When I become Commodore of the Sydney to Hobart, later this year, I'll bring in:

- sails but also windmills and solar cells driving in-water propellers

- spectator cruise boats with banks of oars for bankers, financial planners and bankers-best-mate Malcolm Turnbull rowing: with bank-charge-ripped-off members of the public "prompting" them with whips

and, of course

- coal fired steam engines for our new submarines

Poida

Thanks for a well-researched article, Graham, nonetheless one which seems based on the economic parameters of return on investment.

Competitive ocean sailing is a challenge which is generally only enjoyed by those able to afford it.
I well remember a comment by a enthusiastic sailing acquaintance who described his ocean-going adventures as being "like standing under a cold shower tearing up fifty dollar notes."

Our enjoyment of the Sydney to Hobart race is enhanced by smartness in technological and performance thinking, allowing worthwhile development to be acclaimed, but only on the basis of what can be achieved during the challenge to nature's impressive range of conditions.

It is a challenge available only to those with the economic, mental, and physical resources to cope with it.

Profound post Ponder

Poida

Trimarans with carbon fibre hulls and composite masts can reach reaching speeds twice that of the wind. And speeds in excess of forty knots possible, especially if fitted with curved lift legs (blades) that physically lift hull completely out of the water.

As you Say Graham single hulled yachts have been around for centuries. All that now remains is just how fast the fastest ever wind powered craft can traverse the distance using just wind or wind and solar.

And wise as improvement in a world where fossil fuel is a one time only, finite resource.

For mine travelling on top of often mountainous waves and battered by the vagaries of weather. Trying to get there ASAP, just to prove to
his or that very marginal improvement in some outdated technology is just plain daft!

If we are to traverse the oceans, why not at speeds in excess of fifty knots and in stable armchair comfort. That is nuclear-powered submersibles. Given the inherent stability, utilising walk away safe MSR thorium.

The crew completely protected by the radiation limiting water jacket and a concrete box that would contain a shipping container sized 40 MW reactor aft. And consequently exposed to fewer rads than that emanating from a bunch of bananas.

40 MW enough to power a submersible fast ferry, linking rapid rail links from here to most of Asia.

Moreover, given water protects one from most radiation, the very reason that nuclear powered and nuclear-armed subs are the ultimate deterrent against a preemptive strike by hostiles. And the reason we ought to have a dozen or so.

As our ultimate, last resort, defence.
Alan B.

"... steam engines for our new submarines"

Don't knock the steam submarine, they were fast boats, even though they had a few problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine

True Is Mise

Just bring back the self destroying K class would be super. I particularly liked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K-class_submarine#Service

"A dive from [a K class sub's] steam-powered surface operation normally required 30 minutes"

All one need do is bring back 10 km/hr hot air balloons to give K class captains fair warning of an anti-sub bomber approach.

Though I think the simple expedient of using Nuclear Reactors as water boilers, rather than coal furnaces, would more than suit Oz's new subs.

Cheers

Pete