Well, yes, but with satellite observation, most ships avoid bad weather
most of the time. Its only when storms are the norm over the entire
ocean that subs would be more economical. Additionally, subs as cargo
carriers are most effective for iced-over seas, like the arctic. If the
arctic ice melts, the sub advantage is obviated, as we alre already
seeing with cargo ships plying the Northwest Passage to eliminate 5,000
miles from the europe-tokyo routes that normally pass through the Panama
Canal.
"Michael M. Butler" wrote:
>
> Michael Lorrey wrote:
> > Sorry, the excessive surface area of subs versus ships precludes fuel
> > savings. Surface ships will always go faster for a given amount of fuel.
>
> In good weather. If seas start getting generally stormy, or if the
> Global Warming crew has got it backwards, there might still be a venue
> for cargo subs. But the other thing is, they're plain hard to maintain,
> even ones that only go 60 meters deep... You're not wrong, I'm just
> thinking at the edges.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:36 MDT