• bitfucker@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 month ago

    Until you realize that the energy requirement is also different. Land transport in general is very inefficient. Ship is in fact one of the most energy efficient means of transport.

    • ramenshaman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t disagree but every time I’ve seen a diesel engine on a cargo ship it was absolutely massive.

      • bitfucker@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 month ago

        Size wise, it is small relative to the ship size. Look at car engine. How many % of volume is taken up for the engine and fuel tank of car? I think it is close to 30-40%

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      194 nautical miles isn’t terribly far, though. For port to port, sure. For oceanic shipping, I don’t think 194 is going to cut it. I think we will probably have to do SMRs or efuels to really cut cargo ship and cruise ship emissions when crossing the Pacific or Atlantic. Though I don’t know where nuclear powered shipping (in non-military applications) is in terms of progress.

      • anguo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I do think that cargo ships are the one vehicle where solar panels would make sense though. Add that and a sail, and you should be able to increase the range considerably.