replace the modern cargo ship with much better engines?  Hybrid ships of
>>>>>> 150 years ago with both sails and (rubbish) engines also disappeared and
>>>>>> this wouldn't have happened if there was some major benefit in keeping
>>>>>> the sails.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but a big difference in what is viable now is the scarcity of fuel,
>>>>>   and it is just going to get rarer and more expensive.
>>>>> I feel that Nuclear power is a non-starter. Countries have been bombed
>>>>> for having nuclear power what are the chances that any Tom. Dick or
>>>>> Harry can get there hands on nuclear reactors.  Yes I know there are
>>>>> SOME examples but they are noteworthy because there is very few of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>    How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>>
>>>> As the Hooties have shown in the Gulf, what matters not is speed.
>>>> Reliability is everything. Renewables are not reliable.
>>>
>>> Wind assisting a ship's engines *IS* reliable though. Fuel consumption rises if the wind doesn't blow, but the ship keeps moving at the same speed. Pure sailing ships or hybrid ships with small engines and mainly relying on the wind, *Would* be unreliable.
>>>
>> Well no, it isn't, because there are only certain wind directions and speeds that will do anything and if you are going to spend as much fuel to find those winds, as the fuel you save by having them, the bloody things are no saving at all! And will increase journey times this lowering the ships ROI.
>>
>> Np. Sorry. I think this is more greenwashing ecobollox.
>
> Why can you not see that there "may" be advantage in sail assist. Ships would not be reliant on wind, just taking advantage of it where it helps. They would not go "finding" wind - that is the purpose of weather routing, they would be TOLD where wind was, strength and direction and DECIDE whether it was to their advantage to change their route. As for journey times, going a little faster, while using less fuel, does not mean taking more time.
>
> I am not saying that it a wonderful solution, but it may turn out to make some difference. No-one is mandating it, but it is surely worth trying?
>

It's a "wind assisted design", not a "wind powered design".

The intention is to occasionally reduce fuel consumption on the trip.

The owners want primary propulsion systems with predictable delivery times.
Maybe the ship shows up half a day early, with the sail assist. And the oil
bill is a tiny bit smaller.

Paul

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:51:08 +1100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/22/2024 2:26 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:38:24 +1100, TimW <timw@nomailta.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/03/2024 17:14, Andrew wrote:
>>>> On 19/03/2024 11:06, SteveW wrote:
>>>>> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/03/2024 09:10, Soup wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18/03/2024 20:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 18/03/2024 18:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have always wondered why wind power isn't used in moving sea
>>>>>>>>> cargo
>>>>>>>>> around since I was a lad ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because it is shit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How so ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a very good reason why large sailing ships became mainly
>>>>>> obsolete 150+ years ago. Even the hybrid vessels of that time
>>>>>> (full sail plus steam engine) were soon abandoned as a design.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason sail disappeared was the unreliability of the wind
>>>> Hence the term 'The doldrums'
>>>>
>>>
>>> The doldrums actually a particular lattitude between a belt of
>>> relaibly East wind and a belt of reliably West wind
>>
>> No such animal.
>>
>>> which are prone to calm and need to be crossed in a North - South
>>> passage, illustrating how constant and dependable ocean weather is.

>> Fantasy

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertropical_Convergence_Zone

Doesnt say that its constand and dependable

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 14:13:44 +1100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/21/2024 7:56 PM, SteveW wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 23:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 15:21, SteveW wrote:
>>>> On 21/03/2024 14:55, Spike wrote:
>>>>> Soup <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/03/2024 07:39, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20/03/2024 18:00, Soup wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There was a very good reason why large sailing ships became
>>>>>>>>> mainly
>>>>>>>>> obsolete 150+ years ago. Even the hybrid vessels of that time
>>>>>>>>> (full
>>>>>>>>> sail plus steam engine) were soon abandoned as a design.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah but early steam engines were 'pants' (shit has been used too
>>>>>>>> often, to my mind, in this thread already).
>>>>>>>> But even rubbishy steam engines were 'better' than pure
>>>>>>>> sailing
>>>>>>>> ships which is why, as far as I am concerned, dual drive systems
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> come to the fore . Engines when docking, in "The Doldrums" or
>>>>>>>> facing
>>>>>>>> a wind. sail (or rather a suitable variation) wence running with
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> wind .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So ships with early rubbish engines were better (for trade) than
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> sailing ships that they made obsolete so why would sailing ships
>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>> replace the modern cargo ship with much better engines? Hybrid
>>>>>>> ships of
>>>>>>> 150 years ago with both sails and (rubbish) engines also
>>>>>>> disappeared and
>>>>>>> this wouldn't have happened if there was some major benefit in
>>>>>>> keeping
>>>>>>> the sails.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but a big difference in what is viable now is the scarcity of
>>>>>> fuel,
>>>>>> and it is just going to get rarer and more expensive.
>>>>>> I feel that Nuclear power is a non-starter. Countries have been
>>>>>> bombed
>>>>>> for having nuclear power what are the chances that any Tom. Dick or
>>>>>> Harry can get there hands on nuclear reactors. Yes I know there are
>>>>>> SOME examples but they are noteworthy because there is very few of
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>>>
>>>>> As the Hooties have shown in the Gulf, what matters not is speed.
>>>>> Reliability is everything. Renewables are not reliable.
>>>>
>>>> Wind assisting a ship's engines *IS* reliable though. Fuel
>>>> consumption rises if the wind doesn't blow, but the ship keeps moving
>>>> at the same speed. Pure sailing ships or hybrid ships with small
>>>> engines and mainly relying on the wind, *Would* be unreliable.
>>>>
>>> Well no, it isn't, because there are only certain wind directions and
>>> speeds that will do anything and if you are going to spend as much
>>> fuel to find those winds, as the fuel you save by having them, the
>>> bloody things are no saving at all! And will increase journey times
>>> this lowering the ships ROI.
>>>
>>> Np. Sorry. I think this is more greenwashing ecobollox.
>>
>> Why can you not see that there "may" be advantage in sail assist. Ships
>> would not be reliant on wind, just taking advantage of it where it
>> helps. They would not go "finding" wind - that is the purpose of
>> weather routing, they would be TOLD where wind was, strength and
>> direction and DECIDE whether it was to their advantage to change their
>> route. As for journey times, going a little faster, while using less
>> fuel, does not mean taking more time.
>>
>> I am not saying that it a wonderful solution, but it may turn out to
>> make some difference. No-one is mandating it, but it is surely worth
>> trying?
>>
>
> It's a "wind assisted design", not a "wind powered design".
>
> The intention is to occasionally reduce fuel consumption on the trip.
>
> The owners want primary propulsion systems with predictable delivery
> times.

> Maybe the ship shows up half a day early, with the sail assist.

Doesnt work like that with modern ships and
isnt feasible on a container ship anyway

> And the oil bill is a tiny bit smaller.

So sail assist can't pay for itself even if it was possible on a container
ship

On 3/23/2024 1:21 PM, alan_m wrote:
> On 23/03/2024 16:39, Pancho wrote:
>> On 23/03/2024 11:30, Andrew wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I remember those days. My first job was with the regional
>>> transfusion centre that was, even in 1971, still using glass
>>> bottles and rubber taking sets for 10% of its donations.
>>>
>>> You are utterly clueless if you think the NHS and all its
>>> associated supply chains can manage without 'plastic' from
>>> oil.
>>
>> I think the point is that we can manufacture plastics, polyurethane, etc from plant oils.
>>
>
> Assuming you don't also need the same plants to feed the world population.

In chemistry, plant materials are used as a precursor in things
like pharmaceuticals, as those precursors can save reaction
steps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oseltamivir_total_synthesis

"Tamiflu

Its commercial production starts from the biomolecule
shikimic acid harvested from Chinese star anise and
from recombinant E. coli.
"

And that involves fewer steps, than starting from some
other (petroleum) precursor.

That's why as an undergrad, you're made to do a number of
extractions (even doing an extraction of kidney stones),
as part of training you that "you can skip a few steps
by using available materials".

In some areas though, the sheer quantity of material required,
makes a plant based solution impractical.

And these plant materials don't have to be food items. Sure,
we can make Vodka from potato, competing with table consumption
of cooked potato. But we don't absolutely have to do it that way.
There is a company in-town, which uses biowaste for projects
like that.

They make corn ethanol for petrol, but the kind
of corn for that is not food grade corn. the cobs of corn
used, would not make a good meal. But what it does mean,
is there is more corn grown for fuel, than Peaches and Cream
corn for human consumption. Even if they stopped today,
with making corn ethanol, you could not immediately seed
all the fields and make good-quality edible corn the next year.
And who knows what state the "fuel fields" are in anyway,
in terms of growing anything else.

Paul

On 3/24/2024 12:42 AM, Rod Speed wrote:

>
> So sail assist can't pay for itself even if it was possible on a container ship

https://www.rivieramm.com/news-content-hub/news-content-hub/behind-the-use-of-wing-sails-on-a-zeacutephyr-amp-boreacutee-container-ship-69116

You can see from the number of sails on that, they're getting serious.
It's still sail-assist. I can think of where I was born, we could
not unload that, because it would not make it under the two harbour
bridges. Any container terminal, would need "unlimited" height to
be handling items like that. When means it won't have quite as
many ports it can use. Which is fine.

Paul

On 3/22/2024 3:16 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:

>
> Back then, the problem with operating both engines and sails was 'the overheads' (literally in this case) the rigging made access for loading and unloading difficult, and it needed extra crew to 'operate' all those sails and maintain the sails & rigging.
>
> I assume modern systems would need neither rigging nor extra crew.

They're using computerized sails, so the sails deploy themselves automatically.
And your assumptions are precisely why the sail designs are so muted. The sail
area is kept small. The sail profile tends to stay within the footprint of
the ship, rather than hanging out over the side of the vessel.

This is an artists render, and this design is not likely on the water yet.

https://www.rivieramm.com/news-content-hub/news-content-hub/behind-the-use-of-wing-sails-on-a-zeacutephyr-amp-boreacutee-container-ship-69116

Is a design like that compatible with bad weather ? Since container
ships routinely lose containers, there's already a bit of a problem
with loss. Other container ships are filled higher than that example.

Even with the sails furled, the cross-section of the sail support would
still catch the wind.

Paul

On 24 Mar 2024 at 03:13:44 GMT, Paul wrote:

>>> Well no, it isn't, because there are only certain wind directions and speeds
>>> that will do anything and if you are going to spend as much fuel to find
>>> those winds, as the fuel you save by having them, the bloody things are no
>>> saving at all! And will increase journey times this lowering the ships ROI.
>>>
>>> Np. Sorry. I think this is more greenwashing ecobollox.
>>
>> Why can you not see that there "may" be advantage in sail assist. Ships would
>> not be reliant on wind, just taking advantage of it where it helps. They
>> would not go "finding" wind - that is the purpose of weather routing, they
>> would be TOLD where wind was, strength and direction and DECIDE whether it
>> was to their advantage to change their route. As for journey times, going a
>> little faster, while using less fuel, does not mean taking more time.
>>
>> I am not saying that it a wonderful solution, but it may turn out to make
>> some difference. No-one is mandating it, but it is surely worth trying?
>>
>
> It's a "wind assisted design", not a "wind powered design".
>
> The intention is to occasionally reduce fuel consumption on the trip.

Quite. It's one of a number - many far more practical - measures to reduce
energy consumption:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/03/future-sailors-what-will-ships-look-like-in-30-years

>
> The owners want primary propulsion systems with predictable delivery times.
> Maybe the ship shows up half a day early, with the sail assist. And the oil
> bill is a tiny bit smaller.

Just slowing down a bit can yield huge savings. But it'll need regulating as
the financial cost/benefit to shipping operators is relatively small.

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
> On 3/23/2024 1:21 PM, alan_m wrote:
>> On 23/03/2024 16:39, Pancho wrote:
>>> On 23/03/2024 11:30, Andrew wrote:

>>>> I remember those days. My first job was with the regional
>>>> transfusion centre that was, even in 1971, still using glass
>>>> bottles and rubber taking sets for 10% of its donations.
>>>>
>>>> You are utterly clueless if you think the NHS and all its
>>>> associated supply chains can manage without 'plastic' from
>>>> oil.
>>>
>>> I think the point is that we can manufacture plastics, polyurethane,
>>> etc from plant oils.
>>>
>>
>> Assuming you don't also need the same plants to feed the world
>> population.

> In chemistry, plant materials are used asa precursor in things like
> pharmaceuticals,

Its actually used for a hell of a lot more than just
pharmaceuticals, most obviously with all of food,
grog, fertiliser etc etc etc.

And when it is, that's because its cheaper to start that way.

> as those precursors can save reaction steps.

That mangles the real story too.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oseltamivir_total_synthesis

> "Tamiflu

> Its commercial production starts from the biomolecule
> shikimic acid harvested from Chinese star anise and
> from recombinant E. coli.
> "

> And that involves fewer steps, than startingfrom some other
> (petroleum) precursor.

Pity about the rest which has nothing to do with the number of steps.

> That's why as an undergrad, you're made to do a numberof extractions
> (even doing an extraction of kidney stones),
> as part of training you that "you can skip a few steps
> by using available materials".

Fantasy with all of food, grog, fertiliser etc etc etc.

> In some areas though, the sheer quantity of materialrequired, makes a
> plant based solution impractical.

Nope, just better to do from oil, and irrelevant to
Andrew's pig ignorant claim that we can't do the
plastics used in blood transfusion from other than oil

> And these plant materials don't have to be food items.

And that has always been the case with stuff like
turpentine and even lubricataning and even lamp oils.

> Sure, we can make Vodka from potato,

In fact all grog.

> competing with table consumption of cooked potato.

Nope, no competition involved.

> But we don't absolutely have to do it that way.

Just as true of the plastics used in blood transfusion
that Andrew mindlessly rabbitting on about.

> There is a company in-town, whichuses biowaste for projects like that.

In fact you can make ethanol from almost anything,
given that it is such a simple chemical.

> They make corn ethanol for petrol, but thekind of corn for that is not
> food grade corn.

> the cobs of corn used, would not make a good meal. Butwhat it does
> mean, is there is more corn grown for fuel,
> than Peaches and Cream corn for human consumption.

> Even if they stopped today, with making corn ethanol,you could not
> immediately seed all the fields and makegood-quality edible corn the
> next year.

> And who knows what state the "fuel fields" arein anyway, in terms of
> growing anything else.

It isnt the only thing that can be grown there.

On 24/03/2024 05:38, Paul wrote:

>
> That's why as an undergrad, you're made to do a number of
> extractions (even doing an extraction of kidney stones),
> as part of training you that "you can skip a few steps
> by using available materials".
>

I missed that step at university, but I have just learnt how to use a
whetstone, so my kitchen knives are sharp. Anyone have some kidney
stones they want extracting?

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> So sail assist can't pay for itself evenif it was possible on a
>> container ship

> https://www.rivieramm.com/news-content-hub/news-content-hub/behind-the-use-of-wing-sails-on-a-zeacutephyr-amp-boreacutee-container-ship-69116

> You can see from the number of sails on that, they're getting serious.

But no one else has been stupid enough to go that route, for a reason.

That stupidity has fuck all layers of containers compared
with the best ot the latest container vessels.

> It's still sail-assist.

And sail assist doesnt work unless the wind
is faster than the ship moves without the sails.

So its just another stupid wank.

> I can think of where I was born, we could not unload that,

And still can't in any container port that matters.

> because it would not make it under the two harbour bridges.

Nothing to do with harbour bridges, everything
to do with what is used to move the containers,

> Any container terminal, would need "unlimited"height to be handling
> items like that.

And even if the stupid container ship could actually
fold the sails own to the deck for when the containers
are being loaded and unloaded, the cost of being able
to do that wouldnt even come close to the rare advantage
you clould get from wind assist when the wind is faster
than the ship was moving anyway.

> When means it won't have quite as many ports it can use.

In fact fuck all container ports it can actually use.

> Which is fine.

Nope, it means that its not viable.

6On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 17:29:54 +1100, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 3/22/2024 3:16 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
>>
>> Back then, the problem with operating both engines and sails was 'the
>> overheads' (literally in this case) the rigging made access for loading
>> and unloading difficult, and it needed extra crew to 'operate' all
>> those sails and maintain the sails & rigging.
>>
>> I assume modern systems would need neither rigging nor extra crew.
>
> They're using computerized sails, so the sails deploy themselves
> automatically.
> And your assumptions are precisely why the sail designs are so muted.
> The sail
> area is kept small. The sail profile tends to stay within the footprint
> of
> the ship, rather than hanging out over the side of the vessel.
>
> This is an artists render, and this design is not likely on the water
> yet.
>
> https://www.rivieramm.com/news-content-hub/news-content-hub/behind-the-use-of-wing-sails-on-a-zeacutephyr-amp-boreacutee-container-ship-69116
>
> Is a design like that compatible with bad weather ? Since container
> ships routinely lose containers, there's already a bit of a problem
> with loss. Other container ships are filled higher than that example.
>
> Even with the sails furled, the cross-section of the sail support would
> still catch the wind.

And the other problem is that the masts still need stays to be viable.

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 18:05:34 +1100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

> On 24 Mar 2024 at 03:13:44 GMT, Paul wrote:
>
>>>> Well no, it isn't, because there are only certain wind directions and
>>>> speeds
>>>> that will do anything and if you are going to spend as much fuel to
>>>> find
>>>> those winds, as the fuel you save by having them, the bloody things
>>>> are no
>>>> saving at all! And will increase journey times this lowering the
>>>> ships ROI.
>>>>
>>>> Np. Sorry. I think this is more greenwashing ecobollox.
>>>
>>> Why can you not see that there "may" be advantage in sail assist.
>>> Ships would
>>> not be reliant on wind, just taking advantage of it where it helps.
>>> They
>>> would not go "finding" wind - that is the purpose of weather routing,
>>> they
>>> would be TOLD where wind was, strength and direction and DECIDE
>>> whether it
>>> was to their advantage to change their route. As for journey times,
>>> going a
>>> little faster, while using less fuel, does not mean taking more time.
>>>
>>> I am not saying that it a wonderful solution, but it may turn out to
>>> make
>>> some difference. No-one is mandating it, but it is surely worth trying?
>>>
>>
>> It's a "wind assisted design", not a "wind powered design".
>>
>> The intention is to occasionally reduce fuel consumption on the trip.
>
> Quite. It's one of a number - many far more practical - measures to
> reduce energy consumption:

No its not given that there is no sail assist unless the
wind is faster than the ship is already travelling and
isnt feasible on a container ship anyway.

> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/03/future-sailors-what-will-ships-look-like-in-30-years

Just because some fool arts student journo in that shit rag claims
something...

>> The owners want primary propulsion systems with predictable delivery
>> times.
>> Maybe the ship shows up half a day early, with the sail assist. And the
>> oil
>> bill is a tiny bit smaller.

> Just slowing down a bit can yield huge savings.

Bullshit it does given that no sail assist can actually deliver
showing up a day early often enough matter and isnt viable
on a container ship anyway.

> But it'll need regulating as the financial cost/benefitto shipping
> operators is relatively small.

Regulating can't change the physics or economics.

On 24 Mar 2024 at 08:36:03 GMT, "Rod Speed" wrote:

>> Quite. It's one of a number - many far more practical - measures to
>> reduce energy consumption:
>
> No its not given that there is no sail assist unless the
> wind is faster than the ship is already travelling and
> isnt feasible on a container ship anyway.
>

Sails are one of a number - many far more practical - measures to
reduce energy consumption.

>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/03/future-sailors-what-will-ships-look-like-in-30-years
>
> Just because some fool arts student journo in that shit rag claims
> something...
>

He's written widely on energy for decades, and that article is a meta-piece. I
rate his work highly. What makes you say he's a fool/arts student?

>>> The owners want primary propulsion systems with predictable delivery
>>> times.
>>> Maybe the ship shows up half a day early, with the sail assist. And the
>>> oil
>>> bill is a tiny bit smaller.
>
>> Just slowing down a bit can yield huge savings.
>
> Bullshit it does given that no sail assist can actually deliver
> showing up a day early often enough matter and isnt viable
> on a container ship anyway.
>

Just slowing down a bit can yield huge savings.

https://www.environmentenergyleader.com/2010/02/maersk-cuts-fuel-use-emissions-30-by-slowing-down/

>> But it'll need regulating as the financial cost/benefitto shipping
>> operators is relatively small.
>
> Regulating can't change the physics or economics.

It can reduce fuel use, though.

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On 24/03/2024 08:59, RJH wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2024 at 08:36:03 GMT, "Rod Speed" wrote:
>
>>> Quite. It's one of a number - many far more practical - measures to
>>> reduce energy consumption:
>>
>> No its not given that there is no sail assist unless the
>> wind is faster than the ship is already travelling and
>> isnt feasible on a container ship anyway.
>>
>
> Sails are one of a number - many far more practical - measures to
> reduce energy consumption.
>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/03/future-sailors-what-will-ships-look-like-in-30-years
>>
>> Just because some fool arts student journo in that shit rag claims
>> something...
>>
>
> He's written widely on energy for decades, and that article is a meta-piece. I
> rate his work highly. What makes you say he's a fool/arts student?
>
He writes for the guardian?

On ENERGY?

--
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

On 24 Mar 2024 at 10:48:22 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 24/03/2024 08:59, RJH wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2024 at 08:36:03 GMT, "Rod Speed" wrote:
>>
>>>> Quite. It's one of a number - many far more practical - measures to
>>>> reduce energy consumption:
>>>
>>> No its not given that there is no sail assist unless the
>>> wind is faster than the ship is already travelling and
>>> isnt feasible on a container ship anyway.
>>>
>>
>> Sails are one of a number - many far more practical - measures to
>> reduce energy consumption.
>>
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/03/future-sailors-what-will-ships-look-like-in-30-years
>>>
>>> Just because some fool arts student journo in that shit rag claims
>>> something...
>>>
>>
>> He's written widely on energy for decades, and that article is a meta-piece. I
>> rate his work highly. What makes you say he's a fool/arts student?
>>
> He writes for the guardian?
>

Maybe half a dozen articles, several years' back. Are you incapable of
checking these things for yourself? Looks like he's at Yale now:

https://e360.yale.edu/authors/fred-pearce

Art student enough for you?

> On ENERGY?

Yep. As I say, that was a summary piece (as you'd know).
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On 24/03/2024 11:04, RJH wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2024 at 10:48:22 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 24/03/2024 08:59, RJH wrote:
>>> On 24 Mar 2024 at 08:36:03 GMT, "Rod Speed" wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Quite. It's one of a number - many far more practical - measures to
>>>>> reduce energy consumption:
>>>>
>>>> No its not given that there is no sail assist unless the
>>>> wind is faster than the ship is already travelling and
>>>> isnt feasible on a container ship anyway.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sails are one of a number - many far more practical - measures to
>>> reduce energy consumption.
>>>
>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/03/future-sailors-what-will-ships-look-like-in-30-years
>>>>
>>>> Just because some fool arts student journo in that shit rag claims
>>>> something...
>>>>
>>>
>>> He's written widely on energy for decades, and that article is a meta-piece. I
>>> rate his work highly. What makes you say he's a fool/arts student?
>>>
>> He writes for the guardian?
>>
>
> Maybe half a dozen articles, several years' back. Are you incapable of
> checking these things for yourself? Looks like he's at Yale now:
>
> https://e360.yale.edu/authors/fred-pearce
>
> Art student enough for you?
>

Yep. Classic 'environmental' journalist. Reads green press releases and
regurgitates them for money. Like Geoffrey Lean.

And that is the Yale school of the environment. Used to train foresters.
Now trains 'environamtalists', which is a clear step down

He is a fully paid up career environmentalist. Not an unbiased bone in
his body.

His living is *utterly dependent* on being paid to say stuff that
supports EcoBollox™

>> On ENERGY?
>
> Yep. As I say, that was a summary piece (as you'd know).

Exactly, He doesn't think, he regurgitates.

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Quite. It's one of a number - many far more practical- measures to
>>> reduce energy consumption:

>> No its not given that there is no sail assist unless the
>> wind is faster than the ship is already travelling and
>> isnt feasible on a container ship anyway.

> Sails are one of a number - many far more practical- measures to
> reduce energy consumption.

But is the one we happen to be discussing.

>>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/03/future-sailors-what-will-ships-look-like-in-30-years

>> Just because some fool arts student journoin that shit rag claims
>> something...

> He's written widely on energy for decades,

So have the fools who claimed that the CIA executed JFK

> and that article is a meta-piece.

Even google can make no sense of that

> I rate his work highly.

More fool you.

> What makes you say he's a fool/arts student?

I used that in the sense the turnip uses it.

His first sentence proves that.

'watch out for the return of the sailing ship'

Taint gunna happen, even just sail assist either.

And even his slender ships is fool/arts student shit.
That would need MORE ship trips, fool.

The rest of the article is even sillier, in spades
with the use LNG instead of fuel oil and covering
the entire deck with solar cells.Not going to work
with a container ship, stupid and wouldnt even
produce anything like enough power for even
a fucking oil tanker.

>>>> The owners want primary propulsionsystems with predictable delivery
>>>> times.

>>>> Maybe the ship shows up half a day early, with the sail assist. And
>>>> the oil bill is a tiny bit smaller.

>>> Just slowing down a bit can yield huge savings.

>> Bullshit it does given that no sail assist can actually deliver
>> showing up a day early often enough matter and isnt viable
>> on a container ship anyway.

> Just slowing down a bit can yield huge savings.

Record's stuck.

> https://www.environmentenergyleader.com/2010/02/maersk-cuts-fuel-use-emissions-30-by-slowing-down/

Irrelevant to what is being discussed SAILING SHIPS.

>>> But it'll need regulating as the financial cost/benefitto shipping
>>> operators is relatively small.

>> Regulating can't change the physics or economics.

> It can reduce fuel use, though.

Not with international shipping.

On 24-Mar-24 5:38, Paul wrote:
> They make corn ethanol for petrol, but the kind
> of corn for that is not food grade corn. the cobs of corn
> used, would not make a good meal. But what it does mean,
> is there is more corn grown for fuel, than Peaches and Cream
> corn for human consumption. Even if they stopped today,
> with making corn ethanol, you could not immediately seed
> all the fields and make good-quality edible corn the next year.
> And who knows what state the "fuel fields" are in anyway,
> in terms of growing anything else.

A large proportion of the maize grown in this country is used for animal
feed, and the use the whole plant, not just the cobs.
If you can persuade everyone to become vegetarian, then we could divert
all that animal feed into fuel production

--
Sam Plusnet

On 24 Mar 2024 at 19:16:57 GMT, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:

> f you can persuade everyone to become vegetarian ...

Sod that.

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy.

On 23/03/2024 16:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 23/03/2024 11:30, Andrew wrote:
>> On 22/03/2024 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2024 14:14, Andrew wrote:
>>>> On 22/03/2024 12:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 22/03/2024 10:10, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/03/2024 09:29, Soup wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/03/2024 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The reality of EcoBollox™ is that most of the time its there to
>>>>>>>> deflect the attention of the likes of Just Stop Everything! to
>>>>>>>> someone else by presenting oneself as the GoodGuy™. Since
>>>>>>>> JustStopEverything™ are, almost by definition, lowbrow
>>>>>>>> ArtStudents™ and hard left Trotskyites, with no scientific or
>>>>>>>> technical education whatsoever, *actually* achieving any carbon
>>>>>>>> gains is immaterial.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is the superficial *appearance* of Doing Something About
>>>>>>>> Climate Change that is important.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to think the only reason not to burn fuel is its effect
>>>>>>> on the climate.
>>>>>>>    What about when there is no fuel to burn (or at least no
>>>>>>> economicaly viable stuff)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think that the countries with massive reserves of oil are
>>>>>> going to give up this revenue stream?  As more of the world turns
>>>>>> to green technology oil will possibly become cheaper.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is predicated on the false  simple minded
>>>>> ArtStudent™assumption that 'green' technology results in less
>>>>> fossil fuel burned. The CO2 levels at Mauna Loa utterly refute that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If there is no oil then the problem is going to be greater than
>>>>>> transporting cargo across the world. No tyres for the green
>>>>>> bicycles, no smooth surfaces for the cycle tracks, no soles and
>>>>>> heels on shoes* etc. etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You cannot have alternatives such a leather because the herds of
>>>>>> livestock generating greenhouse methane will all have been
>>>>>> slaughtered long before the oil runs out.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually petrochemical feedstocks is not a big issue. We cant grow
>>>>> enough carbon organic compounds for energy but we sure can to make
>>>>> synthetic hydrocarbons for e.g. plastic and synthetic rubbers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Utter BS. There are many, many types of 'plastic' that can
>>>> only be derived from oil.
>>>>
>>> Utter BS. Oil is when all is said and done only rotted down organic
>>> matter
>>>
>>> It's merely a matter of cost.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You mean the cost to society when the highly specialised
>> plastics used to make blood collection and processing bags
>> is no longer available, forcing the NBTS to turn the clock
>> back 50+ years and resume using glass bottles with rubber
>> and glass tubing for the taking and giving sets .
>>
>> I remember those days. My first job was with the regional
>> transfusion centre that was, even in 1971, still using glass
>> bottles and rubber taking sets for 10% of its donations.
>>
>> You are utterly clueless if you think the NHS and all its
>> associated supply chains can manage without 'plastic' from
>> oil.
>
> There is nothing special about 'plastic from oil' .You are utterly
> clueless if you think that a simple long chain hydrocarbon can't be
> produced from an organic feedstock that hasn't sat in the earth a
> million years, but was grown a year ago instead.
>
>
>

And you are even more clueless if you believe that the conditions
that converted organic material millions of years ago (and no
longer exist on planet earth today) can be replicated in a test
tube on the stuff that grows today.

On 22/03/2024 15:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 12:45, RJH wrote:
>> On 22 Mar 2024 at 11:52:29 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>>> Seen the recent profits of oil companies (and shareholders) recently?
>>>>
>>> Indeed. My profits in shelll shares almost offset the extra money I have
>>> to pay for oil and road fuel and general inflation
>>>
>>
>> Good for you - most didn't have that luxury.
> Anyone could have bought Shell shares.
> Why didn't you?
>
>
>

Clever people realised that 'sod the FTSE' back in 2009
and put all their money inthe US stock markets have done
far better.

Anyone holding Shell and Rolls Royce shares in 2019 will
have lost a great deal of their *capital* by April 2021.

On 24/03/2024 19:31, Andrew wrote:
> On 23/03/2024 16:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 23/03/2024 11:30, Andrew wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2024 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 22/03/2024 14:14, Andrew wrote:
>>>>> On 22/03/2024 12:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/03/2024 10:10, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/03/2024 09:29, Soup wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2024 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The reality of EcoBollox™ is that most of the time its there to
>>>>>>>>> deflect the attention of the likes of Just Stop Everything! to
>>>>>>>>> someone else by presenting oneself as the GoodGuy™. Since
>>>>>>>>> JustStopEverything™ are, almost by definition, lowbrow
>>>>>>>>> ArtStudents™ and hard left Trotskyites, with no scientific or
>>>>>>>>> technical education whatsoever, *actually* achieving any carbon
>>>>>>>>> gains is immaterial.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is the superficial *appearance* of Doing Something About
>>>>>>>>> Climate Change that is important.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to think the only reason not to burn fuel is its effect
>>>>>>>> on the climate.
>>>>>>>>    What about when there is no fuel to burn (or at least no
>>>>>>>> economicaly viable stuff)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think that the countries with massive reserves of oil are
>>>>>>> going to give up this revenue stream?  As more of the world turns
>>>>>>> to green technology oil will possibly become cheaper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is predicated on the false  simple minded
>>>>>> ArtStudent™assumption that 'green' technology results in less
>>>>>> fossil fuel burned. The CO2 levels at Mauna Loa utterly refute that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is no oil then the problem is going to be greater than
>>>>>>> transporting cargo across the world. No tyres for the green
>>>>>>> bicycles, no smooth surfaces for the cycle tracks, no soles and
>>>>>>> heels on shoes* etc. etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You cannot have alternatives such a leather because the herds of
>>>>>>> livestock generating greenhouse methane will all have been
>>>>>>> slaughtered long before the oil runs out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually petrochemical feedstocks is not a big issue. We cant grow
>>>>>> enough carbon organic compounds for energy but we sure can to make
>>>>>> synthetic hydrocarbons for e.g. plastic and synthetic rubbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Utter BS. There are many, many types of 'plastic' that can
>>>>> only be derived from oil.
>>>>>
>>>> Utter BS. Oil is when all is said and done only rotted down organic
>>>> matter
>>>>
>>>> It's merely a matter of cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You mean the cost to society when the highly specialised
>>> plastics used to make blood collection and processing bags
>>> is no longer available, forcing the NBTS to turn the clock
>>> back 50+ years and resume using glass bottles with rubber
>>> and glass tubing for the taking and giving sets .
>>>
>>> I remember those days. My first job was with the regional
>>> transfusion centre that was, even in 1971, still using glass
>>> bottles and rubber taking sets for 10% of its donations.
>>>
>>> You are utterly clueless if you think the NHS and all its
>>> associated supply chains can manage without 'plastic' from
>>> oil.
>>
>> There is nothing special about 'plastic from oil' .You are utterly
>> clueless if you think that a simple long chain hydrocarbon can't be
>> produced from an organic feedstock that hasn't sat in the earth a
>> million years, but was grown a year ago instead.
>>
>>
>>
>
> And you are even more clueless if you believe that the conditions
> that converted organic material millions of years ago (and no
> longer exist on planet earth today) can be replicated in a test
> tube on the stuff that grows today.
>
>
Why would they need to be?
Oil is very simple stuff.
Its just long chain hydrocarbons for the most part. Methane can be made
in a biodigester just as easily as pumped from the ground.
Peat IS coal, in its early stages.

What the fuck did you think e.g. Biodiesel is made from?

--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 24/03/2024 19:34, Andrew wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 15:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 22/03/2024 12:45, RJH wrote:
>>> On 22 Mar 2024 at 11:52:29 GMT, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Seen the recent profits of oil companies (and shareholders) recently?
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed. My profits in shelll shares almost offset the extra money I
>>>> have
>>>> to pay for oil and road fuel and general inflation
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good for you - most didn't have that luxury.
>> Anyone could have bought Shell shares.
>> Why didn't you?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Clever people realised that 'sod the FTSE' back in 2009
> and put all their money inthe US stock markets have done
> far better.
>
> Anyone holding Shell and Rolls Royce shares in 2019 will
> have lost a great deal of their *capital* by April 2021.
>

Bollocks. I made a bloody fortune on shell, but dumped rolls royce and
am now buying back in

Shell has more than doubled since then

--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."

- Stephen Vizinczey

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 06:31:33 +1100, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> On 23/03/2024 16:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 23/03/2024 11:30, Andrew wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2024 15:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 22/03/2024 14:14, Andrew wrote:
>>>>> On 22/03/2024 12:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/03/2024 10:10, alan_m wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/03/2024 09:29, Soup wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/03/2024 11:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The reality of EcoBollox™ is that most of the time its there to
>>>>>>>>> deflect the attention of the likes of Just Stop Everything! to
>>>>>>>>> someone else by presenting oneself as the GoodGuy™. Since
>>>>>>>>> JustStopEverything™ are, almost by definition, lowbrow
>>>>>>>>> ArtStudents™ and hard left Trotskyites, with no scientific or
>>>>>>>>> technical education whatsoever, *actually* achieving any carbon
>>>>>>>>> gains is immaterial.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is the superficial *appearance* of Doing Something About
>>>>>>>>> Climate Change that is important.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to think the only reason not to burn fuel is its effect
>>>>>>>> on the climate.
>>>>>>>> What about when there is no fuel to burn (or at least no
>>>>>>>> economicaly viable stuff)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think that the countries with massive reserves of oil are
>>>>>>> going to give up this revenue stream? As more of the world turns
>>>>>>> to green technology oil will possibly become cheaper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is predicated on the false simple minded
>>>>>> ArtStudent™assumption that 'green' technology results in less
>>>>>> fossil fuel burned. The CO2 levels at Mauna Loa utterly refute that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is no oil then the problem is going to be greater than
>>>>>>> transporting cargo across the world. No tyres for the green
>>>>>>> bicycles, no smooth surfaces for the cycle tracks, no soles and
>>>>>>> heels on shoes* etc. etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You cannot have alternatives such a leather because the herds of
>>>>>>> livestock generating greenhouse methane will all have been
>>>>>>> slaughtered long before the oil runs out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually petrochemical feedstocks is not a big issue. We cant grow
>>>>>> enough carbon organic compounds for energy but we sure can to make
>>>>>> synthetic hydrocarbons for e.g. plastic and synthetic rubbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Utter BS. There are many, many types of 'plastic' that can
>>>>> only be derived from oil.
>>>>>
>>>> Utter BS. Oil is when all is said and done only rotted down organic
>>>> matter
>>>>
>>>> It's merely a matter of cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You mean the cost to society when the highly specialised
>>> plastics used to make blood collection and processing bags
>>> is no longer available, forcing the NBTS to turn the clock
>>> back 50+ years and resume using glass bottles with rubber
>>> and glass tubing for the taking and giving sets .
>>>
>>> I remember those days. My first job was with the regional
>>> transfusion centre that was, even in 1971, still using glass
>>> bottles and rubber taking sets for 10% of its donations.
>>>
>>> You are utterly clueless if you think the NHS and all its
>>> associated supply chains can manage without 'plastic' from
>>> oil.
>> There is nothing special about 'plastic from oil' .You are utterly
>> clueless if you think that a simple long chain hydrocarbon can't be
>> produced from an organic feedstock that hasn't sat in the earth a
>> million years, but was grown a year ago instead.
>>
>
> And you are even more clueless if you believe that the conditions
> that converted organic material millions of years ago (and no
> longer exist on planet earth today) can be replicated in a test
> tube on the stuff that grows today.

Ultimately ALL that matters with plastics is
where the carbon atoms come from. Its just
as easy to turn plant matter into plastics as oil.