Ships and boats

[JimD]

This morning I decided we needed a post on ships to go along with the ones on cars and planes.  Sort of in honor of Bruce so he does not think we forget him 

Commercial Fleet

Fleet statistics weave a fascinating pattern. By mid-2011 the world’s entire fleet of all types of commercial ships over one hundred tons had increased its gross tonnage to 1 billion. At the end of last year the total reached 1.09 billion GT, numbering 86,300 ships. This gigantic armada includes not only the vast fleets of bulk carriers, tankers and container ships, but also a wide range of other types. General cargo vessels, multi-purpose ships, car carriers, roll on-roll off vessels, gas carriers, reefer tonnage, cruise ships, offshore service vessels and others (such as tugs and dredgers) are represented. Many perform services which do not involve carrying cargo, of course.
According to figures compiled by shipping information providers Clarksons, another (nautical) milestone was attained recently. The world’s fleet of vessels actually carrying cargo – which had numbered 50,000 over seven years ago – reached 1 billion GT in September last year, and since then has grown to 1.01 billion, comprising 57,400 ships, today. It is especially significant that this achievement resulted from cumulative growth of an astounding 43 percent over the past five years, averaging 7.5 percent annually.
Looking at the fleet statistics in more detail reveals some impressive performances over the past few years. Expansion rates in the largest sectors have been rapid. Measured by deadweight volume, the tonnage measurement normally used in the bulk markets, the world fleet of bulk carriers has grown by 73 percent in the past five years. At the end of 2012 there were 9,500 bulk carriers totalling 679 million dwt. The tanker fleet’s growth was 29 percent during the same period, to a total of 515 million dwt (13,500 ships, including 7,700 small tankers below 10,000 dwt). In the container ship sector, where the standard measurement is TEUs (twenty-foot-equivalent units), the world fleet reached 5,100 ships totalling 16.2 million TEU at the end of 2012, after growing by 50 percent over a five-year period.

Fishing Fleet

In 2002 the world fishing fleet numbered about four million vessels. About one-third were decked. The remaining undecked boats were generally less than 10 metres long, and 65 percent were not fitted with mechanical propulsion systems. The FAO estimates that Asia accounts for over 80 percent of them.

The average size of decked vessels is about 20 gross tons (10–15 metres). Only one percent of the world fishing fleet is larger than 100 gross tons (longer than 24 metres). China has half (25,600) of these larger vessels.

Recreational boating. US numbers

There were 527,000 new boats sold in 2011, an increase of two percent compared to 2010, with a total retail value of $6.1 billion, an increase of 3.5 percent over 2010. (Table 5.2) (Edit:  both power and sail).
 
Boat registrations were down two percent in 2010, falling to a total of 12.4 million, compared to nearly 12.7 million the previous year.

I could not find global numbers for recreational boats just the US.  But if the US has almost 13 million one has to figure that the world total must have numbers near 50 million.

There are a LOT of ships and boats out there.  And I did not even bother about counting the military vessels as there are only 10,000 or so of them. 

If one spent some time looking up data they could get an estimate of the total fuel consumption of the above vessels but I was too lazy today.  But it is a lot.   And it tends to be very polluting as most of the big vessels are burning bunker fuel and have little to no emissions control.

http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/News.aspx?ElementId=984ef639-7f94-4d62-88a9-f80b3ecc6fb9

Most of the rest of the data is from various wiki pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_vessel

[Bruce Steele]

Jim, nice to know that 65% of fishing boats do not have "mechanical propulsion ". The other 35%
( me included ) need to get real and go back to wind.  It is  one of the few industries that could
, if it wanted to , convert to wind .  In the long haul there will always be fishermen , and in the long haul more than 65% of the fishing fleet will be wind powered. There are some hard times between now and then. 

[JimD]

Here's a sort of what are they thinking story.

A 10 billion dollar floating city ship which is 4500 ft long, 350 ft tall, 750 ft wide that would have 50,000 residents, 10,000 crew, and up to 40,000 day guests, an airport, docks, casino, hospital,, etc,, etc.

It would be too big to ever dock anywhere. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2514936/The-incredible-mile-long-floating-CITY--complete-schools-hospital-parks-airport-50-000-residents.html

[bligh8]

The expansion of international shipping cannot be overstated, at least based on what I’ve seen.  My last transit of the Windward Passage toward the Western Caribbean was enlightening.  There were so many large commercial ships that I thought: There should be a traffic cop around here. I passed through the choke point at night, it was very difficult to plot a safe course through the maze of ships who often were on the vhf arguing about who has the right of way.

I, as a wind driven vessel had the responsibility under Maritime International Law, outlined in the Navigational Rules Of The Road, to be the “stand on vessel”, maintaining course and speed. Mechanically driven vessels are the “give way” vessel and are required to change course and speed to avoid collision.  All this is very convenient but outside of the influence of the US Coast Guard rules become fuzzy.

They just awarded the contracts to raise the Bayonne Bridge from 151 ft to 215ft some of this was done to accommodate the larger and more fuel-efficient vessels arriving here from the newly expanded Panama Canal.
http://www.panynj.gov/bayonnebridge/

It use be that once outside the shipping routes and at least 3 or 4 hundred miles off the coast, I could grab 6 or 8 hrs sleep.  Now I’ve been forced to change that to 20min ever three hrs. Risk assessments of the changing variables suggest that this is border line dangerous, however it’s a danger that every single-handed sailor faces.  International rules also state that every ship maintain a Able Body Sea-men to stand watch at all times,
an impossibility for the single-handed sailor.

[JimD]

It use be that once outside the shipping routes and at least 3 or 4 hundred miles off the coast, I could grab 6 or 8 hrs sleep.  Now I’ve been forced to change that to 20min ever three hrs. .....  International rules also state that every ship maintain a Able Body Sea-men to stand watch at all times, an impossibility for the single-handed sailor.

In the spirit of keeping all our members here alive I volunteer to stand alternate watches next time you cross the Pacific or Atlantic (sailing across one or both of them was a big dream of mine when I was young).  I even have some deep water sailing experience to boot (Los Angeles to SF once). 

[Shared Humanity]

It use be that once outside the shipping routes and at least 3 or 4 hundred miles off the coast, I could grab 6 or 8 hrs sleep.  Now I’ve been forced to change that to 20min ever three hrs. .....  International rules also state that every ship maintain a Able Body Sea-men to stand watch at all times, an impossibility for the single-handed sailor.

In the spirit of keeping all our members here alive I volunteer to stand alternate watches next time you cross the Pacific or Atlantic (sailing across one or both of them was a big dream of mine when I was young).  I even have some deep water sailing experience to boot (Los Angeles to SF once).

A generous offer.

[bligh8]

It use be that once outside the shipping routes and at least 3 or 4 hundred miles off the coast, I could grab 6 or 8 hrs sleep.  Now I’ve been forced to change that to 20min ever three hrs. .....  International rules also state that every ship maintain a Able Body Sea-men to stand watch at all times, an impossibility for the single-handed sailor.

In the spirit of keeping all our members here alive I volunteer to stand alternate watches next time you cross the Pacific or Atlantic (sailing across one or both of them was a big dream of mine when I was young).  I even have some deep water sailing experience to boot (Los Angeles to SF once).

Thanks Jim....I'm working on and planning a voyage, all things remaining constant it should begin next June,  you are certainly welcome.

In the link above, about the raising of the Bayonne bridge,(a billion $ project) this represents a morphology in the shipping industry.  At one time an entire fleet of ships were created to accommodate the constraints of the Panama Canal, the pana-max fleet.
Now the shipping industry created a new fleet of ships even larger forcing the canal authorities to widen the canal (which has been ongoing for 10 years). To transit the canal these ships are paying from 60 to one hundred thousands bucks, still a good deal when one considers the alternatives.
These newer ships with their more efficient hull designs and better power plants cruise at 22 to 24 kts. as apposed to 12kts for their older sister ships. My vessel hull speed is 7.2 knots so a closing speed of about 30kts is considered when trying to catch some shut eye. Although I have ASI and Radar that allows me to form a dual collision avoidance system, there is nothing like a pair of eyes to scan for these floating cities.
ASI is useless for other than ships, radar is weak where ice is concerned, even though I can adjust bandwidth making it marginally better.  I see the calved portion of the PIG is projected to be a factor in shipping safety if it follows it's projected course.

[bligh8]

It use be that once outside the shipping routes and at least 3 or 4 hundred miles off the coast, I could grab 6 or 8 hrs sleep.  Now I’ve been forced to change that to 20min ever three hrs. .....  International rules also state that every ship maintain a Able Body Sea-men to stand watch at all times, an impossibility for the single-handed sailor.

In the spirit of keeping all our members here alive I volunteer to stand alternate watches next time you cross the Pacific or Atlantic (sailing across one or both of them was a big dream of mine when I was young).  I even have some deep water sailing experience to boot (Los Angeles to SF once).

A generous offer.

I’m fairly careful about whom I let on my vessel, when planning an off-shore sailing event.  Two years ago I was planning to sail offshore for a total of 4000 nm and 2000nm inter island sailing. Leaving in December out into the N. Atlantic required some considerations about who was capable. A young lady who works with my wife at the hospital wanted to go badly. I talked with her twice, she was intelligent, capable and with a t-type personality a good candidate. In the end I concluded no, not for her safety, but my peace of mind…. allowing me to concentrate on the sailing and not her safety. She was slender and looked as though she did not have the upper body strength to deal with this



Those were force 7/8 conditions, on a down hill run, with a following current making things lumpy.  One can visualize how easy it might be to break a rib or an arm.

[ccgwebmaster]

These newer ships with their more efficient hull designs and better power plants cruise at 22 to 24 kts. as apposed to 12kts for their older sister ships. My vessel hull speed is 7.2 knots so a closing speed of about 30kts is considered when trying to catch some shut eye.

7.2 knots theoretical (1.34 x SQRT(LWL)) - or actual? What is your LWL?

In the spirit of keeping all our members here alive I volunteer to stand alternate watches next time you cross the Pacific or Atlantic (sailing across one or both of them was a big dream of mine when I was young).  I even have some deep water sailing experience to boot (Los Angeles to SF once). 

Hmm, how much risk you happy to run?

[bligh8]

My LWL is about 29.6ft thus the 7.2kts…. However the Original design of my vessel was handed down from the famous Colin Archer Design…his double ender.  Archer designed the “Fram” which participated in Nansen’s expeditions to the North Pole and in Ronald Amundsen’s first trip to the South Pole. Archer was the first Naval Architect to be commissioned to build a rescue ship then used to rescue fisherman caught in gales in the North Sea. His complex mathematical equations suggesting his double ender design would allow a wind driven vessel to climb over their own bow wave were merely a mathematical hic-up and later discredited. However to this day his designs are often consulted when designing new ships. Within the link below you will see mention of my vessel, a Westsail 32. You’ll also see names like Dumas & Knox-Johnston, famous for their circumnavigation efforts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Archer

If your gonna be involved in open ocean sailing there is no better boat than a heavy Colin Archer design, they are truly a uncompromising blue water cruiser.

[ccgwebmaster]

My LWL is about 29.6ft thus the 7.2kts….
...
Within the link below you will see mention of my vessel, a Westsail 32. You’ll also see names like Dumas & Knox-Johnston, famous for their circumnavigation efforts.

My LWL is ~43', which should give a hull speed of 8.79 knots? I'd be surprised if I can do that in practice though (not built for speed). It's a steel schooner which I expect to displace over 30 tons when I'm done (and I hope not too much more, I won't raise the waterline any higher than I already did). I usually quote LOD (48') if people ask how big - as the long bow sprit on the front and the davits at the back make it sound bigger than it really is. All things being equal soon I'll find out how we get on offshore, even if there's still a lot that ought to be done first in an ideal world...

A big project, perhaps overly ambitious, we'll see soon enough.

[JimD]

Hmm, how much risk you happy to run?

Always a good question.  About 8 years ago when I came home and told my wife I was retiring I offered her my first two favorite options.
1.  We sell everything and buy a nice sail boat and spend the next 10-15 years sailing all over the world.
2.  We sell everything and emigrate to New Zealand or Australia.

She said no to both. So we sort of compromised and I started up my organic farming operation.  Life. 

[bligh8]

My LWL is about 29.6ft thus the 7.2kts….
...
Within the link below you will see mention of my vessel, a Westsail 32. You’ll also see names like Dumas & Knox-Johnston, famous for their circumnavigation efforts.

My LWL is ~43', which should give a hull speed of 8.79 knots? I'd be surprised if I can do that in practice though (not built for speed). It's a steel schooner which I expect to displace over 30 tons when I'm done (and I hope not too much more, I won't raise the waterline any higher than I already did). I usually quote LOD (48') if people ask how big - as the long bow sprit on the front and the davits at the back make it sound bigger than it really is. All things being equal soon I'll find out how we get on offshore, even if there's still a lot that ought to be done first in an ideal world...

A big project, perhaps overly ambitious, we'll see soon enough.

Sounds like a very worthwhile project to me.

Wow….My dream boat, a 48ft steel schooner. With this type of vessel one could safely navigate well within the Antarctica circle. I thought there must be some nautical background for you to know the hull speed calculation. Yep your are correct about your hull speed and the practical application suggestion, for seldom does one desire to hoist enough sail to generate max hull speed.

I’m a little overly curious so I hope you don’t mind if I ask a few question?  Like, was this a home made project or a purchased hull project.  Your alterations to the water line suggest additional weight; do you know your displacement/length ratio? This calculation, I’m sure you know, will help define your practical hull speed. Is the steel rolled and welded, 6mils perhaps? The additional weight would obviously have lowered your “M” point, have you calculated your righting arm. Just curios.

 As far as speed goes, my best day was 203nm, suggesting a 8.5nm hull speed average. I had altered my course slightly to the North to catch the S. Equatorial current South of Madagascar; ( a no no in every sailing guide you’ll ever read) in gale force conditions I was carrying to much sail & did not care. Hurricane season was well underway and there was a tropical wave to the North, normally a prudent man, this day I was in a hurry. When the gps started spiking over 10kts I had visions of the mast going faster than the hull, forcing me on deck and changing the sail configuration and again Horizon felt happy . Pryor to that she was/felt unhappy, there was no undulation between the sails, rig and hull….the entire vessel was moving as one….opps

Best of luck with your project, perhaps I’ll see ya out there amongst the waves.

[ccgwebmaster]

I’m a little overly curious so I hope you don’t mind if I ask a few question?  Like, was this a home made project or a purchased hull project.  Your alterations to the water line suggest additional weight; do you know your displacement/length ratio? This calculation, I’m sure you know, will help define your practical hull speed. Is the steel rolled and welded, 6mils perhaps? The additional weight would obviously have lowered your “M” point, have you calculated your righting arm. Just curios.

Purchased hull project, straight-forward welded construction with a single chine. In principle many major items necessary present, in practice years of poor prior maintenance, some theft, and further (major) life complications made it into an even bigger project that it was originally. Total refit inside appropriate, and as it turns out renewal of all interior systems (incomplete but in progress). Picked up welding (through trial and error and asking questions of people who know how) to add a bulk head, repair the hull (cut out some sections and put in good plate), create steel (ultimately to be watertight) doors, etc. - I'm sure you know how it goes if you take on a boat without much ample funding, you learn how to do things yourself or you fail - there isn't a middle road.

Displacement/length ratio right now should be around 290, I anticipate a value at least 350 when finished, 390 at the theoretical upper end (depending what it takes to set things up where I feel they're right, and on the limits set by the waterline which is about as far as I'd care to cut freeboard ie I want some!).

I did calculate the righting moment as the vessel originally sat one night in the water (literally lifted a ton and a half of water up by hand) to tip it over slightly - arrived at righting force of nearly 8000 ft-lbs or 10850Nm at 5 degrees of list. Have not been able yet to find another boat owner who has any idea what their initial righting moment is for comparison and need to repeat the exercise (hopefully with a pump next time) now that I changed so much.

The new waterline is my best guess as to what I need worst case, arrived at by estimating my anticipated additional displacement for the approximate cross-sectional area and allowing for the addition of ballast (the vessel has almost none, which cannot be right) as well as all the new steel, batteries (almost a half ton in batteries alone), etc.

I cannot pretend to any nautical knowledge any more than any other sort of knowledge, but all things being equal within a few weeks I'll have stared evolution in the face to see if I'm fit enough to survive (I have to relocate internationally before completing). Then I might put a bit more about the project in another topic on the forum (the one to do with building things).

Unfortunately (and with a nod to the original point of this topic), I might have no option but to run on the engine for at least several days - the current weather forecast is way beyond what I'd dare tackle with sails given inexperience and standing rigging in serious need of renewal (the materials I have, the time I do not).

[bligh8]

Your description was nicely put, and I commend your efforts, as I know all to well about the “project”. 
It might be helpful for you to find out who & why this hull was designed the way it was.
The only non-ballasted steel sailing vessels I’ve seen were Island Traders, they use their cargo for ballast.
It’s best to keep your DLR under 350 utterwise you’ll be handling giant sails, which is tough.
If you don’t mind could you be a little more specific about your up-coming sail as in …from-to and when? I understand if you do not wish to put this on an open forum.
 

[domen_]

Fully electric ferry in Norway to enter operation in 2015:

“The electrically-powered ferry was originally developed as a submission to a Norwegian Ministry of Transport competition where the winner would get a 10-year license to operate the Lavik-Oppedal route beginning in 2015. The new ferry, the world’s first to operate solely on battery power, will operate the route with 34 crossings a day, 365 days a year beginning January 1. The route and Norway in general is considered ideal for battery-powered ferries because of the short routes.”

“The vessel has capacity for 120 cars and 360 passengers and will operate at about 10 knots.”

http://insideevs.com/electric-ferry-wins-ship-year-award/

It will replace old diesel ferry and eliminate the need for 264 000 gallons of fuel annually.

[Laurent]

Anthropogenic pressure on the open ocean: The growth of ship traffic revealed by altimeter data analysis
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061786/abstract

Abstract

Marine ecosystems are under increasing anthropogenic pressures from marine and terrestrial activities. Ship traffic, the major cause of change in the open ocean, and its temporal evolution are still largely unknown because of lack of data. Altimeter data provide a new powerful tool to detect and monitor the ship traffic through a method of analysis of echo waveform. The archive of seven altimeter missions has been processed to create a two decade database of ship locations. The estimated annual density maps compare well with the ones obtained from Automatic Identification System. The ship traffic analysis shows a global fourfold growth between 1992 and 2012, the largest increase being observed in the Indian Ocean and the Chinese seas reflecting the world trade change. Although mainly concentrated along lanes, the traffic has a direct impact on the atmosphere, e.g., on the growth of tropospheric nitrogen dioxide in the Indian Ocean.

[Sigmetnow]

German wind- and diesel-energy ship saves fuel and carbon emissions.

German company Emercon’s E-Ship 1, the world’s first wind energy cargo vessel, arrived in the port of Montevideo this week to a warm welcome from Uruguayan politicians and business leaders.

The 130-meter (425-feet) long vessel departed from Germany in November and docked here this week with the equipment for the installation of 50 turbines at the Peralta GCEE Wind Farm in the northern province of Tacuarembo.

http://www.evwind.es/2015/01/09/enercon-wind-energy-ship-arrives-in-uruguay/49829

[Laurent]

Ships, ships and more ships.

[Rick Aster]

I am currently taking The World Bank's course on global warming economics at Coursera ( https://www.coursera.org/course/warmerworld ) and for my final project I created an infographic on Arctic shipping. It can be seen at:

http://fivemoreanswers.tumblr.com/post/119140013195/my-arctic-shipping-infographic-references

I picked this topic because it's a current effect of climate change that financially minded people can track by following the money. Cargo shipping across the Arctic has advanced from being a novelty in 2008 to being a regular part of shipping logistics a few years later, and it could become much bigger with further retreat in the Arctic sea ice. I tried to create a simple one-minute summary of the topic in a graphic.

[Sigmetnow]

Ten-minute recharge time!

World’s First All-Electric Battery-Powered Ferry

A Norwegian emission-free ferry called the Ampere was granted the esteemed “Ship of the Year” award as the SMM trade show in September 2014. The ferry is reportedly the first all-electric battery-powered car and passenger ferry in the world. The battery-powered vessel, with a comfortable capacity of 120 cars and 360 passengers operating at about 10 knots, is apparently in service 365 days per year.

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/06/13/worlds-first-electric-battery-powered-ferry/

[Tor Bejnar]

Rick,
I just read your post and infographic.  I appreciate that you called out the irony of what is being shipped through the Arctic!

[icefest]

@sigmetnowIt seems strange that it's easier using one battery to charge another at each end, than just switching the battery when it arrives.

[Chuck Yokota]

icefest -- The article says the ferry's battery weighs 10 tons and is the equivalent of 1600 car batteries. Further, one picture shows the battery is constructed as banks of individual cells, each fastened separately.

[icefest]

10 tons is about as much as a truck/lorry. It's not that big for car ferry.
Divide the load into two batteries, wheel them in, and put one in each hull.


I'm just surprised that is cheaper dealing with the 10% energy waste due to adding another battery and the doubled charge cycles than making the battery hot-swappable.

[Sigmetnow]

New report: Marine hybrid propulsion market to reach $4.46 billion by 2022

The report finds that ferry operators are the major adopters of hybrid systems. Most ferries operate in coastal areas and inland waterways, where emissions standards are stricter than on the high seas. Ferry operators, particularly in Europe, are investing substantial amounts in hybrid tech, so this segment is likely to grow extensively during the forecast period.

https://chargedevs.com/newswire/new-report-marine-hybrid-propulsion-market-to-reach-4-46-billion-by-2022/

[Sigmetnow]

Royal Navy ships are losing power because of warm seas

Britain's £1bn ($1.4bn) warships are losing power in the Persian Gulf because they cannot cope with the warm waters, MPs have been told.

Six Type 45 destroyers have repeatedly experienced power outages because of the temperatures, leaving servicemen in complete darkness.
...
Leahy told MPs that turbines do not generate as much power when they run in a hot environment, which is not recognized by the system.

"This is when you get your total electrical failure," Leahy explained.

"Suddenly, you have lost your main generator on your system and you are plunged into darkness."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/europe/britain-royal-navy-warships/index.html

[Sigmetnow]

Still going!

Solar Voyager’ autonomous boat looks to make history in sun-powered journey across the Atlantic

About 200 miles due east of Boston, a robotic boat is putting along at a walking pace on what could be an historic journey across the entire Atlantic. “Solar Voyager,” built by two friends in their spare time, would be the first autonomous vessel to cross that ocean — and the first one to cross any ocean using solar power alone.

http://techcrunch.com/2016/06/08/solar-voyager-autonomous-boat-looks-to-make-history-in-sun-powered-journey-across-the-atlantic/

[Sigmetnow]

A 91-inch (2.3 meters) solar-powered boat propelled itself successfully from California to Hawaii.  Now it's headed for New Zealand.

Seacharger: fully autonomous, solar-powered boat journeys across the Pacific
https://electrek.co/2016/08/22/seacharger-fully-autonomous-solar-powered-boat-journeys-across-the-pacific/

[Sigmetnow]

Green finance for dirty ships
New ways to foot the hefty bill for making old ships less polluting

SHIPPING may seem like a clean form of transport. Carrying more than 90% of the world’s trade, ocean-going vessels produce just 3% of its greenhouse-gas emissions. But the industry is dirtier than that makes it sound. By burning heavy fuel oil, just 15 of the biggest ships emit more oxides of nitrogen and sulphur—gases much worse for global warming than carbon dioxide—than all the world’s cars put together. So it is no surprise that shipowners are being forced to clean up their act. But in an industry awash in overcapacity and debt, few have access to the finance they need to improve their vessels. Innovative thinking is trying to change that....

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21718519-new-ways-foot-hefty-bill-making-old-ships-less-polluting-green-finance

[rboyd]

The sulphur emissions actually cause global dimming, the effect being amplified over the oceans that are relatively pristine. So cleaning up the sulphur emissions will actually increase the local level of warming.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/8217/2015/acp-15-8217-2015.pdf

[Paddy]

Nice article in the BBC today about the rise of lower carbon ferries in Norway and elsewhere: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39478856

[Sigmetnow]

With stronger storms and changing ocean dynamics in our future, will subterranean safe zones become more common?

Norway to Build World’s First Ship Tunnel to Bypass Part of Ocean

COPENHAGEN, Denmark — Norway plans to build the world's first tunnel for ships, a 5,610-feet passageway burrowed through a piece of rocky peninsula that will allow vessels to avoid a treacherous part of sea.

Construction of the Stad Ship Tunnel, which would be able to accommodate cruise and freight ships weighing up to 16,000 tons, is expected to open in 2023.

It will be 118 feet wide and 162 feet tall and is estimated to cost at least $314 million.
...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/norway-build-world-s-first-ship-tunnel-bypass-part-ocean-n743716

[Sigmetnow]

“Yara is financing the project to use the first boat for transport between its Porsgrunn plant to ports in Brevik and Larvik. Currently, more than 100 diesel trucks make the journeys every day and the vessel will be able to replace them all with a zero-emission solution.”

A new all-electric and autonomous cargo ship is planned for operation in 2018
https://electrek.co/2017/05/11/all-electric-autonomous-cargo-ship/

[Sigmetnow]

An arcane American law protected by powerful interests is causing insane traffic jams

For many Americans, the experience of driving on a coastal highway like Interstate 5 in California can be a nightmare of dodging massive trucks hauling cargo between US cities. In Europe, not so much.

That’s because for decades, European nations have turned to the sea rather than the road to transport goods across the continent. In fact, over 40% of Europe’s domestic freight is shipped along so-called motorways of the sea. In the US, a measly 2% of domestic freight distributed among the lower forty-eight states travels by water, even though half the population lives near the coast.

One big reason why is an obscure law, enacted right after World War 1, called the Jones Act, which preserves a monopoly for US-built, owned and operated ships to transport goods between US ports. ...

https://qz.com/1032288/how-a-100-year-old-american-law-helps-make-your-commute-miserable/

[numerobis]

I don't follow the logic much in the QZ article. I suspect something else in there is going on.

1. It seems to say that longshoremen are the powerful interest that wants to keep the Jones Act -- but why would they, they'd be having lots more jobs if it were repealed. Something doesn't add up.

2. It goes on and on and on about traffic on the coasts. It doesn't even attempt to analyze how much is due to goods that could be transported by sea between US ports. The US also has a lot of rail transport; anything that could go by boat is likely to be just as well going by rail.

3. In the picture that illustrates the articles, there's only one truck that *might* be replaced by a ship, maybe; the other trucks are local deliveries, and the vast bulk of the traffic jam are cars.

4. The aside about the price of milk in Hawaii is odd. You wouldn't send milk on a boat halfway across the Pacific anyway. Shipping it in a refrigerated container might be cheaper than flying, but upon arrival it would have little remaining shelf life.

5. Durable goods deliveries to Alaska, Hawaii, and the US territories would benefit -- and it would disproportionally benefit US-made goods. But they didn't make that argument. Why not?

[rboyd]

A proper carbon tax would fix this. Less imports to begin with, and much less of them by road. Then charge the truckers for all the road maintenance they cause, rather than have car drivers and the general tax payer subsidize them.

The impact on a road is approximately the square of the load on the axle, that's why trucks create the vast majority of the need for road maintenance.

[Sigmetnow]

I don't follow the logic much in the QZ article. I suspect something else in there is going on.

1. It seems to say that longshoremen are the powerful interest that wants to keep the Jones Act -- but why would they, they'd be having lots more jobs if it were repealed. Something doesn't add up.

2. It goes on and on and on about traffic on the coasts. It doesn't even attempt to analyze how much is due to goods that could be transported by sea between US ports. The US also has a lot of rail transport; anything that could go by boat is likely to be just as well going by rail.

3. In the picture that illustrates the articles, there's only one truck that *might* be replaced by a ship, maybe; the other trucks are local deliveries, and the vast bulk of the traffic jam are cars.

4. The aside about the price of milk in Hawaii is odd. You wouldn't send milk on a boat halfway across the Pacific anyway. Shipping it in a refrigerated container might be cheaper than flying, but upon arrival it would have little remaining shelf life.

5. Durable goods deliveries to Alaska, Hawaii, and the US territories would benefit -- and it would disproportionally benefit US-made goods. But they didn't make that argument. Why not?

It may not make much sense today, but it is a real thing:

Effects
The Jones Act prevents foreign-flagged ships from carrying cargo between the US mainland and noncontiguous parts of the US, such as Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam.[11] Foreign ships inbound with goods cannot stop any of these four locations, offload goods, load mainland-bound goods, and continue to US mainland ports. Instead, they must proceed directly to US mainland ports, where distributors break bulk and then send goods to US places off the mainland by US-flagged ships.[11] Jones Act restrictions can be circumvented by making a stop in a foreign country between two US ports, e.g., Anchorage–Vancouver–Seattle.

Shipbuilding
Because the Jones Act requires all transport between US ports be carried on US-built ships, the Jones Act supports the domestic US shipbuilding industry.[15][16] Critics of the act describe it as protectionist, harming the overall economy for the sake of benefiting narrow interests.[17][18] Other criticism argues that the Jones Act is an ineffective way to achieve this goal, claiming it drives up shipping costs, increases energy costs, stifles competition, and hampers innovation in the U.S. shipping industry[19] - however, multiple GAO reports have disputed these claims.[20]

National security
According to shipbuilder-funded lobby groups, the Jones Act is vital to national security and plays a vital role in safeguarding America's borders.[22][23] The Lexington Institute stated in its June 2016 study that the Jones Act plays a significant role in strengthening U.S. border security and helping to prevent international terrorism.[24] Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who has been lauded by the U.S. shipbuilding industry for his consistent support of their economic interests,[25] has written that the Jones Act is important to protect America's national security.[26]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920

[TerryM]

I recall problems they had delivering fuel to a number of Alaskan village locations a few years back when an early freeze meant that (unavailable) American built reinforced hulls were unexpectedly required.
Terry

[numerobis]

Here's the think-tank piece that the Quartz article is based on.
http://www.igms.org/sites/default/files/publishedworks/americas_deep_blue_highway_IGMS_report_sept_2008.pdf

It dates from 9 years ago!

Page 91 is the entirety of the data that supports the claim that traffic volumes would decline if there were more coastal transport. It reeks of a bad model, but there's not enough data there to really know the methodology (red flag: it ignores intrastate freight).

There's maps showing how coastal interstate traffic will change over the following decades. They show light traffic between coastal cities, and heavy traffic in coastal cities. That doesn't support the claim that using ships to move stuff between coastal cities is going to help -- it looks like it's the last mile that is causing all the traffic, and you can sail the last mile.

US-to-US coastal shipping seems like a great idea. Let's see some real data to support it, not propaganda.

[Bob Wallace]

If US coastal shipping made sense one would think we would have built the ships we need in US drydocks.   Shipping by water can be less expensive, look at the barge shipping down the Mississippi.  But ships are slow. Shipping seems to work with bulk materials where you can keep a constant supply underway between source and destination. 

The largest problem I can think of with the Jones Act is that it has held up offshore wind installation.  The US didn't have appropriate vessels for moving the blades (IIRC) and couldn't rent one from Europe.  I think we were able to use European installation vessels as long as they didn't haul parts from US docks to the wind farm.  (All that's off the top of my head, so you are forewarned.)

[numerobis]

The think-tank report disingenuously compares to planes and trucks -- but not to trains. US coastal shipping competes with rail more than anything (rail is also pretty slow and cheap; and it's largely US-crewed and US-built).

Interesting bit about driving up the cost of offshore wind. That's unfortunate.

[Bob Wallace]

US rail freight is fast compared to shipping.  Passenger rail can be slow because freight is given first access to rail and passenger trains have to yield to freight at times.

I don't think the Jones Act will make US offshore wind more expensive.  But it did apparently slow (is slowing?) initial offshore wind farms because (IIRC) a ship had to be modified to carry the large pieces.

It's looking like offshore wind is starting to take off.  There are now multiple offshore wind farms under development.

[Bob Wallace]

Worrying that I might be misleading folks by commenting from my faulty memory, I did a bit of reading on the Jones Act and offshore wind.  What I posted is correct, the Jones Act has made US offshore wind installation more difficult.  Here's an article that explains the Jones Act -

http://www.owjonline.com/news/view,working-with-the-jones-act-in-the-offshore-wind-industry_45102.htm

And it looks like the US will have its first Jones Act compliant jack-up installation vessel in operation next year.

http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/06/29/first-jones-act-offshore-wind-jack-up-coming-in-2018/

Notice that the new installation vessel will be able to carry the hardware for three installations onboard.  IIRC the foreign built installation vessel rented for the first turbines was allowed to do the installation but couldn't haul hardware.  A second vessel had to be hired to do the hauling to the site, slowing the work and increasing the cost.

Hopefully we'll have this foolishness out of the way soon.

[TerryM]

Worrying that I might be misleading folks by commenting from my faulty memory, I did a bit of reading on the Jones Act and offshore wind.  What I posted is correct, the Jones Act has made US offshore wind installation more difficult.  Here's an article that explains the Jones Act -

http://www.owjonline.com/news/view,working-with-the-jones-act-in-the-offshore-wind-industry_45102.htm

And it looks like the US will have its first Jones Act compliant jack-up installation vessel in operation next year.

http://www.offshorewind.biz/2017/06/29/first-jones-act-offshore-wind-jack-up-coming-in-2018/

Notice that the new installation vessel will be able to carry the hardware for three installations onboard.  IIRC the foreign built installation vessel rented for the first turbines was allowed to do the installation but couldn't haul hardware.  A second vessel had to be hired to do the hauling to the site, slowing the work and increasing the cost.

Hopefully we'll have this foolishness out of the way soon.

Is the foolishness you mention the Jones act itself? I don't see the present administration opening the country to foreign competition so possibly you're referring only to the specific problems that OS Turbines have highlighted.


Wasn't a part of Shell's fiasco in it's Arctic Drilling attempt due to Jones act restrictions? While we all cheered as Shell was driven from northern waters, we simultaneously groused about the problems that Alaskan villagers experienced trying to fill their generator tanks efficiently.


The answer isn't to have Louisiana shipyards building vessels for conditions they can't even imagine. The answer is to allow the market to provide the lowest cost solution, regardless of who might own or operate the ship.


Terry

[Bob Wallace]

Yes, the Jones Act restricts what shipping can be done with non-US vessels.

Is it likely that will be changed to accommodate the US offshore wind industry?  I doubt it.  Most likely we'll simply build the vessels we need.  I don't think Congress would risk bad PR from allowing foreign made/owned vessels taking business from US ships and ship-building facilities.  And that's not likely a real problem.  We've been building jack-up vessels for the oil industry, there will likely be only minor changes needed.

RE: Shell and the Jones Act.  I see online that a company Shell hired to tow their rig into place failed to get a Jones waver and was fined $10 million.

[Sigmetnow]

Two massive ferries are about to become the biggest all-electric ships in the world

Over the last year, ABB has been converting two of Sweden’s HH Ferries Group’s massive ferries from diesel engines to being completely battery-powered.

Now the ships are reportedly close to launching, which would likely make them the biggest all-electric ships in the world.
As we have often discussed in the past, all modes of transportation are gradually being converted to electric propulsion and that includes maritime transport.

Ferries are a perfect place to start since they often travel only short distances and stay for relatively long periods of time at the same ports, where they can be charged.

The HH Ferries Group’s two ferries, the Tycho Brahe and the Aurora, operate a 4-km (2.5 miles) ferry route between Helsingborg (Sweden) and Helsingör (Denmark). Therefore, the route that they are converting to all-electric transport is not exactly impressive, but the actual ships themselves are something.

They are 238 meters long (780 ft) and weight 8,414 tonnes. They carry 7.4 million passengers and 1.9 million vehicles annually.

Those are incredibly large machines to power with electricity, but it’s worth it economically for the savings on diesel and environmentally to slash local emissions. They are already similar ferry routes going electric, but nothing of this magnitude in term of size. ...

https://electrek.co/2017/08/24/all-electric-ferries-abb/

[TerryM]

Electrical ferries are a reasonable place to start when cleaning up nautical emissions. I've read of hybrid ships relying on batteries for their in harbor maneuvering, then back to diesel for the open seas. This might do more to clean up localized smog than global CO2, but it all helps.
Terry

[numerobis]

incredibly large machines to power with electricity

Le sigh.

I keep seeing this assumption that electric motors are weak. The truth is completely the reverse, but the meme never dies.

Of *course* you're going to power a large ship with electricity. The only question is how to get the electricity to the engines. It's new that batteries are worth using for that purpose.

[gerontocrat]

Two massive ferries are about to become the biggest all-electric ships in the world

Over the last year, ABB has been converting two of Sweden’s HH Ferries Group’s massive ferries from diesel engines to being completely battery-powered.

Ferries are a perfect place to start since they often travel only short distances and stay for relatively long periods of time at the same ports, where they can be charged.

They are 238 meters long (780 ft) and weight 8,414 tonnes. They carry 7.4 million passengers and 1.9 million vehicles annually.[/color]

Those are incredibly large machines to power with electricity, but it’s worth it economically for the savings on diesel and environmentally to slash local emissions. They are already similar ferry routes going electric, but nothing of this magnitude in term of size. ...

https://electrek.co/2017/08/24/all-electric-ferries-abb/

Being a bit bored today I thought I would have a look at power required to drive ships using some numbers. Arithmetic rules, OK?
So I compared that new LNG icebreaker / carrier with the Tesla Model S. The Tesla has 150 kilowatts of drive per tonne gross weight. The Christophe de Margerie has 0.5 kw (i.e. 500 Watts) of drive power per tonne.
The killer is range - the Tesla with about 500 kms per (battery) tank-full, the Tanker with at least 25,000 kms. If (which is is not true) a simple scaling up of power was possible, the tanker would require a power-pack of about 5,000 tonnes. Offsetting this is the average load of diesel fuel carried and the the average LNG used per trip.

However, a 50 tonne powerpack might be sufficient for a 10,000 tonne ship with a maximum of 3,000 kms between electricity refills.

I wonder if ABB would tell us what the weight of the powerpacks in the ferries are and the fuel weight saved?

I attach a table below - some of the figures are imprecise but reasonably close. I fully expect my arithmetic to be full of holes.