Sailing ships as transportation

[Hester]

As everyone begins to worry about their carbon footprint and global warming, we start to look differently at the products we use everyday and where they come from.

For instance, at breakfast today, I had cheese from Ireland and jam from Switzerland. Not exactly local. Undoubtedly burned lots of fossil fuel transporting them to Canada.

But, it's depressing to contemplate having to give up entirely the wide variety of things that international trade provides for us. (Not to mention giving up international travel, and the benefits of cultural exchange that widen our intellectual horizons.)

Perhaps, though, we could find a greener way to transport goods and people around the world.

What about reverting back to sailing ships? These days, they could even have green back-up power supplied by solar panels.

I don't know if it's economically feasible to resurrect sailing ships as a form of transportation on a commercial scale. But the prospect appeals to the romantic in me.

Anyone else have thoughts on this idea?

[Caraccioli]

Isn't transport by sea already slow enough? I just got quoted 4-6 weeks on a job shipping to United Arab Emirates.

Becalming, slower transport (Except during hurricanes, of course - but reducing the carbon footprint will end all of those, right?), the vicissitudes of nature, etc...

Eh.

Did you know that ninety some percent of the Global Warming gasses are nothing more than water vapor? Everything else (including CO2) is less than 5%. The impact of water vapor is 10 times as great as CO2. And guess what...it's mostly naturally created. Trees and plants create it. The ocean creates it. Global warming...watershed for politicians to limit our freedoms.

[Surfer Joe]

Yeah, Caraccioli's right. Global warming is nothing to get your JAMS in a jam about.

Personally, I'm looking forward to surfing the storm surges off the coast of Greenland.

[Misson]

You've been mis-informed if you think you'll be surfing G-land in your lifetime.

From https://pyracy.com/forums/index.php?showtop...pic=10404&st=0:

"Let me get back to the rising sea level itself. We start with activist-inspired 20 foot rises in sea level. That is a wild prediction that has had to be tempered quite a bit since GW became more mainstream. (Although, as Mr. Inconvenient attests, still manages to rear its ugly head now and again.) By the 1980s, it had gone down to three feet. One group of GW scientists currently predicts the sea rise by 7 inches to 23 inches in the next 100 years. Quite a dramatic difference, eh?"

(That last prediction is the current most agreed upon figure and it's based on current changes which are wildly unpredictable as the models that were used to generate these figures admit.)

[Caraccioli]

On the other hand, using solar power on ships seems sort of intriguing. I suppose it would depend on the amount of solar radiation that falls in the area in which a given ship travels. The amount and direction of the sunlight plays a big role in how useful solar power currently is on land. However, a ship might just be able to have the solar panels flat on the deck without as much concern for where to mount the things so as to gather the most sunlight. There are few obstacles to the sunlight on the open sea...a very interesting idea.

Personally, I expect we're going to see some radical advances in the efficiency of solar power in the next ten or fifteen years, myself. It has already improved in efficiency in the last 10 or 20 years. And once an idea gains momentum in this country... Battery weight and size is another important consideration, but that, too, has been improving somewhat. I have been looking into solar power for myself, but the cost is currently somewhat prohibitive, even with the government incentives. Still, I forsee a day when we'll be able to buy replacement solar panels at Home Depot and Lowes...

[Coastie04]

While not completely replacing engines, wind power is begining to be used to cut down on fuel consumption.

When it comes down to it, economics is what will drive new technology. I seem to remember a Japanese experiment a decade or so ago that built a large, wind powered cargo vessel. However, they found that it cost too much to maintain the sailing equipment, so although they saved a lot of money in fuel, they lost money in the long run. However, if it becomes much more mainstream to use wind power, then the price should come down considerably.

Coastie

[hurricane]

SkySails is actually alive and well as a concept. Saw this in Business 2.0 a month ago:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/b...05646/index.htm

Full consumption can be cut up to 30% on a trip.

-- Hurricane

[Red Cat Jenny]

Interesting...well sails of one sort or another have proven capable over centuries (no surprise to you lol) and there are very large hybrid sailing/powered ships out there. Though those seem to be for adventure travel etc.

I would take into account the weight of current solar panels which are quite heavy. Although if they can be engineered into a lighter source like the little chips in solar lawn lights..then there's more possibility.

Someday I hope they can invent a solar "skin" for vehicles of all kinds which would be fabulous.

[Caraccioli]

As gas moves onerously toward $4 per in the States, I expect solar power will be subject to all kinds of wondrous transformations and improvements.

This is the history of technology and innovation, really. A problem occurs, the worriers get all a-jumble and mentally a-tumble over it, the prices rise alarmingly and then business steps in with something nobody agonizing over what's happened in the recent past (which is just damned silly for the most part) even thought of.

If such alarmists would only invest 1/10th the energy into useful idea generation that they do into ultimately pointless fear and fear-mongering there would be no problem. This is why I like looking toward what can be rather than what was. What was produces limitations, rationing and regulation. What will be produces freedom, possibility and improvement. (Now watch - when and if solar power takes a decent foothold and industry gets involved and starts profiting from it, the worriers will be inciting panic over the fact that so much of the ground is covered with solar panels or the sand used to build the panels takes too much work or energy to refine or some such twaddle. Some things never seem to change. Alas. )

[hurricane]

Want an eye opener? The documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" is very interesting.

Here's the link. http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheel...r/electric.html

Interesting stuff, complete with the usual lineup of suspects.

- Hurricane

[Caraccioli]

Huh. Couldn't see it - it wouldn't load for me. I've suspect I know what it shows, though. I remember seeing a special showing rows and rows of EV1s sitting in a field or some such and accusing GM of being the culprit behind the death of the electric vehicle. While I've no doubt that the automotives and the gas companies work against adoption of such technology in small and piecemeal sort of way, I don't think it's the organized conspiracy that some people suggest. (There are lots of reasons one could come up with for having a parking lot full of EV1s sitting around. Some don't play as well as others on the tele.) The automotives just aren't that well organized and fast moving. (In fact, they're nothing like fast moving. That's why Japan has such a foothold and is toppling the once mighty GM.)

Besides, this is just more worrying about the past IMO. If you look closely, you'll notice that conspiracy theorists are all hung up on the past. The past is dead, leave it be. The retail future of automobiles probably won't come from the current automobile companies just as the digital watch didn't come from the Swiss watchmakers (who, ironically, invented it and dismissed it as a curio.)

I recently saw a special on a new electric car that looked like a sports car. I can't remember what it was called, but the company president or some such noted that the problem with electric cars in the past was that they looked so odd. He suggested that the only people who want such an odd looking car are those who are screaming "I am adopting electric technology because I care about the environment..." and so forth. Most people don't want them. So he made an electric car that looks pretty typical and sporty.

Personally, I have doubts that that concept is even correct. I don't think most people have been ready for short-distance, plug dependent cars. It's sort of a step backwards from one point of view. Plus you're just trading one form of pollution for another, possibly worse, form. It doesn't make complete sense, even to many environmentalists. At the core of it, I think most people want the same benefits they get from the gasoline engine and there hasn't been a cost-effective way to provide that so far. (I used to work for a natural gas distributer years ago and they were pushing NG vehicles. I thought it was a phenomenally stupid idea at the time. Still do, actually.)

It all reminds of a favorite quote I heard a long time ago, which I believe is from a late 19th century rail magnate..."When it's time to railroad, you railroad." I think it's almost time to railroad for a real alternative to the gasoline engine - and when it is, that's when you'll actually see it happen. Even the current crop of automotives and the gasoline companies won't be able to stop it - they'll be sitting there entrenched like some of the vinyl record manufacturers were 25 years ago unless they embrace change. To borrow another cliched quote: "You can't stop an idea who's time has come."

[jessie k.]

Maybe someone should invent solar-fabric, of a sort. You could make sails out of it, and while they harnessed the wind's energy, they could also absorb the sun's energy. (There is a reason why I've never invented anything)

[Caraccioli]

Maybe someone should invent solar-fabric, of a sort.  You could make sails out of it, and while they harnessed the wind's energy, they could also absorb the sun's energy.   (There is a reason why I've never invented anything)

Wow! What a cool idea! A flexible, light-weight solar network...it would even be portable then. Of course the real trick will be figuring how to transport the energy from the collection point (the fabric) to a central power accumulation/generation device. (Let's use all the contemporary gee-whiz sci-fi stuff and incorporate nano-tech energy conversion devices into the fabric. )

[jessie k.]

Nano-tech energy conversion devices...you are one of very few people I know who actually uses such phrases. I bet it would be a really pretty, shimmery fabric though.

[Caraccioli]

I once wrote an article on nano-tech for a magazine. Of course, NT as it was originally conceived was a bit different than what you hear about now. Putting minuscule holes in a drug capsule for better timed release of the drug is now called nano-tech. What I was writing about were actually tiny machines. The trouble with NT is that when you get on the molecular scale, the laws of physics change. Well, that's not fair, they don't actually change, but forces that have little or no impact in the "normal" scale world start to affect things at a molecular scale. We haven't really got a good enough grasp on it all to create wee tiny machines yet. (And my article was written in the late 80s, so it was really pie-in-the-sky and theoretical back then!)

Actually, I suspect the fabric would be black since this color seems best for collecting solar radiation. Look at all the solar panels. I believe that black absorbs heat, silver reflects it.

[Hester]

Maybe someone should invent solar-fabric, of a sort. You could make sails out of it, and while they harnessed the wind's energy, they could also absorb the sun's energy. (There is a reason why I've never invented anything)

Hi, Jesse:

I love the idea of sails that are also solar-power collectors!

And your idea's not so far-fetched. Apparently researchers in both the U.S. and Europe have already started to develop "solar-fabric" technology:

http://www.powerfilmsolar.com/news/webpage...20attention.htm

http://news.com.com/Researchers+band+toget..._3-5579562.html

Making the fabric strong and flexible enough to hold up to the stresses that sails have to withstand might be a further engineering challenge though.

Cheers, Hester

[jessie k.]

That's incredible! I'm sometimes amazed by the things that come out of Iowa, just because it's the state next-door, and we midwesterners always seem to be astonished when we do something really cool on a global scale. I think I want one of those tents...

[blackjohn]

"One group of GW scientists currently predicts the sea rise by 7 inches to 23 inches in the next 100 years. Quite a dramatic difference, eh?"

(That last prediction is the current most agreed upon figure and it's based on current changes which are wildly unpredictable as the models that were used to generate these figures admit.)

Even 7 inches can cover quite an area of land on a very gentle slope...

[Salty]

Hey if the world would be willing to slow down perhaps it would be feasible. but as mentioned economics drives humanity standards of what is important.

As a geologist have tried to look at both sides of the Global wrming debate and find most of it either misleading or a platform for politicians to try and get re- elected.

Yes we have added chemicals to the air and yes there is evidence that global warming happens with or with out humans so callled carbon foot print. It is the price we payed as a global community for our progresses. Although I too like the idea of wind powered ships sailing again as well as horse and cart on land. Most folk are not willing to give up a convient lifestyle in favour of what serverd our forefathe rs for millinia.

Just me twa cents worth on the subject, will crawl back into my mud now

[Caraccioli]

As I have stated repeatedly, I am quite for responsibility (in all things, including caring for the environment). What I am against is enforcing it, even under the guise of "governmentally responsible" actions so that money accrues to certain causes and individuals because they have staked out the territory.

There are leagues of reasons for this that I won't recite, but it ultimately goes back to freedom, which grows quite naturally out of responsibility. The two are inextricably intertwined. If we give up our responsibility, we are inadvertently giving up our freedoms as we must be treated like children by some overseer. However, that places the responsibility with what are ultimately soulless organizations like the government and various action groups. This really not what I suspect people generally want. I think most people are quite willing to take responsibility for their actions if the explanation is presented rightly - not all, but most. If you want proof, look to your own views on freedom and responsibility and then multiply that. I've found that most people want what I want to varying degrees and I think it's true for everyone. (Not to say that we are homogeneous, but there is a lot of overlap.)

As for 7" - 25", that's completely hypothetical anyhow. It gets smaller and smaller everytime they release that stupid report on which most of this is based. (And it certainly isn't enough to created surfboard-style waves in Greenland.) My point is that the model has changed so dramatically that I don't think it's valid.

In fact, I don't think most of the environmental computer models are worth the sand used to make the circuit boards that calculate them. There are an absolute gob of input simplification in them. They use such large areas to calculate their models that they can't even figure the effects of clouds because the cloud cover is too small to fit into the model. (see that other post for more on the effects of clouds on global warming.) There are a lot of other broad assumptions that get little ink in the press as well. CO2 equivalents growth in greenhouse gasses peaked at .76 percent in the 1980s, but since the 90s has been down as low as 0.58 percent, yet the IPCC models all use 1% for convenience. In IPCC/DDC 2000, they even admitted, "The forcing scenarios used by the models do not originate directly from any coherent future view of the world. They are an arbitrary imposition of a 1 percent per annum growth in future greenhouse gas concentrations."

Of all the world issues we can spend our time and money addressing, a possible future based upon admittedly inaccurate models seems nothing short of irresponsible to me. The one good thing about it is that it raises the awareness of the average person as to their responsibility in regard to the environment and (hopefully - as it has with me) causes them to take at least some action in this regard. But enforcement because of a possible future danger that may not even exist...*shudder* That's just usurping freedom to divert more taxpayer money to one person or group's little cottage cause. But if you feel bad, you can get carbon credits from the company through which Al Gore sells them. Uh huh.