Oceanbird is awesome! The trouble is that overhauling the entire industry with new-built ships would take too long to make a meaningful climate impact, and be extremely expensive (not to mention that their approach only works for ro-ros).
Synthetic fuels will compete with aviation for the green hydrogen supply (needed to make methanol/ammonia/green hydrocarbons) and are expected to cost 2-3x what current fuels cost. This net makes our fuel cost savings case even stronger.
Industry insiders generally already know that there's really no good cost-saving decarbonization solution, and that decarbonizing fast is a hair-on-fire problem for owner/operators. The barriers standing in the way of most wind-assist devices are: poor ROI, shipyard availability for retrofits, risk to shipwoner (capital upfront), and that they don't package on containerships. We solve all these problems by using a large, efficient wing and depending on the container load path. There are technical problems to solve, but the fundamental physics works.
Have you actually talked to anyone in the cargo ship industry about your idea?
If the sail is pulling, the container below would see a remaining uneven load from above. Is there a limit to this? Loading/unloading an unbalaned container sounds like a problem, but is it, while sitting on the ship?
A small to medium vessel fully loaded is like 150.000 tons. 10% of that is 15000 tons, imagine the force that needs to be transferred to the structure of the ship in a place where it was not designed to handle that force.
I worked in the container shipping industry. It doesn't sound like this person ever talked to anyone in the industry. It's not like "add a sail" hasn't been thought off loads of times before. I've seen a few times where people spend 6 months to run a project where they never talked to a person with experience. Then that project would eventually fail. Circumstances and restrictions sometimes change over time, so trying to solve the same thing every few years is a good thing. But "sail in a container", ehh..
The typical problem with containers is non-standard or unsecured cargo pressing against the side walls, which are indeed very weak.
Shipping is responsible for like 2% of emissions. A 5-10-20% reduction on a small number of vessels for a small number of voyages is not gonna make a dent.
You would fold these down rather than trying to ride out a swell with them up. They go out of they way to clarify how easily these can be furled and unfurled.
Being fair, this is really broad and doesn't mean much at all.
Just like a jetliner wing that can be folded up. On the plus side, jetliners regularly hit speeds relative to the air that are ten times as fast
They claim a save of 400kW per sail, with a boat cruising at 22kts. Let's do some math:
- 400kW is 400e6 J/s, or 400e6 N.m/s
- 22kts is 11.31m/s
So the forward force must be 400e6/11.31 = 3.5e7N, so around 3500 metric tons of force for a single sail. And with a relative wind coming from the front usually, this means the side force will be much bigger than that.
I am calling this BS
https://alsum.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Perdida-de-conte...
Look at a purpose-built sailship from the age of sail in a north Atlantic storm. It is a rough ride.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7RABaByP_8
Another attempt in a similar fashion is the Oceanbird concept by Wallenius Wilhelmsen, but that means building the vessel from the ground to handle the forces and that over-head loading and unloading is not possible, thus the aim at RO-RO ships.
https://www.theoceanbird.com/
With one vessel already ordered:
https://www.walleniuswilhelmsen.com/news-and-insights/highli...
Personally, as a commercial sailor and software engineer, this container approach screams of VCs throwing money at commercial shipping without understanding the industry. Profit margins are non-existent and are already hugely optimized with possibilities for specialized solutions. This wing sail will have to compete with synthetic fuels without increasing the cost due to crewing requirements.