Why Don't Sails Work On Ships?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- Head to squarespace.co... 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 TH-cam 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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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 ..
TH-cam 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!!!!
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???
Not just about reliability, the smaller ships of the day had significantly less steaming range and a worldwide network of coaling stations hadn’t been developed yet
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.
0:02 i mean ... they can ... and they did... for a long time lol ... its just container cranes and containers would require some ... uh shall we say ...redesigns?
Or, they would be eliminated in favor of an alternative system?
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 !
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.
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.
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.
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
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....
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.
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.
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
It’s always a good day when you upload!
so true
Thanks!
I know next to nothing about boats but these videos are So Good for some reason I just love it
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.
I had no idea rotors cylinders could generate velocity in that way. That's insane.
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.
The cost and upkeep of rigging is enormous.
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.
This was a great video, you are the only one so far that has actually explained how those towers work! Thank you.
I get so excited for these videos. I live 2000 miles from an ocean.
Difficult to pull off REALLY
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
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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!
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.
The fuel savings mentioned with Flettner rotors merits further testing!
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 literally just wondered this yesterday, talk about good timing
I love this guy. "You can't row across the Atlantic, well, you can but you know what I mean"
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
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
3:12 The common myth that a wing works because the air moves faster on the top side really needs to die out.
Nice touch with the 3 working real chimneys for the Titanic
Long story short, oil is not so expensive yet to consider sails
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...
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.
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.
The title of this is poorly worded. Obviously sails work very well on ships, that's why the term "full rig ship" is a sailing rig that has carried cargo all over the world.
I love to think that there was a person out there who was saved lots of money by that disclaimer..
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.
All companies are "pro sustainability", except when they can save money by not being that, which is basically always.
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.
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.
2:08 a sail creates a high and low pressure because of its aerofoil shape, you’re actually being pulled forward by the sail
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for using the correct map of my country
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.
UN: You need to install this !
Countries that dont listen to the UN : ...sure 😹😹
IMO International Maritime Organization
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.
There are currently large ships sailing and testing the efficiencies of sails and finding that they are very efficient. The big benefit to technology is you know longer require a crew for the sails
It’s been awesome watching you grow!
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.
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 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.
It turns out half the commenters to this channel don’t understand cost benefit analysis, 25% don’t understand physics, and about 60% are ideologically opposed to rules.
One correction, ALL sails work as airfoils unless they are sailing downwind. Airfoils do NOT create a low pressure zone that “sucks” the airfoil up or forwards. Anyone with an electric fan intrinsically understands that the airfoils of a fan produce a THRUST in the opposite direction. Yes there’s a ‘low pressure zone’ immediately in the lee of the sail. But the low pressure zone does not pull the sail forward. Rather, further away from the sail is air at ambient pressure ( higher pressure than the low pressure zone ) This air rushes into the low pressure zone to try and equalize the pressure, but by then the sail, or Wing, has moved out of its path, and the result is a constant stream of air accelerated PAST the end of the wing or sail perpendicular to the chord of the wing or sail. The vector of this thrust is not always aligned with the direction the ship is sailing- but perpendicular to the chord of the sail, which is why you need a keel or centerboard to make it harder for the boat to move in any direction but the one with lowest resistance.
This is how on certain points of sail a boats sail can created speeds greater than the wind speed, because the rush of air into the low pressure zone can accelerate it to speeds higher than the wind speed. SO, once more, Sails that are not running ahead of the wind ( which are literally just being pushed by the wind directly) are acting as airfoils and airfoils all create a THRUST perpendicular to their chord. It’s apparent that a propellor, whether underwater or on an airplane, creates a THRUST. Not a low pressure that pulls.
In photos of airplanes flying just above a smooth cloud deck, you can often see a huge TRENCH plowed into the cloud deck by the air accelerated downwards by the passage of the wing. This is all the air thrusting downwards that matches or exceeds the mass of the airplane.
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.
Did you forget to add the word "cargo" to your title? Currently it just says "Why Can't Ships Have Sails?"
How about inserting a big rubber band instead of an engine for the ship?
How much would you have to wind it?
I wonder how many people appreciated the titanic Easter egg with only 3 of the 4 stacks blowing smoke
1:45: Artistic Interpretation (DO NOT USE FOR INVESTING). I literally died when I read this. Goddamn it take my upvote.
Fascinating
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.
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.
Your videos are the best I thank you endlessly
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.
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!
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?
pretty sure constant progress in fuel saving technology in international aviation comes about without the UN making any laws. Its because it saves money. If wind tech on ships really ends up saving operators money then they will become common place, and owners will provide what the market wants.
Absolutely right. Regulation does nothing but legitimise a slightly smaller amount of pollution. Property rights are the best way to prevent pollution
An example from Dr. Murray Rothbard
If pollution from a factory damages my shirt, the factory owner must pay to have it cleaned, repaired, or replaced. That's far too much of a nuisance for all but the stupidest of factory owners, so they will look into whatever ways possible to prevent damage to anyone's shirts, or indeed property as a whole
Thank you for your bell notification prompt sound effect being relatively quiet and not completely distracting from the video. It's the little things that count!
...Oh, and the nautical info itself. Great stuff! :P
Up until 1914, most bulk freight was carried by sailing ships. During the war these slow moving ships were massacred.
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.
I don't agree with the conclusion that only regulation can make ships more efficient. When a ship operator buys a ship, its a much bigger purchase than a person renting a house. So it will obviously be preceded by an extensive analysis of the ships fuel efficiency.
Think of it like airliners; the exact argument made in this video applies to those. "The cost of developing a more efficient plane is on the manufacturer, but the benefit is felt by the airline." Of course, despite that, planes have become massively more fuel efficient over the years. Because Airlines want efficient planes and are willing to pay more for them, its the same for ships
>>When a ship operator buys a ship, its a much bigger purchase than a person renting a house
He said the owner is not in general also the operator, and that is why international regulation is required else the vessel can be flagged in Pan Beria and avoid the capital cost of the equipment.
@@XPLAlN Regardless of that the owner still has a reason to care about the fuel consumption of the ship, because a fuel hungry ship will struggle to attract charterers.
@@tomporter8849 yes I have no doubt they do care about consumption and if they could be sure the fuel would remain above a break even price it would be an easy decision., But oil prices vary a lot.
regulation and laws forcing this is not the answer. if it were economically viable, people will do it. Forcing a crap solution onto the world before it's ready drives up prices not just by the obvious increased shipping costs, but also by the slow down of logistics due to the bottleneck of getting technology retrofitted.
absolutely agree
Looking at that last image, maybe fly the kite sail off the top of the Flettner rotor? (Or more specifically, off a center shaft on the rotor, or a free rotating bit on top, you don't want the kite base itself spinning.)
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.
The cargo ship with sails looks pretty cool.
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 😂
🥱
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.
Please make a video on how international logistics work and who are the different actors!
Keep up the good work! Love your channel!
3:15 it's not low pressure areas that create lift on an airplane. How would some stunt planes be able to fly upside down? Instead it's the deflected air that creates an opposing force in the opposite direction generating lift or in this case forward motion.
There must be a pressure differential between opposite surfaces of the lift producing airfoil The airfoil and air can only exert forces on one another by contact ie pressure. When there is lift, this pressure difference is a fact, as is the deflection of the air. To deny the pressure difference on the basis that air is deflected is as dumb as denying the amperage of an electrical circuit on the basis “it’s got volts stupid”.
Regulation is hardly necessary.
If the benefits of these Magnus effect sails are as great as you say, charterers will be more than happy to pay a premium on ship rental for the lowered cost of fuel, especially in the current fuel economy
@@travis4977 Then regulation will just destroy the business. Forcing people to act unprofitably will just give the 2 or 3 companies who get lucky a virtual monopoly on it. This is the same problem with shit like minimum wage
"The only way technologies like this are going to be adopted in a more widespread way is through regulation." How could you make such a large claim that's completely false?
@Travis it is false to say the only way to encourage the adoption of this tech is through regulation.
It will be adopted if it is efficient - it is a simple fallacy to say that just because the proprietor isn't first in line for the savings, they won't provide an incentive throughout the chain.
He then goes on to contradict himself by claiming that the proprietor will profit from the increased efficiency, just not enough to justify the outlay. Well, that is a commercial decision and if the tech really is efficient overall, businesses will adopt it. Indeed, those who don't will only disadvantage themselves.
@@MrRealstreet Without regulations short sightedness rules. If you cannot survive long enough to see long term gain then you just don't do it even if it is massively profitable down the line.
I think the issue with regulations about safety and environment is that they benefit everybody and pull everybody up at the same rate. Banning Ozone depleting gases in refrigeration units was an insanely profitable thing for the world that allowed everybody to continue thriving. The regulation caused a lot of hassle on the the manufacturer of said refrigeration units for sure, but since we avoided destroying our whole ecosystem they will benefit the increased population and global economy. But if you only focus on that one industry it without looking at the global scale once you only see how "negatively" it was impacted with it.
The only way ships changed to low sulphur fuel was due to IMO 2020 and a regulation by the international Marine Orginisation regarding low sulphur fuel, exhaust scrubbers and fines for ships found burning non low sulphur fuel.
@@lachlanlandreth9069 I don't think this adds as much to the conversation as you think that it does. There are so many variables you neglect to mention in your comment. I'm not saying you did it to be dishonest, I'm just saying that there is likely far more than can be conveyed in a comment section.
I'd like to see charts, graphs, and trends in sulfur expulsion, consumer demands, and what they'd be willing to pay to make the changes they wanted to see.
If IMO 2020 is like nearly every other policy meeting, they will have taken credit for codifying a trend that was already happening.
In the US, people literally think that the government rescued child slaves by passing child labor laws, and the governments are happy to take the credit, but the reality is that child labor was already on a steep decline, and the legislation just codified the trend, changing nearly nothing statistically, but making things more difficult for poor families.
Likewise, places like Australia and England brag about their gun control results, when investigating the trends reveals that their gun violence rates were already low and already falling.
Policy tends to come after the result, and take credit for the good, while blaming the unintended consequences on other factors. This works on most people, because they don't investigate the trends.
@@IWLDELJ using your Australia Example, there are critical points, such as in the wake of Port Arthur, they introduced a large buyback program along with stricter laws, which did include types not touched by law before.
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
Turbosails were extensivelly tested during the late 80’s/early 90’s by some French team (Cousteau)