Bill Gates Did Not Order a £500m Hydrogen-Powered Superyacht (bbc.com) 284
"Billionaire Bill Gates has not commissioned a hydrogen-powered superyacht from designer Sinot," reports the BBC, citing their direct confirmation from the company itself.
It has been widely reported that Mr Gates ordered a £500m ($644m) luxury vessel, based on the concept which was displayed in Monaco in 2019. Sinot said it had "no business relationship" with Bill Gates. It added that that the concept yacht, called Aqua, was "not linked" to either him or any of his representatives.
"Aqua is a concept under development and has not been sold to Mr. Gates," a spokeswoman said.
The Guardian has now removed their original article. But here's what they'd originally reported: Bill Gates has ordered the world's first hydrogen-powered superyacht, worth an estimated £500m ($644m) and featuring an infinity pool, helipad, spa and gym...
The boat has five decks and space to accommodate 14 guests and 31 crew members. In a further environmentally friendly feature, gel-fuelled fire bowls allow guests to stay warm outside without having to burn wood or coals.
But its most cutting-edge feature is tucked away below decks – two 28-tonne vacuum-sealed tanks that are cooled to -423F (-253C) and filled with liquid hydrogen, which powers the ship. The fuel will generate power for the two one-megawatt motors and propellors via on-board fuel cells, which combine hydrogen with oxygen to produce electricity. Water is a byproduct.
"Aqua is a concept under development and has not been sold to Mr. Gates," a spokeswoman said.
The Guardian has now removed their original article. But here's what they'd originally reported: Bill Gates has ordered the world's first hydrogen-powered superyacht, worth an estimated £500m ($644m) and featuring an infinity pool, helipad, spa and gym...
The boat has five decks and space to accommodate 14 guests and 31 crew members. In a further environmentally friendly feature, gel-fuelled fire bowls allow guests to stay warm outside without having to burn wood or coals.
But its most cutting-edge feature is tucked away below decks – two 28-tonne vacuum-sealed tanks that are cooled to -423F (-253C) and filled with liquid hydrogen, which powers the ship. The fuel will generate power for the two one-megawatt motors and propellors via on-board fuel cells, which combine hydrogen with oxygen to produce electricity. Water is a byproduct.
Does it also have sails? (Score:2)
Back in the day yachts used to be moved by the wind..
Re:Does it also have sails? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A "sailing yacht" means one powered (principally) by the wind.
And a "tasteless yacht" means one powered by money and not by maritime esthetics.
Re: (Score:2)
And a "tasteless yacht" means one powered by money and not by maritime esthetics.
Nowhere does it say that a yacht has to give you any pleasure.
If the owner's happy with his vessel then it's a yacht.
Re: (Score:3)
I think we can all agree that Dead Steve Jobs's yacht is supremely ugly, can we not? I mean, just look at it. Admit it. It looks like an ice cream truck.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can all agree that Dead Steve Jobs's yacht is supremely ugly, can we not? I mean, just look at it. Admit it. It looks like an ice cream truck.
Me personally? It's the fugliest thing ever.
I'm not sure you can speak for everybody on the planet though.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel that on this one subject I can. That thing is objectively ugly. [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If the owner's happy with his vessel then it's a yacht.
To be more precise, "If the owner's happy with his vessel on the day he buys it then it's a yacht."
If you want to hear someone complain about something, ask the average yacht owner about his yacht after he's had it a year or two.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Does it also have sails? (Score:4, Funny)
Plus, you could buy a new Japanese attack submarine and still have $200m for decorating.
Re: (Score:2)
I was told by a guy in a gas station with a really nice boat on a trailer that "BOAT" is really an acronym that means "Break Out Another Thousand."
Re:Does it also have sails? (Score:5, Informative)
If you have no clue, please shut up. (Score:2)
Obviously, the cooling system is hydrogen-powered too.
And hydrogen is easily made from air or water, using solar energy, and turns into heat and water/air again after usage.
The problems are, that we know what happens if the cooling fails, from the LHC and the Hindenburg.
Biiig bada-booom.
Also, there is no such thing as a hydrogen-tight container. And hydrogen that is lost, drifs to the top of the athmosphere and is lost forever.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
hydrogen that is lost, drifs to the top of the athmosphere and is lost forever.
Not true. The Earth constantly receives water from extraterrestrial sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
... Also, there is no such thing as a hydrogen-tight container. And hydrogen that is lost, drifs to the top of the athmosphere and is lost forever.
Oh, bullshit. Atmospheric lifetime of hydrogen is 1.4 –2.1 years. Hydrogen escaping into the atmosphere is oxidized long long before it escapes.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it's helium that's lost into space, not hydrogen.
14 guests and 31 personell (Score:5, Interesting)
You *do* need to be a billionaire to run something like that. I remember a quote from Forbes himself: "My yacht has gold faucets. That's cheaper. If they were of brass, I'd need 2 people more to clean them." Gotta love the metrics of the super-rich.
I'll stick with Airbnb and rented Kiteboards for the time being, thank you very much.
Re: (Score:2)
"If they were of brass, I'd need 2 people more to clean them." Gotta love the metrics of the super-rich.
Super-rich and super ignorant, or at best disingenuous. 316 stainless would not need cleaning and would not look obnoxious.
Re: (Score:3)
I think gold looks quite pretty - as an accent, like a wedding band or a thin trim on a dinner plate.
But gold taps, yeah, that's obnoxious and ostentatious.
Re: (Score:2)
"But gold taps, yeah, that's obnoxious and ostentatious."
Only topped by gold guns.
Nah mate. Gold *toilets*! (Score:2)
The pure kind that is soft and rubs off, so you slowly imprint your ass on the seat and literally flush down money every time you shat onto that money.
I remember hearing a story of some Dubai royalty having over140 of them in his palace. But I bet our former royalty was not much better.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Talking out your ass. [thyssenkru...ials.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Problem you're missing is high rate of water flow combined with marine environment.
It's going to corrode. Your link says as much if you actually read it.
Re: (Score:3)
Problem you're missing is high rate of water flow combined with marine environment.
Problem is, you don't know WTF you're talking about. High rate of fresh water flow? Yeah sure, give me a break. Immersed in salt water? Indeed, even 316 can corrode, with the help of a wide variety of ions and life forms in the water. Can also corrode if in contact with dissimilar metals. But just salt air? No, it just doesn't. Take a walk around any marina to convince yourself. Fifty years on the sea and your 316 stainless will still be bright and shiny, never having been polished or otherwise cleaned unle
Re:14 guests and 31 personell (Score:5, Insightful)
I can tell that you have never walked around a marina, because if you had you wouldn't be talking out your butt right now. See the other guy who replied to you.
After 40 years of oceanfront exposure, 304 and 316 stainless steel samples used in 1940’s experiments had no rusting or loss of strength [lug-all.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Oceanfront and oceangoing are totally the same thing".
You know, there was a time when at least British navy agreed with you in early to mid 1800s. After a handful of vessels that literally rusted away into nothingness, that mistake was never made by any meaningful naval designer again.
Which is also why anyone who ever worked on a boat knows that cleaning is a religious ritual on boats. Because any kind of structural rust is your enemy, and you need to make sure you find it and mitigate against it before it
Re: (Score:2)
See, it's the chlorine ions in the sea air that corrode normal stainless steel, the stuff without molybdenum in it. That's why oceanfront property is a good analog of above deck marine conditions with respect to corrosion. As any ocean front property owner could tell you, but you're not much into listening, are you? Just trying to help you take your first baby steps towards having a clue.
Re: (Score:3)
The fascinating detail I learned during this discussion: 316/316L's corrosion resistance and perpetual shininess only works when continuously exposed to air, which forms a transparent, protective layer of Cr2O3. When immersed in water this layer doesn't form and 316 corrodes the same as many other metals. This explains some of the confusion we see in this thread. You use 316 above the waterline, not below. For continuous salt water immersion, hot galvanized steel is the standard and yes, it will rust away e
Let's be reasonable though. (Score:4, Insightful)
I grant massive wealth to anyone who actually did so much great things that he earned it. No problem at all. Let them have their gold faucets if they want.
The problem is: They didn't!
There is no job in the world, where you can be so skilled, that you can actually *earn* that much money in a lifetime!
Even "only" a single billion means you gotta work for 100 years *without interruption*, at a rate of $1140.77 *an hour* to earn it!
Given the current purchase power of the Dollar, NO WORK is worth >$1000 an hour! No matter how good you are, you cannot make us work for 100 hours to earn what you made in one! Fuck off!
All wealth at that level is just one thing: *stolen!*
Aka the part of the income that is not earned. That nobody worked for.
Or imaginary money.
Aka some "experts" making up a "valuation" for a corporation out of thin air and a gut feeling, and that corporation then, via some numbers shuffling trick, being able to buy stuff for that imaginary number in Dollars!
Which results in the same thing: Stealing. Of work.
And I'm not anti-capitalist.
I just don't see that as the capitalist ideal, or even a healthy market at all.
I think a healthy market *requires* the same work earning the same money, no matter who you are.
Everything else is simply organized crime. Plain and simple.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Let's be reasonable though. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Let's be reasonable though. (Score:5, Insightful)
A pyramid they created because they were free to. If you forbid it, you've created a world of dictators who make you pay them kickbacks to get anything done.
A century and a half of evidence, and still class warefare lives...in service to the politicians who will be doing the doling out of opportunity.
Re: Let's be reasonable though. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A pyramid they created because they were free to. If you forbid it, you've created a world of dictators who make you pay them kickbacks to get anything done.
A pyramid that they created because they started out with the resources to do so. My big problem with our current economic system — and, mind you, I have no idea how to solve it — is that to a large extent, people get wealthy based on having wealth to begin with, or at least having access to large amounts of capital and being of wealthy enough birth to learn enough to convince someone to let you have it.
An ideal economic system would somehow determine who has the potential to someday do somethi
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing wrong with Gates having billions of dollars. He earned it playing the game by the rules.
The problem is that Gate's kids and grandkids and great-grandkids will still have billions of dollars. That is what is killing us.
Re: Let's be reasonable though. (Score:3)
Re: Let's be reasonable though. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes Gates and Allen worked hard, but let's not pretend for an instant that they were simply every day plucky hard workers who had a vision. Gates' family were already millionaires and Gates had the freedom to fail and to put years of work into Microsoft without needing to see a dime from it. He also had a number of connections that the average person didn't that allowed him certain "ins" at IBM to get his software in front of the right eyes. Paul Allen enjoyed similar wealth and safety nets - don't forget he and Gates became friends when they met at the same private school they both attended.
These massive advantages are what prevents 99% of people from being able to even try to do the same thing they did. How many of us would have had the safety net and initial investment they did? I sure as hell didn't have the luxury of not having to bring money in the door when I started out working, I had rent to pay and food to buy.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let's be reasonable though. (Score:4)
what does "different kinds of labor" have to do with "same work"?
Re:Let's be reasonable though. (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter how good you are, you cannot make us work for 100 hours to earn what you made in one! Fuck off!
No one is making you do anything. Most people who are wealthy today sell a service that scales and can be distributed widely. When Lebron James plays basketball he's not just playing in front of a crowd at some sport's arena, but to millions of people across the world. They're willing to pay a little bit of money or sell their attention to advertisers for that. Why shouldn't Lebron get that money? And if you're as good of a basketball player as he is, why shouldn't you be able to earn what he does? People are willing to pay you for it.
All wealth at that level is just one thing: *stolen!*
Who is Lebron James stealing from and how did he take advantage of anyone in gaining his wealth? But more importantly, who did you steal from to accumulate your own wealth and why haven't you given it back?
And I'm not anti-capitalist.
How can you believe that wealth (really just the value of your private property) is stolen and claim that you're not anti-capitalist? Do words even mean anything anymore.
Re:Let's be reasonable though. (Score:5, Informative)
You're delusional.
What you mention is money that is given to him by companies that want to sell their products using the marketing tactic "Hey, your favorite sportsperson wears our clothing, therefore you should too!" They give him some money to wear the clothing, hope it works; and that's that.
"All the TV-people, IT-engineers etc. that make the broadcast of the basketball game possible" ARE getting a cut of the pie. Without the stars people line-up and pay to see, these workers are out of a job.
The very act of being so good at the sport generates so much value that we can justify paying all these people living wages to do something that we can all agree has no real tangible value. Without LeBron and such stars, not only do the "underpaid labor of the thousands of people" not get paid peanuts anymore; they don't get paid AT ALL. Do you get it now? Or are you really of the camp that thinks even the guy behind the broadcast camera should be paid a similar salary to the star who's the reason for the work in the first place?
I'm not saying I buy into all this. It's a colossal waste of money and resources if you ask me, but now I hope you understand why there's nothing unfair about it at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, under Capitalism, you can make money off of things you own, not just from labor. That's the whole point - that free people can use whatever they have, be it skill, land, machinery, or capital, to generate revenue for themselves in dynamic markets where value is negotiable.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no job in the world, where you can be so skilled, that you can actually *earn* that much money in a lifetime!
Ah, you seem to be under the misapprehension that value is only derived and traded based on skill. With only part of the model you'll not get far.
Re: (Score:2)
Gates earned very little of his wealth. He *created* most of it, which is a different concept. I'd recommend you read "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" to get started in the concept.
Doubt.jpg (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Doubt.jpg (Score:4, Informative)
Neither is fueling it with hydrogen, which is either A) (the vast majortiy) made from natural gas - at a loss - or B) made several times more inefficiently (net system efficiency well-to-wheel) from electricity (in comparison to batteries)
Regardless, given that this is the damage from a mere 4kg going off [ctif.org] (about the amount used by a single hydrogen car) - powerful enough of a shockwave to detonate airbags on a car passing by on the adjacent road - I seriously hope they never moor that thing in port near Reykjavík. (It was annoying enough when Paul Allen "docked" Octopus offshore here and blocked our views while he played ocean explorer)
(I really recommend any of the "But hydrogen is safe!" people read NASA's handling guidelines [nasa.gov] for hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen is even worse than compressed).
Two deliberately insanely stupid arguments. (Score:2)
A) Yeah, like he would build a new yacht to be environmentally friendly, and then not demand the hydrogen to be made in an environmentally friendly way too. Dude probably has his own plant.
And just because some way exists to make it in an environmentally unfriendly way, that generally doesn't mean the method is bad! I can ma
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but if you think wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc are zero impact, you're sadly mistaken. A hydrogen economy involves ~3 times the wind turbines, ~3 times the solar panels, ~3 times the dammed-up rivers, etc etc. That is not a world that I want. Should I even bother to mention the fact that hydrogen leaks through almost anything, and leaked hydrogen destroys ozone?
And regardless of what you want to believe, 95% of hydrogen is produced from natural gas. Bill Gates hasn't built a secret n
Re: (Score:3)
Please tell me what environmentally friendly way there is to produce liquid hydrogen on the scale needed for this thing.
Rich people don't give a single though to how the hydrogen comes to be, they just look at the first order "hydrogen is cleaner than fossil fuel!" and spend half a billion dollars on a boat. It never occurs to them that the hydrogen probably comes from fossil fuels to begin with, and takes more energy to extract the hydrogen from the fossil fuel.
The exception to this would be if there were
Re:Doubt.jpg (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, it can be useful to have a prototype of a hydrogen-powered ship of this size.
Bill Gates paying for the prototype by making his yacht it then is better for the environment than building a conventional yacht and another prototype ship (or just building the yacht and not building the prototype due to lack of funds). Beside.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's already a lot of interest in diesel-electric systems which make for relatively simple pod-type directional thrust propulsion, since you're basically just embedding an electric motor in the pod vs. connecting mechanical linkage to the prime mover. They also allow the engines to be run at optimal power bands and allow generation capacity to be spun down when its not needed.
The challenge will be getting the hydrogen prime mover systems down in size and complexity enough for it to be viable in 30-meter
This is far from being environmentally friendly! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is really "fucking" PR-stunt by "Atomic Bill" and it isn't a really good one because:
1.) This yacht has under current status hydrogen production (~98% from Methan CH4) a really big CO2 footprint
2.) The built itself, is using excessive resources for little benefit, that might have been used in a better way, perhaps when being used to produce a wind turbine for example - that would have saved CO2.
Don't understand me wrong it is really nothing wrong with having a yacht or being rich. But trying to ride on the "climate wave" and pretending to do something good, when in reality it isn't really good for climate or environmentally friendly.
If he want's a yacht with low emissions he can buy one with good exhaust cleaning technology - for example one that doesn't dumps all scrubbed soot directly into the sea water.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't burn it like a troglodyte! (Score:2)
Use fuel cells! And if your fuel is synthetic and hence clean, you'll have zero side-products. Just CO2 and water.
Compress the CO2 in a tank, use it to improve buoyancy, whatever.
And when at a port, pump it off, bring it to your plant, and use solar power and water to turn it into your fuel again.
Clean cycle. Energy-dense fuel. No nasty battery chemicals. No risk of explosion or unstoppable fire.
Slight overreaction to poor Billy (Score:2)
Your points are well taken, but I must admit that when I peruse their web site it becomes abundantly clear there's nothing whatsoever "environmentally friendly" about a superyacht. The notion that all you spew out is water is merely a small selling point out of many, and those many things are about how many people you can party with, the design, luxury, etc. The fact that you are rich and want to party in style on the water won't get you Greta Thunberg at your next do. I don't get the impression that Gate
Wasted opportunity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are quite a few yachts that follow this principle. Russian oligarch-owned Black Pearl for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Much more environmentally friendly (after the build costs, of course):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]
Why not use LNG instead? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shaking my head just as much as you about this :P
Gel fuel vs wood? (Score:3)
Does anyone here know if the process of creating those chafing fuels, the thermal energy that is released when burning them and the waste products are environmentally friendlier than using plain old wood as a fuel?
What's the difference in (useful) energy density both for energy / volume and energy / mass?
I know that chafing fuel has several advantages over wood for indoor use, like having a lot of its chemical energy coming from the hydrogen in its bonds burning into water vapor, thus not producing as much CO2 and CO as burning wood (~50% carbon) does. Those two gasses can be quite dangerous indoors and still kill people who are foolish enough to burn larger quantities of wood or coal indoors with insufficient ventilation and or without a proper chimney every year.
But I haven't thought much about the other things I mentioned above.
Re: (Score:2)
environmentally friendlier than using plain old wood as a fuel?
You've got to keep up with the eco hype. Burning wood is now evil because it creates fine dust.
For example, wood pellet ovens used to be an environmentally-friendly alternative for heating your home. Then the whole fine dust craze hit. Our super progressive Green-party overlords in Germany are even trying to get fireplaces and traditional bonfires banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Gel fuels are made from unicorn farts. The only byproducts of combustion are pixie dust and good feels. It's a lot like the emperor's clothes, the super rich think there's something there and pay a lot for it, and we're not supposed to question them.
Don't smoke on deck (Score:2)
else Billy and his floating rich man's toy will reach low-Earth orbit in less time than you can say "Oh the humanity"...
rank hypocrisy (Score:3)
In a further environmentally friendly feature, gel-fuelled fire bowls allow guests to stay warm outside without having to burn wood or coals.
Or you could put a fucking jumper on.
Look, stupidly rich man wants to buy a stupidly expensive boat, go for it. Just stop pretending it's anything remotely environmentally friendly.
Nuclear propulsion? (Score:2)
The fun starts when the cooling fails. (Score:2)
Who thought that was a good idea?
Then again I can see the appeal of superconduction. :D
Re: (Score:2)
Super-Yachts and Bragging Rights (Score:5, Informative)
"An academic spent six years studying the lavish boats of multimillionaires. Her conclusion: showing off the owners’ wealth and status matters more than travel"
https://www.theguardian.com/li... [theguardian.com]
Yacht has not been sold to Bill Gates, as stated (Score:5, Informative)
FUBG (Score:2)
No he didn't (Score:3, Informative)
It has been widely reported that Mr Gates ordered a £500m ($644m) luxury vessel, based on the concept which was displayed in Monaco in 2019. Sinot said it had "no business relationship" with Bill Gates. It added that that the concept yacht, called Aqua, was "not linked" to either him or any of his representatives. "Aqua is a concept under development and has not been sold to Mr Gates," a spokeswoman said.
Fake News (Score:5, Informative)
According to BBC, this is fake news:
https://www.bbc.com/news/techn... [bbc.com]
Fake news (Score:5, Informative)
The yacht company explicitly says that he is *not* buying it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/techn... [bbc.com]
50 years in space (Score:2)
Fake News? Sinot denies story (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/tec... [bbc.co.uk]
BBC says this is fake news (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/tec... [bbc.co.uk]
WTF Slashdot? Modifying stories? NOT COOL! (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot once prided itself on not editing, censoring, or otherwise tampering with content. To the point that when a post was once removed they ran an entire story on it. Now we have EditorDavid completely re-writing the original story with all comments intact and reposting it as news while the original submission has been removed.
What The Fuck! That is not how you even pretend to run an open an honest site. It now looks like 220 comments are criticising a story which did not exist. It now looks like a chunk of the comments are correcting (debunking) a story that is in fact debunked in the submission.
Grammatical mistakes, okay. Dupes, yeah this is Slashdot so we're used to that. But changing the entire submission and leaving comments intact then reposting is just NOT OKAY.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... And it has diesel backup... since there are no marinas with cryogenic hydrogen readily available. At least he could have gone nuclear with his other investments...
Re: (Score:2)
It looks upside down.
In fact, if it capsized and rolled right over it'd a) be a normal boat shape and b) you'd have a cool underwater window. This is definitely a boat I'd want to capsize if I owned it.
This bit is interesting:
"It can travel 3,750 miles before it needs to refuel."
That means it can't cross the Pacific without reverting to diesel engines for a not insignificant portion of the trip. Given as it states itself, the scarcity of refueling stations, it's likely that any trip to the Pacific would see
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tumblehome design. A very old and fairly common feature of vessels that are not looking for extra stability in oceanic waves, which is what flare (that you think of as normal) does.
And there are other ways of gaining stability in waves, especially if money is not a problem, and you're not looking for accurate gunnery in less than stable seas. Advantages are in ability to navigate shallower and tighter canals better and limited ability to "pierce" waves rather than having to ride on top of them.
Re: (Score:2)
So is the implication of all that that you probably wouldn't expect a vessel like this to cross the pacific anyway and it's more likely to stick to the coasts of the Americas regardless?
Re: (Score:2)
It can almost certainly cross Atlantic, but it would be a less comfortable ride in really high waves than a flared design. But it would probably be more comfortable in moderate waves, as it would be able to stay stable and piece waves, rather than have to ride on top of them. And modern weather radar systems and weather forecasts are accurate enough that such a yacht would likely never have to go into major Atlantic storms unless you really want it to.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually -- not always, of course -- owners of super-yachts are not aboard them on transoceanic voyages, so comfort at sea is not of primary concern. Most have the vessel sailed to a port and then fly to the vessel after it arrives. They use the boat as a mobile penthouse apartment, for business meetings and/or parties at the dock, with the ability to make short day or coastal cruises.
Typically, typically.
Re: (Score:2)
Even some of the ones that could cross the Atlantic don't and get shipped on ferries that move ships.
IMHO, the bigger problem is that many yachts are built for speed, not range. The rich seem to want a 40 meter yacht that can do 30 knots but can't get much range over 6 knots, and the tankage for such vessels to cross even the Atlantic non-stop means they need to be 50-60 meters without sacrificing interior space plus all kinds of ballast and balance problems when the fuel load can change the weight by 10-2
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tumblehome design.
It's a concept design, that's all you know about it. But so far it's well on its way to competing in the ugly yacht sweepstakes, that much is clear.
Re: (Score:2)
despite the rumours of a Gates investment, the Aqua is still just a concept [esquireme.com]
Blowhard. You must be fun at parties.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't know what design means, so I'll post an article talking about the design in question and pretend it says that this isn't a design".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What, Bill Gates will now compete with Dead Steve Jobs for the title of World's Ugliest Yacht? [core77.com] What is it with these robber billionaires and lack of taste.
Take a kick at both Microsoft and Apple cultists in the same post, and what do you expect? Unethical use of mod points, that's what. Big surprise. I mean, who are we talking about here. Yet that yacht remains butt ugly all the same, and Gates' yacht seems destined to join that ignoble club.
Re: (Score:2)
Robber billionaires...making bank on fluff you like to buy.
It's interesting watching memes evolve to spread to additional host units, all for the big wand of power, the legal power to force themselves on everybody, so they don't have to spread by mere persuasion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Blackjack"?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a gum. Bill is crazy about it.
Re: (Score:2)
yours and others comment about the Hydrogen are too valid for most to consider. Sourcing it, storing it for his later use, maybe he has a tanker follow him on shore so he can put in anywhere to fill up all generates more carbon dioxide than might be saved by using the hydrogen as fuel. And gel flame pots so they don't need to burn wood or coal to keep warm. are they hydrogen gel or alcohol gel? If they are alcohol gel then they are still a source of carbon dioxide when the burn. Where's the logic of it
Re: (Score:3)
Here is an analogy. A 10,000 ton, 100 ft high monster, powerful enough to do almost anything, has crawled out of the sea and stands looking around. We don't know what it might do next : that's Gates' analogy, and it wo
Re: (Score:2)
Gel fuel fires . . . still spew out carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and a host of other life-smothering-you-don't-want-to-be-breathing-this-stuff goodies.
And wood does not? Have you any idea how much carbon monoxide is in a wood fire? Not to mention the other zillion partially-burned carbon byproducts?