[keyle]

It would be extremely ironic if this would be use by an oil tanker. Jokes aside, this is great, but it will never be the primary mode of propulsion since those tankers are on a timeline and you can't predict wind as much as a combustion engine.

[taneq]

This sort of argument gets used against all sorts of renewables. It doesn't have to be about replacing 100% of energy usage with renewables with zero compromises. If you can slap a kite on a cargo ship and save 10-20% of fuel costs, why wouldn't you? If the wind dies down you can still motor along just like you did before.

Best is the enemy of good, and perfect is the enemy of possible.

[mycall]

If you can save up to 20% in fuel, you bet they would try it.

[komali2]

They won't, because the cost of fuel is passed to the shipper, not whoever owns the boat.

If shell owned and operated their own boats, maybe, but I haven't seen that.

[atdt]

"Shell manages one of the largest fleets of oil/chemical tankers and liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers in the world" https://www.shell.com/business-customers/trading-and-supply/...

[aetherson]

That's not how it works. Of course ultimately the customer pays for the fuel, but you order customers a lower price in order to gain business, making them choose you over your competitors.