this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
839 points (97.8% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
5399 readers
1478 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/[email protected] - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/[email protected] - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, I got that information from a different Lemmy comment, and on the spur of your contradiction I went looking myself. My search results are flooded with mostly useless news articles (they went to tell stories, not relay technical information). Regardless, the most ambitious claim I've seen is to reduce emissions by up to 90% for a ship design that can't handle shipping containers and is about 1/4 the size of the largest ships being produced today.
Don't get me wrong, I want this to happen. In fact, I would ban carbon-fuel shipping today, if I could make it happen. That being said, I don't think we'll ever get back to 100% wind power.
The sail kite project has had claims of up to 10% fuel savings for about 20 years, now.
It's all moot when we should just be focusing on figuring out practical nuclear shipping. It's the only way to meet or exceed our current standard and be carbon-free. The NS Savannah proved it could be profitable ages ago, and that without any economy of scale to reduce costs.