5 ms·

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

by _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.
    - _hypx 3y ago
      > If you want a green solution they get charged from a solar or wind farm sitting near the port. This is just you handwaving the problem away. You will need a very reliable supply of energy for this. It actual makes more sense to convert that green energy to something like hydrogen for powering ships. If done at scale, cost will be not much more than the cost of the wind and solar energy itself. Which is potentially very low. And nevermind the fact that you have nowhere near the capacity of batteries to power your ships. > “Flat out denying the physics of this problem” you’re arguing that sailing ships don’t work. The largest sailship ever has a displacement tonnage of around 5,000 tons. Modern cargo ships are closer to 250,000 tons. Sailships don't work at the scale you're imagining them. It is basically going back to the 19th century in terms of shipping capacity. > 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. Skysail just reduces fuel consumption somewhat. It also seem to have disappeared as a serious idea about a decade ago: https://www.ship-technology.com/features/feature-skysails-bringing-wind-back-ship-propulsion/ https://www.ship-technology.com/features/feature-skysails-br...

by _hypx 3y ago

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.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    > If you want a green solution they get charged from a solar or wind farm sitting near the port. This is just you handwaving the problem away. You will need a very reliable supply of energy for this. It actual makes more sense to convert that green energy to something like hydrogen for powering ships. If done at scale, cost will be not much more than the cost of the wind and solar energy itself. Which is potentially very low. And nevermind the fact that you have nowhere near the capacity of batteries to power your ships. > “Flat out denying the physics of this problem” you’re arguing that sailing ships don’t work. The largest sailship ever has a displacement tonnage of around 5,000 tons. Modern cargo ships are closer to 250,000 tons. Sailships don't work at the scale you're imagining them. It is basically going back to the 19th century in terms of shipping capacity. > 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. Skysail just reduces fuel consumption somewhat. It also seem to have disappeared as a serious idea about a decade ago: https://www.ship-technology.com/features/feature-skysails-bringing-wind-back-ship-propulsion/ https://www.ship-technology.com/features/feature-skysails-br...