Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Wind Powered Freighters Return

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Sat Jul 08, 2006 02:33 PM
from the more-than-just-hot-air dept.
thatoneguyfromphoeni writes "It appears that sails could return to the ocean's freighters soon. Newsweek is reporting on a technology to assist with cross-ocean travel. From the article: 'SkySails' system consists of an enormous towing kite and navigation software that can map the best route between two points for maximum wind efficiency. In development for more than four years, the system costs from roughly $380,000 to $3.2 million, depending on the size of the ship it's pulling. SkySails claims it will save one third of fuel costs.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 08 2006, @02:38PM (#15684195)
    Scientists have been puzzling over the best route between 2 points for centuries, but the math has been too difficult.
    • by richdun (672214) on Saturday July 08 2006, @05:09PM (#15684732)
      Amusing, but in all seriousness, I'd love to see how well this stuff can plot courses through winds. This kind of thing could also be great for space travel - both for plotting through solar winds and gravitational assists (or both at once). If it's that much better at plotting through winds than whatever else we've had up until now, maybe it's also better than whatever orbital navigation plotting we have rigth now.
        • by richdun (672214) on Sunday July 09 2006, @01:48AM (#15686053)
          And only on Slashdot could someone make such a worthless comment.

          Solar wind, gravitational plots, and air winds all represent very subtle and dynamic forces that can't be directly controlled (unlike aerodynamic forces and engine thrust, for instance). If these guys are able to accurately navigate through winds and do it all more efficiently (and faster, hopefully) than currently available, the navigational community could apply their methods to a lot of different methods of navigation. It's like finding a better turbine blade - jets, powerplants, and watercraft could all benefit.
  • Welcome to the 80's (Score:4, Informative)

    by Warshadow (132109) on Saturday July 08 2006, @02:41PM (#15684210)
    During the oil crisis in the early 80's they worked on this. I'm fairly sure one company did add sails to a ship or two and did see a reduction in fuel consumption.

    Also Popular Mechanics ran an article on this like 4 months ago. In fact it was on the cover of that issue.
    • I'm sure you'll get modded up. No surprise that high oil prices in the late 70s early 80s had these same kinds of research projects. They probably floundered in the 90s when prices came down and now someone is blowing the dust off the old plans.

      I actually proposed something similar for providing and shipping desalinated water in my blog [jaytv.com] with Now All I Need Is A Giant Baggie..." [jaytv.com]just a week ago.
        • There is a company (mostly one guy, actually) - http://www.kiteship.com/ [kiteship.com] - that has been experimenting, testing, and building kites for boats of various sizes - including maxi sailboats and AC Boats, and has been testing much larger kites designed for ships. They look a little different from the kites designed for kiteboarding. It is not just materials, either - the shapes and techniques for setting and dousing have been big parts of it, as far as I understand.

          The sky sails people seem to be trying to get
    • by PapayaSF (721268) on Saturday July 08 2006, @03:00PM (#15684297)
      The early helicopter designer Anton Flettner [wikipedia.org] made an interesting attempt in the '20s to harness wind power for ocean travel. The Flettner rotorship Bruckau [efluids.com] used two tall, rotating cylinders to harness the Magnus Effect. It worked, but unfortunately turned out to be less efficient than normal propulsion [tecsoc.org].
    • by fm6 (162816) on Saturday July 08 2006, @03:06PM (#15684317) Homepage Journal
      Indeed, in the 80s, lots of companies hopped on the alternative energy bandwagon. Exxon seemed to be operating on the assumption that they'd be out of the oil business soon. They bought into high tech in a big way, including the company I was working for [warthman.com]. One person I met from another Exxon subsidiary talked about new battery technology they were working on. This was supposed to be a new business for all those Exxon gas stations that soon wouldn't have any gas: swapping out depleted batteries in electric cars.

      Then oil prices came back down, those batteries turned out to be harder to design than they thought, and Exxon discovered they weren't very good at managing high tech. Back to business as usual. And here we are again...

    • by Danga (307709) on Saturday July 08 2006, @03:52PM (#15684478)
      Also Popular Mechanics ran an article on this like 4 months ago. In fact it was on the cover of that issue.

      I was trying to remember where I somewhat recently read about this technology and thank you for reminding me that it was in Popular Mechanics.

      I can't find a link to the Popular Mechanics article (I think it was in the february 2006 issue) but you can read more about this technology here http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2005/02/hybrids-hybrid-b oats-hybrid-ships-and.html [blogspot.com] and the following link has some more information as well as some interesting pictures/diagrams http://www.primidi.com/2005/03/07.html [primidi.com] .

      It is pretty amazing how much more efficient the sails can make a ship, from the last link I mentioned:

      "cargo vessels can increase their speed by a minimum of 10% -- in the example given speed is increased yet by 2.25 bends, equaling 15%. Alternatively by using the SkySails propulsion fuel savings of up to 50% can be implemented."

      It showed that using 1200 litres of fuel per hour a normal ship would cruise at ~15.5 knots and a skysail enhanced ship would cruise at close to 18 knots, not too bad of a speed gain. If the skysail ship wanted to cruise at 15.5 knots instead then fuel consumption would drop from 1200 litres per hour to around 550. That is just awesome and I really hope this goes into wide use where it is feasable to use it.
          • "Sadly if this does take off and companies start saving money by doing this the oil companies will just raise the cost of fuel sold for large ships to make up the difference."

            So you're telling me that as demand decreases and supply remains constant, price increases? I think an econ professor's head just asploded.

            Seriously, though, I really do hope that this becomes a common technology. I oversee some aspects of a domestic supply chain, and you would be surprised to know how much money is spent geting

  • by Frequency Domain (601421) on Saturday July 08 2006, @02:42PM (#15684213)
    The artist's conception picture in the article shows the bow as the point of attachment for the parasail. I suspect that would make steering much more difficult, compared to hooking the parawing near the center of mass for the ship.
    • Hmmm - I'd say closer to the CP than the CG since then the sail could help trim the ship.
    • by nacnud75 (963443) on Saturday July 08 2006, @05:39PM (#15684842)
      The parasail behaves very differently to a normal triangular sail or even a jenica. You move the parasail constantly through the air in a figure of eight to generate power. Also these ships are likely to follow the trade winds where the wind normally comes from the stern, therefore attaching the sail to the bow won't be a problem as most of the time the ship would be traveling on a broad reach or run.
      • by MathFox (686808) on Saturday July 08 2006, @03:58PM (#15684498)
        It takes some time to get a supertanker turning... but once they turn it takes significant time to stop the rotation. Rotational inertia can work against you.
        Having the pulling force closer to the center of the ship will decrease the needed rudder force for correction; using the rudder creates friction, so that's best avoided. Another advantage of having the ropes mid-deck makes it possible to lower the kite on deck, much more convenient than fishing it out of the waves after use.
      • by alshithead (981606) * on Saturday July 08 2006, @09:28PM (#15685470)
        Most newer freighters and tankers can pretty much dock themselves. The have bow and stern thrusters that make them very maneuverable at low speed. These days tugs are more of a backup system for docking ships. They'll tie on and sit at the ready but the pilot on the ship is doing the docking using the bow and stern thrusters.
  • TFA doesn't seem to say, I'd imagine that thing would have to be absolutely huge if, as they say, it can pull a full-sized ship. I'd like to see some details on deployment as well, I imagine a huge thing like that would be a bit tricky to handle in any kind of useful wind, when trying to get it launched. Great idea though - I've often wondered if wind-assist wouldn't be a useful idea on ships, but I had in mind more traditional masts and sails with a bit of automation, this is a lot simpler, and therefore
    • I don't think it's pulling the ship like a traditional sailboat, rather I think it's more of an assist to save on fuel costs. It makes sense if they can keep the system automated (and light!) enough to not interfere too badly with existing ship systems. Unfortunatly, it looks rather complex in the picture and if it requires an extra crewman or two to operate the concept is dead in the water. Crewmen are expensive and fuel isn't bad enough yet to make people receptive to expensive complex doodads.
      • TFA says "Ships can use their engines to begin and end voyages and use sail power in lieu of engines for the middle portion. Use both, and you go even faster." So at least whoever wrote the article has the impression the sail can pull the ship without engines, although like you, I have my doubts.
        • Re:How big? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Cromac (610264) on Saturday July 08 2006, @03:53PM (#15684483)
          At this site http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/ [bath.ac.uk] the most powerful ship diesel running at its most efficient speed burns 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour. Even using the cheap, nasty fuel these ships burn that's a big expense.

          According to http://www.skysails.info/index.php?id=66&L=1 [skysails.info]

          Increasing efficiency using ship diesel has almost reached its maximum potential and is also extremely expensive. According to the calculation of an expert on ship propulsions, shipping companies would have to invest up to 500,000 Euros in order to reduce a ship's fuel consumption by 1%. Fuel savings of 5% would be a fantastic performance for ship owners, according to Niels Stolberg, managing partner of Bremen-based shipping company Beluga Shipping GmbH.
          To get an increase of 35% (the max claimed by SkySails) would mean a 3.5 million euro investment, that's a lot of crewman salaries even at union wages and less than the Skysails implementation would cost.

          They have some interesting performance calculations on their website too about how much sail produces how much energy. http://www.skysails.info/index.php?id=89&L=1 [skysails.info]

  • by Assmasher (456699) on Saturday July 08 2006, @02:43PM (#15684218) Journal
    ...the course of a *different* route than if the ship is entirely under power; ergo, use the sails and you need to chart a different, likely less direct, course for the ship. I wonder what the average increase in distance for a route is?

    Likely this will still have value even if just used when the wind is positioned conveniently. Certain legs of round trips are certainly likely to benefit greatly from sail power.

    Very cool. I'd certainly love to see that out on the ocean.

    • Wind like ocean currents is free. Airliners already try to catch tail winds when they can on the jetstream here in the US, and I guess its common for other countries as well. I believe that tankers already take advantage of currents as well.

      What is interesting is that people used to be grateful to spend long periods (months?) of time to travel across oceans with an acceptable death/sickness rate of what about 30% to do international travel. Now, if an airline is delayed 30 minutes for an international fl
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 08 2006, @02:50PM (#15684250)
    Actually, this is not just a weird idea, but this is already in use by Beluga [beluga-group.com], an ocean carrier from Bremen/Germany.

    (Funny that the image whose words I have to type in right now says 'seaport' (-: )
  • Hey, didn't KevinCostner's boat in Water World have one of these?
    • While the boat in Water World was quite cool, no it wasn't kite powered. They actually used two former French Forumla 1 (if I remember the class right) racing tris. One with it's original rig largely intact, and rigged so it could be sailed by a concealed crew while Costner jumped around on the multi-crank-tiller-thing at the back. The second, with it's rig replaced with a simulated egg-beater style vertical axis wind turbin that supposedly provided power for the boat's electric motors.

      Those real world t
      • Re:Wind assist (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ray-auch (454705) on Saturday July 08 2006, @06:48PM (#15685042)
        I'd just have to wonder about the incredible tension the kite's main lead would be under. We're talking HUGE forces here. One of those "if it snaps, someone's gonna die" kind of tensions.


        can't be much different to towing the ship with a tug - which is pretty common.

        forces on anchor cables and mooring lines are also likely to be pretty similar.

        you are right on the "someone's gonna die" level on tension (well known with eg. mooring lines), but it's going to be a manageable risk because it is already managed with ships of this size.
  • by iminplaya (723125) <.iminplaya. .at. .gmail.com.> on Saturday July 08 2006, @02:54PM (#15684268) Journal
    Sorry, this [bookrags.com] is the best I could find. I'm just not that good with this Google thing. I was looking for a picture, but FTL:
    Rising fuel prices during the 1970s prompted the development of a new technology that used sails shaped like aircraft wings turned on end to take some of the burden off the engines and save fuel. Slightly curved to form a wing shape, these sails were attached to a mast that could pivot and locate the best angle for the sail to catch the wind. Once the computers set the mast at the best angle to the wind, the sail created the same "lifting" force that an airplane's wing generates, except that the force pushed the ship along the water. However, this system did not always prove to be efficient for extremely large vessels. I thought what I saw was that the mast itself was a rigid aerodynamic sail.
  • by irritating environme (529534) on Saturday July 08 2006, @02:55PM (#15684277)
    One of the things I was looking forward too as gas/oil prices skyrocketing was a decrease in offshore manufacturing. Economics and exploitation of slave labor may say that it's cheaper to manufacture something and then send it 2,000 miles over ship rather than manufacture locally, that entire equation depends on cheap oil.

    Stuff like this will save oil and carbon outputs, but really just allows the same wasteful economic system. I have mixed emotions.

    Ahh, the military will probably ban them b/c it disrupts their radars.
    • by Stoutlimb (143245) on Saturday July 08 2006, @03:31PM (#15684409)
      Not all cheap labour is slave labour. In fact, "slave labour" as you call it, is vastly in the minority. Most shipping just takes advantages economic differences between countries. (ie cheap to make in one country, expensive to make in another.) "Slave labour" is the boogeyman people drag out to frighten people when they are against international trade for whatever reason.

      While deplorable, it's hardly the standard.
            • It's interesting how all the attention is consistently directed at 'abuses' in countries where it's convenient for the media to report them.

              Amazing how the media only talks about things it has access to, and amazing how they talk a lot about thigns which interest it's viewers. Because in all honesty the average american gives a donkey's ass about the conditions in China.
    • by sockonafish (228678) on Saturday July 08 2006, @04:21PM (#15684574)
      Wasteful? If it's cheaper to make a good elsewhere and then ship it than to make it locally, it's more wasteful to produce that good locally.

      Economics classes should be required to graduate high school.
      • by ThosLives (686517) on Saturday July 08 2006, @05:32PM (#15684818) Journal
        Perhaps they should also require Advanced Economics.

        'Waste' doesn't necessarily equate with price or cost. For instance, it is profoundly wasteful that, for instance, in the US we have non-refillable containers for just about every food product we purchase. This is very inexpensive, but is very wasteful - there is no technical reason why a store could not have a sanitary 2-liter filling station where you just take the same bottle over and over to obtain your beverage of choice. This would actually be less expensive in the long run, but it would cost people who make bottles their jobs, etc. etc.

        Again, remember that cost does not necessarily match with waste. In fact, generally less expensive alternatives cost less than their less-wasteful alternatives - at the initial investment stage. However, the long-term costs are always lower with less waste.

        • by Firethorn (177587) on Saturday July 08 2006, @06:43PM (#15685024) Homepage Journal
          there is no technical reason why a store could not have a sanitary 2-liter filling station where you just take the same bottle over and over to obtain your beverage of choice. This would actually be less expensive in the long run, but it would cost people who make bottles their jobs, etc. etc.

          Actually there is. Well, it's not a technical reason, but a sanitary reason. Heath codes/standards, especially with concerns about people possibly deliberatly tainting stuff, rose to the point that the required cleaning/powerwashing/sterilizing to reuse containters costs more energy than the oil that that utterly cheap containers we use today. There are some places where you can refill filtered water though. It wouldn't be an unworkable idea to refill all your milk/soda/tea/juices at the store, but even if you had everyone bring their own containers, you'd have to worry about rotating, cleaning&sanitizing the various taps.

          Again, remember that cost does not necessarily match with waste. In fact, generally less expensive alternatives cost less than their less-wasteful alternatives - at the initial investment stage. However, the long-term costs are always lower with less waste.
          It can depend, actually. Sometimes the capital costs of a 'less wastefull solution' are such that you'll never make back the investment.
      • by b0s0z0ku (752509) on Saturday July 08 2006, @08:16PM (#15685283)
        Wasteful? If it's cheaper to make a good elsewhere and then ship it than to make it locally, it's more wasteful to produce that good locally.

        Actually, US manufacturing could be a hell of a lot cheaper than it is now while maintaining our good standards of living. Sadly, our labor unions don't support increased automation, so we are forced to rely on cheap foreign drudge-labor, often in countries that aren't our friends.

        -b.

    • by dragons_flight (515217) on Saturday July 08 2006, @04:46PM (#15684663) Homepage
      Oceanic shipping is already incredibly efficient and only accounts for a few percent of the cost of most goods shipped that way. For example, a supertanker only adds 2 cents [wikipedia.org] to the cost of a gallon of gas. It would take a very radical change in the cost of oil to have any significant impact on the economic viability of overseas manufacturing.
  • I'm skeptical (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jeff Molby (906283) on Saturday July 08 2006, @03:01PM (#15684301)
    Here is a video [skysails.info] from their site. This is obviously a prototype, so they have a LOT of scaling to do. Plus, the only time you see the boat (yes, I said boat, not ship) moving with any significant speed, you can't see the rear, so it's safe to assume that its engine is assisting.
  • I heard from a friend that it takes ~40 gallons of fuel to move one of those big cruise ships. This would be a great idea for recreational ships in terms of fuel savings. Not only that, it would be a great idea in terms of the novelty. People would think it's neat to ride on a cruise ship pulled by a huge kite. Who knows? Maybe someone will find a way to take people up in the kite (for a fee). Maybe not. That would be dangerous.
  • by VikingBerserker (546589) on Saturday July 08 2006, @03:14PM (#15684344)

    Sailboats tend to need keels if they plan on sailing in any direction other than directly downwind.

    I'm not just mentioning this as another thing to factor into the cost of retrofitting ships; there is also the consideration of the added draft the ship needs in port in order to avoid running aground.

    I see this as a potential problem for using sails, since ports may need to further dredge their channels and inlets in order to allow larger sailing craft to load and unload their cargo. Will they still consider this cost-effective?

    • Sailboats tend to need keels if they plan on sailing in any direction other than directly downwind.

      Assuming that there needs to be something extra for directional stability, there are also :

      • centreboards - which drop or hinge from inside the boat which can be retracted
      • lee boards - which hinge from the side of the boat, one on each side. The one on the downwind side is usually lowered, hence the name. The most common example I can think of for these that you might know ( from paintings and such ) is Dut
      • The rudder is used to change direction.

        The keel is used as resistance. Because it has a large surface area, it resists the ship being pushed off line by the force of the wind. It's like squeezing a seed between your fingers. Your fingers are pushing up and down, but the seed shoots out sideways. This happens because your fingers keep the seed from going up or down.

        This is needed because the wind may be blowing north/south and you need to go east/west. Just turning the sail and the rudder will only change th
  • by wbean (222522) on Saturday July 08 2006, @03:25PM (#15684382)
    Maybe, but the real reason sailing ships went out of use wasn't the cost of transporting the cargo. Remember that sailing ships didn't need space for engines or fuel; and, by the end of the 19th century they were sailed by very small crews. They were always the cheapest way to get cargo from one point to another. What killed them was the unreliability of their passage times: In order to gurarantee a steady supply of a commodity you had to have big wharehouses at each end. Steamships eliminated the wharehouses so the end-to-end cost was less. Just in time inventory anybody?
    • I don't see how this applies, this system is using wind as a supplement, not as its main or only source of propulsion. I really don't know how feasible this is, but it would be interesting to try. It assumes that the wind is blowing faster than the ship would move under its own power, and assumes the ship isn't fighting the wind. Whether the useful wind makes up for the cost of buying and operating some sort of sails is unknown.
      • by Firethorn (177587) on Saturday July 08 2006, @07:04PM (#15685087) Homepage Journal
        It's unclear that war/privateers and piracy are much of a problem crossing the Pacific right now.

        Not in the Pacific, but there's issues in the caribbean, around Africa(Somolia), and certain sections of the middle east.

        What protects the giant cargo ships is that they're so big it'd take a ship of equal size to steal the cargo, and even pirates could get ahold of a ship that size, it'd be rather trivial to track by satellite, and most of the navies of the world consider pirate suppression part of their core duties. If there's nothing else more important going on, even an American Aircraft carrier will divert to chase suspected pirates.

        Most pirates today mostly steal the crew's effects, maybe part of a container, and sometimes take the crew hostage for ransoms.

        You don't hear much about it, but cruise liners, which you'd think would be tempting targets, are also among the fastest, especially when they turn all the engines up. With the smaller boats pirates tend to use, they either lack the speed or the endurance to catch them. Even if they do, it has a huge crew that's also trained(and armed) to keep pirates from getting aboard. That and the moment they spot pirates they'll be calling for help, and remember how I mentioned most navies like catching pirates? Pirates chasing a cruise liner will have every naval asset that has a prayer of intercepting will be applying full power to the engines.
  • by CrazyJim1 (809850) on Saturday July 08 2006, @03:30PM (#15684400) Journal
    "navigation software that can map the best route between two points for maximum wind efficiency"

    So yeah Jeff, I was the ultimate cause for the latest oil spill, but anyone could have done it. I forgot to put an upper cap on the windspeed, and damned if the ship didn't go cruising straight into that last hurricane.
  • Real hybrid (Score:4, Funny)

    by Subacultcha (921910) on Saturday July 08 2006, @08:12PM (#15685274)
    I'm going to buy a Prius and put a sail on it. That way I can be even more smug than every hybrid owner on the road.

    "You call THAT a hybrid? Pfff."
  • by Locutus (9039) on Saturday July 08 2006, @08:42PM (#15685336)
    The Walker Wing Sail system was designed in the 70s when fuel was 'expensive' and the idea was to outfit freighters with the Wing Sails to help reduce fuel costs. Unfortunately, once the fuel 'shortages' of the 70's went away, Mr Walker found it very difficult to sell his systems. He started making his own Trimarans when no boat builders would license his design and build boats using it. But finacially solid orders were too few and only a handful of his boats were made utilizing the Wing Sail design. Some are still afloat today.

    http://www.lusas.com/case/composite/wingsail.html [lusas.com]

    So I think the Walker Wing Sail makes more sense than this para-sail system.

    LoB
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 08 2006, @08:55PM (#15685371)
    Those of you who have never been out of littoral water (bays, rivers, harbors, canals, lakes, etc) please do a little research before deep-sixing an idea.

    The largest sailing ships (of the Chinese Great Fleet) ever made approached size of WWII aircraft carriers (Enterprise/Lexington/Yorktown size) and measured their mainsails in fractional acreage.

    I've been a professional blue-ocean sailor for several years. Calm seas and no wind are two things you rarely see unless you are in a brown-water (littoral waters) environment. One of the reasons the current shipping lanes are shaped the way they are is due to great-circle fuel efficiency. The older shipping routes followed the areas of regular wind "down where the trade winds blow" and were essentially 'free'. A tradeoff of a 5% longer route for a deduction of 5% in fuel costs is something that any shipping agency would be willing to consider. There is a print-out on our bridge that shows fuel consumption ($$ also) per hour per engine at the 'sweet spots' throttle settings. My captain much prefers to not burn more fuel than he needs to.

  • by not-him-again (553009) on Sunday July 09 2006, @12:13AM (#15685884)
    These kites are basically like spinnakers, moving the ship to leeward. This technology has been available since paleolithic times, when a dugout canoe could be outfitted with a rag on a couple of sticks. A major advance was made by the Arabs some 2000 years ago, with the invention of the Lateen rig, which is still just two sticks and a rag, but the rag forms a conic section, and pulls the boat towards the wind. Sailing on the prevailing winds certainly is useful, but these kites won't be anywhere near as energy-efficient as the large steel square-rigged freighters that were used to transport coal and other bulk goods around the beginning of the last century. They had a steam engine, but used it to power the winches to tack rig. That's the sort of thing we need; this kite retrofit is just a stopgap.
    • So what if someone patented ideas revolving around this? There needs to be some very innovative design and engineering going on in order to easily, safely, and efficiently use an unmasted sail to move such a large ship.

      It would be shocking if the USTPO awarded a patent revolving around the basic idea of moving a ship via a wind sail. But it wouldn't be surprising if many patents were awarded for the specific construction, deployment, recovery, and anchoring mechanisms.

      There are many aspects of this that
    • A) This story was not about a patent.
      B) I would say retrofitting a cargo ship with a sail in tandem with a computer system that can direct the sail mast to the correct angle to generate the most power from the available wind, dependent upon while altering the ships course, sounds pretty novel to me.
      C) If you had RTFA, you would discover this is not some SCO'ish trying to build a patent porfolio, but a company that has achieved a sale of their first sail.
      D) This is a German based company, so I would expec