"There’s a structural problem slowing down the process: ship owners (who have to make the investment) often don’t pay for the fuel – that’s the charterer’s duty. The charterer on the other side doesn’t charter the ship for long enough a period to make low-carbon technologies pay back"
I know bugger all about shipping but this doesn't seem logical. Wouldn't the person hiring said boat look at the estimated fuel cost as part of their cost/quote? If they know a ship has this or other effeciency features it should become part of their pricing comparison to alternate ships.
Additionally if the ship owner was also the operator, they could benefit from some vertical integration, training their crew on the new technology.
If the effect of the kites on prices becomes large enough or the technology becomes standard, expect widespread adoption, but it's a reasonable claim that the existing market structure slows rollout when it's only marginally profitable.
Whats needed is for regulation to come in and say 'ships that have these systems pay less to dock in port' or whatever. But, the technology has to be proven to reduce costs and carbon footprint - so someone needs to make an investment to prove this works before governments will get behind it.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17885284
[0] http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1328...
[1] http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f109/colonial-or-greenwi...
Best is the enemy of good, and perfect is the enemy of possible.
2 megawatts. Tremendous amount of force.
That or always make it so valuable to always strip the power unit to use again.
How proliferation of fissionable U-233 is different from proliferation of fissionable Pu-239? Both share ability to be separated from fuel without enrichment factories, both can be used to build a bomb.
I like thorium cycle, but proliferation should not be used as argument for it.
Im imagining something similar to when you'r flying a kite and begin to reign it in - it seems like it pulls you towards it.
Speed of airflow is approximately constant. Extreme case is reeling it in at 1mph in a 200mph wind. Force is approximately fixed.
Consider that I have an object with a fixed force on it (a good approximation in that case). If I reel it in, I do work equal to force times distance. That work goes into heating up the air. The force on my boat is the same.
I'm not sure it's a problem we care about, but you know how we solve the problem? Collapse (or partially collapse) the kite before reeling it in.
You basically let the kite fall, then use its pull to generate energy and make it soar, then let it fall again..
If the wind speed isn't constant then you could save power by only reeling the kite in when the wind slacks off. If you felt especially proactive you could generate power by reeling it out during gusts then back in during lulls.
