Are Renewable Powered Ships Possible?

  Ganger 611,338

Real Engineering

Måned siden

Get a year of both Nebula and Curiosity Stream for just 14.79 here: www.CuriosityStream.com/realengineering and using the code, "realengineering"
New streaming platform: watchnebula.com/

Vlog channel: nopost.info/code/Met4qY3027v8KjpaDtDx-g

Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=2825050&ty=h
Facebook:
realengineering1
Instagram:
brianjamesmcmanus
Reddit:
www.reddit.com/r/RealEngineering/
Twitter:
thebrianmcmanus
Discord:
discord.gg/s8BhkmN

Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/collections/real-engineering

Credits:
Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Editor: Dylan Hennessy
Animator: Mike Ridolfi (www.moboxgraphics.com/)
Sound: Graham Haerther (haerther.net/)
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster forgottentowel

References:
[1] www.statista.com/statistics/199366/number-of-ships-of-apm-maersk-in-december-2011/
[2] www.vesseltracking.net/article/maersk-mc-kinney-moller-container-ship
[3] investor.maersk.com/static-files/d2de67bc-a818-4280-8f46-dd547b3cf856
[4] preview.thenewsmarket.com/Previews/MAER/DocumentAssets/198834.pdf
[5] transportgeography.org/?page_id=5955
[6] www.maersk.com/news/articles/2019/06/26/towards-a-zero-carbon-future
[7] www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2018/18/matecconf_ijcaet-isampe2018_02058.pdf
[8] www.mar.ist.utl.pt/mventura/Projecto-Navios-I/EN/SD-1.5.4-Bulbous%20Bow%20Design.pdf
[9] theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_ShipEfficiency_20130723.pdf
[10] www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/spinning-metal-sails-could-slash-fuel-consumption-emissions-cargo-ships
[11] splash247.com/maersk-tankers-hails-real-breakthrough-with-8-2-fuel-savings-from-landmark-wind-project/
[12] cmacgm-group.com/en/launching-cmacgm-jacques-saad%C3%A9-world's-first-ultra-large-vessel-powered-by-lng
[13] insideclimatenews.org/news/31012020/shipping-lines-liquefied-natural-gas-methane-leaks
[14] www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/5/1581/pdf
[15] safety4sea.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/SEA-LNG-DNV-GL-Comparison-of-Alternative-Marine-Fuels-2019_09.pdf
[16] www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage
[17] theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Zero-emission-container-corridor-hydrogen-3.5.2020.pdf Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.

Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Footage Courtesy of AP Archive and Getty Images.

Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung

Kommentarer
Real Engineering
Real Engineering Måned siden
Hey all, sorry for the delay with this upload. Having a bit of a rough mental health month, which is the first time in many years it has impacted my work this badly. We had a version of this ready to go for Saturday, but I was so checked out that I missed many problems. On the mend, nothing I can't handle!
Walter Johnson
Walter Johnson 9 dager siden
TO: Real Engineering Large container ships would be perfect for using nuclear power. Why isn't that being considered as a possible option?
Greg man2ai
Greg man2ai 14 dager siden
I am just interested in history and what was the reality for ancient Carthage. I sort of might have a sympathy for it and if it still exists or is it now a suburb of another city? Your name: Mago Of Carthage.
Greg man2ai
Greg man2ai 14 dager siden
@Mago Of Carthage I don't understand how I hurt you
Mago Of Carthage
Mago Of Carthage 15 dager siden
@Greg man2ai why you gotta hurt me like that
Greg man2ai
Greg man2ai 15 dager siden
@Mago Of Carthage Does the city of Carthage still exist? I thought the ancient Romans wiped it out under some made up pretext. Back to the main theme, I agree take a break if he needs to for mental health sake.
Izwar Rahman Adam
Izwar Rahman Adam 21 time siden
In this video the ship is called uss deaware in real uss delaware
Extreme GamerYT
Extreme GamerYT Dag siden
Next: "Are renewables plants possible?" Come on bro is your channel called "real engineering" or "renewables engineering"? You just talk about freacking renewables
L3D - 3D maker
L3D - 3D maker 3 dager siden
we should be prioritizing the top 3 emitters, although all progress is welcome, tackling the biggest hurdle first will make the most impact, and we really do need that big impact to buy more time on earth
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 3 dager siden
What are your three top emitters? Entertainment, recreation and fashion? They are after all the three global industries with least, if any, useful output.
Tyson Bryant
Tyson Bryant 3 dager siden
What if cargo ships had SMRs or micro-reactors on board like carriers or submarines? That and hydrogen seem like promising routes to me, especially in combination with prioritizing efficiency.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 3 dager siden
If you do a web search for ‘nuclear ship savannah’ you will see that it has been tried and did not work. A similarly heavily subsidised, by the government, vessel is in use in Russia but just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy thorium fuel, molten salt reactors or fusion reactors will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will not believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black stuff, HFO cSt380, or thin runny stuff, MDO, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skills and expertise use, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 8 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seem to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power so as well as submarines their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each have a build cost three times that of QE/PoW, bigger crews and more generous funding. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping. H2 is said to be good for use in fuel cells that will give clean energy when combined with Oxygen (O2) and leave only water (H2O) as an effluent; so as well as the cost of creating the hardware and separating out the H2 in the first place we now have the cost of providing the O2. H2 is very, very light and very, very volatile, so this is where we remember the Hindenberg airship disaster, the ‘light’ means that though there is lots of energy per unit mass there is not much mass per unit of volume so all the problems of CH4 but much worse. You need to compress it, more than a lot, or cool it, more than a lot, to get enough on board your ship in manageable volumes to be useful. The alternative to fuel cell use of H2, burning, also generates combustion products which includes waste heat going to the cold sink and a few NOx nasties. The numbers are getting very difficult to show any sort of surplus so is this a case of running hard to stand still? H2 may have a place in the energy mix on land as a storage medium but on a ship where there is a reasonable and constant auxiliary power need the question could be posited, ‘why go through the extra stages instead of using the harvested energy directly?’
will williamson
will williamson 4 dager siden
nuclear duh. the insane climate loonies dont like actual solutions though they just want to destroy humanity.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 4 dager siden
If you do a web search for ‘nuclear ship savannah’ you will see that it has been tried and did not work. A similarly heavily subsidised, by the government, vessel is in use in Russia but just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy thorium fuel, molten salt reactors or fusion reactors will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will not believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black stuff, HFO cSt380, or thin runny stuff, MDO, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skills and expertise use, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 8 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seem to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power so as well as submarines their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each have a build cost three times that of QE/PoW, bigger crews and more generous funding. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping.
Zachary Ewell
Zachary Ewell 5 dager siden
Honestly, the only ways to move forward with decreasing carbon emissions are either government mandate or making it more economically attractive (e.g., increased efficiency, reduced energy costs). Making it more economically attractive is the better option in my opinion because it takes away conservatives' arguments against government intervention and helps businesses overall.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 4 dager siden
Government mandate, there are international (the International Maritime Organisation) and regional structures (various Memorandum of Understanding groups) in place that could do this. Incremental improvements, in degree and extent, of fuel quality are probably the most sensible. The apparent reluctance they have displayed is driven by the 7.8 billion people on the planet who all need to be housed, fed and clothed. Working in a sweat shop in Southeast Asia may not be appealing but as an alternative to starving to death it is the only option some people have. More economically attractive, this is definitely the way to go as the shipping industry does not wish to work any harder that it has to too generate the revenue it needs so better margins might lead to harm reduction though the higher unit cost that will be passed on to the consumer might be a bitter pill for them to swallow leading to the consumers reducing their purchase rate. Increased efficiency & reduced energy costs are productivity gains that will only get the industry so far and it is likely that they will seek to externalise any and all costs that they can such as atmospheric pollution. Reductions, both of quantity & distance, are the lowest of the low hanging fruit that will reduce shipping impacts, but consumers are the drivers. With a replacement rate of 2.1 children per couple if the mantra of ‘two will do’ became commonly accepted many of the resource consumption problems could be solved by stabilisation of the population. The remaining impacts could succumb to ‘satisfy your needs not your wants’.
parthasarathy Venkatadri
parthasarathy Venkatadri 6 dager siden
Nuclear powered ships would work.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 5 dager siden
With regard to ‘renewable’ shipping first prize for least sensible idea goes, as a joint award, to geothermal energy, draught animals turning a screw system and clockwork; closely followed in fourth place by nuclear power. If you do a web search for ‘nuclear ship savannah’ you will see that it has been tried and did not work. A similarly heavily subsidised, by the government, vessel is in use in Russia but just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy thorium fuel, molten salt reactors or fusion reactors will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will not believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black stuff, HFO cSt380, or thin runny stuff, MDO, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skills and expertise use, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 8 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seem to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power so as well as submarines their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each have a build cost three times that of QE/PoW, bigger crews and more generous funding. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping.
AJ GM
AJ GM 6 dager siden
Yeah if you use hydrogen and oxygen... Good thing its sitting on an ocean of it😂
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 5 dager siden
@AJ GM WADR there is a big leap from rich mans toy to the high volume low cost and thus low margin world of merchant marine freight. In following the article I have worked up circa four and a half thousand words in rebuttal statements. The comment about hydrogen was a about a third of the alternative fuels thread. Shipping is a business where one has to think scale, the Mearsk ship is a ‘good size’ ULCC oil tankers and dry bulk carriers are on a similar scale. Every item on a ship has to pass the is it ‘cost effective’ test. ICEs are in the good, cheap, fast enough triangle so with the development and experience behind them they are a hard act to follow. The best environmental option is move less freight of higher inherent value and do not move it as far.
AJ GM
AJ GM 5 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart i saw an article stating that bill gates bought a hydrogen powered yacht. Figured it's doable. Maybe he's planning to stay out at seas for indefinite amount of time if and when it becomes necessary
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 6 dager siden
The next, least bad, option is ‘alternative fuels’ such as Hydrogen (H2). Which requires harvesting and processing which has fiscal, environmental and energy costs or impacts, before you get the energy to the point of use, and the use of which will generate effluents that will impact the global environment one way or another. H2 is said to be good for use in fuel cells that will give clean energy when combined with Oxygen (O2) and leave only water (H2O) as an effluent; so as well as the cost of creating the hardware and separating out the H2 in the first place we now have the cost of providing the O2. H2 is very, very light and very, very volatile so this is where we remember the Hindenberg airship disaster, the ‘light’ means that though there is lots of energy per unit mass there is not much mass per unit of volume so all the problems other fuels but worse.You need to compress it, more than a lot, or cool it, more than a lot, to get enough on board your ship in manageable volumes to be useful. The alternative to fuel cell use of H2, burning, also generates combustion products which includes waste heat going to the cold sink and a few NOx nasties. The numbers are getting very difficult to show any sort of surplus so is this a case of running hard to stand still? H2 may have a place in the energy mix on land as a storage medium but on a ship where there is a reasonable and constant auxiliary power need the question could be posited, ‘why go through the extra stages instead of using the harvested energy directly?’ After harvesting the energy, from wind, sun or motion of the vessel, as electrical energy better to deploy it immediately as heat, light or mechanical work.
georgeh handley
georgeh handley 6 dager siden
a good way to collapse the world economy. looks like they have now done that.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 4 dager siden
Incremental improvements, in degree and extent, of fuel quality are probably the most sensible. The apparent reluctance they have displayed is driven by the 7.8 billion people on the planet who all need to be housed, fed and clothed. Working in a sweat shop in Southeast Asia may not be appealing but as an alternative to starving to death it is the only option some people have. Providing economic incentives, this is definitely the way to go as the shipping industry does not wish to work any harder that it has to too generate the revenue it needs so better margins might lead to harm reduction though the higher unit cost that will be passed on to the consumer might be a bitter pill for them to swallow leading to the consumers reducing their purchase rate. Increased efficiency & reduced energy costs are productivity gains that will only get the industry so far and it is likely that they will seek to externalise any and all costs that they can such as atmospheric pollution. Reductions, both of quantity & distance, are the lowest of the low hanging fruit that will reduce shipping impacts, but consumers are the drivers. With a replacement rate of 2.1 children per couple if the mantra of ‘two will do’ became commonly accepted many of the resource consumption problems could be solved by stabilisation of the population. The remaining impacts could succumb to ‘satisfy your needs not your wants’.
ss Alin
ss Alin 6 dager siden
@RealEngineering Why aren't nuclear-powered transport ships a thing?
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 6 dager siden
If you do a web search for ‘nuclear ship savannah’ you will see that it has been tried and did not work. A similarly heavily subsidised, by the government, vessel is in use in Russia but just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy thorium fuel, molten salt reactors or fusion reactors will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will not believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black stuff, HFO cSt380, or thin runny stuff, MDO, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skills and expertise use, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 8 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seem to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power so as well as submarines their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each have a build cost three times that of QE/PoW, bigger crews and more generous funding. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping.
MinerKingX
MinerKingX 7 dager siden
elon marsk
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 7 dager siden
Do you mean battery electric? Electric motors powered by ‘green electric’, leaving aside the fact that there is no truly ‘green’ electricity, the best we can do is low carbon impact both at installation (capital account cost) and production (revenue account cost). Running ships on the ‘lecky’ is tricky the two examples that I personally know of, and have used, are a vehicle and foot traffic ‘chain’ ferry that ply’s its trade across the hundred meters or so of the Nordre älv between the island of Hisingen and the Kornhall on the Swedish mainland. The motors are on the ferry and a cable is unwound and wound back up on board as the ferry shuttles back and forth from Kornhall. When the vessel goes anywhere else, id est dry dock for survey and or maintenance, it is towed by a good old ICE powered tug. The other electric vessel is a vehicle and foot traffic ferry that runs from Helsingborg (Sweden) to Helsingor (Denmark), a twenty minute trip, she tops up the charge in Sweden each time she is alongside and battery capacity is said to be sufficient for an hour of main engine use. There are small diesel gennys on board; to keep the lights on in extremis. Sadly as of now electric boats are as functional as chocolate fireguards, yes ‘submarines can be diesel electric’ but they have negligible cargo carrying capacity and if you ever go on one your first thought could be ‘where do they put the crew?’
SomeGuy
SomeGuy 8 dager siden
You fail to mention anything about nuclear power? If it’s possible for submarines it should be possible for ships right?
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 8 dager siden
Nuclear power has been tried start by doing a web search for ‘nuclear ship savannah’. A similarly heavily subsidised by the government vessel is in use in Russia but just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy thorium fuel, molten salt reactors or fusion reactors will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will not believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black stuff, HFO cSt380, or thin runny stuff, Avtur-JetA1, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by gas turbines thus using the same fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skills and expertise use, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 8 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seem to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power so as well as submarines their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each have a build cost three times that of QE/PoW, bigger crews and more generous funding. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping.
Walter Johnson
Walter Johnson 9 dager siden
Large container ships would be perfect for using nuclear power. Why isn't that being considered as a possible option?
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 9 dager siden
We may be going in circles here. There have been a few nuclear powered merchant ships start by doing a web search for ‘nuclear ship savannah’. Just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy thorium fuel, molten salt reactors or fusion reactors will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will not believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black stuff, HFO cSt380, or thin runny stuff, Avtur-JetA1, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by gas turbines thus using the same fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skills and expertise use, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 8 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seem to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power so as well as submarines their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each have a build cost three times that of QE/PoW, bigger crews and more generous funding. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping.
Daniel Goleš
Daniel Goleš 9 dager siden
2:04 Real Engineering: to put that into more human terms... Me: Finally!! A metric system... That Irish engineer guy: 20 foot container can hold 6000 shoe boxes Me: Everyone else:
Nicholas Kelly
Nicholas Kelly 9 dager siden
Apart from operational improvements ie things like Flettner Rotors etc etc. Have you considered the building of new ships by looking at concrete ships? This technology has been around since the early years of 20th Century (During WW I there were significant programmes to build concrete ships in both the UK & USA. Concrete ships were built at many ports in the British Isles including Shoreham By-Sea in Sussex were I live. They were also built at Warrenpoint. At least three WW I concrete ships survive in Eire. The Warrenpoint built 'Creteforest' and the Shoreham built 'Cretegaff' can be found at the Carlingford Yacht Club in Co Louth. Also the Shoreham built 'Creteboom' can be found in the River Moy near Balina in Co Mayo.) I have a very interesting book published in the 1970's about the future of shipping (originally the book was published in the DDR) It talks about many ingenious innovative ideas and solutions to maritime problems. Including very large concrete ships. Interestingly a concrete hull is extremely robust and virtually indestructible (This was demonstrated at Bikini Athol during the American A-bomb tests in the late 1940's). The main problems with concrete ships historically have been as follows. 1) High cost. During WW I the UK 1,000Grt barges built cost around £27,000. Whereas a steel barge of this size cost around £17,000. 2) A concrete ship has limited value following withdrawal as effectively the hull has no scrap value. However the cost issue decreases as the hull size increases and a hull of over 75,000 tons has a cost advantage. Also due to very robust nature of a concrete hull the ship would in all likelihood have a lifespan lasting centuries. So the trick here would be to make sure you the hull can be designed in such a way that it's long life would be an asset (That said it is likely that the demand for large container ships and bulk carriers is going to last for many centuries into the future) Also it would make sense to use a steam turbine nuclear power plant which would be designed so that it could be replaced relatively easily say every fifty years or so. Obviously at first such a vessel would have to use a fission reactor. But by the time the reactor required replacement I would expect that it would be replaced by a fusion reactor There are plenty of technologies that have been around since the 19th and early 20th Centuries that deserve looking at again in the light of today's vastly improved materials technologies.
Nicholas Kelly
Nicholas Kelly 9 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart I am very much aware of what you say. But in fact concrete has a lower carbon footprint than steel. Also it is possible to reduce the carbon footprint of the cement industry more easily than it is for the steel industry (I am also fully aware of the fact that the ship would still need a steel frame) I am talking about building a ship that would last for many centuries and this was the only technology that I could think of that would allow you to do this. Also remember we are talking about a ship of around 250,000Grt and the nuclear option would be viable. Certainly it is the only technology that is available today which would meet the criteria for removing diesel engines etc etc. Also I am making the assumption that a viable nuclear fusion reactor would be viable within the next 25 years or so. Which would mean that the fission reactor would be disposed of then. Also I am fully aware of additional costs of such a vessel. Certainly the major shipping companies would be perfectly able to operate such ships. It is wrong to suggest that their staff would be somehow unable to do so. All I am saying is that something does need to be done about this now. PS I did actually visit the 'Savannah' and the German ore carrier 'Otto Hahn'. However I never saw either the Japanese nuclear reefer 'Mutsu' which in fact it never actually carried a commercial cargo and it was later rebuilt into the research very 'Mirai'. Which today is a museum ship. Or the Soviet ice strengthed 'LASH' barge carrier 'Sovmorput' which was designed to service the various ports at the mouths of the rivers along the coast of arctic Siberia. As far as I know she is still in service. The other three having been withdrawn from service. One thing to note about all of these ships was that they were all relatively small. I am suggesting a much larger vessel.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 9 dager siden
The concrete has a high carbon foot print during manufacture so the embodied carbon content may become a factor. WRT the nuclear power plant start by doing a web search for ‘nuclear ship savannah’. Just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy thorium fuel, molten salt reactors or fusion reactors will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will not believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black stuff, HFO cSt380, or thin runny stuff, Avtur-JetA1, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by gas turbines thus using the same fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skills and expertise use, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 8 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seem to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power so as well as submarines their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each have a build cost three times that of QE/PoW, bigger crews and more generous funding. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping.
ngentotsemua
ngentotsemua 10 dager siden
Ships used to use renewable energy back then. Shocking I know.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 10 dager siden
If you were thinking of the days of sail I offer the following example. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’. The Cutty Sark was 64.74 metres in length with a beam of 10.97 metres and a loaded displacement of 2 100 tonnes. She was able to carry 1 700 tonnes of cargo and to harness the energy in the wind the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2 which was tended by a crew of about 30 skilled men. A ratio between the sail area (SA) and the vessels displacement (D) determines how lively she is; ‘lively’ being nautical speak for ‘fast and manoeuvrable’. The carrying capacity of cargo ships is constrained in two ways, mass and volume which leads us to the ‘stowage factor’ of the cargo; the more mass on board the greater the displacement which in turn impacts the efficiency of the hull form and sail area / displacement ratio. A vessel constrained by mass is said to be ‘down but not full’, a vessel constrained by volume ‘full but not down. When in the tea trade, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for with fine lines (more nautical tech speak so again - no need to worry about it) she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots dependent on the prevailing wind and had a typical China to UK time on passage of 120 days. The tea trade was very competitive so ‘time on passage’ was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective. Rounding things out, her maximum available sail area gave circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of tea carried. As soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through; she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era who could beat her ‘time on passage’. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort. Random fact about ‘Cutty Sark’, it is said to have been possible to coax 3 000 horse power out of her sails, or in ‘real money’ 2 206 500 Watts (2.2 megaWatts), assuming this was in ideal conditions that is about ⅔ of the solar power that might be harvested from the ‘top of stow’ of a Maersk Triple E, again in those elusive ideal conditions and 741 Watts for each square meter of sail area. So that majestic spread of canvas would have been even less efficacious for delivering your baubles and bows from the orient, despite taking about three times as long on the voyage. The sails on the ‘Cutty Sark produce about 0.33% of the power need to propel a Mearsk Triple E and covering the top of the stow might produce another 0.5% so with both systems working simultaneously in ‘ideal conditions’ the energy harvest would be less than 1% of the output from the ICEs. Canvas and hemp are accorded 'renewable' (read as ‘natural’) status, if ‘synthetics’ are used there will still be a need for the input of FOGI products. 'Synthetics' would have a much better working life span than 'naturals' but would still yield the same amount of energy, 741 Watts for each square meter in those elusive ideal conditions. Combining with solar electric would involve two systems in place of one, which then runs you into the problems of expense, complexity and redundancy. Remember shipping is a high volume low cost, therefore low margin business, and all costs have to be beneficial. The 'Cutty Sark' was about 2 000 times less productive than a modern container ship powered by fossil fuelled ICE (internal combustion engines). Wallenius are currently giving wind power a go with wing form ‘sails’ but evidence is a little short of proof as of this date. KTH (Kungliga Tekniska högskolan), a sort of up market university in Stockholm, who are using the funding to derive results will probably, and eventually, in the best traditions of academia ‘publish’ a ‘paper’ unless the funders invoke the well known ‘commercial sensitivity clause’ of their agreement with the KTH. Wallenius is a major shipper of vehicles were the product is effectively its own packaging, other goods are moved about in ‘containers’ so the loss of capacity, ‘broken stowage’ in nautical speak, caused by containerisation needs to be factored in
0MoTheG
0MoTheG 10 dager siden
@Real Engineering 3:10 Just because a graph is not a straight line does not mean that it is exponential. Only beyond the hull speed barrier does the power go up exponentially.
Steve Nikitas
Steve Nikitas 10 dager siden
Make the ships nuclear-powered. No emissions.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 10 dager siden
More a ‘red’ in tooth and claw omnivorous realist.
Steve Nikitas
Steve Nikitas 10 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart Blah, blah, blah... more 'greenie' paranoia...
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 10 dager siden
Just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy thorium fuel, molten salt reactors or fusion reactors will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will not believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black stuff, HFO cSt380, or thin runny stuff, Avtur-JetA1, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by gas turbines thus using the same fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skills and expertise use, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 8 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seem to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power so as well as submarines their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each have a build cost three times that of QE/PoW, bigger crews and more generous funding. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping.
Arthur N
Arthur N 12 dager siden
i literally just thaught about this (and your hydrogen cars video) 20 minutes ago. Thank you for your awesome videos
Casper Keilstrup Jacobsen
Casper Keilstrup Jacobsen 13 dager siden
Hydrogen is not the answer. Container ships will eventually be battery driven (giant batteries)
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 13 dager siden
Electric motors powered by ‘green electric’, leaving aside the fact that there is no truly ‘green’ electricity, the best we can do is low carbon impact both at installation (capital cost) and production (current account). Running ships on the ‘lecky’ is tricky the two examples that I personally know of, and have used, are a vehicle and foot traffic ‘chain’ ferry that ply’s its trade across the hundred meters or so of the Nordre älv between the island of Hisingen and the Kornhall on the Swedish mainland. The motors are on the ferry and a cable is unwound and wound back up on board as the ferry shuttles back and forth from Kornhall. When the vessel goes anywhere else, id est dry dock for survey and or maintenance, it is towed by a good old ICE powered tug. The other electric vessel is a vehicle and foot traffic ferry that runs from Helsingborg (Sweden) to Helsingor (Denmark), a twenty minute trip, she tops up the charge in Sweden each time she is alongside and battery capacity is said to be sufficient for an hour of main engine use. There are small diesel gennys on board; to keep the lights on in extremis. Sadly as of now electric boats are as functional as chocolate fireguards, yes ‘submarines can be diesel electric’ but they have negligible cargo carrying capacity and if you ever go on one your first thought could be ‘where do they put the crew?’
Chris B
Chris B 13 dager siden
Bio fuels aren't the sole answer but they are part of the solution.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 5 dager siden
@Chris B In the context of a military defence requirement, yes. The QE/PoW are more cost effective means of dealing with the potential threat than the Ford class option. If there was no threat then neither would be necessary but sadly we do not live in a world of peace and harmony. A good example is the Vulcan bomber that was deployed in the 1950's but only used in anger once very shortly before being decommissioned. As with all weapons better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Chris B
Chris B 5 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart So because kerosene is cheaper than the alternatives we should keep using it? Because that's the only thing I'm reading out of your block of text here.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 13 dager siden
How about ‘bio fuel’, how green is it? Short answer, not very; major problem is land use and the limited upside is that the carbon released into the atmosphere has recently been taken out of that space in the growth part of the cycle. On a small scale, to use up the waste products from other industries like forestry, animal husbandry or agriculture, ‘bio fuels’ are as good source of carbon molecules as you could get but they like all 'alternative' fuels still involve a combustion stage and therefore some noxious effluents, NOx for example. Fossil hydrocarbon oil fuels run up from CH4 (methane/biogas) to very thick black HFO cSt380 (C20H42 to C50H102 or more). The sweet spot is kerosene (C10H22 to C16H34), also known as gas turbine fuel and used in modern aircraft engines. It is relatively cheap, relatively energy dense, relatively hydrophobic and relatively safe. Creating a non fossil substitute, at a reasonable cost, is ‘the holy grail’ for energy chemists; like turning base metal into gold. Natural history, on a geological scale, has done a lot of heavy lifting for us humans.
Dragon Heart
Dragon Heart 13 dager siden
Now if we could only make these ships quiet so whales stop beaching themselves to avoid the never ending noise made in the ocean. Not sure how that would work though haha
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 13 dager siden
The easiest means to reduce emissions, including noise, is to reduce consumption and transportation. Reducing consumption requires all individuals to act and limit their consumption, satisfying a person’s needs requires fewer resources than satisfying their wants. Using material and products that are available locally, to the point of consumption, will also reduces transportation impacts. Freight is always a balance of weight, volume and value so not moving an item from ‘a’ to ’b’ unless the value added significantly out ways the costs, including environmental costs, incurred is a good starting point. Shipping is a high volume low cost, and thus low margin per unit, operation; in part due to end user reluctance to pay the full economic and environmental cost of what they ‘want’ to have, think Glastonbury £100 (ticket price) count me in; Glastonbury £1 000 (full environmental cost) no way!
Allen Loser
Allen Loser 15 dager siden
Reduction in cargo space while increasing the cost of the fuel (e.g. hydrogen) needed to complete a voyage is not a viable solution. Appeal to greed by reducing expenses and by increasing revenue per trip to promote sustainable changes in environmental behavior.
Allen Loser
Allen Loser 15 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart Shipping companies reduced consumption by slowing down and through ship design optimized for slower speeds. Doing so appealed to greed. Shipping companies will adopt hydrogen as a fuel only when doing so appeals to greed compared to continued use of bunker fuel. Environmental regulations should always be based upon a cost versus benefit analysis before imposing an additional cost on an identifiable group.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 15 dager siden
The easiest means to reduce emissions is to reduce consumption and transportation. Reducing consumption requires all individuals to act and limit their consumption, satisfying a person’s needs requires fewer resources than satisfying their wants. Using material and products that are available locally, to the point of consumption, will also reduces transportation impacts. Freight is always a balance of weight, volume and value so not moving an item from ‘a’ to ’b’ unless the value added significantly out ways the costs, including environmental costs, incurred is a good starting point. Shipping is a high volume low margin operation, in part due to end user reluctance to pay the full economic and environmental cost of what they ‘want’ to have, think Glastonbury £100 (ticket price) count me in; Glastonbury £1 000 (full environmental cost) no way!
Allen Loser
Allen Loser 15 dager siden
Gasoline was a waste prowasteduct from refining of kerosene prior to widespread adoption of the automobile "explosion engine" Refiners dumped the unmarketable fraction of the refining stream on the ground or in rivers to soak in or to be burned off. Alternative uses and markets for the "bottom of the barrel" bunker fuel must be developed to avoid waste and pollution if shipping no longer consumes bunker fuel. Development of cost-effective means to reduce emissions from burning of bunker fuel is another alternative. Appeal to greed to promote sustainable changes in environmental behavior.
Allen Loser
Allen Loser 13 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart IOW, you and I are in agreement that regulations which are based on a credible cost-versus-benefit analysis are justified. Regulations define the boundary between the liberty of a manufacturer to produce and sell products, the liberty of consumers to buy products which meet their needs and others who may be harmed by those products.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 14 dager siden
Competition in ‘the market’ forces shipping companies to adopt the most profitable technology, but regulation is necessary to limit the excesses. The unregulated competitive market is prone to ‘short termism’ as in ‘we need yield now the future is tomorrows problem’ Greed as in greatest ‘overall individual benefit’, relying on the sum of the greatest ‘overall individual benefits’ to be the best 'total option' rather than greed as in ‘consume to excess’. This could lead us to a ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (Lloyd then Hardin) situation via a 'Jevons Paradox'. So is an answer 'control the rebound effect with 'cap and trade' schems or green (carbon) taxes'?
Allen Loser
Allen Loser 14 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart Maximization of utilization of a barrel of oil to produce marketable products has something in common with the meat packing industry. It is said that every portion of a hog is utilized "except for the oink." Production efficiency is high when there is little waste of raw material. That appeals to the greed of consumers who benefit from high availability of products at an affordable cost. I'm in no hurry to forgo the benefits of products by FOGI. That includes diesel fuel, gasoline, natural gas to heat my home, plastics and many other products. Appeal to my greed with products which better meet my needs than what I now use to prompt me to change my purchasing behavior. I am the sole arbiter of what best meets my needs. We appear to be in vehement agreement on sustainable change comes about by consumers choosing products which best meet their needs. Consumers did not choose kerosene over whale oil as a lighting and cooking fuel after Colonel Drake struck oil in 1859 as a means to "Save the Whales." Forestalling extinction of whales was an unintended consequence.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 15 dager siden
The oil refining part of the FOGI (fossil oil & gas industry) has many stars but the elite of the elite are the guys who mix the fractions to get the most revenue out of the barrel and the tools they use include cracking and reforming. Basically splitting up the crude that one set of traders has bought for them and then blending that collection of components into the products a second set of traders can sell for as much revenue as possible and doing it with the least expenditure of effort, energy or resources. So the atmospheric residue from thermal cracking, or distillation, is then put through secondary refining such a catalytic cracker where industrial chemistry on a grand scale chops up the longer chain hydrocarbons into bits that can be used, as is or after reformation, to make whatever is most saleable in the available market. Residues may end up as bitumen (aka asphalt) when they cannot be found any other more profitable niche.
Allen Loser
Allen Loser 15 dager siden
The video demonstrates that sustainable changes in environmental behavior come about through appeals to greed. Shipping companies slowed down in order to save fuel with correspondingly reduced expenses. Shipping companies invested their own capital to retrofit ships for higher efficiency at lower soeeds, Appeal to greed to Save the World. Shipping companies will voluntarily adopt the most profitable technology.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 15 dager siden
WRT speed reduction. Bear in mind that speed reductions, a useful buffer for adjusting variations in demand, will in the long term require more goods in transit to maintain any given long term level of supply. Typically tankers move at 15kn so a reduction of speed to 12kn could yield a fuel consumption saving of 20% (?), however to maintain the same flow of material an additional 25% of shipping capacity will be required. 4 ships at 15kn = 60 freight miles = 5 ships at 12kn.
Allen Loser
Allen Loser 15 dager siden
There have been wind-powered ships for hundreds of years. Solar Impulse 2, a solar-electric aircraft, took longer to circumnavigate the Earth than a sailing chip of the early 1800s while carrying a load of a pilot and a bag lunch. A sailing ship of the 1800s carried a load of tens or hundreds of tons of cargo and a crew of dozens to hundreds.
Allen Loser
Allen Loser 14 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart Environmental regulations which are supported by a credible cost versus benefit analysis can place the cost of externalities on those who "foul the nest". Imposing such costs on manufacturers, and on consumers of their products, is correctly a legislative process supported by credible data and analysis. The objective is to define at what point does the liberty of a manufacturer to produce and sell, and for a consumer to purchase and to use, a product infringe the liberty of others to breath clean(er) air or to drink clean(er) water Those who use those products have no standing to claim damages from other users of the same products. There may be a valid claim against the manufacturer for knowingly producing a hazardous product. My first car was designed to be fueled on leaded gasoline. Unleaded was about five cents more per gallon in 1981. I did not oppose the phase out of leaded gasoline. That a new car in late 1982 required unleaded gasoline did not prompt me to buy another ten year old car to avoid the expense of unleaded gasoline for another year or two or three. The benefits of using unleaded gasoline appealed to my greed. Spark plugs lasted 50,000 miles instead of needing to be cleaned or replaced at 5,000 mile intervals when using leaded gasoline. Similarly, I did not oppose emissions regulations My 2004 VW produces perhaps 2% of the emissions of the cars built during the 1960s in which I road during my childhood and on which I learned to drive in 1975. I chose a high efficiency natural gas-fired condensing boiler when I had the heating boiler in my home replaced in December 2013. I did not even ask the heating contractor how much I might save on purchase cost had I bought a conventional boiler. Fuel saving appeals to my greed. Appeals to greed may not be a perfect solution but it is the only sustainable solution. The alternative requires that all manufacturers and all consumers subordinate their needs to principles.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 15 dager siden
@Allen Loser greed is something of a double edged sword. Greed by consumers who want new goods as fast as possible as well as greed by the supply side of industry who want an ever increasing share of the market they are involved in. To maximise satisfaction / returns each tries to externalise as much of the cost of an activity as possible. Sadly that most common of goods, the environment, suffers. To put it grossly ‘humanity is s..ting in its own nest’
Allen Loser
Allen Loser 15 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart Shipping companies will adopt solar panels on top of the containers when doing so appeals to their greed,. Your detailed post provides a good analysis of why solar panels on top of containers does not appeal to greed and probably never will. The amount of sunlight collected is too small in comparison to the energy budget of the ship.
Allen Loser
Allen Loser 15 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart The video repeatedly hints that change comes about as a result of consumers making decisions which are in their own economic interest. Your lengthy reply about th Cutty Sark supports that statement. I summarized it with "Appeal to greed to promote change. Solar Impulse 2 does not appeal to the greed of a commercial shipper even when compared to Cutty Sark,."
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 15 dager siden
Solar power is next up; as an example the above container (called boxes by nautical folk) area of a Maersk Triple E is less than 399.2m by 59m. The 399.2m is the length between perpendiculars (marine tech speak - no need to worry about it) and the 59m is the width overall (more marine tech speak so again no need to worry about it) allowing for the sides, bow, stern & navigation/accommodation structure could we agree 340m x 56m or 19 040m2 for the ‘top of stow’ area? Insolation rate in Joules will vary due to time of day, latitude of vessel, declination of sun, (those three impact the elevation of the power source) cloud cover, efficiency of solar panels and how clean they are. The Triple E class use two 29 680 kiloWatt each, at full whack, ICEs for propulsion plus some hotel and services power load cost; so for round numbers, could we agree 60 megaWatts? Solar panels create about 155 Watts m2 averaged out; 19 040 x 155 gives me 2 951 200 Watts (or 3 megaWatts for a round number) from the top of all the boxes. Those three megaWatts might allow you to distil enough fresh water from the sea to wash the crud off of the solar panels (surprise fact renewable energy comes with maintenance costs) but nowhere near enough to effectively 'push the boat along'. Fitting solar panels on top of the ‘boxes’ is worth, at most, 0.5% of your power requirement. More seriously the ‘boxes’ are loaded and unloaded from the top down so the solar panel array would need to be moved for every port operation and time is money as well as that operation having the ability to get very complicated (tech speak for ‘go wrong’). Any additional weight would be in the worst possible place for the stability of your vessel, the operating environment would be harsh and the ‘top of stow’ on a ‘box boat’ is seldom a level expanse as each column of containers may be, and usually is, of differing heights.
GeeKIller
GeeKIller 15 dager siden
Our ferries at Dover in the uk spewed orange smoke for years. they got told to use scrubbers but then started dumping the byproduct into the sea itself. I keep seeing young kids getting rashes after going in the water. Anyway they apparently have plans for hybrid Prius like ships that should cut emissions by 40 percent. I guess it may only work well as the trip is only 24 miles and you can charge at each end maybe. Each boat is like a million diesel cars or something and gives me splitting headaches when the wind goes towards my town.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 15 dager siden
Improving fuel quality is arguable the lowest of the low hanging fruit in improving the atmospheric environment so a move to LNG form HFO would generate less SOx, However all change and improvements costs so we, the consumers, will need to be prepared to pay a little more or consume a little less. The impact of 'pay more / consume less' will have greatest impact on the least affluent.
Mongkoloyem Y Chang
Mongkoloyem Y Chang 15 dager siden
Just imagining a renewable green energy ship transporting crude oil. The irony
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 14 dager siden
Cheap energy is only one product with beneficial impacts on humanity, almost every thing you have and use contains co-products of the fuel element of the FOGI (fossil oil & gas industry) so if ‘renewables’ become autogenous you may well see ‘renewable’ energy powered ships transporting crude hydrocarbon.
Maximilian Pfeifer
Maximilian Pfeifer 15 dager siden
Why is this even a question? Germany already produces submarines that run on fuel cells. Some of them are sold to countries like Israel.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 15 dager siden
Electric motors powered by ‘green electric’, leaving aside the fact that there is no truly ‘green’ electricity, the best we can do is low carbon impact both at installation (capital cost) and production (current account). Running ships on the ‘lecky’ is tricky the two examples that I personally know of, and have used, are a vehicle and foot traffic ‘chain’ ferry that ply’s its trade across the hundred meters or so of the Nordre älv between the island of Hisingen and the Kornhall on the Swedish mainland. The motors are on the ferry and a cable is unwound and wound back up on board as the ferry shuttles back and forth from Kornhall. When the vessel goes anywhere else, id est dry dock for survey and or maintenance, it is towed by a good old ICE powered tug. The other electric vessel is a vehicle and foot traffic ferry that runs from Helsingborg (Sweden) to Helsingor (Denmark), a twenty minute trip, she tops up the charge in Sweden each time she is alongside and battery capacity is said to be sufficient for an hour of main engine use. There are small diesel gennys on board; to keep the lights on in extremis. Sadly as of now electric boats are as functional as chocolate fireguards, yes ‘submarines can be diesel electric’ but they have negligible cargo carrying capacity and if you ever go on one your first thought could be ‘where do they put the crew?’
King of Phantoms
King of Phantoms 16 dager siden
Yes, the sea is windy (big turbines to produce power). There is water (Water turbines). There might be sun (Solar power)
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 16 dager siden
Solar power; as an example the above container (called boxes by nautical folk) area of a Maersk Triple E is less than 399.2m by 59m. The 399.2m is the length between perpendiculars (marine tech speak - no need to worry about it) and the 59m is the width overall (more marine tech speak so again no need to worry about it) allowing for the sides, bow, stern & navigation/accommodation structure could we agree 340m x 56m or 19 040m2 for the ‘top of stow’ area? Insolation rate in Joules will vary due to time of day, latitude of vessel, declination of sun, (those three impact the elevation of the power source) cloud cover, efficiency of solar panels and how clean they are. The Triple E class use two 29 680 kiloWatt each, at full whack, ICEs for propulsion plus some hotel and services power load cost; so for round numbers, could we agree 60 megaWatts? Solar panels create about 155 Watts m2 averaged out; 19 040 x 155 gives me 2 951 200 Watts (or 3 megaWatts for a round number) from the top of all the boxes. Those three megaWatts might allow you to distil enough fresh water from the sea to wash the crud off of the solar panels (surprise fact renewable energy comes with maintenance costs) but nowhere near enough to effectively 'push the boat along'. Fitting solar panels on top of the ‘boxes’ is worth, at most, 0.5% of your power requirement. More seriously the ‘boxes’ are loaded and unloaded from the top down so the solar panel array would need to be moved for every port operation and time is money as well as that operation having the ability to get very complicated (tech speak for ‘go wrong’). Any additional weight would be in the worst possible place for the stability of your vessel, the operating environment would be harsh and the ‘top of stow’ on a ‘box boat’ is seldom a level expanse as each column of containers may be, and usually is, of differing heights.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 16 dager siden
To address the suggestions that sail power is the answer I offer the following example. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’. The Cutty Sark was 64.74 metres in length with a beam of 10.97 metres and a loaded displacement of 2 100 tonnes. She was able to carry 1 700 tonnes of cargo and to harness the energy in the wind the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2 which was tended by a crew of about 30 skilled men. A ratio between the sail area (SA) and the vessels displacement (D) determines how lively she is; ‘lively’ being nautical speak for ‘fast and manoeuvrable’. The carrying capacity of cargo ships is constrained in two ways, mass and volume which leads us to the ‘stowage factor’ of the cargo; the more mass on board the greater the displacement which in turn impacts the efficiency of the hull form and sail area / displacement ratio. A vessel constrained by mass is said to be ‘down but not full’, a vessel constrained by volume ‘full but not down. When in the tea trade, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for with fine lines (more nautical tech speak so again - no need to worry about it) she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots dependent on the prevailing wind and had a typical China to UK time on passage of 120 days. The tea trade was very competitive so ‘time on passage’ was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective. Rounding things out her maximum available sail area gave circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of tea carried. As soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through; she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era who could beat her ‘time on passage’. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort. Random fact about ‘Cutty Sark’, it is said to have been possible to coax 3 000 horse power out of her sails, or in ‘real money’ 2 206 500 Watts (2.2 megaWatts), assuming this was in ideal conditions that is about ⅔ of the solar power that might be harvested from the ‘top of stow’ of a Maersk Triple E, again in those elusive ideal conditions and 741 Watts for each square meter of sail area. So that majestic spread of canvas would have been even less efficacious for delivering your baubles and bows from the orient, despite taking about three times as long on the voyage.
K h a a l i x
K h a a l i x 16 dager siden
so you make a video on how much better the metric system is and then still use imperial in your videos. Cringe.
maximusprime98
maximusprime98 16 dager siden
why not nuclear powered ships? They're already used by the US Navy and seem to work fine.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 16 dager siden
@maximusprime98 thank you. My response to the comments in this thread have been collated into what is getting on to being a thesis in its own right and the comments are a vey useful challenge that spur the thinking about solutions. My favourite for saving the planet is ‘reduce ‘consumption’ followed by ‘stabilise the global population’ neither of which is very popular; sadly ‘increasing the efficiency of the global consumption process’ does not seem to be enough. Med vänligt hälsningar (best regard in Swedish) Bernard
maximusprime98
maximusprime98 16 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart That was a good arfument and was very well researched. (rare on NOpost so should be praised). This would obviously need strict monitoring if global governments and would obviously not be cheaper. I never meant to imply that. However as far as there being any alternative to massively reduce emissions it could be worth considering. All previous approaches aren't working and I think more drastic actions should be considered.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 16 dager siden
Just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience ) nation state? If you are could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy thorium fuel, molten salt reactors or fusion reactors will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been lied to in the past, will not believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black, HFO cSt380, or thin runny stuff, Avtur-JetA1, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by gas turbines thus using the same fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skills and expertise use, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 8 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seem to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power so as well as submarines their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each have a build cost three times that of QE/PoW, bigger crews and more generous funding. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping.
Rohit Ghosh
Rohit Ghosh 17 dager siden
In 16th century, Large merchant ships could easily reach the speed of 10-12 knots......... With our level of development and technology in this century.... Higher speeds could be achieved with various changes in the design of the ships....... These ships will be cheaper and hence the shipping companies can also buy more ships........... Ok this rules out the SPEED and CAPACITY factor........ Also it will be powered by wind so zero co2 emissions which will in turn save the fuel and gasoline which is used in these giant machines.......... Also scrapping up these gigantic machines will provide tons of steel which can be used in other places........... In short I think (based on my insufficient research) that wind powered vessels should come back.........
Rohit Ghosh
Rohit Ghosh 15 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart Agreed make more of these clippers............ they can easily replace these fat metal giants
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 16 dager siden
To address the suggestions that sail power is the answer I offer the following example. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’. The Cutty Sark was 64.74 metres in length with a beam of 10.97 metres and a loaded displacement of 2 100 tonnes. She was able to carry 1 700 tonnes of cargo and to harness the energy in the wind the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2 which was tended by a crew of about 30 skilled men. A ratio between the sail area (SA) and the vessels displacement (D) determines how lively she is; ‘lively’ being nautical speak for ‘fast and manoeuvrable’. The carrying capacity of cargo ships is constrained in two ways, mass and volume which leads us to the ‘stowage factor’ of the cargo; the more mass on board the greater the displacement which in turn impacts the efficiency of the hull form and sail area / displacement ratio. A vessel constrained by mass is said to be ‘down but not full’, a vessel constrained by volume ‘full but not down. When in the tea trade, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for with fine lines (more nautical tech speak so again - no need to worry about it) she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots dependent on the prevailing wind and had a typical China to UK time on passage of 120 days. The tea trade was very competitive so ‘time on passage’ was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective. Rounding things out her maximum available sail area gave circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of tea carried. As soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through; she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era who could beat her ‘time on passage’. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort. Random fact about ‘Cutty Sark’, it is said to have been possible to coax 3 000 horse power out of her sails, or in ‘real money’ 2 206 500 Watts (2.2 megaWatts), assuming this was in ideal conditions that is about ⅔ of the solar power that might be harvested from the ‘top of stow’ of a Maersk Triple E, again in those elusive ideal conditions and 741 Watts for each square meter of sail area. So that majestic spread of canvas would have been even less efficacious for delivering your baubles and bows from the orient, despite taking about three times as long on the voyage.
Quicklysaw6
Quicklysaw6 17 dager siden
The best we have is Nuclear. A nuclear power source on land about 50-100 miles away from cities is the best type of energy in the world. Nothing can complete with how green/safe/powerful that is. Nuclear power on the ocean is not really a good ideal, it’s more dangerous than oil planforms. Our current nuclear powered ships are controlled by governments with extremely strict controls. Giving a company this power would be a disaster.
Quicklysaw6
Quicklysaw6 2 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart like I said, Nuclear is good on land, not good on the ocean. It belongs far away from people in case an accident occurs. Power cables for nuclear can be pushed very far. Being on the ocean would be a disaster with so many moving parts.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 17 dager siden
Just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience ) nation state? If you are could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy thorium fuel, molten salt reactors or fusion reactors will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been lied to in the past, will not believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black, HFO cSt380, or thin runny stuff, Avtur-JetA1, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by gas turbines thus using the same fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skills and expertise use, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 8 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seem to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power so as well as submarines their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each have a build cost three times that of QE/PoW, bigger crews and more generous funding. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping.
Altan Şirin
Altan Şirin 17 dager siden
As a naval architect and marine engineer i also have to add that shipping industry is slow to implement changes. Ships cost millions of dollars and they take years to make. In such a circumtances the shipping companies don't want to take risks trying new technologies. Which is why they probobly went with the speed reducing option at first.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 17 dager siden
On the ‘reduced impact front’ a lesson might be learnt from the past, in the 1930’s a group of six ships that were being built for the British Tanker Company (BP) to their “Three Twelve’s” design (12 000 tons deadweight, with a speed of twelve knots and a fuel consumption of 12 tons per day). These ships were purchased whilst still ‘on the stocks’ and completed for the Admiralty so they could keep the fleet fuelled up and at sea. 12 000 tons deadweight (dwt) is tiny by today’s standards with ULCC’s being twenty five times that size (300 000 dwt) while their typical service speed has only increased to around fifteen knots, or by 25% if you like to keep things relative, and daily fuel consumption has gone up to about 60 tons (or half an order of magnitude to be academic about it). Bear in mind that speed reductions, a useful buffer for adjusting variations in demand, will in the long term require more goods in transit to maintain any given level of supply. Typically tankers move at 15kn so a reduction of speed to 12kn could yield a fuel consumption saving of 20% (?), however to maintain the same flow of material an additional 25% of shipping capacity will be required. 4 ships at 15kn = 60 freight miles = 5 ships at 12kn.
Sim. Frischh
Sim. Frischh 17 dager siden
How ironic, the Liberty ship line was developed to be build faster than the german submarines could sink them. Comparing the future transport ship to that would mean you are willing to sacrifice hundreds to get thousands to the intended destination.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 17 dager siden
On the ‘reduced impact front’ a lesson might be learnt from the past, in the 1930’s a group of six ships that were being built for the British Tanker Company (BP) to their “Three Twelve’s” design (12 000 tons deadweight, with a speed of twelve knots and a fuel consumption of 12 tons per day). These ships were purchased whilst still ‘on the stocks’ and completed for the Admiralty so they could keep the fleet fuelled up and at sea. 12 000 tons deadweight (dwt) is tiny by today’s standards with ULCC’s being twenty five times that size (300 000 dwt) while their typical service speed has only increased to around fifteen knots, or by 25% if you like to keep things relative, and daily fuel consumption has gone up to about 60 tons (or half an order of magnitude to be academic about it). Bear in mind that speed reductions, a useful buffer for adjusting variations in demand, will in the long term require more goods in transit to maintain any given level of supply. Typically tankers move at 15kn so a reduction of speed to 12kn could yield a fuel consumption saving of 20% (?), however to maintain the same flow of material an additional 25% of shipping capacity will be required. 4 ships at 15kn = 60 freight miles = 5 ships at 12kn.
Carpenter
Carpenter 18 dager siden
Thorium reactors.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 18 dager siden
Just think would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a flag of convenience (FOC) nation state? If you are could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy thorium fuel, molten salt reactors or fusion reactors will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been lied to in the past, will not believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black, HFO cSt380, or thin runny stuff, Avtur-JetA1, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by gas turbines thus using the same fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skills and expertise use, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 8 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seem to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power so as well as submarines their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each have a build cost three times that of QE/PoW, bigger crews and more generous funding. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping.
Jakov Vrbanec
Jakov Vrbanec 18 dager siden
How about having ships with build-in saltwater-to-desalination-to-electrolysis with fuel cell? Use those cylindrical shape wind turbines or/with solar panels on sides and roof (higher than container space) for power of conversion saltwater from oceans and sea to hydrogen fuel, making fuel on the way but at the almost the same rate as usage of energy on board. It could be expensive, but could manage to close the loop...?
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 18 dager siden
The wind turbines or solar panels would not harvest enough energy to power the desalination and electrolyse of the sea water, both are energy intensive processes, so there would be no excess hydrogen generated to drive the ship. In short the numbers do not add up, even before the financial or resource cost of the installed equipment is considered.
dibyalok paul
dibyalok paul 19 dager siden
We can use liquid hydrogen fuel like nikola
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 18 dager siden
H2 is said to be good for use in fuel cells that will give clean energy when combined with Oxygen (O2) and leave only water (H2O) as an effluent; so as well as the cost of creating the hardware and separating out the H2 in the first place we now have the cost of separating out the O2. H2 is very, very light and very, very volatile so this is where we remember the Hindenberg disaster, the ‘light’ means that though there is lots of energy per unit mass there is not much mass per unit of volume so all the problems of CH4 but much worse. You need to compress it, more than a lot, or cool it, more than a lot, to get enough on board your ship in manageable volumes to be useful. The alternative to fuel cell use of H2, burning, also generates combustion products which includes waste heat going to the cold sink and a few NOx nasties. The numbers, on any of these, are getting very difficult to show any sort of surplus so is this a case running hard to stand still?
Iman Khandaker
Iman Khandaker 19 dager siden
...are sailing ships possible? Will we ever know?
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 15 dager siden
@Iman Khandaker OTC, or as much as I have read to date which is not much, seems to require a long ‘drop’, circa 1 000m, to get a decent temperature differential Saga University in Japan seem to be leading the field but as I said ‘more research is required’ (:-)
Iman Khandaker
Iman Khandaker 15 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart You're welcome. I'm not really linking cargo ships to warships - so much as pointing out that use in military subs, demonstrates the practicality of a technology that has had almost zero investment in the almost two centuries following it's invention. I can't accurately estimate the size - other than say that it is very dependent on the temperature differential. Guessing -using combustion only it would by roughly the same weight, but almost 50% greater volume - using ocean thermal only it would be almost 10 times the volume. Impractical for a sub - but not unreasonable for something the size of an oil tanker. The beauty is the flexibility - low speed for NO fuel usage, or medium speed for very low fuel usage .... all with no danger of ever being becalmed in either mode.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 16 dager siden
Thank you for your lead to Ocean Thermal Conversion (OTC) looks like I need a better search engine, my existing choice took me to a engine tuner in the PDSR of Californication! Mr. Atkinson was from Yorkshire and the local story is he was looking for a way to avoid paying Herr Otto royalties, typical for a Tyke. The added bonus of reduced fuel consumption and thus avoidance of any fuel tax would have gladdened his heart. WRT to Stirling engines I am currently enjoying retirement in Sweden having been an economic migrant here, long story starts when I met a girl in 1970. However linking 'commercial' with 'warships' is WADR a bit of a stretch, even allowing for Napiers Deltic Diesel moving from the RN to the railways successfully. So how big, structurally, and with what temperature differential do you think would be required to get OTC or a Stirling engine to megaWatt scale power output?
Iman Khandaker
Iman Khandaker 16 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart No, the Atkinson cycle is the lean-burn, low compression ratio, variant of the Otto cycle - used by Toyota to increase fuel efficiency at the cost of power density. There isn't a Anderson cycle engine as such - OTC has so little development. But there is an Anderson cycle - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion#Closed_Anderson_cycle
Iman Khandaker
Iman Khandaker 16 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart Funny you mention Sweden - the only commercial marine Stirling engine I know, is made by Kockums of Sweden, for their Gotland class diesel/Stirling/electric submarines. Admittedly, they still use MTU diesel (with almost 80 years of development) for normal runs - but silent running is by Stirling engine. It is so silent that in exercises, it penetrated US Naval defences & managed to take out a destroyer. So reduced acoustic pollution might give the whales a break. But seriously, the Stirling engine is MORE efficient than the main diesel - but hasn't been developed to the scale required for complete replacement.They could run on diesel, petrol or gas - & even using the heat from adiabatic expansion /contraction of bottled air.
abb criss
abb criss 19 dager siden
Well understood that co2 is not the real problem when it comes to global warming and man made emissions. Everyone still concerned primarily with co2
paul sehstedt
paul sehstedt 19 dager siden
Sure about all the figures you've presented in this video? It's possible to convert or build from new ships with a CMSR power plant. That will solve many problems. Sails are no option for large cargo ships: too dangerous to operate for the crew and maintenance is costly. If all electrical power worldwide is produced by CMSR-technology, the carbon dioxide emission will drop rapidly, but will not stop the Earth from warming. For more info: www.seaborg.co.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 19 dager siden
@paul sehstedt My understanding of CMSR is not the problem, it is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having being transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' to 'the costs of remediation are incalculable'. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the problems but the general public having been lied to in the past and will not believe the fresh new promises.
paul sehstedt
paul sehstedt 19 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart Maybe you should understand the CMSR technology, which opens up for new possibilities.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 19 dager siden
Start by doing a web search for ‘nuclear ship savannah’. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black, HFO cSt380, or thin runny stuff, Avtur-JetA1, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by gas turbines thus using the same fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skills and expertise use, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 8 boats in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seems to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power so their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each have a build cost three times that of QE/POW, bigger crews and more generous funding. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping. Just think would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, possible, via a letter box in a flag of convenience (FOC) nation state? If you are could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or any other, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’.
DunnickFayuro
DunnickFayuro 21 dag siden
A few years ago I saw those huge (I mean, absolutely enormous) sails being tested on ships. They were kinda shaped like parachutes (the rectangular ones) and tethered to the hull at the bow with steel cables. So no precious cargo space was wasted for these sails. Computers were pulling on the cables to extract the most from the wind. I wonder what happened to this technology...
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 21 dag siden
It did not live up to the promise. At best the wind kite was a supplement to ICEs every item of equipment on a ship has to pay its way so simple is good, effective is good and cheap is good. Major issue was if the wind is not blowing in the direction the cargo needs to go the kite is not contributing.
G W
G W 21 dag siden
Thats like Police say we are gona to stop 1.7% of rapes in the city , to reduce crime , ridiculous.
M M
M M 22 dager siden
If the goal is CO2 Reduction is the goal, then make then nuclear powered.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 22 dager siden
Start by doing a web search for ‘nuclear ship savannah’. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black cSt380 onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth is pushed about by gas turbines thus using the same fuel as the aircraft that fly off of her. The Royal Navy (RN) also have a similarly high degree of skills and expertise and the RN’s current operational nuclear fleet is 8 boats in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seems to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping.
Steven Boelke
Steven Boelke 22 dager siden
If aircraft carriers can use nuclear reactors, wouldn't it be better to just allow american ships to use nuclear reactors? There'd have to be oversight and protection, of course.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 22 dager siden
Google the 'Savannah' been tried did not work. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black cSt380 onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth is pushed about by gas turbines thus using the same fuel as the aircraft that fly off her. The Royal Navy (RN) also have a similarly high degree of skills and expertise and the RN’s current operational nuclear fleet is 8 boats in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seems to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping.
philip dias
philip dias 22 dager siden
Throwback to nuclear reactor powered ships
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 22 dager siden
Google the 'Savannah' been tried did not work. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black cSt380 onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth is pushed about by gas turbines thus using the same fuel as the aircraft that fly off her. The Royal Navy (RN) also have a similarly high degree of skills and expertise and the RN’s current operational nuclear fleet is 8 boats in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seems to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping.
Michael Combrink
Michael Combrink 23 dager siden
What about floating hydrogen tanks
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 23 dager siden
H2 is said to be good for use in fuel cells that will give clean energy when combined with Oxygen (O2) and leave only water (H2O) as an effluent; so as well as the cost of creating the hardware and separating out the H2 in the first place we now have the cost of separating out the O2. H2 is very, very light and very, very volatile so this is where we remember the Hindenberg disaster, the ‘light’ means that though there is lots of energy per unit mass there is not much mass per unit of volume so all the problems of CH4 but much worse. You need to compress it, more than a lot, or cool it, more than a lot, to get enough on board your ship in manageable volumes to be useful. The alternative to fuel cell use of H2, burning, also generates combustion products which includes waste heat going to the cold sink and a few NOx nasties. The numbers, on any of these, are getting very difficult to show any sort of surplus so is this a case running hard to stand still.
YUNFEI LONG
YUNFEI LONG 23 dager siden
Small nuclear reactor....
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 23 dager siden
Waste from nuclear powered energy sources may remain active for hundreds oy thousands of years, can not say personally as even i have not been around that long. In contrast the Chinese Empire, and its derivatives, set up by Yu the Great has only been in business for just over 4k years so even that predates me; and most other non enthusiasts for nuclear power.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 23 dager siden
‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When they do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black cSt380 onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth is pushed about by gas turbines thus using the same fuel as the aircraft that fly off of her. The Royal Navy (RN) also have a similarly high degree of skills and expertise and the RN’s current operational nuclear fleet is 8 boats in two flotillas, four attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seems to get considered. Disposal, once it wears out, of both the machine (that was a ship) and fuel is another can of worms best left unopened. The 26 RN boats no longer in use are laid up (some in Rosyth and some in Portsmouth) awaiting long term deconstruction including dealing with the fuel rods and other irradiated material. The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines? ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping.
Aaron Carpenter
Aaron Carpenter 23 dager siden
Can you do a video on biofuel? I'm curious as to just how green it actually is.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 23 dager siden
Short answer, not very; major problem is land use. On a small scale, to use up the waste products form other industries like forestry agriculture, they are is a good source of carbon molecules but all 'alternative' fuels still involve a combustion stage and some noxious effluent, NOx for example. Fossil fuels run up from CH4 (methane/biogas) to very thick black HFO cSt380. The sweet spot is kerosene, aka gas turbine fuel, as used in modern aircraft engines it is energy dense, hydrophobic and relatively safe. Creating a non fossil substitute is the holy grail for chemists, like turning base metal into gold. Basically history on a geological scale has done a lot of heavy lifting for us humans.
Mohammad A
Mohammad A 24 dager siden
.
Gacheru Mburu
Gacheru Mburu 24 dager siden
👍
Keegan Campbell
Keegan Campbell 24 dager siden
Could you please do videos explaining the magnetic water pump and on different scales and how it compares with other pumps, how we can make the flow of water more efficient to produce energy. 70% of the world is water, we might as well use it to our advantage
Gerrit Govaerts
Gerrit Govaerts 24 dager siden
BTW renewable ships are possible and they have existed for millenia : they're called sail boats
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 24 dager siden
To address the suggestions that sail power is the answer I offer the following. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’. The 'Cutty Sark' was 64.74 metres in length with a beam of 10.97 metres and a loaded displacement of 2 100 tonnes. She was able to carry 1 700 tonnes of cargo and to harness the energy the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2 which was tended by a crew of about 30 skilled men. A ratio between the sail area (SA) and the vessels displacement (D) determines how lively she is; ‘lively’ being nautical speak for ‘fast and manoeuvrable’. The carrying capacity of cargo ships is constrained in two ways, mass and volume which leads us to the ‘stowage factor’ of the cargo; the more mass on board the greater the displacement which in turn impacts the efficiency of the hull form and sail area / displacement ratio. A vessel constrained by mass is said to be ‘down but not full’, a vessel constrained by volume ‘full but not down. When in the tea trade, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for with fine lines (more nautical tech speak so again - no need to worry about it) she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots dependent on the prevailing wind and had a typical China to UK time on passage of 120 days. The tea trade was very competitive so ‘time on passage’ was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective. Rounding things out her maximum available sail area gave circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of tea carried. As soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through; she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era who could beat her time on passage. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort. Random facts about the 'Cutty Sark'. It is said to have been possible to coax 3 000 horse power out of her sails, or in ‘real money’ 2 206 500 Watts (2.2 megaWatts), assuming this was in ideal conditions that is about ⅔ of the solar power that might be harvested from the ‘top of stow’ of a Maersk triple E, again in those elusive ideal conditions. So that majestic spread of canvas would have been even less efficacious for delivering your baubles and bows from the orient, despite taking about three times as long on the voyage.
Gerrit Govaerts
Gerrit Govaerts 24 dager siden
fuel consumption does not explode exponentially , but rather like a polynomial of probably the third degree
Troy Hayder
Troy Hayder 25 dager siden
There is zero point in creating renewable energy sea vessels... Because they are not an efficient use of energy... Air resistance equals less than water resistance therefore water requires more energy expenditure...
Troy Hayder
Troy Hayder 24 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart that's beside the point... Air resistance is less than water resistance obviously... Therefore water travel is less energy efficient and not as green... And there are other methods of air travel other than planes such as balloons and zeplins... It might even be more energy efficient to send lots of small cargos via air than massive cargos via ship... Would require investigation and I can't be bothered... But the fact remains that air travel is technically greener...
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 24 dager siden
WRT to energy efficiency at 2:51 in the video the figures for CO2 are given as ships 3gm for each tonne kilometre and for air freight 550gm for each tonne kilometre. So to move a tonne one kilometre on a ship is nearly 200 times more efficient than using an aircraft.
Reed Richter
Reed Richter 25 dager siden
You're not going to mandate things which cut into a company's profits. If the costs are raised for the shipping company, they will absorb it as a cost of doing business and pass the costs on to their customer. Eventually, the person purchasing whatever was shipped.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 25 dager siden
Shipping is a high volume low margin operation, in part due to end user reluctance to pay the full economic and environmental cost what they want to have, think Glastonbury £100 count me in; Glastonbury £100 000 no way!
ATLAS 1
ATLAS 1 25 dager siden
When do we start using zero emissions pirate ships
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 25 dager siden
Piracy is a brutal form of theft and violence often resulting extreme abuse of the seafarers who are victimised. There is no romance or honour in that most brutal form of bullying.
Joshua Smeltzer
Joshua Smeltzer 25 dager siden
🎉 There’s a Holiday Event going on in the #Webull mobile app!! ✨ $$ Participate, in the event to win awesome prizes!! 😍 act.webull.com/ff/taPvuqxOHwTN/83l/main/wb_oversea
MrDuckie228
MrDuckie228 25 dager siden
I've read that ammonia is also a considerable option, since it holds more energy in the same amount of volume as hydrogen. It would only need an extra step as well: Add nitrogen to the hydrogen. There could also be large 'fuel stations' for ammonia as well and it can be considered 'green' when renewable input is used. Definitely an interesting topic to do research on.
MrDuckie228
MrDuckie228 25 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart I will check that out, thanks!
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 25 dager siden
The ‘Just Have A Think’ channel recently posted a video on the subject of hydrogen and ammonia that you might fine interesting.
Troy Hayder
Troy Hayder 26 dager siden
You could fit them with electric engines and recharge them with green energy... So yeah...
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 24 dager siden
@Troy Hayder putting things on ships, when appropriate, is the most energy efficient and environmentally benign transport medium we currently have. There is still some space for improvements but the best way to reduce the environmental impact of transport is to reduce consumption ‘satisfy your needs, not your greed’. Marine traffic control exists but does not have the impact ATC, sadly IMHO.
Troy Hayder
Troy Hayder 25 dager siden
Travelling through plasma would be even more efficient because objects travel 8 times faster through plasma than gas...which could be done if you could create an electromagnet that converts the surrounding atmosphere to plasma as long as you could withstand the heat... And travelling through a vacuum would be even more efficient... But how to dispel atmosphere???
Troy Hayder
Troy Hayder 25 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart apparently 80,000 tesla car batteries for a 200,000 ton sea vessel moving through air... Not accounting for the weight of the cargo.... But water resistance is greater than air resistance... Therefore water travel equals greater energy expenditure and is not energy efficient... Therefore water travel is not green and should be discarded in favour of Air travel...
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 25 dager siden
@Troy Hayder the hundred meters I gave in my example, for a very small vessel in shipping terms, is pushing the limits of the technology. Think in terms of rowing there are limits to how big you can make a vessel that it is possible to row. How many banks of how many oars would be needed to move a Mearsk Triple E? Bigger ship more power, bigger cable. Longer range, longer cable uses more space to stow on board.
Troy Hayder
Troy Hayder 25 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart you would definitley need very coordinated sea traffic control.. Just like the aircraft control system...
Robert Burke
Robert Burke 26 dager siden
2% of emissions is a drop in the bucket. I think a better idea is to somehow force them to funnel money into fixing the industries that affect pollution more.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 25 dager siden
So there goes fashion, entertainment & recreation. Zero tangible output so 100% pollution.
T.A.K
T.A.K 26 dager siden
Classic MHD bladeles propulsion system and other backuped also, energy storage graphene batteries are more efficient than Li-ion like as i remember 1000 Wh to 180 Wh per kg. Universal solution not only in water
T.A.K
T.A.K 19 dager siden
​@Bernard Stewart Solution and versatility are depending from the creativity, environment, demand, necessity, moment,.... etc.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 25 dager siden
Two things you will never have, a 'universal solvent/solution' and a 'perfectly harmonious marriage'. (:-)
Eclipsos81
Eclipsos81 26 dager siden
Aerodynamic blimp technology?
Nagy Andras
Nagy Andras 26 dager siden
please research the work the NH3 association has made, and you will find that hydrogen IS the future. in the form of NH3 its energy density is far better.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 26 dager siden
The 'Just Have A Think' channel posted a relevant item yesterday, go see. WRT ‘alternative fuels’ such as Ammonia (NH3), Biogas (basically good old CH4 or Methane) and Hydrogen (H2). All require harvesting and processing which have costs and impacts before you get your energy to the point of use and will have effluents that will impact the global environment one way or another. Thomas Midgley, Jr. (born 18 May 1889 died 2 Nov 1944) was an American (USA) chemist who as well as developing the technique of putting the lead, tetraethyl lead (TEL), additive in petrol created chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), yes those ozone depleting CFCs, so that the use of NH3 as a refrigerant could be discontinued. NH3 could be the most dangerous and least ‘clean’ clean energy source. Is very bad and probably deserves a rant all of its own, so let’s just leave that for a while (somewhere very far away that is cool, dark and quiet). CH4 lots of it around much of which comes out of the ground as a fraction of the FOGI energy mining; even more can be created (relatively expensively) from anaerobic degradation of organic matter. The organic matter may be either raw vegetation, food waste or pre-digested by domesticated livestock with the right (or wrong, depending on your point of view) sort of diet and gut fauna. CH4 is a lighter than air, vapour at environmental temperatures and pressures and you need to compress it, a lot, or cool it, a lot, to get enough on board your ship in manageable volumes to be useful. Carry it as cargo and you can burn the ‘boil off’, when the latent heat of vaporisation has a co-activity benefit, otherwise more trouble and expense than merit and savings. H2 is said to be good for use in fuel cells that will give clean energy when combined with Oxygen (O2) and leave only water (H2O) as an effluent; so as well as the cost of creating the hardware and separating out the H2 in the first place we now have the cost of separating out the O2. H2 is very, very light and very, very volatile so this is where we remember the Hindenberg disaster, the ‘light’ means that though there is lots of energy per unit mass there is not much mass per unit of volume so all the problems of CH4 but much worse. You need to compress it, more than a lot, or cool it, more than a lot, to get enough on board your ship in manageable volumes to be useful. An alternative to fuel cell use of H2, burning, also generates combustion products which includes waste heat going to the cold sink and a few NOx nasties. The numbers, on any of these, are getting very difficult to show any sort of surplus so this is a case running hard to stand still.
Brian wild
Brian wild 27 dager siden
silly title ships sailed the world for years on wind
Brian wild
Brian wild 27 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart 3 weeks such a short time must be google lol
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 27 dager siden
@Brian wild one source = plagiarism, many sources = research. The ‘research’ has been ongoing for three weeks and I have others for solar panels or nuclear power. Every complex problem has at least one simple, straight forward and cheap solution which will not work.
Brian wild
Brian wild 27 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart what a cut and paste reply for a joke lmao. they could use a molten salt reactor to power ships
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 27 dager siden
To address the suggestions that sail power is the answer I offer the following. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’. The Cutty Sark was 64.74 metres in length with a beam of 10.97 metres and a loaded displacement of 2 100 tonnes. She was able to carry 1 700 tonnes of cargo and to harness the energy the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2 which was tended by a crew of about 30 skilled men. A ratio between the sail area (SA) and the vessels displacement (D) determines how lively she is; ‘lively’ being nautical speak for ‘fast and manoeuvrable’. The carrying capacity of cargo ships is constrained in two ways, mass and volume; the more mass on board the greater the displacement which in turn impacts the efficiency of the hull form and sail area / displacement ratio. A vessel constrained by mass is said to be ‘down but not full’, a vessel constrained by volume ‘full but not down. When in the tea trade, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for with fine lines (more nautical tech speak so again - no need to worry about it) she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots dependent on the prevailing wind and had a typical China to UK time on passage of 120 days. The tea trade was very competitive so ‘time on passage’ was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective. Rounding things out her maximum available sail area gave circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of tea carried. As soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through; she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era who could beat her time on passage. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort. Random fact about 'Cutty Sark'. It is said to have been able to coax 3 000 horse power out of her sails, or in ‘real money’ 2 206 500 Watts (2.2 megaWatts), assuming this was in ideal conditions that is about ⅔ of 1% the power that is used to power one Maersk triple E carrying 700 times the cargo in a third of the time. So that majestic spread of canvas would have been circa 2 000 less than efficacious for delivering your baubles and bows from the orient, despite taking about three times as long on the voyage.
EnraEnerato
EnraEnerato 27 dager siden
Regarding the issue of hydrogen storage, refueling and the route issues, I have a thing I want to mention in regards to video source 15 & 16 which is used around 11:05 Why do I go back to this point? I looked at the sources and couldn't easily find out, wheter or not the solution I want to point out was taken into account or not when adressing the renge issues and while video source 16 pointed it out, as something that does exist, it was seemingly not appearing in the tables given. The storage solution I want to discuss is hydride based storage: I remember talking to someone (thus first hand knowledge) who works with metalls that form metallhydrides when put in steeltanks under H2 preasure, this reduces the preasure and allows you to store more of the hydrogen. When filling the tanks, they chilled them with water via a seawater-use water heatexchanger (coastal stationing), when they wanted to get more hydrogen out of "the bottom of the barrel" they used heated water to warm up the "storage tanks", the heat is in their case wasteheat from other systems. The chilled fueling allows thanked be thermodynamics, to get in more of the H2, due to lower preasures at constant mass and colder temps, the formation of metalhydrides reduces the preasure as well, keeping the chilling going means less thermal issues from the hydride formation. When scraping out the bottom of the barrel, heating the tanks "breaks appart" the hydrides and lower preasures (from the almost empty tank) make this a lot easier as well. The guy that told me these things said their metalls were a mixture with a lot of manganese, but he mentioned that there were apparently test with carbon and other lightweigt materials that would result in a weigth reduction, better for cars, a bit more irrelvant for stationary use and ships, especially if one remembers that big freight ships usually have a really big chunk of concrete in their bottom, for stability reasons. As for the preasure, according to the German wiki page [X], using the hydrides means 1-3 orders of magnitude lower preasure at the same mass compared to traditional preasure storage, I have no idea what the "orders of magnitude" exactly are, they don't hold a direct refference, but this corresponds roughly with what the guy told me, his explanation said that 10 times the mass is "normal" and this seems to correspond with 1 order of magnitude 100 times would be "very good" and 2 orders of magnitude, thus 3 orders of magnitude would be 1000 times and probably lab results. Considering that you *can* buy 200L bottles, with 300Bar [1] this would mean that at 300Bar you could theoretically get up to 25Kg/m³ (Storage density), since that would be an ideal gas more reasonable assumptions[2] would be 21ish Kg/m³ but that is without the hydrides, multiplied by 10 [3 !!!] this would give us 21 Kg/m³ * 10 ~= 210 Kg/m³ , not including the "lost volume" due to the metal that forms the hydrides, or storage compartments that would hold them. Again I have to point out that the 10 is NOT the EXACT number for the order of magnitude but something to give you an idea of what is happening. These things would weight something as well, though the storage compartments could be made from aluminum alloys and be "somewhat" lighter, certainly more so then the stuff that forms the hydrides. Another thing is that tanks that can withstand more preasure (let's say 700Bar, as per [2] ) are somewhat heavier and certainly not something to be "toyed" with, compressed air in generell never is! One of the problems is that in closed spaces you might need a double walled pipeline, the outer one would be filled with a different gas (He, N, etc.) and would be your measurement for leakage via gas detection, this is a nessesary safety precaution, as hydrogen will "vanish" from a stainless steel container, that has been welded shut perfectly, it simply "crawls" through the metall, more specific the smallest rooms between and sometimes even through the crystal latices. Helium has a simliar issue and follows the "crawling trend" as well but to a lesser extend, however as was mentioned in the video, even the "standard" fossil gas and renewable gas will find ways to leak, it just happens that gases with a smaller atomic number are better at it then ones with a higher number, let alone hydrocarbons molecules. [1] typical would be 50L at 200Bar or 300Bar from let's say Linde www.linde-gas.de/shop/de/de-ig/gase-kaufen/wasserstoff#/300_bar [2] emcel.com/de/warum-fasst-ein-wasserstofftank-bei-700-bar-nicht-doppelt-so-viel-wie-bei-350-bar/ [3] Referencing the previous explanation and asuming a "reasonable" and "normal" expectation of 1 order of magnitude, thus 10 times, 2 orders of magnitude being 10^2 ,three being 10^3 ... [X] Not a real "source", I know, but you get the info where you can get sources and read up on the topic, where I did de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallhydrid
Ofarrell Mertens
Ofarrell Mertens 27 dager siden
The chilly c-clamp synthetically deserve because break equally tease a a tart lute. ubiquitous, tearful starter
david davis
david davis 28 dager siden
Brilliantly researched, presented and narrated. Agree with your comment on the unsuitability of Biofuels, but you left out battery electric and hybrid? Next episode?
david davis
david davis 18 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart H2 does have a future if extracted from water with electrolosis using off peak renewable energy/ if used close to source ideally and we vastly improve fuel cells and storing possibly via metal hyrdide?....lots of ifs and buts sure. I am also suspect of anything CH or NH for the reasons you say...and on boats lets not forget all the ancilliary systems that often have a dedicated generator that could be replaced with solar / battery on deck....small compared to the main propulsion but every little helps.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 21 dag siden
The next, least bad, option is ‘alternative fuels’ such as Ammonia (NH3), Biogas (basically good old CH4 or Methane) and Hydrogen (H2). All require harvesting and processing which have costs and impacts before you get your energy to the point of use and will have effluents that will impact the global environment one way or another. Thomas Midgley, Jr. (born 18 May 1889 died 2 Nov 1944) was an American (USA) chemist who as well as developing the technique of putting the lead, tetraethyl lead (TEL), additive in petrol created chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), yes those ozone depleting CFCs, so that the use of NH3 as a refrigerant could be discontinued. NH3 could be the most dangerous and least ‘clean’ clean energy source, is very bad and probably deserves a rant all of its own; so let’s just leave that for a while (somewhere very far away that is cool, dark and quiet). CH4 lots of it around much of which comes out of the ground as a fraction of the FOGI energy mining; even more can be created (relatively expensively) from anaerobic degradation of organic matter. The organic matter may be either raw vegetation, food waste or pre-digested by domesticated livestock with the right (or wrong, depending on your point of view) sort of diet and gut fauna. CH4 is a lighter than air, vapour at environmental temperatures and pressures and you need to compress it, a lot, or cool it, a lot, to get enough on board your ship in manageable volumes to be useful. Carry it as cargo and you can burn the ‘boil off’, when the latent heat of vaporisation has a co-activity benefit, otherwise more trouble and expense than merit and savings. H2 is said to be good for use in fuel cells that will give clean energy when combined with Oxygen (O2) and leave only water (H2O) as an effluent; so as well as the cost of creating the hardware and separating out the H2 in the first place we now have the cost of separating out the O2. H2 is very, very light and very, very volatile so this is where we remember the Hindenberg disaster, the ‘light’ means that though there is lots of energy per unit mass there is not much mass per unit of volume so all the problems of CH4 but much worse. You need to compress it, more than a lot, or cool it, more than a lot, to get enough on board your ship in manageable volumes to be useful. The alternative to fuel cell use of H2, burning, also generates combustion products which includes waste heat going to the cold sink and a few NOx nasties. The numbers, on any of these, are getting very difficult to show any sort of surplus so is this a case running hard to stand still?
Nicklar Machine
Nicklar Machine 28 dager siden
Renewable ships? You mean sailing?
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 27 dager siden
To address the suggestions that sail power is the answer I offer the following. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’. The Cutty Sark was 64.74 metres in length with a beam of 10.97 metres and a loaded displacement of 2 100 tonnes. She was able to carry 1 700 tonnes of cargo and to harness the energy the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2 which was tended by a crew about 30 skilled men. The carrying capacity of cargo ships is constrained in two ways, mass and volume; the more mass on board the greater the displacement which in turn impacts the efficiency of the hull form and the sail area / displacement ratio. A vessel constrained by mass is said to be ‘down but not full’, a vessel constrained by volume ‘full but not down. When in the tea trade, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for with fine lines (nautical tech speak - no need to worry about it) she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots dependent on the prevailing wind and had a typical China to UK 'time on passage' of 120 days. The tea trade was very competitive so ‘time on passage’ was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her competitive i.e. cost effective. Rounding things out her maximum available sail area gave circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of tea carried. As soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through; she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era who could beat her time on passage. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort. Random facts about Cutty Sark. It is said to have been able to coax 3 000 horse power out of her sails, or in ‘real money’ 2 206 500 Watts (2.2 megaWatts), assuming this was in ideal conditions that is about ⅔ of the power that might be harvested from the ‘top of stow’ of a Maersk triple E, again in those elusive ideal conditions. So that majestic spread of canvas would have been even less efficacious for delivering your baubles and bows from the orient, despite taking about three times as long on the voyage.
Daniel Brateris
Daniel Brateris 28 dager siden
How about nuclear ships!!
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 28 dager siden
For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines?
Jaydon Nichlos
Jaydon Nichlos 28 dager siden
I'm starting to think this guy might be Irish
Antony Kuo
Antony Kuo 29 dager siden
Bruv ever heard of nuclear powered ships?
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 21 dag siden
@Antony Kuo those in the vicinity, those who take food from the seas and those on who’s shores the detritus resulting from maritime events wash up. In addition vessels do not spend all their time in the ‘deep ocean’ (outside side the 100 fathom sounding lines is generally considered ‘deep’) when approaching the shore it can all go wrong, as it recently did for an ‘in ballast’ bulk carrier off Mauritius, when the vessel goes into port for loading / discharge it is likely to be close to and up wind of a major population centre.
Antony Kuo
Antony Kuo 21 dag siden
Who cares if it detonates in the ocean. Look at how many nuclear powered ships have blown up.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 21 dag siden
Just think would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable via a letter box in a flag of convenience (FOC) nation state? If you are could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 28 dager siden
For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines?
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 29 dager siden
For those who think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with the merchant shipping. www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines?ocid=ww.social.link.email
Rob L
Rob L 29 dager siden
You make quality and informative videos. I sincerely hope you succeed even more and get to where you want to go with this channel!
Coenraad Loubser
Coenraad Loubser 29 dager siden
9:22 I saw a climate dashboard that showed that methane is much more harmful than carbon.... how does shipping compare when taking that into account?
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 28 dager siden
Methane (CH4 aka LNG, CNG, Biogas) as a marine fuel is a good option, except it is very light, lots of it around much of which comes out of the ground as a fraction of the FOGI energy mining; even more can be created (relatively expensively) from anaerobic degradation of organic matter. The organic matter may be either raw vegetation, food waste or pre-digested by domesticated livestock with the right (or wrong, depending on your point of view) sort of diet and gut fauna. CH4 is a lighter than air, vapour at environmental temperatures and pressures and you need to compress it, a lot, or cool it, a lot, to get enough on board your ship in manageable volumes to be useful. Carry it as cargo and you can burn the ‘boil off’, when the latent heat of vaporisation has the co-activity benefit of keeping the cargo and cargo tank structure cool, otherwise more trouble and cost than merit and savings. However work is being done so it may happen. If it gets out and burst into flame the radiant heat could singe your eyebrows at ranges of up to a few miles.
Rose Jones
Rose Jones 29 dager siden
The splendid bee typically untidy because hubcap presently test behind a tawdry appeal. illustrious, silent lung
Thomas Lavery
Thomas Lavery Måned siden
Could these ships possible go nuclear
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 28 dager siden
that canvas. Using modern synthetic fabrics and cordage puts one back in the hands of FOGI. Lower consumption by fewer people is the easiest and cheapest option, probably unacceptable 'by the many' if taken to the hair shirt and foraging for roots / berries level as homo sapiens do love the creature comforts.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 28 dager siden
@Thomas Lavery Nuclear power comes with high up front hardware costs and may not be fully appropriate for merchant shipping which relies on simple, cheap and robust technology. Any change will probably be to simpler, cheaper and even more robust systems. Fuel energy density must be good, the waste stream must be 'not to noxious' and the systems must be universally acceptable.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 28 dager siden
@Thomas Lavery the dynamic is always going to be cost / benefit and part of the reason for the current climate change situation is that fossil oil and case following on from carbon minerals (coal basically) have allowed energy to be used but without taking care of the consequences, such as excess atmospheric CO2. Nuclear power when it comes may have different unintended consequences that are similarly disregarded in the short term. In another thread a correspondent had not considered the land use cost of growing the flax to make the canvass or the short useable life of
Thomas Lavery
Thomas Lavery 28 dager siden
@Bernard Stewart Eventually as the price of fuel will dramatically increase and people will understand nuclear power better making it cheaper and safer. The possibility of a commercial nuclear fleet may not come now but will come eventually.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart Måned siden
@Thomas Lavery WADR the USN are not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and have the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power. The Royal Navy (RN) also have a similarly high degree of skills and expertise and operate two fleets of four nuclear powered submarines, their attack subs and their ballistics, however the two RN aircraft carriers are gas turbine powered for a number of reasons but cost is one of them. As taxpayers we Brits are not as generous as our American cousins (:-)
karthik balaji
karthik balaji Måned siden
butttchh
hsm_ epic_return
hsm_ epic_return Måned siden
Cruise ships are the worst polluters. Unlike cargo ships or planes the cruise ship industry is all about greed and gluttony and has no purpose. Cruise ships burn the filthiest oil. Because their cargo is humans they dump 1.5 billion tonnes of untreated human shit into the oceans. The largest cruise ships pollute as much as 700 diesel trucks.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart Måned siden
while agreeing with the majority of your comment I would point out that the sewage is treated on board before discharge so it is not 'raw' however it does count as a wasted resource just like the rest of the cruise industry products.
Carbon 12
Carbon 12 Måned siden
pretty embarrassing they have slowed to tall ship speeds. You also didn't mention nuclear power. Russian ice ships use it. These things could be skipping along at 30 knots.
skierpage
skierpage Måned siden
13:27 why are there dirigibles floating above the wartime shipping convoy?
Laxcat the SleepyCat
Laxcat the SleepyCat Måned siden
Those are antennas, they were used to intercept enemy comunications from subs or planes. Since codified signals werent really a thing back in the day, most american fleets had at least 1 or more guys sitting at comms room just listening the sorroundings in case anything showed up.
skierpage
skierpage Måned siden
"Nice boat you got there, what's its MPG?" "207 tons per day"
b22chris
b22chris Måned siden
I don’t believe we have the technology to reduce road pollution to 0. That’s implying electric cars produce 0 pollution. In fact many run on coal created electric and the battery mining is awful for the environment. Maybe if each car was powered by a hydroelectric damn or nuclear facility it would be a lot lower. But still not 0 like you said. Unless we’ve mastered fusion and I just missed that in the news.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 28 dager siden
The most environmentally friendly method of transport is often said to be the bicycle. Though the down side are limited capacity, poor weather protection and poor up hill performance. The limitations increase as the age of the rider increases.
Sabarish Elango
Sabarish Elango Måned siden
What about ammonia as a fuel?
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart 26 dager siden
The next, least bad, option is ‘alternative fuels’ such as Ammonia (NH3), Biogas (basically good old CH4 or Methane) and Hydrogen (H2). All require harvesting and processing which have costs and impacts before you get your energy to the point of use and will have effluents that will impact the global environment one way or another. Thomas Midgley, Jr. (born 18 May 1889 died 2 Nov 1944) was an American chemist who as well as developing the technique of putting the lead tetraethyl lead (TEL) additive in petrol created chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), yes those ozone depleting CFCs, so that the use of NH3 as a refrigerant could be discontinued. NH3 could be the most dangerous and least ‘clean’ clean energy source it is very bad and probably deserves a rant all of its own, so let’s just leave that for a while (somewhere very far away that is cool, dark and quiet). CH4 lots of it around much of which comes out of the ground as a fraction of the FOGI energy mining; even more can be created (relatively expensively) from anaerobic degradation of organic matter. The organic matter may be either raw vegetation, food waste or pre-digested by domesticated livestock with the right (or wrong, depending on your point of view) sort of diet and gut fauna. CH4 is a lighter than air, vapour at environmental temperatures and pressures and you need to compress it, a lot, or cool it, a lot, to get enough on board your ship in manageable volumes to be useful. Carry it as cargo and you can burn the ‘boil off’, when the latent heat of vaporisation has a co-activity benefit, otherwise more trouble and cost than merit and savings. H2 is said to be good for use in fuel cells that will give clean energy when combined with Oxygen (O2) and leave only water (H2O) as an effluent; so as well as the cost of creating the hardware and separating out the H2 in the first place we now have the cost of separating out the O2. H2 is very, very light and very, very volatile so this is where we remember the Hindenberg disaster the ‘light’ means that though we have lots of energy per unit mass there is not much mass per unit of volume so all the problems of CH4 but much worse. You need to compress it, more than a lot, or cool it, more than a lot, to get enough on board your ship in manageable volumes to be useful. An alternate use of H2 burning also generates combustion products which includes waste heat going to the cold sink and a few NOx nasties. The numbers are getting very difficult to show any sort of surplus so this is a case running hard to stand still.
Nikhil B
Nikhil B Måned siden
I work on ships. This pollution reduction act MARPOL Annex VI ot IAPP is a major pain in the a$$ for ships engineers.
Émilien Fonder
Émilien Fonder Måned siden
What about ammonia?
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart Måned siden
For those who think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with the merchant shipping. www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines?ocid=ww.social.link.email
Raziel
Raziel Måned siden
easy fix change to fission powerplants use less bigger ships and invest in recycling tech for spent nuclear fuel rods
Cody Newberry
Cody Newberry Måned siden
I've been recently wondering why high altitude power kites haven't been thought about for sea transport. I'm sure it would be an engineering nightmare to get them back from such heights, but using jetstreams seems like a effective way to reinvent the sail.
knightshousegames
knightshousegames Måned siden
I remember hearing ages ago that the US Navy was working on some sort of system that could convert sea water into hydrogen fuel Not sure if it was real or not, but it might make that long leg of the trip a bit easier. Also, it would be cool if they could develop deployable solar panels that just sit on top of the shipping containers, that is a crap ton of surface area that could provide additional power without really altering the ships.
Wilson Riley
Wilson Riley Måned siden
Why not go nuclear?
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart Måned siden
For those who think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with the merchant shipping. www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines?ocid=ww.social.link.email
Samuel Matheson
Samuel Matheson Måned siden
Sail ships joind d chat
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart Måned siden
To address the suggestions that sail power is the answer I offer the following. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’, she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots, dependent on the prevailing wind, to harness the energy the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2. To round things out that was circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of cargo carried. The ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for employment in the tea trade where time on passage was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective but as soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through, she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort. Random facts about Cutty Sark. It is said to have been able to coax 3 000 horse power out of her sails, or in ‘real money’ 2 206 500 Watts (2.2 megaWatts), assuming this was in ideal conditions that is about ⅔ of the power that might be harvested from the ‘top of stow’ of a Maersk triple E, again in those elusive ideal conditions. So that majestic spread of canvas would have been even less efficacious for delivering your baubles and bows from the orient, despite taking about three times as long on the voyage.
MidnightMustang
MidnightMustang Måned siden
Bleh, I hate this "critical point." We need to switch over to clean power asap, but solar power & battery energy density are sooo far behind coal/gas.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart Måned siden
As an example the above container (called boxes by nautical folk) area of a Maersk triple E is less than 399.2m by 59m. The 399.2m is the length between perpendiculars (marine tech speak - no need to worry about it) and the 59m is the width overall (more marine tech speak so again no need to worry about it) allowing for the sides, bow, stern & navigation/accommodation structure could we agree 340m x 56m or 19 040m2 for the ‘top of stow’ area? Insolation rate in Joules will vary due to time of day, latitude of vessel, declination of sun, (those three impact the elevation of the power source) cloud cover, efficiency of solar panels and how clean they are. The triple E class use 29 680 kiloWatts for propulsion at full whack plus some hotel and services power load cost; so for round numbers, could we agree 30 megaWatts? Solar panels create about 155 Watts m2 averaged out; 19 040 x 155 gives me 2 951 200 Watts (or 3 megaWatts for a round number) from the top of all the boxes. Three megaWatts might allow you to distil enough fresh water from the sea to wash the crud of the solar panels (surprise fact renewable energy comes with maintenance costs) but nowhere near enough to effectively 'push the boat along'. Fitting solar panels on top of the ‘boxes’ is worth, at most, 1% of your power requirement. More seriously the ‘boxes’ are loaded and unloaded from the top down so the solar panel array would need to be moved for every port operation and time is money as well as that operation having the ability to get very complicated (tech speak for ‘go wrong’). Any additional weight would be in the worst possible place for the stability of your vessel, the operating environment would be harsh and the ‘top of stow’ on a ‘box boat’ is seldom a level expanse as each column of containers may be, and usually is, of differing heights.
MidnightMustang
MidnightMustang Måned siden
But apart from cars, I can't wait to electrify everything.
checkxp
checkxp Måned siden
@RealEngineering Why didn't you talk about the possibility of having some very large ships powered by small (modular) nuclear reactors? And why did you just say that Hydrogen could be a possibility, without talking about how Hydrogen is currently manufactured (usually using SMR, which is a CO2 intensive way of making H2). I think it's a pity that you haven't mentionned Nuclear a single time, as it has proved in most army ships a viable and very reliable way of generating clean and near to unlimited power for the ships. Some small modular reactors could even be once installed and run for the greater part of a ships life (30yrs), nearly without the need of intervention more than once every 7 to 10 years (or more).
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart Måned siden
For those who think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with the merchant shipping. www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines?ocid=ww.social.link.email
thokim84
thokim84 Måned siden
Nuclear is the best short shift.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart Måned siden
For those who think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with the merchant shipping. www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines?ocid=ww.social.link.email
T.g.i.f
T.g.i.f Måned siden
Nuclear ships like the American aircraft carriers would be cool to see in the commercial world
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart Måned siden
For those who think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with the merchant shipping. www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines?ocid=ww.social.link.email
Aaron Oneal
Aaron Oneal Måned siden
If you are looking for a way to help the environment you can use ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees
Randal Friesen
Randal Friesen Måned siden
They should put solar panels or solar film on the outside of the hull above the water line driving electric propulsion on demand. One side will always face the sun.
Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart Måned siden
The slab sides of a ship are a very harsh environment, just keeping paint on them is difficult enough. WRT to solar energy and as an example the above container (called boxes by nautical folk) area of a Maersk triple E is less than 399.2m by 59m. The 399.2m is the length between perpendiculars (marine tech speak - no need to worry about it) and the 59m is the width overall (more marine tech speak so again no need to worry about it) allowing for the sides, bow, stern & navigation/accommodation structure could we agree 340m x 56m or 19 040m2 for the ‘top of stow’ area? Insolation rate in Joules will vary due to time of day, latitude of vessel, declination of sun, (those three impact the elevation of the power source) cloud cover, efficiency of solar panels and how clean they are. The triple E class use 29 680 kiloWatts for propulsion at full whack plus some hotel and services power load cost; so for round numbers, could we agree 30 megaWatts? Solar panels create about 155 Watts m2 averaged out; 19 040 x 155 gives me 2 951 200 Watts (or 3 megaWatts for a round number) from the top of all the boxes. Three megaWatts might allow you to distil enough fresh water from the sea to wash the crud of the solar panels (surprise fact renewable energy comes with maintenance costs) but nowhere near enough to effectively 'push the boat along'. Fitting solar panels on top of the ‘boxes’ is worth, at most, 1% of your power requirement. More seriously the ‘boxes’ are loaded and unloaded from the top down so the solar panel array would need to be moved for every port operation and time is money as well as that operation having the ability to get very complicated (tech speak for ‘go wrong’). Any additional weight would be in the worst possible place for the stability of your vessel, the operating environment would be harsh and the ‘top of stow’ on a ‘box boat’ is seldom a level expanse as each column of containers may be, and usually is, of differing heights.
Jayakrishna Balaji Kandappan Senthilvel
Jayakrishna Balaji Kandappan Senthilvel Måned siden
Does nitrogen the most abundant form of gas have any potential to do with the release of energy instead of hydrogen?
The Missing Link in Renewables
23:26
Real Engineering
Ganger 762 k
How Big Can Wind Turbines Get?
13:50
Real Engineering
Ganger 493 k
HVA SKJEDDE MED KENNEKA JENKINS?!
23:22
Sara Høydahl
Ganger 33 k
The Floating Harbors of D-Day
24:56
Real Engineering
Ganger 482 k
How Living at the South Pole Works
15:11
Wendover Productions
Ganger 827 k
Tesla's Battery Supply Problem
24:01
Real Engineering
Ganger 1,1 mill
The Riemann Hypothesis, Explained
16:24
Quanta Magazine
Ganger 643 k
How Rwanda Built A Drone Delivery Service
11:46
Real Engineering
Ganger 1,2 mill
The Insane Engineering of the A-10 Warthog
16:27
Real Engineering
Ganger 8 mill
HVA SKJEDDE MED KENNEKA JENKINS?!
23:22
Sara Høydahl
Ganger 33 k
the boys get brush tattoos
16:36
The Boys
Ganger 1,5 mill
Why we can't show you Everleigh's birth video
14:34
The LaBrant Fam
Ganger 1,4 mill
اخير فيديو بقناتي ( ام سيف )
0:30
ام سيف Om sayf
Ganger 18 mill
The PC is Victorious!!
7:04
TechLinked
Ganger 461 k