Comments on: Wind assisted shipping

By: Trevor29

Trevor29 — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:41:08 +0000

It is now on its way back to Europe:
http://www.beluga-group.com/News.72.0.html?&cHash=55f876775b&tx_ttnews tt_news=570

Trevor.

By: Trevor29

Trevor29 — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:11:37 +0000

It reached Venezuela on 6 Feb:

http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/ms-beluga-skysails-completes-h-00289 7.php

Trevor.

By: Trevor29

Trevor29 — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:42:08 +0000

“To update the story, the MS Beluga Skysails set sail today from the northern Germany port of Bremerhaven on her maiden commercial voyage, carrying parts for wind turbines (ironically enough) to Guanta Venezuela.” (also dated 22 January, 2008)

http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/the-ms-beluga-skysails-leaves–002869 .php

Trevor.

By: Trevor29

Trevor29 — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:04:34 +0000

It would appear to be on its way:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22788488/
“The world’s first commercial ship powered partly by a giant kite set off on a maiden voyage from Bremen to Venezuela on Tuesday, in an experiment that inventor Stephan Wrage hopes can wipe 20 percent, or $1,600, from the ship’s daily fuel bill.” (dated Tuesday 22 January, 2008)

Another link:
http://www.greenrep.net/2008/01/10/new-cargo-ship-cuts-fuel-use-with-a -kite-like-sail/

Trevor.

By: andrew

andrew — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:47:27 +0000

no problem is insurmountable, just the implementation of the solution may not be commercially viable.

anything is commercially viable which is: a) possible &
b) pays a good enough return. in this case the commercial prize of a huge cut in fuel bills

By: andrew

andrew — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:45:18 +0000

plus there’s no world government to administer them - the trading scheme is a mechanism for countries to co-operate on this

By: andrew

andrew — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 02:44:15 +0000

Now can I interest you in the carbon credits for my uncut lawn?

why not? people should mow their lawns a lot less. i can’t understand the obsession with short grass. another manifestation of the general insanity in society. but i doubt you’ll get any significant saving for just one lawn. what you don’t seem to understand is that when people buy credits, those credits have to come from somewhere. the existence of credits doesn’t encourage carbon emmissions, it creates a transfer of wealth from those who are emmitting to those who are planting forest, or other activities to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
it could also be done through taxes & subsidies, but for some reason those things have a bad name

By: Gerrit

Gerrit — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:34:28 +0000

Trevor29,

Absolutely, without an independent auditing system in place this will and has happened.

Problem I see see is that with the big auditing firms seeing a chance to make a buck it adds another layer of “ticket clippers” to the cqrbon trading cost.

Have commented earlier on another post that carbon trading with corporate money making involved is here for the long term. They will not be interested in seeing a carbon reduction (earth saving) because they would not be making money.

Carbon trading is supposed to reduce carbon emmisions, instead it will do the opposite.

Corporates will be looking for every opportunity to find a carbon sinkhole and “selling” this to the carbon emitors. With a 30% fee for carrying out the transaction and 5% per annon to keep it audited??

Now can I interest you in the carbon credits for my uncut lawn?

Andrew, let me know when the first commercial 5000 square metre kite flies for 12 months on a ship and what charity you would like me to donate the $200 to.

As I said before, no problem is insurmountable, just the implementation of the solution may not be commercially viable.

Me thinks sailing ships along the more conventioanl lines will be the answer. That plus nuclear propulsion when (as BJ says) security can be guaranteed.

By: Trevor29

Trevor29 — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:42:42 +0000

“…and sells them only once…”

I believe Gerrit is referring to selling the same carbon credits more than once, without the second seller buying them off the first seller. This could happen by straight fraud, or by unclear ownership.

Gerrit has a point here, but it is solvable.

Trevor.

By: andrew

andrew — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:18:06 +0000

“Those trivial objections are real objections in a commercial world.”
they’re still small compared to the projected overall benefit. you really think in a commercial world the chance to save HALF of their fuel costs, it will seem not worth it because maybe now they have to store an additional raft on board? you think a kite capable of hauling a SHIP around will be debilitated by the additional need to haul a wee balloon around?
if these are indeed the solutions they run with. they may have better ideas. i raised these ideas only to show what a trivial matter it was to overcome your objections.

If you think carbon trading is going to hold global warming in check good for you

now you’re very willfully misrepresenting my words.
to repeat myself: “carbon trading might not solve global warming, but it is at least a step in the right direction.”

When I see a world body with teeth controlling who has carbon credits,

well it has to start somewhere.

ets a value and sells them only once,

if you mean they can’t be traded, why would you do that? the trading is what allows those with emmissions-saving processes to be subsidized by those without. it’s what shifts resources to the desirable practices. it’s also what makes it an easier sell for governments, compared with outright regulation, which would likely be rejected by their electorates.

Till then I believe alternative carbon free energy sources are the besat alternatives.

well of course. the carbon trading is supposed to provide an incentive towards that.