I guess this makes it appallingly clear just how reactionary this so called "renewable energy" fantasy is.

That wind powered oil tanker achieved an 8% reduction in fuel consumption. If you had 100 ships like that, it would reduce emissions 800%. That would end the global warming problem, wouldn't it? 800% is a lot.

Wind powered oil tanker...smh

...more absurd, and they come back to prove one wrong.

An 800% reduction is like Trump saying he lowered drug costs by over 100 percent. Ain't happenin'.

...

And this is just at a proof-of-concept phase. But the idea that shipping companies are willing to invest in this stuff is encouraging.

I visited Hamburg last summer and was nearly overcome by the diesel fumes. I couldn't believe people would let their children breathe that stuff. There is a huge potential for carbon reduction in this sector. Combined with electrification, use of wind could really help lower emissions.

This is not a situation where a little bit helps. The perfect is not the enemy of the good in this case, since the so-called "perfect" means the survival of human civilization. The green washing just kicks the can down the road (and the road is getting shorter and shorter) and let's people stay in denial.

If we are going to insist on the productivist growth economic model when discussing energy policy, then the only sane alternative is nuclear power. If not that, then the choices are A) cook the planet, B) a dramatic reduction in the demand for energy.

But it is just magical thinking to imagine that we can continue on this path of an ever-expanding economy and an ever-growing demand for energy without serious consequences and/or hard choices, and no amount of reduction of carbon footprints or development of alternatives is going to help. We are decades down the path of the "reducing emissions" and "energy efficiency" illusions, and the problem gets worse and worse. You can't solve the problem with the same thinking that caused the problem in the first place.

Incentives for savings on fuel can lead to lower emissions. Is that a bad thing?

Most ships with nuclear reactors are used for one thing. Even then, emissions are lowered so it could be worse.

How is it that antinukes show no concern when the fossil fuels they support are used for war?

Ever hear of the battle of Trafalgar?

The U.S. military currently operates 99 nuclear reactors as part of its naval fleet.
The United States has 94 operating commercial nuclear reactors.

Given that 99 nuclear reactors operate on ships, that would suggest that we have lots of experience with marine reactors.

Therefore, although this apparently escapes the attention of antinuke fossil fuel worshippers, it is possible to power freighters with nuclear power plants.

We have oodles and oodles and oodles of navy veterans capable of running these potentially clean machines. How is it that antinukes can't imagine peaceful uses for nuclear propulsion while they work to entrench fossil fuels, a highly weaponized use?

About 10% of the carbon dioxide dumped into the planetary atmosphere is associated with shipping. It is therefore low hanging fruit to do something about this, not that there is a single fucking antinuke on this planet who gives a rats ass about the destruction of the planetary atmosphere from their inattention and indifference to fossil fuels.

How come our crazed antinukes around here are advocating for banning jet fuel, since jet fuel is used in weapons? Are our antinukes familiar with jet fuel terrorism at the World Trade Center, and diesel terrorism practiced by Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City?

Diesel runs tanks. Are nutty antinukes now calling for shutting down the trucking industry?

How about palm oil, since it's a constituent of napalm?

Should we ban salad dressings?

There are no technologies that can be prevented from weaponization. This includes, of course, sticks, and, again, the wind, given the battle of Trafalgar, and in fact, the battle of Yorktown which led to the independence of the United States. Should we apply for readmission to the British Empire because of the weaponization of the wind?

One wonders if our benighted antinukes are trying to be absurd, or that they're simply clueless about being so.

Even Wind Energy is preferred on merchant ships before turning to nuclear, which does have the well proven potential to fully power ships, but let's face it; sailors do like sails.

Another point is that the Nuclear Industry in the US is an appendage of the Military Industrial Complex. I don't say that as any kind of anti-nuke, which I am not, but it adds to the realization that nuclear energy has not met the challenges of a market economy. Maybe the SMR stuff will allow it to perform better. Maybe they could use those on cargo ships.

For me, further discussion is a waste of time. Peace Out, daddio.

...reactionary fondness for the 19th century.

They're pretty much all the same.

along with the Gulf Stream, sailing might become impossible.

Radioactive material, and for that matter radiation itself, saves lives.

There is already some evidence of weakening as a result of climate change. That would be catastrophic.

a critical situation as reserves decline... Cheap oil will no longer be available to make it feasible to power oceangoing ships.
m

Otherwise, learn to sail.

I read where Google is buying one of Bill Gates units...This should be interesting...
m