ning
From the Corporate Greenwash challenge. See all 125 entries (closed)
( , Thu 11 Feb 2010, 10:32, archived)
From the Corporate Greenwash challenge. See all 125 entries (closed)
( , Thu 11 Feb 2010, 10:32, archived)
Too expensive?
Also: Massive sails of solar panels? Massively impractical. It'd take a lot of designing.
( ,
Thu 11 Feb 2010, 10:50,
archived)
I daresay they wouldn't generate enough power to move one of those.
Particularly as the movement of the ship could decreased the relative wind speed (unless it sailed into the wind).
Edit: Now I feel a bit rude. Excellent shoppery, sir!
( ,
Thu 11 Feb 2010, 10:52,
archived)
Edit: Now I feel a bit rude. Excellent shoppery, sir!
Okay, so a standard wind farm size turbine is 2.5MW, but they only produce approximately 25% of that at any one time due to fluctuations in wind speed etc.
I looked up some oil tankers, and I found a medium sized one with a 8.5MW engine powering it.
I'm too lazy to think about how it would work if the wind was parallel to the direction of travel, so if we assume it's perpendicular instead ... And suggest that they'd be more efficient far out to sea (say, 50%), you'd need 8 turbines to power the engines. This does not take into account the extra weight and drag caused, which would both take power, and also the electricity used by the ship aside from the engine.
I'm a bored engineering student. Can you tell?
( ,
Thu 11 Feb 2010, 11:14,
archived)
I'm too lazy to think about how it would work if the wind was parallel to the direction of travel, so if we assume it's perpendicular instead ... And suggest that they'd be more efficient far out to sea (say, 50%), you'd need 8 turbines to power the engines. This does not take into account the extra weight and drag caused, which would both take power, and also the electricity used by the ship aside from the engine.
I'm a bored engineering student. Can you tell?
And there is a lot of drag.
There's a reason they don't put them close together, because they will literally stop the wind.
( ,
Thu 11 Feb 2010, 11:19,
archived)
a large super tanker can burn a ton of oil a day.
surely the weight in saved fuel oil would cover the weight added by the turbines.
As for side wind...i guess the turbines would turn into the wind, to enable the tanker to carry on in the direction it was going. Just like old sailing ships,insteadof "tacking" it would be able to go straight?
( ,
Thu 11 Feb 2010, 11:38,
archived)
As for side wind...i guess the turbines would turn into the wind, to enable the tanker to carry on in the direction it was going. Just like old sailing ships,insteadof "tacking" it would be able to go straight?
I think the drag of the blades would outweigh the benefits.
Would only really work into a headwind!
( ,
Thu 11 Feb 2010, 10:53,
archived)
It is
And it has been done. Ships still (by and large) follow the traditional trade routes that formed because of the trade winds. Even though with diesel engines and what have you, there is no real need to do so.
They have tried computer controlled "kites", sails and so on. The saving is around 20-30% if memory serves correctly. Not to be sneezed at.
( ,
Thu 11 Feb 2010, 12:45,
archived)
They have tried computer controlled "kites", sails and so on. The saving is around 20-30% if memory serves correctly. Not to be sneezed at.
Very nice.
Make all the rest of us look like amateurs*, why don't you!
(* - may in fact be rank amateur)
( ,
Thu 11 Feb 2010, 10:35,
archived)
(* - may in fact be rank amateur)
*places in basket with Elvis's...with a condomand some lube.
We wouldnt want them breeding now would we.
( ,
Thu 11 Feb 2010, 10:47,
archived)