Global Warming – really, aye?

molgrips – Member

Or.. better still, how about we attach goods to drones that deploy a balloon to float up into the jetstream, get blown around the world at high speed and then autonomously glide themselves to a nearby drop zone..

Laser autonomous lifters up to orbit/near orbit and glide them back down.

A 747 freighter can carry about 150 tonnes apparently, the Mriya 250. The Airlander HAV airship (yes, the one that looks like a bum) can only lift about 12 but they’ve got a design that’s supposed to do 50. Slower than a plane obviously but faster than you’d think.

There’s a whole branch of airship development which is basically just waiting for materials to catch up with old theory- instead of lighter-than-air gas you use vacuum. The air displaced has to be heavier than the body used to create the vacuum, which isn’t possible yet and might never be (well- on earth anyway 😉 ) but it’s pretty interesting.

btw although worth remembering that some shallow water species will see an increase in their environmental space as shelf seas gradually encroach onto land – for them…arguably…that’s “positive”..

Cantre’r Gwaelod was the lost kingdom off the West Wales coast. The home of Welsh tribes is now home to sea creatures. We’ll see more of that. In Wales it was the richest land around, a very fertile forest, capable of supporting a large healthy population (unlike the wild hills). We’ll be losing some of the worlds most fertile land in the near future not to mention some great cities. We’ll only live to see the start of it.

zokes – Still not a customer
Try not to move your lips while you read it.
😆

yeah, I havta admit that floored me..

comedy gold

I guess in some ways though, it shows that if you apply yourself to a specific discipline, ie; science, then the chances are that you may lack skills in other areas ie: human interaction..

I’m definitely lacking science skills due to other more pressing engagements, which is why I ask you boffins for your opinions..
Genuinely gutted that you have to get all cunty about it 🙁

I wonder how big an airship would have to be to carry the load of a cargo plane?

This again! Cargo planes make little difference to carbon emissions.

Do people not realise that hardly any cargo is carried by plane? Something like 98% is carried by ships.

A 747 can carry about 150t, the biggest container ships about 165,000t.

As for the idea of using wind power on ships, this has been tried repeatedly since the 1980’s. Never really successfully.

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth yunki? 😕

gobuchul – Member

As for the idea of using wind power on ships, this has been tried repeatedly since the 1980’s. Never really successfully.

there’s been some fun research into kite-powered boats!

KITEVES

So Global Warming… is it natures way of curing itself of a major naked ape infection?
Is it convenient that human nature, represented by the vested corporate interests, don’t want to change their ways?
Particularly whilst there’s enough fossil fuel to stay wealthy until the end comes. So discussion on solutions will require investment.

P.S. I also quite liked the we’re running out of fertiliser bit (can’t remember who) – should knock the veggie argument (we can feed the world if they’re all veggie) on it’s backside.

Particularly whilst there’s enough fossil fuel to stay wealthy until the end comes.

Well if we burn it quick enough the end will come.

I also quite liked the we’re running out of fertiliser bit (can’t remember who) – should knock the veggie argument (we can feed the world if they’re all veggie) on it’s backside.

Er….No fertilizer no food for the animals?

So either a poor slack troll or really just one who will be running a finger along the screen and moving his lips reading this.

I guess in some ways though, it shows that if you apply yourself to a specific discipline, ie; science, then the chances are that you may lack skills in other areas ie: human interaction..

I didn’t realise you were a scientist

I’m definitely lacking science skills

Oh, you must have some other excuse then

SCience is funny like that – in one sense some of the greatest break-throughs have come from minds far more creative and ‘art-like’ than most artists!

The problem with that is that those minds are rare as diamond encrusted horseshit within the scientific world, people good at making lots of different connections between seemingly unconnected constructs tend to favor the arts or fully blown schizophrenia.

I’ve met very very few people who are both organised and diligent with high concentration levels and yet highly creative at the same time. I’ve really had to work on my organisation and concentration as I come from a long line of musicians, who are all little bit bonkers/day dreamy/ADDish.

My brain works like JD’s in scrubs, so I’ve had to change a lot. It still doesn’t come easy to me.

not that I’m “highly creative” but my brain is naturally probably better suited to English/Music than science. I just rather like Biology and data analysis, so that’s the route I went down.

As for the idea of using wind power on ships, this has been tried repeatedly since the 1980’s. Never really successfully.

Why wasn’t it successful? To slow to compete with oil, or maybe the ships couldn’t be big enough thereby pushing costs higher?

This is exactly why a free market isn’t generally a good idea for the environment, and why we need governments to step in.

Would it kill us to have to pay £349 for our HD telly instead of £299, for example?

Why wasn’t it successful? To slow to compete with oil, or maybe the ships couldn’t be big enough thereby pushing costs higher?

There’s a few reasons.

From trade under sail alone, the favourable winds are often not the shortest routes from A to B.

Increased construction costs.

Standing rigging, masts and aerofoils are efficient in average conditions but also create large amounts of drag when low wind speed and increased windage and top heavy in high wind conditions. Anything with a kite requires material technology that is not fully developed and constant management.

Also no transferrable roles between bulk carriers, tankers and container ships.

The last point is something that would be an easier solution for rail and road transport, as an alternative to lots of empty vehicles travelling at any one time.

I read somewhere that the massive freighters are now slower than the Cutty Sark…could be bobbins though.

And doesn’t take into account the winds/routes. Also IIRC the Cutty Sark was 1700t cargo capacity, so would need 100 to match the load carrying capacity of the big boys.

I read somewhere that the massive freighters are now slower than the Cutty Sark…could be bobbins though.

It depends what you mean by a “massive freighter”.

The huge Triple E class container ships operate at 19kts, this is slower than a lot of other container ships but it’s all to do with fuel consumption.

Cutty Sark did about 17kts which is faster than a lot of the big bulk carriers and tankers that tend to do about 14 – 15kts max. However, the biggest can carry 380,000 tonnes of cargo.

Yes, but all of those things simply make transit slower than with oil powered ships, which means it’s commerically unattractive.

So legislate against oil and sail becomes viable.

How much power does the engine of one of these big ships produce at cruise?

How much power does the engine of one of these big ships produce at cruise?

Varies obviously.

Triple E – 64 mega watt

The big cruise ships are where it’s at though, over 100 mega watt. Some of their A/C systems can use 20 MW.

So legislate against oil and sail becomes viable.

Not really. The infrastructure just doesn’t fit. A sail powered container ship would have much slower discharge and loading due to the obstructions.

The quantities of cargo involved is massive, for the economic model to work you need a ship that can operate to a realistic timetable.

There are no crews that can operate your sail powered ships.

Are you just going to scrap most of the existing ships? Very wasteful.

Also, sail powered ships are very vulnerable to the weather and the number of wrecks would increase.

Yes, but all of those things simply make transit slower than with oil powered ships, which means it’s commerically unattractive.

Sure, the first two are the reasons of the bean counters, personally I’m all for sail transport. However the aerofoil rigged ship could actually increase fuel consumption and both, including the kite version, could compromise safety of the vessel.

From the wikipedia entry, Emma Maersk:

She is powered by a Wärtsilä-Sulzer 14RTFLEX96-C engine, the world’s largest single diesel unit, weighing 2,300 tonnes and capable of 109,000 horsepower (81 MW) when burning 3,600 US gallons (14,000 l)[33] of heavy fuel oil per hour. At economical speed, fuel consumption is 0.260 bs/hp·hour (1,660 gal/hour).[34] She has features to lower environmental damage, including exhaust heat recovery and cogeneration.[35] Some of the exhaust gases are returned to the engine to improve economy and lower emissions,[36] and some are passed through a steam generator which then powers a Peter Brotherhood steam turbine and electrical generators. This creates an electrical output of 8.5 MW,[37] equivalent to about 12% of the main engine power output. Some of this steam is used directly as shipboard heat.[38] Five diesel generators together produce 20.8 MW,[37] giving a total electric output of 29 MW.[28] Two 9 MW electric motors power the main propeller shaft.

EDIT: The electric motors seem to be secondary power units in case of main engine failure.

The quantities of iron ore that have been shipped between South America and China in the last 10 years is incredible. That why the Valemax ships were built. This could never of been done with sail power.

The same with the consumer goods from the Far East to Europe. That’s why the big Maersk containers ships were built.

The numbers involved are staggering and were unheard of only 10 years ago.

So unless we change the whole global economic system we are pretty fecked!

…for the economic model to work…

So unless we change the whole global economic system we are pretty fecked!

That’s exactly what I am talking about. This is true for a whole load more reasons than the propulsion method of our ships!

zokes – Still not a customer
I guess in some ways though, it shows that if you apply yourself to a specific discipline, ie; science, then the chances are that you may lack skills in other areas ie: human interaction..
I didn’t realise you were a scientist

I’m definitely lacking science skills
Oh, you must have some other excuse then

Good grief! errr.. I know you are, you said you are but what am I..?

get a grip sonny 😆

That’s exactly what I am talking about. This is true for a whole load more reasons than the propulsion method of our ships!

I realise that.

So which we all ditch our Far East manufactured consumer goods, including our very expensive bicycles and PCs, tablets, phones etc.

Stop South America exporting their ores to China.

Start the manufacturing in the UK and Europe of “essential” goods, clothing etc.

The list is endless.

And it’s never going to happen.

Hydrogen, biofuels, coal, nuclear, aren’t the options for the big ships endless?

It will be the smaller, numerous ships that would be the problem I would have thought.

Stop South America exporting their ores to China.

Start the manufacturing in the UK and Europe of “essential” goods, clothing etc.

The list is endless.

And to do that we’d have to import most of the materials from China or South Africa.

So which we all ditch our Far East manufactured consumer goods, including our very expensive bicycles and PCs, tablets, phones etc.

You don’t have to ditch them, just pay a little more. Would it kill us to have to pay £150 for a Hudle instead of £89 or whatever it is? No, of course not.

In the long term, radical readjustment is going to have to happen. So shoud it happen in a manged way where we can all re-adjust, or should we just wait for the crash and burn?

And to do that we’d have to import most of the materials from China or South Africa.

Plus increase energy production for the manufacture processes, and carbon capture technology to match the greenhouse gas emission targets that we have agreed to in the West.

In the long term, radical readjustment is going to have to happen. So shoud it happen in a manged way where we can all re-adjust, or should we just wait for the crash and burn?

It should but it probably won’t. The radical readjustment needs to start at a personal level, which is why the “crash and burn” is much more likely.

I was working on the house this morning. My next door neighbour came out, got in his Audi estate, came back 10 minutes later from tescos with half a bag of shopping. He’s probably around 30 and seems perfectly fit and healthy.

What’s the problem I hear you say…………

Well I can see the Tesco sign from the top of the ladder, you can walk there in 2 minutes through the small park, you need to go 4 times the distance if you drive as you have to drive around the park.

Crash and burn, bring it on.