Maersk say they will power 18 ships with methanol made from biomass. Hopefully that's not like the 'hydrogen ready' power stations that still use 95% fossil fuel. Given the cost and predominant unsustainability of biofuels I'd say nuclear is the way to go for cargo ship propulsion. No docking at Auckland anytime soon.

People seem to be slowly coming around to the idea of nuclear ships. The Russian have an arctic cruiser 50 Years of Victory. In WA Stirling naval base is visited by US Virginia class and UK Astute subs. Port Botany NSW appears to get regular shipments of radioisotopes in diesel ships. USS Carl Vinson supplied desalinated water to Haiti. Public acceptance will take time.

Renewables could work but never with 8 billion people.
Sustainability is the answer but probably not achievable in our lifetime. Or anybody else`s for that matter.

The only dangerous man-made emissions are those coming out of the mouths of climate-hysterics, subsidy-seeking crooks, and lying politicians.

WTF?

The author states: "I can say with total conviction, that powering a ship with only wind and solar renewables will not work."

Show some references from those working in the renewables space where anybody says this is possible at the moment.

I know that water is wet but that doesn't make everything else I say valid.

Also the author "None of these solutions are yet commercially realistic for production designs."

So what?

We live in a world where technology is constantly making advances.

Just because something is not yet commercially realistic now does not mean it cannot be in the future.

Nuclear energy was once commercially unrealistic.

This article, however, may enflame the loins of some of our regular OLO contributors - maybe they can still remember the era of mini-skirts.

We live in a world where technology is constantly making advances.
WTF? - Not Again,
and, is constantly presenting new problems. I'm not sure if technology can actually solve the biggest dilemma of all, overpopulation ! Perhaps using technology failures could be presented as a valid excuse to reduce population ?

Hi WTF,

The wind and solar Nirvana is being pursued in Australia. Heavily subsidised, few environmental constraints, no public plans or costings, nor any guarantee that it will even work.

Contrast that with nuclear power: A working technology with numerous analyses and data sets showing it to be the lowest cost of dispatchable low carbon power, yet it is banned in Australia and falsely claimed to be more expensive than wind and solar. And why hasn't ANSTO been asked to provide any analysis?

My interest is in low cost energy as a basis for delivering prosperity. Your interest seems to be unwitting support for a gigantic con that will precipitate a national disaster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89KYlEzW5_M

France was able to provide 150% of its electricity demand in 15 years starting in the mid-1970s. Why couldn't Australia do the same fifty years later?

Stuck in a fossil fueled fantasy, that can only be true if one ignores all empirical evidence and has no expertise?

Says little for anyone in business, public life and society avoiding innovation, science and progress, to benefit selected sectors especially fossil fuels?

Hardly sovereignty, freedom, liberty and prosperity when the future is avoided; simply negative and backwards looking for special interest groups.

Not dissimilar to tensions within GOP between BigTech Bros & immigration vs MAGA and white Christian nationalism; not sustainable?

Ditto LNP with the urban Libs following science versus regional town based Nats who follow medical science, but not climate science?

When people such as Greenie's talk about tracking to the future technology I think of Bill Gates comment... paraphrasing "people overestimate the improvements over the next five years and underestimate the improvements over the next twenty years".

I suspect that Greenie's have a worse predictive capacity than other groups such as engineers, especially when I see them re-factoring their estimates by tricky financial arrangements and government incentives. If you look back I can't remember Henry Ford getting this sort of government sponsorship and risk mitigation. He took the risk he got the profits (or losses).

When I searched for Elon Musk into DuckDuckGo I got the following interesting and ridiculous paragraph...

Elon Musk
South African-born businessman, far-right activist, and Tesla and SpaceX CEO

Elon Reeve Musk is a businessman known for his key roles in the space company SpaceX and the automotive company Tesla, Inc. Wikipedia
_____________

I also found this image interesting...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gf-vBO4WsAEDdAA?format=jpg&name=medium

Greenies are people who need to call on everyone else for help & mostly Govt funding to survive !

Local politics and excessive fees may reduce dependence on the Suez and Panama canals. Going around Cape Horn and the Cape of Good Hope is costly for diesel/bunker fuelled ships, I guess not so much for nuclear propelled. However I see the US Navy routinely takes nuke ships throught the canals rather than taking the long way round.

With Egypt joining BRICS it could mean interesting times for the Suez Canal. We need to find an alternative.