4 ms·
You're using power (MWh) to make your point, but the crucial practical issue is energy storage (MWh). According to this chart[1], bunker fuel has about 80 times
by jdblair 10y ago
You're using power (MWh) to make your point, but the crucial practical issue is energy storage (MWh). According to this chart[1], bunker fuel has about 80 times the energy density of lithium batteries. Something has to charge those batteries, too, so there will be another fuel source required generate the electricity.
Container ships do have large surface area, and its conceivable - it might be practical to build a hybrid solar/diesel ship. I can imagine most of the system being packaged in containers with solar cells on the top, and batteries and inverters inside. They would then be loaded last, on top of of the load and connected to a ship-board motors.
1: https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/energycontent.html https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/energy...
- Pxtl 10y agoThe challenge is that container ships don't have a roof over the containers. You'd have to have shipping container sized solar banks placed on top of each container, then wire them into the ship's power system. Every load and unload would add extra time spent unhooking, unloading, reloading, and reconnecting the solar roofs.
- D-Coder 10y ago4U solar banks (each one fits over four, or some multiple, of containers). Cuts the annoyance down a bit.
- ams6110 10y agoContainer ships also sail at night.
- jdblair 10y agoIts why this would purely speculative exercise would be hybrid - it would still need a diesel engine, it would just burn less fuel. Regardless, I expect the cost of running a ship's engine on bunker fuel is so low there's little incentive for this.
- jdblair 10y agoI see I made a typo - meant to write "MW" for power, obviously.