Turns out, sail-power scales sublinearly and, shocker, the wind isn’t a reliable source of power for the logistics demands of today’s supply chains.
We’re never going back to wind, but we will be de-carbonizing shipping either with ammonia combustion, fuel cells, or both.
> The idea is not to turn modern cargo ships back into sailing vessels. Instead, these systems are designed to work alongside conventional engines, using the wind to reduce fuel consumption whenever conditions allow.
Given the increasing number of companies that are mentioned as upcoming partners for actual installations, it might be that they've finally been able to convince shippers that wind power is viable for cost savings.
We have had hybrid sail/combustion engine cargo ships for 200+ years, today they are reduced to novelty or historical status. We have been experimenting with goofy hi tech rotary sails for more than a century, and no one has really done more than make a few demonstrators for publicity.
I saw the headline, and immediately knew what it is. Always the same: headline implying sail power is back, body correcting that it's about minor fuel savings, and that some shipping companies are planning to install rotors on their fleet.
"This month's analytics report indicates our college educated white collar employed left leaning traffic to our properties is down over the same month last year"
<puffs vape>
"Don't worry about it, I'm having AI re-write all the green tech articles from 2005-15, it'll be back by November"
It's not much, but it's more than just planned stuff. I do generally agree with your sentiment.
The more expensive oil is, the faster the transition will have to be done. Simply because at some point, even the trash that freight ships burn will be more expensive than a bunch of battery containers and an electric drivetrain.
Which the EU already does.
> Even if Hormuz will remain closed for years production will rise elsewhere.
There aren't that many places outside of MENA that produce oil in reasonable quantities. European reserves are effectively at capacity, can't really build out any more. The only ones who can expand are the US but they have to ship their oil elsewhere to refine it (and in turn get refined products back), the US is only net self-sufficient but not gross self-sufficient.
Even if the US were to increase shale oil/fracking... it wouldn't help the markets too much.
AFAIK all these countries can increase production given enough investments: US Canada Guyana Venezuela (high political risk but with high oil prices the risk will be taken) Brazil
Whether the US is self sufficient or not is not that important as net production and its dynamics.
Unfortunately it is. When there is no oil coming to the US any more that US refineries can handle and process into the stuff the US needs... all the reserves and production capacity the US has don't matter. The US cannot process its own oil.
Today? No. A year or so, with the right economic incentive/certainty? Sure.
Most US produced oil is the easiest to refine stuff. It's got some of the highest demand on the global market. Makes sense to sell it.
The stuff we're set up to refine mostly? The hardest stuff to refine. The cheapest shit out there. We can add the most value buying that stuff and refining it. It also gives a lot of "byproducts" which are useful for plastics and other things which help give even more returns per barrel.
It's really not that hard to change a refinery to go from the heavy and sour junk to the light, sweet stuff. You essentially just end up bypassing a lot of equipment that's just no longer needed, with some other changes in processes. It's very expensive and complicated to go the other way, needing lots of new equipment among other things.
If we absolutely needed to, it wouldn't be incredibly challenging to retool to refine US produced oil. It doesn't currently make sense economically for most refiners, so they don't. And even a several month hit, it doesn't make sense to retool. A persistent expected future where we just won't get that heavy sour stuff anymore, sure, they'll retool. The biggest "cost" is they'll have a bunch of expensive machines sitting unused, and a bunch of new pipe to install to bypass it.
Agreed. And that's where I see the biggest problems. There is no economic incentive for refineries to retool - if there is a supply crunch, they can make much, much more profit with the captive audience that is the utterly car-hooked American population.
The government would have to order refineries to retool, but that is extremely, extremely unlikely to happen in the next two years. After that, maybe.
Side note: you mentioned earlier that it might be possible to extend production in Venezuela... unfortunately, I don't think that's possible. Their infrastructure is horribly outdated and by all accounts more broken than even in somewhat of a working order. And thanks to Iran blasting a lot of MENA refinery equipment, the manufacturers of such equipment are booked out - there's estimates that it may take half a decade to rebuild all what was destroyed. And the demands of Russia are further adding strain on the supplier market.
This only holds true until the first big refinery bothers retooling, then you're late to the party and suddenly aren't in place to produce nearly as much as your competitors.
> you mentioned earlier that it might be possible to extend production in Venezuela
I don't recall saying that, at least any time recently. You must be confusing me with someone else.
I do agree with you though. Rebuilding those fields would be incredibly expensive and take a while to produce some of the lowest quality oil out there. Things would be so much nicer if relations never fell apart and the US and Venezuela kept those fields operational.
Indeed, sorry, didn't realize that the username I replied to had changed. My bad.
> This only holds true until the first big refinery bothers retooling, then you're otw to the party and suddenly aren't in place to produce nearly as much as your competitors.
Well... theoretically there would be an agency responsible to follow up on violations of antitrust regulations. Practically it's been toothless before the current Presidency, nowadays it's degenerated into being yet another weapon to wield. Hand the President enough money and he'll not care what you do.
Fair point, my license only allows 12 miles and I have no intent of ever exceeding that lol.
Eg putting these things on ammonia powered vessel will reduce the amount of fuel needed, which is probably a net benefit.
Klaveness Combination Carriers (KCC) has launched a brand-new vessel that aims to use wind technology that the company believes will not just reduce emissions, but also improve fuel efficiency on its voyages between China and Australia.
Equipped with the first wind-assisted propulsion system in KCC’s fleet and a range of advanced energy efficiency technologies, MV Baltazar was officially launched at Fremantle Port this week
.. According to the company, due to the ship’s trading area, size and advanced energy efficiency measures including suction sails, MV Baltazar has the lowest carbon footprint of any vessel in these trades.
> de-carbonizing shipping either with ammonia combustion, fuel cells, or both.
Or methanol:
Methanol is emerging as one of the most practical low-greenhouse gas (GHG) fuels for deep-sea shipping.
* https://www.dnv.com/maritime/publications/methanol-fuel-in-s...
* https://www.lr.org/en/knowledge/research/fuel-for-thought/me...
Currently made from crude oil in a CO2 emitting process from a finite fossil fuel resource.
And yes, whilst methanol can be distilled from wood/crops (a more expensive process), this simply cannot scale, especially if humanity wishes to eat...... You do realise a large container ship is 1/4 mile long and carries north of 18,000 TEU containers; that's 9000 lorries worth. They are big.
Can we built giant conveyer belts across the ocean?
ftfy
Guess I'll pass