> After a day spent at the shipyard watching Ceiba being built, I ask Lynx Guimond, another co-founder of Sailcargo, what he thinks is really needed to cut the shipping industry’s sizeable emissions. Perhaps surprisingly for someone in the middle of building a ship, he tells me that one of the solutions is simply less shipping. “At the end of the day we just need to transport less stuff.”
I love it when people are so brutally honest about their own work.
Whoever can do so at the systemic level instead of expecting individual corporations to not be evil.
I'm not really in the mood to discuss whether or not government regulation has any hope of doing so here, since there's a much-too-common inability to look beyond the dysfunctional US political system that is just too tiresome to discuss around on a Monday morning.
But I will say on a meta-level that one way or another this must involve some form of politics, because fundamentally it's about humans trying to bring out desired human behavior.
Products do last, yes we can all cite examples of products that have failed earlier than we want but for the most part products today do very well considering that many never see any service before before being replaced for newer product and if they do get a service call its because they did finally break. Yes, some require none or there are no user serviceable parts
Now, I say this, owning and still using a Toastmaster Toaster which is older than myself; all my dinnerware and glassware is older than most people along with desk lamps now using LEDs but were produced in the 30s; but the point is people don't put any effort into taking care of items because for many they have reached the point of disposable.
Then when it comes to tech its not reliability but marketing has become so good people are quite willing to toss perfectly working items for the latest and greatest. Hell people do this with cars and anecdotally from a coworkers spouse who works in a home renovation company they toss perfectly good large appliances too.
The problem with this is that newer products are often significantly more efficient.
The environment would likely be in worse shape if we were all still using CRT monitors, plasma TVs, old A/C units, incandescent lightbulbs, cars from the 70s.
It would be good to have some openness about how long products last from returns and warranty information. This could help consumers make a more informed choice.
It's a good sign of someone who isn't bound by dogma.
Far too many people are locked into the consumerism cycle, that we must improve the things we consume and consume more of them, because "more good" must be the same as "better overall", right?
I doubt a guy running ship-building is 'bound by dogma'. The consumers are the ones who need to be brainwashed into buying new stuff every 20 minutes; the producers don't need to be convinced into some grand story in order to comply- acting along is in their best interests, it's exactly what they want to do! They can do it, knowing exactly what's going on, with their eyes open.
I'd love to see truly modern wind powered ships - maybe more rotor ships (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship) or something using a modern CFD designed computer controlled aerofoil. Something that could actually slot into the modern shipping industry and reduce emissions - even if only by 20% or in favourable winds.
Building 120 year old ship designs without the aid of modern construction techniques is cool, but it's not going to change the shipping industry.
It seems that they are indeed pioneering new technology, a mix of solar + sails + electric propulsion, including power regen from underwater propellers. It will have "one of the largest marine electric engines in the world".
The wood framing is likely just the most accessible way to build a technology demonstration model.
large cargo ships max at 25 knots. downward trend to save fuel, 20 knots is becoming norm. future norm might be as low as 12 knots.
duration of trips between China and USA have been 2 - 4 weeks. so will lengthen to 4 - 8 weeks.
so... given 7947 nautical miles (China to USA), a glider would take 11 months. Hmmm.
--
For future, imagine 12 knots satisfies majority of tasks. There may be payloads where 2 months transit may be acceptable. Is there some combo of sail, foil, rotor, glider, coasting that could sustain 6 knots? Would much smaller, more frequent cargo ships be acceptable.
One final notion: My original imagined use case for wave gliders is ocean cleanup. Various kinds of plastic sifting barges, forever at sea. Maybe bundle the plastic and drop it into a trench. Maybe have some kind of solar powered bio reactor that uses plastic as fuel. Maybe other bigger ships gathering the bails of plastic, like land based garbage trucks ply our neighborhoods.
Wallenius Marine is designing one. Together with their partner Wilhemsen they are one of the words largest Ro-Ro operators. Completely different scale, although always hard when one of the incumbents try to innovate.
I love wood sailing ships, and I think it’s pretty amazing that you can get people to sponsor you building and sailing them in current year. Of course, from perspective of actually fighting climate change, the idea is beyond silly, but what really happens here is that you’re selling to people the idea that you’re doing it for the climate, you’re selling the feeling of doing good, and people can spend lots of money to feel and signal that. I applaud the people behind the project, and my only worry is that stunts like these are going to distract from and remove the steam from efforts that actually push the needle.
Thanks for your comment. We all know that a shipping industry based on wood boats would be awful for the environment. We all know what would happen to the Amazon. So yes, you are right, it is silly to sell this as a solution to climate change.
Isn't wood one of the few renewable building resources we have? Besides building ships out of aluminum I don't see any other better choices. I don't totally agree with the conclusion; in the article itself they admit that this is more of a flagship project to show it's possible to achieve fossil-fuel-free shipping, not a solid commercial venture.
Or maybe that was sarcasm? Better avoided in this forum.
The only effort that matters is the move to nuclear power.
We are so far away from doing anything meaningful about climate change that any projects, including solar, we are pushing for today are meaningless.
Enjoy the 30 good years left where industrial civilization can be stably sustained and then be prepared for the bumpy ride to a world of 500 million over the next century or two.
The only effort that matters is the move to nuclear power.
I'm not even sure about that. The biggest concrete pour in Europe right now is for a nuclear power station in the UK.
We won't solve climate change without dramatically changing our patterns of consumption. Trying to apply technical fixes is repeating the same patterns of thought that got us here in the first place.
Nuclear is essentially done (outside of niches), simply because renewables have become cheaper (in $/MWh produced) than nuclear, while having non of nuclears disadvantages.
While I love the idea of bulk transport based on sail power, making this out of wood instead of steel is really one of those feel-good things instead of a practical way to protect the earth. The trees Ceiba is made of take the better part of a century to grow to maturity, and steel is actually pretty good for the environment all things considered: most steel container ships are recycled due to the high value of the steel. A completely different story to fiberglass, which is basically plastic and is tossed in landfills.
If only fiberglass were plastic. It’s a composite of glass and plastic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiberglass). Separating the two for recycling is difficult.
I think there is a place for sailing cargo ships, not convinced about wood though but would love to be wrong. Related, here is a project of a 67.5m/221ft long (LOA) sailing ship, with what looks like a steel hull https://www.towt.eu/voilier-cargo-towt/?lang=en
It won't. Capacity is minuscule this is 9 containers small ones are 1000-3000 and giants are 20000. Speed is 2/3rds. The crew is likely larger or same size.
Plus wooden ships are pain to maintain. Though lifespan might be larger. Not sure about costs to build though.
I just can't see reasonable way for this to work outside customers who really want to pay the premium for slower service.
On the other hand the crew might get a larger share of the profits compared to the crew on container ships.
Also, this is a prototype and effectively a research platform. And if you are going to build with wood, there are not many contemporary designs floating around. Starting with a proven design may be a good idea.
> Ceiba is small for a cargo ship – tiny in fact. She will carry around nine standard shipping containers. The largest conventional container ships today carry more than 20,000 containers.
She will carry the cargo equivalent of 9 shipping containers, or they are going to actually load 9 shipping containers onto the ship?
The ships and crews are expensive. Any time they aren't moving they aren't making money. Isn't the whole point of shipping containers that you can buffer them up and then rapidly load them onto a ship once it arrives?
...but that particular benefit is lost if it biodegrades.
I do wonder if long-intended-lifespan wood materials, like the cross-laminated timber used to build this wooden skyscraper (https://www.cnn.com/style/article/wooden-skyscraper-revoluti...) could consume enough volume to make a meaningful dent in the carbon balance for the near/mid term of the next decades/century.
That depends on where it biodegrades, how fast, the active lifespan and the number.
For instance the lumber in a building might stay in use for 100 years. Even if we aim for sustainability instead of our exponential growth pyramid schemes, every wooden structure ties up that carbon for its life span, after which another will be built. If the number of buildings we needs declines, we can plant more forests in the space we are no longer using.
True. It can also have surprisingly good strength to weight ratio if used correctly.
I'm no carpenter but I'd suspect the downsides are that it's biodegradable (and hence it will rot and things will eat it), it's a biological material and so its properties are going to be somewhat inconsistent, and it's very labour intensive to build with.
I'd also be curious just how cheap it is per strength (not weight or volume) compared with steel. I'd suspect the comparison comes out heavily in steel's favour or we'd be using way more wood.
I believe high carbon taxes are what's needed to capture the negative externalities of our current systems. All these do-good attempts are wonderful to show what's possible, but so much more would happen automatically if we just accounted for the true costs of things.
Readit News
I love it when people are so brutally honest about their own work.
Sadly, the best solution is for corporations to make more robust, high-quality, long-lasting, expensive, products.
i.e. Make less money, and do better work.
So...who's first at bat?
I'm not really in the mood to discuss whether or not government regulation has any hope of doing so here, since there's a much-too-common inability to look beyond the dysfunctional US political system that is just too tiresome to discuss around on a Monday morning.
But I will say on a meta-level that one way or another this must involve some form of politics, because fundamentally it's about humans trying to bring out desired human behavior.
Now, I say this, owning and still using a Toastmaster Toaster which is older than myself; all my dinnerware and glassware is older than most people along with desk lamps now using LEDs but were produced in the 30s; but the point is people don't put any effort into taking care of items because for many they have reached the point of disposable.
Then when it comes to tech its not reliability but marketing has become so good people are quite willing to toss perfectly working items for the latest and greatest. Hell people do this with cars and anecdotally from a coworkers spouse who works in a home renovation company they toss perfectly good large appliances too.
The environment would likely be in worse shape if we were all still using CRT monitors, plasma TVs, old A/C units, incandescent lightbulbs, cars from the 70s.
Hm, seems to contradict this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
Here I see energy consumption going straight up.
Far too many people are locked into the consumerism cycle, that we must improve the things we consume and consume more of them, because "more good" must be the same as "better overall", right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion
Building 120 year old ship designs without the aid of modern construction techniques is cool, but it's not going to change the shipping industry.
The wood framing is likely just the most accessible way to build a technology demonstration model.
Like this?
https://oceanvolt.com/solutions/hydro-generator/
https://www.liquid-robotics.com/wave-glider/overview/
--
After some quick googling:
gliders travel 0.5-1.5 knots
large cargo ships max at 25 knots. downward trend to save fuel, 20 knots is becoming norm. future norm might be as low as 12 knots.
duration of trips between China and USA have been 2 - 4 weeks. so will lengthen to 4 - 8 weeks.
so... given 7947 nautical miles (China to USA), a glider would take 11 months. Hmmm.
--
For future, imagine 12 knots satisfies majority of tasks. There may be payloads where 2 months transit may be acceptable. Is there some combo of sail, foil, rotor, glider, coasting that could sustain 6 knots? Would much smaller, more frequent cargo ships be acceptable.
One final notion: My original imagined use case for wave gliders is ocean cleanup. Various kinds of plastic sifting barges, forever at sea. Maybe bundle the plastic and drop it into a trench. Maybe have some kind of solar powered bio reactor that uses plastic as fuel. Maybe other bigger ships gathering the bails of plastic, like land based garbage trucks ply our neighborhoods.
https://www.oceanbirdwallenius.com/
Or maybe that was sarcasm? Better avoided in this forum.
We are so far away from doing anything meaningful about climate change that any projects, including solar, we are pushing for today are meaningless.
Enjoy the 30 good years left where industrial civilization can be stably sustained and then be prepared for the bumpy ride to a world of 500 million over the next century or two.
I'm not even sure about that. The biggest concrete pour in Europe right now is for a nuclear power station in the UK.
We won't solve climate change without dramatically changing our patterns of consumption. Trying to apply technical fixes is repeating the same patterns of thought that got us here in the first place.
Best of luck to the Ceiba/sailcargo team though! The project -> https://www.sailcargo.org/en/vessel
Also, this is a prototype and effectively a research platform. And if you are going to build with wood, there are not many contemporary designs floating around. Starting with a proven design may be a good idea.
The ships and crews are expensive. Any time they aren't moving they aren't making money. Isn't the whole point of shipping containers that you can buffer them up and then rapidly load them onto a ship once it arrives?
...but that particular benefit is lost if it biodegrades.
I do wonder if long-intended-lifespan wood materials, like the cross-laminated timber used to build this wooden skyscraper (https://www.cnn.com/style/article/wooden-skyscraper-revoluti...) could consume enough volume to make a meaningful dent in the carbon balance for the near/mid term of the next decades/century.
For instance the lumber in a building might stay in use for 100 years. Even if we aim for sustainability instead of our exponential growth pyramid schemes, every wooden structure ties up that carbon for its life span, after which another will be built. If the number of buildings we needs declines, we can plant more forests in the space we are no longer using.
Easy, shoot it into space! /s
I'm no carpenter but I'd suspect the downsides are that it's biodegradable (and hence it will rot and things will eat it), it's a biological material and so its properties are going to be somewhat inconsistent, and it's very labour intensive to build with.
I'd also be curious just how cheap it is per strength (not weight or volume) compared with steel. I'd suspect the comparison comes out heavily in steel's favour or we'd be using way more wood.