4 ms·

I don't think you fully grasp the sheer inability of batteries to power a cargo ship. It is something like 50x too low energy density to work. Even with wind po

by _hypx 3y ago

I don't think you fully grasp the sheer inability of batteries to power a cargo ship. It is something like 50x too low energy density to work. Even with wind power, it is still far from being able to pull this off. Not to mention cost: The batteries will be many times more expensive than the ship itself. The whole idea is totally DOA. It is going to be some kind of chemical fuel, it is just a question of what and when. The alternative is just people not doing their physics homework and being totally wrong.

Retric 3y ago
The batteries power electronics for navigation, communications, and ship’s systems like moving the tiller. That’s a tiny fraction of the energy needed for large cargo ship propulsion. Wind is what provides power and scales incredibly far, we already have individual floating 16MW wind turbines. The very largest ships are approaching 60MW, but rarely operate at full power instead “slow steaming” to conserve fuel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming The cost of the ship alone is irrelevant if you’re trying to sell fuel at 4x the price almost nobody is going to be willing to pay when they’re not even willing to pay full price at todays fuel prices instead choosing to travel slower than sailing ships while still paying for fuel. PS: As to battery weight, ships scale really well around weight which is why we have ships moving 200,000+ tractor trailers worth of cargo. There’s fully battery powered ships traveling hundreds of miles for local delivery to remote areas. Which actually means going from Asia to Europe or Africa with some battery swapping is viable. Higher upfront costs and extra stops, but drastically reduced fuel consumption.
- _hypx 3y ago
  You're not putting anything like a 16MW wind turbine on a cargo ship. That thing is practically larger than the ship itself. Nor do wind turbines generate 16MW continuously. This is all just handwaving the fundamental problems away. You're going to need chemical fuels to solve this problem. You really have to get to grips with basic physics here. Global warming can't be solved by science deniers. PS: How are you going to battery swap on a ship? Nevermind the cost of such a thing. This is just another absurd idea stacked top of an already absurd idea.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Cargo ships swap 40’ containers at ports, many of those have electrical hookups for internal cooling. So, doing the same thing with bigger batteries and thicker cables is hardly a massive feat of engineering. You don’t even need charging infrastructure in port, toss them on a trick or train and charge em wherever is cheap. I am not suggesting a wind turbine is an ideal fit for a cargo ship just mentioning how much power we’re already extracting on floating devices that move with the ocean. Ultra slow steaming is 40% of max power for a 46MW cargo ship that’s 24MW so we’re in the ballpark what comes next is hardcore engineering by companies who understand the industry and they say the math is really close to working at current fuel prices. It’s you who wants people to swap to ultra expensive fuels and I’m just point out that “bunker fuel” > wind but wind > ultra expensive fuels.
    - _hypx 3y ago
      And how do those cargo containers get charged? Or how can they be connected together so easily? Or how much cargo space will get taken up them? Nevermind the cost of all of that. Again, the wind turbines you are suggest are far too big for a ship. It is totally impossible. You are not going to get more than a tiny percentage of power from wind from this. At best, you are just going to have literal sails that take off some of the power demand from the engine. The ship will still have to be powered predominately by chemical fuels. Look, you're flat out denying the physics of this problem. You cannot solve this problem with science denier. You are doing the same thing that climate change deniers are doing.
      - Retric 3y ago
        If you want a green solution they get charged from a solar or wind farm sitting near the port. Solar farms are already being built with large battery systems to better fit the demand curve, adding extra PV and batteries to the mix is a win/win for the electric grid. Edit: Nuclear power is also viable if land is in limited supply in the area, generally more expensive than solar but still way cheaper than fossil fuels. “Flat out denying the physics of this problem” you’re arguing that sailing ships don’t work. Maersk the largest shipbuilder in the world already got flettner rotors to provide useful levels of propulsion, ADD a kite system and you’re traveling faster than commercial shipping doing slow steaming. As I’ve said repeatedly they don’t quite work at current fuel prices, but you want to increase fuel prices.. Read up on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Onego_Deusto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Onego_Deusto for why kite’s didn’t take off it was all about the economics not the underlying physics. PS: Without paying for fuel the economics changes enough we probably aren’t going to see 200,000+ TEU ships and routes would optimize for winds. But that’s not an inherent problem it’s just a tradeoff, perhaps we invest in larger port’s that just an expense not a deal killer.

by _hypx 3y ago

Retric 3y ago

The batteries power electronics for navigation, communications, and ship’s systems like moving the tiller. That’s a tiny fraction of the energy needed for large cargo ship propulsion. Wind is what provides power and scales incredibly far, we already have individual floating 16MW wind turbines. The very largest ships are approaching 60MW, but rarely operate at full power instead “slow steaming” to conserve fuel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming The cost of the ship alone is irrelevant if you’re trying to sell fuel at 4x the price almost nobody is going to be willing to pay when they’re not even willing to pay full price at todays fuel prices instead choosing to travel slower than sailing ships while still paying for fuel. PS: As to battery weight, ships scale really well around weight which is why we have ships moving 200,000+ tractor trailers worth of cargo. There’s fully battery powered ships traveling hundreds of miles for local delivery to remote areas. Which actually means going from Asia to Europe or Africa with some battery swapping is viable. Higher upfront costs and extra stops, but drastically reduced fuel consumption.

_hypx 3y ago
You're not putting anything like a 16MW wind turbine on a cargo ship. That thing is practically larger than the ship itself. Nor do wind turbines generate 16MW continuously. This is all just handwaving the fundamental problems away. You're going to need chemical fuels to solve this problem. You really have to get to grips with basic physics here. Global warming can't be solved by science deniers. PS: How are you going to battery swap on a ship? Nevermind the cost of such a thing. This is just another absurd idea stacked top of an already absurd idea.
- Retric 3y ago
  Cargo ships swap 40’ containers at ports, many of those have electrical hookups for internal cooling. So, doing the same thing with bigger batteries and thicker cables is hardly a massive feat of engineering. You don’t even need charging infrastructure in port, toss them on a trick or train and charge em wherever is cheap. I am not suggesting a wind turbine is an ideal fit for a cargo ship just mentioning how much power we’re already extracting on floating devices that move with the ocean. Ultra slow steaming is 40% of max power for a 46MW cargo ship that’s 24MW so we’re in the ballpark what comes next is hardcore engineering by companies who understand the industry and they say the math is really close to working at current fuel prices. It’s you who wants people to swap to ultra expensive fuels and I’m just point out that “bunker fuel” > wind but wind > ultra expensive fuels.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    And how do those cargo containers get charged? Or how can they be connected together so easily? Or how much cargo space will get taken up them? Nevermind the cost of all of that. Again, the wind turbines you are suggest are far too big for a ship. It is totally impossible. You are not going to get more than a tiny percentage of power from wind from this. At best, you are just going to have literal sails that take off some of the power demand from the engine. The ship will still have to be powered predominately by chemical fuels. Look, you're flat out denying the physics of this problem. You cannot solve this problem with science denier. You are doing the same thing that climate change deniers are doing.
    - Retric 3y ago
      If you want a green solution they get charged from a solar or wind farm sitting near the port. Solar farms are already being built with large battery systems to better fit the demand curve, adding extra PV and batteries to the mix is a win/win for the electric grid. Edit: Nuclear power is also viable if land is in limited supply in the area, generally more expensive than solar but still way cheaper than fossil fuels. “Flat out denying the physics of this problem” you’re arguing that sailing ships don’t work. Maersk the largest shipbuilder in the world already got flettner rotors to provide useful levels of propulsion, ADD a kite system and you’re traveling faster than commercial shipping doing slow steaming. As I’ve said repeatedly they don’t quite work at current fuel prices, but you want to increase fuel prices.. Read up on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Onego_Deusto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Onego_Deusto for why kite’s didn’t take off it was all about the economics not the underlying physics. PS: Without paying for fuel the economics changes enough we probably aren’t going to see 200,000+ TEU ships and routes would optimize for winds. But that’s not an inherent problem it’s just a tradeoff, perhaps we invest in larger port’s that just an expense not a deal killer.