2 years ago · 1ec06d0b97
--- a/cache/2021/2d4d277eb9521025b82bf2fc233c3238/index.html
+++ b/cache/2021/2d4d277eb9521025b82bf2fc233c3238/index.html
@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
 <!doctype html><!-- This is a valid HTML5 document. -->
 <!-- Screen readers, SEO, extensions and so on. -->
 <html lang="fr">
 <!-- Has to be within the first 1024 bytes, hence before the <title>
  See: https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-html5-20121217/document-metadata.html#charset -->
 <meta charset="utf-8">
 <!-- Why no `X-UA-Compatible` meta: https://stackoverflow.com/a/6771584 -->
 <!-- The viewport meta is quite crowded and we are responsible for that.
  See: https://codepen.io/tigt/post/meta-viewport-for-2015 -->
 <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1">
 <!-- Required to make a valid HTML5 document. -->
 <title>Pour les habitants autour de Fukushima, « il y a une injonction à être des contaminés satisfaits » (archive) — David Larlet</title>
 <meta name="description" content="Publication mise en cache pour en conserver une trace.">
 <!-- That good ol' feed, subscribe :). -->
 <link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" title="Feed" href="/david/log/">
 <!-- Generated from https://realfavicongenerator.net/ such a mess. -->
 <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="/static/david/icons2/apple-touch-icon.png">
 <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="32x32" href="/static/david/icons2/favicon-32x32.png">
 <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="16x16" href="/static/david/icons2/favicon-16x16.png">
 <link rel="manifest" href="/static/david/icons2/site.webmanifest">
 <link rel="mask-icon" href="/static/david/icons2/safari-pinned-tab.svg" color="#07486c">
 <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/static/david/icons2/favicon.ico">
 <meta name="msapplication-TileColor" content="#f0f0ea">
 <meta name="msapplication-config" content="/static/david/icons2/browserconfig.xml">
 <meta name="theme-color" content="#f0f0ea">
 <!-- Documented, feel free to shoot an email. -->
 <link rel="stylesheet" href="/static/david/css/style_2021-01-20.css">
 <!-- See https://www.zachleat.com/web/comprehensive-webfonts/ for the trade-off. -->
 <link rel="preload" href="/static/david/css/fonts/triplicate_t4_poly_regular.woff2" as="font" type="font/woff2" media="(prefers-color-scheme: light), (prefers-color-scheme: no-preference)" crossorigin>
 <link rel="preload" href="/static/david/css/fonts/triplicate_t4_poly_bold.woff2" as="font" type="font/woff2" media="(prefers-color-scheme: light), (prefers-color-scheme: no-preference)" crossorigin>
 <link rel="preload" href="/static/david/css/fonts/triplicate_t4_poly_italic.woff2" as="font" type="font/woff2" media="(prefers-color-scheme: light), (prefers-color-scheme: no-preference)" crossorigin>
 <link rel="preload" href="/static/david/css/fonts/triplicate_t3_regular.woff2" as="font" type="font/woff2" media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" crossorigin>
 <link rel="preload" href="/static/david/css/fonts/triplicate_t3_bold.woff2" as="font" type="font/woff2" media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" crossorigin>
 <link rel="preload" href="/static/david/css/fonts/triplicate_t3_italic.woff2" as="font" type="font/woff2" media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" crossorigin>
 <script>
    function toggleTheme(themeName) {
        document.documentElement.classList.toggle(
            'forced-dark',
            themeName === 'dark'
        )
        document.documentElement.classList.toggle(
            'forced-light',
            themeName === 'light'
        )
    }
    const selectedTheme = localStorage.getItem('theme')
    if (selectedTheme !== 'undefined') {
        toggleTheme(selectedTheme)
    }
 </script>

  <meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow">
  <meta content="origin-when-cross-origin" name="referrer">
  <!-- Canonical URL for SEO purposes -->
  <link rel="canonical" href="https://www.bastamag.net/Fukushima-contaminations-zones-radioactives-catastrophes-nucleaires-contre-la-resilience-thierry-ribault">

 <body class="remarkdown h1-underline h2-underline h3-underline em-underscore hr-center ul-star pre-tick">

 <article>
  <header>
    <h1>Pour les habitants autour de Fukushima, « il y a une injonction à être des contaminés satisfaits »</h1>
  </header>
  <nav>
    <p class="center">
      <a href="/david/" title="Aller à l’accueil"><svg class="icon icon-home">
        <use xlink:href="/static/david/icons2/symbol-defs.svg#icon-home"></use>
      </svg> Accueil</a> •
      <a href="https://www.bastamag.net/Fukushima-contaminations-zones-radioactives-catastrophes-nucleaires-contre-la-resilience-thierry-ribault" title="Lien vers le contenu original">Source originale</a>
    </p>
  </nav>
  <hr>
  <p><strong> <i>Basta !</i> : Votre ouvrage, <i>Contre la résilience - À Fukushima et ailleurs</i>, analyse le concept de résilience, omniprésent dans notre société, et largement convoqué suite à la catastrophe nucléaire de Fukushima, qui a commencé il y a 10 ans, le 11 mars 2011. Pour vous, si elle semble aider les victimes à faire face, la résilience les invite surtout à s’accommoder de la catastrophe. Pouvez-vous nous expliquer pourquoi ? </strong></p>

 <p><strong>Thierry Ribault</strong><span class="spip_note_ref"> [<a href="#nb2-1" class="spip_note" rel="appendix" title="Thierry Ribault est chercheur en sciences sociales au CNRS. Il est (...)" id="nh2-1">1</a>]</span> : La résilience est un concept adulé dans nos sociétés, notamment pour administrer les désastres, c’est-à-dire non seulement pour les gérer mais aussi pour les transformer en remèdes aux dégâts qu’ils génèrent. On peut comprendre cet engouement étant donné que nous sommes de plus en plus confrontés à des catastrophes impossibles à maîtriser. La résilience apparaît comme une formule magique car elle prétend clore cette impossibilité, et en faire une source d’inspiration et de rebond vers un soi-disant « monde d’après ». En fait, plus on connaît les causes des désastres, plus les réponses que l’on fournit sont concentrées sur leurs conséquences, et sur la meilleure façon dont on peut en tirer parti, rendant ainsi les causes de plus en plus désastreuses. C’est un principe de base de la résilience que l’on pourrait définir comme « l’art de s’adapter au pire ».</p>

 <p>Dans le cas d’une catastrophe nucléaire comme celle de Fukushima, mais c’est aussi vrai ailleurs, la résilience est promue au rang de technique thérapeutique pour faire face au désastre. On va individualiser le problème et amener les gens à faire fi de leur impuissance face aux dégâts pour, au contraire, leur donner l’impression d’être puissants et agissants. Chacun est exhorté à « rebondir », à « vivre avec ».  Les victimes sont amenées à cogérer le désastre, en participant à la « décontamination » ou en surveillant la radioactivité ambiante. L’objectif des apôtres de la résilience (autorités étatiques, associations locales, experts internationaux), c’est d’amener chacun à cesser de s’inquiéter « inutilement » d’avoir fatalement à vivre avec la contamination. Personne n’ose dire que l’on va « vivre comme avant » mais on parle de « situation post-normale », qui est en fait une situation de survie. Les gens doivent apprendre à se contenter d’un bonheur palliatif, où règne le « trop peu », considéré comme éternel et indiscutable : « trop peu » de santé, « trop peu » de liberté, « trop peu » de peur, « trop peu » de refus, « trop peu » de vie.</p>

 <p><strong>Cette injonction à « vivre avec » permet aux autorités de « faire ravaler leur colère aux gens », dites-vous. Pourquoi ? Et comment ce refoulement de la colère opère-t-il ?</strong></p>

 <p><span class="spip_document_10277 spip_documents spip_documents_left">
 <img src="https://www.bastamag.net/IMG/jpg/th_ribault.jpg" alt=""></span> Dans toutes les catastrophes, il y a un pilotage des sentiments, notamment de l’impuissance, et on peut le comprendre, car l’impuissance révolte les gens. Elle fait naître en eux un sentiment terrible de colère. La résilience permet de refouler cela. Au départ, à Fukushima, les gens étaient très vindicatifs face à la gestion de l’accident nucléaire par les autorités. Mais en peu de temps, ils ont endossé le discours selon lequel il faut « dépasser la colère », ce qui revient à gommer la gravité de la situation. Cette amnésie collective s’appuie sur divers moyens, à commencer par la réévaluation du seuil d’« inacceptabilité » des radiations, euphémisé en « niveau de référence », et qui est passé de 1 à 20 mSv par an. Les habitants sont encouragés à prendre part aux programmes de décontamination, pour – leur disent les autorités –  « évacuer leur peur » car « c’est la peur qui tue » et non pas l’exposition aux particules radioactives. Des associations locales sont créées pour remonter le moral des habitants. Dès 2012, le gouvernement a nommé un ministre responsable de la « construction de la résilience nationale ».</p>

 <p>Le leitmotiv c’est que l’on peut vivre en territoire contaminé. Simplement, il faut prendre quelques précautions. Dès lors, les victimes sortent de leur passivité face à l’agression, elles deviennent actrices. C’est rassurant, et elles finissent pas basculer dans la « positivation » de leur malheur : les gens renouent avec l’espoir car les actions de décontamination collective, ou de production de science citoyenne avec les relevés individuels de radioactivité, mobilisent la solidarité et la capacité individuelle à surmonter une épreuve. Tout cela va jusqu’à conduire certains à affirmer que « c’est merveilleux de vivre à Fukushima », ou encore que « l’histoire de Fukushima est un cadeau pour le futur ».</p>

 <h3 class="spip"><blockquote class="spip">
 <p><i>« On est baigné depuis la révolution industrielle dans cette idée que le désastre est source de progrès et la résilience contribue à la consolidation de cette idée »</i></p>
 <blockquote class="spip"></blockquote></blockquote></h3>

 <p>Comme à Tchernobyl, où a été expérimenté <i>in vivo</i> pour la première fois ce concept du « vivre avec » la contamination radioactive, on retrouve des influenceurs-experts français qui viennent surfer sur le désespoir des gens, en organisant des pseudo-dialogues et des pseudo-rencontres démocratiques où les gens viennent apprendre à « calmer leur anxiété ». Il y a cette conviction que le problème, ce n’est pas la contamination, mais la peur que les gens éprouvent. On fait glisser le curseur de l’analyse vers la psychologie et la capacité de réception et d’adaptation, au lieu de se concentrer sur le problème principal, à savoir les causes qui mènent à être contraint de s’adapter au pire.</p>

 <p><strong>Pour inciter les japonais à se conformer à cette vision d’une catastrophe « pas si grave », il y a aussi la « politique du retour », qui réduit les possibilités de survivre hors de la zone contaminée...</strong></p>

 <p>Bien sûr. Peu à peu, le gouvernement a réduit ou supprimé les subventions versées aux réfugiés, et a rendu difficile l’accès à des logements de substitution ailleurs que dans le département de Fukushima. Il y a aussi des  reconstructions d’écoles dans les villages contaminés, ou des incitations, par décret, à consommer des produits locaux dans les cantines scolaires. Tout cela joue en faveur d’un basculement psychologique favorable au « vivre avec ». Ajoutons le discrédit jeté sur toute forme de contestation et de crainte, avec une culpabilisation de ceux qui rechignent à vivre en zone contaminée et qui ont l’impression d’abandonner ceux qui y restent. Toutes les émotions susceptibles de soutenir un questionnement sur le bien fondé de l’accommodation sont appréhendées comme des maladies nécessitant d’être soignées. On a ainsi parlé des « cervelles irradiées » des mères inquiètes pour la santé de leur enfant. Il y a réellement une injonction à être des contaminés satisfaits.</p>

 <p><strong>Cette gestion très individualisée de la catastrophe ne revêt-elle pas aussi un caractère néolibéral ?</strong></p>

 <p>En partie, avec la disparition du social au profit de l’individu, la sur-responsabilisation, la valorisation de l’auto-organisation, etc. Mais la résilience est plus que cela. C’est une technologie du consentement qui précède historiquement le néolibéralisme. Elle s’est développée en même temps que la société industrielle car il s’agit de trouver de bonnes raisons à la traversée de la catastrophe. On est baigné depuis la révolution industrielle dans cette idée que le désastre est source de progrès et la résilience contribue à la consolidation de cette idée. J’affirme au contraire que le désastre n’est pas une source de progrès, et que le malheur n’est pas une source de bonheur. Il est ce qu’il est, point. En faire un simple moment que l’on peut positiver à tout crin est extrêmement dangereux, car cela revient à le légitimer.</p>

 <p>Aux origines idéologiques de la résilience, on trouve également des affinités avec un eugénisme doux. Au Japon, la Nippon Foundation, encore appelée Fondation Sasakawa, ouvertement d’extrême droite, a financé nombre d’initiatives encourageant les gens à « vivre avec » la radioactivité. On peut ajouter que la propagande sur la reconquête et le « repeuplement » des territoires contaminées a des relents fascisants, particulièrement lorsqu’elle considère les femmes comme des « machines à faire des enfants » (sic). En Europe, en France notamment, il y a des affinités politiques entre les gens qui promeuvent et construisent les programmes de réhabilitation à Tchernobyl et Fukushima et les mouvements d’extrême droite religieux pro-vie. On retrouve cette idée que toutes les formes de vie sont belles même si elles sont dures. Idées que les résiliomaniaques n’hésitent pas à mobiliser dans des assertions du type « la catastrophe est un crible qui élimine le faible et renforce le fort : c’est la vie », ou encore « l’expérience du camp de la mort est vécue comme un chemin initiatique procurant une force de vie ». Il ne s’agit pas de dire que recourir au concept de résilience équivaut à être fasciste. Mais il faut réfléchir à ces affinités idéologiques réelles pour comprendre ce qui se joue au détriment des populations.</p>

 <p><strong>Vous évoquez aussi la production d’ignorance, qui ne relève pas nécessairement du pur mensonge, mais plutôt de ce que les historiens des sciences nomment « la science non faite ». On ne cherche pas, ou peu (d’éléments radioactifs par exemple), et par conséquent, il n’y a rien, ou peu à craindre… </strong></p>

 <p>La science post-catastrophe est obnubilée par le fait de rassurer les populations au plus vite et au moindre coût. C’est pourquoi il n’y a pas eu de réelles enquêtes sur la dose reçue par les habitants dans les premiers jours de la catastrophe, au prétexte que cela aurait fait naître de l’anxiété. Il ne s’agit pas tant, par cette production d’ignorance organisée, de cacher ou d’obstruer le savoir que d’instiller, dans les esprits comme dans les pratiques, cette idée qu’avec moins ou peu de connaissances, on peut finalement s’en tirer et sans doute mieux qu’avec trop. On va par exemple se focaliser sur un nombre de particules très réduit – le césium ou l’iode – alors que plus d’une centaine ont été disséminées. Les zones d’étude prises en comptes sont rétrécies. Les enquêtes sur la contamination interne sont marginales... À force de restreindre le champ des recherches, on finit par se dire que l’on va pouvoir vivre dans ce milieu qui nous menace, et que l’on va même pouvoir y vivre « en toute plénitude », en en sachant de plus en plus sur de moins en moins.</p>

 <p><strong>Ce que vous affirmez, c’est que la résilience aboutit à une banalisation de la menace, au fait de voir la catastrophe comme un mal nécessaire, auquel il faudrait simplement se préparer, puis s’accommoder. Pourquoi ?</strong></p>

 <p>La résilience prête main forte au paradigme du risque et érige une adhésion absolue au caractère inévitable du désastre qu’il se charge de probabiliser. On sait désormais que, pour des raisons économiques (le coût de l’évacuation) et politico-stratégiques (la pérennité à tout prix du nucléaire), l’État, en situation de catastrophe nucléaire, restreint les possibilités offertes aux populations de choisir de partir, puis celles de choisir de ne pas revenir. Il faut donc inculquer aux populations qu’en cas de catastrophe nucléaire, l’évacuation est impossible, dangereuse, inutile. La solution, par conséquent, c’est de fournir aux gens la capacité de gérer leur dose au quotidien. Cette idée est au cœur de ce que l’on appelle « la culture pratique du risque radiologique », et elle est désormais au centre de toutes les politiques de gestion d’une catastrophe nucléaire ou pas, y compris en France.</p>

 <h3 class="spip"><blockquote class="spip">
 <p><i>« La résilience apparaît ici comme un puissant outil de résistance au changement. Elle transforme l’humain en machine à encaisser les coups pour mieux repartir au combat »</i></p>
 <blockquote class="spip"></blockquote></blockquote></h3>

 <p>Cette doctrine, qui a d’abord été mise en application à Tchernobyl, puis à Fukushima de manière plus sophistiquée, est un tournant majeur dans la pensée de ceux et celles qui défendent le nucléaire. Au départ, les nucléaristes purs et durs ne voulaient pas entendre parler de la cogestion de la contamination, parce que cela allait faire peur aux gens. Mais finalement, ils se sont ralliés à l’idée selon laquelle il faut que les populations prennent une part active à la gestion de la catastrophe. Cette évolution est liée à la nouvelle prémisse selon laquelle le risque zéro n’existe pas. D’inexistant, le risque est devenu inévitable. Mais sans que cela ne pose réellement de problème. Il s’agirait plutôt du prix à payer pour avoir la chance de vivre le confort du progrès technologique. On est clairement, avec ce discours, dans la préparation à la catastrophe, la prochaine.</p>

 <p><strong>Pour vous, l’un des problèmes de ces discours sur l’accommodation à la catastrophe, c’est qu’ils font l’économie de se demander comment on en est arrivé là, et rendent toute révolte impossible. </strong></p>

 <p>Le principe de la résilience, c’est de préparer les gens au pire sans jamais élucider les raisons de ce pire. La résilience interdit de s’interroger sur le fait que les catastrophes industrielles sont liées à notre mode de production économique capitaliste, qu’elles sont le résultat d’une société technologique se voulant sans limite. Il s’agit en fait de combattre le cancer, le dérèglement climatique ou le Covid-19, sans combattre le monde qui les fait émerger. La résilience est toujours tournée vers l’avenir. La question, devient simplement : comment le malheur d’aujourd’hui va-t-il nous conduire vers le bonheur de demain ? Il y a un gommage du passé, qui ôte aux populations toute perspective de prise de conscience de leur situation et de révolte par rapport à elle. La résilience apparaît ici comme un puissant outil de résistance au changement. Elle fait du malheur une ressource au service de la perpétuation de ce qui existe déjà, et transforme l’humain en machine à encaisser les coups pour mieux repartir au combat.</p>

 <h3 class="spip"><blockquote class="spip">
 <p><i>« L’investissement dans l’exaltation de la souffrance et du sacrifice en situation de catastrophe est inversement proportionnel aux efforts déployés pour en être épargnés »</i></p>
 <blockquote class="spip"></blockquote></blockquote></h3>

 <p>L’alternative est de considérer réellement le malheur, de le nommer et non pas de lui donner un sens pour mieux l’évacuer, et de faire advenir à la conscience la dureté de ce que l’on vit, conscience indispensable pour aller ensuite vers des formes de vie sociale radicalement différentes, plutôt que se résigner aux rapports sociaux et à leurs nuisibles sous-produits tels qu’ils sont. On ne traverse pas les épreuves, on est traversés par elles. La conscience de la gravité d’une situation et la peur qu’elle inspire (elle aussi prohibée par la résilience au nom de l’impératif de dépassement), sont des moment cruciaux pour nous amener à nous questionner individuellement et collectivement sur les causes réelles qui mènent à ces situations de catastrophes devenues conditions du progrès. Avec la résilience, selon laquelle on ne souffre jamais en vain, on est dans un refoulement sans fin de cette conscience. L’investissement dans l’exaltation de la souffrance et du sacrifice en situation de catastrophe est inversement proportionnel aux efforts déployés pour en être épargnés. Efforts que l’on pourrait consacrer à réfléchir et construire des sociétés dans lesquelles est vivifié le désir de prendre distance vis-à-vis de la condition de survivant, condition à laquelle la résilience nous somme de prendre part citoyennement.</p>

 <p>Propos recueillis par Nolwenn Weiler</p>

 <p>Photo : experts de l’AIEA à Fukushima, avril 2013. CC Greg Webb /AIEA.</p>

 <p><span class="spip_document_10278 spip_documents spip_documents_left">
 <img src="https://www.bastamag.net/IMG/jpg/contre-la-resilience.jpg" alt=""></span> <a href="https://www.lechappee.org/collections/pour-en-finir-avec/contre-la-resilience" class="spip_out" rel="external"><i>Contre la résilience - À Fukushima et ailleurs</i></a>, de Thierry Ribault. Éditions de L’échappée, collection « Pour en finir avec ». 368 pages. 22 euros.</p>
 </article>


 <hr>

 <footer>
  <p>
    <a href="/david/" title="Aller à l’accueil"><svg class="icon icon-home">
        <use xlink:href="/static/david/icons2/symbol-defs.svg#icon-home"></use>
      </svg> Accueil</a> •
    <a href="/david/log/" title="Accès au flux RSS"><svg class="icon icon-rss2">
        <use xlink:href="/static/david/icons2/symbol-defs.svg#icon-rss2"></use>
      </svg> RSS</a> •
    <a href="http://larlet.com" title="Go to my English profile" data-instant><svg class="icon icon-user-tie">
        <use xlink:href="/static/david/icons2/symbol-defs.svg#icon-user-tie"></use>
      </svg> Pro</a> •
    <a href="mailto:david%40larlet.fr" title="Envoyer un courriel"><svg class="icon icon-mail">
        <use xlink:href="/static/david/icons2/symbol-defs.svg#icon-mail"></use>
      </svg> Email</a> •
    <abbr class="nowrap" title="Hébergeur : Alwaysdata, 62 rue Tiquetonne 75002 Paris, +33184162340"><svg class="icon icon-hammer2">
        <use xlink:href="/static/david/icons2/symbol-defs.svg#icon-hammer2"></use>
      </svg> Légal</abbr>
  </p>
  <template id="theme-selector">
      <form>
          <fieldset>
              <legend><svg class="icon icon-brightness-contrast">
                <use xlink:href="/static/david/icons2/symbol-defs.svg#icon-brightness-contrast"></use>
              </svg> Thème</legend>
              <label>
                  <input type="radio" value="auto" name="chosen-color-scheme" checked> Auto
              </label>
              <label>
                  <input type="radio" value="dark" name="chosen-color-scheme"> Foncé
              </label>
              <label>
                  <input type="radio" value="light" name="chosen-color-scheme"> Clair
              </label>
          </fieldset>
      </form>
  </template>
 </footer>
 <script>
    function loadThemeForm(templateName) {
        const themeSelectorTemplate = document.querySelector(templateName)
        const form = themeSelectorTemplate.content.firstElementChild
        themeSelectorTemplate.replaceWith(form)

        form.addEventListener('change', (e) => {
            const chosenColorScheme = e.target.value
            localStorage.setItem('theme', chosenColorScheme)
            toggleTheme(chosenColorScheme)
        })

        const selectedTheme = localStorage.getItem('theme')
        if (selectedTheme && selectedTheme !== 'undefined') {
            form.querySelector(`[value="${selectedTheme}"]`).checked = true
        }
    }

    const prefersColorSchemeDark = '(prefers-color-scheme: dark)'
    window.addEventListener('load', () => {
        let hasDarkRules = false
        for (const styleSheet of Array.from(document.styleSheets)) {
            let mediaRules = []
            for (const cssRule of styleSheet.cssRules) {
                if (cssRule.type !== CSSRule.MEDIA_RULE) {
                    continue
                }
                // WARNING: Safari does not have/supports `conditionText`.
                if (cssRule.conditionText) {
                    if (cssRule.conditionText !== prefersColorSchemeDark) {
                        continue
                    }
                } else {
                    if (cssRule.cssText.startsWith(prefersColorSchemeDark)) {
                        continue
                    }
                }
                mediaRules = mediaRules.concat(Array.from(cssRule.cssRules))
            }

            // WARNING: do not try to insert a Rule to a styleSheet you are
            // currently iterating on, otherwise the browser will be stuck
            // in a infinite loop…
            for (const mediaRule of mediaRules) {
                styleSheet.insertRule(mediaRule.cssText)
                hasDarkRules = true
            }
        }
        if (hasDarkRules) {
            loadThemeForm('#theme-selector')
        }
    })
 </script>
 </body>
 </html>
--- a/cache/2021/2d4d277eb9521025b82bf2fc233c3238/index.md
+++ b/cache/2021/2d4d277eb9521025b82bf2fc233c3238/index.md
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
 title: Pour les habitants autour de Fukushima, « il y a une injonction à être des contaminés satisfaits »
 url: https://www.bastamag.net/Fukushima-contaminations-zones-radioactives-catastrophes-nucleaires-contre-la-resilience-thierry-ribault
 hash_url: 2d4d277eb9521025b82bf2fc233c3238

 <p><strong> <i>Basta !</i> : Votre ouvrage, <i>Contre la résilience - À Fukushima et ailleurs</i>, analyse le concept de résilience, omniprésent dans notre société, et largement convoqué suite à la catastrophe nucléaire de Fukushima, qui a commencé il y a 10 ans, le 11 mars 2011. Pour vous, si elle semble aider les victimes à faire face, la résilience les invite surtout à s’accommoder de la catastrophe. Pouvez-vous nous expliquer pourquoi ? </strong></p>
 <p><strong>Thierry Ribault</strong><span class="spip_note_ref"> [<a href="#nb2-1" class="spip_note" rel="appendix" title="Thierry Ribault est chercheur en sciences sociales au CNRS. Il est (...)" id="nh2-1">1</a>]</span> : La résilience est un concept adulé dans nos sociétés, notamment pour administrer les désastres, c’est-à-dire non seulement pour les gérer mais aussi pour les transformer en remèdes aux dégâts qu’ils génèrent. On peut comprendre cet engouement étant donné que nous sommes de plus en plus confrontés à des catastrophes impossibles à maîtriser. La résilience apparaît comme une formule magique car elle prétend clore cette impossibilité, et en faire une source d’inspiration et de rebond vers un soi-disant « monde d’après ». En fait, plus on connaît les causes des désastres, plus les réponses que l’on fournit sont concentrées sur leurs conséquences, et sur la meilleure façon dont on peut en tirer parti, rendant ainsi les causes de plus en plus désastreuses. C’est un principe de base de la résilience que l’on pourrait définir comme « l’art de s’adapter au pire ».</p>
 <p>Dans le cas d’une catastrophe nucléaire comme celle de Fukushima, mais c’est aussi vrai ailleurs, la résilience est promue au rang de technique thérapeutique pour faire face au désastre. On va individualiser le problème et amener les gens à faire fi de leur impuissance face aux dégâts pour, au contraire, leur donner l’impression d’être puissants et agissants. Chacun est exhorté à « rebondir », à « vivre avec ».  Les victimes sont amenées à cogérer le désastre, en participant à la « décontamination » ou en surveillant la radioactivité ambiante. L’objectif des apôtres de la résilience (autorités étatiques, associations locales, experts internationaux), c’est d’amener chacun à cesser de s’inquiéter « inutilement » d’avoir fatalement à vivre avec la contamination. Personne n’ose dire que l’on va « vivre comme avant » mais on parle de « situation post-normale », qui est en fait une situation de survie. Les gens doivent apprendre à se contenter d’un bonheur palliatif, où règne le « trop peu », considéré comme éternel et indiscutable : « trop peu » de santé, « trop peu » de liberté, « trop peu » de peur, « trop peu » de refus, « trop peu » de vie.</p>
 <p><strong>Cette injonction à « vivre avec » permet aux autorités de « faire ravaler leur colère aux gens », dites-vous. Pourquoi ? Et comment ce refoulement de la colère opère-t-il ?</strong></p>
 <p><span class="spip_document_10277 spip_documents spip_documents_left">
 <img src="https://www.bastamag.net/IMG/jpg/th_ribault.jpg" alt=""></span> Dans toutes les catastrophes, il y a un pilotage des sentiments, notamment de l’impuissance, et on peut le comprendre, car l’impuissance révolte les gens. Elle fait naître en eux un sentiment terrible de colère. La résilience permet de refouler cela. Au départ, à Fukushima, les gens étaient très vindicatifs face à la gestion de l’accident nucléaire par les autorités. Mais en peu de temps, ils ont endossé le discours selon lequel il faut « dépasser la colère », ce qui revient à gommer la gravité de la situation. Cette amnésie collective s’appuie sur divers moyens, à commencer par la réévaluation du seuil d’« inacceptabilité » des radiations, euphémisé en « niveau de référence », et qui est passé de 1 à 20 mSv par an. Les habitants sont encouragés à prendre part aux programmes de décontamination, pour – leur disent les autorités –  « évacuer leur peur » car « c’est la peur qui tue » et non pas l’exposition aux particules radioactives. Des associations locales sont créées pour remonter le moral des habitants. Dès 2012, le gouvernement a nommé un ministre responsable de la « construction de la résilience nationale ».</p>

 <p>Le leitmotiv c’est que l’on peut vivre en territoire contaminé. Simplement, il faut prendre quelques précautions. Dès lors, les victimes sortent de leur passivité face à l’agression, elles deviennent actrices. C’est rassurant, et elles finissent pas basculer dans la « positivation » de leur malheur : les gens renouent avec l’espoir car les actions de décontamination collective, ou de production de science citoyenne avec les relevés individuels de radioactivité, mobilisent la solidarité et la capacité individuelle à surmonter une épreuve. Tout cela va jusqu’à conduire certains à affirmer que « c’est merveilleux de vivre à Fukushima », ou encore que « l’histoire de Fukushima est un cadeau pour le futur ».</p>
 <h3 class="spip"><blockquote class="spip">
 <p><i>« On est baigné depuis la révolution industrielle dans cette idée que le désastre est source de progrès et la résilience contribue à la consolidation de cette idée »</i></p>
 <blockquote class="spip"></blockquote></blockquote></h3>
 <p>Comme à Tchernobyl, où a été expérimenté <i>in vivo</i> pour la première fois ce concept du « vivre avec » la contamination radioactive, on retrouve des influenceurs-experts français qui viennent surfer sur le désespoir des gens, en organisant des pseudo-dialogues et des pseudo-rencontres démocratiques où les gens viennent apprendre à « calmer leur anxiété ». Il y a cette conviction que le problème, ce n’est pas la contamination, mais la peur que les gens éprouvent. On fait glisser le curseur de l’analyse vers la psychologie et la capacité de réception et d’adaptation, au lieu de se concentrer sur le problème principal, à savoir les causes qui mènent à être contraint de s’adapter au pire.</p>
 <p><strong>Pour inciter les japonais à se conformer à cette vision d’une catastrophe « pas si grave », il y a aussi la « politique du retour », qui réduit les possibilités de survivre hors de la zone contaminée...</strong></p>
 <p>Bien sûr. Peu à peu, le gouvernement a réduit ou supprimé les subventions versées aux réfugiés, et a rendu difficile l’accès à des logements de substitution ailleurs que dans le département de Fukushima. Il y a aussi des  reconstructions d’écoles dans les villages contaminés, ou des incitations, par décret, à consommer des produits locaux dans les cantines scolaires. Tout cela joue en faveur d’un basculement psychologique favorable au « vivre avec ». Ajoutons le discrédit jeté sur toute forme de contestation et de crainte, avec une culpabilisation de ceux qui rechignent à vivre en zone contaminée et qui ont l’impression d’abandonner ceux qui y restent. Toutes les émotions susceptibles de soutenir un questionnement sur le bien fondé de l’accommodation sont appréhendées comme des maladies nécessitant d’être soignées. On a ainsi parlé des « cervelles irradiées » des mères inquiètes pour la santé de leur enfant. Il y a réellement une injonction à être des contaminés satisfaits.</p>
 <p><strong>Cette gestion très individualisée de la catastrophe ne revêt-elle pas aussi un caractère néolibéral ?</strong></p>
 <p>En partie, avec la disparition du social au profit de l’individu, la sur-responsabilisation, la valorisation de l’auto-organisation, etc. Mais la résilience est plus que cela. C’est une technologie du consentement qui précède historiquement le néolibéralisme. Elle s’est développée en même temps que la société industrielle car il s’agit de trouver de bonnes raisons à la traversée de la catastrophe. On est baigné depuis la révolution industrielle dans cette idée que le désastre est source de progrès et la résilience contribue à la consolidation de cette idée. J’affirme au contraire que le désastre n’est pas une source de progrès, et que le malheur n’est pas une source de bonheur. Il est ce qu’il est, point. En faire un simple moment que l’on peut positiver à tout crin est extrêmement dangereux, car cela revient à le légitimer.</p>
 <p>Aux origines idéologiques de la résilience, on trouve également des affinités avec un eugénisme doux. Au Japon, la Nippon Foundation, encore appelée Fondation Sasakawa, ouvertement d’extrême droite, a financé nombre d’initiatives encourageant les gens à « vivre avec » la radioactivité. On peut ajouter que la propagande sur la reconquête et le « repeuplement » des territoires contaminées a des relents fascisants, particulièrement lorsqu’elle considère les femmes comme des « machines à faire des enfants » (sic). En Europe, en France notamment, il y a des affinités politiques entre les gens qui promeuvent et construisent les programmes de réhabilitation à Tchernobyl et Fukushima et les mouvements d’extrême droite religieux pro-vie. On retrouve cette idée que toutes les formes de vie sont belles même si elles sont dures. Idées que les résiliomaniaques n’hésitent pas à mobiliser dans des assertions du type « la catastrophe est un crible qui élimine le faible et renforce le fort : c’est la vie », ou encore « l’expérience du camp de la mort est vécue comme un chemin initiatique procurant une force de vie ». Il ne s’agit pas de dire que recourir au concept de résilience équivaut à être fasciste. Mais il faut réfléchir à ces affinités idéologiques réelles pour comprendre ce qui se joue au détriment des populations.</p>
 <p><strong>Vous évoquez aussi la production d’ignorance, qui ne relève pas nécessairement du pur mensonge, mais plutôt de ce que les historiens des sciences nomment « la science non faite ». On ne cherche pas, ou peu (d’éléments radioactifs par exemple), et par conséquent, il n’y a rien, ou peu à craindre… </strong></p>
 <p>La science post-catastrophe est obnubilée par le fait de rassurer les populations au plus vite et au moindre coût. C’est pourquoi il n’y a pas eu de réelles enquêtes sur la dose reçue par les habitants dans les premiers jours de la catastrophe, au prétexte que cela aurait fait naître de l’anxiété. Il ne s’agit pas tant, par cette production d’ignorance organisée, de cacher ou d’obstruer le savoir que d’instiller, dans les esprits comme dans les pratiques, cette idée qu’avec moins ou peu de connaissances, on peut finalement s’en tirer et sans doute mieux qu’avec trop. On va par exemple se focaliser sur un nombre de particules très réduit – le césium ou l’iode – alors que plus d’une centaine ont été disséminées. Les zones d’étude prises en comptes sont rétrécies. Les enquêtes sur la contamination interne sont marginales... À force de restreindre le champ des recherches, on finit par se dire que l’on va pouvoir vivre dans ce milieu qui nous menace, et que l’on va même pouvoir y vivre « en toute plénitude », en en sachant de plus en plus sur de moins en moins.</p>
 <p><strong>Ce que vous affirmez, c’est que la résilience aboutit à une banalisation de la menace, au fait de voir la catastrophe comme un mal nécessaire, auquel il faudrait simplement se préparer, puis s’accommoder. Pourquoi ?</strong></p>
 <p>La résilience prête main forte au paradigme du risque et érige une adhésion absolue au caractère inévitable du désastre qu’il se charge de probabiliser. On sait désormais que, pour des raisons économiques (le coût de l’évacuation) et politico-stratégiques (la pérennité à tout prix du nucléaire), l’État, en situation de catastrophe nucléaire, restreint les possibilités offertes aux populations de choisir de partir, puis celles de choisir de ne pas revenir. Il faut donc inculquer aux populations qu’en cas de catastrophe nucléaire, l’évacuation est impossible, dangereuse, inutile. La solution, par conséquent, c’est de fournir aux gens la capacité de gérer leur dose au quotidien. Cette idée est au cœur de ce que l’on appelle « la culture pratique du risque radiologique », et elle est désormais au centre de toutes les politiques de gestion d’une catastrophe nucléaire ou pas, y compris en France.</p>
 <h3 class="spip"><blockquote class="spip">
 <p><i>« La résilience apparaît ici comme un puissant outil de résistance au changement. Elle transforme l’humain en machine à encaisser les coups pour mieux repartir au combat »</i></p>
 <blockquote class="spip"></blockquote></blockquote></h3>
 <p>Cette doctrine, qui a d’abord été mise en application à Tchernobyl, puis à Fukushima de manière plus sophistiquée, est un tournant majeur dans la pensée de ceux et celles qui défendent le nucléaire. Au départ, les nucléaristes purs et durs ne voulaient pas entendre parler de la cogestion de la contamination, parce que cela allait faire peur aux gens. Mais finalement, ils se sont ralliés à l’idée selon laquelle il faut que les populations prennent une part active à la gestion de la catastrophe. Cette évolution est liée à la nouvelle prémisse selon laquelle le risque zéro n’existe pas. D’inexistant, le risque est devenu inévitable. Mais sans que cela ne pose réellement de problème. Il s’agirait plutôt du prix à payer pour avoir la chance de vivre le confort du progrès technologique. On est clairement, avec ce discours, dans la préparation à la catastrophe, la prochaine.</p>

 <p><strong>Pour vous, l’un des problèmes de ces discours sur l’accommodation à la catastrophe, c’est qu’ils font l’économie de se demander comment on en est arrivé là, et rendent toute révolte impossible. </strong></p>
 <p>Le principe de la résilience, c’est de préparer les gens au pire sans jamais élucider les raisons de ce pire. La résilience interdit de s’interroger sur le fait que les catastrophes industrielles sont liées à notre mode de production économique capitaliste, qu’elles sont le résultat d’une société technologique se voulant sans limite. Il s’agit en fait de combattre le cancer, le dérèglement climatique ou le Covid-19, sans combattre le monde qui les fait émerger. La résilience est toujours tournée vers l’avenir. La question, devient simplement : comment le malheur d’aujourd’hui va-t-il nous conduire vers le bonheur de demain ? Il y a un gommage du passé, qui ôte aux populations toute perspective de prise de conscience de leur situation et de révolte par rapport à elle. La résilience apparaît ici comme un puissant outil de résistance au changement. Elle fait du malheur une ressource au service de la perpétuation de ce qui existe déjà, et transforme l’humain en machine à encaisser les coups pour mieux repartir au combat.</p>
 <h3 class="spip"><blockquote class="spip">
 <p><i>« L’investissement dans l’exaltation de la souffrance et du sacrifice en situation de catastrophe est inversement proportionnel aux efforts déployés pour en être épargnés »</i></p>
 <blockquote class="spip"></blockquote></blockquote></h3>
 <p>L’alternative est de considérer réellement le malheur, de le nommer et non pas de lui donner un sens pour mieux l’évacuer, et de faire advenir à la conscience la dureté de ce que l’on vit, conscience indispensable pour aller ensuite vers des formes de vie sociale radicalement différentes, plutôt que se résigner aux rapports sociaux et à leurs nuisibles sous-produits tels qu’ils sont. On ne traverse pas les épreuves, on est traversés par elles. La conscience de la gravité d’une situation et la peur qu’elle inspire (elle aussi prohibée par la résilience au nom de l’impératif de dépassement), sont des moment cruciaux pour nous amener à nous questionner individuellement et collectivement sur les causes réelles qui mènent à ces situations de catastrophes devenues conditions du progrès. Avec la résilience, selon laquelle on ne souffre jamais en vain, on est dans un refoulement sans fin de cette conscience. L’investissement dans l’exaltation de la souffrance et du sacrifice en situation de catastrophe est inversement proportionnel aux efforts déployés pour en être épargnés. Efforts que l’on pourrait consacrer à réfléchir et construire des sociétés dans lesquelles est vivifié le désir de prendre distance vis-à-vis de la condition de survivant, condition à laquelle la résilience nous somme de prendre part citoyennement.</p>
 <p>Propos recueillis par Nolwenn Weiler</p>
 <p>Photo : experts de l’AIEA à Fukushima, avril 2013. CC Greg Webb /AIEA.</p>

 <p><span class="spip_document_10278 spip_documents spip_documents_left">
 <img src="https://www.bastamag.net/IMG/jpg/contre-la-resilience.jpg" alt=""></span> <a href="https://www.lechappee.org/collections/pour-en-finir-avec/contre-la-resilience" class="spip_out" rel="external"><i>Contre la résilience - À Fukushima et ailleurs</i></a>, de Thierry Ribault. Éditions de L’échappée, collection « Pour en finir avec ». 368 pages. 22 euros.</p>
--- a/cache/2021/708cb8c67ef96647f6f5366eca70adb0/index.html
+++ b/cache/2021/708cb8c67ef96647f6f5366eca70adb0/index.html
@@ -0,0 +1,391 @@
 <!doctype html><!-- This is a valid HTML5 document. -->
 <!-- Screen readers, SEO, extensions and so on. -->
 <html lang="fr">
 <!-- Has to be within the first 1024 bytes, hence before the <title>
  See: https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-html5-20121217/document-metadata.html#charset -->
 <meta charset="utf-8">
 <!-- Why no `X-UA-Compatible` meta: https://stackoverflow.com/a/6771584 -->
 <!-- The viewport meta is quite crowded and we are responsible for that.
  See: https://codepen.io/tigt/post/meta-viewport-for-2015 -->
 <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1">
 <!-- Required to make a valid HTML5 document. -->
 <title>How to design a sailing ship for the 21st century? (archive) — David Larlet</title>
 <meta name="description" content="Publication mise en cache pour en conserver une trace.">
 <!-- That good ol' feed, subscribe :). -->
 <link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" title="Feed" href="/david/log/">
 <!-- Generated from https://realfavicongenerator.net/ such a mess. -->
 <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="/static/david/icons2/apple-touch-icon.png">
 <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="32x32" href="/static/david/icons2/favicon-32x32.png">
 <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="16x16" href="/static/david/icons2/favicon-16x16.png">
 <link rel="manifest" href="/static/david/icons2/site.webmanifest">
 <link rel="mask-icon" href="/static/david/icons2/safari-pinned-tab.svg" color="#07486c">
 <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/static/david/icons2/favicon.ico">
 <meta name="msapplication-TileColor" content="#f0f0ea">
 <meta name="msapplication-config" content="/static/david/icons2/browserconfig.xml">
 <meta name="theme-color" content="#f0f0ea">
 <!-- Documented, feel free to shoot an email. -->
 <link rel="stylesheet" href="/static/david/css/style_2021-01-20.css">
 <!-- See https://www.zachleat.com/web/comprehensive-webfonts/ for the trade-off. -->
 <link rel="preload" href="/static/david/css/fonts/triplicate_t4_poly_regular.woff2" as="font" type="font/woff2" media="(prefers-color-scheme: light), (prefers-color-scheme: no-preference)" crossorigin>
 <link rel="preload" href="/static/david/css/fonts/triplicate_t4_poly_bold.woff2" as="font" type="font/woff2" media="(prefers-color-scheme: light), (prefers-color-scheme: no-preference)" crossorigin>
 <link rel="preload" href="/static/david/css/fonts/triplicate_t4_poly_italic.woff2" as="font" type="font/woff2" media="(prefers-color-scheme: light), (prefers-color-scheme: no-preference)" crossorigin>
 <link rel="preload" href="/static/david/css/fonts/triplicate_t3_regular.woff2" as="font" type="font/woff2" media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" crossorigin>
 <link rel="preload" href="/static/david/css/fonts/triplicate_t3_bold.woff2" as="font" type="font/woff2" media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" crossorigin>
 <link rel="preload" href="/static/david/css/fonts/triplicate_t3_italic.woff2" as="font" type="font/woff2" media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" crossorigin>
 <script>
    function toggleTheme(themeName) {
        document.documentElement.classList.toggle(
            'forced-dark',
            themeName === 'dark'
        )
        document.documentElement.classList.toggle(
            'forced-light',
            themeName === 'light'
        )
    }
    const selectedTheme = localStorage.getItem('theme')
    if (selectedTheme !== 'undefined') {
        toggleTheme(selectedTheme)
    }
 </script>

  <meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow">
  <meta content="origin-when-cross-origin" name="referrer">
  <!-- Canonical URL for SEO purposes -->
  <link rel="canonical" href="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2021/05/how-to-design-a-sailing-ship-for-the-21st-century.html">

 <body class="remarkdown h1-underline h2-underline h3-underline em-underscore hr-center ul-star pre-tick">

 <article>
  <header>
    <h1>How to design a sailing ship for the 21st century?</h1>
  </header>
  <nav>
    <p class="center">
      <a href="/david/" title="Aller à l’accueil"><svg class="icon icon-home">
        <use xlink:href="/static/david/icons2/symbol-defs.svg#icon-home"></use>
      </svg> Accueil</a> •
      <a href="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2021/05/how-to-design-a-sailing-ship-for-the-21st-century.html" title="Lien vers le contenu original">Source originale</a>
    </p>
  </nav>
  <hr>
  <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Garthsnaid_-_SLV_H91.250-933.png"></p>

 <p class="caption">
 On board the ship <em>Garthsnaid</em> at sea. A view from high up in the rigging. Image by Allan C. Green, circa 1920. </p>

 <p>The sailing ship is a textbook example of sustainability. For at least 4,000 years, sailing ships have transported passengers and cargo across the world’s seas and oceans without using a single drop of fossil fuels. If we want to keep travelling and trading globally in a low carbon society, sailing ships are the obvious alternative to container ships, bulk carriers, and airplanes.</p>

 <p>However, by definition, the sailing ship is not a carbon neutral technology. For most of history, sailing ships were built from wood, but back then whole forests were felled for ships, and those trees often did not grow back. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, sailing ships were increasingly made from steel, which also has a significant carbon footprint.</p>

 <p>The carbon neutrality of sailing in the 21st century is even more elusive. That’s because we have changed profoundly since the Age of Sail. Compared to our forebears, we have higher demands in terms of safety, comfort, convenience, and cleanliness. These higher standards are difficult to achieve unless the ship also has a diesel engine and generator on-board.</p>

 <h2>The revival of the sailing ship</h2>

 <p>The sailing ship has seen a modest revival in the last decade, especially for the transportation of cargo. In 2009, Dutch company <a href="https://fairtransport.eu/">Fairtransport</a> started shipping freight between Europe and the Americas with the <em>Tres Hombres</em>, a sailing ship built in 1943. The company remains active today and has a second ship in service since 2015, the <em>Nordlys</em> (built in 1873).</p>

 <p>Since then, others have joined the sail cargo business. In 2016, the German company <a href="https://timbercoast.com/en/">Timbercoast</a> started shipping cargo with the <em>Avontuur</em>, a ship built in 1920. <sup id="fnref:1"></sup> In 2017, the French <a href="https://blueschoonercompany.com/en/home/">Blue Schooner Company</a> started transporting cargo between Europe and the Americas with the <em>Gallant</em>, a sailing ship that was built in 1916. <sup id="fnref:2"></sup> All these sailing ships were constructed in the twentieth or nineteenth century, and were restored at a later date. However, a revival of sail cannot rely on historical ships alone, because there’s not enough of them. <sup id="fnref:3"></sup></p>

 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/clipper-ship-noach.png"></p>

 <p class="caption">
 The Noach, built in 1857.</p>

 <p>At the moment, there are at least two sailing ships in development that are being built from scratch: the <em>Ceiba</em> and the <em>EcoClipper500</em>. The first ship is being constructed in Costa Rica by a company named <a href="https://www.sailcargo.org/">Sailcargo</a>. She is built from wood and inspired by a Finnish ship from the twentieth century. The second ship is designed by a company called <a href="https://ecoclipper.org/">EcoClipper</a>, which is led by one of the founders of the Dutch FairTransport, Jorne Langelaan. Their <em>EcoClipper500</em> is a steel replica of a Dutch clipper ship from 1857: the <em>Noach</em>.</p>

 <p>“Old designs are not necessarily the best”, says Jorne Langelaan, “but whenever proven design is used, one can be sure of its performance. A new design is more of a gamble. Furthermore, in the 20th and 21st century, sailing technology developed for fast sailing yachts, which is an entirely different story compared to ships which need to be able to carry cargo.”</p>

 <h2>More economical sailing ships</h2>

 <p>These two ships – one under construction and one in the design phase – have the potential to make sail cargo a lot more economical than it is today. That’s because they have a much larger cargo capacity than the sailing ships currently in operation. As a ship becomes longer, her cargo capacity increases more than proportionally.</p>

 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/ecoclipper-prototype500-colour.png"></p>

 <p class="caption">
 The EcoClipper500 is a full-scale replica of the Noach.</p>

 <p>The 46 metre long <em>Ceiba</em> is powered by 580 m2 of sails and carries 250 tonnes of cargo. The 60 metre long <em>EcoClipper500</em> is powered by almost 1,000 m2 of sails and takes 500 tonnes of cargo. For comparison, the <em>Tres Hombres</em> is not that much shorter at 32 metres, but she takes only 40 tonnes of cargo – twelve times less than the <em>EcoClipper500</em>. A larger ship is also faster and saves labour. The <em>Tres Hombres</em> requires a crew of seven, while the <em>EcoClipper500</em> only has a slightly larger crew of twelve.</p>

 <h2>Life cycle analysis of a sailing ship</h2>

 <p>Although the <em>EcoClipper500</em> is still in the design phase, she will be the focus of this article. This is because the company conducted a life cycle analysis of the ship prior to building it. <sup id="fnref:9"></sup> As far as I know, this is the first life cycle analysis of a sailing ship ever made. The study reveals that it takes around 1,200 tonnes of carbon to build the ship.</p>

 <p>Half of those emissions are generated during steel production, and roughly one third is generated by steel working processes and other shipyard activities. Solvent-based paints as well as electric and electronic systems each account for roughly 5% of emissions. The emissions produced during the manufacturing of the sails are not included because there are no scientific data available, but a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (for sails based on aramid fibres) signals that their contribution to the total carbon footprint is very small. <sup id="fnref:4"></sup></p>

 <blockquote>
 <p>The <em>EcoClipper500</em> has a carbon footprint of  2 grammes of <span class="caps">CO2</span> per tonne-kilometre, which is five times less than the carbon footprint of a container ship.</p>
 </blockquote>

 <p>If these 1,200 tonnes of emissions are spread out over an estimated lifetime of 50 years, then the <em>EcoClipper500</em> would have a carbon footprint of about 2 grammes of <span class="caps">CO2</span> per tonne-kilometre of cargo, concludes researcher Andrew Simons, who made the life cycle analysis for the ship. This is roughly five times less than the carbon footprint of a container ship (10 grammes <span class="caps">CO2</span>/tonne-km) and three times less than the carbon footprint of a bulk-carrier (6 grammes <span class="caps">CO2</span>/tonne-km). <sup id="fnref:5"></sup></p>

 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_-_looking_aft_from_aloft_on_the_deck_while_at_anchor.png"></p>

 <p class="caption">
 Looking aft from aloft on the ‘Parma’ while at anchor. Alan Villiers, 1932-33. Villiers’s work vividly records the period of early 20th century maritime history when merchant sailing vessels or ‘tall ships’ were in rapid decline.</p>

 <p>Transporting one ton of cargo over a distance of 8,000 km (roughly the distance between the Caribbean and the Netherlands) would thus produce 16 kg of carbon with the <em>EcoClipper500</em>, compared to 80 kg on a container ship and 48 kg on a bulk carrier. The proportions are similar for other environmental factors, such as ozone depletion, ecotoxicity, air pollution, and so on.</p>

 <p>Although the sailing ship boasts a convincing advantage, it may not be as big as you might have expected. First, as Simons explains, there’s scale. A container ship or bulk carrier enjoys the same benefits over the <em>EcoClipper500</em> as the <em>EcoClipper500</em> enjoys over the <em>Tres Hombres</em>. It can take a lot more cargo – on average 50,000 tonnes instead of 500 tonnes – and it needs only a slightly larger crew of 20-25 people. <sup id="fnref:6"></sup></p>

 <p>Second, fossil fuel powered ships are faster than sailing ships, meaning that fewer ships are needed to transport a given amount of cargo over a given period of time. The original ship on which the <em>EcoClipper500</em> is based, sailed between the Netherlands and Indonesia in 65 to 78 days, while a container ship does it in about half the time (taking the short cut through the Suez canal).</p>

 <h2>Building a fleet of sailing ships</h2>

 <p>There’s two ways to further lower the carbon emissions of sailing ships in comparison to container ships and bulk carriers. One is to build ships from wood instead of steel, such as the <em>Ceiba</em>. If the harvested trees are allowed to grow back (which the makers of the Ceiba have promised), such a ship may even be considered a carbon sink.</p>

 <p>However, there’s a good reason why the <em>EcoClipper500</em> will be made from steel: the company’s aim is to build not just one ship, but a fleet of them. Jorne Langelaan: “There are few shipyards who can deliver wooden ships nowadays. Steel makes it easier to build a fleet in a shorter period.”</p>

 <p>A possible compromise would be a composite construction, in which a steel skeleton is clad with timber keel, planks, and deck. Andrew Simons: “This would reduce the carbon footprint of construction by half. It could also be feasible to make superstructures and some of the mast sections and spars from timber instead of steel.”</p>

 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_-_driving_sprays_over_the_main_deck.png"></p>

 <p class="caption">
 Driving sprays over the main deck of the ‘Parma’. Alan Villiers, 1932-33.</p>

 <p>Towards the future, another possibility to further decrease a sailings ship’s emissions per tonne-km is to build it even larger. While the <em>EcoClipper500</em> has much more cargo capacity than the cargo sailing ships now in operation, she is far from the largest sailing ship ever built.</p>

 <p>Historical ships such as the <em>Great Republic</em> (5,000 tonnes), the <em>Parma</em> (5,300 tonnes), the <em>France <span class="caps">II</span></em> (7,300 tonnes), and the <em>Preussen</em> (7,800 tonnes), were more than 100 metres long and could take more than ten times the freight capacity of the <em>EcoClipper500</em>. Langelaan already dreams of a <em>EcoClipper3000</em>.</p>

 <h2>Passengers</h2>

 <p>Most cargo sailing ships travelling across the oceans today can also take some passengers. Fully loaded with cargo, the <em>EcoClipper500</em> takes 12 crew members, 12 passengers, and 8 trainees (passengers who learn how to sail). If the upper hold deck is not used for cargo, another 28 trainees can join, so that the ship can take up to 60 people on board (with a smaller cargo volume: 480 m3 instead of 880 m3).</p>

 <blockquote>
 <p>The carbon footprint for passengers amounts to 10 g per passenger-km, compared to roughly 100 g per passenger-km on an airplane.</p>
 </blockquote>

 <p>Consequently, and <a href="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/06/ocean-liners.html">since ocean liners have disappeared</a>, the <em>EcoClipper500</em> also becomes an alternative to the airplane. According to the results of the life cycle analysis, the carbon footprint for passengers on the <em>EcoClipper500</em> amounts to 10 grammes per passenger-kilometre, compared to roughly 100 grammes per passenger-kilometre on an airplane. Transporting one passenger thus produces as much carbon emissions as transporting 1 tonne of freight.</p>

 <h2>Engine or not?</h2>

 <p>Importantly, the life cycle analysis of the <em>EcoClipper500</em> assumes that there is no diesel engine on-board. On a sailing ship, a diesel engine can serve two purposes, which can be combined. First, it allows to propel the ship when there is no wind or when sails cannot be used, for example when leaving or entering a harbour. Second, combined with a generator, a diesel engine can produce electricity for daily life on board of the ship.</p>

 <p>For most of history, energy use on-board of a sailing ship was not too problematic. There was firewood for cooking and heating, and there were candles and oil lamps for lighting. There were no refrigerators for food storage, no showers or laundry machines for washing and cleaning, no electronic instruments for navigation and communication, no electric pumps in case of leaks or fire.</p>

 <p>However, we now have higher standards in terms of safety, health, hygiene, thermal comfort, and convenience. The problem is that these higher standards are difficult to achieve when the ship does not have an engine that runs on fossil fuels. Modern heating systems, cooking devices, hot water boilers, refrigerators, freezers, lighting, safety equipment, and electronic instruments all need energy to work.</p>

 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_-_crewman_with_his_model_of_the_'Parma'.png"></p>

 <p class="caption">
 Crewman of the ‘Parma’ with a model of his ship. Alan Villiers, 1932-33.</p>

 <p>Modern sailing ships often use a diesel engine to provide that energy (and to propel the ship if necessary). An example is the <em>Avontuur</em> from Timbercoast, who has an engine of 300 <span class="caps">HP</span>, a 20 kW generator, and a fuel tank of 2,330 litres. Large sail training vessels and cruising ships have several engines and generators on-board. For example, the 48m long <em>Brig Morningster</em> has a 450 <span class="caps">HP</span> engine and three generators with a total capacity of 100 kW, while the 56m long <em>Bark Europa</em> has two 365 <span class="caps">HP</span> engines with three generators – and burns hundreds of litres of oil per day.</p>

 <blockquote>
 <p>Depending on the lifestyle of the people on board, the emissions per passenger-km may rise to, or surpass, the levels of those of an airplane.</p>
 </blockquote>

 <p>Obviously, the emissions and other pollutants of these engines need to be taken into account when the environmental footprint of a sail trip is calculated. Depending on the lifestyle of the people on board, the emissions per passenger-km may rise to, or surpass, the levels of those of an airplane. To a lesser extent, electricity use on-board also increases the emissions of cargo transportation.</p>

 <h2>Energy use on board a sailing ship</h2>

 <p>The <em>EcoClipper500</em> has no diesel engine on board, which is a second reason to focus on this ship. Obviously, a sailing ship without an engine cannot proceed her voyage when there’s no wind. This is <a href="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2017/09/how-to-run-the-economy-on-the-weather.html">easily solved in the old-fashioned way</a>: the <em>EcoClipper500</em> stays where she is until the wind returns. A ship without an engine also needs tug boats – which usually burn fossil fuels – to get in and out of ports. For the <em>EcoClipper500</em>, these tug services account for 0.3 g/tkm of the total carbon footprint of 2 g/tkm.</p>

 <p>Without a diesel engine, the ship also needs to generate all energy for use on board from local energy sources, and this is the hard part. Renewable energy is intermittent and has low power density compared to fossil fuels, meaning that more space is needed to generate a given amount of power – which is more problematic at sea than it is on land.</p>

 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_--_renewing_caulking_on_the_poop.png"></p>

 <p class="caption">
 Renewing caulking on the poop of the ‘Parma’. Alan Villiers, 1932-33.</p>

 <p>To make the <em>EcoClipper500</em> self-sufficient in terms of energy use, a first design decision was to shift energy use away from electricity whenever possible. This is especially important for high temperature heat, which cannot be supplied by electric heat pumps. The ship will have a pellet-stove on board to provide space heating, as well as a biodigester – never before used on a ship – to convert human and kitchen waste into gas for cooking. Thermal insulation of the ship is another priority.</p>

 <p>Nevertheless, even with pellet-stove and biodigester (which themselves require electricity to operate), and with thermal insulation, energy demand on the ship can be as high as 50 kilowatt-hours of electricity per day (2 kW average power use). This concerns a “worst-case normal operation” scenario, when the ship is sailing in cold weather with 60 people on board. Power use will be lower in warmer weather and/or when less people are taken. During an emergency, the power requirements can amount to 8 kW, while more than 24 kWh of energy can be needed in just three hours.</p>

 <h2>Hydrogenerators</h2>

 <p>How to produce this power? Solar panels and wind turbines are only a small part of the solution. Producing 50 kWh of energy per day would require at least 100 square metres of solar panels, for which there is little space on a 60 m long sailing ship. Vulnerability and shading by the sails make for further problems. Wind turbines can be attached in the rigging, but their power output is also limited. The low potential of solar and wind power are demonstrated by the earlier mentioned sailing ship <em>Avontuur</em>. She has a 20 kW generator, powered by the diesel engine, but only 2.1 kW of solar panels and 0.8 kW of wind turbines.</p>

 <blockquote>
 <p>The hydrogenerator is the only renewable power source that can provide a large sailing ship with enough energy for the use of modern technology on board.</p>
 </blockquote>

 <p>The hydrogenerator is the only renewable power source that can provide a large sailing ship with enough energy for the use of modern technology on board. Hydrogenerators are attached underneath the hull and work in the opposite way as a ship’s propeller. Instead of the propeller powering the ship, the ship powers the propeller, which turns a generator that produces electricity. In spite of its name and appearance, the hydrogenerator is actually a form of wind energy: the sails power the propellers. Obviously, this only works when the ship is sailing fast enough.</p>

 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_-_furling_sail_on_the_main_yard.png"></p>

 <p class="caption">
 Furling sail on the main yard of the Parma. Alan Villiers, 1932-33.</p>

 <p>The <em>EcoClipper500</em> will be equipped with two large hydrogenerators, for which Simons calculated the power output at different speeds, taking into account the fact that the extra drag they produce slows down the ship somewhat. He concludes that the <em>EcoClipper500</em> needs to sail at a speed of at least 7.5 knots to generate enough electricity. At that speed, the hydrogenerators produce an estimated 2,000 watts of power, which converts to roughly 50 kWh of electricity per day (24 hours of sailing).</p>

 <p>At a lower speed of 4.75 knots, the generators produce 350 watts, which comes down to 8.4 kWh of energy over a period of 24 hours – only 1/6th of the maximum required energy. On the other hand, at higher speeds, the hydrogenerators produce more energy than necessary. At a speed of almost 10 knots they provide 120 kWh/day, at a speed of 12 knots this becomes 182 kWh/day – 3.5 times more than needed.</p>

 <h2>Saltwater batteries</h2>

 <p>According to her hull speed, the <em>EcoClipper500</em> will be able to sail a little over 16 knots at absolute top speed – this is double the minimum speed required to generate enough power. Achieving this speed will be rare, because it needs calm seas and strong winds from the right direction. Nevertheless, in good wind conditions, the ship easily sails fast enough to produce all electricity for use on board.</p>

 <p>Good wind conditions can last for days, especially on the oceans, where winds are more powerful and predictable than on land. However, they are not guaranteed, and the ship will also sail at lower speeds, or find herself in becalmed conditions – when hydrogenerators are as useless as solar panels in the middle of the night.</p>

 <blockquote>
 <p>Because she has no engine, the <em>EcoClipper500</em> faces a double problem when there’s no wind: she cannot continue her voyage, and she has no energy to maintain life on board.</p>
 </blockquote>

 <p>Because she has no engine, the <em>EcoClipper500</em> faces a double problem when there’s no wind: she cannot continue her voyage, and she has no energy to maintain life on board. The first problem is easily solved but the second is not. Life on board goes on, and so there is a continued need for power. To provide this, the ship needs energy storage.</p>

 <p>To cover the needs for three days drifting in cold weather, an energy storage of 150 kWh would be required, not taking into account charge and discharge losses. Five or seven days of energy use on-board would require 250 to 350 kWh of storage. For emergency use, another 25 kWh of energy storage is needed.</p>

 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_-_scraping_the_deck.png"></p>

 <p class="caption">
 Scraping the deck onboard the ‘Parma’. Alan Villiers, 1932-33.</p>

 <p>Not having an engine, generator and fuel tank saves space on board, but this advantage can be quickly lost again when one starts to add batteries for the hydrogenerators. Lithium-ion batteries are very compact, but they cannot be considered sustainable and bring safety risks. That’s why Jorne Langelaan and Andrew Simons see more potential in – very aptly – saltwater batteries, which are non-flammable, non-toxic, easy to recycle, have wide temperature-tolerance, and can last for more than 15 years. Like the biodigester, they have never been used on a sailing ship before.</p>

 <p>Unlike lithium-ion batteries, saltwater batteries are large and heavy. At 60 kg per kWh of storage capacity, a 150 kWh battery storage would add a weight of 9 tonnes, while a 350 kWh storage capacity would add 21 tonnes. Still, this compares favourably to the total cargo capacity (500 tonnes), and the batteries can serve as ballast if they are placed in the lower part of the ship’s hull. The space requirements are not too problematic, either. Even a 350 kWh energy storage only requires 14 to 29m3 of space, which is small compared to the 880m3 of cargo volume.</p>

 <p>The emissions that are produced by the manufacturing of the hydrogenerators, biodigester, and batteries are not included in the life cycle analysis of the ship, because there are no data available. However, these emissions must be relatively small. Hydrogenerators have much higher power density than wind turbines, and thus a relatively low embodied energy. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation learns that the carbon footprint of 350 kWh saltwater batteries is around 70 tonnes of <span class="caps">CO2</span>. <sup id="fnref:7"></sup></p>

 <h2>Human Power</h2>

 <p>There’s another renewable power source and energy storage on board of the <em>EcoClipper</em>, and that’s the humans themselves. Like the pellet stove and the biodigester, the use of human power could reduce the need for electricity. Nowadays, cargo ships and most large sailing ships have electric or hydraulic winches, pumps, and steering gear, saving manual labour at the expense of higher energy use. In contrast, <em>EcoClipper</em> sticks to manual handling of the ship as much as possible.</p>

 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_-_crew_at_the_capstan_weighing_anchor.png"></p>

 <p class="caption">
 Crew at the capstan of the Parma, weighing anchor. Alan Villiers, 1932-33.</p>

 <p>Simons and Langelaan are also considering the addition of a few rowing machines, coupled to generators, to produce emergency power. Two rowing machines could provide roughly 400 watts of power. If they are operated around the clock in shifts, they could supply the ship with an extra 9.6 kWh of energy per day (ignoring energy losses) – one fifth of the total maximum electricity use.</p>

 <p>In fact, as I tell Simons and Langelaan ten rowing machines operated continually in shifts would provide as much power as the hydrogenerators at a speed of 7.5 knots. If there are 60 people on board, and everybody would generate power for less than one hour per day, no hydrogenerators and batteries would be needed at all. “A very interesting thought”, answers Simons, “but what impression would we be painted with?”</p>

 <h2>Hot Showers?</h2>

 <p>Even with a biodigester, hydrogenerators, batteries, and rowing machines, the passengers and crew on board the EcoClipper500 would be far short of luxurious, and perhaps too short of comfortable for some. For example, if 60 people on board the ship would take a daily hot shower – <a href="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/10/mist-showers-sustainab">which requires on average 2.1 kilowatt-hours of energy and 76.5 litres of water on land</a> – total electricity use per day would be 126 kWh, more than double the energy the ship produces at a speed of 7.5 knots.</p>

 <p>The ship could supply this energy at a higher sailing speed, but there would also be a need for 4,590 liters of water per day, a quantity that could only be produced from seawater – a process that requires a lot of energy. Even a crew of 12 taking a daily hot shower would require 25.2 kWh of energy per day, half of what the hydrogenerators produce at a sailing speed of 7.5 knots. The <em>Bark Europa</em> is the only sailing ship mentioned in this article that has hot showers in every (shared) cabin, but it is also the ship with the biggest generators and the highest fuel use.</p>

 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_-_on_the_forecastle_in_fine_weather.png"></p>

 <p class="caption">
 On the forecastle head of the Parma in fine weather. Image by Alan Villiers, 1932.</p>

 <p>Andrew Simons: “On the <em>EcoClipper500</em> there needs to be a manageable compromise between energy use and comfort. Energy use on board will have to be actively managed. Resources are finite, just like for the planet. In many ways the ship is a microcosm of challenges that the wider world has to face and find solutions to.”</p>

 <p>Jorne Langelaan: “At sea you are in a different world. It doesn’t matter anymore if you can take a daily shower or not. What matters are the people, the movements of the ship, and the vast wilderness of ocean around you”.</p>

 <h2>Measuring the right things</h2>

 <p>This article has compared the <em>EcoClipper500</em> sailing ship with the average container ship, bulk carrier, and airplane in terms of emissions per tonne- or passenger-kilometer. However, these values are abstractions that obscure much more important information: the total emissions that are produced by all passengers and all cargo, over all kilometres.</p>

 <p>The international ocean freight trade increased from 4 billion tonnes of cargo in 1990 to 11.2 billion tonnes in 2019, resulting in more than 1 billion tonnes of emissions. International air passenger numbers grew from 1 billion in 1990 to 4.5 billion in 2019, resulting in 915 million tonnes of emissions. Consequently, lowering the emissions per tonne- and passenger-kilometre is neither a necessity nor a guarantee for a reduction in emissions.</p>

 <p>If we cut international cargo traffic more than fivefold, and passenger traffic more than tenfold, then the emissions of all container ships and airplanes would be lower than the emissions of all sailing ships carrying 11.2 billion tonnes of cargo and 4.5 billion of passengers. Vice versa, if we switch to sailing ships, but keep on transporting more and more cargo and passengers across the planet, we will eventually produce just as much in emissions as we do today with fossil fuel powered transportation.</p>

 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Grace_Harwar_-_the_mizzen_of_the_ship;_view_aft_from_the_main_crosstrees.png"></p>

 <p class="caption">
 The mizzen of the ‘Grace Harwar’; view aft from the main crosstrees. Alan Villiers, 1932-33.</p>

 <p>Of course, none of this would ever happen. The amount of cargo that was traded across the oceans in 2019 equals the freight capacity of 22.4 million <em>EcoClippers</em>. Assuming the <em>EcoClipper500</em> can make 2-3 trips per year, we would need to build and operate at least 7.5 million ships, with a total crew of at least 90 million people. Those ships could only take 0.5 billion passengers (12 passengers and 8 trainees per ship), so we would need millions of ships and crew members more to replace international air traffic.</p>

 <blockquote>
 <p>We should not be fooled by abstract relative measurements, which only serve to keep the focus on growth and efficiency.</p>
 </blockquote>

 <p>All of this is technically possible, and as we have seen, it would produce less in emissions than the present alternatives. However, it’s more likely that a switch to sailing ships is accompanied by a decrease in cargo and passenger traffic, and this has everything to do with scale and speed. A lot of freight and passengers would not be travelling if it were not for the high speeds and low costs of today’s airplanes and container ships.</p>

 <p>It would make little sense to transport iPhones parts, Amazon wares, sweatshop clothes, or citytrippers with sailing ships. A sailing ship is more than a technical means of transportation: it implies another view on consumption, production, time, space, leisure, and travel. For example, a lot of freight now travels in different directions for each next processing stage before it is delivered as a final product. In contrast, all sail cargo companies mentioned in this article only take cargo that cannot be produced locally, and which is one trip from producer to consumer. <sup id="fnref:8"></sup></p>

 <p>This also means that even if sailing ships have diesel engines on board, they would still bring a significant decrease in the total emissions for freight and passenger traffic, simply because they would reduce the absolute number of passengers, cargo, and kilometers. We should not be fooled by abstract relative measurements, which only serve to keep the focus on growth and efficiency.</p>

 <p>Kris De Decker</p>

 <p>Proofread by Alice Essam. <a href="https://ecoclipper.org/">More about the EcoClipper500</a>. Most images: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_Alan_Villiers">Alan Villiers collection</a>.</p>
 </article>


 <hr>

 <footer>
  <p>
    <a href="/david/" title="Aller à l’accueil"><svg class="icon icon-home">
        <use xlink:href="/static/david/icons2/symbol-defs.svg#icon-home"></use>
      </svg> Accueil</a> •
    <a href="/david/log/" title="Accès au flux RSS"><svg class="icon icon-rss2">
        <use xlink:href="/static/david/icons2/symbol-defs.svg#icon-rss2"></use>
      </svg> RSS</a> •
    <a href="http://larlet.com" title="Go to my English profile" data-instant><svg class="icon icon-user-tie">
        <use xlink:href="/static/david/icons2/symbol-defs.svg#icon-user-tie"></use>
      </svg> Pro</a> •
    <a href="mailto:david%40larlet.fr" title="Envoyer un courriel"><svg class="icon icon-mail">
        <use xlink:href="/static/david/icons2/symbol-defs.svg#icon-mail"></use>
      </svg> Email</a> •
    <abbr class="nowrap" title="Hébergeur : Alwaysdata, 62 rue Tiquetonne 75002 Paris, +33184162340"><svg class="icon icon-hammer2">
        <use xlink:href="/static/david/icons2/symbol-defs.svg#icon-hammer2"></use>
      </svg> Légal</abbr>
  </p>
  <template id="theme-selector">
      <form>
          <fieldset>
              <legend><svg class="icon icon-brightness-contrast">
                <use xlink:href="/static/david/icons2/symbol-defs.svg#icon-brightness-contrast"></use>
              </svg> Thème</legend>
              <label>
                  <input type="radio" value="auto" name="chosen-color-scheme" checked> Auto
              </label>
              <label>
                  <input type="radio" value="dark" name="chosen-color-scheme"> Foncé
              </label>
              <label>
                  <input type="radio" value="light" name="chosen-color-scheme"> Clair
              </label>
          </fieldset>
      </form>
  </template>
 </footer>
 <script>
    function loadThemeForm(templateName) {
        const themeSelectorTemplate = document.querySelector(templateName)
        const form = themeSelectorTemplate.content.firstElementChild
        themeSelectorTemplate.replaceWith(form)

        form.addEventListener('change', (e) => {
            const chosenColorScheme = e.target.value
            localStorage.setItem('theme', chosenColorScheme)
            toggleTheme(chosenColorScheme)
        })

        const selectedTheme = localStorage.getItem('theme')
        if (selectedTheme && selectedTheme !== 'undefined') {
            form.querySelector(`[value="${selectedTheme}"]`).checked = true
        }
    }

    const prefersColorSchemeDark = '(prefers-color-scheme: dark)'
    window.addEventListener('load', () => {
        let hasDarkRules = false
        for (const styleSheet of Array.from(document.styleSheets)) {
            let mediaRules = []
            for (const cssRule of styleSheet.cssRules) {
                if (cssRule.type !== CSSRule.MEDIA_RULE) {
                    continue
                }
                // WARNING: Safari does not have/supports `conditionText`.
                if (cssRule.conditionText) {
                    if (cssRule.conditionText !== prefersColorSchemeDark) {
                        continue
                    }
                } else {
                    if (cssRule.cssText.startsWith(prefersColorSchemeDark)) {
                        continue
                    }
                }
                mediaRules = mediaRules.concat(Array.from(cssRule.cssRules))
            }

            // WARNING: do not try to insert a Rule to a styleSheet you are
            // currently iterating on, otherwise the browser will be stuck
            // in a infinite loop…
            for (const mediaRule of mediaRules) {
                styleSheet.insertRule(mediaRule.cssText)
                hasDarkRules = true
            }
        }
        if (hasDarkRules) {
            loadThemeForm('#theme-selector')
        }
    })
 </script>
 </body>
 </html>
--- a/cache/2021/708cb8c67ef96647f6f5366eca70adb0/index.md
+++ b/cache/2021/708cb8c67ef96647f6f5366eca70adb0/index.md
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
 title: How to design a sailing ship for the 21st century?
 url: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2021/05/how-to-design-a-sailing-ship-for-the-21st-century.html
 hash_url: 708cb8c67ef96647f6f5366eca70adb0

 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Garthsnaid_-_SLV_H91.250-933.png"></p><p class="caption">
 On board the ship <em>Garthsnaid</em> at sea. A view from high up in the rigging. Image by Allan C. Green, circa 1920. </p>
 <p>The sailing ship is a textbook example of sustainability. For at least 4,000 years, sailing ships have transported passengers and cargo across the world’s seas and oceans without using a single drop of fossil fuels. If we want to keep travelling and trading globally in a low carbon society, sailing ships are the obvious alternative to container ships, bulk carriers, and airplanes.</p>
 <p>However, by definition, the sailing ship is not a carbon neutral technology. For most of history, sailing ships were built from wood, but back then whole forests were felled for ships, and those trees often did not grow back. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, sailing ships were increasingly made from steel, which also has a significant carbon footprint.</p>
 <p>The carbon neutrality of sailing in the 21st century is even more elusive. That’s because we have changed profoundly since the Age of Sail. Compared to our forebears, we have higher demands in terms of safety, comfort, convenience, and cleanliness. These higher standards are difficult to achieve unless the ship also has a diesel engine and generator on-board.</p>
 <h2>The revival of the sailing ship</h2>
 <p>The sailing ship has seen a modest revival in the last decade, especially for the transportation of cargo. In 2009, Dutch company <a href="https://fairtransport.eu/">Fairtransport</a> started shipping freight between Europe and the Americas with the <em>Tres Hombres</em>, a sailing ship built in 1943. The company remains active today and has a second ship in service since 2015, the <em>Nordlys</em> (built in 1873).</p>
 <p>Since then, others have joined the sail cargo business. In 2016, the German company <a href="https://timbercoast.com/en/">Timbercoast</a> started shipping cargo with the <em>Avontuur</em>, a ship built in 1920. <sup id="fnref:1"></sup> In 2017, the French <a href="https://blueschoonercompany.com/en/home/">Blue Schooner Company</a> started transporting cargo between Europe and the Americas with the <em>Gallant</em>, a sailing ship that was built in 1916. <sup id="fnref:2"></sup> All these sailing ships were constructed in the twentieth or nineteenth century, and were restored at a later date. However, a revival of sail cannot rely on historical ships alone, because there’s not enough of them. <sup id="fnref:3"></sup></p>
 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/clipper-ship-noach.png"></p><p class="caption">
 The Noach, built in 1857.</p>
 <p>At the moment, there are at least two sailing ships in development that are being built from scratch: the <em>Ceiba</em> and the <em>EcoClipper500</em>. The first ship is being constructed in Costa Rica by a company named <a href="https://www.sailcargo.org/">Sailcargo</a>. She is built from wood and inspired by a Finnish ship from the twentieth century. The second ship is designed by a company called <a href="https://ecoclipper.org/">EcoClipper</a>, which is led by one of the founders of the Dutch FairTransport, Jorne Langelaan. Their <em>EcoClipper500</em> is a steel replica of a Dutch clipper ship from 1857: the <em>Noach</em>.</p>
 <p>“Old designs are not necessarily the best”, says Jorne Langelaan, “but whenever proven design is used, one can be sure of its performance. A new design is more of a gamble. Furthermore, in the 20th and 21st century, sailing technology developed for fast sailing yachts, which is an entirely different story compared to ships which need to be able to carry cargo.”</p>
 <h2>More economical sailing ships</h2>
 <p>These two ships – one under construction and one in the design phase – have the potential to make sail cargo a lot more economical than it is today. That’s because they have a much larger cargo capacity than the sailing ships currently in operation. As a ship becomes longer, her cargo capacity increases more than proportionally.</p>
 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/ecoclipper-prototype500-colour.png"></p><p class="caption">
 The EcoClipper500 is a full-scale replica of the Noach.</p>
 <p>The 46 metre long <em>Ceiba</em> is powered by 580 m2 of sails and carries 250 tonnes of cargo. The 60 metre long <em>EcoClipper500</em> is powered by almost 1,000 m2 of sails and takes 500 tonnes of cargo. For comparison, the <em>Tres Hombres</em> is not that much shorter at 32 metres, but she takes only 40 tonnes of cargo – twelve times less than the <em>EcoClipper500</em>. A larger ship is also faster and saves labour. The <em>Tres Hombres</em> requires a crew of seven, while the <em>EcoClipper500</em> only has a slightly larger crew of twelve.</p>
 <h2>Life cycle analysis of a sailing ship</h2>
 <p>Although the <em>EcoClipper500</em> is still in the design phase, she will be the focus of this article. This is because the company conducted a life cycle analysis of the ship prior to building it. <sup id="fnref:9"></sup> As far as I know, this is the first life cycle analysis of a sailing ship ever made. The study reveals that it takes around 1,200 tonnes of carbon to build the ship.</p>
 <p>Half of those emissions are generated during steel production, and roughly one third is generated by steel working processes and other shipyard activities. Solvent-based paints as well as electric and electronic systems each account for roughly 5% of emissions. The emissions produced during the manufacturing of the sails are not included because there are no scientific data available, but a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (for sails based on aramid fibres) signals that their contribution to the total carbon footprint is very small. <sup id="fnref:4"></sup></p>
 <blockquote>
 <p>The <em>EcoClipper500</em> has a carbon footprint of  2 grammes of <span class="caps">CO2</span> per tonne-kilometre, which is five times less than the carbon footprint of a container ship.</p>
 </blockquote>
 <p>If these 1,200 tonnes of emissions are spread out over an estimated lifetime of 50 years, then the <em>EcoClipper500</em> would have a carbon footprint of about 2 grammes of <span class="caps">CO2</span> per tonne-kilometre of cargo, concludes researcher Andrew Simons, who made the life cycle analysis for the ship. This is roughly five times less than the carbon footprint of a container ship (10 grammes <span class="caps">CO2</span>/tonne-km) and three times less than the carbon footprint of a bulk-carrier (6 grammes <span class="caps">CO2</span>/tonne-km). <sup id="fnref:5"></sup></p>
 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_-_looking_aft_from_aloft_on_the_deck_while_at_anchor.png"></p><p class="caption">
 Looking aft from aloft on the ‘Parma’ while at anchor. Alan Villiers, 1932-33. Villiers’s work vividly records the period of early 20th century maritime history when merchant sailing vessels or ‘tall ships’ were in rapid decline.</p>
 <p>Transporting one ton of cargo over a distance of 8,000 km (roughly the distance between the Caribbean and the Netherlands) would thus produce 16 kg of carbon with the <em>EcoClipper500</em>, compared to 80 kg on a container ship and 48 kg on a bulk carrier. The proportions are similar for other environmental factors, such as ozone depletion, ecotoxicity, air pollution, and so on.</p>
 <p>Although the sailing ship boasts a convincing advantage, it may not be as big as you might have expected. First, as Simons explains, there’s scale. A container ship or bulk carrier enjoys the same benefits over the <em>EcoClipper500</em> as the <em>EcoClipper500</em> enjoys over the <em>Tres Hombres</em>. It can take a lot more cargo – on average 50,000 tonnes instead of 500 tonnes – and it needs only a slightly larger crew of 20-25 people. <sup id="fnref:6"></sup></p>
 <p>Second, fossil fuel powered ships are faster than sailing ships, meaning that fewer ships are needed to transport a given amount of cargo over a given period of time. The original ship on which the <em>EcoClipper500</em> is based, sailed between the Netherlands and Indonesia in 65 to 78 days, while a container ship does it in about half the time (taking the short cut through the Suez canal).</p>
 <h2>Building a fleet of sailing ships</h2>
 <p>There’s two ways to further lower the carbon emissions of sailing ships in comparison to container ships and bulk carriers. One is to build ships from wood instead of steel, such as the <em>Ceiba</em>. If the harvested trees are allowed to grow back (which the makers of the Ceiba have promised), such a ship may even be considered a carbon sink.</p>
 <p>However, there’s a good reason why the <em>EcoClipper500</em> will be made from steel: the company’s aim is to build not just one ship, but a fleet of them. Jorne Langelaan: “There are few shipyards who can deliver wooden ships nowadays. Steel makes it easier to build a fleet in a shorter period.”</p>
 <p>A possible compromise would be a composite construction, in which a steel skeleton is clad with timber keel, planks, and deck. Andrew Simons: “This would reduce the carbon footprint of construction by half. It could also be feasible to make superstructures and some of the mast sections and spars from timber instead of steel.”</p>
 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_-_driving_sprays_over_the_main_deck.png"></p><p class="caption">
 Driving sprays over the main deck of the ‘Parma’. Alan Villiers, 1932-33.</p>
 <p>Towards the future, another possibility to further decrease a sailings ship’s emissions per tonne-km is to build it even larger. While the <em>EcoClipper500</em> has much more cargo capacity than the cargo sailing ships now in operation, she is far from the largest sailing ship ever built.</p>
 <p>Historical ships such as the <em>Great Republic</em> (5,000 tonnes), the <em>Parma</em> (5,300 tonnes), the <em>France <span class="caps">II</span></em> (7,300 tonnes), and the <em>Preussen</em> (7,800 tonnes), were more than 100 metres long and could take more than ten times the freight capacity of the <em>EcoClipper500</em>. Langelaan already dreams of a <em>EcoClipper3000</em>.</p>
 <h2>Passengers</h2>
 <p>Most cargo sailing ships travelling across the oceans today can also take some passengers. Fully loaded with cargo, the <em>EcoClipper500</em> takes 12 crew members, 12 passengers, and 8 trainees (passengers who learn how to sail). If the upper hold deck is not used for cargo, another 28 trainees can join, so that the ship can take up to 60 people on board (with a smaller cargo volume: 480 m3 instead of 880 m3).</p>
 <blockquote>
 <p>The carbon footprint for passengers amounts to 10 g per passenger-km, compared to roughly 100 g per passenger-km on an airplane.</p>
 </blockquote>
 <p>Consequently, and <a href="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/06/ocean-liners.html">since ocean liners have disappeared</a>, the <em>EcoClipper500</em> also becomes an alternative to the airplane. According to the results of the life cycle analysis, the carbon footprint for passengers on the <em>EcoClipper500</em> amounts to 10 grammes per passenger-kilometre, compared to roughly 100 grammes per passenger-kilometre on an airplane. Transporting one passenger thus produces as much carbon emissions as transporting 1 tonne of freight.</p>
 <h2>Engine or not?</h2>
 <p>Importantly, the life cycle analysis of the <em>EcoClipper500</em> assumes that there is no diesel engine on-board. On a sailing ship, a diesel engine can serve two purposes, which can be combined. First, it allows to propel the ship when there is no wind or when sails cannot be used, for example when leaving or entering a harbour. Second, combined with a generator, a diesel engine can produce electricity for daily life on board of the ship.</p>
 <p>For most of history, energy use on-board of a sailing ship was not too problematic. There was firewood for cooking and heating, and there were candles and oil lamps for lighting. There were no refrigerators for food storage, no showers or laundry machines for washing and cleaning, no electronic instruments for navigation and communication, no electric pumps in case of leaks or fire.</p>
 <p>However, we now have higher standards in terms of safety, health, hygiene, thermal comfort, and convenience. The problem is that these higher standards are difficult to achieve when the ship does not have an engine that runs on fossil fuels. Modern heating systems, cooking devices, hot water boilers, refrigerators, freezers, lighting, safety equipment, and electronic instruments all need energy to work.</p>
 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_-_crewman_with_his_model_of_the_'Parma'.png"></p><p class="caption">
 Crewman of the ‘Parma’ with a model of his ship. Alan Villiers, 1932-33.</p>
 <p>Modern sailing ships often use a diesel engine to provide that energy (and to propel the ship if necessary). An example is the <em>Avontuur</em> from Timbercoast, who has an engine of 300 <span class="caps">HP</span>, a 20 kW generator, and a fuel tank of 2,330 litres. Large sail training vessels and cruising ships have several engines and generators on-board. For example, the 48m long <em>Brig Morningster</em> has a 450 <span class="caps">HP</span> engine and three generators with a total capacity of 100 kW, while the 56m long <em>Bark Europa</em> has two 365 <span class="caps">HP</span> engines with three generators – and burns hundreds of litres of oil per day.</p>
 <blockquote>
 <p>Depending on the lifestyle of the people on board, the emissions per passenger-km may rise to, or surpass, the levels of those of an airplane.</p>
 </blockquote>
 <p>Obviously, the emissions and other pollutants of these engines need to be taken into account when the environmental footprint of a sail trip is calculated. Depending on the lifestyle of the people on board, the emissions per passenger-km may rise to, or surpass, the levels of those of an airplane. To a lesser extent, electricity use on-board also increases the emissions of cargo transportation.</p>
 <h2>Energy use on board a sailing ship</h2>
 <p>The <em>EcoClipper500</em> has no diesel engine on board, which is a second reason to focus on this ship. Obviously, a sailing ship without an engine cannot proceed her voyage when there’s no wind. This is <a href="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2017/09/how-to-run-the-economy-on-the-weather.html">easily solved in the old-fashioned way</a>: the <em>EcoClipper500</em> stays where she is until the wind returns. A ship without an engine also needs tug boats – which usually burn fossil fuels – to get in and out of ports. For the <em>EcoClipper500</em>, these tug services account for 0.3 g/tkm of the total carbon footprint of 2 g/tkm.</p>
 <p>Without a diesel engine, the ship also needs to generate all energy for use on board from local energy sources, and this is the hard part. Renewable energy is intermittent and has low power density compared to fossil fuels, meaning that more space is needed to generate a given amount of power – which is more problematic at sea than it is on land.</p>
 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_--_renewing_caulking_on_the_poop.png"></p><p class="caption">
 Renewing caulking on the poop of the ‘Parma’. Alan Villiers, 1932-33.</p>
 <p>To make the <em>EcoClipper500</em> self-sufficient in terms of energy use, a first design decision was to shift energy use away from electricity whenever possible. This is especially important for high temperature heat, which cannot be supplied by electric heat pumps. The ship will have a pellet-stove on board to provide space heating, as well as a biodigester – never before used on a ship – to convert human and kitchen waste into gas for cooking. Thermal insulation of the ship is another priority.</p>
 <p>Nevertheless, even with pellet-stove and biodigester (which themselves require electricity to operate), and with thermal insulation, energy demand on the ship can be as high as 50 kilowatt-hours of electricity per day (2 kW average power use). This concerns a “worst-case normal operation” scenario, when the ship is sailing in cold weather with 60 people on board. Power use will be lower in warmer weather and/or when less people are taken. During an emergency, the power requirements can amount to 8 kW, while more than 24 kWh of energy can be needed in just three hours.</p>
 <h2>Hydrogenerators</h2>
 <p>How to produce this power? Solar panels and wind turbines are only a small part of the solution. Producing 50 kWh of energy per day would require at least 100 square metres of solar panels, for which there is little space on a 60 m long sailing ship. Vulnerability and shading by the sails make for further problems. Wind turbines can be attached in the rigging, but their power output is also limited. The low potential of solar and wind power are demonstrated by the earlier mentioned sailing ship <em>Avontuur</em>. She has a 20 kW generator, powered by the diesel engine, but only 2.1 kW of solar panels and 0.8 kW of wind turbines.</p>
 <blockquote>
 <p>The hydrogenerator is the only renewable power source that can provide a large sailing ship with enough energy for the use of modern technology on board.</p>
 </blockquote>
 <p>The hydrogenerator is the only renewable power source that can provide a large sailing ship with enough energy for the use of modern technology on board. Hydrogenerators are attached underneath the hull and work in the opposite way as a ship’s propeller. Instead of the propeller powering the ship, the ship powers the propeller, which turns a generator that produces electricity. In spite of its name and appearance, the hydrogenerator is actually a form of wind energy: the sails power the propellers. Obviously, this only works when the ship is sailing fast enough.</p>
 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_-_furling_sail_on_the_main_yard.png"></p><p class="caption">
 Furling sail on the main yard of the Parma. Alan Villiers, 1932-33.</p>
 <p>The <em>EcoClipper500</em> will be equipped with two large hydrogenerators, for which Simons calculated the power output at different speeds, taking into account the fact that the extra drag they produce slows down the ship somewhat. He concludes that the <em>EcoClipper500</em> needs to sail at a speed of at least 7.5 knots to generate enough electricity. At that speed, the hydrogenerators produce an estimated 2,000 watts of power, which converts to roughly 50 kWh of electricity per day (24 hours of sailing).</p>
 <p>At a lower speed of 4.75 knots, the generators produce 350 watts, which comes down to 8.4 kWh of energy over a period of 24 hours – only 1/6th of the maximum required energy. On the other hand, at higher speeds, the hydrogenerators produce more energy than necessary. At a speed of almost 10 knots they provide 120 kWh/day, at a speed of 12 knots this becomes 182 kWh/day – 3.5 times more than needed.</p>
 <h2>Saltwater batteries</h2>
 <p>According to her hull speed, the <em>EcoClipper500</em> will be able to sail a little over 16 knots at absolute top speed – this is double the minimum speed required to generate enough power. Achieving this speed will be rare, because it needs calm seas and strong winds from the right direction. Nevertheless, in good wind conditions, the ship easily sails fast enough to produce all electricity for use on board.</p>
 <p>Good wind conditions can last for days, especially on the oceans, where winds are more powerful and predictable than on land. However, they are not guaranteed, and the ship will also sail at lower speeds, or find herself in becalmed conditions – when hydrogenerators are as useless as solar panels in the middle of the night.</p>
 <blockquote>
 <p>Because she has no engine, the <em>EcoClipper500</em> faces a double problem when there’s no wind: she cannot continue her voyage, and she has no energy to maintain life on board.</p>
 </blockquote>
 <p>Because she has no engine, the <em>EcoClipper500</em> faces a double problem when there’s no wind: she cannot continue her voyage, and she has no energy to maintain life on board. The first problem is easily solved but the second is not. Life on board goes on, and so there is a continued need for power. To provide this, the ship needs energy storage.</p>
 <p>To cover the needs for three days drifting in cold weather, an energy storage of 150 kWh would be required, not taking into account charge and discharge losses. Five or seven days of energy use on-board would require 250 to 350 kWh of storage. For emergency use, another 25 kWh of energy storage is needed.</p>
 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_-_scraping_the_deck.png"></p><p class="caption">
 Scraping the deck onboard the ‘Parma’. Alan Villiers, 1932-33.</p>
 <p>Not having an engine, generator and fuel tank saves space on board, but this advantage can be quickly lost again when one starts to add batteries for the hydrogenerators. Lithium-ion batteries are very compact, but they cannot be considered sustainable and bring safety risks. That’s why Jorne Langelaan and Andrew Simons see more potential in – very aptly – saltwater batteries, which are non-flammable, non-toxic, easy to recycle, have wide temperature-tolerance, and can last for more than 15 years. Like the biodigester, they have never been used on a sailing ship before.</p>
 <p>Unlike lithium-ion batteries, saltwater batteries are large and heavy. At 60 kg per kWh of storage capacity, a 150 kWh battery storage would add a weight of 9 tonnes, while a 350 kWh storage capacity would add 21 tonnes. Still, this compares favourably to the total cargo capacity (500 tonnes), and the batteries can serve as ballast if they are placed in the lower part of the ship’s hull. The space requirements are not too problematic, either. Even a 350 kWh energy storage only requires 14 to 29m3 of space, which is small compared to the 880m3 of cargo volume.</p>
 <p>The emissions that are produced by the manufacturing of the hydrogenerators, biodigester, and batteries are not included in the life cycle analysis of the ship, because there are no data available. However, these emissions must be relatively small. Hydrogenerators have much higher power density than wind turbines, and thus a relatively low embodied energy. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation learns that the carbon footprint of 350 kWh saltwater batteries is around 70 tonnes of <span class="caps">CO2</span>. <sup id="fnref:7"></sup></p>
 <h2>Human Power</h2>
 <p>There’s another renewable power source and energy storage on board of the <em>EcoClipper</em>, and that’s the humans themselves. Like the pellet stove and the biodigester, the use of human power could reduce the need for electricity. Nowadays, cargo ships and most large sailing ships have electric or hydraulic winches, pumps, and steering gear, saving manual labour at the expense of higher energy use. In contrast, <em>EcoClipper</em> sticks to manual handling of the ship as much as possible.</p>
 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_-_crew_at_the_capstan_weighing_anchor.png"></p><p class="caption">
 Crew at the capstan of the Parma, weighing anchor. Alan Villiers, 1932-33.</p>
 <p>Simons and Langelaan are also considering the addition of a few rowing machines, coupled to generators, to produce emergency power. Two rowing machines could provide roughly 400 watts of power. If they are operated around the clock in shifts, they could supply the ship with an extra 9.6 kWh of energy per day (ignoring energy losses) – one fifth of the total maximum electricity use.</p>
 <p>In fact, as I tell Simons and Langelaan ten rowing machines operated continually in shifts would provide as much power as the hydrogenerators at a speed of 7.5 knots. If there are 60 people on board, and everybody would generate power for less than one hour per day, no hydrogenerators and batteries would be needed at all. “A very interesting thought”, answers Simons, “but what impression would we be painted with?”</p>
 <h2>Hot Showers?</h2>
 <p>Even with a biodigester, hydrogenerators, batteries, and rowing machines, the passengers and crew on board the EcoClipper500 would be far short of luxurious, and perhaps too short of comfortable for some. For example, if 60 people on board the ship would take a daily hot shower – <a href="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/10/mist-showers-sustainab">which requires on average 2.1 kilowatt-hours of energy and 76.5 litres of water on land</a> – total electricity use per day would be 126 kWh, more than double the energy the ship produces at a speed of 7.5 knots.</p>
 <p>The ship could supply this energy at a higher sailing speed, but there would also be a need for 4,590 liters of water per day, a quantity that could only be produced from seawater – a process that requires a lot of energy. Even a crew of 12 taking a daily hot shower would require 25.2 kWh of energy per day, half of what the hydrogenerators produce at a sailing speed of 7.5 knots. The <em>Bark Europa</em> is the only sailing ship mentioned in this article that has hot showers in every (shared) cabin, but it is also the ship with the biggest generators and the highest fuel use.</p>
 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Parma_-_on_the_forecastle_in_fine_weather.png"></p><p class="caption">
 On the forecastle head of the Parma in fine weather. Image by Alan Villiers, 1932.</p>
 <p>Andrew Simons: “On the <em>EcoClipper500</em> there needs to be a manageable compromise between energy use and comfort. Energy use on board will have to be actively managed. Resources are finite, just like for the planet. In many ways the ship is a microcosm of challenges that the wider world has to face and find solutions to.”</p>
 <p>Jorne Langelaan: “At sea you are in a different world. It doesn’t matter anymore if you can take a daily shower or not. What matters are the people, the movements of the ship, and the vast wilderness of ocean around you”.</p>
 <h2>Measuring the right things</h2>
 <p>This article has compared the <em>EcoClipper500</em> sailing ship with the average container ship, bulk carrier, and airplane in terms of emissions per tonne- or passenger-kilometer. However, these values are abstractions that obscure much more important information: the total emissions that are produced by all passengers and all cargo, over all kilometres.</p>
 <p>The international ocean freight trade increased from 4 billion tonnes of cargo in 1990 to 11.2 billion tonnes in 2019, resulting in more than 1 billion tonnes of emissions. International air passenger numbers grew from 1 billion in 1990 to 4.5 billion in 2019, resulting in 915 million tonnes of emissions. Consequently, lowering the emissions per tonne- and passenger-kilometre is neither a necessity nor a guarantee for a reduction in emissions.</p>
 <p>If we cut international cargo traffic more than fivefold, and passenger traffic more than tenfold, then the emissions of all container ships and airplanes would be lower than the emissions of all sailing ships carrying 11.2 billion tonnes of cargo and 4.5 billion of passengers. Vice versa, if we switch to sailing ships, but keep on transporting more and more cargo and passengers across the planet, we will eventually produce just as much in emissions as we do today with fossil fuel powered transportation.</p>
 <p class="img"><img alt="image" loading="lazy" src="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/Grace_Harwar_-_the_mizzen_of_the_ship;_view_aft_from_the_main_crosstrees.png"></p><p class="caption">
 The mizzen of the ‘Grace Harwar’; view aft from the main crosstrees. Alan Villiers, 1932-33.</p>
 <p>Of course, none of this would ever happen. The amount of cargo that was traded across the oceans in 2019 equals the freight capacity of 22.4 million <em>EcoClippers</em>. Assuming the <em>EcoClipper500</em> can make 2-3 trips per year, we would need to build and operate at least 7.5 million ships, with a total crew of at least 90 million people. Those ships could only take 0.5 billion passengers (12 passengers and 8 trainees per ship), so we would need millions of ships and crew members more to replace international air traffic.</p>
 <blockquote>
 <p>We should not be fooled by abstract relative measurements, which only serve to keep the focus on growth and efficiency.</p>
 </blockquote>
 <p>All of this is technically possible, and as we have seen, it would produce less in emissions than the present alternatives. However, it’s more likely that a switch to sailing ships is accompanied by a decrease in cargo and passenger traffic, and this has everything to do with scale and speed. A lot of freight and passengers would not be travelling if it were not for the high speeds and low costs of today’s airplanes and container ships.</p>
 <p>It would make little sense to transport iPhones parts, Amazon wares, sweatshop clothes, or citytrippers with sailing ships. A sailing ship is more than a technical means of transportation: it implies another view on consumption, production, time, space, leisure, and travel. For example, a lot of freight now travels in different directions for each next processing stage before it is delivered as a final product. In contrast, all sail cargo companies mentioned in this article only take cargo that cannot be produced locally, and which is one trip from producer to consumer. <sup id="fnref:8"></sup></p>
 <p>This also means that even if sailing ships have diesel engines on board, they would still bring a significant decrease in the total emissions for freight and passenger traffic, simply because they would reduce the absolute number of passengers, cargo, and kilometers. We should not be fooled by abstract relative measurements, which only serve to keep the focus on growth and efficiency.</p>
 <p>Kris De Decker</p>
 <p>Proofread by Alice Essam. <a href="https://ecoclipper.org/">More about the EcoClipper500</a>. Most images: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_Alan_Villiers">Alan Villiers collection</a>.</p>
--- a/cache/2021/index.html
+++ b/cache/2021/index.html
@@ -151,6 +151,8 @@
      
        <li><a href="/david/cache/2021/d8a0172d0dc1fee3e2133a2edd15616e/" title="Accès à l’article dans le cache local : 99 Additional Bits of Unsolicited Advice">99 Additional Bits of Unsolicited Advice</a> (<a href="https://kk.org/thetechnium/99-additional-bits-of-unsolicited-advice/" title="Accès à l’article original distant : 99 Additional Bits of Unsolicited Advice">original</a>)</li>
      
        <li><a href="/david/cache/2021/2d4d277eb9521025b82bf2fc233c3238/" title="Accès à l’article dans le cache local : Pour les habitants autour de Fukushima, « il y a une injonction à être des contaminés satisfaits »">Pour les habitants autour de Fukushima, « il y a une injonction à être des contaminés satisfaits »</a> (<a href="https://www.bastamag.net/Fukushima-contaminations-zones-radioactives-catastrophes-nucleaires-contre-la-resilience-thierry-ribault" title="Accès à l’article original distant : Pour les habitants autour de Fukushima, « il y a une injonction à être des contaminés satisfaits »">original</a>)</li>
      
        <li><a href="/david/cache/2021/837e11a57aa3ddcba084963c247f45a6/" title="Accès à l’article dans le cache local : What Is Going To Happen In 2021">What Is Going To Happen In 2021</a> (<a href="https://avc.com/2021/01/what-is-going-to-happen-in-2021/" title="Accès à l’article original distant : What Is Going To Happen In 2021">original</a>)</li>
      
        <li><a href="/david/cache/2021/27f60626eb789433d6e2619663bb79f0/" title="Accès à l’article dans le cache local : Associative trails">Associative trails</a> (<a href="https://adactio.com/journal/17821" title="Accès à l’article original distant : Associative trails">original</a>)</li>
@@ -243,6 +245,8 @@
      
        <li><a href="/david/cache/2021/fe8d34354b3f82a0f5eb2158e314b8f6/" title="Accès à l’article dans le cache local : NFT : l’original et l’acopie">NFT : l’original et l’acopie</a> (<a href="https://www.affordance.info/mon_weblog/2021/03/nft-loriginal-et-lacopie.html" title="Accès à l’article original distant : NFT : l’original et l’acopie">original</a>)</li>
      
        <li><a href="/david/cache/2021/708cb8c67ef96647f6f5366eca70adb0/" title="Accès à l’article dans le cache local : How to design a sailing ship for the 21st century?">How to design a sailing ship for the 21st century?</a> (<a href="https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2021/05/how-to-design-a-sailing-ship-for-the-21st-century.html" title="Accès à l’article original distant : How to design a sailing ship for the 21st century?">original</a>)</li>
      
        <li><a href="/david/cache/2021/e7dd6d41e04bcbf69d3bf09bce827e4c/" title="Accès à l’article dans le cache local : How Long Does It Take to Hire Someone?">How Long Does It Take to Hire Someone?</a> (<a href="https://jacobian.org/2021/mar/11/hours-to-hire/" title="Accès à l’article original distant : How Long Does It Take to Hire Someone?">original</a>)</li>
      
        <li><a href="/david/cache/2021/b7829aa5073173cca4ed3f4ea23e767f/" title="Accès à l’article dans le cache local : Développeur de logiciel senior / principal(e) (Python)">Développeur de logiciel senior / principal(e) (Python)</a> (<a href="https://numerique.canada.ca/join-our-team/positions/d%C3%A9veloppeur-de-logiciel-senior-principal-e-python/" title="Accès à l’article original distant : Développeur de logiciel senior / principal(e) (Python)">original</a>)</li>