Subdeacon Joe

There was,likely still us.

Thanks. These seem to be primarily wind driven, with a back up motor capability. The other threads comments were about using wind to augment the standard motor propulsion. For many things, such as the car carriers in the example, a few extra days really won't matter.

It's good on grilled pineapple.

Wildlife can drive? Ain't evolution wonderful!

Bottom line....something new, government subsidized, failed. The only "subsidies" this attempt at maritime fuel savings is the usual business tax breaks

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2Fk3wSMPmR/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

"This carte de visite shows Martha Maxwell (1831–1881) a self-educated naturalist and artist with her gun and dog. She was one of the founders of modern taxidermy who opened the Rocky Mountain Museum in Boulder, Colorado to display the specimens she had hunted and mounted. Her work was exhibited at the Centennial Exposition in 1876 in realistic landscapes."

Right.....increasing labor costs, say $5,000/day per vessel is disastrous compared to saving $19,000/day per vessel in fuel costs. I have no idea what a retrofit would cost, but let's say a savings of $15,000 per day of steaming, that's $4,500,000 savings in 300 days of steaming. Might come close to paying for a retrofit. Even if it took 2 years to pay off a retrofit, in the 25 to 30 year average life of merchant vessels that still amounts to a significant reduction in fuel costs. But OHMYGAWDTHEARTICALSAIDCARBONEMISSIONS!!!!! So naturally it CAN'T be good and every True American should oppose it! Yeah....it might not work out. But, like the Pony Express....the heavily subsidized by the government Pony Express (OMG!!!!GOVERNMENTSUBSIDY!!) it's worth a shot. Industry tries all sorts of things that don't work, look at the oil industry and dry wells.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66543643 Probably had a heck of a time getting it insured. And certified by government maritime authorities. And, you missed my point about the stupidity of heaping scorn on an emerging technology...and it IS an emerging technology in spite of sails being around for thousands of years unless you can point to 600 foot long, 90,000 ton diesel powered vessels existing thousands of years ago.

I don't know what merchant seamen make, but even if it took a dozen extra crew - and with modern technology I doubt the kites would need more than that, and motorized "window shade" sails even fewer- I don't think cŕew salaries would I crease by $20,000 per day per vessel. I just did a quick search, to Panamax ships: "Most ship engines have been designed for top speeds ranging between 20 and 25 knots per hour, which is between 23 and 28 miles per hour. A Panamax container ship can consume 63,000 gallons of marine fuel per day at that speed. Fuel use drops sharply as speeds decrease. A container ship can decrease fuel use close to one-third." So, Set speeds so they cut usage to 30,000 gallons per day and fuel cost drops to $19,000 per day, but to maintain schedules shipping lines need to add vessels. It's all the rage to make fun of the OHMYGAWDCARBONFOOTPRINT alarmism as you can see I don't have much use for those Lysenkoists, but to just blindly ridicule an idea because CNN says something about reducing carbon emissions is just as ignorant as the Lysenkoists. Maybe even moreso.

Stuff like this happening more and more frequently is making me seriously think about getting forward and rearward dashcams. I guess some people are considering not driving at all. So much more dangerous than answering a phone.

Carried two at a time.

Naval architects started looking at wind assistant back in the '70s and the first Oil Crisis. Now the idea is more towards parasail-like kites. Fuel savings of maybe 30%. On an average sized cargo ship that's, if I recall the numbers from the last time I slammed this ignorant - make that STUPID- meme, at today's fuel prices that's a savings of about $22,000 per day. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind getting $22,000 or more every day.

And how small they are compared to the ship.

Preparing for a session. https://www.facebook.com/reel/2051009061923977?mibextid=0VwfS7

Yeah, FB is worthless! Everyone knows that those are three gun mounts, not triple turrets. " 14-inch (35.6 cm) projectiles on deck of the U.S. Navy battleship USS New Mexico (BB-40), while the battleship was replenishing her ammunition supply prior to the invasion of Guam, July 1944. The photograph looks forward on the starboard side, with triple 14"/50 gun turrets at left. Note floater nets stowed atop the turrets."

Next you'll be trying to tell me that NCO chevron point up and this handbook is out of date! Again, well done, and well deserved. The organizational skills you possess must be phenomenal.

So it's no longer Army Corps Division Brigade Regiment Battalion Company (which I remember as All Cops Drive Big Red Bad Cars)

If it fits, it ships.

These days you never know. I've received glass jars of foodstuffs put in padded envelopes with no other packing, a protective cover for my cell phone in a box 12"×12"×6" with tightly packed pillows. A one pound bag of ground cinnamon in a 12"×8"×4" box with no other packing.