electric road transport
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Italian Tuneups
Next: 20mph when lights are flashing
From: Mrcheerful on 14 Jul 2010 12:50 Phil W Lee wrote: > "Colin McKenzie" <news(a)proof-read.co.uk> considered Mon, 12 Jul 2010 > 23:02:08 +0100 the perfect time to write: > >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:18:06 +0100, Chelsea Tractor Man >> <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:32:30 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote: >>> >>>> Put some sails up and that fuel bill could be much reduced. >>> >>> seems set to happen from what I read. >> >> It's been talked about since the 70s. Oil is probably still too >> cheap for shipowners to be willing to stump up the extra capital >> cost for sails or solar panels. >> > I don't believe it's just the capital cost of the hardware but also > the ongoing cost of the crew needed to look after them, and all the > (re)training that would be required. > > When building new ships, there's a big decision to be made, because > designs for engine and sail are going to be radically different, and > if you commit to a design that ends up more expensive to run, you'd be > in big trouble. You'd have to be pretty certain that sail was going > to remain less expensive over the life of the ship. I wonder whether anyone has investigated some sort of giant kite that could be deployed in open water to pull the boat along, that way rigging would be minimal and costs lowered. After all sails do not have to be the sole motive power, but a useful bonus if the wind is right.
From: Brimstone on 14 Jul 2010 14:33 "Mrcheerful" <nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:4Vl%n.231305$k15.163056(a)hurricane... > I wonder whether anyone has investigated some sort of giant kite that > could be deployed in open water to pull the boat along, that way rigging > would be minimal and costs lowered. After all sails do not have to be the > sole motive power, but a useful bonus if the wind is right. > http://www.kiteship.com/
From: Nick Finnigan on 15 Jul 2010 15:45 Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:44:05 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote: > >>> ferries look to be somewhere near planes on "gross" CO2, but when you >>> multiply x4 for the emmission effect at altitude, as usual, planes are far >>> worse. >> There are no figures for passengers there: I mean something like 220ml >> per passenger km, for a particular vessel; not 'somewhere near'. > > "Somewhere near" is perfectly adequate. No, it isn't. A glider pilot may think that Manchester is 'somewhere near' to Leeds, with a nice headwind; but a ship's pilot will think it is a long distance away, with headwinds all the way around. > I already posted the figures I found, they were similar to planes per > passenger "gross". > of 0.223 kg (7.9 oz), while 24�27-knot ferries between Finland and Estonia > produce 0.396 kg (14.0 oz) of CO2 with total emissions equalling a CO2 > equivalent of 0.4 kg (14 oz).[10] > > Using a seating capacity of 164 [Wikipedia, viewed 28.2.08] and an average > seat occupancy (or 'load factor') of 65% [14], this gives a fuel use of > 36.6 g per passenger km. So you think that 400 gppkm for ferries is 'somewhere near' 40gppkm for planes? (Not that 40gppkm is realistic) The figures are from http://www.lipasto.vtt.fi/yksikkopaastot/indexe.htm
From: Nick Finnigan on 15 Jul 2010 16:03 Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:45:43 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote: > >> So you think that 400 gppkm for ferries is 'somewhere near' 40gppkm for >> planes? (Not that 40gppkm is realistic) > > funny you ignored the 0.19 and 0.22 examples. The figure I looked at also > rated planes at 3 times your 40gppkm. It is not /my/ 40gppkm, it was from your post. > I suggest you research it on your own. I have, that's why I posted that 40gppkm is unrealistic.
From: Nick Finnigan on 15 Jul 2010 16:05
Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:45:43 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote: > >>> "Somewhere near" is perfectly adequate. >> No, it isn't. A glider pilot may think that Manchester is 'somewhere >> near' to Leeds, with a nice headwind; but a ship's pilot will think it is a >> long distance away, with headwinds all the way around. > > that's a completely stupid non point. > > "Average carbon dioxide emissions by ferries per passenger-kilometre > seem to be 0.12 kg" Totally unsupported assertion. |