(no title)
kkoste | 1 year ago
I feel that is the only true measure otherwise cargo ship builders are not inclined to build more of these.
kkoste | 1 year ago
I feel that is the only true measure otherwise cargo ship builders are not inclined to build more of these.
mschuster91|1 year ago
Well... 1 ton of bunker fuel costs about 650 dollars, so you're looking at 7.5k saved each day, or 150k per trip (assuming an average of 20 days at sea). Cargo ships have ridiculous life expectancies measured in decades, so it's very likely to make a significant dent.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109263/monthly-vlsfo-bu...
dtech|1 year ago
Johnny555|1 year ago
Note that 12 tons/day was the best case, the average was 3 tons, so that's more like $2000/day or around $400K/year assuming the ship is at sea 200 days/year.
Anything on a ship with moving parts has significant maintenance costs, so it'd be nice if they had a ballpark figure of the installation/maintenance costs as well as expected lifetime of the system.
And what happens in a serious storm? It looks like these can be rotated but not folded down flat, so what happens in unpredictable winds during a storm?
mgiampapa|1 year ago
Merad|1 year ago
akira2501|1 year ago
These are not simple machines.
rascul|1 year ago
wolverine876|1 year ago
desmond373|1 year ago
It would be good if there was some global carbon tax that required equivilent carbon biomass be grown from scratch to offset emmisions. Said biomass could the be processed and stored.
Its not really a tax, its taking responsibility for the waste you produce.
Same goes for plastics. If a plastic is used in manufacturing in a way that means its going to get thrown oit eventually then that company should be responsible for collecting that amount of that said plastic from garbage and storing it long term.
This would hopefully drive people to the most efficient solutions. Some fossil fues and plastics would still be used but their negitive effects would be offset by the collection and storage process.