4 ms·

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 co

by _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...
  - Retric 3y ago
    > You will need a very reliable supply of energy for this. Solar is extremely reliable as long as you have an oversupply when all you want to to charge batteries. At sub 2c/kWh it’s highly variable but build in 50% extra and you’re only at 3c/kWh and now very consistent across a full week. Obviously, there’s varying tradeoffs so if the cheapest solution is to stick them on a boat and charge em in another country that’s what would end up happening. There’s also obviously tradeoffs between moving shipping containers vs moving electricity but again that’s an optimization problem not some inherent limitation. Skysail isn’t viable at current fuel prices, the technology works just fine. Current sail designs are of limited value along current routes, but those routes are also optimized for fossil fuels. Club Med 2 built on 1992 was 15,000 tons and a quite traditional design for aesthetics, again Skysail can significantly boost propulsion. Thousands of economically viable modern cargo ships are 50,000 ton panamax ships and plenty are well below that, those 250,000 ton monsters are an economic optimization between a handful of major ports not some inherent requirement. The total crew size is largely independent of cargo size, but even relatively small ships are moving 100’s of TEU per worker. At that point it’s only a question of what’s the most efficient design economically not what’s the largest ship.
    - _hypx 3y ago
      Uh no. You are looking at a 20% load factor with solar, plus massive seasonal variations. It is completely non-doable with batteries. Seriously, you seem like someone who is obsessed with doing it with batteries, not a person even remotely interested in finding a working solution. Meanwhile, the alternative, just making hydrogen with the same renewable energy source and powering your ships with it, is sitting right there as an obvious answer. If you already admit to the existence of $0.02/kWh electricity, then the rest of the cost equation is also going to be low here. You've already solved the economics of the issue. The rest is scaling up, and this time there is no need for sails or downsizing ships.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Do you forget what we were trying to do? The explicit goal is charging batteries in 40’ containers and clearly PV isn’t working at night so what matters is consistency during the daytime. A flat panel on a rotating circle has a maximum theoretical capacity of diameter/circumference = 1/pi or 31.847…% on earth it’s more complicated due to axial tilt etc, but what matters is how consistent the output per day not the number of minutes per day we’re getting power. Real world capacity factor Capacity factor 27.9% (average 2017-2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility that’s surprisingly close to the theoretical maximum for the location and design. Some break 30% but again it’s not about maximizing output just how much it cost to guarantee we can fill X TEU worth of shipping containers per ~week. Thus it don’t matter if there a 18 hour period one day when they aren’t being charged as long as you can charge enough on average. > Meanwhile, the alternative, just making hydrogen Sure let’s pay vastly more per gallon that’s an easy selling point. Hydrogen has maximum limits imposed by physics that severely limit end to end efficiency. It’s a dangerous bitch to store, transport etc. Low density, damages metals it comes in contact with etc, even rocketry got away from the stuff even though it has significant advantages for them. Nobody is using the stuff because it’s got huge problems.

by _hypx 3y ago

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...
- Retric 3y ago
  > You will need a very reliable supply of energy for this. Solar is extremely reliable as long as you have an oversupply when all you want to to charge batteries. At sub 2c/kWh it’s highly variable but build in 50% extra and you’re only at 3c/kWh and now very consistent across a full week. Obviously, there’s varying tradeoffs so if the cheapest solution is to stick them on a boat and charge em in another country that’s what would end up happening. There’s also obviously tradeoffs between moving shipping containers vs moving electricity but again that’s an optimization problem not some inherent limitation. Skysail isn’t viable at current fuel prices, the technology works just fine. Current sail designs are of limited value along current routes, but those routes are also optimized for fossil fuels. Club Med 2 built on 1992 was 15,000 tons and a quite traditional design for aesthetics, again Skysail can significantly boost propulsion. Thousands of economically viable modern cargo ships are 50,000 ton panamax ships and plenty are well below that, those 250,000 ton monsters are an economic optimization between a handful of major ports not some inherent requirement. The total crew size is largely independent of cargo size, but even relatively small ships are moving 100’s of TEU per worker. At that point it’s only a question of what’s the most efficient design economically not what’s the largest ship.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    Uh no. You are looking at a 20% load factor with solar, plus massive seasonal variations. It is completely non-doable with batteries. Seriously, you seem like someone who is obsessed with doing it with batteries, not a person even remotely interested in finding a working solution. Meanwhile, the alternative, just making hydrogen with the same renewable energy source and powering your ships with it, is sitting right there as an obvious answer. If you already admit to the existence of $0.02/kWh electricity, then the rest of the cost equation is also going to be low here. You've already solved the economics of the issue. The rest is scaling up, and this time there is no need for sails or downsizing ships.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Do you forget what we were trying to do? The explicit goal is charging batteries in 40’ containers and clearly PV isn’t working at night so what matters is consistency during the daytime. A flat panel on a rotating circle has a maximum theoretical capacity of diameter/circumference = 1/pi or 31.847…% on earth it’s more complicated due to axial tilt etc, but what matters is how consistent the output per day not the number of minutes per day we’re getting power. Real world capacity factor Capacity factor 27.9% (average 2017-2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility that’s surprisingly close to the theoretical maximum for the location and design. Some break 30% but again it’s not about maximizing output just how much it cost to guarantee we can fill X TEU worth of shipping containers per ~week. Thus it don’t matter if there a 18 hour period one day when they aren’t being charged as long as you can charge enough on average. > Meanwhile, the alternative, just making hydrogen Sure let’s pay vastly more per gallon that’s an easy selling point. Hydrogen has maximum limits imposed by physics that severely limit end to end efficiency. It’s a dangerous bitch to store, transport etc. Low density, damages metals it comes in contact with etc, even rocketry got away from the stuff even though it has significant advantages for them. Nobody is using the stuff because it’s got huge problems.