Why Don't Sails Work On Ships?
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 01. 2022
- Head to squarespace.com/NAV to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code (NAV).
------------------ABOUT THIS VIDEO------------------
In this video, we look at different ways that ships use wind power for propulsion. We look briefly at skysails, and then Flettner Rotors, discussing how they take advantage of the Magnus Effect.
--------------JOIN OUR COMMUNITY---------------
Join our new community of maritime enthusiasts:
★ / casualnavigation
When you join, you will become part of an Exclusive Community, gain Early Access to our CZcams videos*, receive Exclusive Content* and have influence over Community Videos*
*Everyone becomes a part of our community, but additional rewards will depend on the tier you select.
---------------------WITH THANKS----------------------
★ Images used under license from shutterstock.com
Avatars by Voysla/Shutterstock.com
------------------------DISCLAIMER-------------------------
All content on this channel is provided for entertainment purposes only. Although every effort has been made to ensure the content is accurate and up to date, it remains the responsibility of the viewer to determine its accuracy and validity. The content should never be used to substitute professional advice or education. - Zábava
Head to squarespace.com/NAV to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code (NAV).
This video->23hrs ago
Your comment->8days ago
Next video on time travel please.
Great analysis on a topic increasingly important for our civilisations.
Make videos in nebula i would really ser i am suscribe ti nebula
Why lie? The owner reaps the fuel savings. No World Government needed, nor wanted.
"Woldwide Regulation" - I see you're a communist.
I like how, around the 4 min mark, the ship drops its rotors in order to use its superstructure to absorb the full force of the imminent collision with the bridge
relative angled illusion
XD
Well, how else are you gonna take down the bridge?
and then, around 6 and a half mins in, the radar mast passes straight through the bridge :D
The ship's bridge has been phased into 4th dimension. You can't do that with the sails as they need to interact with the wind.
Nuclear propulsion. It's time. 4th generation reactors are intrinsically safe, smaller, and cannot be used to produce nuclear weapons. Zero carbon emissions. Double the speed. Triple compared to "slow steaming." That's like two ships for the price of one.
What about nuclear waste? I think thats the true problem with nuclear power and as of now we have no real solution except warehouses, water tanks, or deep underground. But how long can we do that before something goes wrong?
What happens when a ship inevitably crashes
@@Desertedhail In the ocean nothing. There were some accidents with soviet submarins and they just sit there. Some countries sunk theirs wastes in 60s in the deep ocean as well. Problem might be on shallow waters and near urban area. Reactors should be reinforced to survive crash. It is possible to design reactor that just switch off in case of accident and no Chernobyl like happen
@@Desertedhail I don't know how much fuel would be brought at once, but I don't think it would be that much. In the case of a crash the radiation would be diluted in the ocean, and the reactor with fuel would drop to the bottom to be recovered (hopefully). Compared with all the petroleum fuel leaked from ships today I don't think it would be to different.
@@syaondri yeah, and look at the US refuelings of the ships, it would take metric tons of money and time just to refuel them. Not to mention dismantling them like you said
I know someone who did some research on these sorts of devices. His conclusion was that they may be more useful for less time sensitive cargo such as bulk carriers, where they could afford to take the most advantage of global wind forecasts, either by delaying departure or taking a longer route. Because to really get the most fuel savings, you have to work with the weather, and if you're having to fight the wind because you've got strict deadlines to meet, it's going to be much less effective, or even might be detrimental depending on the technology.
Have you heard of slow steaming. Even container ships are taking their time to save money.
If it's time sensitive, send it by air.
If you're worried about cost, send it by ship.
And there isn't very much in the world that you can't transport by air, if you can afford it.
@@35manning Yes, but it is most importantly predictable. Every shipment, more or less, takes a similar amount of time. A business can order more frequent shipments in order to get the same amount of goods in the same timeframe if transit time increases, or can plan in the delay to their operations, sending out parts a week early to a job site for example.
The issue with using wind power to its effective potential is that journey times now become quite unpredictable. The shipment could take 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks or longer depending on global weather conditions. That makes logistics more difficult, as now you may need to store goods for long periods in order to smooth out your supply chain, which is especially a problem if they are perishable.
That's why bulk carriers are the least affected by unpredictable transit times. They already have huge stockpiles at either end, and as long as the average transit time is consistent, individual journey times don't matter so much.
@@Croz89 I don't think anybody is suggesting the remove of engines and 100% reliance on wind power.
I dare say, that mechanical propulsion won't even be turned off or idled.
Rather the wind power will be used much like an additional engine so that the fossil fuel powered engines don't need to work as hard, thus saving fuel and co2 emissions.
@@35manning What they were saying is fuel savings would be marginal or even non existent if you didn't adapt your journey time and/or route to the wind conditions. If you're not getting favourable conditions on a significant majority of journeys, then it's unlikely to be economically worth it.
@@Croz89 but that can be planned for before casting your lines.
And that planning could even go further back in time to quoting a delivery schedule to their customers.
And if the plans don't quite work out, they can always change them and cut their losses.
Just like when a certain ship tried its hand at angle parking, all the other ships had to make a decision to wait or go the long way around.
They had to wear that cost because you can't go to a customer after they've agreed to a fixed price and say you want more money.
If they are smart, companies will pass part of the savings of wind onto their customers, whilst keeping some of the savings.
And if their adjusted route to take advantage of the winds doesn't pan out, they will wear the costs of that.
But overall, I don't think it will prevent ships arriving when they say they will.
And they are already slow steaming, so taking a longer route or going slower clearly isn't a concern to them if it's saving them money.
I am an engineer actively working on a WAPS project. There's a lot of CGI and not a lot of thinking going on with a lot of these solutions. Ships have to go somewhere and usually on a time schedule, and most of the solutions typically have a 40 degree wind window where they are effective. Thats not enough to make economical sense. And when its not working for you its often slowing you down. Im not sure I see any solution becoming widely used in the next 10 years
@@chuckyxii10 It takes energy from wind. Deflecting air can require little power compared to force it generates. Wind direction, speed and deflection method put some limits to efficiency.
You can think about fixed wing aircrafts. They produce a large lift force from deflecting air with wings (and body). Engine power is used to create forward thrust to balance aerodynamic drag. Lift induced drag affects the power requirement. The shape of wings and body is designed to minimise the drag at the cruising speed.
@@chuckyxii10 , My biggest point was that lift force >> drag force. This means aircrafts can fly with engines that don't have enough power to generate one g acceleration. You can have symmetric or even flat wings. The actual wing shape is just much more efficient because drag is reduced with more efficient deflection generating strategy.
@@chuckyxii10 Wings _have_ to push air down. Conservation of momentum is a thing after all.
Because we get this result from a conservation law, it holds no matter how wings actually work (eg what shape they are).
Of course, your observation about inexperienced pilots stays valid. Just because you have to ultimately push air down, doesn't mean that yanking on the stick is the right way to go.
Hi Tim, the presentation said at 5:29 that the economics of WAPS is jeopardized by the split between the owner paying the capital cost of installation, and the charterer paying the cost of fuel. I have read this elsewhere. Is this really true?
Unrelated but what about battery powered ships. Could it be feasible once battery technology advances some more? Maybe charged along the way with a turbine or solar cells?
Wonderful touch with only 3 of the funnels on the cruise liner smoking, I love historical accuracies like that, and something which would have been ignored by most channels
At 55 seconds, I was pleased to see the pennants flying forward. Someone pointed out to me that an amazing number of ship paintings, from the age of sail, like 1500s-1700s, show sails filled from behind with pennants streaming backwards. Once you see a few, it's impossible to not start checking it all the time.
One is intake
@@mikegarner8011 Thank you. I was going to ask OP to explain, but your reply gave me what I wanted to know.
@@mikegarner8011 No, intakes are different places. 4rd smokestack in Titanic as example was just artistic, it really housed kitchen ventilation and some storage space for deck equipment
@@sockchanger "more funnel = more fast" as the Victorian commoner might say
It should be mentioned that hybrid sail/steamships were commonplace throughout the 1800's (the first one to cross the Atlantic being S.S. Savannah in 1819). Early steam engines just weren't reliable enough to use full-time, so ships would use their sails most of the time, and their engines just to help out when the wind wasn't favorable.
Another point; steam engines of the day were so inefficient that the ship could not carry enough fuel and have any room for cargo.
Another problem, in Great Britain, was that captains, who still remembered Nelson times, didn't believe in ship without a sail. They really delayed development of them.
The wind is extremely strong IT be cool if ,Like this video is suggested..Is use the wind Sails to help move the ships through the water be Wonderful if they could use the walls of stacked containers ships as Sails too🎉🎉😂😂❤❤❤❤❤
@@bradfordthompson8326???
I’ve got a bone to pick here: a traditional fabric sail and an airplane wing aren’t really different besides efficiency and performance parameters/mission. They work under identical principles. You present them as different things altogether.
The difference is the wings is deflatable making it easier to move them out of the way of the equipment that loads cargo on the ship.
Sails are catching wind. Wings produce lift via Bernoulli’s Principle. I don’t think the principles are identical.
@@clydemarshall8095 Ever sail with the wind forward of the beam? There is no "catching" going on. It is an airfoil, like a hang glider. SAME principle.
@@clydemarshall8095 sails that catch the wind (aka use the wind drag) are the older, square sails. Newer sails are designed to produce lift because they can extract more force via lift for the same wind speed compared to just using drag.
@@clydemarshall8095 Bernoulli's principle is misapplied to wings. There's a reason wings aren't level with the body of a plane and there's a reason why they use flaps to actually take off and land. The aerofoil shape makes it more efficient but ultimately it's just striking the air at an angle and the inertia of the air pushes back on the plane opposite that, which is up.
This is why a paper plane still works. Wings do not get sucked up, they push air down and then the air pushes back. this is also why a plane can fly upside down, they just nose up enough to generate lift off the top.
I think the biggest reason we can never go back to full wind power is the fact the modern cargo ships weigh 100-200 times as much as the old wooden ships. The sails would have to be insanely strong, lightweight, and massive to move a modern-day ship at anything more than a snail's pace. The most we will be able to get out of wind these days is increased efficiency, and not by much at that.
The point wouldn't be sticking sails on existing ships, at the very least modern ships are designed for specific speeds and not really suited to traveling slow.
The solution would be to develop a new generation of sailing vessels designed to efficiently sail at something like half the speed of a current container or tanker ship. This also means sticking to less time sensitive product and possibly automation since crews will likely want extra pay for longer slower trips.
The resulting ships would almost certainly be smaller than current ships, another reason for automation as sailing more ships to bring your numbers up would require multiple crews. However I think the resulting ships could still be significantly larger than the largest sail powered ships of the past.
@@DrewLSsix this is an interesting prospect. Smaller more frequent ships could work, so long as they have the ability to deliver the same average amount of product. That's the biggest factor in changing the system at the moment, as we all have seen what happens when cargo shipments get delayed for any reason.
@@DrewLSsix the problem with this is that one giant ship will always be cheaper to build than two or more smaller ones to carry the same capacity.
@@DrewLSsix modern cargo ships travel extremely slowly my guy.
@@BrunoViniciusCampestrini Its also just much more cost efficient to ship cargo in a larger ship, which is why they've been steadily growing in size since they were invented.
The advantage of wind has to be enough to justify the cost. Look at the Germans who early in 20th century developed sail powered freighters.
The Preußen 5 masted
If it was, they would. No company would turn down savings on that scale if there were savings to be had.
Same reason airships are *never* coming back (at least not commercially). Super cool, but not cost-effective. Shame, really. I'd love to live in a world with Zeppelins and modern sailboats.
Get on it, Hollywood. I need this alternate universe in my life. 😆
It is but the main problem is getting skill to make and run sailing ships
Yes we all watched the video too, genius
@@BeKindToBirds with modern Materials and automation it would be possible to do this with less people, but highly trained, shure
@@darcbugz You misunderstand, there are already some sail ships coming back with carbon fiber wings and servos and the like. But the biggest barrier is still the knowledge on how to use and build them.
Think if suddenly a new more efficient car came out that was manual, it would take time for it to proliferate even if it was better in every way.
And sail ships have disadvantages because they rely on wind so they aren't viable for every carrier. Afaik thee dream of major cargo vessels powered by sail is dead only because everyone wants things on time and not with a general idea like with sail ships.
If an investment in a ship doesn’t benefit the owner and charterer then it’s probably a bad investment.
Exactly. Any cost savings passed onto the charterer can and will eventually be passed onto the consumer.
what about thinking in a more global perspective to benefits for the environment? These benefits will pass onto every human as well because as much as we dislike to acknowledge we rely on the health of our planet to survive
@@philip88154 Well put - what's described here is a "tragedy of the commons," which in this case is the atmosphere. Not using wind power and simply burning more fuel might be the cheapest option for ship owners and charterers, but has negative consequences for humanity as a whole - consequences that are diluted across all humanity too much to influence the ship owners directly enough to make being more efficient worth their while.
There's no need for inefficient technology to be regulated into the market.
If a business externalises its costs through polluting the environment, then that is a legitimate governmental concern and should be taxed, as fuels are.
But just because a piece of new technology gives boneheaded environmentalists a hard on isn't justification for forcing it into the market.
@@MrRealstreet So what you're saying is that the government shouldn't say that any given fuel-saving technology or device is required, but instead should tax or otherwise restrict the more polluting method to incentivize adoption of more efficient methods? I agree with you on that, one of the more meaningful things they talked about in one of my engineering classes (even though said class went on to violate this in the design challenge component) is that an outside entity - whether it be a customer desiring the product or service or a government mandating something like better efficiency - should ask for the desired end result, but not specify or mandate how such is achieved, leave that up to the designer or whoever. In this case the requirement shouldn't be that ships be fitted with sails, but that they should be more efficient, or simply make fuel cost more, and how ships are made more efficient is left up to owners or operators - whether that be new hull or engine designs, wind power (whether that be conventional sails, flettner rotors, or skysails), maybe partial solar power, even nuclear if they can find a way of making that profitable (I don't believe there's ever been a nuclear merchant ship, there were experiments but it was found to be too expensive). More expensive fuel would also be much simpler to enforce, and even if some countries are not on board with it it wouldn't be cost effective for ships to always get their fuel from them if they're nowhere near their intended voyage.
The fact that the Titanic wasn't smoking from the 4th funnal is good attention to detail because that one was not actualy operable.
Wasn't it for excess steam and ventilation
@@Fred_the_1996
No, it was only for show. There was no exhaust being funnelled through the fourth stack
@@XXXDeath10XXX There was exhaust from the smoking room, fireplaces and kitchen.
literally everyone knows this it’s not that small of a detail
@@ironmatic1 Some of us have made this our life's mission to teach. Now about that silly explanation of how wings work at 3:14 !
You know you are making entertaining content when even people who don't care about the topic (like me) are enjoying your videos and learning new things week after week!
Great job! :)
A lot of topics are interesting if presented well by someone with genuine enthusiasm!
I watched a twenty-minute Technology Connections video last night about can openers. Some people have a gift for making any topic interesting!
Thanks Stanimir. I'm glad you enjoy the content.
the mix of cartoons,a soft voice and ,dare I say it,learning is surprising relaxing ..
A few weeks ago i was on a holiday trip on the habour of Rostock in Germany. I saw some ferrys which where equipped with one flettner rotor on the Deck. They told me that they safe more than 20% fuel with this thing. It was a big ferry for trucks, trains, cars and people, shipping between Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. On different routes of course.
Just to add, a sail _is_ an aerofoil and it is the lift generated by it that propels a yacht, but there is another issue; _apparent wind_. Presume you are crossing in those nice following trade winds of 25kn. Well, the faster you go, the faster you ‘run away’ from the wind and so the apparent wind speed drops. A boat travelling downwind at 20kn in a 25kn breeze therefore only has a 5kn following wind and that significantly reduces the life produced
Only one component of the propulsive force from sails is from aerodynamic lift, the majority (at least for most types of sails, most of the time) is created by a reaction force by the sail catching the wind, more like from drag..
The sails of racing yachts create more force from lift which helps them said upwind (not directly) faster than going downwind.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 You might have things a bit muddled. It appears that spinnakers "catch" wind when the boat is sailing downwind, but most soft sails function by taking advantage of Bernoulli's Principle (aerodynamic lift), wherein wind, flowing over the front of the sail creates a lower pressure than the back of the sail, resulting in wind "suck" that pulls the boat along. This suck is so efficient that boats can "fly" faster than the wind. It is a combination of B's P, and Newton's Third Law that provide lift for a ridgid aircraft wing.
@@Patriottoo2Indeed, I agree, and it's more complicated than that. The aerofoil function of a regular sail is highest when you're close hauled, but drops off as the wind shifts aft. Then the pushing effect contributes more. What's worse is that it's not a linear relationship, and so to get the most out of a sail you need to analyze wind direction, the set of the sail, and the boat's speed to find the best configuration for the current environmental conditions.
As for spinnakers, yes, they're known as kites for just that reason. It's a big bag at the front that requires constant management from helmsman and crew.
@@Patriottoo2 "but most soft sails function by taking advantage of Bernoulli's Principle (aerodynamic lift), wherein wind, flowing over the front of the sail creates a lower pressure than the back of the sail, resulting in wind "suck" that pulls the boat along."
No, you're flat wrong. What do you think produces the pressure differential on each side of the foil? It's the reaction forces of the sail pushing the air particles.
"This suck is so efficient that boats can "fly" faster than the wind."
Again you're wrong, it's got nothing to do with "efficiency". Sailboats can exceed wind speed on certain points of sail because their own motion creates "apparent wind". Sailboats may exceed windspeed, but they'll never exceed apparent wind speed.
@@phillycheesetake Except for the land sail car that Derek Muller (Veritasium) managed to make work.
One major problem with wind power on large ships is the square cube law. say you make an ship twice as large, it twice as long, wide and high but now weight 9 times more while sail area is 4 time larger. Most sailing ships max out at 10.000 ton except Great Eastern who was just insane.
In short huge ships are to large to get much benefit from the wind.
Probably work better for smaller ships but they work more in coastal areas so the parachute would not work well but Flettner rotors might.
You dont need a huge ship to cross oceans.
Except that the drag they are experiencing also experiences the square cube law, which is why they have got so big in the first place. An engine to accelerate and stop would definitely be required, but cruising thrust from sails works just fine. Actually, because wind gets stronger with altitude, sails don't quite follow square cube, so it works out better.
@@agsystems8220 you are wrong about the engine being required, but it is true larger ships sail faster generally.. all the ships could be sail powered if we made it a hard requirement as it was in the past.
Think again.
Mass isn't what slows a ship down, drag does.
And now think about how drag scales.
Only accellerating will take longer, but ships don't spend much of thier time and energy accellerating on intercontinental journeys, so who cares if it takes 10 times longer?
@@joshlower1that works for a yacht but not for shipping....
As for rotors, the cruiseferry Viking Grace was fitted with a rotor in 2018, making her the first modern passenger vessel to run one as well as the first modern LNG-powered passenger vessel.
The rotor was removed last year as the savings were too small to consistently quantify, but hopefully the tech will improve in time.
Can't really see how the rotors could fundamentally improve except by becoming cheaper
Hard to say without being more into the engineering of it. Perhaps making them more easily retractable, increasing effectiveness by tweaking surface texture, stuff like that. It's not my thing. :)
It was an impressive thing to see in operation - you don't intuitively grasp that a giant rotating cylinder pushes the ship forward, but nevertheless I was impressed viking tried it.
Yup. The look of it didn't really gel with the aesthetics of the boat, but I think most of us in the industry were glad they were trying.
You forget to mention that Viking Grace is operating in archipelago waters with lots of narrow fairways, pretty shallow waters and lots of turning. I think rotorsails would be better suited for cargo ships or bigger cruise ships that spend more time on the open waters and maintain a steady course for longer periods
Flettner rotors can become mainstream if more owners start to adopt it. Installing a flettner rotor would mean that you can offer cheaper operating costs to charterers, so they'll be drawn towards owners who have flettner rotors installed, incentivizing other owners to install these rotors.
Aside from the other problems with using conventional sails, I would think that, with the way they load cargo ships to the hilt, sails would create a danger of capsizing in gusty winds.
Old sailing ships are just so beautiful. I know they are no longer worth the maintenance cost to run but by God are they absolutely gorgeous to look at.
CZcams just randomly showed me your videos and now I’m hooked. I can’t understand anything you teach and had no idea shipping was so complicated and I spent 20 years in the American Trucking industry!!!!
I had no idea rotors cylinders could generate velocity in that way. That's insane.
It’s always a good day when you upload!
so true
Thanks!
So I'm not sure I understand why exactly the owner wouldn't feel the benefit of installing rotors on their ships. Maybe someone could offer clarification.
As I understand it, if the owner of the ship decides to install rotors, the charterer would feel the benefit in the form of reduced fuel costs. Now, if I'm looking to charter a ship wouldn't I seek out cargo ships with rotors installed, so that I end up paying for less in fuel? And consequently, wouldn't that mean that owners of cargo ships with rotors would see increased business because there is greater demand for their ships? So, don't both parties benefit in that way?
Am I missing something lol?
the cost to install and maintain that equipment is too high and the benefits are too low. The owner will have to pass that cost to the charter, making its ships more expensive than others.
@@mushypork2132 but it would lower fuel cost for the charterer making it cheaper.
I think these solutions are just not reliable enough that they always save fuel and money.
They can save a lot on one voyage but not save anything or simply add extra drag on another depending on wind direction and strength.
Over the ships lifetime it could result in substantial savings in total, but if you have to pay more for a charter and it's a 50/50 chance you will benefit or not it isn't a sustainable business model.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 the costs would negate the "cheaper fuel use" option. Probably end up costing more
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Only when there is enough wind coming from the right direction, otherwise it is useless weight.
If really is cost efficient, it will be adopted, regardless of how the savings break down, because of how pricing works. It is not necessary to force people to use it.
No, the answer is always to regulate.
The free market is full of short sighted morons who consistently would rather crush innovation than be forced to change.
Well, that's just plain silly. No, it's full of people who have to make things work or go out of business. Regulators don't have to worry about such consequences, which is why regulation isn't the answer. Actually understanding technology - and it's costs - is.
@@purplefood1 Right, and you're not a short sighted moron that would impose massive costs on the shipping industry for dubious gains in the name of "innovation." Those costs, by the way, will eventually fall on the consumer.
@@NoQuestions4sked I'm not saying it should be regulated just that it being a good idea doesn't mean people will automatically follow it. People talk about the free market like people in charge of businesses always know what's best but it took Napster to convince music executives that the Internet was a viable platform for music distribution and somehow people still didn't have anything worth replacing it for years, these companies are not as clever as they like to say they are and a lot of the time they fight good innovations. Regulating it is daft but let's not pretend like these people always make the right choices every time.
Flettner sails/rotors were a plot point in the 1986 novel "Texas on the Rocks," wherein they were used to help move icebergs from Antarctica to the Gulf Coast to provide fresh water to a thirsty nation. One thing you didn't mention is that they require energy to operate. I'm curious if anyone's done a cost/benefit analysis and quantified the net energy savings per knot gained.
I've seen the parasail equipped on a solar-electric power-cat. It cannot tack so it can only be deployed if the wind is going where you want to go.
The power required to drive the rotors is in the low kW range (depending on how large it is of course), while the propulsion power they add to the ship is in the hundreds to thousands of kW.
@@aurigo_tech Cool. Source? I couldn't find an authoritative reference. Thanks in advance!
@@colormedubious4747 There are lots of articles spread over the internet; this site gives a short overview over some of them:
www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/flettner-rotor
Also just the wiki-pages gives good starting points for further research: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship
Flettners first ship, the Buckau, used 2 rotors of 2.7m diameter and 18m height and a 7.5 kW electric motor to drive each (with power provided by a diesel generator of 33 kW).
It can be assumed that a modern solution with less drag on the bearings etc. and being fully electric would need probably less than 5 kW to drive rotors of such dimensions.
I can't find a number for the propulsive power the rotors delivered for the Buckau,
but its safe to assume it was easily far above the 2x7.5 kW input needed for the spinning. Probably a couple hundred kW.
For Flettner's second ship (Barbara) I could find a number though: it's 3 rotors required a 25 kW diesel generator but delivered 440 kW of propulsion force.
@@aurigo_tech THANK you! I didn't mean to give you a homework assignment, but you came through like a boss.
The parasail is not meant to provide motive power though? As I understand it reeling out and in the sail in a certain way generates electric power on board which is routed directly to the propellers, so there's no question of only operating in the prevailing wind direction. It also allows you to access the faster high-altitude winds, which is crucial since wind power scales as the cube of the wind speed.
I know next to nothing about boats but these videos are So Good for some reason I just love it
The Flettner Rotor is not a passive form of propulsion like a sail. Even though it interacts with wind its still driven just like a hydrodynamic screw, only it operates in the medium of air rather than water.
yeah i was confused where this guy thought the spinning motion required was going to come from, of course its going to come from a combustion engine on a ship that big.
@@guesswho2778 He did mention that it isn't passive, but takes way less fuel than expected
I'm reminded of the "Falls of Clyde"--the last surviving (barely) iron-hulled, four-masted full-rigged ship and the only remaining sail-driven oil tanker.
"Naturally, it quickly caught on & along came the golden age of oceanliners, that could happily steam west at higher latitudes, straight into the wind... or straight into an iceberg."
You make such informative and easily digestible content, the few videos I've watched till now have been such a pleasant time.
Wish you success.
As an aerospace engineering student i could argue with some of the aero/hydrodynamic effects you present in your vids, but damn it you are the CASUAL navigator, you provide enough in-depth information to be useful, entertaining, and also watchable for everyone. Great videos, keep up the amazing job!
I'd like to here your points. I only have a physics bachelor's, but it should still be cool. The comment section is MADE for discussion, after all!
Same thing for nuclear propelled ships, although South Korea is working on fitting nuclear propulsion on cargo ships which would remove CO2 from the trip !
that ofc would be amazing, but it requires a lot of very highskill personal.
One major problem with that. And I'm not talking about the risk of cheap operators cutting corners to save a few bucks and causing a floating Chernobyl.
Not all countries permit nuclear powered vessels into their waters or harbours.
@@patriciusvunkempen102 Probably, but it won’t be that much training required, especially/hopefully with the more modular designs. Remember there’s a reactor at Reeds run by liberal arts undergrads.
@@35manning I am going to argue that the ecological impact of a nuclear powered vessel sinking would be much less than the one of a conventional vessel sinking and pouring tons of oil destroying wild life and coasts and poisoning the water, because water is very good at protecting from radiations, and if there was some uranium in their lead containment unit at the bottom of the ocean it would not cause much of an issue. We have to realize that nuclear reactors have been on and under water for decades now
@@arthemis1039 Not going to disagree. I think nuclear is a safe and suitable option until renewable energys are fully ready to take over.
But I not in charge of government policy's...
That was a big jump from looking at the question of cost and benefit to advocating for global mandates. Reduced running costs of efficient vessels could be negotiated into the charter price.
It's also pretty short-sighted. It assumes the economics based on current fuel prices. Fuel prices in the future will go nowhere but up, on the long term.
Why not use nuclear technology in large container ships as is done with submarines? Very effective as water jets - surely it beats the efficiency of marine diesel??
@@forrestpugh7575 Nuclear power is very expensive to the point that the majority of submarines are not nuclear powered and only the US and France operate nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.
The cost and upkeep of rigging is enormous.
The fuel savings mentioned with Flettner rotors merits further testing!
Viking Line's MS Viking Grace had this rotorsail between 2018 and 2021 as a long term test. However they are not going to fit it to the MS Viking Glory due to lack of open sea. These ships operates between Finland and Sweden with a big archipelago between them. So wind direction and power changes all the time.
Yeah. Those things might actually make sense on the route from Helsinki to Stockholm because there's more open sea on that stretch. But they used it on the route from Turku to Stockholm.
Speed and ability to have a reliable schedule.
The steam /diesel ships can operate more reliably in all weather.
Better might be a form of vertical wind turbine to make electricity, since many ships are moving to diesel-electric. (very common with cruise ships)
As long as the ship is not directly bucking a headwind, this should benefit the ship's efficiency.
It's possible to get enough energy out of a headwind to run propellers in the water that push you forward overcoming the force of the headwind pushing you back.
Is there not anyone who would benefit from reduced fuel savings enough to justify the cost? Whoever is paying for the fuel costs would happily pay for these sails if they were a worthwhile investment. The immediate desire to call for more regulation is depressing.
The point is they aren't a worthwhile investment for the person paying for it because of how these cargo lines often work. The owner often isn't the one chartering the ship so why would they pay for something to reduce the cost of something they don't pay for?
@@purplefood1 Because... the person chartering would charter it for a higher price if it would meant he could save more on fuel.
@@purplefood1 The person chartering the ship is not the person buying the fuel. All of the expenses of operating the ship are paid for by the company that owns - or leases - it.
@@colincampbell767 Surely the charterer is paying for the fuel they use!?
But even if not, the same argument would apply; the entity paying for the fuel, has lower expenses, and can lower the fees to the entity chartering it.
Ultimately, someone will pay more for the use of something which costs less to run, OR can charge less for the use of something because it costs them less to run.
@@alexanderSydneyOz You have to remember that these ships have to keep on a schedule. Their unloading time has been scheduled long before the ship sails.
If fuel costs were the primary consideration - sailing ships would have never gone away.
And the fact of the matter is that this idea has been around for almost 100 years - and nobody has adopted it. This should be a huge red flag that there are serious issues that the video has carefully avoided talking about.
If it was as good an idea as the person who made the video claims - there would have been large-scale adoption 80-90 years ago.
If the professionals don't do something - then it's a safe bet that there are very good reasons not to do it.
Please make a video on how international logistics work and who are the different actors!
Keep up the good work! Love your channel!
2:08 a sail creates a high and low pressure because of its aerofoil shape, you’re actually being pulled forward by the sail
Who pays for the fuel?? If it’s the charterer, then he’s more likely to charter a ship that demonstrably consumes less fuel! If it’s the ship owner, he can offer his ship to charterers for less money if he makes his ship use less fuel. If this really works, there’s no scenario that it doesn’t work economically.
Exactly. Good video but wonky economics. Leaping straight to, ‘regulation is the only solution’ is depressingly typical.
"If it’s the charterer, then he’s more likely to charter a ship that demonstrably consumes less fuel!"
Only if the monetary cost savings from using less fuel offsets the cost increase from having to retrofit ships with wind propulsion equipment. Charterers have no non-regulatory incentive to figure in _environmental_ costs, either (those are 'paid' by everyone, and eventually by our children in the future) so they'll gladly just keep hiring dirtier, more polluting ships as long as it's cheaper for them. That's exactly the problem that needs solving.
"If it’s the ship owner, he can offer his ship to charterers for less money if he makes his ship use less fuel."
The owner doesn't care, charterers consider a lot of other criteria when selecting who to contract for a charter. Owners, especially owners with niches no one else operates in or with a proven quality of service, probably aren't going to lose much business. They also won't lose or gain much money, either, since they'd just pass on the cost of fuel, amortized over the average cost of chartering their ships. Again, no non-regulatory incentive to really change, since even when the owner is apparently paying for the fuel, it's really someone else who does in the long term.
The video is correct, there's a disconnect in many situations between who bears the cost of improvements and who feels the benefits. Regulation to make failure to improve have a direct cost to the people in control of deciding whether or not to make those improvements is the only way to get certain things done.
@@wasd____ "Charterers have no non-regulatory incentive to figure in environmental costs . . ."
Back in the late1990's we hit the point of diminishing returns in environmental regulations. Since then, every new environmental rule has increased the costs while the returns diminished. This is why the EPA stopped identifying the actual benefits we will see with new regulations - they don't want us to see just how littel benefit their latest rule will provide.
And something you should be concerned about is the real possibility that global warming will be stopped and your children realizing that the benefits weren't worth the costs.
@@colincampbell767 But that argument can be flipped over - if we reach a point of no return and our children are forced to huddle in more polar climes fighting over resources, they will wonder the same thing. Indeed it'll be worse - if we pay the cost of stopping global warming, our children will reap the benefits. If global warming is unstoppable, we reap the benefits while our children pay the cost. As a father, I would expect to have to pay for my child, not the other way round.
@@merseyviking The issue is that if you look at the actual science - it isn't going to be nearly as bad as people claim. The climate is going to change. And as with every change there are good effects and bad effects. The doomsday scenarios are pure BS. (Remember the 'ozone hole?' Turned out that 'ozone depletion was not that big a deal and ozone levels rise and fall on a 26-year cycle. And that a single major volcanic eruption emits more ozone-depleting chemicals than all of human civilization ever has. In fact, every 'ozone hole' has been associated with volcanic activity.)
The problem is separating the facts from the hype. And since the people demanding that we stop climate change haven't been completely honest with us (to put it mildly) how much of what they tell us can be trusted? And why are they doing their best to conceal the social and economic impacts of fighting climate change?
And your comment about fighting for resources seems to be ignoring the fact that fighting climate change is go9ing to limit the amount of resources (energy, raw materials, etc.) we are going to have available. For example - cutting oil and gas production will have the follow-on effect of cutting out the production of plastics and industrial chemicals.
How are these rotors powered and what's the cost to run/maintain them? How much wind is required for them to have a noticeable effect on propulsion? I would have liked to see some additional information on that. Otherwise nice video on tech I have never heard of before. Sounds potentially useful, but trying to pass a law like this is surely going to be a long drawn out process with people blocking it along the way.
If it's good some idiot would have tried it and one did as stated in this video. The fact it didn't catch on show it lost the competition of the better product win.
Making a law forcing everyone to adopt this bad product is wrong.
Sure, go ahead and try it again. Show others how wonderful your "sail" work and if they buy into it they will install it themselves. Just don't put a gun to their head.
I literally just wondered this yesterday, talk about good timing
It’s been awesome watching you grow!
A Sail would take as little deck space as a Rotor would. Its more of a question of a ship's stability, or where its metacentre is in a roll. Put mass high up on a ship, and it'll roll. Put a lot of mass high up and it'll capsize. Running a ship is not about sailing safe 90% of the time cheaply, its sailing safe 100% of the time, and making money doing it.
Well a rotor beats a traditional sail in all those aspects: it requires zero extra crew (can be 100% automated) and the heeling of a ship is much lower because of course the area of a rotor facing the wind is much smaller than that of a sail. In both cases, rotors or sails, the weight they add to the ship would be miniscule, compared to the weight of the ship itself+cargo.
@@aurigo_tech place mass high up on a ship, and it counts for more, as the distance from the metacentre works as a lever. A sail works because in a storm, the sail can be furled. But a rotor cannot, generally. So a ship's ability to weather out a storm is rather affected by where the mass of a ship lies. And in the case of the Sewol, for instance, the amount was very small for the margin of safety.
@@twotone3471 But the weight of a rotor (or sail) is insignificant, compared to the weight of the ship (at least the ones we are talking about in the context of this video).
Also a rotor by default is a lot more aerodynamic than a sail, offering much less area to the wind. Fletter proved this with his ships Buckau and Barbara: even under severe storms the ships under his rotors were heeling much less than they would under traditional sails. Even a small one-rotor-yacht he build was able to sail as fast as a comparable one with traditional sail - but did so with much less heeling.
Of course behaviour in a storm - when moving or stationary - is a factor, but from what I have read it is manageable and especially so with fletter rotors.
@@aurigo_tech If it was manageable, the behavior in a storm that is, there would be more ships with rotors. But their inflexible nature means permanent mass higher up in a boat or ship. When you take a sail down, you lower its barycenter as mass is pulled closer to the bottom of the ship. I've not seen any models for collapsible rotors, rather like paper lanterns or such I'd think. So until you have a design that doesn't have better performance both in ideal conditions and in the worst 5%, you are playing with fire I'd think.
@@twotone3471 Behaviour in a storm is not what prevented rotorsail's breakthrough so far.
As mentioned Anton Flettner himself collected plenty of experience in roughest of weathers and his rotors caused no reason to complain whatsover, quite the contrary in fact.
I see the reason more along the lines of this video: combustion engines became too successful and fuel too cheap for any kind of wind-propulsion to compete for most of the time since the 1920s.
However now those factors matter less and less now and wind propulsion might have a comeback. It already has, with a growing number of ships using rotorsails or other methods to safe fuel costs.
Weight of rotors or any sailing system really is a non-issue among the larger ships: to a multi-thousand ton ship it matters very little if you have a few hundred kilos or a weight in the low tons on deck or not. Its like you as a person wearing glasses or not: their weight doen't change your ballance at all because it is so miniscule compared to your body.
It does make me happy that there are people trying to think of the environment in the shipping industry, as usual it comes down to costs and regulations though. It does seem greener ships are on the way however!
Great video!
This matter is no different. They are looking for ways to save up on fuel which directly increases profits.
Using less fuel is using less fuel so as long as it’s getting better it’s worth it
It's only a token effort. Significant change will only come through international legislation. Whether that's desirable or achievable is up to us.
What would really push things in this direction would be increasing fuel prices, which I could imagine happening in coming years. Either because of scarcity or international regulations placing fees or taxes on carbon emissions. That would be more effective even if some countries don't enact it, as while it is possible to flag a ship in a country with more lax regulations it's often not feasible to buy fuel from such.
@@beetooex Why? More expensive fossil fuel or eg cheaper electric batteries would bring significant changes without any legislation.
There's some wonderful archive footage of the Fletnor Rotor in the UK. I've a feeling it may be near the Forth railway bridge.
As far as cost goes, and how it's paid for, isn't it a means of propulsion to be considered like and engine plant and should be considered like that?
Did anyone else notice that although the cylinders were hinged to allow them to pass under bridges, the wheelhouse was not and was headed for a head-on with the road deck?
Then the quick cut before the collision 😂😂😂
🙌
I’m not being a c@nt, just tickled me is all! 😂
✌️
type the word "cunt"
do it
@@crunchybones2528 he can't, hes a scooby
6:08 hold your horses. If the increased cost of a charter with these rotors saves the charterer more in fuel costs then the increase rent, then of course charterers will be willing to pay more. No government needed.
Exactly so. The producer of this video appears to have a hidden agenda.
Corporations usually focus mainly on short term costs, ie 5 years or less, because thats around where ceo and shareholder turnover tends to be. With a ship that costs a fortune upfront to build, and will take years to pay itself off, increased upfront costs are often avoided, even if it means substantially increased profitability down the road, because by that point the person who built the ship is no longer receiving profits from it. The corporation may benefit, but those who control it generally do not. So, why not have the government step in to make them choose good long term decisions?
@@razordrive3238 Typically, costs are a first-order estimate of energy usage. If a given technology is not being implemented, there is probably a reason for it. These sails are an experimental technology. How do the sails affect the balance of the ship? Traditional sailing ships were constantly raising and retracting sails based on the wind conditions, otherwise the ships would capsize in high winds with full sails? Are retractable feasible? Will the patent holders be profiting at insane markups due to lack of competition?
According to Wikipedia, they are only producing "5-20%" fuel savings. At lower end of that range, the actual in-practice fuel savings could easily be negative, especially if they are placed on ships just to meet regulations, rather than actually increase efficiency.
This was a great video, you are the only one so far that has actually explained how those towers work! Thank you.
It is true that modern container ships carry an enormous load, and old ships, such as the Preussen, only carried 8 thousand metric tons of cargo. The Pruessen sailed at speeds of around 17 knots which might be exceeded by a modern sailing ship. Crude oil would be an ideal load for a sailing ship and to a degree crews might be willing to pay for the opportunity to train as real sailors. No fuel, little to no crew cost, just the cost of maintaining her sails which was, in days of old, done by the crew. Other bulk cargoes would also be possible if offloaded mechanically, such as grain. However the ship would need to be designed to avoid shifts in her load which is always an issue with any vessel that heels over. I watch Fed Ex jets loaded daily quickly using specially shaped containers through a single small door. If they can do it, so could a modern cargo carrier. All the Big 3 automakers could do before Elon Musk was a golf cart-like electric vehicle. Now Elon is rich. Is there a shipbuilder out there with the same chutzpah?
The two most important factors are unmentioned: any weight high up will limit the amount of cargo that can be carried and any sail will also need more stability, limiting the carried cargo weight. Putting ballast means to add dead weight.
You want to be able to stack up cargo, but with sails you cant stack as heigh. So Sails/wind propulsion only usefull for ships with heavy cargo, where stacking heigh is not needed. And empty ship with sails must be ballasted, more dead weight to move.
That’s certainly true for stacked container ships, but the ships depicted here look to be oil tankers.
I would disagree that regulation is the only way these devices will be used. Fuel savings would mean a higher return on the cargo shipped, which would make the co,pant more competitive. Like how airlines are phasing out their 747s for 787s and 777s.
Idk, ship fuel is dirt cheap, since they pretty much burn crude oil, don't get me wrong the shipping industry has made changes for fuel economy before, but only small ones, this would be a very significant change that will probably be more expensive to install and maintain than the cost of the fuel saved, this is one of those things that is very important long term, but since it decreases profits short term few companies would do it
@@lithobreak3812 Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think modern ships are allowed to burn bunker C crude like they used to because of environmental degradation. Leaving that aside, fuel consumption has become the biggest factor in shipping operations, even more than time. You can see this in the new slow steaming practices that have been implemented over the last few years. Most people would gladly pay to have their goods in port a few days earlier but companies have realized that fuel consumption is far lower if their ships move at 15 to 17 nots instead of 20. Given that, it seems to me that the only way this won't be implemented over the next few years will be if the fuel savings are negligible or the cost of the device requires significant modifications to the hull. I think this video has safely proven the former false, which means the only remaining point is one of cost-benefit for each particular ship. For example, if your 20kTU behemoth can use 20% less fuel in exchange for a $2 million upfront cost, I think most shipping companies would take advantage.as that's insignificant to the fuel savings you'd get back over the next 20 years. Of course, it's not just the cost of the device itself but also the amount of time the ship has to spend laid up while it's installed, maintenance costs, etc. In general, if this really is a cost savings then it will be implemented, as most companies are not as short-sighted as most people like to pretend, especially conservative shipping companies.
@@hughmungusbungusfungus4618 If there actually were cost savings this would have been implemented a hundred years ago. Be suspicious of 'great ideas' that have been around for a hundred years and only implemented in niche markets. If it hasn't been implemented - there are probably good reasons for this.
@@colincampbell767 It could just be that it wasn't cost-efficient until the price of cleaner fuel began to climb. I will admit that the SDGs probably have a hand to play in this and government subsidies are probably part of the reason these technologies are getting so much coverage. That being said, it's a real technology so if it leads to actual cost savings it will be implemented.
@@hughmungusbungusfungus4618 "It could just be that it wasn't cost-efficient until the price of cleaner fuel began to climb."
If that were the case, then these things would have been implemented in the 1970's (during the 'oil crisis.). And remember that any increase in costs is ultimately paid by you in the form of higher prices.
I love your details like the enormous SAFETY FIRST on the superstructure. That and using Titanic or one of her sister ships with one non-functioning funnel they added for looks. Given the practice of slow steaming speed would not be that much different than what some large cargo ships from the end of the days of sail could make, e.g. Peking. And motor sailing where part of your propulsion comes from wind is perhaps an efficient compromise. Sigh. It's all about priorities and international regulation in an increasingly small world whose survival may depend not on technology but how we are able to regulate or not regulate significant environmental controls.
It is at least true that a major port requiring something is a good way to speed adoption internationally.
With the kite you need a telescope roth system, in a V Shape, that keeps the sail above water lvl. So when the hight of the V shaped roth is 50 meter with a span wide of 30 meter and sail of 28 meter the rope may be 30 long on both sides, so the sail keeps above the water line. The V mast most be made so that it can vold itself on the sides of the ship. When the ship is long enough you can bild 1 in the back and 1 in the front and when the one in the back has its sail above deck its ropes can go longer. The V shaped mast most have 1 mast that can roll up and out the sail. And when it starts to pick up wind, the ropes slowly get releast more to put it higher up in the wind. The tallest carbon masts are 90 meters. Look at the system like a kind of slingshot, where the ship itself is the handle to hold.
Interesting - a rigid mast might offer advantages over flexible cabling for supporting a kite.
@@patnolen8072 with helium filled tubes inside the sail, you can also support a way to keep the sail up.
@@patnolen8072 The mast would have to be really thick and heavy to support the weight of the mast, sail, and force of the wind.
You brought up some excellent points, but missed one. Anyone who has been on a boat under sail knows when going into the wind, which produces the highest speeds, boat heel to one side. This is a result od the force from the lifting action not pulling the boat forward acting against the hull. Anything not securely fastened goes flying. The way cargo is stacked on the deck would tend to slide off.
As you alluded, there is a multitude of other factors, not the least of which is the need for a keel, increasing the already hefty draight, requiring even deeper water ports This on top of other factors like the shape of the ship to how masts would be secured. Did I also mention the cost of installing and maintaining massive amounts of rigging and sails?
Implementing green propulsion on ships is very problematic. We see the challenges with wind and electric powered by batteries would leave little room for cargo. The only thing I can think is the use of solar panels to power electric motors - as a supplement to the regular. I'm saying that off the cuff, and people much smarter than I could determine whether that would work.
Instead of countries trying to regulate that ships flagged from them must have some minimum percentage of wind propulsion, countries could regulate that ships not meeting the requirements can't pull into that country's ports and unload. If major players like the US and EU did this, it could absolutely create strong incentives to adopt more ecologically friendly propulsion supplements, because it limits the ability of dirtier ships to do business no matter where they're flagged from.
The US? Nah, those guys only care about money not the environment
Agreed. It's simple economics at that point. Spend some money upgrading your vessel that also reduces your fuel outgoings, or lose access to a third of the world's custom. More if the other major players follow through too
To say it can only be achieved thru regulation is ridiculous.
If owners didn't have any incentive to make their ships efficient, they'd still be running on coal.
yeah its not like there are no modern Sailships being built. Neoline France Based Company is planing on one for for Ro-Ro service between France and United States.
another thing i missed in this Video is the Dyna Rig: Maltease Faclon, Black Pearl, Eco-liner project , and Royal Clipper that 5 masted Cruiseship were the Dyna Rig is rotated 90° to keep the old Tallship appearance where the Sails roll into the yards instead of the Masts.
not gona write a list of the regular Tallships that are actually in Sailing Cargo service.
....the incentive is to reduce the operating cost. But when fuel is cheap the financial saving is not enough to justify the capital investment and operation of the equipment, and it will not be adopted. This, in general, would seem to be the case so far.
The ships are still running on fossil fuels and don't seem interested in changing as long as fuel is cheap, so yes, it would seem that regulation is probably the only way to achieve this.
Coal power plants deliver cheaper power than oil power plants. On a sufficiently big ship coal should be cheaper than oil.
@@jannikheidemann3805 coal has half the energy density of diesel. That means that to carry the same amount of energy, a coal ship will be carrying twice the weight of fuel. The volumetric density is also higher for coal. Solid fuels are also much harder to deal with than fluid ones. This doesn’t matter on the ground, where the fuel is delivered with conveyor belts and pipelines, but when you have to carry your fuel with you, it makes coal impractical
They should add folding flettner rotors in some special cargo containers that can be loaded onto any ship. Once they are unfolded and secured power cables can be attached and they have a wireless control that is operated from the bridge. Having the rotors be portable removes the need for investment on the part of the ship owner, and the container/rotors can be rented by the user of the ship.
Wish more time was spent on the inflatable airfoils, imo those are the "future" so to speak. Flettner rotors are really cool, but they only act as a supplement for traditional fuel use to reduce fuel cost by a percentage where the airfoil is intended and has potential to _replace_ traditional fuel as the primary means of propulsion.
Very good explanation for how the rotors work though, and excellent breakdown of why companies aren't incentivised to put more effort into this kind of research. I hadn't thought about the chartering system, but it's a good example of where "the free market" can easily fail to truly breed innovation and where regulation is definitely needed to go forward.
I think of these as marginal solutions - it is something that some can make work for their situation, but doesn't work for everyone in every situation.
The "kites" used by ships are not kites. They are large paragliders: very specifically designed to generate lift and drag - which produces what is know as the Glide Ratio (L/D).
Paragliders (or parafoils, as the kite community calls them) are a form of kite.
A government could also force the ship owners within its jurisdiction to foot the bill for installing Flettner Rotors (and subsidise those who can't). The impact of this depends on how many ships that would apply to (or rather how much naval traffic is done by those ships) but in some cases it should be significant.
It's coming back tho, but on a smaller scale. I know of a French project named Grain de Sail, they use a small sailing schooner and operate their own factories and shops, so everything, manufacturing, packaging, shipping and selling is integrated in one company. They depart from France loaded with quality wines and such which they sell for high prices in New York, on the way they'll also stop in the Carabeans to load coffee, chocolate, etc which they bring back and sell in France. It seems to be working quite well.
Those are luxury goods, the bulk of shipping is "bulk goods", things like grain, ore, textiles and other raw resources that simply don't have a lot of value per unit mass or volume but that still need to be moved.
A business model centered around jewelry or exotic food for the wealthy can afford to transport with expensive meams like planes or antique boats. Oil tankers and grain shipments operating in low profit markets litterally don't jave that luxury.
That said i would rather the luxury people use clippers than planes to import their french wines.
SV Kwai in Hawaii traded from Honolulu Harbor to the Kiribatis. She was sold a year and a half ago to continue trading in the Marshall Islands, a route not services by larger motor vessels.
SV Tres Hombres is a "fair trade" vessel operating between EU and the Caribbean. She is presently booked thru Feb 2023 with cargo.
Absolutely fascinating! I really enjoyed this one. I had no idea that these experaments/technologies were going on. I hope they become mainstream! Thanks for the video!
If it actually saves costs and provides a benefit the owners will adopt it. Otherwise you're just pushing a boondoggle.
it does save costs, but return on investment takes too long for the people making money, which is literally the only thing that matters
You noted that the cost of the rotors will make rates for cargo go up but you failed to note that fuel consumption would go down approximately three-quarters as noted with the ship from the 1920s. This fuel savings is what should be used to pay for the rotors. People don't need to be enforced to do things.
I get so excited for these videos. I live 2000 miles from an ocean.
Difficult to pull off REALLY
You make it sounds as if that only technological progress can be achieved through regulation.
@@travis4977 Which means it's probably bad technology.
@@CThyran Or bad shortsighted economy.
I feel like subsidising retrofits might work as an alternative
@@CThyran not necessarily though, regulations are big influence that it can actually sped up the adoption of the technology.
@@CThyran no, it's just that there's often a conflict between short term profitability and safety and sustainability.
Other things that would never be implemented without regulation: Fire escapes, life boats on ships, electrical safety rules, medicines actually being tested for safety and efficacy etc. Whether it's rules that came out of terrible accidents (like the Titanic) or to force a change to more efficient modern alternatives (like phasing out incandescent light bulbs) there are countless examples of regulation being required to do things that are necessary and beneficial but not really profitable.
Global regulation would impinge on freedom, just add the cost of sails/flettner-rotors to the charter cost and let the free market choose. For goods that are not time critical, sailing a long route to take advantage of the wind is a benefit, but other times a direct route is necessary.
We can't afford to let the free market choose on environmental issues anymore. Look where that got us!
I don't agree with mandates, but if the free market is failing it may need temporary intervention. Usually any new technology has a high upfront cost until it is widely adopted. So some kind of financial incentive may be needed to boost initial uptake.
@@R.-. They could just copy with how they did with the Montreal Protocol. However, global warming isn't as shocking and scary as the ozone hole.
The free market is not a real thing. A market needs constant regulations anyways or it will degenerate to a monopolized market.
Turbosails were extensivelly tested during the late 80’s/early 90’s by some French team (Cousteau)
What modern ships could do to go green, is essentially an electric sail hybrid. Electric rotors for precise manoeuvres, docking etc, and sails for on route cruising. And if it’s possible to generate the electricity on board, perhaps both the electric rotors and sails could be used simultaneously for greater speed
Sails already work exactly like airfoils, they use drag when going downwind and lift when going closer to upwind.
Ons problem with sails, among many, is they are incredibly complicated and expensive. A 200+ meter cargo ship would require massive amounts of rigging, miles of line, and all kinds of sails.
Also, consider the height of the masts. A 10 meter sailboat can have a mast as high as 18 meters. It's hard to imagine masts any shorter than 250 meters on a 200 meter+ cargo ship. Considering the new Gerald Desmond Bridge in Long Beach Harbor was designed to accommodate super cargo ships with a height of 60 meters would clearly not have sufficient clearance. Airfoils could at least be collapsed.
@@caseycooper5615 I already know all of that, I was just saying sails are airfoils.
I think while fitting existing ships with flettners is generally too expensive, new ships can be engineered directly for sailing.
It just seems like ships this size generally have a lifespan that makes it more interesting to modernize them every now and then.
Something flettners are too big and expensive for compared with new bridges or renovated cabins.🤔
Sails are labor intensive and also maintenance intensive so any cost in saving in fuel is more than offset by the cost of the initial installation. the maintenance of the systems installed and the operational cost of sail handling personnel.
An old-fashioned ship full of masts and sails does look cooler in my opinion. Currently, sails are pretty popular for private boats, and the occasional larger vessel, but you never see more than two masts
To address the suggestions that wind power is the answer I offer the following. The problems with the wind as an energy source are variability, reliability and low energy density; also relevant in this context is that the canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships were never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’ and all this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’.
When it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort. The area where one is most likely to be ‘becalmed’ is the ITCZ (Intertropical Convergence Zone) or ‘the doldrums’ as it is commonly called. In days of old ships with large crews, such as naval vessels, would try using the ships boats and some of the crew to row through the doldrums thus towing their mother ship out of the calm. Not practical for less well manned and much heavier merchant ships which could not muster a similar power (oarsmen) to weight ratio (vessel displacement). Traditional sailing ships are unable to go directly up wind so if the wind is blowing from the direction your cargo needs to go then a zig-zag course must be steered, more distance and thus more time on passage at whatever speed is achieved.
Wind speed is traditionally measured on the Beaufort Scale (wind speed) that runs from 0 (< 1kn or 0.5ms-1) to 12 (> 63kn or 32.5ms-1) and for sailing purposes the usable part of the range is ‘3’ (circa 8kn or 4.1ms-1) to ‘6’ (circa 24kn or 12.3ms-1). As the wind speed, and the amount of energy that may be harvested there from, increases the sea surface becomes progressively more disturbed which makes the harvesting process ever more difficult and increases the stress on the vessel. The increased stress means the sail area has to be reduced, either by using fewer or smaller sails until the vessel may in extremis be ‘hove to under storm sails’ or riding out the unsuitable weather using either a sea anchor or a traditional ground anchor.
With any wind power proposals the question that must be asked include ‘has any information been released into the public domain with regard to the expected energy harvest for the system, on a Joules per square meter basis and how may this energy be deployed as power in Watts? ‘Cutty Sark’, is said to have been able to coax 3 000 horse power (or 2 206 500 Watts / 2.2 megaWatts)) out of her, up to, 2 976m2 of sails, assuming ideal conditions and further assuming that for sailing purposes the usable part of the wind speed range is 4ms-1to 12ms-1 so the yield would be about 741 Watts m2. So another question ‘for the proposed option what is the expected upper wind speed limit for the system’? A single stage 'harvest to deployment' system for propulsion will have higher efficiency but ‘what steps are being taken to provide ancillary power such as the, small but essential, domestic, navigational and cargo needs?’
Amazing video as always! I didn't expect it having such much dept. Should have, knowing the quality you put into this channel.
Already waiting for the next one!
Video makes a big claim that's point blank wrong about regulation being necessary for something where it's plainly not, also doesn't mention dynarigs, which are highly discussed modern sailing rigs that likely wouldn't inhibit loading, especially if the masts were telescopic and the masts raised and lowered hydraulically or otherwise.
Love the detail of that Titanic's 4th funnel not actually being a real one :)
I feel like anyone with any serious ship knowledge or interest - such as this channel - knows about that. For such a channel, so knowledgeable about ships, to show smoke from all four would be a bit of an embarrassment, maybe even hurt their credibility a bit.
That's the one where Jimmy Hoffa is
It is the energy that is allowed to be lost just because it appears to be small in comparison to a very convenient looking energy source. Wind turbines can be installed or aerofoils can be placed.
Your videos are the best I thank you endlessly
Assuming these wind power solutions pay for themselves in a short enough amount of time (and I don't see why they wouldn't, they don't seem expensive compared to the potential gains). Wouldn't the operator (the direct beneficiary of the technology) be able to negotiate with the owner on a fair price for upgrading the ships?
I can see why an apartment complex wouldn't want to take the time to try and negotiate with all their tenets, especially since the tenet will have no idea how much money it will save them. But a cargo ship is a big enough asset, only has two parties involved per ship, and will have very clear data on how much it costs and how much money it will save in the long run. If the money saved makes the installation cost worth it, then these solutions should become widespread without any government intervention. If it doesn't then the parties involved are just too lazy to make easy money.
Fascinating
The US has the Jones Act. It only effects ships travelling from one US port to another, but it does effect US Shipping. - Countries, especially influential ones, could require that ships docking in their ports have a certain level of lower of emissions. They could even require ships to be using wind power, although this can cause issues with innovation (What if solar power suddenly becomes better than wind power? What if cold fusion becomes viable and is light enough and cheap enough to be used on cargo ships? Sounds SciFi, but I'm watching videos from all around the world on a device that fits in my pocket. I'm writing a message for anyone in the world to read, on a device that fits in my briefcase. So, I wouldn't write the law in a way that requires something like "sails" but it could be done.) Then, it doesn't matter what country the ships flag from, if they're not allowed in port to pickup or dropoff cargo without meeting the requirments then they'll want to meet the requirements.
you might want to look into the canopée it is a 120mtr Ro-Ro vessel currently under construction and will have 4 sails.
3:12 The common myth that a wing works because the air moves faster on the top side really needs to die out.
I may be incorrect on this, but it appears wings actually work the exact same ways as sails (in a round about way, if I’m following you correctly), ie., you are redirecting airflow in both cases. Folks will often point at the low pressure area on the top of the wing as being the lifting force, but it’s not really. The low pressure area simply acts to pull the wind downward. This redirection has the “equal and opposite” reaction of pushing the plane up.
The “redirect” understanding is important because there’s another huge component to lift that nobody seems to consider because of this “low pressure” misconception. The bottom of the wing _also_ pushes the wind down. So the bottom of the wing pushes it down, the top pulls it down (thanks to the vacuum). Thus both sides of the wing are creating lift (just like both side of a sail redirect wind to create propulsion).
This understanding can also help folks to understand why stalls happen on wings. At low speed the vacuum is not strong enough to redirect enough air to pull the plane up. But! At higher speeds the flow can still be broken pulling the nose of the aircraft up abruptly. Why? It causes the flow of air over the top of the wing to change from a laminar flow (a solid stream) into a turbulent flow (all twisty and stuff), which breaks up the vacuum and significatnly reduces the top of the wings ability to redirect air. Thus there isn’t enough air being chucked down and there’s not enough “equal and opposite” to push the plane up.
Anyway, apologies for the small article I’ve posted on your video ;). There’s just a lot of misconceptions about how wings work on the internet so I’m trying to do my bit to help folks better understand laminar flows…
Sails are wings. In fact, high end racing boats literally have a rigid wing sticking up out of the middle because they're completely interchangeable. The main motive force is lift in both cases.
im going to be rude but incorrect you are. the wing is pushed up purely by the pressure differential, this pressure differential in caused by air on top of the wing moving faster along the wing than on the bottom. because the air changes direction , the air on the outside of the curved movement has to move faster
Nice touch with the 3 working real chimneys for the Titanic
Instead of a kite, what about a small blimp with small sails on it. It would have less risk of being lost. If bad weather arises, it could be brought down to the deck, deflated, folded, and stored. The lifting gas could be compressed in a tank for storage instead of losing it.
Another way for ships to get rotors is by building the ships with them rather than retrofitting existing ships
True, but that would take a long time, ships stay in service a long time. Retrofitting is far cheaper than building new. There would be advantages for ships designed to have rotors (or other wind-driven systems) from the beginning though, the design can be more optimized for them similar to how sailing ships are designed differently from motor ships. I've seen a ship (the Legacy of Windjammer Barefoot Cruises) that was originally a motor ship with sails added, it's sailing performance was quite lousy compared with others in the fleet that were built as sailing ships from the beginning.
Wouldn't a better idea be to go to the shipping companies and ask them why this tech has been around for almost a century - with no wide scale adoption? If this were as great as the person who made the video claims - this would have been implemented a century ago.
Maybe countries could enforce new fuel-efficiency standards by banning other ships from docking in their ports (except for emergencies of course). It would still need some multinational cooperation though, if for example the Danes have this law but the Germans don't, some companies might start unloading their ships in Germany and ship the cargo to Denmark by train or truck. But it's a lot easier to get a handful of countries to agree on something than the whole world
It will just end up that the ship is unloaded in port X send by train or truck, as a result your product is to expensive.
idk this could lead to situation where some countrys economically cripple themelfs while others don'T and then goods get transported complicated and longer routes to avoide the countrys and then they transport the goods from the non restrictive country over road into the others. and actualy make it worse , so idk
This would only possibly work for very large or island nations.
For instance if Canada, the USA, and Mexico did this then it would be exorbitantly expensive to try and land in cental america and ship by train or truck all the way across Mexico and the USA.
Also a nation like Australia has no alternative entryways to its ports and airplanes.
But a "small" nation like france trying this would just be diverting traffic to Italy, Spain, the UK, and the Low Countries. Which would definitely defeat the purpose and harm their economy.
Besides, i imagine that there are loopholes to bypass or deem such laws illegal under international law, but I'm no expert on that.
Stupid idea. Let me guess you think they should ban ICE vehicles in 5 years 😂
🥱
Fun fact:
The traditional Chinese junk sail is actually the most efficient sail in the world despite of its rather small size because it can utilize every blow of wind from different direction with just 1 simple-to-handle sail.
Thank you!
I want sails to come into fashion so I don't have to take "Marine Engineering for Deckies" we're on the second lesson and I'm already drowning
if they did, you'd be taking an extra class in automated inflatable sail operation and maintenance haha
Tres Hombres Brigantine departed last year to its 13th round trip in the Atlantik. then there is the Blue Schooner Company Operating Similar Route same as Timbercoasts Avontour.
Falls of Clyde as 4 Mast Clipper finally got saved out of American Hands and will be restored in Scotland just like we Germans Saved and Restored the Peking that was roting in New York City. 2-3 New build Tea Clipper Replicas are Planed as well within Europe. Ceiba a 200t Aland Island Replica Trading Schooner is under Construction for 3 Years now and Timber for her Sistership is allready seasoning. and in the Pacific Ocean you have Kwai doing trips from Hawaii to all kind of remote Islands as well as having traditional Merchant Canos sailing my Nativs in the Southern Sea as well.
You'd hate working a tall ship more. Sailing by wind ain't a joke and it's far from safe.
You are more willing to pay for a house with insulation than without it. In fact, rental houses are insulated, as much as any other. Why would shipping be any different and need regulation?
Ships have so high burts that the sails could be placed along them. Not to replace the engines but to offload them when possible. Also making ships bridges more aerodynamic would help reduce the air resistance when they sail upwind.
Bulk carrier designers are considering the resurgence of the windjammer concept, that proved viable into the early 1950's. That is because bulk carriers (in the form of granular cargoes) often rely on shore infrastructure for loading and unloading anyway, so the impediment of masts and rigging is not as intensely felt.
Also, especially with fore and aft rigged sails, motor sailing has immense benefits to fuel economy and profitability. It also means the vessel is not as reliant on wind direction, or even wind presence, as the vessel's own motion from motor propulsion produces the movement across the sails necessary for further propulsion. Wind heading still has relevance, but a vessel can point much higher and go significantly further on the fuel available. In fact, motor sailing on commercial vessels is used extensively in South and Southeast Asia and the Pacific region for small commercial vessels, due to it's fuel and therefore cost savings. These are usually island and village traders, that carry smaller cargoes of less than 500T. Although, as mentioned in the video, this is also becoming more popular in the cruise industry for the same reasons.
…when I read “the vessels own motion from motor propulsion produces the movement across the sails for further propulsion”, I know I am reading the words of someone who has no concept of the fundamental laws of physics that constrain the opinion of all educated people.
@@XPLAlN I am no physicist - so cannot put it in overly technical terms - but wind can be true or relative. When it is relative, IE, caused by motor propulsion, it still creates forward motion relative to the engine speed to the vessel by means of the foil created by the sail. This makes the economic movement of the vessel. That is fact - any navigator or mariner is very familiar with.
@@sa25-svredemption98 …what you need to understand is there has to be a wind. If there is no wind, you cannot get anything from the relative airflow created by the propulsion system.
@@XPLAlN yes with traditional wind-filled sails, but only a few knots - extremely light airs - are sufficient to make motorsailing practical (again, specific to traditional sails). You literally only need the sails to shape, and the vessel's relative movement does the rest. It makes phenomenal fuel economy. Of course, like an aircraft, if you had fully filled sails already - such as with a shape retaining membrane, battens, or aerofoils rather than traditional sails, you can generate the lift anyway by your movement. Ergo, with the right sails, even no true wind can allow for motorsailing. What you are referring to is purely the true wind necessary for traditional sails to fill and shape, where the aerodynamic design of them does what I, and was loosely referenced in the video, am talking about.
@@sa25-svredemption98 >>”Ergo, with the right sails, even no true wind can allow for motorsailing. It makes phenomenal fuel economy.”
No it doesn't because that would defy the law of conservation of energy. Note, I am not saying you cannot save fuel by motor-sailing. I am saying you cannot do this in still air, and the fact you can create some relative wind by chugging along does not change it.
>>”What you are referring to is purely the true wind necessary for traditional sails to fill and shape, where the aerodynamic design of them does what I, and was loosely referenced in the video, am talking about.”
This video contains nothing that implies the violation of a physical law. The problem here is you are putting an interpretation on the content that it should go without saying is impossible.
>>”Of course, like an aircraft, if you had fully filled sails already - such as with a shape retaining membrane, battens, or aerofoils rather than traditional sails, you can generate the lift anyway by your movement”
Sure you can generate lift with your movement. But the vector sum of lift and drag cannot possibly provide thrust, when thrust is defined as forward in the longitudinal axis of the vessel, and your only possible point of sail is directly into your own induced wind. Even if you trick your mind into thinking that is possible, then conservation law should tell you to reject the idea of saving fuel in still air. It is flat earth stuff, like free power.
Actually, animations can induce a false feeling in people. I think it's good to add that boats use sails just as an airplane use its wings. So, it's not the wind that blow inside the sail. The exterior of the sail sucks the boat due to the faster air which creates vaccum :). So the best wind is not from behind, but across
These changes don't have to come through UN regulation, they can also occur due to the Brussels effect. If a powerful market like the EU sets a rule, for example banning all new ships without feature x from entering it's waters then ship builders will generally start adding feature x to most ships.
Kinda how Panamax and postpanamax ships are a thing?
They're made not due to regulations but because that's what's required to do business if you want to sail through the Panama canal?
If a ship owner can rent a ship that has less average fuel consuption, then he has more competitive offer on ship renting market.
So owner still benefits.
The real problem is lack of imagination - if it's not a direct and immediate profit - it's out of sight of the manager. My impression of the managers after working for years in corporations is that they're just not competent enough to think - they mostly just react. If their direct competitors will migrate to new technology and become more competitive, then the reaction comes: "we need that technology, too". Managers who think "Let's get that technology, because it will give us the advantage" are a rare thing. Mos just play "catch up" when they're forced to.