Well, you have the mic. Give it a shot.enough said.
There is a valid argument about the consumption of very large leisure craft, the fuel they consume, the pollution the space etc. But nobody will listen to this guy.
Well, you have the mic. Give it a shot.enough said.
There is a valid argument about the consumption of very large leisure craft, the fuel they consume, the pollution the space etc. But nobody will listen to this guy.
It’s not really a size thing. You can get a 40m motor sailboat that will run happily on a 500hp motor and “only” use 30l an hour, when not under sail. According to the above an oyster 100 is a superyacht and equipped with solar panels etc will happily get you many thousands of miles on a few 100l of fuel. You can get a 16M cigarette boat with 6 racing outboards and that will be doing 3 gallons a minute. It will go 90-95% as fast with just 3. So the extra 3 motors are pointless (just for acceleration).
Would hydrofoils be suitable for larger vessels, such as cruise ships, though?There are a couple of ferries already in service. But the range is not where it would need to be.
Hybrids and foiling will probably make a bigger difference.
If you can get the hull out of the water the fuel consumption drops dramatically.
You can achieve some of the benefits by "blowing bubbles" under the hull. This is known as a Hull Air Lubrication System. I think Mitsubishi marine invented it. It's basically a big jacuzzi that blows air under the hull which significantly reduces drag. (water being 7 times denser than air).
Any non-planing vessel has a maximum speed "hull speed" which is defined, not by how much HP you have, but by the displaced length and width. You can double to triple the power and it wont go any faster.
I can't see how we can seize a vessel in international/foreign waters?I miss the jet foil holyhead to dun laoghaire, absolute beast, but fuel costs got it mothballed. The tories could have done more to sanction russsian super yachts, you get the feeling they have something on them. But even the daily fail thinks brexhit is to blame.
EU snatch superyachts owned by oligarchs... as UK flounders
Ministers have been accused of being 'too soft' on sanctions despite an independent and more nimble sanctions regime being hailed as one of the big benefits of the split from Brussels.www.dailymail.co.uk
Thats another brexhit dis benefit then.I can't see how we can seize a vessel in international/foreign waters?
I recall tracking Abramovich's yacht when it legged it from the BVI's to turkey, The skipper kept it in international waters all the way. Our only chance would have been the straights of Gibraltar. From a proximity point of view the "EU" has about 500 times the opportunity to snatch yachts as the vast majority hang out in the Mediterranean
The top picture looks like one of those old steamships crossing the Atlantic.We are starting to see a return to sailing for cargo too. (concept)
A 30M boat is now a superyacht. Righto
In many countries, the rich have been seeing their wealth taxed less in recent decades, as politicians argue that less taxing will allow corporations to hire more employees, prompt more labour competition and raise average wages, eventually allowing more wealth to trickle down to the ordinary person. According to Oxfam data on countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the average tax rates on the richest people have fallen from 58 percent in 1980 to 42 percent at present. Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and owner of X, formerly Twitter, paid a “true tax rate” of around 3 percent between 2014 and 2018.
In 2017, former US President Donald Trump promised Americans that his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would deliver benefits for the working class. The act aimed to slash corporate tax from 35 percent to about 20 percent for big organisations. Trump delivered $1.5m in tax cuts, the biggest corporate tax cut in US history. However, in their book, The Triumph of Injustice – How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay, economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman found that in 2018, the 400 wealthiest families in the US paid an average tax rate of 23 percent in 2018, while the poorest households paid taxes at a rate of 24.2 percent, higher than the richest people.
A yearly 5 percent wealth tax, Oxfam said, could help mobilise up to $1.7 trillion to address humanitarian crises around the world, and support countries bearing the brunt of climate change.