On 24/03/2024 21:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 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?
>

I did a quick Google earlier today, to see if normal plastics could be
produced from plants, and quoted polyurethane.

Also, polyethylene is the most common plastic and is produced from the
C2H4 monomer, which can be derived from ethanol, although they normally
use petrochemicals.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene>

But... I think asking if they can make existing plastics from plants was
the wrong question. I don't think they want to duplicate existing
plastics. I think they are looking to produce new plastics with
different characteristics. For instance, ones that decompose in a
reasonable timespan. I think that is what the bioplastic industry will
be about.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:25:50 +1100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:

> On 24/03/2024 21:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>
> I did a quick Google earlier today, to see if normal plastics could be
> produced from plants, and quoted polyurethane.
>
> Also, polyethylene is the most common plastic and is produced from the
> C2H4 monomer, which can be derived from ethanol, although they normally
> use petrochemicals.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene>
>
> But... I think asking if they can make existing plastics from plants was
> the wrong question. I don't think they want to duplicate existing
> plastics. I think they are looking to produce new plastics with
> different characteristics. For instance, ones that decompose in a
> reasonable timespan. I think that is what the bioplastic industry will
> be about.

Sure, but that is an entirely separate issue to what we make
plastics from once the oil and gas is no longer economic to
make plastics from.

On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>> every last ounce of speed?
>
> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can get that to
> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another something and
> get *that* shipped.
>

With bulk materials, like minerals, a continuous supply is needed.
Whether or not that is done by means of a few fast carriers or rather
more slow carriers won't matter to the customer.

--
Colin Bignell

On 24/03/2024 22:25, Pancho wrote:
> I did a quick Google earlier today, to see if normal plastics could be
> produced from plants, and quoted polyurethane.
>
> Also, polyethylene is the most common plastic and is produced from the
> C2H4 monomer, which can be derived from ethanol, although they normally
> use petrochemicals.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene>
>
> But... I think asking if they can make existing plastics from plants was
> the wrong question. I don't think they want to duplicate existing
> plastics. I think they are looking to produce new plastics with
> different characteristics. For instance, ones that decompose in a
> reasonable timespan. I think that is what the bioplastic industry will
> be about.

Well yes. There are two things about current plastic usage
- its easy to make from crude oil distillates,
- it works.

Organo-plastics will follow the same pattern
As long as they work, exactly *which* plastics are employed is moot.
Most 3D printers use polylactic acid made from corn starch.
It is supposed to degrade in a few years. Its not bad, The vast majority
of disposable items *could* be made from it.

PVC is in principle synthesisable from methanol or ethanol starting points.

Rayon was originally synthesised from plant cellulose.
Remeber that nylon only goes nack to 1938 or thereabouts, and it was the
first thermplastic polymer.

Before that we had thermosetting plastics made of coal tar, and/or wood
products.
Bakelite is a classic example, IIRC a phenolic resin impregnating sawdust.

Phenol is hard to make directly from plant material though

--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

On 25/03/2024 15:41, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>   How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>
>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can get
>> that to
>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>> something and
>> get *that* shipped.
>>
>
> With bulk materials, like minerals, a continuous supply is needed.
> Whether or not that is done by means of a few fast carriers or rather
> more slow carriers won't matter to the customer.
>
But the price will.

Slow carriers will be more expensive as they cant get the tonne miles
per year up to a sane value.

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 25/03/2024 16:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 25/03/2024 15:41, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>   How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>
>>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can get
>>> that to
>>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>>> something and
>>> get *that* shipped.
>>>
>>
>> With bulk materials, like minerals, a continuous supply is needed.
>> Whether or not that is done by means of a few fast carriers or rather
>> more slow carriers won't matter to the customer.
>>
> But the price will.
>
> Slow carriers will be more expensive as they cant get the tonne miles
> per year up to a sane value.
>

Unless they can bring the cost per mile down enough to compensate, for
example by using wind assisted ships :-)

--
Colin Bignell

On 25/03/2024 16:36, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 25/03/2024 16:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 25/03/2024 15:41, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>>
>>>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can
>>>> get that to
>>>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>>>> something and
>>>> get *that* shipped.
>>>>
>>>
>>> With bulk materials, like minerals, a continuous supply is needed.
>>> Whether or not that is done by means of a few fast carriers or rather
>>> more slow carriers won't matter to the customer.
>>>
>> But the price will.
>>
>> Slow carriers will be more expensive as they cant get the tonne miles
>> per year up to a sane value.
>>
>
> Unless they can bring the cost per mile down enough to compensate, for
> example by using wind assisted ships :-)
>
Exactly, and that is why there wont be any wind assisted ships. They
cant bring the cost down enough to justify the expense and complexity.

If you look at a sailing ship that CAN actually generate useful power,
the sails are *massive*

Do the calculations.
There is no cost benefit advantage It would be better to erect solar
panels all along the decks. Except that's where you stack containers...

>

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 25/03/2024 16:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 25/03/2024 16:36, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 25/03/2024 16:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 25/03/2024 15:41, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>   How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>>>
>>>>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can
>>>>> get that to
>>>>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>>>>> something and
>>>>> get *that* shipped.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With bulk materials, like minerals, a continuous supply is needed.
>>>> Whether or not that is done by means of a few fast carriers or
>>>> rather more slow carriers won't matter to the customer.
>>>>
>>> But the price will.
>>>
>>> Slow carriers will be more expensive as they cant get the tonne miles
>>> per year up to a sane value.
>>>
>>
>> Unless they can bring the cost per mile down enough to compensate, for
>> example by using wind assisted ships :-)
>>
> Exactly, and that is why there wont be any wind assisted ships. They
> cant bring the cost down enough to justify the expense and complexity.
>
> If you look at a sailing ship that CAN actually generate useful power,
> the sails are *massive*

Square rigged ships needed big sails, because they are,
counter-intuitively, propelled by the drag those sails create. Aerofoil
sails, including things like Bermuda rig and gaff rig, use lift to
propel the ships, so don't need to be so large, although for an ocean
going ship they will still be very big. Compare the size of the
parachute in the ballistic recovery systems used in some light aircraft
to the size of the wings they use in normal flight. Both need to carry
the same weight, but the parachute needs to be larger and, apparently,
still gives quite a hard landing.

>
> Do the calculations.
> There is no cost benefit advantage It would be better to erect solar
> panels all along the decks. Except that's where you stack containers...

Not on a bulk carrier.

--
Colin Bignell

On 23/03/2024 16:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 23/03/2024 11:36, Andrew wrote:
>> On 22/03/2024 18:13, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 22 Mar 2024 at 10:49:41 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/03/2024 23:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can get
>>>>>> that to
>>>>>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>>>>>> something and
>>>>>> get *that* shipped.
>>>>>>
>>>>> There is another issue apart from customer impatience, and that is
>>>>> simple economics.
>>>>>
>>>>> the ship costs a certain amount of capital, and that is on usually a
>>>>> bond type loan from some big financial house, on a fixed rate of
>>>>> interest. The more cargo can be shifted per year, the more money there
>>>>> is to repay that bond. Conversely the faster you move the ship, the
>>>>> more
>>>>> fuel it burns per tonne mile, and so there exist some compromise that
>>>>> returns the best rate on capital.
>>>>>
>>>>> On a nuclear ship, where fuel cost is so low its irrelevant, you
>>>>> want to
>>>>> go as fast as possible without placing undue wear on the propulsion
>>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>> An amazing number of container ships come to grief every decade.
>>>> The thought of these contaminating the oceans and making
>>>> salvage ops *very* expensive is the reason why nuclear powered
>>>> commercial shipping is a non-starter.
>>>
>>> There's already a couple of nuke subs in Davey Jones' Locker, not to
>>> mention
>>> all the defunct Russian subs just left to rot in their northern
>>> ports. Was
>>> that the contamination you had in mind or was it something else? The
>>> 4 billion
>>> tons of uranium in the world's oceans, perhaps?
>>>
>>
>> The EU has invested a lot of money moving the reactors from those
>> ex-soviet subs to a safe location where they can be monitored.
>> They are no longer 'rotting away'.
>>
>> Uranium is not a problem. It's the highly dangerous and long-
>> lived by products in spent fuel and containment systems that are
>> the problem.
>
> Name one.
>
> If its long lived it isn't highly dangerous, by definition.
>
>

Chernobyl

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:41:30 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>> every last ounce of speed?
>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can get
>> that to
>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>> something and
>> get *that* shipped.

> With bulk materials, like minerals, a continuous supply is needed.

No it isn't, with most of them there is no JIT with those.

> Whether or not that is done by means of a few fast carriersor rather
> more slow carriers won't matter to the customer.

That's wrong too. more slow carriers cost more.

That's why the bulk mineral carriers are so fucking large.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:36:11 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 25/03/2024 16:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 25/03/2024 15:41, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>>
>>>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can get
>>>> that to
>>>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>>>> something and
>>>> get *that* shipped.
>>>>
>>>
>>> With bulk materials, like minerals, a continuous supply is needed.
>>> Whether or not that is done by means of a few fast carriers or rather
>>> more slow carriers won't matter to the customer.
>>>
>> But the price will.
>> Slow carriers will be more expensive as they cant get the tonne miles
>> per year up to a sane value.
>>
>
> Unless they can bring the cost per mile down enough to compensate, for
> example by using wind assisted ships :-)

No possibility of that.

On 25/03/2024 18:23, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:41:30 +1100, Colin Bignell
> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>   How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>  All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can
>>> get that to
>>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>>> something and
>>> get *that* shipped.
>
>> With bulk materials, like minerals, a continuous supply is needed.
>
> No it isn't, with most of them there is no JIT with those.

Which was the point I was making.

>> Whether or not that is done by means of a few fast carriersor rather
>> more slow carriers won't matter to the customer.
>
> That's wrong too. more slow carriers cost more.

You are not keeping up with the thread.

> That's why the bulk mineral carriers are so fucking large.

--
Colin Bignell

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:48:38 +1100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 25/03/2024 16:36, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 25/03/2024 16:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 25/03/2024 15:41, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>>>
>>>>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can
>>>>> get that to
>>>>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>>>>> something and
>>>>> get *that* shipped.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With bulk materials, like minerals, a continuous supply is needed.
>>>> Whether or not that is done by means of a few fast carriers or rather
>>>> more slow carriers won't matter to the customer.
>>>>
>>> But the price will.
>>>
>>> Slow carriers will be more expensive as they cant get the tonne miles
>>> per year up to a sane value.
>>>
>> Unless they can bring the cost per mile down enough to compensate, for
>> example by using wind assisted ships :-)
>>
> Exactly, and that is why there wont be any wind assisted ships. They
> cant bring the cost down enough to justify the expense and complexity.
>
> If you look at a sailing ship that CAN actually generate useful power,
> the sails are *massive*
>
> Do the calculations.
> There is no cost benefit advantage It would be better to erect solar
> panels all along the decks. Except that's where you stack containers...

And even with bulk carriers there just isnt enough area.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:32:02 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 25/03/2024 16:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 25/03/2024 16:36, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>> On 25/03/2024 16:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 25/03/2024 15:41, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>>> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can
>>>>>> get that to
>>>>>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>>>>>> something and
>>>>>> get *that* shipped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With bulk materials, like minerals, a continuous supply is needed.
>>>>> Whether or not that is done by means of a few fast carriers or
>>>>> rather more slow carriers won't matter to the customer.
>>>>>
>>>> But the price will.
>>>>
>>>> Slow carriers will be more expensive as they cant get the tonne miles
>>>> per year up to a sane value.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unless they can bring the cost per mile down enough to compensate, for
>>> example by using wind assisted ships :-)
>>>
>> Exactly, and that is why there wont be any wind assisted ships. They
>> cant bring the cost down enough to justify the expense and complexity.
>> If you look at a sailing ship that CAN actually generate useful power,
>> the sails are *massive*
>
> Square rigged ships needed big sails, because they are,
> counter-intuitively, propelled by the drag those sails create. Aerofoil
> sails, including things like Bermuda rig and gaff rig, use lift to
> propel the ships, so don't need to be so large, although for an ocean
> going ship they will still be very big. Compare the size of the
> parachute in the ballistic recovery systems used in some light aircraft
> to the size of the wings they use in normal flight. Both need to carry
> the same weight, but the parachute needs to be larger and, apparently,
> still gives quite a hard landing.
>
>> Do the calculations.
>> There is no cost benefit advantage It would be better to erect solar
>> panels all along the decks. Except that's where you stack containers...
>
> Not on a bulk carrier.

They don't have enough area to be useful.

On 25/03/2024 17:38, Andrew wrote:
> On 23/03/2024 16:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 23/03/2024 11:36, Andrew wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2024 18:13, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 22 Mar 2024 at 10:49:41 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/03/2024 23:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> that to
>>>>>>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>>>>>>> something and
>>>>>>> get *that* shipped.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is another issue apart from customer impatience, and that is
>>>>>> simple economics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the ship costs a certain amount of capital, and that is on usually a
>>>>>> bond type loan from some big financial house, on a fixed rate of
>>>>>> interest. The more cargo can be shifted per year, the more money
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> is to repay that bond. Conversely the faster you move the ship,
>>>>>> the more
>>>>>> fuel it burns per tonne mile, and so there exist some compromise that
>>>>>> returns the best rate on capital.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a nuclear ship, where fuel cost is so low its irrelevant, you
>>>>>> want to
>>>>>> go as fast as possible without placing undue wear on the
>>>>>> propulsion system.
>>>>>
>>>>> An amazing number of container ships come to grief every decade.
>>>>> The thought of these contaminating the oceans and making
>>>>> salvage ops *very* expensive is the reason why nuclear powered
>>>>> commercial shipping is a non-starter.
>>>>
>>>> There's already a couple of nuke subs in Davey Jones' Locker, not to
>>>> mention
>>>> all the defunct Russian subs just left to rot in their northern
>>>> ports. Was
>>>> that the contamination you had in mind or was it something else? The
>>>> 4 billion
>>>> tons of uranium in the world's oceans, perhaps?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The EU has invested a lot of money moving the reactors from those
>>> ex-soviet subs to a safe location where they can be monitored.
>>> They are no longer 'rotting away'.
>>>
>>> Uranium is not a problem. It's the highly dangerous and long-
>>> lived by products in spent fuel and containment systems that are
>>> the problem.
>>
>> Name one.
>>
>> If its long lived it isn't highly dangerous, by definition.
>>
>>
>
> Chernobyl

Precsiely
Already down below 10% of the accident radiation levels.

Chernobyl is not a long lived nor a radioactive isotope
It is a place. in Ukraine

--
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 Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:31:10 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 25/03/2024 18:23, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:41:30 +1100, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can
>>>> get that to
>>>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>>>> something and
>>>> get *that* shipped.
>>
>>> With bulk materials, like minerals, a continuous supply is needed.
>> No it isn't, with most of them there is no JIT with those.
>
> Which was the point I was making.

No it wasnt, you ignorantly claimed that a continuous supply is needed.

The reality is that they all use a very lumpy supply with
stockpiles to spread out the lumpy deliverys at both ends.

Thats what those fucking great tanks are there for with fossil fuels
and massive great piles with other stuff like coal, minerals etc.

>>> Whether or not that is done by means of a few fast carriersor rather
>>> more slow carriers won't matter to the customer.

>> That's wrong too. more slow carriers cost more.

> You are not keeping up with the thread.

Yes I am, I have read every single post in it.

Slow carriers means more ships used and so costs more for the customer.

>> That's why the bulk mineral carriers are so fucking large.

On 25/03/2024 18:35, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:32:02 +1100, Colin Bignell
> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2024 16:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
.....
>>>  Do the calculations.
>>> There is no cost benefit advantage It would be better to erect solar
>>> panels all along the decks. Except that's where you stack containers...
>>
>> Not on a bulk carrier.
>
> They don't have enough area to be useful.

They could make them hybrid :-)

--
Colin Bignell

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 06:22:37 +1100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:

> On 25/03/2024 18:35, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:32:02 +1100, Colin Bignell
>> <cpb@bignellremovethis.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/03/2024 16:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> ....
>>>> Do the calculations.
>>>> There is no cost benefit advantage It would be better to erect solar
>>>> panels all along the decks. Except that's where you stack
>>>> containers...
>>>
>>> Not on a bulk carrier.
>> They don't have enough area to be useful.
>
> They could make them hybrid :-)

But still wouldnt have enough area to be worth
the stupid cost of getting them out of the way
when loading and unloading the bulk freight.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:36:11 +0000, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:

>On 25/03/2024 16:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 25/03/2024 15:41, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 11:45, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 21 Mar 2024 at 10:46:16 GMT, "Soup" <cheez2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>   How many of the cargos moved by ships are time sensitive, and need
>>>>> every last ounce of speed?
>>>>
>>>> All of them, I'd say. You've bought something, the faster you can get
>>>> that to
>>>> its destination and collect the dosh, sooner you can buy another
>>>> something and
>>>> get *that* shipped.
>>>>
>>>
>>> With bulk materials, like minerals, a continuous supply is needed.
>>> Whether or not that is done by means of a few fast carriers or rather
>>> more slow carriers won't matter to the customer.
>>>
>> But the price will.
>>
>> Slow carriers will be more expensive as they cant get the tonne miles
>> per year up to a sane value.
>>
>
>Unless they can bring the cost per mile down enough to compensate, for
>example by using wind assisted ships :-)

What they need is Carter the Farter.

When the wind wouldn't blow and the ship wouldn't go, they'd get
Carter the Farter would start 'er!

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

--
Chris