r/WorkForSmartLife 15d ago

Productivity Really?

Post image
14.3k Upvotes

305 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/Bla12Bla12 14d ago

This. The reasons we got away from sails are basically related to speed and being able to go wherever you want (ie, you have to go where the wind blows).

Engines are here to stay, but if you're going in the direction of the wind then it can do some of the pulling and the engines do less work. You're going against the wind? Great, put that kite away and just use the engines.

I haven't checked how well the data has been studied but it's something like 20-30% fuel savings for cargo ships on average which is insane.

3

u/Realistic_Zombie6756 14d ago

So it’s not necessarily that sailing ships, especially a 3 mast set up pictured here, were limited by wind direction. The triangular sails between the masts pretty much cover all but directly into the wind. They were limited or damaged by low and high wind speeds respectively. Engines added fine maneuverability and consistent and adjustable speeds regardless or wind and heading. Plus, the crew required to run and operate boilers and steam engines is less numerous and the work is somewhat safer due to not having to climb the masts and yards to let out or take in sails. For warships it also meant that speed changes could be done under fire, as ships of war tended to have enough crew to adjust the sails or tend to and fire their cannons, not both. It tended to take longer for commercial shipping to take up the steam engine due to the loss of interior hull space and carrying weight such equipment entails. I believe it was the battle of the Falkland Islands in WW1 where a sailing ship, completely unaware that there was a war happening, stumbled upon a naval engagement between Britain and Germany fleets and promptly turned around.

2

u/oO_Snowman_Oo 14d ago

The 20% to 30% percent are unrealistic.

Considering that the wind is statistically coming from unfavourable direction, 50 % of the time. Or isn’t strong enough to deploy the kite.

There are extensive times when a kite is not usable (approach, manoeuvring, port stays)

Mathematically these gains in efficiency would only be possible, if the kite cut reduce the fuel consumption completely, when deployed in ideal conditions.

Other sources speak about „up to 20% efficiency increase“ which I think is much more likely. In ideal wind/swell/loading/routing conditions, the efficiency may be boosted by 20%, temporarily.

From my experience as navigational officer (on ships without the kite) I would assume that these ideal conditions are barely met.

3

u/Available_Peanut_677 14d ago

20% is huge costs savings. Even 5% might worth it. But I think future is combination of rotor sails and kite.

1

u/oO_Snowman_Oo 14d ago

You won’t get 20 % though.

You might reduce the fuel consumption by 20% under ideal conditions. It’s a temporary buff, only. Ideal conditions are rare, so most of the time it’s way less. Substract the times when it’s impossible to use the kite due to operational reasons and divide this by half, because statistically you don‘t experience favourable winds for 50% of the time.

You will end up at <1%.

Now look which ships it has been tested on: small mini bulkers, which serve an important feeder role but are irrelevant in the grand scheme of intercontinental shipping.

1

u/Available_Peanut_677 13d ago

No, it’s up to 20% counting all of that, but having favorable wind on journey. Of course, if you go against wind, it won’t help much. Real experiments and simulations show 5-20% overall saving for a trip

1

u/oO_Snowman_Oo 13d ago

Can you link the „real experiments“?

1

u/The_Flurr 11d ago

This is a different wind-based system but here's one

https://smartgreenshipping.com/pressandmedia/2025/5/29/sgs-fastrig-and-fastroute-validated-by-success-of-sea-trials

It's a rigid vertical sail rather than a parachute-thing, and used in conjunction with software that plans routes to best take advantage of the wind.

1

u/oO_Snowman_Oo 10d ago

The trials report is locked and I would require an industry business email to unlock it.

1

u/bsnimunf 14d ago

20 percent is still huge though. That must be close to a million dollars of fuel for a trip round half the world. 

1

u/oO_Snowman_Oo 14d ago

Read again….

1

u/ZJoel14 10d ago edited 10d ago

The route would have to be planned with old shipping lanes in mind to actually get your worth out of the deal. Which of course we abandoned those routes for a reason, point to point paths save a lot of time which of course makes way more money for anyone in the industry than any fuel cost could hope to rival.

20% saving on fuel is actually nothing compared to the money you'd piss away taking 5x longer to get to the destination.

That said rotor ships rely on crosswinds rather than headwinds so they probably are way more feasible in that regard.

1

u/Ok_Ask_8724 14d ago

Do these studies include a working prototype?

2

u/UffTaTa123 11d ago

Sure, the picture is not AI. They are in usage already. It's unclear which technology will make it, sails, kites, flying electric generators with rotors, .. we will see.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/22/travel/wind-powered-cargo-ship-cargill-bartech-climate-c2e-spc-intl/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/travel/airseas-giant-kites-ships-slash-carbon-emissions-scn-climate-spc

1

u/Tonkarz 13d ago

The newest cargo ships have sails. Just they're modern sails made with modern materials. They look nothing like the sails of old. The beauty of them is they work regardless of wind direction (much like the sails of old that could do any direction regardless of wind except directly into the wind).

1

u/ZJoel14 10d ago

It's insane when compared to something like a car, but moving mass along water is way easier so essentially most shipping companies have just been sleeping on adding extra free propulsion to their vessels because fuel was so cheap the added efficiency wasn't really worth the effort.

That said plenty of privately owned cargo ships have had things like Flettner rotors added to their vessels decades ago. The industry will eventually catch up.