▲ 31 ▼ World's first 10,800 car carrier with solar power delivered by China (interestingengineering.com) submitted 1 month ago by Lemmynated@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.zip 11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 8 points 1 month ago (2 children) By my estimates solar power would cover 0.3% of its propulsion cost, or 5% of its other electrical needs Estimating 11000-14000kW needed at the shaft and up to 2000kW for other electrical needs permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* It reads like there are not that many panels on the ship either. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) As is evidenced by their decision to go with dual fuel, the point of the solar was not to cover propulsion costs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Nor does it even seem to cover a significant portion of auxiliary needs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (2 children) Except it does. This power helps run the ship’s operations, lowering fuel use and making the ship more energy efficient. This is textbook peak shaving. Not to mention the engineering feat of integrating solar with LNG for this cargo application. Hopping into the comments to decry the ship for not doing full propulsion via solar just shows your ignorance. It's like complaining about a hammer for not being able to screw in a fastener. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DoomProphet@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) It's just greenwashing. Companies do it all the time. Slapp some solar on it or use some insignificant amount of recycling and you got your press release which lazy journalist just have to copy. That lead to clickbait articles. And if you're being honest you're just defending it because the "by China" in the title. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago Accusations of greenwashing are different than accusations of bad engineering. That's a different conversation. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) This is an odd strawman to construct doing full propulsion via solar just shows your ignorance The only ignorant person here my friend is you, nobody has said or suggested such a thing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (1 child) Soo, then why did you characterize the solar power as being inadequate for propulsion? That is a meaningless thing to point out - given how the solar is not intended for propulsion. What was your original point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 point 1 month ago You sound pretty mad bro permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* It reads like there are not that many panels on the ship either. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 child) As is evidenced by their decision to go with dual fuel, the point of the solar was not to cover propulsion costs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Nor does it even seem to cover a significant portion of auxiliary needs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (2 children) Except it does. This power helps run the ship’s operations, lowering fuel use and making the ship more energy efficient. This is textbook peak shaving. Not to mention the engineering feat of integrating solar with LNG for this cargo application. Hopping into the comments to decry the ship for not doing full propulsion via solar just shows your ignorance. It's like complaining about a hammer for not being able to screw in a fastener. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DoomProphet@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) It's just greenwashing. Companies do it all the time. Slapp some solar on it or use some insignificant amount of recycling and you got your press release which lazy journalist just have to copy. That lead to clickbait articles. And if you're being honest you're just defending it because the "by China" in the title. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago Accusations of greenwashing are different than accusations of bad engineering. That's a different conversation. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) This is an odd strawman to construct doing full propulsion via solar just shows your ignorance The only ignorant person here my friend is you, nobody has said or suggested such a thing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (1 child) Soo, then why did you characterize the solar power as being inadequate for propulsion? That is a meaningless thing to point out - given how the solar is not intended for propulsion. What was your original point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 point 1 month ago You sound pretty mad bro permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Nor does it even seem to cover a significant portion of auxiliary needs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (2 children) Except it does. This power helps run the ship’s operations, lowering fuel use and making the ship more energy efficient. This is textbook peak shaving. Not to mention the engineering feat of integrating solar with LNG for this cargo application. Hopping into the comments to decry the ship for not doing full propulsion via solar just shows your ignorance. It's like complaining about a hammer for not being able to screw in a fastener. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DoomProphet@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) It's just greenwashing. Companies do it all the time. Slapp some solar on it or use some insignificant amount of recycling and you got your press release which lazy journalist just have to copy. That lead to clickbait articles. And if you're being honest you're just defending it because the "by China" in the title. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago Accusations of greenwashing are different than accusations of bad engineering. That's a different conversation. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) This is an odd strawman to construct doing full propulsion via solar just shows your ignorance The only ignorant person here my friend is you, nobody has said or suggested such a thing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (1 child) Soo, then why did you characterize the solar power as being inadequate for propulsion? That is a meaningless thing to point out - given how the solar is not intended for propulsion. What was your original point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 point 1 month ago You sound pretty mad bro permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (2 children) Except it does. This power helps run the ship’s operations, lowering fuel use and making the ship more energy efficient. This is textbook peak shaving. Not to mention the engineering feat of integrating solar with LNG for this cargo application. Hopping into the comments to decry the ship for not doing full propulsion via solar just shows your ignorance. It's like complaining about a hammer for not being able to screw in a fastener. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DoomProphet@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) It's just greenwashing. Companies do it all the time. Slapp some solar on it or use some insignificant amount of recycling and you got your press release which lazy journalist just have to copy. That lead to clickbait articles. And if you're being honest you're just defending it because the "by China" in the title. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago Accusations of greenwashing are different than accusations of bad engineering. That's a different conversation. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) This is an odd strawman to construct doing full propulsion via solar just shows your ignorance The only ignorant person here my friend is you, nobody has said or suggested such a thing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (1 child) Soo, then why did you characterize the solar power as being inadequate for propulsion? That is a meaningless thing to point out - given how the solar is not intended for propulsion. What was your original point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 point 1 month ago You sound pretty mad bro permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DoomProphet@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) It's just greenwashing. Companies do it all the time. Slapp some solar on it or use some insignificant amount of recycling and you got your press release which lazy journalist just have to copy. That lead to clickbait articles. And if you're being honest you're just defending it because the "by China" in the title. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago Accusations of greenwashing are different than accusations of bad engineering. That's a different conversation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago Accusations of greenwashing are different than accusations of bad engineering. That's a different conversation. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) This is an odd strawman to construct doing full propulsion via solar just shows your ignorance The only ignorant person here my friend is you, nobody has said or suggested such a thing permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (1 child) Soo, then why did you characterize the solar power as being inadequate for propulsion? That is a meaningless thing to point out - given how the solar is not intended for propulsion. What was your original point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 point 1 month ago You sound pretty mad bro permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (1 child) Soo, then why did you characterize the solar power as being inadequate for propulsion? That is a meaningless thing to point out - given how the solar is not intended for propulsion. What was your original point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 point 1 month ago You sound pretty mad bro permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 point 1 month ago You sound pretty mad bro permalink fedilink source parent