Ship Emissions Got You Down? Look Up At SkySails
When Magellan first set out to circumnavigate the globe, he had the stars to guide him and the wind to propel him. While Magellan was killed before he circled the globe, his second-in-command Juan Sebastian Elcano finished the journey after 3 years and 1 month. For the next three hundred years, world trade and travel was accomplished solely through wind power, until the advent of the steam engine, and subsequently the internal combustion engine. But one company hopes to reignite a second Age of Sail with a simple yet effective design that will cut down on shipping costs, toxic emissions, and fuel consumption. Enter the SkySail.
- » See also: The Backwater DIY Electric Boat Marathon | Popular Mechanics
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
Little more than a giant towing kite attached to a telescoping mast via a synthetic rope, the SkySail claims fuel savings of between 10-35% depending on use. The SkySail hovers between 100 and 300 meters, where stronger and more stable winds are prevalent. A single SkySail can produce the equivalent propulsion of 600-1000 kw (about 800 to 1340 horsepower) under the right conditions. As the old saying goes, keep it simple, stupid, and that is exactly what the SkySail does. The wind is powerful, abundant, and best of all, free. While it isn’t likely to replace engine propulsion anytime soon, the SkySail system can be used in conjunction with the engine on a lower setting, while allowing the ship to maintain a higher rate of speed.
The SkySail is also much safer than standard mast-based sails, as there is a negligible amount of heeling (leaning caused by wind direction) compared to conventional sails. SkySail systems are currently being developed for cargo ships, cruise ships, fishing trawlers, and even sports yachts. The system is designed to be able to be retro-fitted to existing ships, saving money compared to purchasing expensive emissions scrubbing equipment, which can run well above $60,000 per 1,300 horsepower. Less fuel burned means lower costs, which means cleaner, higher quality fuels can be used and thus eliminating more harmful emissions. This is the kind of innovation that needs to be encouraged more often, offering simple solutions to global problems. Most of the investment thus far has come from private interests, though government subsidies could really put this technology on the right track. There are currently several test vessels testing the SkySail and so far the results are promising.
Imagine tethering a bunch of these to the biggest container ships in the world. While realistically, I can’t imagine this entirely replacing the 109,000 horsepower engines, its a big step in the right direction if it all comes to frution, and innovation begets innovation.
Source: SkySail
“…(pointy end for TC).”
AlanHowlett might benefit (everyone) from brushing up on his manners. Notice how “nic” disagreed with me without being a jerk. I’m not poo-pooing the SkySail as you’ll note in the “The SkySail is a good idea…” of my post. On the contrary, I hope every ship that can use one, uses one when it can.
I’ll admit I’m no expert on sailing, but I
can hold my own in physics. Do you really believe there would be any benefit from having the SkySail out if the wind is blowing, say +/- 70 degrees from travel direction. The cosine of 70 degrees is 0.34, so 0.34 would be the component of the wind force moving the boat forward while 0.94 (sin(70*)) would go toward pulling it off course requiring a counter force…e.g with a rudder or by steering the engine propeller off the tangent…either way it’s lost energy probably canceling out the gain from the wind in that case).
You guys are good. Keep up the debate but keep it civil, plenty of good points here.
Now, as for gov’t subsidies, these days it seems the gov’t is throwing money at damn near everything anyway. Why not something simple and economical like this? Again, I doubt that it will replace engines anytime soon, but considering how many boats there are and how much pollution they create, every little bit will help at this point.
If anything, it would help lower transportation costs or at least help offset the costs of using better, cleaner fuels.
Why not Nuclear?
1) If Somali pirates can recover nuclear fuel without killing themselves from irradiation then more power to them (my guess is they can’t). Nuclear fuel IS NOT WEAPONS GRADE … but it will soon kill you if you touch it.
2) Nuclear safety… there hasn’t been a SINGLE nuclear accident in the 50 year history of US nuclear propulsion and they currently run 80+ nuclear ships/subs.
It seems to me that the difference between “legitimate government function” and “subsidy” is simply a matter of personal preference dressed up in the appearance of an objective statement. So far as I can tell, a railroad track plays the same role in train transportation as a road does in car transportation, yet people say that Amtrak is “subsidized” because the government expects Amtrak to pay for construction and maintenance of track (and then the government gives money to Amtrak), but somehow road transportation isn’t subsidized because the government performs its “legitimate function” of paying for roads. This is absurd. The government heavily subsidizes the automobile-based transportation system. It’s pure sophistry to argue otherwise by picking nits over what is or is not technically a subsidy.