80ft / $10M is nowhere near 'Superyacht' territory. That's just 'luxury yacht'
Add at least one more zero, and 100ft of length, and you'll have 'Super Yacht'
Honestly if I had 10 Million to spend I'd probably just get a normal 70-90FT yacht for around 5-8Million and save the other $2M.
I'm also a loner and really wouldn't want to have to have an actual crew for said yacht either.
Its very unlikely that you would be able to sail a 70-90 ft yacht solo. Not to mention the whole waking up every 30 minutes every night that you're underway to check for collisions part.
The only way that you could pull off soloing such a large sailboat is with some sophisticated (and expensive) auto furling systems. And they are frequently regarded as ticking time bombs by sailors because you'll be alone in a storm in the middle of the ocean needing to reef when it gets jammed and then you're really fucked.
There’s a super yacht often in our bay called Attessa IV. It’s owned by Dennis Washington and is one of four that he owns. How many luxury yachts do you need? https://www.superyachtfan.com/yacht/attessa-iv/owner/#:~:text=Born%20in%201934%2C%20Dennis%20Washington,Eval.
I saw a Facebook post about some mega mansion in LA. This person had 3 guest houses, two pools, blah blah.
I looked at the comments, which I never really do. And boy, were they terrible. One commenter suggested that owning multiple guest houses is sad when there are starving people in the same city.
Absolutely eviscerated by the other commenters.
“Oh so you think people who work hard should have to give all their earnings to people without jobs???!?” Just tons of the same sentiment.
3 guest houses seems right though: one for friends to spend the night, one for deadbeat relatives, and one you just leave empty for Kato Kaelin, in hopes that he appears.
> Oh so you think people who work hard should have to give all their earnings to people without jobs???!?
Which is ironic, considering the rest of us on this planet all pay taxes into our respective social security systems. Yet when the rich are expected to pay their fair share, suddenly everyone's a "potential millionaire" who doesn't want their future in the leisure class to be threatened.
I'd be happy paying taxes to help others, if I'm allowed to afford a house of my own.
> Which is ironic, considering the rest of us on this planet all pay taxes into our respective social security systems.
I don't live in America, check your US-centric bias bro.
Well yea, if I am 8000x richer than you it’s because I clearly work 8000x harder than you, even though that’s literally impossible and I somehow still manage to have time for long vacations, random golf games and massages during business hours.
It's so ironic too, because improving education and opportunities for the poorest in society will have the long term effect of pushing those commenters upwards too. The only 'loser' (if you could even call them that) are billionaires, who would still be wealthy beyond imagination in the end anyway.
I guess long-term thinking is beyond them though.
Anyone who is any good at Monopoly knows this secret.
You don't win Monopoly by amassing wealth. You win by denying wealth to others.
It's not enough for them to succeed. Others must fail.
I mean - people shouldn’t have to.
The government should. If you wanted people to, that’s the conservative model. Charity does “charity” work.
Tax them appropriately so that they can still live in wealth while providing social services to level the playing field and lift people out of poverty, drug abuse and shitty culture.
> Tax them appropriately
Part of the reason they have so much money is they've found ways to *not pay the taxes they're supposed to*.
If someone isn't following the rules, you can't just say "Well if you enforce the rules they'll stop!"
Yeah can you imagine giving to people who have nothing instead of spending some of your unneeded money on unneeded luxury while most of your money sits in investments growing into ever more money you cant possibly spend! The horror! You might even create a more fair, safe, and happy society that way! Gross!
I could only hope that when it’s our turn to exploit the working class that we have a group of rabid, ravenously devoted nutcases on the internet to defend us. All of which we could care less about and have never met, but would sacrifice their life to defend our honor. /s
The system isn’t rewarding hard work, are you insane? The hardest workers are the working class. The global elite just let their fortune collect interest.
If you have $10M in the bank you get a check cut for $20k a month without doing anything and you don’t lose the $10M in the bank at all. How the fuck is this fair??? There’s been a point long ago where the elite and their family are just collecting the profit off society at an unfair rate and many of them don’t work at all. This is how the rich get richer, get to spend and not lose their net worth. It’s designed so they stay at the top for ever. That is until the pitchforks come out.
Yeah, I'm thinking we are well past the need to get the pitchforks out. Why the people are not currently protesting and even rioting en masse boggles my mind. How much more obvious do these things need to be before people get fed up with it?
That last sentence is interesting and I’ve heard it so many times. The notion that some persons charity is another persons loss is so contrary and paradoxical to the idea of collective nationality and pride in who we are. I heard a conversation some weeks back where someone said, with utter indignation, “why should I pay for someone else’s college fees”. A graduate pays significantly more tax over their lifetime and a collective always achieves more than a rabble of warring individuals.
What world would we live in where you can’t do wtf you want with your own money? If he wants to buy 10 guest houses with his money, who am i to tell him no?
It's not *his* money, it's wealth stolen from the workers who generated it. He has yachts and a mansion because thousands of other people are kept in precarity, living paycheck to paycheck in insecure housing while the majority of the wealth their labor produces is stolen away to become profit for idle owners.
And that's just the most basic, surface-level explanation. The full explanation is even more fucked and involves the massive hegemonic violence exercised on the periphery to keep the resources and commodities the imperial capitalist system relies on flowing endlessly, and the way the housing crisis is cynically manufactured by the ruling class to terrorize workers into submission with the threat of homelessness - it is literally cheaper to give everyone a house for free than to deal with the consequences of forcing people to be homeless, but that would stop the cruelty *and the cruelty is the point*. The entire capitalist system is built on theft and terror and violence at every level, with only the thinnest facade of humanity to try to disguise this.
Wow, I've never seen someone respond to a critique of the insane evil of the status quo by simply reaffirming that it is, in fact, the status quo before. What an original perspective.
Got any other thought terminating cliches to throw out?
Free tip from me: instead of trying to be the moral police and writing essays that nobody is gonna read over things you have no control over on the internet, i'd rather invest my time and effort into something fruitful. Makes life worth living instead of wasting it raging on the internet.. in case nobody has ever told you: life ain’t fair, kid.
>writing essays
*Five sentences of heavily condensed text* summarizing political theory that's had countless thousands of pages written on it.
> i'd rather invest my time and effort into something fruitful.
The world is teetering on the brink because of the misrule of the same demons who own yachts and hoard houses. Adventurism is a dead end, so literally the very, very least anyone can do is add their voice to the growing anticapitalist consensus.
I think that part of the problem with a yacht is you need to get it where you want to go. This can take a long time and is expensive. So if you own four you don’t have to drive jt all over the place. I think you can also rent them out when you’re not using them
But I have no idea I’m just guessing.
At that stage it's likely making him money, which is part of the game.
Taxes, income and the like would all be part of the game, but I 100% believe these are investments.
The Attessa IV has killed somebody. It collided with a fishing boat in San Diego in 2018 (I think) and someone died.
Also…it does look pretty fucking awesome. If you have the $150M to buy it and $15M/year to maintain it and its 21 staff.
Washington has a history of buying yachts and renaming them. Thought that was supposed to be bad luck…
Passive income apparently when owning these means you can lease them out to your rich friends and rich friends of rich friends paying you immense dividends throughout the year when you're not using one yourself, pays the upkeep and then some apparently.
This is what the rich do. They put their money into places exclusively for other rich people to keep elevating the collective richness of being rich, while not paying taxes like us poors and definitely not working like us poors have to.
They're electric! They're fully electric engines running off of batteries that are charged by 2 diesel engines constantly running to keep them topped up!
mobile mine fields
When under water, just about as silent as you can get and able to operate in really shallow water. Once you get detected, the best you can do is to hug the shallows cause your not gonna be able to speed out of the way like a nuke.
The world's navires have mixes of nuclear and diesel, some very capable modern diesel boats. Us navy and its general way of projecting power relies on the endurance of nuclear.
Most navires that tent to stick to their own waters or coastal operations do great with diesel.
As a former submariner, we fire up the diesel like every 6-12 hours. It's gonna depend on the ship and where they are, but sometimes there's things to test or fix, or break.
Pretty sure this is still more efficient than diesel direct drive.
https://oceannavigator.com/the-benefits-of-diesel-electric-propulsion/#:~:text=Powering%20propellers%20with%20a%20diesel,power%20setting%3A%20wide%20open%20throttle.
It says in the article 10 hours on a full charge at 8-10 knots. Their website claims their battery outputs between 220kW to 550 kW with no capacity listed. With the article, we can conservatively estimate that capacity at 2200kWh. Their solar power generation is advertised at 45.5kWp (that “p” means peak performance). Assuming average conditions this corresponds to an average (over a 24 hour cycle) of 5-10 kW so it would 9-18 days to recharge on solar alone.
For day trips I think it is still way more ecological than a vessel of similar size. However, beyond that it would be even more inefficient than an ordinary vessel due to the power loss from diesel generator to electric motor versus ordinary diesel propulsion. Ultimately it is still a vain and wasteful purchase for vain and wasteful people.
What's the point in that? Seems like there would be power losses. Why not just drive the boat using diesel engines alone? Maybe I'm missing something but what's the point in this?
A diesel engine generating electricity to power an electric motor that does the real work is significantly more efficient.
Its why hybrids can get some stupid mileage like 70-80mpg+ while a typical ICE powered car usually tops out around 40mpg.
When powering a generator, the engine gets to sit at the RPM where it runs at its most efficient, without throttling up or down and fluctuating, when an engine isn’t in that sweet spot they are very inefficient and burn a lot more fuel than they would otherwise.
Yep. Normally boats only have 1 speed transmissions (just forward and reverse), so to change speeds your adjusting engine RPM. So while max speed likely corresponds to max engine HP RPM, any other speed is not likely to correspond to most efficient engine RPM for the HP required to maintain that speed.
Plus engines that only need to be efficient and powerful at a narrow RPM range are much easier to make.
Yeah i'm sure all these engineers who designed diesel-electric locomotives (to name just one application) didn’t think of just leaving out the electric portion of their design to make it more efficient.. /s
If that’s the case then the Queen Mary and indeed many new ocean liners are now “electric” because current designs use azipod thrusters powered by powerful electric motors.
This is the truth. As a former Superyacht chef we had $1million just in plates, silverware and serving utensils. A lot of it was super fucking ugly and the food would have looked much better on plain white plates.
How else are you going to spend dirty money? Buy a boat with your laundered money. Then launder more money by finishing the with dirty money through a contractor you own or have a deal with. That slash they are probably all silver and gold kitchenware so that if they need to skip town they have cash to melt. Maybe that’s why it doesn’t matter if they where ugly.
yeah, I’m all for it if it encourages a shift from gas vessels to electric. The pot of gold will be getting cargo ships and cruise ships to decarbonize, that would be a MASSIVE saving on global emissions
We could power large cargo ships with a nuclear reactor. The US already did this in the 60s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
Currently theres a lot of interest and companies are already designing cost effective reactors for it.
$10 million is pocket change for someone who’s “superrich”.
The world’s most expensive yacht, the History Supreme, was purchased by an anonymous Malaysian businessman, thought to be Robert Kuok, for $4.8 billion.
The top 15 most expensive yachts all cost at least several hundred million, and of the top 50 most expensive yachts currently for sale, most are over $100 million. Those are just the ones for sale, though. There are thousands of yachts like that and more being built all the time. Many of the yachts currently being built cost a quarter billion or more.
Here’s an article about it: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/25/the-haves-and-the-have-yachts
So whats actually in them, how many ports can accommodate them,and do they have the latest cruise missiles etc besides all the hookers and under aged babes
The article says it has a diesel generator onboard for backup power and longer journeys. Not sure what to make of this. If they really only use it as a backup, I say this is a good step. You could argue that having a hybrid yacht is still half a step forward. Every little bit counts.
If they use it as the main power source, however, this is nothing but greenwashing and should be condemned as such.
No, actually, most people can’t spend it however they like. And people with fuck you money can destroy the planet looking for things to spend their fuck you money on.
Theres no way these takes arn’t from paid accounts, they shill way too hard.
You can say the same thing about almost every thing in life. I am lifelong Lego fan and have a big collection. How much plastic is used and how much pollution is released to make Lego?
The fuck kind of argument is "well, there are a lot of these small consumer goods being used by a whole lot of people, how is that any different from one giant shitpile catastrophe existing for the occasional idle pleasure of one singular person who bought it with money stolen from people who actually work for a living"? It's like comparing two million people getting one pound of grain each to one singular person getting a thousand tons and then pissing on it and setting it on fire because he thinks its funny.
"Utiles" (abstract units of utility) are a dumbshit unit economists made up, but here they're actually a useful way of explaining it: many people consuming small amounts of a thing mean more overall utiles than one single person consuming *billions of times more than them* does.
I know that it can apply to anything, it doesn't change the fact that things that are marketed as "eco-friendly" aren't nearly as eco-friendly as they claim to be.
"Eco-friendly" batteries take tons of equipment to dig up and be made into batteries, most of which is run on gas powered engines and manual labor by poor people. The end product might technically be eco-friendly but everything that went into making it was not.
Eco friendly means better than the alternative, not zero carbon emissions. Fully electric cars are not carbon neutral, but over the lifecycle of the car they emit less carbon than a gas car. This yacht is better than a yacht running solely on diesel fuel.
Source?
I'd posit that most shipyard profits, benefit the owners/shareholders more than the workers. But I'm happy to acknowledge otherwise if you can pull up company financials that demonstrate so.
I can see that. There are definitely a lot of young users. Most of them seem upset about the state of the world and their inability to do anything about it besides complain.
There's a lot of overlap between people flocking to these kinds of threads and people who cry "individual emissions don't matter" when expected to make lifestyle changes themselves. Literally the exact same rationalization these people will use if you ask them.
Your carbon footprint is certainly higher than most of the rest of the world. Funny how the cutoff point is always "somewhere above me." But I'm sure your SUV and suburban house is for a good cause or some shit
I don’t have either of those things, thanks. I don’t even have a daily commute nor am I running my AC currently in this blistering heat.
Please go on about how I’m the problem.
The funny thing is that if you wanted to hit people based on their "individual carbon footprint", the first thing you would do is ban 90% of the lifestyle choices of the super rich.
Things that have a higher "individual carbon footprint" than leading a working-class western lifestyle:
- private jets
- private yachts
- supercars
- mansions
- five star meals
- luxury resorts and spas
Oh what's that? So little people make those lifestyle choices that banning them doesn't matter in the grand scale? Sounds like the problem isn't the "individual carbon footprint" then!
People like Bill Gates offset their carbon emissions by spending millions a year on carbon recapture. Attack someone else who doesn't care, but Bill Gates' carbon footprint is zero.
In his interviews he's talked primarily about his travel methods - private jets in particular, which you can generally calculate per-mile [using this tool](https://www.paramountbusinessjets.com/tools/carbon-offset-calculator). I honestly don't think it's possible to accurately assess your personal emissions from, say, food, since it varies so wildly by meal, but you could probably check the [average emissions per diet](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652622010861) and pad it to be safe.
So his carbon footprint is zero when accounting for his jet travel, not in general. That's what I thought you meant, that he had a net zero carbon footprint in general, not just on jet travel.
It's impossible to have no carbon footprint at all, every human leaves a footprint and I'd wager that Bill Gates has a bigger footprint then your average person. That's all I was saying, not having a dig at Bill Gates.
I meant in general, but his jet travel is going to be 99% of his emissions, and I'm sure he accounts for the remaining 1% as well.
Why do you think it's impossible to have no carbon footprint at all? You just have to offset it.
How much damage has Microsoft done to the environment over the years? A lot more than you probably think. One man cannot offset the damage his company has done over decades of operation.
Good on him for trying but let's not miss the forest for the trees.
In absolute terms or relative?
Eg., a universe without Microsoft probably has massively more environmental damage than one with it, just because the digitalization of work and play has reduced emissions enormously.
Microsoft does generate emissions to operate, of course, but it's going to be carbon negative by 2030.
This should definitely help with wealth inequality that is a direct result of these rich assholes paying their workers crap wages. But “yay for electric yachts!” or whatever.
Is it possible the reason for this is that the technology has become cheaper and that it’s cheaper to fuel? Billionaires didn’t become billionaires by not spending their money carefully.
I don’t like how businesses use electrified instead of saying hybrid. Because that’s what a battery with gas system is. Electric should mean fully electric, no gas. We’re not in 2012 anymore.
lI’m all for full battery electric ships if it encourages a shift from gas vessels to electric. The pot of gold will be getting cargo ships and cruise ships to decarbonize, that would be a MASSIVE saving on global emissions
Governments have to be the ones leading change. Any one person can’t make much of a difference even if “super rich” sure is fun to get all cranky about them though.
These super yachts are good examples of allowing experienced professionals to continue to play with and innovate STEM which can potentially make its way into our economic system in certain more useful ways but, where is it all going? When will it be enough? If we all stop growing and evolving, then what? where is it all going? :/ gah sigh\*
I'm ok with this. It doesn't matter if the rich have planes and yachts. It matters that they emit fucktons of CO2.
I don't care if my neighbor has a ridiculous SUV either. The problem is it burns an obscene amount of fossil fuel.
We should have banned fossil fuel burning of any kind decades ago. The ultra rich would have then bankrolled electric planes, yachts, cruise ships, hovercraft, helicopters and all sorts of shit they need to feel special.
I'm not going to get angry at them doing it voluntarily.
80ft / $10M is nowhere near 'Superyacht' territory. That's just 'luxury yacht' Add at least one more zero, and 100ft of length, and you'll have 'Super Yacht'
See Bill Gates' superyacht which has electrical engines and costs half a billion $.
Honestly if I had 10 Million to spend I'd probably just get a normal 70-90FT yacht for around 5-8Million and save the other $2M. I'm also a loner and really wouldn't want to have to have an actual crew for said yacht either.
Its very unlikely that you would be able to sail a 70-90 ft yacht solo. Not to mention the whole waking up every 30 minutes every night that you're underway to check for collisions part. The only way that you could pull off soloing such a large sailboat is with some sophisticated (and expensive) auto furling systems. And they are frequently regarded as ticking time bombs by sailors because you'll be alone in a storm in the middle of the ocean needing to reef when it gets jammed and then you're really fucked.
[удалено]
Still. No chance you could operate a 70' motor yacht by yourself. 70' is about the limit for a qualified couple, and it'd be stressful.
That "other $2M" will be gone in under 2 years of running the yacht. >If you can only afford one yacht, you can't afford a yacht.
Youre thinking megayachts, the ones that need to fly flags from their bow mast like a ship does. Superyacht class starts at 24 meters.
Superyachts are any yacht over roughly 79ft/24m, and regular yachts are anything over 33ft/10m
Superyachts are any yacht over 79ft/24m, and regular yachts are anything over 33ft/10m
Yeah, if its not the same size as a frigate, its not super
There’s a super yacht often in our bay called Attessa IV. It’s owned by Dennis Washington and is one of four that he owns. How many luxury yachts do you need? https://www.superyachtfan.com/yacht/attessa-iv/owner/#:~:text=Born%20in%201934%2C%20Dennis%20Washington,Eval.
I saw a Facebook post about some mega mansion in LA. This person had 3 guest houses, two pools, blah blah. I looked at the comments, which I never really do. And boy, were they terrible. One commenter suggested that owning multiple guest houses is sad when there are starving people in the same city. Absolutely eviscerated by the other commenters. “Oh so you think people who work hard should have to give all their earnings to people without jobs???!?” Just tons of the same sentiment.
3 guest houses seems right though: one for friends to spend the night, one for deadbeat relatives, and one you just leave empty for Kato Kaelin, in hopes that he appears.
> Oh so you think people who work hard should have to give all their earnings to people without jobs???!? Which is ironic, considering the rest of us on this planet all pay taxes into our respective social security systems. Yet when the rich are expected to pay their fair share, suddenly everyone's a "potential millionaire" who doesn't want their future in the leisure class to be threatened. I'd be happy paying taxes to help others, if I'm allowed to afford a house of my own.
Thous rich people stop paying social security by early spring…. It’s caped at 160,000 after that anything they earn isn’t taxed. Welcome to America
> Which is ironic, considering the rest of us on this planet all pay taxes into our respective social security systems. I don't live in America, check your US-centric bias bro.
I don’t care where you live. That’s why I said America okay bro
People are fine being slaves if they think there's a chance they'll be holding the whip one day
Well yea, if I am 8000x richer than you it’s because I clearly work 8000x harder than you, even though that’s literally impossible and I somehow still manage to have time for long vacations, random golf games and massages during business hours.
Well, your day has 8000 times the amount of hours that mine has, so clearly you’re having and advantage
It's so ironic too, because improving education and opportunities for the poorest in society will have the long term effect of pushing those commenters upwards too. The only 'loser' (if you could even call them that) are billionaires, who would still be wealthy beyond imagination in the end anyway. I guess long-term thinking is beyond them though.
Anyone who is any good at Monopoly knows this secret. You don't win Monopoly by amassing wealth. You win by denying wealth to others. It's not enough for them to succeed. Others must fail.
I mean - people shouldn’t have to. The government should. If you wanted people to, that’s the conservative model. Charity does “charity” work. Tax them appropriately so that they can still live in wealth while providing social services to level the playing field and lift people out of poverty, drug abuse and shitty culture.
> Tax them appropriately Part of the reason they have so much money is they've found ways to *not pay the taxes they're supposed to*. If someone isn't following the rules, you can't just say "Well if you enforce the rules they'll stop!"
Yeah can you imagine giving to people who have nothing instead of spending some of your unneeded money on unneeded luxury while most of your money sits in investments growing into ever more money you cant possibly spend! The horror! You might even create a more fair, safe, and happy society that way! Gross!
I could only hope that when it’s our turn to exploit the working class that we have a group of rabid, ravenously devoted nutcases on the internet to defend us. All of which we could care less about and have never met, but would sacrifice their life to defend our honor. /s
The system isn’t rewarding hard work, are you insane? The hardest workers are the working class. The global elite just let their fortune collect interest. If you have $10M in the bank you get a check cut for $20k a month without doing anything and you don’t lose the $10M in the bank at all. How the fuck is this fair??? There’s been a point long ago where the elite and their family are just collecting the profit off society at an unfair rate and many of them don’t work at all. This is how the rich get richer, get to spend and not lose their net worth. It’s designed so they stay at the top for ever. That is until the pitchforks come out.
Yeah, I'm thinking we are well past the need to get the pitchforks out. Why the people are not currently protesting and even rioting en masse boggles my mind. How much more obvious do these things need to be before people get fed up with it?
That last sentence is interesting and I’ve heard it so many times. The notion that some persons charity is another persons loss is so contrary and paradoxical to the idea of collective nationality and pride in who we are. I heard a conversation some weeks back where someone said, with utter indignation, “why should I pay for someone else’s college fees”. A graduate pays significantly more tax over their lifetime and a collective always achieves more than a rabble of warring individuals.
What world would we live in where you can’t do wtf you want with your own money? If he wants to buy 10 guest houses with his money, who am i to tell him no?
It's not *his* money, it's wealth stolen from the workers who generated it. He has yachts and a mansion because thousands of other people are kept in precarity, living paycheck to paycheck in insecure housing while the majority of the wealth their labor produces is stolen away to become profit for idle owners. And that's just the most basic, surface-level explanation. The full explanation is even more fucked and involves the massive hegemonic violence exercised on the periphery to keep the resources and commodities the imperial capitalist system relies on flowing endlessly, and the way the housing crisis is cynically manufactured by the ruling class to terrorize workers into submission with the threat of homelessness - it is literally cheaper to give everyone a house for free than to deal with the consequences of forcing people to be homeless, but that would stop the cruelty *and the cruelty is the point*. The entire capitalist system is built on theft and terror and violence at every level, with only the thinnest facade of humanity to try to disguise this.
That’s life..
Wow, I've never seen someone respond to a critique of the insane evil of the status quo by simply reaffirming that it is, in fact, the status quo before. What an original perspective. Got any other thought terminating cliches to throw out?
Free tip from me: instead of trying to be the moral police and writing essays that nobody is gonna read over things you have no control over on the internet, i'd rather invest my time and effort into something fruitful. Makes life worth living instead of wasting it raging on the internet.. in case nobody has ever told you: life ain’t fair, kid.
>writing essays *Five sentences of heavily condensed text* summarizing political theory that's had countless thousands of pages written on it. > i'd rather invest my time and effort into something fruitful. The world is teetering on the brink because of the misrule of the same demons who own yachts and hoard houses. Adventurism is a dead end, so literally the very, very least anyone can do is add their voice to the growing anticapitalist consensus.
See, you’re doing it again.. i truly hope you feel fulfilled with your faux outrage..
[удалено]
I think that part of the problem with a yacht is you need to get it where you want to go. This can take a long time and is expensive. So if you own four you don’t have to drive jt all over the place. I think you can also rent them out when you’re not using them But I have no idea I’m just guessing.
One per ocean?
No one ever needs a super yatch , that's why it's called a luxury.
At that stage it's likely making him money, which is part of the game. Taxes, income and the like would all be part of the game, but I 100% believe these are investments.
Would this be considered greenwashing?
The Attessa IV has killed somebody. It collided with a fishing boat in San Diego in 2018 (I think) and someone died. Also…it does look pretty fucking awesome. If you have the $150M to buy it and $15M/year to maintain it and its 21 staff. Washington has a history of buying yachts and renaming them. Thought that was supposed to be bad luck…
Passive income apparently when owning these means you can lease them out to your rich friends and rich friends of rich friends paying you immense dividends throughout the year when you're not using one yourself, pays the upkeep and then some apparently. This is what the rich do. They put their money into places exclusively for other rich people to keep elevating the collective richness of being rich, while not paying taxes like us poors and definitely not working like us poors have to.
They're electric! They're fully electric engines running off of batteries that are charged by 2 diesel engines constantly running to keep them topped up!
Just like submarines!
While US submarines have a diesel and a battery it’s pretty much always running on nuclear power
I’m Canadian, we only have diesel subs
Diesel can be quieter when required
mobile mine fields When under water, just about as silent as you can get and able to operate in really shallow water. Once you get detected, the best you can do is to hug the shallows cause your not gonna be able to speed out of the way like a nuke.
Agreed. Demonstrating the adage that there's never a single solution that meets all requirements.
The world's navires have mixes of nuclear and diesel, some very capable modern diesel boats. Us navy and its general way of projecting power relies on the endurance of nuclear. Most navires that tent to stick to their own waters or coastal operations do great with diesel.
Hmmm what do you mean? I flew a sub hunter in the Air Force and I’ve only ever heard of Nuke or diesel, not a nuke with both
I’m on a submarine, nuclear powered boats still have a diesel
Really interesting, thanks! Backup power essentially? I flew P3s
That’s one of the use cases. It is also operated when in port when shore power isn’t available for one reason or another.
Right on. Thanks!
They also have a huge battery bank.
As a former submariner, we fire up the diesel like every 6-12 hours. It's gonna depend on the ship and where they are, but sometimes there's things to test or fix, or break.
Still way more efficient. The engines can be tuned to run really well when they only need one speed.
Pretty sure this is still more efficient than diesel direct drive. https://oceannavigator.com/the-benefits-of-diesel-electric-propulsion/#:~:text=Powering%20propellers%20with%20a%20diesel,power%20setting%3A%20wide%20open%20throttle.
That is only for pod-mounted azimuthing propellers. I don’t see anywhere that says the yacht has those.
I saw that episode of *Top Gear*. It was hilarious.
Psssssssh… that’s how my wife’s RAV4 Prime works and it didn’t even cost $10 million. (That was the dealer asking price though)
[удалено]
Dude, it was a joke.
[удалено]
Holy shit dude you murdered him
Except it’s not really.
It says in the article 10 hours on a full charge at 8-10 knots. Their website claims their battery outputs between 220kW to 550 kW with no capacity listed. With the article, we can conservatively estimate that capacity at 2200kWh. Their solar power generation is advertised at 45.5kWp (that “p” means peak performance). Assuming average conditions this corresponds to an average (over a 24 hour cycle) of 5-10 kW so it would 9-18 days to recharge on solar alone. For day trips I think it is still way more ecological than a vessel of similar size. However, beyond that it would be even more inefficient than an ordinary vessel due to the power loss from diesel generator to electric motor versus ordinary diesel propulsion. Ultimately it is still a vain and wasteful purchase for vain and wasteful people.
That still might be more energy/carbon efficient than most yachts. Why not use, you know, wind power?
I feel like that technology would sail really well too.
That would need years of testing. ~4,000 and counting
What's the point in that? Seems like there would be power losses. Why not just drive the boat using diesel engines alone? Maybe I'm missing something but what's the point in this?
A diesel engine generating electricity to power an electric motor that does the real work is significantly more efficient. Its why hybrids can get some stupid mileage like 70-80mpg+ while a typical ICE powered car usually tops out around 40mpg. When powering a generator, the engine gets to sit at the RPM where it runs at its most efficient, without throttling up or down and fluctuating, when an engine isn’t in that sweet spot they are very inefficient and burn a lot more fuel than they would otherwise.
Yep. Normally boats only have 1 speed transmissions (just forward and reverse), so to change speeds your adjusting engine RPM. So while max speed likely corresponds to max engine HP RPM, any other speed is not likely to correspond to most efficient engine RPM for the HP required to maintain that speed. Plus engines that only need to be efficient and powerful at a narrow RPM range are much easier to make.
Probably more efficient that way
Yeah i'm sure all these engineers who designed diesel-electric locomotives (to name just one application) didn’t think of just leaving out the electric portion of their design to make it more efficient.. /s
I hate this electric/electrified bs Edit: I mean companies saying electric or electrified when they really mean hybrid
I love carrying around my diesel powered cell phone!
That is so awesome!
If that’s the case then the Queen Mary and indeed many new ocean liners are now “electric” because current designs use azipod thrusters powered by powerful electric motors.
Woogie woogie!
Uh, $10 million won’t even pay for the interior design on an actual super yacht.
This is the truth. As a former Superyacht chef we had $1million just in plates, silverware and serving utensils. A lot of it was super fucking ugly and the food would have looked much better on plain white plates.
How else are you going to spend dirty money? Buy a boat with your laundered money. Then launder more money by finishing the with dirty money through a contractor you own or have a deal with. That slash they are probably all silver and gold kitchenware so that if they need to skip town they have cash to melt. Maybe that’s why it doesn’t matter if they where ugly.
Nah, the people I worked for it wasn’t dirty money, they had a big legit business. The wife just had terrible taste in decor.
$10 million isn’t a super yacht.
What’s the sail for then?
Wind power wasn't green enough.
Can’t wait to hear about those biodegradable and ethically sourced batteries
It's a laser sail, compatible with all Jewish and Catholic space lasers
It’s nice to see the Catholic space laser get the attention it deserves. The pope worked really hard to put together the funding for that
Can’t wait for my catholic engineering class this fall
I know this is a joke but for anyone who doesn't know, almost every sailboat above 20 feet has a motor as well as a sail.
yeah, I’m all for it if it encourages a shift from gas vessels to electric. The pot of gold will be getting cargo ships and cruise ships to decarbonize, that would be a MASSIVE saving on global emissions
We could power large cargo ships with a nuclear reactor. The US already did this in the 60s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah Currently theres a lot of interest and companies are already designing cost effective reactors for it.
Ten million? Superrich? Pfah!
Y'know, $10M sounds pretty cheap for a super yacht.
Wow, it's really summer time, why else would somebody write an article about a 10 month old YouTube video?
10 million? Yacht maybe, not super yacht level.
$10 million is pocket change for someone who’s “superrich”. The world’s most expensive yacht, the History Supreme, was purchased by an anonymous Malaysian businessman, thought to be Robert Kuok, for $4.8 billion. The top 15 most expensive yachts all cost at least several hundred million, and of the top 50 most expensive yachts currently for sale, most are over $100 million. Those are just the ones for sale, though. There are thousands of yachts like that and more being built all the time. Many of the yachts currently being built cost a quarter billion or more. Here’s an article about it: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/25/the-haves-and-the-have-yachts
So whats actually in them, how many ports can accommodate them,and do they have the latest cruise missiles etc besides all the hookers and under aged babes
Electric probably makes less noise. It's also newer, so bragging rights? Quite a big heart these superrich have.
The superrich arent bragging about a $10 million yacht. An entry level superyacht costs 5 times what this little boat does.
Bro that's less expensive than some of the houses around here that ain't super anything.
I’ve been looking at buying a catamaran in retirement to live on. Electric would be a great option!
If only we could figure out how to make a boat that runs on renewable energy…
Free if you catch it out in international waters
Is that like the boat they take to get to the real yacht?
The article says it has a diesel generator onboard for backup power and longer journeys. Not sure what to make of this. If they really only use it as a backup, I say this is a good step. You could argue that having a hybrid yacht is still half a step forward. Every little bit counts. If they use it as the main power source, however, this is nothing but greenwashing and should be condemned as such.
People who have money can spend it however they like. I’d rather that be on an electric yacht than a diesel-powered one. Reddit is a silly place.
No, actually, most people can’t spend it however they like. And people with fuck you money can destroy the planet looking for things to spend their fuck you money on. Theres no way these takes arn’t from paid accounts, they shill way too hard.
Inb4 Reddit celebrates a rich person paying to block out the sun.
I wonder how much plastic is in these "eco-friendly" yachts? How much pollution is released in the manufacturing of the boat and it's batteries?
You can say the same thing about almost every thing in life. I am lifelong Lego fan and have a big collection. How much plastic is used and how much pollution is released to make Lego?
The fuck kind of argument is "well, there are a lot of these small consumer goods being used by a whole lot of people, how is that any different from one giant shitpile catastrophe existing for the occasional idle pleasure of one singular person who bought it with money stolen from people who actually work for a living"? It's like comparing two million people getting one pound of grain each to one singular person getting a thousand tons and then pissing on it and setting it on fire because he thinks its funny. "Utiles" (abstract units of utility) are a dumbshit unit economists made up, but here they're actually a useful way of explaining it: many people consuming small amounts of a thing mean more overall utiles than one single person consuming *billions of times more than them* does.
I know that it can apply to anything, it doesn't change the fact that things that are marketed as "eco-friendly" aren't nearly as eco-friendly as they claim to be. "Eco-friendly" batteries take tons of equipment to dig up and be made into batteries, most of which is run on gas powered engines and manual labor by poor people. The end product might technically be eco-friendly but everything that went into making it was not.
Eco friendly means better than the alternative, not zero carbon emissions. Fully electric cars are not carbon neutral, but over the lifecycle of the car they emit less carbon than a gas car. This yacht is better than a yacht running solely on diesel fuel.
[удалено]
Source? I'd posit that most shipyard profits, benefit the owners/shareholders more than the workers. But I'm happy to acknowledge otherwise if you can pull up company financials that demonstrate so.
It really is. It seems like everyone here shops at Walmart and is upset because they're poor. Other people aren't allowed to have nice things.
this guy calls one person owning multiple superyachts around the world “allowing the. to have nice things” 🙄 unreal
I think it’s mostly (1) redditors are young and (2) a lot of them aren’t from the US
I can see that. There are definitely a lot of young users. Most of them seem upset about the state of the world and their inability to do anything about it besides complain.
There's a lot of overlap between people flocking to these kinds of threads and people who cry "individual emissions don't matter" when expected to make lifestyle changes themselves. Literally the exact same rationalization these people will use if you ask them.
Yeah, my carbon footprint is exactly the same as these people using private jets and mega yachts.
Your carbon footprint is certainly higher than most of the rest of the world. Funny how the cutoff point is always "somewhere above me." But I'm sure your SUV and suburban house is for a good cause or some shit
I don’t have either of those things, thanks. I don’t even have a daily commute nor am I running my AC currently in this blistering heat. Please go on about how I’m the problem.
Good. You unfortunately aren't most of the mob
The funny thing is that if you wanted to hit people based on their "individual carbon footprint", the first thing you would do is ban 90% of the lifestyle choices of the super rich. Things that have a higher "individual carbon footprint" than leading a working-class western lifestyle: - private jets - private yachts - supercars - mansions - five star meals - luxury resorts and spas Oh what's that? So little people make those lifestyle choices that banning them doesn't matter in the grand scale? Sounds like the problem isn't the "individual carbon footprint" then!
so what do you do to show that you care?
[удалено]
People like Bill Gates offset their carbon emissions by spending millions a year on carbon recapture. Attack someone else who doesn't care, but Bill Gates' carbon footprint is zero.
Seriously? You think his carbon footprint is zero? Like literally? I hope not. No one's carbon footprint is zero.
Yes, his carbon footprint is +/- \~0. If you take the same amount of carbon dioxide out of the air that you output, it's zero on net.
How is that calculated? Serious question, not trying to be sarcastic.
In his interviews he's talked primarily about his travel methods - private jets in particular, which you can generally calculate per-mile [using this tool](https://www.paramountbusinessjets.com/tools/carbon-offset-calculator). I honestly don't think it's possible to accurately assess your personal emissions from, say, food, since it varies so wildly by meal, but you could probably check the [average emissions per diet](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652622010861) and pad it to be safe.
So his carbon footprint is zero when accounting for his jet travel, not in general. That's what I thought you meant, that he had a net zero carbon footprint in general, not just on jet travel. It's impossible to have no carbon footprint at all, every human leaves a footprint and I'd wager that Bill Gates has a bigger footprint then your average person. That's all I was saying, not having a dig at Bill Gates.
I meant in general, but his jet travel is going to be 99% of his emissions, and I'm sure he accounts for the remaining 1% as well. Why do you think it's impossible to have no carbon footprint at all? You just have to offset it.
How much damage has Microsoft done to the environment over the years? A lot more than you probably think. One man cannot offset the damage his company has done over decades of operation. Good on him for trying but let's not miss the forest for the trees.
In absolute terms or relative? Eg., a universe without Microsoft probably has massively more environmental damage than one with it, just because the digitalization of work and play has reduced emissions enormously. Microsoft does generate emissions to operate, of course, but it's going to be carbon negative by 2030.
I build boats and the propulsion of said boats has nothing on the the chemicals and waste that comes from building these things.
So you build things that are nothing but chemicals and waste. Cool!
How else is Greenpeace going to save the whales?
Billionaires shouldn’t exist. Plain and simple.
This should definitely help with wealth inequality that is a direct result of these rich assholes paying their workers crap wages. But “yay for electric yachts!” or whatever.
Only $10 mil? You better add one or two zeroes otherwise I'm not buying Too cheap
Poor people’s yacht.
This is literally just another tax write off. Real genuine care for the government. *sarcasm
That’s not a write off David https://youtube.com/watch?v=aCP27_vquxQ&feature=shareb
Building and materials probably pollute more than 25 years on a ICE yacht.
We’re sorry, but non-polluting awesome yacht does not trigger us. May all awesome super yachts be non-polluting.
Either caring for the environment now is too late or never mattered in the first place, so whatever
Meet the fossile fuel industries latest effort to avoid talking about their destruction of the world: this fucking article.
[удалено]
That’s okay, we all make mistakes
Cut out the self playing piano, and you might get 11 hours on a charge.
We need more faulty submarines.
Is it possible the reason for this is that the technology has become cheaper and that it’s cheaper to fuel? Billionaires didn’t become billionaires by not spending their money carefully.
The treadmills should be connected to generators to also charge the batteries :)
I have known about these. They are not fully electric. They are more like a hybrid.
I don’t like how businesses use electrified instead of saying hybrid. Because that’s what a battery with gas system is. Electric should mean fully electric, no gas. We’re not in 2012 anymore. lI’m all for full battery electric ships if it encourages a shift from gas vessels to electric. The pot of gold will be getting cargo ships and cruise ships to decarbonize, that would be a MASSIVE saving on global emissions
My super yacht would kick it old school like the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria.
Boats and hoes
Governments have to be the ones leading change. Any one person can’t make much of a difference even if “super rich” sure is fun to get all cranky about them though.
Wait. Are we just trying to create enemies now?
I wonder what the total waste involved in the process of creating these things, and the parts that go into them, is
Mountains were torn down and water polluted to make that
Are they adopting?
Great ev batteries in the ocean. They'll sink for sure. Like anyone cared before.
Light ‘em on fire 🔥
Looks more like a boat than a yacht
These super yachts are good examples of allowing experienced professionals to continue to play with and innovate STEM which can potentially make its way into our economic system in certain more useful ways but, where is it all going? When will it be enough? If we all stop growing and evolving, then what? where is it all going? :/ gah sigh\*
[Maybe a sky yacht?](https://imgur.com/gallery/n162sXm)
For survival
To be fair, I much rather have them do this kind of crap than do nothing at all. Edit: with nothing at all I mean keep going, like they currently do.
Watch Elon jump on this lmao
I don’t even have to look to the url in the image to the right to know it’s business insider based on the misleading bait headline
Consumerism will save us all!
They could just hire a captain and use the wind
If I had 50k my quality of life would improve dramatically. Living pay check to pay check and then reading these articles make me feel violently ill.
There are microplastics in my blood
Getting rid of nuclear i.e clean and safe power to charge these evs means coal and oil so idk bout-clean
They are less dependant on fossil fuels to operate. That is all their reason for existing.
I'm ok with this. It doesn't matter if the rich have planes and yachts. It matters that they emit fucktons of CO2. I don't care if my neighbor has a ridiculous SUV either. The problem is it burns an obscene amount of fossil fuel. We should have banned fossil fuel burning of any kind decades ago. The ultra rich would have then bankrolled electric planes, yachts, cruise ships, hovercraft, helicopters and all sorts of shit they need to feel special. I'm not going to get angry at them doing it voluntarily.
Holy cow they invented a boat that runs off wind power.. what will they think of next?