Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Ships and boats  (Read 42801 times)

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1332
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 228
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #200 on: October 06, 2019, 09:09:30 PM »
Shipping companies have a history of being pretty nasty capitalists, doing pretty much anything to save money, so them "cheating" on low sulphur fuel requirements does not surprise me.

The reduction in airborne sulphur emissions from ships will actually increase the rate of climate change by reducing the albedo. Those sulphur particles turn into SO2 in the atmosphere, which reflect sunlight away from Earth. In the relative pristine air of the oceans even small amounts of SO2 can make a big difference to albedo. It has even been proposed that ships should burn dirtier fossil fuel mixes to increase the albedo effect.

Maritime shipping and emissions: A three-layered, damage-based approach (In Ocean Engineering

Abstract

Quote
Policy emphasis in ship design must be shifted away from global and idealized towards regional based and realistic vessel operating conditions. The present approach to reducing shipping emissions through technical standards tends to neglect how damages and abatement opportunities vary according to location and operational conditions. Since environmental policy originates in damages relating to ecosystems and jurisdictions, a three-layered approach to vessel emissions is intuitive and practical. Here, we suggest associating damages and policies with ports, coastal areas possibly defined as Emission Control Areas (ECA) as in the North Sea and the Baltic, and open seas globally. This approach offers important practical opportunities: in ports, clean fuels or even electrification is possible; in ECAs, cleaner fuels and penalties for damaging fuels are important, but so is vessel handling, such as speeds and utilization. Globally we argue that it may be desirable to allow burning very dirty fuels at high seas, due to the cost advantages, the climate cooling benefits, and the limited ecosystem impacts. We quantify the benefits and cost savings from reforming current IMO and other approaches towards environmental management with a three-layered approach, and argue it is feasible and worth considering.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029801815005016

vox_mundi

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4976
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2599
  • Likes Given: 385
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #201 on: October 13, 2019, 12:24:01 AM »
Why Lightning Strikes Twice as Often Over Shipping Lanes
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/why-lightning-strikes-twice-as-often-over-shipping-lanes/



Thunderstorms directly above two of the world’s busiest shipping lanes are significantly more powerful than storms in areas of the ocean where ships don’t travel, according to new University of Washington research.

... Under normal conditions, microscopic water droplets in the air grab onto “cloud condensation nuclei,” which are aerosol particles bigger than 50 nanometers, like a bit of dust, or sulphur dioxide. When few particles are present, each one picks up more droplets, and they coalesce into relatively short clouds at low altitudes. Those make rain. When a lot of aerosol particles are present, each one gets fewer droplets and can float high enough into the atmosphere to freeze. In the resulting tall clouds, those bits of ice and slush run into each other and transfer electric charges. The differences in charge creates an electric field, which results in lightning.

The official term for this is “aerosol convective invigoration.” Thornton also calls it “catalyzing lightning.” You just need to know that more particles means more lightning, and burning fossil fuels is a reliable way to make those particles. Ships are especially culpable because they use bunker fuel to get from port to port. Made from the dark, viscous stuff that’s left at the bottom of the barrel after the comparatively ethereal gasoline, jet fuel, and kerosene have been distilled off, it contains about 3,500 times as much sulphur as automotive diesel. The world’s fleet burns some 3.3 million barrels of it daily. (At least until December 31—more on that in a flash.)

For the 2017 study, Thornton and his coauthors pulled data on 1.5 × 10^9 individual strokes (aka discharges) between 2005 and 2016 from the World Wide Lightning Location Network. They compared that to data from the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research, which makes detailed estimates on how much pollution ships create based on real-time info. Then, in 2018, University of Washington researchers Peter Blossey and Christopher Bretherton followed up by using a computer simulation to measure the effect of ship emissions in the Indian Ocean on cloud creation, in response to the 2017 study. With support from Thronton and Virts (now at NASA), they found effects on thunderstorms that lined up with the original study.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL074982

-------------------------

Thousands of Ships Fitted With “Cheat Devices” to Divert Poisonous Pollution Into Sea
https://desdemonadespair.net/2019/10/thousands-of-ships-fitted-with-cheat-devices-to-divert-poisonous-pollution-into-sea-in-the-north-sea-and-some-parts-of-the-channel-the-water-quality-has-already-b.html



Diagram showing an open-loop Marine Exhaust Gas Cleaning System that removes sulfur and nitrogen compounds from a ship’s engine exhaust and dumps them into the surrounding water. Graphic: Tritech Engineers

Quote
... “In the North Sea and some parts of the Channel, the water quality has already been heavily degraded”
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1266
  • Likes Given: 1168
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #202 on: October 13, 2019, 09:02:32 PM »
Interesting part about the lightning.

We clearly need some new global standards for shipping.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18873
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 845
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #203 on: October 15, 2019, 09:21:36 PM »
“Here’s a question for you: why did the US Office of Fossil Energy tweet out a Happy Columbus Day message on Columbus Day? Who knows! Whatever the motive, they did remind everybody that Columbus traveled across the seas, which doesn’t have much to do with fossil energy. However, the topic of seacraft does call to mind that fossil energy is on the verge of losing its grip on the global cargo shipping sector, partly because a new wind power renaissance is taking hold.”

Wind Power Returns To Oceangoing Cargo Ships, Finally
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/10/15/wind-power-returns-to-oceangoing-cargo-ships-finally/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #204 on: October 15, 2019, 09:51:51 PM »
^^
Why did the US Office of Fossil Fuel Energy tweet out a Happy Columbus Day message on Columbus Day?


They'd have been laughed at if they tweeted out a Happy New Years message on Columbus Day.
They'd have been ridiculed if they tweeted out a Happy Columbus Day on Christmas Day.


Because no one remembers Vespucci?
'Cause no one admits that the Vikings got there first?
No one in the office can pronounce Zheng.
Otherwise they'd need to explain the Welsh speaking Indian tribes.
Because the Phoenicians Came First is a conspiracy theory.


Otherwise Ohio might succeed.


So many answers, so little time.
Terry ;)

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1266
  • Likes Given: 1168
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #205 on: January 20, 2020, 12:11:38 PM »
Low sulphur fuel found to have higher black carbon emissions than HSFO

Mandated into law for less than three weeks and very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO), shipping’s new number one bunkering choice, is already facing calls to be banned, especially in Arctic waters.

A submission made by Finland and Germany to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) suggests VLSFO has higher black carbon emissions than its forebear, high sulphur fuel oil (HSFO).

...

“New hybrid fuels with 0.50% sulphur content used in the study contained a high proportion of aromatic compounds in a range of 70% to 95%, which resulted in increased [black carbon] emissions in a range of 10% to 85% compared to HFO,” the study claimed. The higher emissions were most noticeable when the engine was running at less than full capacity.

...

The black carbon news has quickly seen a number of NGOs call for VLSFO found to have high aromatic contents to be banned for ships transiting Artic waters.

https://splash247.com/low-sulphur-fuel-found-to-have-higher-black-carbon-emissions-than-hsfo/
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1332
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 228
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #206 on: January 26, 2020, 12:58:01 AM »
So less climate cooling from the reduction in sulphate aerosols and more climate warming from black carbon emissions - could they have made this any worse for the climate?

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #207 on: January 27, 2020, 02:11:42 AM »
I've been meaning to review this for a while.  I was reading about the Norwegian ferries which can sail for 22 minutes on their massive battery load.  They also need a huge power station to recharge in the 30 minute turnaround window.

So I wondered what the equivalent would be for the largest container ships plying between Shanghai and Rotterdam (most common route via the suez canal).

That journey takes approx. 24 days at around 20knots and these ships are rated at around TEU18,000

Looking at the fuel consumption chart

https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=5955

I took a conservative figure at 250 tons of bunker fuel per day at 20 knots.

For 24 days I make that 6,000 tonnes of bunker fuel.  If I assume bunker fuel has the same energy as diesel (it has more), then I get 60gwh of energy burned.

Now assuming that our lithium ion batteries have a power density of 270wh/kg, this gives me 222,222 tonnes of weight.

I shall now assume that electric is half the power consumption of these huge marine engines (it is not, the marine engines give the highest thermal efficiency of all ICE's), then I get down to 111 thousand tonnes.

The DWT of these ships is around 196,000 tonnes.

At which point we need to go back to the drawing board.  Because each ship would require a power station capable of powering around 50,000 homes and would need to charge for the whole week it takes to turn them around and it would carry less than half the cargo.

Personally I think the Chinese idea of a trans Asia-Europe electrified rail line is going to be critical if we want to get rid of shipping emissions.

Of course if we could get energy density up to 600wh/kg it might be feasible.  Just.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6687
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2459
  • Likes Given: 2174
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #208 on: January 27, 2020, 04:56:27 AM »
Obviously, for a short route ferry it makes perfect sense to go battery-electric, for a 24-day cargo ship it makes zero sense.
Some ideas that have been thrown around in the past here - add solar panels to the ship (not enough energy, but nice idea and can add range), and use wind power with sails (has been used successfully for centuries, but would mean much slower journey even with battery backup). An electric rail line is a good idea, though not sure if feasible or economical.
Of course the best solution is to reduce global shipping of frivolities, and to place necessary production nearer to consumption, but these are systemic issues, easier said than done.

bluice

  • Guest
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #209 on: January 27, 2020, 06:43:51 AM »
Unfortunately volumewise rail plays in a different league than the ultra large container vessels. A standard container freight train from China to Europe takes 41 x 40’foot sea containers, 82 TEU, whereas ships carry 18-20000 TEU. Rail is faster but cost is 3-4 x ocean freight despite China subsidizing westbound rail freight by as much as 50%.

So they are different products for different needs. To certain extent rail competes with air freight also.

Ocean is an efficient way to move large amounts of cargo for great distancies, calculated by energy consumption per unit. 18k TEU is truly a massive amount. We should find a way to decarbonize the ships. That should be doable technically, because every known energy source, with the likely exception of solar, has been used to power ships in large scale.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10457
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3942
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #210 on: January 27, 2020, 06:28:04 PM »
Ocean is an efficient way to move large amounts of cargo for great distancies, calculated by energy consumption per unit. 18k TEU is truly a massive amount. We should find a way to decarbonize the ships. That should be doable technically, because every known energy source, with the likely exception of solar, has been used to power ships in large scale.
If, a big if, overbuild on wind & solar in a country or 2, meant loads of spare energy to electrolyse water for H2, there might be a case of using hydrogen as the power source for large ships.

Despite the really stupid (venomous?) Government currently in charge, Australia has made an uncertain step or two in developing a hydrogen industry.

Yet another instance showing how Australia could / should be a flagship nation in the transition to a carbon-free economy.

https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/australias-national-hydrogen-strategy.pdf
AUSTRALIA'S NATIONAL HYDROGEN STRATEGY - © Commonwealth of Australia 2019
Quote
FOREWORD
As the Commonwealth Ministers representing Australia's energy and resources sectors, we are
pleased to present Australia's National Hydrogen Strategy.

Technological developments that support energy affordability, improve energy system reliability
and contribute to long-term emissions reductions will be vital as global energy markets continue to evolve. Hydrogen is one of the many tools that can help us on this evolution and Australia is in a unique position to maximise on this opportunity.

The development of our hydrogen resources could enhance Australia's energy security, create
Australian jobs and build an export industry valued in the billions. We have all the pieces needed to create this new industry and supply clean hydrogen to the world: the energy resources, expertise, and infrastructure.

This Strategy sets a path to build Australia's hydrogen industry. We plan to accelerate the
commercialisation of hydrogen, reduce technical uncertainties and build up our domestic supply
chains and production capabilities. The Strategy looks to initially concentrate hydrogen use in niche hubs that will foster domestic demand. A strong domestic hydrogen sector will underpin Australia's exporting capabilities, allowing us to become a leading global hydrogen player.

The Australian Government has already committed over $146 million to hydrogen projects. These
projects will help us learn more about how hydrogen can form part of Australia's energy mix to
help drive down prices and emissions, as well as provide a foundation of expertise to build a
competitive export industry.

Every state and territory in Australia has regions with excellent prospects for hydrogen production. Through this Strategy, all of Australia's governments are committing to remove barriers to industry development. This includes through nationally consistent and smart regulation, enhanced engagement with customer countries, and in ensuring safety concerns are addressed. The Australian Government will track progress and monitor emerging industry changes here and overseas so that all jurisdictions can respond to market developments.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2020, 07:38:28 PM by gerontocrat »
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #211 on: January 28, 2020, 06:23:21 AM »
I believe LNG has been proposed for heavy shipping in the polar route, at least by Russia. Their extant atomic icebreakers leave the door open for nuclear powered super cargo ships should the economics ever make sense.


The fleet of atomic icebreakers is still expanding & the technology has proven itself over time.
Terry

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1266
  • Likes Given: 1168
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #212 on: April 01, 2020, 10:45:07 AM »
Ships' emissions create measurable regional change in clouds

Years of cloud data over a shipping route between Europe and South Africa shows that pollution from ships has significantly increased the reflectivity of the clouds. More generally, the results suggest that industrial pollution's effect on clouds has masked about a third of the warming due to fossil fuel burning since the late 1800s.

A container ship leaves a trail of white clouds in its wake that can linger in the air for hours. This puffy line is not just exhaust from the engine, but a change in the clouds that's caused by small airborne particles of pollution.

New research led by the University of Washington is the first to measure this phenomenon's effect over years and at a regional scale. Satellite data over a shipping lane in the south Atlantic show that the ships modify clouds to block an additional 2 Watts of solar energy, on average, from reaching each square meter of ocean surface near the shipping lane.

The result implies that globally, cloud changes caused by particles from all forms of industrial pollution block 1 Watt of solar energy per square meter of Earth's surface, masking almost a third of the present-day warming from greenhouse gases. The open-access study was published March 24 in AGU Advances, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

...

Averaged globally, they found changes in low clouds due to pollution from all sources block 1 Watt per square meter of solar energy -- compared to the roughly 3 Watts per square meter trapped today by the greenhouse gases also emitted by industrial activities. In other words, without the cooling effect of pollution-seeded clouds, Earth might have already warmed by 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 F), a change that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects would have significant societal impacts. (For comparison, today the Earth is estimated to have warmed by approximately 1 C (1.8 F) since the late 1800s.)

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200324102705.htm

Substantial Cloud Brightening From Shipping in Subtropical Low Clouds (Open Access):
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019AV000111
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

interstitial

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 899
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #213 on: April 01, 2020, 11:43:25 AM »
While I certainly see how hydrogen can fill a gap in the portfolio of renewable energy. I worry about it because 99% of hydrogen currently made is from coal or  methane. The process for making green hydrogen is currently only about 30% efficient. That is too much wasted energy to be considered storage imho.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-reality-behind-green-hydrogens-soaring-hype
The article says they hope to eventually get to 80% efficient. Not really sure how realistic that is but it is not current technology. What is more likely imho is so called blue hydrogen. They make by steam reforming methane and capturing the co2 for storage. If you ask me this is the real motivation behind hydrogen they want to extend uses for natural gas.
They make a few green hydrogen test facilities and start to set up the hydrogen infrastructure using green energy government money. Then when it starts to take hold they provide cheaper polluting hydrogen for much cheaper. They continue to build the infrastructure on the public dime all the while selling the environmental benefit of green hydrogen. But few buy the green hydrogen because it is too expensive.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18873
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 845
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #214 on: June 19, 2020, 07:46:43 PM »
Carnival Starts Selling Its Ships to Reduce Costs
Six vessels will be sold off first, with more to follow.
Quote
Still battling the economic riptides and shoals of the COVID-19 pandemic, Carnival (NYSE:CCL) is currently in the process of selling six of its cruise ships and intends to divest itself of more, according to an update today. The troubled cruise line is attempting to cut costs as sailing dates get postponed and bookings fail to rebound quickly to pre-coronavirus levels.

Maintaining cruise ships in operation is a costly matter, with expenses running at around $1 billion per month when the whole fleet is operational versus $250 million monthly when docked and shut down. Currently, about 60% of Carnival's fleet is paused, with the remainder still on the ocean, though the situation is somewhat improved from mid-May when 100,000 cruise line employees were trapped at sea. ...
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/06/18/carnival-starts-selling-its-ships-to-reduce-costs.aspx
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Freegrass

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1738
  • None but ourselves can free our minds...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 537
  • Likes Given: 774
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #215 on: June 19, 2020, 07:54:54 PM »
Carnival Starts Selling Its Ships to Reduce Costs
Six vessels will be sold off first, with more to follow.
Quote
Still battling the economic riptides and shoals of the COVID-19 pandemic, Carnival (NYSE:CCL) is currently in the process of selling six of its cruise ships and intends to divest itself of more, according to an update today. The troubled cruise line is attempting to cut costs as sailing dates get postponed and bookings fail to rebound quickly to pre-coronavirus levels.

Maintaining cruise ships in operation is a costly matter, with expenses running at around $1 billion per month when the whole fleet is operational versus $250 million monthly when docked and shut down. Currently, about 60% of Carnival's fleet is paused, with the remainder still on the ocean, though the situation is somewhat improved from mid-May when 100,000 cruise line employees were trapped at sea. ...
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/06/18/carnival-starts-selling-its-ships-to-reduce-costs.aspx
They would make a great reef for fish... I hope that entire industry collapses.
And so we pray...

When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again...

interstitial

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 899
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #216 on: June 19, 2020, 09:58:04 PM »
I can't imagine who would buy them right now.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18873
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 845
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #217 on: September 12, 2020, 03:26:38 AM »
Testing begins on an autonomous ‘Mayflower’ ship ahead of its Atlantic voyage
Quote
LONDON — Humans aren't the only ones to have had their travel plans ruined by the coronavirus. A robot-powered boat that was due to cross the Atlantic this month has been forced to delay its voyage until next April after the virus caused complications in its development.

The autonomous 15-meter trimaran has been built to push the boundaries of autonomous shipping while gathering scientific data on the ocean. The Mayflower Autonomous Research Ship (MAS for short) is being led by marine research organization ProMare, while IBM is the main technology partner.

The solar-powered vessel is set to start trials off the south coast of England in the coming weeks and it will be officially unveiled on Sep. 16, the 400th anniversary of the Mayflower departure in 1620. After that, it will go on several voyages and missions over the next six months ahead of a transatlantic voyage in April 2021.

During that transatlantic crossing, the ultramodern ship will broadly retrace the Mayflower's original route from Plymouth to Cape Cod's Provincetown.
...
The future of autonomous shipping
In many ways, IBM is testing the water for the future of autonomous shipping with the Mayflower.

Allied Market Research thinks the autonomous shipping market could be a $135 billion industry by 2030 and IBM is weighing up where and how its technology can be used.

Stanford-Clark believes that AI captains could be used to "look over the shoulder" of a human captain.

"That same technology that we're putting in Mayflower will also be able to operate in a guardian angel sort of mode," he said, adding that there's a huge amount of interest in this technology from big shipping companies.

He believes there's a "big opportunity" for container ships to become autonomous in the future, adding that it would help to keep supply chains open during pandemics.  ...
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/09/10/testing-begins-on-autonomous-mayflower-ship-ahead-of-atlantic-voyage.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

vox_mundi

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4976
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2599
  • Likes Given: 385
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #218 on: September 18, 2020, 08:11:26 PM »

https://www.walleniusmarine.com/blog/ship-design-newbulding/introducing-oceanbird/

Oceanbird Cargo Ship Relies On Wind to Transport Autos
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-09-oceanbird-cargo-ship-autos.html

... A Swedish company, Wallenius Marine, announced last week plans to build a sleek-looking wind-powered car and truck carrier ship that can haul 7,000 vehicles at a time. The ship, named Oceanbird, will sport five 260-foot retractable sails composed of metal and composite materials. The sails can be lowered to 66 feet to pass under bridges or accommodate changing wind conditions. Upon completion, the 650-foot-long, 130-foot-wide ship will hold the distinction of being the world's largest sailing vessel.

The Oceanbird can travel at an average speed of 10 knots. That is a bit slower than conventional vessels, but cruising with the wind means it can eliminate emissions by 90 percent.



... When asked why the company was willing to share so many details about construction of the ship, Tunell replied, "It is not a competition, but rather a direction we all need to take. By being transparent in the process, we want to inspire others to test the limit to what is possible… We need to make a change and it just can't wait anymore."

https://www.walleniusmarine.com/blog/ship-design-newbulding/introducing-oceanbird/
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1266
  • Likes Given: 1168
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #219 on: January 20, 2021, 08:01:26 PM »
Calls Grow For Full Investigation Into BP-Linked Fuel Causing Ship Incidents Around World

Leading environmental and marine worker groups are calling for a full and urgent investigation into a growing ship fuel scandal that is affecting 70% of major ocean-bound ships.

This follows an article in Forbes on December 21, that revealed that a toxic ‘Frankenstein Fuel’ was the reason for the large cover up surrounding the Mauritius oil spill last year. This experimental new type of ship fuel, called VLSFO, was powering the giant Japanese Bulk Carrier, the Wakashio, and it has since transpired that this fuel was supplied by BP. Not only was this fuel faulty, but it was discovered last year to release higher greenhouse gas emissions, not lower.

BP did not admit it was the source of the fuel until last week, and has refused to supply a sample of the fuel for independent analysis despite being formally requested to by authorities in August.

The ship fuel scandal came to light following the oil spill on Mauritius in the summer, and is now seen as a leading root cause of the incident. The low-sulfur VLSFO ship fuel had been rushed into global shipping in January 2020 by the UN shipping regulator - the International Maritime Organization (IMO) - as a way to avoid criticism for the industry seeking to escape from the Paris Climate Agreement. Greenpeace has been calling for justice and a full investigation into the use of VLSFO on ships, as other ocean groups like Ocean Rebellion have called for BP to come clean with what was in its oil that was spilled along the coral reefs of Mauritius.

Major environmental and labor organizations, such as the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF), environmental groups such as the European Federation for Transport and Environment, the Clean Arctic Alliance, Ocean Conservancy, Pacific Environment have all claimed that the dangers and risks of low sulfur fuel were well known but that their concerns were ignored by the shipping industry, the oil industry and the international regulator, the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The world’s largest ship engine manufacturers such as Wärtsilä Marine Power, MAN Energy Solutions and even Chevron Lubricants that provide essential lubricants for ship engines have been warning that the way these new low-sulfur fuels were handled in ships needed to meet ship manufacturer safety standards, but often this was not being done and poorly monitored. It meant that ship crews were essentially being asked to perform giant chemistry experiments in the middle of the ocean, to try and get the fuel to work, causing significant risk to themselves and the environment. At least 3600 ships could be at risk at any one moment, with industry analysts at last October CMA Shipping Conference saying these numbers are likely to be much higher.

Interviews with Government regulators around the world also reveals that no major Government is regularly sampling, testing or monitoring the VLSFO ship fuel now in use by 70% of ships around the world. This means the oil and shipping industry has been allowed to collude to put out experimental fuels that put the ocean, coastal communities and seafarers’ lives at risk, without any external oversight or safeguards, as the island of Mauritius discovered last August.

This ship fuel is now suspected for a series of ship engine failures around the world, as industry reports reveal ship engine incidents have significantly increased since the introduction of VLSFO last year at the insistence of the Secretary General of the UN’s IMO, Kitack Lim.

...

The ITF went on to say they were concerned about the health impact of chemicals being introduced onto ships without adequate safety measures for crews. “What we are most concerned about are the chemicals that are substituted or should be added to new blended fuels to replace the lubricating effect of sulfur. Many of these chemicals are in fact life-threatening and pose serious risks for crews that come in contact with or breathe them in. We also know that these kind of fuels also require higher pressures and temperatures, which pose an additional risk to seafarers’ safety.”

...

The European Federation for Transport and Environment is one of the most influential transportation and environment bodies working at the level of the EU.

Lucy Gilliam who works in aviation and shipping for Environment and Transport, expressed concerns about how difficult VLSFO fuels would be to clean up in the event of an oil spill. She explained there were several viable alternatives to achieve less polluting ship fuels, and repeated calls that the global shipping needed to be more transparent about what was in the new fuel blends being put into ships around the world.

“We are concerned about LSHFO [low-sulfur ship fuels] because these fuels appear similar to HFO [Heavy Fuel Oil] when spilled as we have seen with the Wakashio spill. The Wakashio disaster is a disaster because of the type of oil spilled. Clearly LSHFO is extremely difficult to clean up and toxic to environment just like HFO. It also appears that some LSHFO are similar or worse in terms of Black Carbon Emissions (a potent climate forcing particulate) when combusted.

...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nishandegnarain/2021/01/20/calls-grow-for-full-investigation-into-bp-linked-fuel-causing-ship-incidents-around-world
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

blu_ice

  • New ice
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #220 on: January 21, 2021, 08:29:49 PM »
Skou: Maersk will order first carbon-neutral ships within the next three years

Søren Skou, the CEO of AP Moller-Maersk, the group that controls the largest containerline in the world, has mapped out when he will put pen to paper to order the company’s first carbon-neutral ships.

Speaking in the latest episode of the Outrage and Optimism podcast, which focused on the future of shipping, Skou said Maersk would order carbon-neutral ships within the next three years, starting off with smaller tonnage ships aimed at regional trades, before taking the knowledge and experience from this landmark first generation of new ships to order a round of larger boxships.

“Three years from now, we expect to buy the first order,” Skou said, saying the initial series would be smaller ships that can operate in a defined geographical area, likely Europe.

“Then we can go out and make supply contracts with people that can provide, whether it’s ammonia or alcohol, methanol and ethanol,” Skou continued, saying the aim was then to order larger carbon-neutral ships before the end of the decade.

Maersk has eschewed new orders lately and has avoided going down the LNG-fuelled path of many of its rivals.

In December 2018, Maersk came out as the first major shipping line to pledge to be carbon neutral by 2050.

In October 2019 the Danish carrier identified three fuels to focus on in its decarbonisation drive, namely renewable methanol, biogas and ammonia.

“A ship has a life expectancy of between 20 and 25 years, so we need to start replacing ships by 2030 in order to be ready at 2050,” Skou told the podcast.

“This is really very encouraging, it’s just the level of ambition and commitment we need to see across the whole industry. It makes perfect commercial sense so I’d hope to see other shipping companies joining the race. What we really need is real zero emissions vessels in operation by 2030 to avoid catastrophic climate change,” Di Gilpin from the UK-based Smart Green Shipping Alliance told Splash today.

Greg Atkinson from Japan’s Eco Marine Power took issue with the terminology carbon neutral when contacted by Splash.

“Carbon neutral is a pretty vague term but if they mean CO2 neutral then this seems feasible depending on the size of the ship,” Atkinson said.

“The industry has come together to work on the decarbonisation issue, which requires collaboration across the value chain – from the fuel suppliers to the classification societies to the ports and shipowners,” commented Andrew Stephens, the executive director of the Sustainable Shipping Initiative.

“First movers are an essential part of this chain, investing into R&D for sustainable zero carbon fuels and setting their ambitions above what is expected and leading the way. We need industry leaders like Maersk to share research and learnings to enable and accelerate the industry’s transition to zero emissions,” Stephens said.

Last July, Maersk joined the likes of Nike and Mercedes-Benz as one of the nine founding signatories to the Transform to Net Zero initiative, which intends to develop and deliver research, guidance, and implementable roadmaps to enable all businesses to achieve net zero emissions.

Last month the European Commission presented its transport initiatives for the coming four years as part of longer terms plans to decarbonise the sector.

Under new goals set by Brussels, by 2030 zero-emission marine vessels will be market-ready with ports in a position to supply the requisite new fuel, and carbon pricing in place to ensure there is a strong uptake of these new vessels.

https://splash247.com/skou-maersk-will-order-first-carbon-neutral-ships-within-the-next-three-years/

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18873
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 845
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #221 on: February 12, 2021, 04:37:14 PM »
“The entire leisure sector looks like it is sinking.”
Quote
Without any real indication of when cruise ships will begin sailing again, Berenberg analyst Stuart Gordon believes Carnival is in an untenable situation, one he says is "unsustainable."

Because service remains suspended, there's no timetable for when it will be able to resume service at meaningful levels. That plus Carnival's surging levels of debt led Gordon to downgrade the cruise line leader to sell from hold....
...
It's becoming a dire situation for the industry, and despite delaying cruises for months more, some ports of call are making the situation worse. Canada just said all cruises from its ports are canceled until March 2022.

It makes it difficult to see how small cruise lines can stay afloat when even the largest like Carnival have to keep borrowing money just to keep ships maintained. It is also dry docking ships for renovation ahead of schedule since they're not sailing anytime soon.

It's not just Carnival that Gordon sees being hurt. He told investors in a research note he is "negatively disposed" to the entire leisure industry.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/02/12/carnival-downgraded-to-sell-with-30-decline-in-sto/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18873
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 845
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #222 on: February 24, 2021, 01:29:43 AM »
Electric tanker ship to be powered by a 3.5 MWh battery pack
 February 22, 2021
Quote
Cargo ships, powered by heavy fuel oil with a high sulfur content, are some of the largest and most polluting vehicles on the planet, so electrifying them could be very cost-effective in terms of reducing air pollution.

Last year, a consortium of Japanese companies announced a collaboration to develop an all-electric oil tanker. Now Asahi Tanker has ordered two of the new electric tankers, and plans to put them into operation as soon as March 2022 and March 2023. The first of the electric tanker ships is now under construction, and it will be equipped with a massive 3.5 MWh battery pack.

Ironically, the all-electric vessels will be used to carry fuels for other vessels in coastal areas of Japan. ...
https://chargedevs.com/newswire/electric-tanker-ship-to-be-powered-by-a-3-5-mwh-battery-pack/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #223 on: February 25, 2021, 12:04:41 PM »
Looking at ULCC it seems feasible. But the stats are daunting.

A ULCC at cruise speeds uses 1,5gw/h per day of fuel energy.  Cruises for long distance crude shipping are around 20 days or so.  Given that a ULCC uses around 141 tons of fuel a day and, assuming 320wh/kg and an efficiency gain of 40% for electric, a ULCC would need around 931 tons of Li a day.

All other concerns aside, that seems feasible.  What it does for renewal costs, battery maintenance and other considerations is interesting.

That 20 day cruise at 141 tonnes per day for 20 days at $603 per tonne costs $1.7m.  The equivalent 18.6gw/h at around $35 per MW/h gives a cost of around $651k.

So why are we not doing it?

Here is the killer.

The sheer size of the battery reduces the crude carrying capacity, but not hugely appreciably.  But an 18.6GW/h battery at $50 per kw/h costs around $930m. And these figures were based on a power density double the current Tesla

Which puts an end to that as ULCC's complete are around $120m to buy.

Leaving us with alternatives to fossil fuel for our huge ICE's.  Because $50 per kw/h is way in the future and it would still take some 40 years to recover the additional cost.

At this point we have to wonder about flow batteries, but they have an even larger volume footprint than Li and lower power density.

It is something to look at though.

If anything in my maths is off, it was my spreadsheet, honest...  :)
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Iain

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #224 on: February 25, 2021, 02:45:47 PM »
Going at Half the speed reduces energy required per mile to one quarter, power required to one eighth

(There is a V^2 term in the drag equation) neglect wave-making for now

That would make a big difference to the capital cost, half a big difference to the utilisation (hence payback) of the vessel.
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6687
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2459
  • Likes Given: 2174
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #225 on: February 25, 2021, 03:23:01 PM »
NeilT, did you notice the news item referred to a local tanker used in fueling other vessels?

In any case, a huge battery for a 20 day trip of a heavy cargo ship or tanker doesn't make much economic sense. Batteries need to be cycled often to recoup their initial investment. Better to use a synthetic fuel produced using electricity. Of course, slowing cruising speeds and potentially adding smart sails and a solar canopy can reduce the overall energy requirements.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #226 on: February 25, 2021, 03:55:21 PM »
NeilT, did you notice the news item referred to a local tanker used in fueling other vessels?


I did, but there is a real need to reduce the leviathan's on the waves, they emit huge amounts of pollution.

All the mitigation in the world is not going to make this much cheaper.

Certainly reducing speed reduces resistance and fuel consumed.  As does going hydrofoil, the supertanker dream of the 70's.  But unlike the hydrofoil, reducing speed by half means a 40 day, or more, journey from China to Rotterdam.  80 days return. With only 365 days in the year, you pretty soon run out of year.

Like many things, you dip your toe in the water with smaller test cases.  But when you want to scale up you need to look at the real problem to scaling.  Just ask Elon, I'm sure he'll give you chapter and verse.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

blu_ice

  • New ice
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #227 on: February 25, 2021, 04:40:11 PM »
Oil tankers are not very fast to begin with. Container vessels were much faster but adopted https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming practices just before the financial crisis to cut high bunker costs at the time.

Nowadays container transit times are longer than fifteen years ago and new vessels are designed to lower cruise speeds.

There’s an obvious downside. Slower speed means more time at sea which means higher personnel and capital cost and less chargeable voyages.

Iain

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #228 on: February 25, 2021, 04:42:13 PM »
There is an opportunity at Suez and Panama for recharging

Or for tenders to charge their batteries in port then charge the tanker / bulk carrier offshore.

There is trans Pacific / Atlantic traffic, but also a lot of coastal shipping:

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-29.2/centery:3.0/zoom:2
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton

vox_mundi

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4976
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2599
  • Likes Given: 385
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #229 on: February 25, 2021, 05:37:42 PM »
There's always wind/sail
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #230 on: February 25, 2021, 05:55:46 PM »
There's always wind/sail

Yes we could go back from when your ship comes in to IF your ship comes in...  :)
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10457
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3942
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #231 on: February 25, 2021, 06:23:55 PM »
That electric tanker shown in Sigmetnow's post is for coastal work - i.e. short journeys. We are seeing more electric ships for local work - e.g. ferries. I and others did some work a year or two ago on electric powered ocean going vessels, and it did not compute - just like NeilT's spreadsheet.

I can only see hydrogen power as viable for big ships - if the H2 comes from when wind / solar brich countries have significant excess capacity at times to make the hydrogen.  And even then we are talking many years to create the industry / infrastructure.

Be nice to whales and other marine life - make stuff closer to home (or consume less).
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6687
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2459
  • Likes Given: 2174
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #232 on: February 25, 2021, 06:26:25 PM »
There is an opportunity at Suez and Panama for recharging

Or for tenders to charge their batteries in port then charge the tanker / bulk carrier offshore.

There is trans Pacific / Atlantic traffic, but also a lot of coastal shipping:

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-29.2/centery:3.0/zoom:2
I think this is the best idea for straight battery electric, set up fast charging ports in strategic points along the route. Not a full port with all its delays and costs, but an in and out charging terminal.
But still for very long cruises synthetic fuel would be cheaper.

interstitial

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 899
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #233 on: February 26, 2021, 01:51:22 AM »
With shipping it seems to be how much you want to pay to get it there faster. A source I read said in recent years most ships have slowed down a bit to save fuel. The sail powered auto transport when completed will be even slower than the slowest powered locomotion speeds but storing energy for ship operations seems possible while battery storage for long range locomotion is impractical at this time. Their is a cost to having goods sitting around longer so who knows.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #234 on: February 26, 2021, 11:46:28 AM »
It is interesting, because the container shipping reduce their fuel from 225 tonnes per day to 150 tonnes per day by reducing cruise speed from 24 knots to 21 knots.  On a 20 day cruise, the extra steaming time comes in at 2.8 days.

To save those 2.8 days, costs around $600,000 in fuel.  Which tells you the pressure to reduce time and how unfeasible it would be to go back to a vessel with an average daily speed under 14 knots without changing the entire supply chain.

https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/transportation-and-energy/fuel-consumption-containerships/#:~:text=Fuel%20consumption%20by%20a%20containership,per%20day%20at%2024%20knots.&text=Normal%20(20%2D25%20knots%3B,%E2%80%93%2046.3%20km%2Fhr).
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3833
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 669
  • Likes Given: 491
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #235 on: February 26, 2021, 06:36:48 PM »
Brainstorm:  find places along shipping routes out in the middle of the ocean with lots of sun and/or wind and set up floating power stations there, charging batteries or creating hydrogen.  When electric/hydrogen ships come by, have a 'charging tug' come alongside.  Ships might have to slow down, but won't have to stop, and their on-board storage won't have to be so great.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

interstitial

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 899
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #236 on: February 27, 2021, 03:31:48 AM »
It is interesting, because the container shipping reduce their fuel from 225 tonnes per day to 150 tonnes per day by reducing cruise speed from 24 knots to 21 knots.  On a 20 day cruise, the extra steaming time comes in at 2.8 days.

To save those 2.8 days, costs around $600,000 in fuel.  Which tells you the pressure to reduce time and how unfeasible it would be to go back to a vessel with an average daily speed under 14 knots without changing the entire supply chain.

https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/transportation-and-energy/fuel-consumption-containerships/#:~:text=Fuel%20consumption%20by%20a%20containership,per%20day%20at%2024%20knots.&text=Normal%20(20%2D25%20knots%3B,%E2%80%93%2046.3%20km%2Fhr).
Many goods pay the extra to get there sooner but I read about a recent trend where a significant number of containerships have slowed down a bit to save that extra money. I know that without recalling the article that statement is not that informative because the details are critical. Just in time deliveries save money by reducing carried inventory costs but faster delivers have increased costs too. Sometimes (I would say usually) management gets too carried away with the latest business trends to notice all of the inputs. I suspect that slowing to sailing speeds is too much to hope for as well but maybe for some goods.

Iain

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #237 on: February 27, 2021, 11:34:56 AM »
@Tor - Floating Renewable Charging Islands

Possible, but in deepwater would need extensive moorings or Dynamic Positioning (Thrusters to maintain position)

Unless there is a place where predominant wind exactly counters tidal flow?

Plus the island would be v. expensive real estate to site PV/Wind turbines, PV would be better located on the vessels

Also note around 20% are tankers, won't be needed in the future.

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-126.9/centery:23.3/zoom:2
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton

Iain

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #238 on: February 27, 2021, 11:56:14 AM »
@ Neil #234

My approach would be to look at the interest to be paid (for the reduction of cash flow for the producer) on the cargo for the duration of the delay

2% interest on a £1 Bn cargo for the extra 2.8 days

0.02 x 1E9 x 2.8 / 365 = 153k

Still cheaper than the extra fuel cost
"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6687
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2459
  • Likes Given: 2174
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #239 on: February 27, 2021, 12:53:02 PM »
Good point on tankers. A lot of shipping should/would be unnecessary - oil, LNG, coal.

And indeed, in an age of zero or even negative interest rates, the capital tied up in inventory isn't as costly as it used to be. For goods whose supply chain is relatively stable, timeliness is much less of an issue. So Christmas decorations or the autumn fashion must get there quickly, but construction materials can travel more slowly as long as the supply chain is being fed constantly.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18873
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 845
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #240 on: February 28, 2021, 01:12:38 AM »
@Tor - Floating Renewable Charging Islands

Possible, but in deepwater would need extensive moorings or Dynamic Positioning (Thrusters to maintain position)

Unless there is a place where predominant wind exactly counters tidal flow?

Plus the island would be v. expensive real estate to site PV/Wind turbines, PV would be better located on the vessel  ...

Idea: If you are building a floating platform, make it a SpaceX Spaceport, and have Starships deliver loads of hydrogen.  Like tanker trucks that deliver fuel to depots.... The platform would not have to maintain an exact position; ships and Starships could navigate to it anywhere within a reasonable distance.


—- SpaceX Spaceports at sea
Quote
< How long until you think the Deimos and Phobos rigs will be operational?
Elon Musk (@elonmusk) 2/24/21, 2:24 AM
One of them may be in limited operation by end of year

<< How will Starships be transported to the floating platform? Will these launch platforms be stationed permanently in the gulf?
Elon Musk:
They will fly there from our launch site.
Stationed around the world. 
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1364476185359642626

Surprise! Elon Musk Says SpaceX's Floating Oil Rig Platforms May Be Operational This Year
https://interestingengineering.com/elon-musk-spacexs-floating-oil-rig-platforms-this-year
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1266
  • Likes Given: 1168
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #241 on: February 28, 2021, 05:13:24 PM »
If you have a floating platform in a sea it would probably be a whole lot easier to add solar and some hydrogen producing factory.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18873
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 845
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #242 on: February 28, 2021, 07:45:14 PM »
If you have a floating platform in a sea it would probably be a whole lot easier to add solar and some hydrogen producing factory.

Today, that would probably be right!  But how much solar would be needed, and how do you keep a big field of solar panels from being destroyed in heavy seas?

Whereas, IF Starship flights are as easy and quickly turned-around as SpaceX envisions, we’re looking at a payload capacity of over 1,000 cubic meters (future versions will be larger) per flight.

Using energy.gov targets (it’s what I found in a 2-second search) of:
      1.5 kWh/kg system (4.5 wt.% hydrogen)
      1.0 kWh/L system (0.030 kg hydrogen/L)
      $10/kWh ($333/kg stored hydrogen capacity).

I get a single Starship shipment value of:
     1,000,000 liters H2  = 30,000 kg or 30 metric tonnes
    $333/kg x 30,000 kg = $9,990,000

And given that the space industry routinely cryo-compresses hydrogen to liquid form (and, the hop to the platform would only take minutes), a Starship might hold much more than that.  (Expectation is eventual Starship capability of 150 Tons to Low Earth Orbit — but a suborbital flight to a platform would be much shorter and easier.)

Musk has said the cost per easily reusable Starship flight will be little more than the cost of fuel, ~$900,000, but let’s say $2 million (and say that covers the short return hop as well).  That would only add about 20% to the base cost of the H2.


Of course, this is just a thought experiment; my numbers may be way off.  And I hate the idea of hydrogen as a fuel for land or water transport, anyway. ;)  But we’re most comfortable imagining physical fuel being transported.

Maybe for fun, somebody could do the math for what the energy density would have to be if the 1,100 cubic meters payload was one giant battery, and it simply transported a charge to the platform.  Like the mobile charging trucks Tesla has deployed in the past to supplement Tesla Superchargers at the busiest stations during big holidays....
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1266
  • Likes Given: 1168
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #243 on: February 28, 2021, 08:34:21 PM »
The whole idea of using rockets in the atmosphere is sort of stupid. Just like putting redundant crap in space. Yeah i get why every nation with rockets wants their own GPS but if too many billionaires put up their own networks it is going to get crowded and then messy.

None of that BS is going to help the planet. You are very much in love with some tech dream but that is not relevant to AGW. No we can´t use rockets for this. Plus they are neither ships or boats.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18873
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 845
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #244 on: February 28, 2021, 08:46:38 PM »
... they are neither ships or boats.

As others mentioned above, mid-ocean seaports with new technology could help ships and boats transition to fossil-fuel-free sailing.  Just because you don’t like rockets doesn’t mean they can’t have a place in AGW solutions.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1266
  • Likes Given: 1168
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #245 on: February 28, 2021, 09:09:31 PM »
AGW solutions are complicated like not burning to much oil or coal. Not shooting around rockets you do not need might also help.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18873
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 845
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #246 on: February 28, 2021, 11:29:38 PM »
AGW solutions are complicated like not burning to much oil or coal. Not shooting around rockets you do not need might also help.

But what if one rocket supply flight eliminates pollution from multiple ships, boats and planes? 

I invite you to learn more about rocket pollution from the video at this link, which examines the question in detail but without hysterics. There is also a link there to an article version of the video.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2582.msg302063.html#msg302063

(Bottom line: there are points of concern, but, compared to the thousands of aviation flights polluting the skies all day every day, rocket pollution is as yet insignificant.)
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6687
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2459
  • Likes Given: 2174
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #247 on: March 01, 2021, 02:02:22 AM »
Sig, may I suggest limiting discussion of SpaceX ideas like the above to the SpaceX thread, at least until they become actual solutions and not just ideas or promises.

blu_ice

  • New ice
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #248 on: March 01, 2021, 01:35:30 PM »
One thing to consider is that freight rates are volatile based on supply and demand whereas costs for shipowners are not.

That's why container carriers kept their slow steaming programs although oil price went down after the financial crisis. There was chronic oversupply on the market and slower cruise speed requires more vessels to serve the same route, hence capacity is reduced. They are also keen to make so called blank or void sailings, ie cancelling departures whenever rates and vessel utilization go down.

In fact about a year ago when China locked down for Covid, some vessels made the backhaul voyage from Europe to Asia around Africa. Bunker oil was very cheap after Covid hit and they saved the Suez Canal fee and reduced supply from the market thanks to longer sailing time.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18873
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 845
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Ships and boats
« Reply #249 on: March 01, 2021, 01:49:15 PM »
Sig, may I suggest limiting discussion of SpaceX ideas like the above to the SpaceX thread, at least until they become actual solutions and not just ideas or promises.

Discussion of ideas is what this forum is about. 

In truth, I was expecting someone to reply that 1 million cubic liters of hydrogen is not enough to supply even one ocean-going ship.  Is it?  The SpaceX idea is no crazier than the mid-ocean seaports suggested by others.  It simply has a brand — with an (almost) working prototype! 
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.