Are Renewable Powered Ships Possible?

24. nov.. 2020
686 338 Ganger

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: notown.info/love/Met4qY3027v8KjpaDtDx-g

Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=2825050&ty=h
Facebook:
facebook.com/realengineering1
Instagram:
instagram.com/brianjamesmcmanus
Reddit:
www.reddit.com/r/RealEngineering/
Twitter:
twitter.com/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 twitter.com/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
  • 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!

    Real EngineeringReal Engineering4 måneder siden
    • Nuclear reactors.

      Toora VarunToora Varun25 dager siden
    • @Davian Jordy Wow! It took about 10 minutes but it actually worked!

      Jaziel JakeJaziel JakeMåned siden
    • Dont know if anyone gives a damn but in less than 15 minutes I hacked my gfs Instagram password by using InstaPortal. Just google for it :D

      Davian JordyDavian JordyMåned siden
    • have we considered thorium as a possible fuel?

      Hell IndustriesHell IndustriesMåned siden
    • Wish you well man. I love your videos they are awesome!

      Off_mah_lawnOff_mah_lawnMåned siden
  • Bring back sailing!

    Sam WSam W6 timer siden
  • If you manufacture what you need, you don't need shipping. We all know western countries don't like to work for their products.

    Ernesto DuranErnesto DuranDag siden
    • I think you got it wrong, customers (regardless of where they live) don't like expensive products.

      Zuurker UZuurker U17 timer siden
  • Can these ships go nuclear?

    Jake KuJake Ku2 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 vessel heavily subsidised, by the government, vessel is in use in Russia which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers all of these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. The incident of the ‘Ever Given’ blocking the Suez Canal, March 2021, may also have a little to add to this debate. The cooling water on ships tends to get taken in from near the bottom so when running aground the inlets are in a prime spot to get plugged up restricting, if not stopping, the flow of coolant. One thing that the TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents all had in common was that the supply of coolant, or rather lack thereof, was a fundamental cause. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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, cSt380 HFO, or thin runny stuff, MDO, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 dager siden
  • It was funny seeing Evergreen not stuck in the Suez Canal

    Logan SchmoeLogan Schmoe4 dager siden
    • Evergreen is the shipping line all there ships have a two word name of which the first is 'Ever' the vessel shown in the video is not the 'Ever Given' but a sister ship.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 dager siden
  • Fusion tech could be huge for these industries. Big could though, I don't know enough about the technology.

    Davry HwangDavry Hwang4 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 vessel heavily subsidised, by the government, vessel is in use in Russia which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers all of these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. Just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor, of any type, 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. The incident of the ‘Ever Given’ blocking the Suez Canal, March 2021, may also have a little to add to this debate. The cooling water on ships tends to get taken in from near the bottom so when running aground the inlets are in a prime spot to get plugged up restricting, if not stopping, the flow of coolant. One thing that the TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents all had in common was that the supply of coolant, or rather lack thereof, was a fundamental cause. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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, cSt380 HFO, or thin runny stuff, MDO, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart4 dager siden
  • This was a good video, but I think there were some topics that were left out. Does battery storage have the energy density to enable ships of this scale? Also, could nuclear power be a better solution? It seems as though it would be very economical once more ships adopt them. This is definitely an interesting topic, but I think there is more to the discussion that is missing here.

    Drew MillerDrew Miller5 dager siden
    • @Drew Miller my email is bernard.leslie.stewart@gmail.com & if you contact me on that I will send the totality of my reasoning on sustainability / renewable for ships. The big hurdle, IMO, is matching the good, cheap, safe (all qualified by enough) of hydrocarbon ICE.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart5 dager siden
    • @Bernard Stewart In regards to "why go through the extra stages instead of using the harvested energy directly?", I would argue that the reason for this is how quickly stored energy can be transferred. Batteries will not charge as fast as it is possible to move hydrogen, and we already discussed why battery technology powering ships seems impractical. I also believe that harvesting energy on a ship cannot provide enough energy to power the ship. If a cargo ship could be reliably powered by covering all the available area with solar panels, than I assume it already would have been done. Adding wind generation seems like it would come with more costs than benefits, but perhaps my intuition is off on this matter. Hydrogen definitely does come with safety concerns. You also mentioned that there is a cost of providing O2, but assuming hydrogen is generated via electrolysis, then I don't think this is really a cost. I was not aware that combustion of hydrogen created anything other than water vapor. 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O. Could you elaborate on this? You have a good point though that any combustion engine wastes a lot of energy through heat.

      Drew MillerDrew Miller5 dager siden
    • @Drew Miller Using lots of energy it is possible to liberate hydrogen (H2) from Methane (CH4) the cheapest available source of which is the FOGI this is called black, brown or gray hydrogen depending on how bad it is, so that will earn you the ire of the Green-meanies. The other, much touted, option is to liberate hydrogen (H2) from water as so called green hydrogen; you need a lot of energy and while fossil oil & gas, or perhaps coal, will do it and are the most readily available any energy source, wood, photovoltaic, wind, tidal, et cetera, will do the greener the energy the greener the H2. 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 and while events of that magnitude might not be likely much smaller H2 fires or explosions can cause a lot of damage. 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’. 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 that energy directly and immediately as heat, light or mechanical work. As with nuclear energy at sea some of the ‘alternatives’ may have a use in littoral submarines in AIP (air independent propulsion) systems but that will be with the same caveats of cost, space and complexity so would not perform in a high volume low cost mercantile situation. The numbers, on any of these, are getting very difficult to show any sort of surplus so is this a case of running hard to stand still? I could go on about the dangers of H2 having survived the era when three VLCC tankers blew themselves to bits in less than a fortnight, another story another day.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart5 dager siden
    • @Bernard Stewart Thank you for the thorough replies, I really appreciate it! Based on what you have said, it seems that a battery powered boat is not at all practical. In regards to nuclear, cooling and disposal will always be challenges. The public's perception of nuclear is definitely a challenge as well. All things considered, I guess hydrogen powered ships (as mentioned in the video) are not a bad option. I think I initially projected ideas from hydrogen powered cars onto hydrogen ships, but after further thought, some of the disadvantages of hydrogen cars wouldn't be relevant to ships. Ships crash less and can likely handle some extra weight brought about by any safety systems. Also, in order to target cargo ships, this would require less infrastructure development compared to distributing hydrogen everywhere in a country (for vehicles).

      Drew MillerDrew Miller5 dager siden
    • With regard to propulsion with 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 Kornhall on the Swedish mainland. The motors are on the ferry and a power supply 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 undertaken using energy stored in batteries on board, she tops up the charge each time she is alongside and battery capacity is said to be sufficient for an hour of main engine use. A video is available on the Fully Charged channel of NOtown, ‘100% Electrical Ferry Crossing’. There are small diesel generators on board; to keep the lights and other safety related items on in extremis. Electric ships currently have short ranges and high light displacement as a factor of their cargo capacity. 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 (HMS Alliance is available to visit as a static exhibit at Gosport, UK or video available on NOtown, notown.info/two/video/t5dqqKOoh5RmyLE.html) your first thought could be ‘not much room in here for the crew is there?’ What about electric tug boats? That would at least improve the air quality around ports, and they can recharge daily since they stay near the port. Well though that might be feasible in practice ‘tugs’ need lots of power in short burst with readily available reserves for when things do not go according to ‘plan A’. So hybrid ICE/battery could be an option, so long as the economics stack up, and would be a means of quantifying part of the cost of environmental improvement; getting values to add to the debate would be a very useful tool.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart5 dager siden
  • Watching this in april of 2021 and seeing this evergreen ship in one shot 12:15 givs me some flashbacks

    pedja nedeljkovicpedja nedeljkovic6 dager siden
    • Satisfaction delayed but not totally withheld, a mere blip in the JIT supply chain that hold additional stock of material and components should be able to deal with. The Suez Canal has been blocked in the past (1956 and 1967-1975) so do not panic.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart6 dager siden
  • To put that into more human terms A single triple E can completely block the suez canal for 3-5 business days

    Edward DEdward D7 dager siden
    • Satisfaction delayed but not totally withheld, a mere blip in the JIT supply chain that hold additional stock of material and components should be able to deal with. The Suez Canal has been blocked in the past (1956 and 1967-1975) so do not panic.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart6 dager siden
  • Norway is now running hydrogen ferries and Japan ironically has a battery powered tanker. It is possible!

    seasongseasong7 dager siden
    • With enough ingenuity (from which the word engineer is derived) almost anything is possible. At the moment the lowest cost resolution of the challenges is ICEs powered by liquid fossils fuel. Some environmental costs are externalised, so the global community has to bear them, for the benefit of the users of the service. The internalisation of those costs is the responsibility of the regulators while the ultimate liability should lay with consumers of the materials being transported. If you want your toys and gadgets you will need to pay that cost.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart6 dager siden
  • @00:49 there is a typo mistake. under agriculture, it also says the same as "waste"

    Anthony CastroAnthony Castro11 dager siden
    • Well spotted! Should we look for other sources to support or refute the similarity and if so where?

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart11 dager siden
  • Are nuclear powered ships simply too expensive? surely it can be made cheap enough for commercial use eventually right?

    DiiiCADiiiCA13 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 vessel heavily subsidised, by the government, vessel is in use in Russia which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers all of these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. The incident of the ‘Ever Given’ blocking the Suez Canal, March 2021, may also have a little to add to this debate. The cooling water on ships tends to get taken in from near the bottom so when running aground the inlets are in a prime spot to get plugged up restricting, if not stopping, the flow of coolant. One thing that the TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents all had in common was that the supply of coolant, or rather lack thereof, was a fundamental cause. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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, cSt380 HFO, or thin runny stuff, MDO, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart13 dager siden
  • Oi oi evergreen again 12:11

    Luke'oNukeLuke'oNuke14 dager siden
  • co2 is essential for photosynthesis. Remember the starving 80s. Bon appetit. So not a pollutant yet. Its a gas we want in the right concentration. 1200 ppm is best. Not the starvation level of 350

    Kristian SchmidtKristian Schmidt16 dager siden
    • the level of 350ppm may be best for temperature regulation and 1 200ppm may be best for photosynthesis but some things are a question of balance. Confining the enriched 1 200ppm CO2 atmosphere to growing sheds could be an option for squaring that circle but how to make the sheds at a viable carbon cost. As Barry Commoner said 'everything is connected to everything else'.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart15 dager siden
  • Wanna save the planet? Buy local produce, use public transport, stop immigration and don't have kids. Unless you do that, everything else is futile. But even then: We're just one of those shortlived species that can't harm the planet even if we wanted to. Crocs, roaches and whatnot have been here before us and will be here long after. Numerous new species are discovered, and numerous became extinct during our lifetime. Who will you blame? Other species are just as invasive as we are, having zero regard for others. Changing climates, meteors and other processes had their influence over billions of years. Maybe we should blame the universe for being in motion. "Saving the planet". For whom? Our kids, so they can create yet another generation of consumers? Using renewable fuels means nothing when you triple traffic.

    Ronald van KemenadeRonald van Kemenade17 dager siden
  • You messed up deaware so thank you, because delaare is evil

    I Was A Honey BadgerI Was A Honey Badger17 dager siden
  • The crooked drive preclinically double because pear causally order over a absent offence. striped, hilarious dorothy

    Joshua KimJoshua Kim18 dager siden
  • 12:13 wasn’t that the ship that was stuck in the canal or was it a different ship?

    AdamAdam18 dager siden
    • Yes yes it was

      richyrichy15 dager siden
  • ?

    Trevor HuntingTrevor Hunting18 dager siden
  • Have you researched the potential use of Ammonia as a fuel for shipping?

    Roland WhiteleyRoland Whiteley18 dager siden
  • Missed opportunity to explore nuclear powered ships. Militaries have used them for decades. Sure they have their drawbacks, but as the technology progresses, so too will fission’s safety

    Jonah PaszekJonah Paszek21 dag 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. The incident of the ‘Ever Given’ blocking the Suez Canal may also have a little to add to this debate. The cooling water on ships tends to get taken in from near the bottom so when running aground the inlets are in a prime spot to get plugged up restricting, if not stopping, the flow of coolant. One thing that the TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents all had in common was that the supply of coolant, or rather lack thereof, as a fundamental cause. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart21 dag siden
  • 12:16 hey thats the boat in the canal right now right?

    Alex LoughAlex Lough23 dager siden
    • Not sure on this screen the second part of the name looks longer than 'Given' but may be of the same class (a sister ship).

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart23 dager siden
  • If a small nuclear reactor like NuScale was used, that’s 77mw or 100,000 hp or the power needed for New Panamax ship 377m by 50m. No emissions. I have no idea if a NuScale can take wave action, but since we have aircraft carriers, someone builds one.

    Ty RobertsTy Roberts24 dager siden
    • @Ty Roberts Nuclear energy in any form will carry the legacy of past events, the current events in the Suez Canal might illustrate that things can go wrong and having a nuke on board would only raise the level of peril.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart22 dager siden
    • That was a long and thoughtful reply. I appreciate it. Rare in today’s internet. I was aware of past failures, my thought was that the small modular units like NuScale and TerraPower might change things.

      Ty RobertsTy Roberts22 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart23 dager siden
  • Maybe not "renewable" per say but having nuclear powered container ships would be a big step up. Container ships are the most economical way to transport goods but they still throw out a lot of pollution and making them all nuclear powered would almost entirely eliminate that pollution.

    Solowarrior1221Solowarrior122124 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart23 dager siden
  • N U C L E A R not the typical fission rectors, but thorium. Look into it

    CMW18CMW18Måned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • The closest thing to renewable energy is something called nuclear power. That’s as good as it’s going to get.

    Sterling EatonSterling EatonMåned siden
    • @Sterling Eaton 'I still stand by nuclear power being the closest thing to renewable energy right now.' WADR ‘the closest thing’ does not have to be very close if there is no competition; however at some scales there are more viable alternatives. How small can a useable reactor be, the RN had a demo model at Greenwich big enough to boil a kettle but that would not have been any practical use? So the power source needs to be somewhere between the size fitted to submarines and the demonstrators used in class rooms with a power output to bulk ratio that would allow enough freight carrying capacity to earn enough income to be economically viable. 'IEP (indirect electrical propulsion) drives on your carriers still require the combustion of archaic fossil fuel to generate electricity.' The hydrocarbon fuel is sourced from the FOGI (fossil oil & gas industry) because that is the lowest cost option. Technically possible, but at ridiculous expenses, is the anaerobic digestion of organic matter into biogas followed by conversion of that biogas to liquid hydrocarbon (GTL). 'You won’t see windmills on the deck or solar panels on the flight deck anytime soon. In fact you will never.' They would tend to get in the way (:-); in fact I have almost as much material on why those two options are unviable as I do on the down side of anything nuclear. 'You are misguided when you compare nuclear reactors to nuclear explosions. Reactors do not explode like a nuclear weapon.' They do go wrong in other ways, such as TMI, Chernobyl & Fukushima. 'With all the steps required to build and maintain a nuclear powered vessel, it’s still has a much lower carbon footprint than a carrier warship with conventional fossil fuel burning engines. You have to remember that the Queen Elizabeth class ships need over 1 million US gallons of fossil fuel for the main propulsion. The USS Kitty Hawk required 4 million gallons just for main propulsion. That doesn’t include the aviation fuel tanks. I have seen the QE class ships blowing black smoke like crazy a-la Russian-Soviet style.' I do not think there is enough information, in the public domain, to do a full life cycle carbon balance. 'Replacing rods once every 20 to 25 years is not bad.' It just takes a number of years, which is fine if you can afford the redundancy of capacity in your fleet. 'Being able to cruise at above flank speed with so much power to spare is priceless. US Navy has never had a reactor accident. Even the two nuclear submarines the United States lost their reactors are still intact on the ocean floor.' With regard to USN safety their record may be good but two items that I would query: - 1. Is it all the information in the public domain? 2. The hands on ex-navy personnel at TMI expressed concerns about the expansion facility in the primary cooling circuit ‘going solid’, which was ‘a factor to avoid at all costs’ that had been trained in to them in the navy.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
    • @Sterling Eaton broadly agree. Please accept that at the moment you are preaching to the choir and my suggestion was that ‘nukes have a bad rep with joe public’.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
    • @Bernard Stewart I still stand by nuclear power being the closest thing to renewable energy right now. IEP drives on your carriers still require the combustion of archaic fossil fuel to generate electricity. You won’t see windmills on the deck or solar panels on the flight deck anytime soon. In fact you will never. You are miss guided when you compare nuclear reactors to nuclear explosions. Reactors do not explode like a nuclear weapon. With all the steps required to build and maintain a nuclear powered vessel, its still has a much lower carbon footprint than a carrier warship with conventional fossil fuel burning engines. You have to remember that the Queen Elizabeth class ships need over 1 million US gallons of fossil fuel for the main propulsion. The USS Kitty Hawk required 4 million gallons just for main propulsion. That doesn’t include the aviation fuel tanks. I have seen the QE class ships blowing Blacksmoke like crazy-ala Russian-Soviet style. Replacing rods once every 20 to 25 years is not bad. Being able to cruise at above flank speed with so much power to spare is priceless. US Navy has never had a reactor accident. Even the two nuclear submarines the United States lost there reactors are still intact on the ocean floor.

      Sterling EatonSterling EatonMåned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • 666k views lol

    InstinctGhost YTInstinctGhost YTMåned siden
  • Ammonia for marine fuel?

    Lars Peter AbildgaardLars Peter AbildgaardMåned siden
    • 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 (TEL)) additive in petrol, created chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), yes those ozone depleting CFCs, so that the use of NH3 as a refrigerant could be discontinued. Combustion being what it is an oxidation process even if you take the C and S atoms out of the fuel molecules you will still get NOx and possible particulates. 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). The numbers are getting very difficult to show any sort of surplus so is this a case of running hard to stand still?

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • I am convinced of the power of methane in some circumstances. Atmospheric carbon dioxide can be reacted with renewable hydrogen to synthesize methane via the Sabatier Process. The hydrogen could be synthesized from excess electricity from sunny and windy days.

    August HoglundAugust HoglundMåned siden
    • @Bernard Stewart I appreciate that you gave the link a try.

      August HoglundAugust HoglundMåned siden
    • @August Hoglund Thank you, I followed the link you provided and the first sentence indicates about the Sabatier process 'It only requires hydrogen and carbon dioxide' & temperature & pressure & a catalyst. So that, WADR, is synonymous with 'growing, harvesting and processing'. Even allowing the naturally occurring anaerobic degradation of vegetable matter in a swamp begins to have costs as soon as you throw a cover over it for collection and neglecting the cost of losing the swamp to more productive agricultural use. Employing the Sabatier process on the scale needed to replace fossil fuel would be a direct cost in place of the externalised environmental cost of releasing the CH4 that nature has sequestered over the millennia; so on balance it probably is worthwhile as it would restrict use by increasing costs.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
    • @Bernard Stewart Producing methane with the Sabatier process does not require any growing harvesting or processing. It only requires hydrogen and carbon dioxide. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction

      August HoglundAugust HoglundMåned siden
    • The next, least bad, option is ‘alternative fuels’ or ‘bio fuels’ such as Ammonia (NH3), Biogas (basically good old CH4 or Methane) and Hydrogen (H2). All require growing, harvesting and processing which have fiscal, environmental and energy costs or impacts, before you get their energy to the point of use, and the use of which will generate 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 (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 algae, raw vegetation, food waste or vegetation 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; also bear in mind that the containment of the very cold (LNG) or high pressure (CNG) CH4 has mass and costs. 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 the cargo system cold, otherwise more trouble and expense than merit and savings. To liberate hydrogen (H2) from water you need a lot of energy and while fossil oil & gas, or perhaps coal, will do it and are the most readily available any energy source, wood, photovoltaic, wind, tidal, et cetera, will do. 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 and while events of that magnitude might not be likely much smaller H2 fires or explosions can cause a lot of damage. 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’. 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 that energy directly and immediately as heat, light or mechanical work. As with nuclear energy at sea some of the ‘alternatives’ may have a use in littoral submarines in AIP (air independent propulsion) systems but that will be with the same caveats of cost, space and complexity so would not perform in a high volume low cost mercantile situation. The numbers, on any of these, are getting very difficult to show any sort of surplus so is this a case of running hard to stand still?

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • What about nuclear powered ships like the russian icebrakers?

    ShihammeDarcShihammeDarcMåned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart23 dager siden
    • @Bernard Stewart Oh, thanks.

      ShihammeDarcShihammeDarcMåned siden
    • @ShihammeDarc The ice breaker fleet that operates the Northern Sea Route is partly commercial and partly academic research so it is probably best described as a QUANGO (Quasi autonomous non government organisation). They have a few issues, as do the ARC7 ice class LNG carriers that extract the Methane produced from the Yammal field.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
    • Do you hear about the nuclear powered russian icebreakers in the arctic though? I heard they are civillian use.

      ShihammeDarcShihammeDarcMåned siden
    • @Bernard Stewart Thanks a lot for your time though. I didn't expect a comment that in depth

      ShihammeDarcShihammeDarcMåned siden
  • Fill it with biodisel. Done.

    Petr GladkikhPetr GladkikhMåned 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 minus the processing deficit. 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. Natural history, on a geological scale, has done a lot of heavy lifting for us humans. The trade of for plant or algae based hydrocarbon fuels is increased atmospheric green house gas or increased land or marine area use. Simply harvesting rather the overproducing the resource will not fill the space left by fossil fuel.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • I don't see international trade being as big in the future as it is now so if fuel free energy is possible for shipping I think it will become more mainstream

    bankotsu2abankotsu2aMåned siden
  • Why not nuclear 😂⚛️

    Rajkumar BharathiRajkumar BharathiMåned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • Of course they are. Do you think Drake, Magellan and Columbus used diesel?

    hognoxioushognoxiousMåned siden
  • Love the videos. But seems to be an overlook on this one. - Fuel consumption per day VS speed is not a good indicator. Because amount of days in travel increases as speed decreases. - What we need is Fuel consumption per mile. :)

    Colin FColin FMåned siden
  • Yes, hydrogen. The sea is your fuel, solar on roof of the bridge to power generator for electricity. Using electrolisis to split H20 to O2 and H, both get controllably be sent to combust for power. Have stored hydrogen as extra from being docked at ports to work on nights and non sunny days. But as long as we live as we do, we are doomed

    Bradley O'KaneBradley O'KaneMåned siden
    • To liberate hydrogen (H2) from water you need a lot of energy and while fossil oil & gas, or perhaps coal, will do it and are the most readily available any energy source, wood, photovoltaic, wind, tidal, et cetera, will do. 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 and while events of that magnitude might not be likely much smaller H2 fires or explosions can cause a lot of damage. 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 methane 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’. 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 any harvested energy directly?’ After harvesting the energy, from wind, sun or motion of the vessel, as electrical energy better to deploy that energy directly and immediately as heat, light or mechanical work. As with nuclear energy at sea some of the ‘alternatives’ may have a use in littoral submarines in AIP (air independent propulsion) systems but that will be with the same caveats of cost, space and complexity so would not perform in a high volume low cost mercantile situation. The numbers, on any of these, are getting very difficult to show any sort of surplus so is this a case of running hard to stand still?

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • 6:53 Sailing ships are actually a millennia old technology

    Vince BVince BMåned siden
  • But won't lower speeds cause longer days at sea and potentially delaying delivery of cargo?

    narin ducheinenarin ducheineMåned 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 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 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. fuel used x fuel used x (+ or - ?)

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • I mean wind powered ships maybe be a better solution.

    Burnt Chicken NuggetBurnt Chicken NuggetMåned siden
    • To address the suggestions that wind 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, at best, 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’, while a vessel constrained by volume is said to be ‘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’ by taking that short cut. 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, fire tube boiler, 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. Sailing ships are unable to go directly up wind so if the wind is blowing form the direction your cargo needs to then a zig-zag course must be steered, more distance and more time. Wind is traditionally measured on the Beaufort Scale (wind speed) that runs from 0 (< 1kn) to 12 (> 63kn) and for sailing purposes the usable part of the range is ‘3’ (circa 8kn) to ‘6’ (circa 24kn). 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. Combining with solar electric would involve two systems in place of one, which then runs you into the problems of expense, complexity, integration and redundancy. Remember shipping is a high volume low cost, therefore low margin business, and all costs have to be beneficial. 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. 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. On board wind turbine might get you around some of the problems however for marine use vertical axis wind turbines (VAWT) would be better than the, what have now become 'traditional', horizontal axis wind turbines (HAWT) for reasons that include the air draught of the vessel, weight distribution and maintenance access. The energy yield is still subject to the wind blowing at the right strength and having space available on board for the hardware. The masts, rigging and sail handling arrangements would take up 'prime real estate' on the vessel. Fuel oil bunker tanks can be stuck away in any odd corner and the ICE power plants are themselves relatively compact. The stacked up 'boxes' would mean putting the wind driven propulsion units in a bad situation from a ship stability point of view.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • We moved to powered shipping for a reason. ...The doldrums

    Jhawk2tallJhawk2tallMåned siden
  • Nuclear energy is the way.

    Burhan BudakBurhan BudakMåned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • 'The truth about biofuels' coming out anytime soon? love your videos!

    Adam McKeeAdam McKeeMåned siden
    • The next, least bad, option is ‘alternative fuels’ or ‘bio fuels’ such as Ammonia (NH3), Biogas (basically good old CH4 or Methane) and Hydrogen (H2). All require growing, harvesting and processing which have fiscal, environmental and energy costs or impacts, before you get their energy to the point of use, and the use of which will generate 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 (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 algae, raw vegetation, food waste or vegetation 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; also bear in mind that the containment of the very cold (LNG) or high pressure (CNG) CH4 has mass and costs. 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 the cargo system cold, otherwise more trouble and expense than merit and savings. To liberate hydrogen (H2) from water you need a lot of energy and while fossil oil & gas, or perhaps coal, will do it and are the most readily available any energy source, wood, photovoltaic, wind, tidal, et cetera, will do. 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 and while events of that magnitude might not be likely much smaller H2 fires or explosions can cause a lot of damage. 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’. 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 that energy directly and immediately as heat, light or mechanical work. As with nuclear energy at sea some of the ‘alternatives’ may have a use in littoral submarines in AIP (air independent propulsion) systems but that will be with the same caveats of cost, space and complexity so would not perform in a high volume low cost mercantile situation. The numbers, on any of these, are getting very difficult to show any sort of surplus so is this a case of running hard to stand still?

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • What about renewable tug boats? That would at least improve the air quality around ports, and they can recharge daily since they stay near the port.

    Brady OkonBrady OkonMåned siden
    • Though that might be feasible in practice ‘tugs’ need lots of power in short burst with readily available reserves for when things do not go according to ‘plan A’. So hybrid ICE/battery could be an option so long as the economics stack up and would as a bonus be a means of quantifying part of the cost of environmental improvement; WADR getting values to add to the debate would be a very useful tool.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • Take a page from the Navy's book Use a nuclear reactor

    MWB GamingMWB GamingMåned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • The flimsy schedule nomenclaturally push because agreement ultrascructurally wreck round a shallow garage. roasted, rude swing

    Gavin MessenheimerGavin MessenheimerMåned siden
  • Maybe it's time to look at small nuclear plants for propulsion. Zero emissions and years between refueling.

    Terry TytulaTerry TytulaMåned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • 1:50 Americans refusing to use metric be like "it's as big as the empire state building and has 20 foot containers which can fit 6000 shoe boxes and you can fit every single person in Japan in them".

    Aaron FrankeAaron FrankeMåned siden
  • Yeah. They’re called sailing ships. These days they could be Kites.

    Q. E. D.Q. E. D.Måned siden
  • Just make it nuclear.

    David Li-Chi LeeDavid Li-Chi LeeMåned siden
    • @David Li-Chi Lee fifty years ago there was a joke going around. An American, a Russian and God were discussing the state of the world. The Russian asked ‘will communism prevail’ and the American said ‘not in my life time’ then the American asked ‘will capitalism prevail’ and the Russian said ‘not in my life time’. Eventually God said ‘will there ever be peace on earth’ and both the American & the Russian said most emphatically ‘NOT IN YOUR LIFE TIME’.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
    • @Bernard Stewart but that’s tough. Last time when I was in a parking lot, trying to back into a space, a guy who’s car was behind me wouldn’t back up a little, even when I pointed out that I’m having difficulty backing up because he was so close to my car, he wouldn’t back up when there were no cars behind, and I had to alter my angle and it was more difficult to park, because he had no courtesy to just back up maybe a foot of space. He stared at me and gave me the “wtf u want? Wtf u gona do about it?” Hand sign and I just shook my head. I wanted to go down and punch his face, but, I think, why we are all our father’s son, our mother gave life to us, why did he act like this, and why did I act like this. Why do we all act different though the way we got here were the same? So yes, I don’t think having a nuclear power reactor as this moment in time is a good thing, because as you’ve mentioned, I agree with it all.

      David Li-Chi LeeDavid Li-Chi LeeMåned siden
    • @Bernard Stewart So assume the day when world peace comes, maybe nuclear power can be as common as within a car, or having one in a household somewhere in South Africa. When people wont tweak it and use it as mass destruction, when no terrorism exist, when all sins vanished from humanity’s heart, but, heh.

      David Li-Chi LeeDavid Li-Chi LeeMåned siden
    • @Bernard Stewart hm so it seems like the problem is not the lack of technology, but, rather than the people who holds the power.

      David Li-Chi LeeDavid Li-Chi LeeMåned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • So, what if we make nuclear powered trade ships? We can't let militaries have all the nuclear fun.

    NaquNaquMåned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • Issue with fuel? Go nuclear 😜

    Abhi BhasmeAbhi BhasmeMåned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • Why not just throw a nuclear reactor on there

    jooot_jooot_Måned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • I don't get the "takes up to much space" thing, just put the masts in places that aren't used for cargo anyway

    Marco PohlMarco PohlMåned siden
    • @Marco Pohl For ship stability a good primer is ‘Ship Stability for Masters and Mates’ (Derrett D.R. London Maritime Press, London). The deck above the bridge and the top of the engine room casing are in the best position for wind harvesting but about as bad as you could be for distance from the centre of buoyancy and centre of gravity which acting as a couple are the means to get a positive righting lever that will keep the whole thing working. Where weight is on a ship is as important, if not more so, than how much of it there is. The wind harvesting system would need to fit under the bridges that the ship may come across so the aerofoil system being researched by KTH for Wallenius, or something similar, will need to be employed. Wind would only ever be a supplement and with the relatively low yield, 750 Watts m2 not effective on a cost/benefit basis. Sadly we have three viable options ICEs fuelled with fossil hydrocarbon (too bad for the environment we live in), nuclear (too expensive to do properly) or overall reduction in goods transportation.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
    • @Bernard Stewart what I was actually asking when I linked the Maersk ship was: "If you put sails on that, would it still be unstable" given that the bridge is closer to the center, and the engine room gives you space for another sail, spreading the forces out more evenly

      Marco PohlMarco PohlMåned siden
    • @Marco Pohl the stability issue is probably rotation, right? No it is the weight and distance from the centre of buoyancy. Also the forces acting on the sail set up a 'lever' (force x distance) that will need to be compensated for. would a design like this work? The Mearsk Triple E class are a logical and progressive evolution of the current ‘high volume low cost’ shipping business model it works but at cost to the environment; these are the cost which is externalised. The marine freight industry responds to consumer demands so the best available option for sustainability is ‘ship less & move the small quantity shorter distance’ & ‘seek to satisfy your needs not your wants’ I see a lot of ropes and have no idea what each of them does. Some are for aligning the sail with the wind and the direction of travel of the vessel (sheets), some are for controlling the movement of sails up and down (halyards) and other are for deploying the stresses on the masts caused by harvesting the wind energy (stays). There are a lot of them and they all need space to work so the area above the main deck (uppermost continuous deck) is occupied and as you may notice from the video about 50% of the containers are occupying it. Further issue is the area of sail needed to move a tonne of freight. As I said in the 'Cutty Sark' example that is 5 m2 for each tonne of freight. So on that basis for a Mearsk Triple E you will need 800 000m2 of sail area for a 196 000 tonne deadweight; the deadweight is the mass of water that the hull needs to displace to balance the cargo. Another spanner in the works is the matter of air draft. The higher the mast the more obstructive bridges become, unless the use of telescopic masts is factored in, which leads us to the idea of telescopic aerofoil wind sail that KTH are researching for Wallineius. Back again to how much usable energy can be harvested.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
    • @Bernard Stewart Ok, few more things: the stability issue is probably rotation, right? since the masts (especially the one on the bridge) are so far away from the center of mass, they can induce a lot of rotational energy. if I got that right, would a design like this work? notown.info/two/video/4LKap2GUaZtzrpI.html "winds don't blow, ship don't go" isn't really a problem, since a hybrid design is the obvious approach; use the sails when the wind is good to save power, use the engine otherwise and, to return to a question that I still wanted to ask from your first response, how would the containers interfere with rigging? I don't know much about ships, I could barely even consider myself an enthusiast, so when I look at a sailing ship, I see a lot of ropes and have no idea what each of them does, which are necessary, and so on, so that was a bit to vague for me

      Marco PohlMarco PohlMåned siden
    • @Marco Pohl 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, at best, 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’, while a vessel constrained by volume is said to be ‘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’ by taking that short cut. 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, fire tube boiler, 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. Sailing ships are unable to go directly up wind so if the wind is blowing form the direction your cargo needs to then a zig-zag course must be steered, more distance and more time. Wind is traditionally measured on the Beaufort Scale (wind speed) that runs from 0 (< 1kn) to 12 (> 63kn) and for sailing purposes the usable part of the range is ‘3’ (circa 8kn) to ‘6’ (circa 24kn). The masts, rigging and sail handling arrangements would take up 'prime real estate' on the vessel. Fuel oil bunker tanks can be stuck away in any odd corner and the ICE power plants are themselves relatively compact. The stacked up 'boxes' would mean putting the wind driven propulsion units in a bad situation from a ship stability point of view. 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), or 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. Remember shipping is a high volume low cost, therefore low margin business, and all costs have to be beneficial. 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. 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. On board wind turbine might get you around some of the problems however for marine use vertical axis wind turbines (VAWT) would be better than the, what have now become 'traditional', horizontal axis wind turbines (HAWT) for reasons that include the air draught of the vessel, weight distribution and maintenance access.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • so what about running these ships on nuclear power??

    dianadianaMåned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • Buy local ;) Do we REALLY need to buy ‘50%’ of our manufactured goods from China, or could we make these things a little closer to home??

    Will McKintyWill McKintyMåned siden
  • Hey guys lets fix2% of the problem and waste billions. Knutsacks

    Jeremy HubbardJeremy HubbardMåned siden
  • nuclear was always the answer

    Matty NayzeryaMatty NayzeryaMåned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • Why not nuclear?

    Juan VelezJuan VelezMåned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • Nuclear power has been used for a few years by navy's why is this technology not being brought down to industry. Happy mental health always take the time to be.

    David NorthamDavid NorthamMåned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • The shy vacuum especially alert because defense fundamentally mix amidst a alcoholic soil. numerous, needless question

    Dhdvdhznhzbz ShsbzhzhzbjzDhdvdhznhzbz ShsbzhzhzbjzMåned siden
  • remember kids, humans are a renewable resource!

    Corey TaylorCorey TaylorMåned siden
  • Powerhouse energy is the future

    kel 1977kel 1977Måned siden
    • @kel 1977 the most significant hit on Google was an 'energy from waste' company. For marine energy needs that would mean transforming the energy content into a portable form, such as ethanol or stored electricity, and using that on board. The efficiency would, IMHO, be very low so the pollution per freight tonne mile higher than hydrocarbon fuels. WADR 'energy from waste' works best where the energy released can be used close to the point of creation (release) such as municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration linked to local district heating.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
    • Google powerhouse energy...you will see

      kel 1977kel 1977Måned siden
    • 'Powerhouse energy' what is that?

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • Is there a way to develop a bulbous bow that is adaptable, in it's efficiency, to changes in speed?

    Richard MeyeroffRichard MeyeroffMåned siden
  • What about the use of Nuclear Power for these large ships. I know that it has a Number of real problems such as when they need to be taken out of service and the deadlyness of there fuel but with some of the new designs can this be minimized?

    Richard MeyeroffRichard MeyeroffMåned siden
    • @Richard Meyeroff Improving fuel quality is arguable the lowest of the low hanging fruit in improving the atmospheric environment so a move to LNG from 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 at a higher price. The 'pay more / consume less' solution will have greatest impact on the least affluent. Really we have three options to reduce emissions, revert to ‘old’ technology, move to ‘new’ technology or reduce ‘consumption’. Old technology is not necessarily benign, new technology has no ‘track record’ and thus will expose us to the ‘unforeseen consequences’ of our choices so the safest way to save the world is to reduce individual consumption and stabilise the global population at a sustainable population level. Reducing consumption requires all individuals to act and limit their consumption, satisfying their personal 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. Merchant shipping is run as a ‘high volume low margin’ revenue generating business and any improvements will need to be lower cost or better value to be voluntarily adopted by the trade. The high volume low cost, which also means low profit margin incentive per unit, operational basis is 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! The key factor is freight tonne mile cost. The trick for any other ship owner is to generate the similar, or more, revenue with an improved margin by moving fewer goods shorter distance and adding greater value to them while having a negligible environmental impact. If only there was an ultra energy dense low carbon cost effective source fuel with no harmful side effects. ICEs are good(ish) at converting the chemical hydrocarbon (HC) energy into mechanical energy with known externalities; the externalities (CO2, et cetera) are the problem so the best cure is to reduce the consumption of the fuel at source by reducing the unnecessary consumption of ‘wants’ and the unnecessarily long transport of anything. Our fundamental global problem is excessive consumption by a population that is too large. The shippers generate profits by satisfying their customers’ requirements. The villain in the piece is the final consumer without whom there would be no effort to supply. The shippers will always be interested in providing the service in exchange for the lowest possible direct cost and if they can externalise any part of the cost they will. While there is no charge for atmospheric pollution there is no incentive to abate it, once the charge is introduced it will, eventually, be recovered from the consumer. The consumer may in turn be reluctant to pay the higher cost and thus by removing the demand reduces the environmental burden. Maulthus was not ‘wrong’ just ahead of his time. While ICEs have the current perceived advantages of economy, facility and flexibility we are going to be stuck with the environmental down sides unless universal regulatory action prevails or consumption both per capita and overall reduces. The system we have is the best we can do on a freight tonne mile basis; if sustainability is desired much less cargo must be moved over much shorter distances; so that is 'plan B' but humanity keeps being stupid and there is no cure for stupidity.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
    • @Bernard Stewart I basically agree with you but we need to do an analysis of ALL the aspects you have written about. This needs to cover all costs including decommissioning and the political and societal problems. We could also require that all Nuclear powered ships be manned and flagged by member of countries we trust. That might be a problem because we would find it hard to deny China and Russia the right to crew ships

      Richard MeyeroffRichard MeyeroffMåned 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard StewartMåned siden
  • Hi @RealEngineering, I just paid for a year of Curiositystream+Nebula, so i can see the (unnamed?) 9-part series you advertise in the end. Looks interesting! But i cant seem to find it on either platform..

    Barry StaesBarry StaesMåned siden
    • @Real Engineering Yes thanks, just enjoyed some. App seems to run playlist backwards though.

      Barry StaesBarry StaesMåned siden
    • It should show up on Nebula if you just search “logistics of d-day” in the search bar

      Real EngineeringReal EngineeringMåned siden
  • The physical bibliography reportedly fax because example indirectly occur past a private protest. cheap, uneven plier

    kim phikim phi2 måneder siden
  • Commercial Hydrogen is mostly made from natural gas, a fossil fuel. That's why it's supported by oil companies who control most of the natural gas.

    Loanword EggcornLoanword Eggcorn2 måneder siden
    • @Loanword Eggcorn If batteries are the best then it would be more ethical to stick to fossil fuels. A child has to be worked to death just to extract 1g of cobalt and lithiums not much better. Evrybody that uses battires is a child MURDERER. Also batteries cannot be recycled and the have to be thrown away after 2 years of use. It cost £500000 to make the battery for one small EV does that sound like a solution to you?

      Doom GuardDoom GuardMåned siden
    • @Doom Guard There are many different ways to store energy. However there are significant differences in their energy, volume and mass efficiency. Batteries are the most efficient for many uses, especially stationary storage.

      Loanword EggcornLoanword EggcornMåned siden
    • That because the only way to store energy is a battery. Everything other than fossil fuels and nuclear needs to be banned befor renabals take over.

      Doom GuardDoom GuardMåned siden
    • @Loanword Eggcorn WADR the ‘enhanced passage planning and routing technique’ is applicable to both ICE power and the sustainable alternatives so application would not give the sustainable option an advantage. While ICE has the current perceived advantages of economy, facility and flexibility we are going to be stuck with the environmental down sides unless universal regulatory action prevails or consumption both per capita and overall reduces.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
    • @Bernard Stewart Weather routing science and technology is widely used by the shipping industry and private boaters.

      Loanword EggcornLoanword Eggcorn2 måneder siden
  • A nuclear reactor might work

    GoopXIVGoopXIV2 måneder siden
    • @Bernard Stewart detail, 11/10 Scope, 7/10 Presentation, 2/10 Style, 5/10 Comprehension, 8/10 Overall, A-

      GoopXIVGoopXIV2 måneder siden
    • @GoopXIV I rather wish you did. So: - Content Detail. ?/10 Scope. ?/10 Presentation Style. . ?/10 Comprehension ?/10

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
    • @Bernard Stewart still tho 💀💀💀 we ain’t grading ur work

      GoopXIVGoopXIV2 måneder siden
    • @GoopXIV Total rant on all fronts is circa 5k words, as I only wrote 15k for an MSc in Environmental Science thesis this rates at about 1st degree level, way beyond high school essay (:-)

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
    • @GoopXIV my ‘rant’ started as about a dozen words but the supplementaries just kept coming so it grew. If it is any consolation there are almost equally long ‘rants’ about sails, solar, electricity, alternative fuels, elastic bands (no just joking about the last one). Truly sustainable, ship less stuff and not very far.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • Uss deaware bruh lol

    FoxyisinhellFoxyisinhell2 måneder siden
    • 5:26 btw if you wanna see

      FoxyisinhellFoxyisinhell2 måneder siden
  • why dont they use the water as a source of energy? ie pull hydrogen out of water so they don't have to carry that much fuel

    Siddhardha MoparthiSiddhardha Moparthi2 måneder siden
    • To liberate hydrogen (H2) you need a lot of energy and while fossil oil & gas, or perhaps coal, will do it and are the most readily available any energy source wood, photovoltaic, wind, tidal, et cetera will do. 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 and while events of that magnitude might not be likely much smaller H2 fire or explosions can cause a lot of damage, 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 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • What about Nuclear. Nuclear I believe is the future for destroying carbon emissions especially as research goes forward.

    Andrew DingerAndrew Dinger2 måneder 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 a 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 be reluctant to 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 ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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 of the current iteration has 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • A video with your take on bio-fuel would be much appreciated!

    Alessandro VicchiAlessandro Vicchi2 måneder 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 minus the processing deficit. 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • Solar and wind won't get a big ship across the ocean.. at least not in a practical way. Best to stick with what actually works

    MalWolf01MalWolf012 måneder siden
    • Agreed and the best way to reduce the impact of what does work is to reduce consumption by shipping fewer goods shorter distance.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • They could make ships hydrogen fuel cell powered and suck up water, purify it, and have a system that produces hydrogen fuel for the fuel cell.

    G tubedudeG tubedude2 måneder siden
    • Hydrogen is one of the proposed resolutions for the problem and as with all other options has to be easier, better and cheaper than the existing situation and better than the competing alternatives. Factors to consider are scale, cost and availability. How much space and at what weight will fuel cells require per Joule of energy produced? 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. Benefits are low emissions as currently measured and they may develop much as the ICEs developed between 1895 and 1945 to displace the draught horse and railways; however that development was 'encouraged' by two devastating and widespread wars.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • Just to bolster some of what you said, I did a research paper a couple years ago on biofuels. The conclusion I came to was much the same as what you say in your video. The vast majority of biofuel (bio-Diesel, Ethanol, etc.) are a complete waste of effort and don't do anything to reduce emissions. As well, if we needed much more biofuel than we currently produce, we might actually run out of corn. I think the stat was something like, if we convert ALL the corn we currently produce into biofuel, we could produce a whopping 1/4 of the amount of fuel we consume each year. And obviously we would have 0 corn leftover for anything else. And burning pure ethanol is terrible for engines, so unless it's mixed with conventional fuel (or new engines are produced specifically for it) it can do serious damage. There were a bunch of other points I made, but I'd have to go find that paper haha

    happydappymanhappydappyman2 måneder siden
    • If you find that research paper could you send me a copy at 'gusstewbe@student.gu.se'. Tusen tack, mvh. Bernard

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • This site is spreading misinformation about the shipping industry

    ghnan rohitghnan rohit2 måneder siden
    • Sad but true, misinformation about the marine shipping industry has been common since Noah sailed his ark.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • 3:54 where's that bridge?? Looks awesome

    Abyss WillAbyss Will2 måneder siden
  • why not use a nuclear reactor? to me it seems like a good way to solve these problems in the short term while we figure out a better long term solution.

    Mad ManMad Man2 måneder siden
    • @Bernard Stewart fair enough but thanks for the information

      Mad ManMad Man2 måneder siden
    • @Mad Man I gave been following the thread from day one and the nuclear option us frequently proposed, as are sails and other options. Each has caused me to collect information, that now runs to 4 500 words in total. IMO the most sustainable marine shipping option is to move less stuff shorter distances.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
    • @Bernard Stewart wow i wasn't expecting an answer that thorough but thank you very much for the clarification

      Mad ManMad Man2 måneder 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • So... No nuclear?

    Αιμίλιος ΣπηλιόπουλοςΑιμίλιος Σπηλιόπουλος2 måneder siden
    • @Bernard Stewart Wow, that's a lot, thanks! Thorium reactors seem promising though (I don't believe fusion will ever be that portable, if possible at all).

      Αιμίλιος ΣπηλιόπουλοςΑιμίλιος Σπηλιόπουλος2 måneder 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 which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. 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 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • Love the info, I have a question. Does electrical powered ship are out of the equation? with the turbines genereting power offshore, maybe is more than an option?

    Daniel GuzmanDaniel Guzman2 måneder siden
    • With regard to propulsion with 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?’

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • What if they try experimenting with Nuclear Energy to power these ships? It would be nice to have one like that

    Ryan Miguel MarianoRyan Miguel Mariano2 måneder 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 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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. Merchant ships may be 'taken up from trade' as the RN would say or they may be captured or impressed by non state quasi military entities by way of piracy. But cargo ships are not military vessels; merchant shipping is run as a high volume low margin revenue generating business and any improvements will need to be lower cost or better value to be adopted by the trade.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • Fantastic video as always Real Engineering, I hope you are feeling better by now. I wondered if you could expand on some of the engineering problems and solutions occurring in the agricultural space. In the graph, you showed from 2016 at 0:48 the industry is 18.4% [which is significantly greater than just the 1.7% of the shipping industry (still significant either way] of the world CO2 emissions and it would be fascinating to see how they are solving their transition to sustainability.

    Stefan van VuurenStefan van Vuuren2 måneder siden
  • 10:34 - YAY RIGA!

    Vladislav ReutovVladislav Reutov2 måneder siden
  • Go nuclear

    Saurabh SharmaSaurabh Sharma2 måneder siden
    • @Bernard Stewart valid points. Did not thought through.

      Saurabh SharmaSaurabh Sharma2 måneder 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 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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. Merchant ships may be 'taken up from trade' as the RN would say or they may be captured or impressed by non state quasi military entities by way of piracy. But cargo ships are not military vessels; merchant shipping is run as a high volume low margin revenue generating business and any improvements will need to be lower cost or better value to be adopted by the trade.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • I think that you forgot to talk about one of the main possibility to decarbonise the shipping industry, using nuclear powered ships as intend the startup Seaborg industry for example, which is way more probable economically and on an industrial scale.

    jeremie Sobeljeremie Sobel2 måneder 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 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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. Merchant ships may be 'taken up from trade' as the RN would say or they may be captured or impressed by non state quasi military entities by way of piracy. But cargo ships are not military vessels; merchant shipping is run as a high volume low margin revenue generating business and any improvements will need to be lower cost or better value to be adopted by the trade.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • What about the buildings? it is way more than ships

    Aurelio RockdriguezAurelio Rockdriguez2 måneder siden
  • I wonder if more even developed in countries could decrees the amount of shipping as well.

    Aurora WaxwingAurora Waxwing2 måneder siden
    • Indeed, IMO, one of the key moves and the lowest of the low hanging fruit is to move less freight and move the lower amount of freight shorter distances.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • Huh, if only there were an ultra dense low carbon energy source... Too bad that nuclear is excluded from the official definition of renewable.

    chigehchigeh3 måneder siden
    • 'ultra dense low carbon (cost effective) energy source....' Nuclear fails on the cost basis as well as the long tail of the residuals.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart2 måneder siden
  • Thorium power. Thorium power. Thorium power.

    AidanofVTAidanofVT3 måneder siden
    • Thorium reactors are at present unproven technology at the research stage of the development cycle so while they may have a place some decades down the line form now they will not fix the problem today. If you do a web search for ‘nuclear ship savannah’ you will see that nuclear 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 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart3 måneder siden
  • In this video the ship is called uss deaware in real uss delaware

    Izwar Rahman AdamIzwar Rahman Adam3 måneder siden
  • Next: "Are renewables plants possible?" Come on bro is your channel called "real engineering" or "renewables engineering"? You just talk about freacking renewables

    Giovanni César Amorim 9A #DigaNãoAKokiDeusGiovanni César Amorim 9A #DigaNãoAKokiDeus3 måneder 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

    L3D - 3D makerL3D - 3D maker3 måneder 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart3 måneder 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.

    Tyson BryantTyson Bryant3 måneder 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?’

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart3 måneder siden
  • nuclear duh. the insane climate loonies dont like actual solutions though they just want to destroy humanity.

    will williamsonwill williamson3 måneder 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart3 måneder 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.

    Zachary EwellZachary Ewell3 måneder 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’.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart3 måneder siden
  • Nuclear powered ships would work.

    parthasarathy Venkatadriparthasarathy Venkatadri3 måneder 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart3 måneder siden
  • Yeah if you use hydrogen and oxygen... Good thing its sitting on an ocean of it😂

    AJ GMAJ GM3 måneder 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart3 måneder 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

      AJ GMAJ GM3 måneder 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart3 måneder siden
  • a good way to collapse the world economy. looks like they have now done that.

    georgeh handleygeorgeh handley3 måneder 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’.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart3 måneder siden
  • @RealEngineering Why aren't nuclear-powered transport ships a thing?

    ss Alinss Alin3 måneder 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.

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart3 måneder siden
  • elon marsk

    MinerKingXMinerKingX3 måneder 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?’

      Bernard StewartBernard Stewart3 måneder siden
NOtown