I have always wondered why wind power isn't used in moving sea cargo
around since I was a lad ...

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/cargo-ship-sails-wind-windwings-
b2514396.html

In article <uta014$3k1q0$1@dont-email.me>, jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com
says...
>
> I have always wondered why wind power isn't used in moving sea cargo
> around since I was a lad ...
>
> https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/cargo-ship-sails-wind-windwings-
> b2514396.html

One of those Tomorrow's World ideas we forgot about?

--
Jim the Geordie

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.

> https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/cargo-ship-sails-wind-windwings-
> b2514396.html
>

I can do better than that...

http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20and%20Politics/ecosub.png

--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

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 ?

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 vessel shown in the OPs link has a modern take on using sails but
there are possibly some drawbacks such as extra drag and stability when
the wind isn't blowing in the direction that the ship needs to go and
during storm conditions. There are possible shortcomings with loading
and unloading with the sails getting in the way of dockside cranes etc.
No longer are cargos man-handled to and from cargo ships.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

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 vessel shown in the OPs link has a modern take on using sails but
> there are possibly some drawbacks such as extra drag and stability when
> the wind isn't blowing in the direction that the ship needs to go and
> during storm conditions. There are possible shortcomings with loading
> and unloading with the sails getting in the way of dockside cranes etc.
> No longer are cargos man-handled to and from cargo ships.
>

In addition, if the ship is travelling at a speed greater than what the
sails can provide then they become ineffective and and increase
inefficiency. Journey time is money so slowing down a ship just to use
the sails may cost millions for a large cargo ship. Putting sails on
bulk carriers is just another impractical green idea.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

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 vessel shown in the OPs link has a modern take on using sails but
> there are possibly some drawbacks such as extra drag and stability when
> the wind isn't blowing in the direction that the ship needs to go and
> during storm conditions. There are possible shortcomings with loading
> and unloading with the sails getting in the way of dockside cranes etc.
> No longer are cargos man-handled to and from cargo ships.
>

The point is that in the end the cost benefit of using sails versus even
shitty coal powered steam engines with a reliable top speed of little
more than a slow trot, was massively in favour of tramp steamers, not
clipper ships. One engineer, three stokers, a captain and maybe a first
officer replaced a crew of tens needed to trim sails. And journey times
were as good as or better than the clipper ships, because the tramps
simply plodded on in pretty much any weather conditions whereas the
clippers did not. And as pointed out, loading and unloading was way
easier without all that top hamper in the way.

The same problems of intermittency, high maintenance and high cost
plagued the sailing ships as much as they do modern wind turbines.

The obvious solution today is (armed) nuclear powered container ships.
That can outrun pirates and destroy them as well...

Companies in the UK, Norway, Sweden and elsewhere are looking into
nuclear reactors for container ships.

--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

In message <uta014$3k1q0$1@dont-email.me>, Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> writes
>I have always wondered why wind power isn't used in moving sea cargo
>around since I was a lad ...
>
>https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/cargo-ship-sails-wind-windwings-
>b2514396.html
>
Well shiver me timbers.

Https://gcaptain.com/chemship-launches-worlds-first-wind.../

"which is amplified by smart vacuum technology" Wonder what that is.
Mr Google is unhelpful here.

Maybe it's sucked along by a gigantic Dyson.

Brian
--
Brian Howie

On 19/03/2024 10:00, brian wrote:
> In message <uta014$3k1q0$1@dont-email.me>, Jethro_uk
> <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> writes
>> I have always wondered why wind power isn't used in moving sea cargo
>> around since I was a lad ...
>>
>> https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/cargo-ship-sails-wind-windwings-
>> b2514396.html
>>
> Well shiver me timbers.
>
> Https://gcaptain.com/chemship-launches-worlds-first-wind.../
>
>  "which is amplified by smart vacuum technology"   Wonder what that is.
> Mr Google is unhelpful here.
>
> Maybe it's sucked along by a gigantic Dyson.
>
I think you are overly optimistic., It's just yet more carefully crafted
bullshit, like 'sustainable development'

Which if you pause to actually think about it is, in a finite universe,
totally impossible. Everything has limits.

The tragedy is that people simply do *not* stop to think about it, they
swallow it and regurgitate it as a sign of moral virtue, all without the
inefficiencies involved in passing through their brains..

> Brian

--
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 19/03/2024 09:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>> On 19/03/2024 09:10, Soup wrote:

> The point is that in the end the cost benefit of using sails versus even
> shitty coal powered steam engines with a reliable top speed of little
> more than a slow trot, was massively in favour of tramp steamers, not
> clipper ships. One engineer, three stokers, a captain and maybe a first
> officer replaced a crew of tens needed to trim sails. And journey times
> were as good as or better than the clipper ships, because the tramps
> simply plodded on in pretty much any weather conditions whereas the
> clippers did not.

Many of the UK main trade routes of the time were with the Empire and by
1870 the Suez canal was open. Even a shitty tramp steamer could use the
canal while clipper ships couldn't under their own power.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 19/03/2024 10:00, brian wrote:
> In message <uta014$3k1q0$1@dont-email.me>, Jethro_uk
> <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> writes
>> I have always wondered why wind power isn't used in moving sea cargo
>> around since I was a lad ...
>>
>> https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/cargo-ship-sails-wind-windwings-
>> b2514396.html
>>
> Well shiver me timbers.
>
> Https://gcaptain.com/chemship-launches-worlds-first-wind.../
>
>  "which is amplified by smart vacuum technology"   Wonder what that is.
> Mr Google is unhelpful here.
>
> Maybe it's sucked along by a gigantic Dyson.

At a guess, it could be something similar to trials done with a Miles
Magister, many decades ago. The wings were covered with perforated
sheets, which, using a separate engine, drew air through the tiny holes.
This prevented the surface layer breaking away and creating turbulence,
resulting true laminar airflow. However, for an aircraft, the benefit
was not enough to justify the additional weight and complexity.

--
Colin Bignell

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 (not a
problem with an engine sized to be able to complete the entire journey
without wind or with adverse winds, if necessary); the manpower needed
to set, adjust and maintain the sails and rigging (not a problem with
powered systems and no need for ropes); and obstruction for loading
(again not a problem, with "rigid" systems that do not require miles of
rigging that gets in the way).

All the sails have to do is reduce fuel use enough to be cost (including
carbon taxes) beneficial.

> The vessel shown in the OPs link has a modern take on using sails but
> there are possibly some drawbacks such as extra drag and stability when
> the wind isn't blowing in the direction that the ship needs to go and
> during storm conditions.

It says that it can fold the sails - likely lying them down at deck
level, so little drag or roll effect.

> There are possible shortcomings with loading
> and unloading with the sails getting in the way of dockside cranes etc.
> No longer are cargos man-handled to and from cargo ships.

With no rigging, there will be little interference with loading. Indeed,
many ships still have masts for mounting aerials, derricks for
self-loading and unloading, etc.

On 19/03/2024 10:40, alan_m wrote:
> On 19/03/2024 09:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 19/03/2024 09:10, Soup wrote:
>
>
>> The point is that in the end the cost benefit of using sails versus
>> even shitty coal powered steam engines with a reliable top speed of
>> little more than a slow trot, was massively in favour of tramp
>> steamers, not clipper ships. One engineer, three stokers, a captain
>> and maybe a first officer replaced a crew of tens needed to trim
>> sails. And journey times were as good as or better than the clipper
>> ships, because the tramps simply plodded on in pretty much any weather
>> conditions whereas the clippers did not.
>
>
> Many of the UK main trade routes of the time were with the Empire and by
> 1870 the Suez canal was open.  Even a shitty tramp steamer could use the
> canal while clipper ships couldn't under their own power.
>
There were more than UK trade routes and whilst what you say is true, I
dont think it was a major factor.

I suspect the Suez canal was built because steamships could use it, (and
the Mediterranean), whereas sail in the congested island filled
Mediterranean was a tricky business.

In reality steam was already increasingly dominant by 1860, and the
clipper ships already in decline.

The multiple expansion compound steam engine was by then the thing to
have, and it was a lot better than what came before, in terms of reduced
size and weight and coal requirements.

Steam was simply streets ahead.

The same transitions were taking place in the UK industry where reliable
steam power was replacing all the wind and water mills.

e.g.

"The steam engine on the Old West River (Great Ouse) just south of
Stretham was built by the Butterley Company of Derbyshire in 1831, at a
cost of £4950. It replaced four nearby windmills and its scoop wheel was
used successfully for over a century to lift water from flood channels
back into the river. Powered by coal that was brought by barge, it
consumed a ton of fuel every four hours. "

After WWI they switched to Diesel, and then to electric.

Simply because every change resulted in less manpower and more efficiency.

Today the East Anglian Fens are drained by unattended float level
controlled electric pumps.

Not fucking windmills. Those are just museums

The ONLY reason we are using windmills today is because of lobbying by
german windmill companies and the mandatory imposition of a 'renewable
obligation' which doesn't even mention carbon emissions. And does
nothing to alter them

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

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 ?
>

Docking with engines is so much safer and easier

Sometimes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDOMhCCpTnQ

On 19/03/2024 10:34, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 19/03/2024 10:00, brian wrote:
>> In message <uta014$3k1q0$1@dont-email.me>, Jethro_uk
>> <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> writes
>>> I have always wondered why wind power isn't used in moving sea cargo
>>> around since I was a lad ...
>>>
>>> https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/cargo-ship-sails-wind-windwings-
>>> b2514396.html
>>>
>> Well shiver me timbers.
>>
>> Https://gcaptain.com/chemship-launches-worlds-first-wind.../
>>
>>   "which is amplified by smart vacuum technology"   Wonder what that
>> is. Mr Google is unhelpful here.
>>
>> Maybe it's sucked along by a gigantic Dyson.
>
> At a guess, it could be something similar to trials done with a Miles
> Magister, many decades ago. The wings were covered with perforated
> sheets, which, using a separate engine, drew air through the tiny holes.
> This prevented the surface layer breaking away and creating turbulence,
> resulting true laminar airflow. However, for an aircraft, the benefit
> was not enough to justify the additional weight and complexity.
>
>
Probably. Blown flaps and slats were (and still are) far easier ways to
achieve more low speed lift.

An interesting experiment was done with formula one with fans sucking
the car to the ground. It is still the way to achieve maximum
acceleration and grip at slow speeds, but they banned it.

Anyway, as the saying guess. Nothing sucks like an Electrolux, except a
Dyson

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 19/03/2024 11:06, SteveW wrote:

> The reason sail disappeared was the unreliability of the wind (not a
> problem with an engine sized to be able to complete the entire journey
> without wind or with adverse winds, if necessary); the manpower needed
> to set, adjust and maintain the sails and rigging (not a problem with
> powered systems and no need for ropes); and obstruction for loading
> (again not a problem, with "rigid" systems that do not require miles of
> rigging that gets in the way).
>
+1
> All the sails have to do is reduce fuel use enough to be cost (including
> carbon taxes) beneficial.
>
Well therein lies the rub. In fact you can save the most fuel by slowing
the ship down.

So the economics of transporting freight are a balance between less
tonne miles per year against fixed financing costs of the ship, or
higher fuel costs, and higher finance costs to build and maintain the
extra complexity of the 'sails'.

I feel reasonably sure that if it were that much of a good idea people
would have been doing it for years.

>> The vessel shown in the OPs link has a modern take on using sails but
>> there are possibly some drawbacks such as extra drag and stability
>> when the wind isn't blowing in the direction that the ship needs to go
>> and during storm conditions.
>
> It says that it can fold the sails - likely lying them down at deck
> level, so little drag or roll effect.
>
Just increased complexity, fragility, and capital cost.

>> There are possible shortcomings with loading and unloading with the
>> sails getting in the way of dockside cranes etc. No longer are cargos
>> man-handled to and from cargo ships.
>
> With no rigging, there will be little interference with loading. Indeed,
> many ships still have masts for mounting aerials, derricks for
> self-loading and unloading, etc.
>
Not most container ships. They are 100% dockside crane grabbers
>

--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 19/03/2024 09:56, The Natural Philosopher 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 vessel shown in the OPs link has a modern take on using sails but
>> there are possibly some drawbacks such as extra drag and stability
>> when the wind isn't blowing in the direction that the ship needs to go
>> and during storm conditions. There are possible shortcomings with
>> loading and unloading with the sails getting in the way of dockside
>> cranes etc. No longer are cargos man-handled to and from cargo ships.
>>
>
> The point is that in the end the cost benefit of using sails versus even
> shitty coal powered steam engines with a reliable top speed of little
> more than a slow trot, was massively in favour of tramp steamers, not
> clipper ships. One engineer, three stokers, a captain and maybe a first
> officer replaced a crew of tens needed to trim sails. And journey times
> were as good as or better than the clipper ships, because the tramps
> simply plodded on in pretty much any weather conditions whereas the
> clippers did not. And as pointed out, loading and unloading was way
> easier without all that top hamper in the way.
>
> The same problems of intermittency, high maintenance and high cost
> plagued the sailing ships as much as they do modern wind turbines.

But, for modern ships, the sails are to *assist* the engines, reducing
consumption. If the wind is wrong, they will simply be folded out of the
way.

The problem with loading and unloading was not due to the masts (which
these rigid sails resemble), but to the many miles of rigging, running
all over the place. The modern systems not requiring rigging would be
little affected.

> The obvious solution today is (armed) nuclear powered container ships.
> That can outrun pirates and destroy them as well...
>
> Companies in the UK, Norway, Sweden and elsewhere are looking into
> nuclear reactors for container ships.

Widescale nuclear propulsion would always run the risk of release due to
collisions, attacks, etc. Many countries would likely ban nuclear
powered vessels from their waters - some have already done so with
friendly powers' warships.

In article <h5edneBB_Ymh92T4nZ2dnZeNn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
> On 19/03/2024 10:00, brian wrote:
> > In message <uta014$3k1q0$1@dont-email.me>, Jethro_uk
> > <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> writes
> >> I have always wondered why wind power isn't used in moving sea cargo
> >> around since I was a lad ...
> >>
> >> https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/cargo-ship-sails-wind-windwings-
> >> b2514396.html
> >>
> > Well shiver me timbers.
> >
> > Https://gcaptain.com/chemship-launches-worlds-first-wind.../
> >
> > "which is amplified by smart vacuum technology" Wonder what that
> > is. Mr Google is unhelpful here.
> >
> > Maybe it's sucked along by a gigantic Dyson.

> At a guess, it could be something similar to trials done with a Miles
> Magister, many decades ago.

Yes, I remember this - around 1960- when I was at University.

> The wings were covered with perforated sheets, which, using a separate
> engine, drew air through the tiny holes. This prevented the surface
> layer breaking away and creating turbulence, resulting true laminar
> airflow. However, for an aircraft, the benefit was not enough to justify
> the additional weight and complexity.

The object was to provide short take off and landing. Concrete for longer
runways was cheaper.

> --

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 19/03/2024 11:54, SteveW wrote:
> Widescale nuclear propulsion would always run the risk of release due to
> collisions, attacks, etc. Many countries would likely ban nuclear
> powered vessels from their waters - some have already done so with
> friendly powers' warships.

If they don't want global trade then they are free to do that.

Much of the confusion in these discussions arises from the fact that
people consider that nuclear power is an alternative. It isn't.

It is the *only* alternative...

It will not be driven by choice or moral argument but by the simple fact
that if you pull fossil out of the equation it is *all* you have left.
(that actually works)

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

- Stephen Vizinczey

On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:56:16 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>The obvious solution today is (armed) nuclear powered container ships.
>That can outrun pirates and destroy them as well...
>
>Companies in the UK, Norway, Sweden and elsewhere are looking into
>nuclear reactors for container ships.

The 'Savannah' comes to mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

--
Chris

On 19/03/2024 10:40, alan_m wrote:
> On 19/03/2024 09:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 19/03/2024 09:40, alan_m wrote:
>>> On 19/03/2024 09:10, Soup wrote:
>
>
>> The point is that in the end the cost benefit of using sails versus
>> even shitty coal powered steam engines with a reliable top speed of
>> little more than a slow trot, was massively in favour of tramp
>> steamers, not clipper ships. One engineer, three stokers, a captain
>> and maybe a first officer replaced a crew of tens needed to trim
>> sails. And journey times were as good as or better than the clipper
>> ships, because the tramps simply plodded on in pretty much any weather
>> conditions whereas the clippers did not.
>
>
> Many of the UK main trade routes of the time were with the Empire and by
> 1870 the Suez canal was open.  Even a shitty tramp steamer could use the
> canal while clipper ships couldn't under their own power.
>

We only controlled a quarter of the world's land surface and we did a
lot of trade with the bits we didn't control as well. Clippers, designed
for speed above carrying capacity or economy of operation, were built
for the China tea trade, for example.

I don't think that the advent of steam affected the decision to build
the Suez canal. The idea had ben explored by the Venetians in the 15th
century and the French in the 17th and 18th, as a way to avoid having to
transit the treacherous seas around the Cape of Good Hope. Steam
probably made a difference as to whether it could be built though, as
most of the original modern canal (the Pharaohs had one) was dug by machine.

--
Colin Bignell

On 3/19/2024 5:50 AM, alan_m 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 vessel shown in the OPs link has a modern take on using sails but there are possibly some drawbacks such as extra drag and stability when the wind isn't blowing in the direction that the ship needs to go and during storm conditions. There are possible shortcomings with loading and unloading with the sails getting in the way of dockside cranes etc. No longer are cargos man-handled to and from cargo ships.
>>
>
> In addition, if the ship is travelling at a speed greater than what the sails can provide then they become ineffective and and increase inefficiency. Journey time is money so slowing down a ship just to use the sails may cost millions for a large cargo ship. Putting sails on bulk carriers is just another impractical green idea.
>

This is not an aggressive sail design. It's designed for low maintenance.
That is why it has such a small sail area.

https://static.independent.co.uk/2024/03/18/13/cargo%20ship%20sails.jpg?quality=75&width=1368&auto=webp

Paul

On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:10:24 +1100, Soup <cheez2011@gmail.com> 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 ?

Wind is intermittent.

On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:06:27 +1100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
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 (not a
> problem with an engine sized to be able to complete the entire journey
> without wind or with adverse winds, if necessary); the manpower needed
> to set, adjust and maintain the sails and rigging (not a problem with
> powered systems and no need for ropes); and obstruction for loading
> (again not a problem, with "rigid" systems that do not require miles of
> rigging that gets in the way).
>
> All the sails have to do is reduce fuel use enough to be cost (including
> carbon taxes) beneficial.

The problem is that it isnt.

There is one cruise ship that does it that way, and
since its a cruise ship, not a problem with getting
the containers on and off, but its a dud economically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Med_2

And there is no way to do a container ship wind assisted.

>> The vessel shown in the OPs link has a modern take on using sails but
>> there are possibly some drawbacks such as extra drag and stability when
>> the wind isn't blowing in the direction that the ship needs to go and
>> during storm conditions.

> It says that it can fold the sails - likely lying themdown at deck
> level, so little drag or roll effect.

Not going to work with a container ship.

>> There are possible shortcomings with loading and unloading with the
>> sails getting in the way of dockside cranes etc. No longer are cargos
>> man-handled to and from cargo ships.

> With no rigging, there will be little interference with loading. Indeed,
> many ships still have masts for mounting aerials, derricks for
> self-loading and unloading, etc.

But container ships don't.

On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:54:28 +1100, SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
wrote:

> On 19/03/2024 09:56, The Natural Philosopher 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 vessel shown in the OPs link has a modern take on using sails but
>>> there are possibly some drawbacks such as extra drag and stability
>>> when the wind isn't blowing in the direction that the ship needs to go
>>> and during storm conditions. There are possible shortcomings with
>>> loading and unloading with the sails getting in the way of dockside
>>> cranes etc. No longer are cargos man-handled to and from cargo ships.
>>>
>> The point is that in the end the cost benefit of using sails versus
>> even shitty coal powered steam engines with a reliable top speed of
>> little more than a slow trot, was massively in favour of tramp
>> steamers, not clipper ships. One engineer, three stokers, a captain and
>> maybe a first officer replaced a crew of tens needed to trim sails. And
>> journey times were as good as or better than the clipper ships, because
>> the tramps simply plodded on in pretty much any weather conditions
>> whereas the clippers did not. And as pointed out, loading and unloading
>> was way easier without all that top hamper in the way.
>> The same problems of intermittency, high maintenance and high cost
>> plagued the sailing ships as much as they do modern wind turbines.
>
> But, for modern ships, the sails are to *assist* the engines, reducing
> consumption. If the wind is wrong, they will simply be folded out of the
> way.
>
> The problem with loading and unloading was not due to the masts (which
> these rigid sails resemble), but to the many miles of rigging, running
> all over the place. The modern systems not requiring rigging would be
> little affected.

But no way to do the rigid sail masts on a container
ship and no where to put the sails when not needed.

>> The obvious solution today is (armed) nuclear powered container ships.
>> That can outrun pirates and destroy them as well...
>> Companies in the UK, Norway, Sweden and elsewhere are looking into
>> nuclear reactors for container ships.

> Widescale nuclear propulsion would always run the risk of release due to
> collisions, attacks, etc. Many countries would likely ban nuclear
> powered vessels from their waters - some have already done so with
> friendly powers' warships.

That last is because they are targets for nuke missiles.

Nuke powered contain vessels arent.