John Cooper: The endgame of course is 2050, but there are some big targets prior to that in 2030 and even a bigger one in 2040. A lot of nations are laying on top of that and want to go further than the 50% cut on emissions by 2050, indeed wanting to get carbon neutral, which is fantastic and admirable.

We are on the slows now and there’s no doubt about it. Carbon-low fuels will be more expensive and when everybody is in business you have this perennial issue of the economics of the situation.

Given the choice every owner in the world would love their vessel to be lower in carbon but they still need to pay the bills. Because what we do have to accept is there’s a reason why people use heavy marine oil and that is price, especially because these new carbon fuels will be two, three, four times more expensive.

Luckily for the industry these IMO directives become law for various countries and we have got to achieve them. But more importantly, I think societies change as people are demanding all industries to decarbonise and this is a big motivator for some of these really big players in shipping.

Wind motion isn’t new to the shipping industry and we always talk about heading “back to the future” because if you rewind to 50 or 100 years back, all cargo vessels were powered by wind and sails.

The combustion engine changed all that, but it’s wonderful that we are going back to wind. It’s very difficult to argue for wind to be the sole fuel because, as shipping lanes become more congested and ports demand on time arrival, we do need other fuels.

Wind is a supplementary fuel, as it augments and adds to normal forms of combustion but it is a very useful tool to use alongside more traditional methods of propulsion. 

Internal combustion engines became ever more reliable and cheaper, making wind a bit more of a difficult option. 

As for wind on modern ships, inventions such as the Flettner rotors are not recent ones, as they were invented 50 years ago. Progress to real modern shipping has been slow.

Maersk Pelican was the first modern ship to have Flettner rotors on and its stated savings were actually 8.2% of fuel, which is a great saving. 

That industry is slowly expanding but then you have to realise that technology moves on and Flettner rotors is one form of wind motion technology but WindWings is something completely different.

The three element wing is going to produce average savings of 30% - a significant change. When you start to get percentages like that measure onboard ships, obviously the market will change a great deal.

We have been working with Cargill for quite a long time now. As it is a very forward-thinking organisation, Cargill has been interested in a lot of different technology, looking at different hull appendages, wind included.

They came and asked us about our technology, and they liked what they saw and wanted to be principal partners of that technology. They enjoy their working relationship with us and all that brings, and we really enjoy our relationship with them because they are very supportive.

They also have great contacts and have helped us with our approval in principle and put us in touch with DNV GL and other owners. So there’s some really good rub both ways and it’s a really fantastic partnership. 

We have designed a three-element wing, designed in a crescent shape, the shape you see in nature with birds flying, in aeroplanes as well as race yachts. On those three elements, there are little gaps where the wind is reattaching, becoming a really efficient wing for creating lift.

The wing has a huge bow and therefore the drag is quite high, so you’re not concerned about the incremental drag, what you’re concerned with is just massive lift.

One of our biggest challenges was to design the most economically viable wing, a wing that operates in lots of different conditions and is reliable and easy to use.

We could have designed an incredible wing but that was not the best way if the maintenance was too high or the usability was too difficult. Sometimes we have given up that one or two percent performance in favour of something that works well, is reliable, robust and designed for longevity.

With WindWings one of the biggest challenges we have and that will need to overcome together is line of sight. The use of cameras rather than the human eye will be one of the biggest topics facing the industry of wind propulsion as well as autonomous shipping.

We’re talking to several class societies about the use of cameras to augment and increase the view of the captain and other crew members. 

We are also advocating extended internal bridges to see all the way down to both the port and starboard of the vessel, to avoid an aft steering position.

Wind propulsion needs auxiliary power and it could never be completely zero unless the auxiliary power is zero carbon.

I use this as an example because for us wind works up to 50% but it’s never going to be 100%. In the modern world, vessels don’t follow good wind patterns, we need vessels to go into port without their wings up so there’s always going to be a need for other propulsion. So to get to carbon zero, we’ve got to make sure that the work is being done on alternative fuels other than heavy marine.

Main image: BAR Technologies CEO John Cooper. All images credit: BAR Technologies

In the details of the Italian government decision, it was stated that €2.2m (£1.9m) will be pledged for the construction of berths outside Venice lagoon to keep cruise ships away from the popular city centre. 

However, there seems to be no concrete plan in place for these new berths, and a construction timescale has not yet been published, meaning cruise operators have no idea when they will be allowed to return to the famous city.

In the interim period, cruise ships will dock at the industrial port of Marghera, near the historic islands of Venice, and tourists will be ferried to the city via a flotilla of small boats or by bus. But, campaigners reckon this temporary fix may not be feasible. 

To accommodate cruise ships docking at Marghera, the current Canale dei Petroli would have to be widened and deepened, according to the anti-cruise ship campaign group No Grandi Navi leader Tommaso Cacciari. 

Modifying the dimensions of the canal would create more environmental harm on the lagoon’s aquatic ecosystem, which has started to recover due to the lack of movement caused by the pandemic.

The decision came in response to a request from the UN’s cultural body UNESCO. The request could have contained details around potential plans to put Venice on UNESCO’s list of world heritage sites in danger, if the impact of cruise tourism was not addressed. 

This implies that the Italian Government begrudgingly came to this decision. This would have created further negative press for Venice if it went on the list, as well as potentially exacerbating the impact of overtourism. 

Many tourists from all over the globe will flock to Venice as international travel reopens after the pandemic, but thousands more could end up going sooner rather than later if the city was to be placed on the list of world heritage sites in danger. 

Travellers could develop the mentality that they need to see the city now before counteractive measures are taken, which could negatively impact the touristic experience in Venice, at least in the short term.

Cruise tourism in Venice has created an array of sustainability issues for the city. Environmentally, large cruise ships have been accused of eroding the city’s foundations, harming marine life, increasing the chance of calamitous crashes with the city itself, polluting the water with harmful chemicals and acting as a general eyesore. 

The alleged impacts do not just stop there. Cruise tourism also creates social and economic impacts. Many cruise tourists do not stay overnight in the city, meaning they provide little value, with many not even eating whilst they are there, with food already included in the price of their cruise booking. 

Recent years of severe over-tourism spurred by cruise ships have ultimately led to depopulation and an increased reliance on tourism for employment and a buoyant local economy. This has meant that cruise tourism has forced its way into becoming a necessary evil for the city.

Although the cruise ship ban is a step in the right direction, it is evident that government officials may have had their hands forced into making this decision. This could continue fears around the city’s future, with economically focused officials and a solution to the cruising issue that remains ambiguous.

For travel and tourism industry data, comment and analysis, visit GlobalData's Tourism Intelligence Centre.

Main image: Cruise tourism in Venice has created an array of sustainability issues for Venice. Credit: auerimages / Shutterstock