Posted on 08/02/2024 11:16:26 AM PDT by Red Badger
Artist's concept of a ship with the CoFlow system
Looking like a set of bridge supports that were accidentally installed on a cargo ship, a new wind-driven system by startup CoFlow Jet promises to reduce ship fuel costs by up to 90% using stationary cylinders with no moving parts.
Between rising fuel costs and increasing government mandates requiring shipping companies to go carbon neutral by 2050, there's a strong push to increase the efficiency of cargo ships while reducing their emissions. One way of doing this is to take a page from the history books and readopt sails to harness the wind.
On the surface, that makes sense. Sails have been propelling ships all over the world for millennia and were still used for commercial transport until after the Second World War. However, there are two problems with sails that have pushed them out of the cargo market for all except the most local of niches.
First, traditional sails require huge crews. Something the size of the 921-tonne tea clipper Cutty Sark needed a crew of about 30 to handle the sails and the complex sheets and lines that controlled them. Compare that to a modern 196,000-tonne container ship that needs only 13 officers and sailors – and most of them are pushing buttons instead of hauling lines.
The second problem is that sails are completely dependent on the wind. If the wind is blowing hard enough and in the right direction, great. If it's blowing too little or too hard, or if it's blowing from the wrong quarter, that's not so great. If it's not blowing at all, you're not going anywhere.
(Excerpt) Read more at newatlas.com ...
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
“This has been around for a hundred years. Nothing new. See posted images of actual ships, not computer generated pics..................”
If only you had read the article you would know what you don’t know.
“By drawing in a small amount of air from the intake, pressurizing it using an impeller, and squirting it through the outlet, this generates a pressure imbalance and a considerable amount of thrust, which extends the full length of the cylinders.
I’m having a problem seeing how that doesn’t consume as much or more power than it “saves”. You know, that whole law of conservation of energy thing.”
Exactly! Sounds like a turbine. No where does it say how much energy it takes to blow this air out and how much trust it produces.
Another application of unicorn farts.
“And if there is no wind..................................”
There is almost always wind at sea. That’s why they were called “Trade Winds”
This idea has been around for decades.
It’s essentially the same principle, but like it said ‘with a twist’................
I didn't mean to imply that.
-PJ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanbird
Looking at the above, it is NOT a cargo ship as we currently understand.
But things might change if there is a demise of centralized government and big business. Lots of opportunities then for small business. Everything has pros and cons.
So far, not willing to invest my money.
OK.
I believe you.
But that leaves me wondering what you did mean ...
Perhaps you could elaborate on your point?
Thanks.
“The article was poorly at best, written. It reads like a puff piece for some subsidized DOE project funded by xiden or maybe buttgig. Find the engineering document and post that, then we might have a conversation. Till then.........>”
LOL! You had lots of comments till I challenged. Now you pick up your ball and go home ...
“And going beyond what you have pointed out, why didn’t rotor sails catch on a hundred years ago so that every ship afloat today would have “Cylinder sails” as they call it?”
Because fuel was cheap then.
Everything “green” is “Pie in the sky”.
A Crealock is not a ship. We’re done here.
-PJ
“The idea of excluding dry bulk carriers from the category “cargo ships” is absurd.”
Where do they say that?
OK ... reducing the cost of transporting oil is still a good thing, and not all tankers carry oil anyway.
I’m not saying this is good or useful invention; but IF it is a good or useful invention it would be good for any cargo vessel to which it can be adapted. Even a tanker full of ship fuel.
“Another application of unicorn farts.”
Because the tech is above your paygrade you feel you must boost your ego with stupid comments.
ALMOST always. Think of the massive potential financial losses each time that the winds are absent. Let someone develop the technology first, and THEN may big business can adopt it. Mandating an undeveloped technology can only lead to massive failures.
If the technology is suitable only to tankers and dry bulk carriers, that's fine too. Maybe the headline writers didn't know the difference, or maybe they thought the simplification of "cargo ships" was sufficient for a technology article for a general audience who (like me) doesn't know one class of ship from another (except for tankers and cruise ships).
Still, I will always be on the lookout for misleading headlines that are not backed up by the body of the article.
-PJ
I tried to read the article but my BS meter kept getting in the way.
Reading the article would be a good start. There’s no claim to perpetual motion or any such nonsense, just reduced fuel consumption. Not zero. Not negative. Reduced.
“The artist renderings are of dry bulk carriers, not tankers or container ships.”
This.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.