While air transport is obviously unsustainable, it's less recognised that ocean transport is a huge problem too. Before cars and lorries and steam ships appeared, trade between nations - sometimes over great distances - was often quicker and cheaper than relatively short overland transportation. Railways and surfaced roads make overland transport much more efficient no doubt but it seems surprising that journeys across the seas should present such a problem for the future. Would a return to sailing ships (with the improvements made possible by todays engineering knowledge) be completely implausible for slow transportation of goods? I know there is research going into using kites to help pull large ships but what about old fashioned sails?

although, helpful as I've been this really should be for the 'green living' forum.

J

Agree... sailing the atlantic with the trade winds once a year and taking 3 weeks with a fast sail boat or 2 months with a slow one is not really practical. However on the brink of world disaster we may have no choice one day.... "The Day the Earth Stood Still" type of situation :p

Although I like the idea!

Posted By: arthurRailways and surfaced roads make overland transport much more efficient no doubt

In fact canals always remained much cheaper than rail, for slow bulk transport, and only demised because the railway cos bought them up and shut them down. Railways made their profits from passengers, perishables and parcels. Slow bulk goods was always the poor relation that caused more the railways more costs and traffic-obstruction than they were worth - it's a restraint-of-trade scandal that the canals weren't developed in parallel - how would that have served us if still in operation nowadays?

What about photovoltaic-electric powered ships - in the tropics anyway, a ship presents a vast area of what cd be a photovoltaic 'canopy' to the sky. Same for Austraiian wagon-trains!

Didn't you want to be a pirate James?

Canals more than sail, I would like to see brought back in to more use. I'm sure I read Sainsbury or Tesco were planning to move goods into central London by canal but I never heard that it actually happened or was any more than a publicity stunt. Nice idea though. It should be part of the Slow Movement*, I guess they dont get around to sorting thing out very quickly.

*"The Slow Movement began with a protest against the opening of a McDonald's restaurant in Piazza di Spagna, Rome that sparked the creation of the Slow Food organization. Over time, this developed into a subculture in other areas, such as Slow Travel, Slow Shopping, and Slow Design.

Geir Berthelsen and his creation of The World Institute of Slowness[1] presented a vision in 1999 for an entire 'Slow Planet' and a need to teach the world the way of Slow." quote from WIkipedia

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with slow movement of goods, except the vast quantity of stock tied up in floating warehouses.

Tom, the losses (principally drag) are too high - like orders of magnitude.

What, the drag associated with sails?

Or you mean, when PV powered and not in use? Even if feathered, furled (wrapped tight around the mast) or even un-stepped (lowered) - essential in storm, presumably, with modern tall, shallow-draft hulls?

Ever tried steering a sailing ship in a storm/hurricane?

Well shipping emissions are pretty enormous I thought. I was looking into cross-ocean passenger travel and was shocked that passage on a container ship costs more than flying. Ok so that may be largely because there's no mass market but it made me think that there's no reason really why going by boat should be cheap or low in energy use. Water has a lot more resistance than air after all.

I'm not sure why speed is such an objection to sail boats - cookie, you say three weeks is too long to cross the Atlantic but we import nearly everything from China and it must take at least three weeks to get stuff from there even now. Time just isn't really much of an isssue for some stuff.
Obviously ships could still have engines if they needed them or for going against the wind but if fuel became expensive enough would sails still not be worth it?

Surely modern materials would offer some improvements for modern sailships . Racing yachts use them. (Biff might not approve though!)

(sorry if this in the wrong section or wrong forum but thanks for the interest - you're all obviously bored with building!)

Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated'

One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution


REPORT: Pollution from 15 of world's biggest ships equal that of world's 760m cars

by Jeremy Korzeniewski (RSS feed) on Jun 2nd 2009 at 1:57PM

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/02/report-pollution-from-15-of-worlds-biggest-ships-equal-that-o/

Posted By: fostertomNo, we can afford diversions like this, as building has to be within the broad context,

Indeed, I was only thinking the other day about how much today's eco-builders could learn from the amazing caulking techniques that allow a butt jointed wooden ship's deck to resist the ingress of waves and rain, using relatively natural and sustainable materials (hemp fibre and stockholm tar, I believe).

Posted By: BowmanHenry, it's the water that keeps the water out! Wood swells as it gets damp, many old boats can't be kept out of the water for very long.

(Though I think the caulk might help too.)

Absolutely true, I have owned wooden boats my self! But the deck is not constantly wet like the hull, is it?

Posted By: Henry Searsthe deck is not constantly wet like the hull, is it

Often enough, surely - not like anything on dry land