Football Field-Sized Kite Powers Latest Freighter 251
coondoggie writes to tell us that a new freighter set to launch in December will be receiving a hefty dose of power from a kite the size of a football field. The 460-foot ship, owned by the Beluga shipping company, hopes to see as much as a 50% drop in fuel consumption during optimal conditions. "The SkySails system consists of a towing kite with rope, a launch and recovery system and a control system for the whole operation. The control system acts like the autopitot systems on an aircraft, the company says. Autopilot software sends and receives data about the sail etc to make sure the sail is set at its optimal position. The company also says it provides an optional weather routing system so that ships can sail into optimal wind conditions.The kites typically fly at about 1,000 feet above sea level, thereby tapping winds that can be almost 50% stronger than at the surface. "
Optimum conditions (Score:2, Interesting)
Still, good to see that people are trying different ideas.
Most of the power? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yay old tech (Score:3, Interesting)
30-50% is more like it (Score:5, Interesting)
Frankly, I think the major limitation on any kind of sail power has been crew cost. Big freighters run with tiny crews these days, and often not very well trained and not especially reliable, except for the top few officers. Getting a crew that can handle a big sail competently, without endangering the cost of the apparatus, sounds expensive. But maybe they've got a robotic, computerized control system that can eliminate that problem.
This is an "update" from a July, 2006 article (Score:5, Interesting)
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/08/1735227 [slashdot.org]
The original article claimed a 33% savings in fuel costs. This new article claims a 50% savings under optimal conditions. Interestingly, the greenhouse gas savings are only 10-20%. Where is the logic in that?
Or better yet why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why not? Because it wouldn't really help in any way and would cost a lot of money.
Re:30-50% is more like it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:30-50% is more like it (Score:3, Interesting)
I just watched their promo video at SkySails [skysails.info]. (The video is here [streamingfarm.tv]). They can point as close as 50 degrees off the wind, so tacking is possible. In other words, if oil went up to $1000 a barrel they could theoretically sail either way across the Atlantic, albeit taking 2 or 3 times as long.
They show 30% fuel savings, but oil prices have gone up a lot recently, so it might well be closer to 50% now. It launches and recovers automatically and has an automatic control system.
It's a washout! (Score:2, Interesting)
not so much time as schedule, I think (Score:3, Interesting)
Total Cost of Ownership (Score:3, Interesting)
Take a look at private boats -- sail VS diesel. Sure, sail power is free, right? No. The cost of the sail which wears out, the cost of the lines & riggings. Add it all up and get TCO. Depending on what you are doing, diesel may be cheaper. Especially in commercial applications.
The cost savings in fuel is offset by the cost in the kite, riggings, and management of the kite. The TCO will be interesting to see. I would be surprised if it was any better than a wash in savings.
Re:Reinventing the wheel, and getting $$$ for it (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless they put a lot of [heavy] steel stiffening in, the ship will flex at the attachment point rather than lift the bow. Ships aren't rigid.
On top of which, even if the kite were attached at the eyes - you don't want upward force. Upward force doesn't contribute as much to propulsion as lateral force.
Re:30-50% is more like it (Score:3, Interesting)
Pacific Rim* to West Coast USA - 11 to 15 days
Pacific Rim to East Coast USA - 25 to 50 days
Europe to East Coast USA - 7 to 14+ days
The other important routes are Europe to Pacific Rim & Pacific Rim to the Mediterranean.
Saving 10~50% in fuel costs is no joke when these boats are burning >$20,000 tons of fuel per day. The only businesses that would care about slightly slower shipping are those running Just-In-Time inventory systems and they can either keep paying their existing shipping rate or adjust their systems to compensate for the extra X days of transit.
*Hong Kong, Russia, India, etc.
Re:Getting $$$ for vaporware (Score:4, Interesting)
The real question isn't necessarily the efficiency gain in percentage terms, but whether the fuel savings can offset the cost the kite system. No. 6 fuel (which most ships use) is relatively cheap, because it is one refining step above tar. Seriously, it is really nasty stuff, and doesn't burn cleanly at all. A big cargo ship will go through thousands of gallons of it a day, maybe in just hours. If you can use 25% less fuel in a year, that starts to look like hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel saved per year, which in turn could mean hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in savings.
Related development (Score:4, Interesting)
There's very little information about them for now but they did get a $10M investment from Google. Here [pbs.org] is what Cringely dug up about them from old Usenet posts of one of the team members.
Re:This is an "update" from a July, 2006 article (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously, conditions aren't always optimal.
Re:Optimum conditions (Score:1, Interesting)