Comment box Scope: personal reaction Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none An inexpensive 2% fuel efficiency improvement is a meaningful incremental improvement. For something that costs...
Comment box
Scope: personal reaction
Tone: neutral
Opinion: yes
Sarcasm/humor: none
An inexpensive 2% fuel efficiency improvement is a meaningful incremental improvement. For something that costs $20,000, annual savings of $140,000 are a basically immediate payoff that will “pay dividends” for decades.
If a cargo ship has a lifespan of 30 years, and a big company like Maersk has about 740 ships, and each year this coating is installed saves $140,000, that would be about $3.108 billion in savings across a given fleet-lifespan for just one company, at a one-time cost of just $14.8 million for the fleet.
Pretty great for something so cheap and seemingly with no negative side effects. As with all fuel efficient metrics, shipping companies have a financial incentive to adopt this stuff.
The nice part about this is that propellers will exist regardless of the ship’s fuel source. This means this technology still has benefits even if the ships switch from fossil fuels to hydrogen or biofuel or electricity or whatever.
The only potential issue I could see is dependant on how well the coating adhears to the metal, and if it wears with time is there anything in the coating that is harmful to sea life? I think of...
The only potential issue I could see is dependant on how well the coating adhears to the metal, and if it wears with time is there anything in the coating that is harmful to sea life? I think of the issue with sunscreen causing coral reads to die which is a mindblowly unexpected consequence. It's crazy to see 2% efficiency gain from only coating the propellers though!
kinda unimportant consequence but I wonder if this material will be used for athletic swimwear; and if so, are we are going to see a wave of decreases in world record times in swimming races due...
kinda unimportant consequence but I wonder if this material will be used for athletic swimwear; and if so, are we are going to see a wave of decreases in world record times in swimming races due to the equipment change
Comment box
An inexpensive 2% fuel efficiency improvement is a meaningful incremental improvement. For something that costs $20,000, annual savings of $140,000 are a basically immediate payoff that will “pay dividends” for decades.
If a cargo ship has a lifespan of 30 years, and a big company like Maersk has about 740 ships, and each year this coating is installed saves $140,000, that would be about $3.108 billion in savings across a given fleet-lifespan for just one company, at a one-time cost of just $14.8 million for the fleet.
Pretty great for something so cheap and seemingly with no negative side effects. As with all fuel efficient metrics, shipping companies have a financial incentive to adopt this stuff.
The nice part about this is that propellers will exist regardless of the ship’s fuel source. This means this technology still has benefits even if the ships switch from fossil fuels to hydrogen or biofuel or electricity or whatever.
The only potential issue I could see is dependant on how well the coating adhears to the metal, and if it wears with time is there anything in the coating that is harmful to sea life? I think of the issue with sunscreen causing coral reads to die which is a mindblowly unexpected consequence. It's crazy to see 2% efficiency gain from only coating the propellers though!
kinda unimportant consequence but I wonder if this material will be used for athletic swimwear; and if so, are we are going to see a wave of decreases in world record times in swimming races due to the equipment change
You mean like the already-banned-from-competition LZR swimsuit?
yeah!