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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.