So, they're saying it cannot possibly be cost effective, with a global fleet of around 5000 ships, and conservative savings of at least $3000 per day per ship? It cannot be cost effective to develop a product for which the savings would be at least $5 billion per year (of which most can be claimed back in more expensive ships)? Sounds like at least a few people are trying to maintain the status quo already.
$5 billion on $375 billion is a 1.3% savings, with considerable technological, social, political, and other risks.
Seems that there's an argument toward more automation, but a full adoption of the technology to the extent described in the article strikes me as unlikely, and could well have downside costs well in excess of the claimed benefits.
The potential savings are substantially larger. The article cites a 12%-15% reduced fuel use, as well as increased cargo capacity from losing the bridge.
I was simply contextualizing CHY872's claimed savings.
The stated crew savings should account for a sizable chunk at 44% of operating expenses, unless capital expenses are an even larger share. I don't know the numbers and the article doesn't supply them.
