Thread

The Return of Sail Power: Cargo Ships Are Turning Back to the Wind

193 points · 136 comments · gumby

calmbonsai · 1789624197 · focus · HN ↗
No, they’re really not.
Turns out, sail-power scales sublinearly and, shocker, the wind isn’t a reliable source of power for the logistics demands of today’s supply chains.
We’re never going back to wind, but we will be de-carbonizing shipping either with ammonia combustion, fuel cells, or both.
1. nradov · 1789624553 · focus · HN ↗
  Longer term I think we'll also use synthetic liquid hydrocarbon fuels manufactured through the Fischer–Tropsch process. People have proposed bringing back nuclear powered merchant ships but that's a non-starter for cost and security reasons. We can keep the nuclear plants safely on land and use them to make carbon-neutral fuel.
  1. mschuster91 · 1789631276 · focus · HN ↗
    That is insanely inefficient however. It only makes sense for transoceanic air travel, probably supplanted by synthfuel from biomass, but in the long term we will see ships powered by batteries. Far far more efficient.
    nradov · 1789650019 · focus · HN ↗
    Batteries are already being used for ferries but they're too large and heavy for transoceanic merchant ships. I doubt that operators will be willing to make more frequent port calls just to recharge.
    mschuster91 · 1789651686 · focus · HN ↗
    ... at the moment. We might find ourselves with containers full of batteries being exchanged on sea by feeder ships. Doesn't help across the real oceans, but works along coastal routes (which Asia-Europe definitely is).
    The more expensive oil is, the faster the transition will have to be done. Simply because at some point, even the trash that freight ships burn will be more expensive than a bunch of battery containers and an electric drivetrain.
    citrin_ru · 1789653511 · focus · HN ↗
    Oil will not stay expensive for a long time without some carbon tax. Even if Hormuz will remain closed for years production will rise elsewhere. The main reason production is not increasing significantly right now - investors are not sure that prices will stay at the current level for a long time (3+ years) and expect prices to fall before they’ll get enough to recoup investments. The longer prices will stay around $100 the more will be invested into new oil wells.
    mschuster91 · 1789655816 · focus · HN ↗
    > Oil will not stay expensive for a long time without some carbon tax.
    Which the EU already does.
    > Even if Hormuz will remain closed for years production will rise elsewhere.
    There aren't that many places outside of MENA that produce oil in reasonable quantities. European reserves are effectively at capacity, can't really build out any more. The only ones who can expand are the US but they have to ship their oil elsewhere to refine it (and in turn get refined products back), the US is only net self-sufficient but not gross self-sufficient.
    Even if the US were to increase shale oil/fracking... it wouldn't help the markets too much.
    citrin_ru · 1789658166 · focus · HN ↗
    > There aren't that many places outside of MENA that produce oil in reasonable quantities
    AFAIK all these countries can increase production given enough investments: US Canada Guyana Venezuela (high political risk but with high oil prices the risk will be taken) Brazil
    Whether the US is self sufficient or not is not that important as net production and its dynamics.
    mschuster91 · 1789667308 · focus · HN ↗
    > Whether US is self sufficient or not is not that important as net production and its dynamics.
    Unfortunately it is. When there is no oil coming to the US any more that US refineries can handle and process into the stuff the US needs... all the reserves and production capacity the US has don't matter. The US cannot process its own oil.
    vel0city · 1789668674 · focus · HN ↗
    > The US cannot process its own oil.
    Today? No. A year or so, with the right economic incentive/certainty? Sure.
    Most US produced oil is the easiest to refine stuff. It's got some of the highest demand on the global market. Makes sense to sell it.
    The stuff we're set up to refine mostly? The hardest stuff to refine. The cheapest shit out there. We can add the most value buying that stuff and refining it. It also gives a lot of "byproducts" which are useful for plastics and other things which help give even more returns per barrel.
    It's really not that hard to change a refinery to go from the heavy and sour junk to the light, sweet stuff. You essentially just end up bypassing a lot of equipment that's just no longer needed, with some other changes in processes. It's very expensive and complicated to go the other way, needing lots of new equipment among other things.
    If we absolutely needed to, it wouldn't be incredibly challenging to retool to refine US produced oil. It doesn't currently make sense economically for most refiners, so they don't. And even a several month hit, it doesn't make sense to retool. A persistent expected future where we just won't get that heavy sour stuff anymore, sure, they'll retool. The biggest "cost" is they'll have a bunch of expensive machines sitting unused, and a bunch of new pipe to install to bypass it.
    mschuster91 · 1789674605 · focus · HN ↗
    > It doesn't currently make sense economically for most refiners, so they don't.
    Agreed. And that's where I see the biggest problems. There is no economic incentive for refineries to retool - if there is a supply crunch, they can make much, much more profit with the captive audience that is the utterly car-hooked American population.
    The government would have to order refineries to retool, but that is extremely, extremely unlikely to happen in the next two years. After that, maybe.
    Side note: you mentioned earlier that it might be possible to extend production in Venezuela... unfortunately, I don't think that's possible. Their infrastructure is horribly outdated and by all accounts more broken than even in somewhat of a working order. And thanks to Iran blasting a lot of MENA refinery equipment, the manufacturers of such equipment are booked out - there's estimates that it may take half a decade to rebuild all what was destroyed. And the demands of Russia are further adding strain on the supplier market.
    vel0city · 1789675348 · focus · HN ↗
    > if there is a supply crunch, they can make much, much more profit with the captive audience that is the utterly car-hooked American population.
    This only holds true until the first big refinery bothers retooling, then you're late to the party and suddenly aren't in place to produce nearly as much as your competitors.
    > you mentioned earlier that it might be possible to extend production in Venezuela
    I don't recall saying that, at least any time recently. You must be confusing me with someone else.
    I do agree with you though. Rebuilding those fields would be incredibly expensive and take a while to produce some of the lowest quality oil out there. Things would be so much nicer if relations never fell apart and the US and Venezuela kept those fields operational.
    mschuster91 · 1789678817 · focus · HN ↗
    > I don't recall saying that, at least any time recently. You must be confusing me with someone else.
    Indeed, sorry, didn't realize that the username I replied to had changed. My bad.
    > This only holds true until the first big refinery bothers retooling, then you're otw to the party and suddenly aren't in place to produce nearly as much as your competitors.
    Well... theoretically there would be an agency responsible to follow up on violations of antitrust regulations. Practically it's been toothless before the current Presidency, nowadays it's degenerated into being yet another weapon to wield. Hand the President enough money and he'll not care what you do.
    nradov · 1789657254 · focus · HN ↗
    The notion of using cranes to swap heavy battery packs at sea (even near coastlines) is ludicrous. Some of you guys have never spent much time out on the ocean in bad weather and it shows. Plus the coastlines along much of the Asia-Europe route lack suitable deep-water ports, and have serious problems with lack of security and infrastructure.
    mschuster91 · 1789673456 · focus · HN ↗
    > Some of you guys have never spent much time out on the ocean in bad weather and it shows.
    Fair point, my license only allows 12 miles and I have no intent of ever exceeding that lol.
2. rendaw · 1789626000 · focus · HN ↗
  Couldn't they use sails plus that? Are these companies advocating for just sails, or sails plus other stuff?
  1. Cthulhu_ · 1789626407 · focus · HN ↗
    Sails plus the regular engines, for a % in fuel reduction that adds up at scale.
  2. scott_w · 1789627573 · focus · HN ↗
    That’s exactly what they’re doing to reduce fuel usage by up to 6%.
    orwin · 1789630612 · focus · HN ↗
    I think it's up to 24% for rotor sails,no?
3. Razengan · 1789627965 · focus · HN ↗
  How about the equivalent of an space elevator turned 90°:
  Can we built giant conveyer belts across the ocean?
  1. forcedtolinux · 1789628044 · focus · HN ↗
    transpacific zipline (don't tell musk he might start a company)
    internet_points · 1789629825 · focus · HN ↗
    s/start/buy
    ftfy
    usrusr · 1789633801 · focus · HN ↗
    Get rich quick scheme with the catch that you'll have to deal with Musk?
    Guess I'll pass
  2. robbomacrae · 1789630202 · focus · HN ↗
    Ships are ~5x more efficient than trains so unlikely a good trade off. It would have to be a maglev to beat shipping.
  3. pholypilz · 1789638652 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    [deleted] · 1789638980 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
4. CorvusCrypto · 1789629364 · focus · HN ↗
  Agree that it's not going to be a binary shift. The tech does look promising for at least rotor sails, but that's an improvement which also demands use of traditional powerplants to drive the rotors ofc. Still worth investigating imo considering the shipping industry is the area of the world that still contributes highest to carbon output and is sort of an "untouchable" industry due to criticality. If cheap enough this could help while we wait for e.g. "greener" fuel or other things to develop. But yeah, to underscore further, not like shipping will look like my sailing yacht any time soon.
5. satvikpendem · 1789629429 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
6. gehsty · 1789631074 · focus · HN ↗
  I think it’s clear that they are not turning back to use them exclusively, but clearly are ‘turning back’ in an additive way.
  Eg putting these things on ammonia powered vessel will reduce the amount of fuel needed, which is probably a net benefit.
7. rob74 · 1789631470 · focus · HN ↗
  If you had bothered to at least skim TFA, this is addressed in the third paragraph:
  > The idea is not to turn modern cargo ships back into sailing vessels. Instead, these systems are designed to work alongside conventional engines, using the wind to reduce fuel consumption whenever conditions allow.
  1. askvictor · 1789643336 · focus · HN ↗
    News articles to this effect have been popping up occasionally for the past 20 years at least. So the economics don't seem to stack up. At least not yet; but if oil gets a bit dearer...
    JeremyNT · 1789653109 · focus · HN ↗
    They really are being built and used commercially. Probably incentives play a part in this, but their numbers are slowly increasing, so it's not totally vaporware (of course we don't need new articles every ~6 month talking about how amazing this technique is) [0]
    [0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship#Modern_vessels" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship#Modern_vessels
    nomel · 1789667805 · focus · HN ↗
    Some of these sails claim 10% fuel reduction, which is ~5% operational cost, or ~150k per trip to spend on some tubes of metal or sheets of cloth.
    nomel · 1789676307 · focus · HN ↗
    Sorry, typo, and unclear. I meant to say fuel is ~50% operational cost.
    ricree · 1789677160 · focus · HN ↗
    I've seen a few articles about Norsepower (mentioned in the top article) validating the shipboard measurement equipment meant to confirm how much is actively being saved by their sails. I haven't seen any hard numbers on what the actual savings are, but they've had at least one ship (Chinook Oldendorff) with sails since at least 2024. So hopefully the public will get some concrete numbers on how much is saved.
    Given the increasing number of companies that are mentioned as upcoming partners for actual installations, it might be that they've finally been able to convince shippers that wind power is viable for cost savings.
    askvictor · 1789695083 · focus · HN ↗
    Is that 10% best case or average case? Also, what's the capex on the the sails, and what's the additional opex (training, maintenance)? Not trying to pooh-pooh the idea, but as said, I've seen articles like this regularly for decades, and it hasn't become the norm, so I'd figure there's a reason for that.
  2. dghlsakjg · 1789676041 · focus · HN ↗
    The issue is that when conditions do not allow they actively increase fuel consumption through windage, maneuverability loss, air draft increases and extra weight. They also increase costs through increased maintenance needs and crew training and limits on which docks can load and unload them.
    We have had hybrid sail/combustion engine cargo ships for 200+ years, today they are reduced to novelty or historical status. We have been experimenting with goofy hi tech rotary sails for more than a century, and no one has really done more than make a few demonstrators for publicity.
8. vintermann · 1789631650 · focus · HN ↗
  We're not going "back" to wind, but there are vessels with modern sails already deployed to save a couple of % fuel costs. There were 9 in 2020 and are 64 now, according to Sintef. Of course kinks are still getting ironed out, but it seems likely it will continue to grow.
9. defrost · 1789632784 · focus · HN ↗
  And yet:
  Klaveness Combination Carriers (KCC) has launched a brand-new vessel that aims to use wind technology that the company believes will not just reduce emissions, but also improve fuel efficiency on its voyages between China and Australia. Equipped with the first wind-assisted propulsion system in KCC’s fleet and a range of advanced energy efficiency technologies, MV Baltazar was officially launched at Fremantle Port this week .. According to the company, due to the ship’s trading area, size and advanced energy efficiency measures including suction sails, MV Baltazar has the lowest carbon footprint of any vessel in these trades.
  ~ (September 16, 2026) <a href="https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/high-seas-and-low-fuel-energy-efficient-ship-launches-in-fremantle-20260915-p60xok.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/high-s...
  > de-carbonizing shipping either with ammonia combustion, fuel cells, or both.
  Or methanol:
  Methanol is emerging as one of the most practical low-greenhouse gas (GHG) fuels for deep-sea shipping.
  * <a href="https://methanol.org/what-fuels-shipping" rel="nofollow">https://methanol.org/what-fuels-shipping
  * <a href="https://www.dnv.com/maritime/publications/methanol-fuel-in-shipping-download/" rel="nofollow">https://www.dnv.com/maritime/publications/methanol-fuel-in-s...
  * <a href="https://www.lr.org/en/knowledge/research/fuel-for-thought/methanol/" rel="nofollow">https://www.lr.org/en/knowledge/research/fuel-for-thought/me...
  1. GJim · 1789633538 · focus · HN ↗
    > methanol
    Currently made from crude oil in a CO2 emitting process from a finite fossil fuel resource.
    And yes, whilst methanol can be distilled from wood/crops (a more expensive process), this simply cannot scale, especially if humanity wishes to eat...... You do realise a large container ship is 1/4 mile long and carries north of 18,000 TEU containers; that's 9000 lorries worth. They are big.
    defrost · 1789641013 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    GJim · 1789644941 · focus · HN ↗
    > green hydrogen plants.
    Splitting fresh water (salt water is a non-starter) for hydrogen is a rather energy inefficient and expensive process.
    > People still use miles?
    In maritime world, yes we do; nautical and statute.
    > do blather on in that condescending tone.
    I do appear to have touched a nerve old sport.
10. TeMPOraL · 1789640780 · focus · HN ↗
  I think news publishing has recurring schedule for topics for filler articles, and this is just the regularly scheduled appearance of Flettner rotors.
  I saw the headline, and immediately knew what it is. Always the same: headline implying sail power is back, body correcting that it's about minor fuel savings, and that some shipping companies are planning to install rotors on their fleet.
  1. cucumber3732842 · 1789642795 · focus · HN ↗
    Somewhere in a cube farm that hasn't been updated since the 90s:
    "This month's analytics report indicates our college educated white collar employed left leaning traffic to our properties is down over the same month last year"
    <puffs vape>
    "Don't worry about it, I'm having AI re-write all the green tech articles from 2005-15, it'll be back by November"
  2. dinfinity · 1789648087 · focus · HN ↗
    "The International Windship Association says more than 100 large merchant ships are now equipped with modern wind propulsion systems, representing more than 5 million deadweight tons of carrying capacity."
    It's not much, but it's more than just planned stuff. I do generally agree with your sentiment.
  3. jerf · 1789666906 · focus · HN ↗
    Let me just check the schedule here... ah, yes, it looks like we should be getting "AIRSHIPS - HAS THEIR TIME FINALLY COME" swinging back around here in about 6 weeks. See you all then.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.