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!
SUPRISE! I am the funniest YTer evah!!!! Just kidding, it was no surprise. Everybody knew already. HAHAHHAHA!!!! That was an amazing joke (it was real talk though). WAWAWAWAWA!!!! Good afternoon, dear alex
Yep. Our discovery of energy dense fuel allowed us to grow beyond the limits of wind. Now that we're feeling the consequences of this we're starting to backpedal on that choise.
To address the suggestions that sail power is the answer I offer the following. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’, she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots, dependent on the prevailing wind, to harness the energy the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2. To round things out that was circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of cargo carried. The ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for employment in the tea trade where time on passage was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective but as soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through, she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort.
@@BernardLS Wind power in the form of sail was outclassed by steam engines, but if we can harness the wind power in a more efficient manner with modern technology it could prove useful. I'm not convinced either, I think nuclear and potentially fusion engine is the way to go. But I think we shouldn't discount solar and wind yet just because modern technology diesel is better than 19 century sail. Maybe there's a way to use solar and wind efficiently with 21 century tech. Many advances and many orders of magnitude scaling have been made in both solar and wind sector to the point that it's now cheaper than coal in half the counties which was unthinkable just 10 years ago when it was an order of magnitude more expensive than coal. Without subsidy there are 20 year contracts signed for 4 cents/kWh for wind plants and below 3 cents/kWh for solar plants. For reference modern coal plant 20 year contract is 6 cents/kWh. Same advances could be possible in ship space.
@@anonymousarmadillo6589 See what happens as you increase weight. Ships the same size sit lower in the water, require more power and will force a redesign of weight distribution. By far the best thing would be to use natural gas today and transition to using RNG from sewage and agricultural in the future since ports are typically near major cities and the US alone could produce 30% of today's natural gas demand from waste products.
"I need to look into the subject in more detail, to form a more solid opinion." Take notes politicians, this is how to create a healthy environment for debates. Much respect
Don't be ridiculous - we need to take action NOW or the planet will cease to exist in 20 years. We must ban all fossil fuels right away, for a start. The time for debate is over. It's settled science.
@@commentsboardreferee7434 you might be right, the more we drag on this over consumption the more it will impact the entire industrial world, including the fossil fuel industry. We are already in big debt to our environment, one day it will bust.
To address the suggestions that sail power is the answer I offer the following. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’, she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots, dependent on the prevailing wind, to harness the energy the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2. To round things out that was circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of cargo carried. The ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for employment in the tea trade where time on passage was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective but as soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through, she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort.
@Allen Loser Yes, I fell into the 'other' exam candidates folly; never mind the question display the knowledge you have! Still working on this though. Energy harvest is the key point, where does the energy come form and what is the cost of getting it to where you need it. With the side issue of how much do we need?
@Allen Loser The best resolution to the ‘side issue’ is still reduced consumption, both by reducing the number of individuals and their per capita resource use. WRT establishing a credible correlation between ‘a credible cost versus benefit analysis’ this is rather like ‘count the chairs, measure the table’. With the added difficulty of convincing a sceptical audience, at what stage does ‘evidence’ become ‘proof’? The cost of improvements, such as reduction of sulphur in hydrocarbon fuel, is easier to determine than the balancing benefit, the improved atmospheric environment for which the loss of commercial opportunity is often substituted. A last thought on the ‘Cutty Sark’ illustration is now, but may not have been when I posted that part of the sub thread to you, ‘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.’
@Allen Loser Good morning Allen. Something of a days 'work here', to avoid any 'off the cuff' remarks it will be at least 8 hours before I can address all the points you raise. Blue Crude will be a research project all its own, sulphur content in crude oil was usually indicated by how 'sweet' or 'sour' the crude was, sweet (low sulphur) crude did tend to have a premium over sour but often availability and processability tended to be the key factors in crude purchase decisions.
@Allen Loser If they still have LSD & ULSD in your area what is the price differential? I am taking ‘greed’ to be ‘enlightened and socially responsible self interest’. Sulphur is a corrosive and while not a lubricant in and of itself, it can combine with the nickel content in many metal alloys to form a low melting point eutectic alloy that can increase lubricity. The process used to reduce the sulphur also reduces the fuel's lubricating properties. Earlier information from my days hanging about the petroleum labs was that sulphur had some ‘lubricant properties’ which is why lubricity became an issue when in the early 1990’s ULSD was introduced, leading to much chatter about HFRR (high frequency reciprocating rig) performance and 'wear scar' values. If the wear scare was ‘off’ additives were, and still are, introduced into the blend to get the product back ‘on spec’. In Sweden Preem produce ‘bio diesel’ from forestry industry by product which is sold at the same pump price as fossil fuel; but supply of this ‘green’ fuel is limited by forestry production. My own vehicle use is a pre-owned high mileage Otto cycle Ford Focus running on E85, a blend available in Sweden that is 85% ethanol. The ethanol is mainly sourced from the Brazilian sugar industry and surprisingly though common in Sweden this grade is not available in the neighbouring countries; Norway, Denmark or Germany. The previous car I ran was a TDI (Diesel cycle) Ford Mondeo bought from my employer at the end of the corporate lease and again high mileage at purchase but when it stopped being economical to maintain at 17 years of age I downsized; the Mondeo, which ran on ULSD, had no fuel injector or DPF (diesel particulate filter) problems either from my own experience or in the service history.
I love watching videos like these to keep me aware of what side of the dunning kruger curve I am on regarding topics like these - very well done & thank you for the education
@Kelas Enterprise yes and submarines. Wouldnt it be great if we could use that tech for cargo shipping as well ? I'm ready to believe it is more costly than burning oil. I'm ready to believe it is a sensitive issue regarding security issues. But technological it should not be a problem really. And if it becomes the norm and 100s of these ships are build anually, the cost could only go down as well. www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/07/breakthrough-in-size-safety-of-a-complete-nuclear-power-module-in-a-shipping-container.html
Nuclear is great but it's just not the best for portable applications for several reasons, first and foremost is shielding which as a rule is heavy, the second is availability and security of fuel because governments have a lot of red tape with transporting hazardous substances in and around them, and the third is the initial cost of installment and continued cost of maintenance and staffing.
When facing a problem engineers shouldn't think of ways to add layers of complexity to a problem, but just on how to solve it. It can be done by asking the question differently. Instead of asking "Are Renewable Powered Ships Possible?" we should ask "how can we produce more locally so we don't need to transport a lot of useless stuff"
Check out the iron-hulled sailing ships of the 20th century. Some of those "windjammers" were _fast._ Some cargos on some routes could still use mostly wind power I'm sure.
@@sietuuba way way waaaaayyyyy to much cargo. Some of your shorter range ships with inner cargo holds that operate mostly in islands? Possible. The crate haulers? No way. Those crates would mess bad with aerodynamics on the sails, even if you set them clear above (which you would have to anyway to catch enough wind for ships that big
@@MrCurbinator I think your comment shows a mindset focussed on what is familiar from the present and past. Forget about how containers are stacked on a conventional ship, forget how sails are mounted on a conventional ship. Go back to the basic question: Could it be feasible to move large loads using wind power ? And then we get to that sentence "I need to do more research on the topic to form an opinion".
@@antondegroot6061 observing designs of the past and present is how you build for the future. Lets start small. Using modern synthetic metals, you could attach retractable rails to the superstructure to deploy studsails. You could run a sail on top as well (this is the best bang for bunk option, but creates instability). Rigging sails to the containers is right out. Companies ship excess product knowing a percentage will be rerouted to Atlantis. Cant rig to something that unstable and dynamic. Then theres the big question of water displacement. What is the ships ideal displacement, and do the added sails lift her up or push her deeper into the water. That will actually be what makes or breaks this idea because it dictates fuel efficiency.
@@MrCurbinator I don't know how containerships should try it but bulk carriers ought to be more straight-forward with their clear decks. They would need proper keels again, definitely, and lots of ballast tanks they could flood if needed, I suppose. I'm not a naval architect and not even a sailor so I don't have anything to put down on paper even, but it doesn't seem like an impossible design challenge even for an ocean-going cargo ship. We couldn't make the (free standing!) masts very tall to keep the draft and forces on each mast within reasonable limits but modern ships are stupendously long so we'd have lots of masts instead, each fully automated. Re-rigging costs would make a comeback so each sail, or maybe even the whole mast with its sails that reef inside it, would need to be as modular as possible to make replacing for refurbishment on land fast and routine...
Man, never apologise for having a bad mental health month! We care about you more than your content! Please put yourself first! Your content is honestly amazing, and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that it's frankly invaluable! But your mental health is so much more important than your content!
Hey Brian, I'm usually one of the quiet viewers, that never comment on a video but I just wanted to say that your videos and the messages that come with them inspired me to start studying mechenical engineering (this autumn) and I just wanted to thank you for that!
I hope you did more research beforehand, otherwise you are in for a bad awakening. You will not spend your time studying technologies on such a general makro level, however these days you will learn a lot about electronics, and you will spend a lot of time with graphs and maths.
As someone who did study mechanical engineering and has been in the field for 30 years, I strongly recommend you to attend a program that has an option for a co-op program. I did, and while it extended my four-year degree to six, I had three years of experience when I graduated (it included summers for both school and work), I had no debt, and I had a better idea of what was important and what was not in my studies in later years. Also, after I graduated, I had *one* interview and was hired within the week. Good luck, and get many opinions other than mine!
Good luck, Martin! I am 79 and spent most of my life as an Engineer, finishing up as a designer. I enjoyed (almost) every day. Playing with expensive toys, at someone else's expense, and getting well paid for doing it! I once fell into the trap of people management but it meant that I wasn't practising engineering so quickly back-tracked. Best decision I ever made.
I studied ME in the late 80s and spent 2 years in a ME role before branching out due to the lack of job opportunities. I spend more time managing Electrical and IT/Telco projects these days. A great grounding but decent jobs are scarce.
Been hearing about he mental health struggle you've been going through, glad to see another quality upload but please make sure you get the support you need! Sending love from Canada!
Mental health is so underrated. When you are trying to do something good and meaningfull, you have to ask yourself tough questions all the time. +working primarly by your self on those big projects needs a lot of self motivation. This is a hard burden to carry.
I work in the shipping industry and this is the best video on this topic i have seen. Not super negative and pointing at real solutions and steps allready made. Great video !
A real solution to a non-problem? The ocean will eat all surplus CO2 anyway. Doesn't matter how much we burn, the ocean will eat it all, as it has done with the emissions from the volcanos for billions of years. There is no real problem to be solved - it's a religion.
@@thomasgo1234 CO2 is probably dissolved in the water and burried by sedimentation. But the rate is too small for it to safe human life if we keep blasting the carbon. You can already see effects of the added carbon in coral reefs, a big ocean ecosystem responsible for oxygen production, because the corals die under the carbon stress. It has many bad feedback mechanisms we probably do not want to experience.
@@thomasgo1234 The ocean will convert CO2 to other substances, and store it on the seabed. Has already converted trillions of tons injected into the system by volcanoes for billions of years. All done chemically and without any effort - it is all automatically. There is no problem whatsoever, even in worst case. Some prominent geochemist explains it here, if interested: _Some Thoughts on Ocean Chemistry , by Tom V. Segalstad, Professor of Geochemistry:_ www.co2web.info/Segalstad_Chapter-6-3-1-2_Ocean-Chemistry_NIPCC_CCR-II-B_2014.pdf
At 3:40 you are measuring fuel savings per day but lowering the speed also increases the amount of time required. At 24 knots = 9.375 tons per knot, at 21 knots = 7.143 tons per knot, the savings are 23.8% not 33%.
If we lowered the speed limit to 30mph everywhere in the US we could save 10s of thousands of lives and many millions of gallons of fuel each year. I don't understand why we even allow vehicles to be built that go faster than say 40mph.
@@commentsboardreferee7434 30mph is reasonable for short journeys but unreasonable for long journeys which are pretty common in america. LA to san francisco, which are both in the same state, is 381 miles. It would take 12 hours. The trucking industry would be crippled and people who commute to work would have to spent an extra hour or two getting to work. america is too big and spread out to not allow high speed traffic.
@@commentsboardreferee7434 not really, passing a regulation that cripples the economy will cause people to lose jobs and people die when lots of jobs are lost. How will food be transported? Will ambulances also be affected by this? There's a reason why pretty much no developed countries have national speed limits that low.
@James Smith Sure is. It's also a greenhouse gas responsible for anthropogenic global warming. Many things in the world have more than one effect. Water is nice to drink, but you can also drown in it and if you heat it up to steam, that's also a greenhouse gas.
A video on biofuels will make for an interresting future topic. I work at a biodiesel plant in the US and we produce unfathomable quantities of fuel and other products. At our facility, we convert every portion of soy beans into a marketable product with virtually no waste in that regard. The fat is extracted from the solids which are converted into feed for livestock and then the fat goes through a chemical step to turn it into biodiesel and glycerol, which is further refined to a food grade glycerol. This process requires acids, bases, and catalysts at different steps, and we use steam from a central boiler to add heat as needed. As you've said, efficiency is vital when working with the scales that we do, but given all the carbon put into getting the beans to us, the fuel produced is far from carbon neutral. However, given the amount of farmland in the midwest that is best suited for feed products, converting soy into non-food products is a necessity to sustain midwest farming and the livestock producers that rely on the low cost feed it produces. My own conclusion, based on insufficient research, is that biodiesel specifically does not function as a step towards carbon neutrality but does provide a great variety of benefits that are realized in surprising places.
@biohazardlnf user @Eric Lotze made this comment: When most people hear "Biofuel" they think soybean oil etc -> biodiesel, corn->ethanol, and MAYBE anerobic digestion->biogas (and optinal upgrading to natural gas specs) This was all generation 1 -ish The recent stuff is much less of a food vs fuel arguement Mainly: - Algae as a feedstock (can grow in many places, grows VERY fast) - HTL and Pyrolysis to produce "Bio-Crude" oil (Which (to a certain extent) can be a "drop in replacement" for refineries - Cellulose etc -> ethanol ALSO There are many other products that will be NEEDED that require some form or refinery: - Lubricants - Plastics - Propellants (in aerosol canisters) - Refrigerents (Butane is a common one) - etc ALSO Biochar / Carbon Black (From methane -> hydrogen + cng, or other processes) can be buried for Carbon Sequestration Also the storage infastructure for methane and liquid fuels allows for energy storage via Power-to-X and Biofuels in all of the current "salt domes"
@Zaky-Bear RE: ". . . we produce unfathomable quantities of fuel and other products." I'm sure that the production engineering managers know EXCATLY how much is produced per hour, per day, per week, per month and per year.
@Allen Loser Do you know why most of the midwest grows primarily feed crops? Land and rain are plentiful, so growing at large scale is the best way to increase profits. Relatively few food crops can be grown at the scales that this region can support and none are in nearly as high of demand as feed crops. Soy based biodiesel only uses a portion of the bean. A large portion still is used as feed products. Only the soybean oil is used to make fuel and even then, glycerol is produced as a side product which also has food use. There are some food products that use soybean oil, but once again, fuel has the greater size demand, which has served to drive down the price of the food grade oil as well since more beans can be grown per acre than virtually any other crop.
@@spaceman081447 There is a difference between quantifying and understanding. If I told you that the average railcar carried 200 tons of meal and one customer buys 10 railcars each week to feed their poultry, you would know how many pounds those birds ate each week, but that doesn't mean you can even guess at how large the barns are that hold all those birds, or how many workers are involved in raising them.
@@apacheattackhelicopter8185 Most nuclear reactors were designed by private companies, built by private companies and operated by private companies, the private ownership is irrelevant.
@@Pyriphlegeton well first you have to develop different reactors for different sized ships. Then redesign the structure of the ships due to weight of the reactors. Then the fuel is gonna cost more as u buy more material if suppliers cant keep up with demand. Then u gotta pay 2+ nuclear engineers 200k per ship. And when the ships service life ends that's even more money safely disposing the nuclear fuel. And the one if you main benifits of nuclear fuel is the ability to quickly increase power output which they really dont need to increase speed that quickly. Not to mention having having multiple companies who vary in how shady or trust worthy being in control of dozens of ships with nuclear fuel on it if mismanaged it could end up in th wrong hands. it just seems that the areas where nuclear fuel is efficient shipping companies don't care about or already have solutions on the way. And where nuclear fuel is inefficient is very expensive and complicated
@@Aaron-wq3jz It’s already been done economically. The Otto Hahn operated profitably using nuclear propulsion for several years. Additionally, there have been substantial developments in compact reactors recently.
@@Aaron-wq3jz a single NuScale SMR reactor module could in theory provide the power for a Triple E class container ship and i doubt it is much bigger or heavier than the two diesel engines
Ship propellers are also optimized for a specific speed. Changing the ships speed, velocity of advancement and propeller rpm has a negative effect on the overall propulsion efficiency.
I'd almost agree, but if shipbuilders can adapt the propeller designs used in nuclear submarines, the result would be ships that can generate a lot of propulsive thrust but with higher efficiency and more importantly, reduced issues from cavitation (cavitation forces can cause all kinds of problems, especially shortening the life of propellers).
@@Sacto1654 I suspect nuclear subs need to operate at a much greater range of speeds and as such sacrifice high efficiency at a narrow band of speeds to achieve this. Engineering is always about tradeoffs!
Iirc, some of the latest propeller designs are actually able to change the pitch of the blades much like modern turboprop aircraft can, whole still not as effective at certain speeds as something dedicated, it is better then they were. It is an expensive and complex system though.
@@Sacto1654 What you're describing are called controllable pitch propellers. They change the blade pitch based on speed and propeller rpm to keep the efficiency constant within a limited range. These are generally not used in commercial shipbuilding because of higher complexity and cost. Keep in mind military and commercial shipbuilders have very different objectives and requirements. I'd love to hear a military naval architects thoughts on this (if the subject is not classified), but I'd guess that nuclear subs don't have controllable pitch propellers for the sake of efficiency, but to minimize cavitation and thus reduce the acoustic signature.
@@FighterAceee94 The reason why I mention this: you wonder can they build six-blade propellers specifically for large container ships for optimized operation in the 16-20 knot range. Not only for lower fuel consumption, but also to reduce the physical effects of cavitation, which can be strong enough to break not only propellers, but the driveshaft itself.
@@5tr4nge75 You are right. At least how I see it he might be referring to the concentration of wealth and power to a select few companies in the world.
"Industries around the world working to neutralize their carbon footprint an coming up ingenious technologies..." Like shipping their manufacturing to China and lying about their numbers?
Literally this. It baffles me how anyone is taken in by that crap. It’s obvious that nobody is actually keeping track of the real carbon footprints of these companies.
10:00 if you are concerned about farmland used, then you should consider cutting back on your meat, dairy, and egg consumption. Alot of land is used to feed "livestock" for meat dairy and eggs. One additional benefit of biofuels is they can be used almost immediately on existing ships.
Winston Churchill said ‘if you are going through hell, keep going’. However someone else said ‘if your find yourself in a hole, stop digging’. The real problem is knowing just which sort of mess you are in.
I'm so glad channels like you and real science exist. you guys put out some very interesting stuff that's fun to learn about. I think educational channels like you guys need more attention
“It’s important to convert these ships to renewable technologies when their time comes” Is it? It seems like they are barely making a dent. Not that it’s a bad idea but how high on the priority list should it be if they are less than 2% of global emissions?
Well, thats the issue, you can say that for pretty much anything. Cars, trucks, trains, ships, airplanes, mines, powerplants, factories, offices, datacentres, homes. If you split it all up, everything only is a relatively small part of the problem and for every part people will say "should this be a high priority?" It is also why it is such a humongously difficult problem to solve. Solving each of these parts alone are already huge undertakings for humanity. And then to realize that each individually makes barely a dent and we need to fix them all.....
@@antondegroot6061 Exactly, net zero means we have to find a solution for all the small parts, so we should work on solutions for every part of it now, instead of pushing it off for the future.
Great video! One thing that is important to consider is to actually reduce the total amount of kilometers traveled. If we can bring manufacturing closer to end consumers by regionalizing industries instead of traveling around the world then we can have large improvements in co2 reduction. Obviously still keep shipping not shift to land transportation.
Maybe we should give Maersk special dispensation to use civilian nuclear reactors. Worst-case scenario, if there's a meltdown, they could eject the reactor core (just like in Star Trek!) and drop it to the bottom of the ocean where it can't hurt anyone. Seawater is a fantastic radiation shield.
With the reductions of speeds sailing is becoming competitive as main power for boats. A French startup called Neoline is currently working with partners to invent the first sail propelled cargo ship for transatlantic shipping. Can’t wait to see the majestic big sails on the horizon ! Godspeed !
@@srs6461 Well, its a step. And maybe we find a combination of all of it. A Batterie powered Containership, using Hydrogen and Sails, that combined with Flettner Rotors. Expensive, for sure but i guess its just "slightly" more compared to the overall costs of a Containership.
hey im sorry i gotta spoil something for you - it is not even close to the first sail propelled cargo ship, thats been around for some several thousand years
There are always emissions, human sweat at the very least from rowing. I suspect there is going to be an LCA in the project somewhere so once the group decide what the group wants to prove just adjust the choice of functional unit, measured parameters and boundary limits to get the desired results.
I think the company who wanted to do that went bankrupt. But Wallenius - a Swedish ship producer - wants to build the Oceanbird in 2024, a smaller cargo ship that uses wingsails to partially power itself through wind like smaller hightech catamarans are doing it. What I would love to see is if you could fit a ship already using wingsails with a flying kite wind power plant. Because you could get a bit of acceleration from the kite acting as a sail, but also electrical power from having it fly figure 8s in front of the ship. And I know it wouldn't produce much electricity compared to what the ship would need, only a few megawatts at best, but it could reduce fuel consumption a bit and maybe double as a small power plant in harbour cities once the ship is docked.
@@midnight8341 the flying kite power plant is not possible. A kitesail is typically moved into the best position to provide thrust so there would be no practical way to generate electricity
@@jamesday7339 yet a kitesail is not economically practical in comparison to a wingsail, at least according to the companies. So you could integrate a kite wind power plant into the ship, since the ship is practically stationary compared to the kite, since it is moving pretty slowly. And depending on what method you use to generate electricity, I think a part of it could be used as thrust, even if it would be miniscule.
@@midnight8341 there is no way to generate electricity using a kite sail. They only provide thrust and as for the economics of kitesails vs wingsails kitesails will win in 90% of ship types because the deck space is too congested and there is too much over deck work done when in ports
To address the suggestions that sail power is the answer I offer the following. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’, she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots, dependent on the prevailing wind, to harness the energy the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2. To round things out that was circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of cargo carried. The ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for employment in the tea trade where time on passage was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective but as soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through, she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort.
1:40, CTC No.1, built in 1943, she’s a B class L6 Maritimer built during WW2 to haul iron ore to feed the war effort. She’s currently laid up in Chicago IL last serving as a cement Transfer Center (CTC) in 2009. She is owned by Rand logistics/Lower Lakes Towing. She can’t be easily scrapped due to aspestos.
The fact that you as a creator admitted you need to do more research on a topic before formulating a complete opinion on biodiesel is beautiful. Another reason you are one of the best content creators on YT
3:13 Is it really exponential? I feel like it should be approximately quadratic function, because power is a quadratic function of speed for air drag right? And water is just a different medium
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation all formulas for drag seem to be quadratic, and if you have different kinds of drags they are just added up. If you think I'm wrong please name a source
@@Beerfazz research for example froude number en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froude_number There are several effects which are not quadratic. In aviation for example the wave drag near the sound barrier. And for ships there exists a similar effect with it's own wave created at the bow. That's why the form of the bow is that important as real engineering stated in the video.
Finally someone's talking about it. Worldwide shipping industry could do lots of efforts in terms of eco friendly transport. These boats, aside from using very bad quality oil, also have bad impact on the ecosystems they "sail" through. When stopping e.g. in Singapore to load cargo, they pump water into the ship incl. microscopic animals, algeas and others. Then they sail all the way to let's say France and offload the cargo as well as emptt the water they pumped in Singapore. Local marine life then faces new non-indegienous plants and microscopic animals which have the potential to completelt overrun and destroy local marine life. Ships are far more problematic for the world than we think, and no one except you talks about it
They used to do yeah but that's not allowed any more there are now surtain areas where they have to lose the water and take on fees water so they don't get spread around
Nuclear power plants would be the only option but they're currently only for military use since you don't want to risk them ending up in the hands of very bad people. Sadly, there's nothing we can currently do about it. Oil is required to literally fuel innovation in other energy solutions such as solar power. You can't go through industrialization solely on wind power.
I always thought to make ships renewable it would take a mix of hydrogen and wind power, but I never new there was a wind alternative that was not sails until watching this video. Cool.
Was about to comment this. Evidently its not considered that big of a deal though, not like its misspelling Californa or Tixas, that would actually be a big deal. But a small, mostly unknown state like Delaware? Eh who cares
The main problem with any large scale vehicles like ships or planes being electric is specific energy of the batteries. Unless there is orders of magnitude change in energy density of the batteries which also are safe to use, I think we will have to rely on fossil or nuclear fuel
Naval architect here working on this specific subject. The video is good and informative. As added you could mention nuclear power which is currently investigated and also there is an interesting patent pending approval on this matter. Moreover, carbon pricing alongside carbon capture should be mentioned. They will probably play a role. But overall good.
Whilst I’m pro nuclear, people in other comments have pointed out current sea going nuclear isn’t suitable due to the need of such highly trained specialists onboard, but I feel things like SMRs would be perfect for the job
most likely no, its regulations, nuclear is extremely regulated, air carriers are military so getting over those regulations is easier, for a private companies tend to avoid big regulatory messes when they can
A big technical challenge is that Naval reactors use highly enriched uranium (90%+) in order to keep the reactor size small. Anything above 20% is difficult for civilian application because of proliferation risks and regulation. There are those in the shipping industry looking into it though.
Nuclear naval propulsion has been a solved problem for 50 years. It could literally take over global shipping, at any point. The tool is ready, the engineering is solved. All it takes is for people to get off their superstitious asses and do it.
@@isakjohansson7134 we that Arguement...the moon won't last to control the tides. The sun will not exist so no photons or atmosphere for earth so now wind. We can do fusion and fission
those "sails" useing the magnus effect reminded me of something. there is a german company called Skysail that basically makes giant computer controlled air foil kites meant to drag cargo ships along the traditional trade routes that still follow mayor wind paths. Okay I dont think they can fully drag them along but reducing the fuel consumption is their main goal I think... they have been doing this for nearly 20 years now
@@RealEngineering I think that's more so RTE's overall style and through line. I've worked with them on a project a few years back and there was a little bit of that cringe. But overall an excellent piece. The girlfriend and I are going to visit Turlough hill once lockdown ends, on your recommendation.
@@paddyokearney Yeah, I'm not sure what it is. They just like the very loud and short shouty pieces to camera that suddenly stop as you turn and walk away from the camera. It just feels super unnatural for me. The interview sections were fun for me and I learned a tonne from the producers. Great team to work with. Just had to let go of my desire for creative control a little.
@@RealEngineering I suppose that's probably down more so to RTE overall narrative style. It's kinda weird, but this lockdown has me watching more 'local' content. Definitely be great to see the likes of your creative influence on the network.
Not true. LNG transportation unlike other areas of the industry is incredibly safe and strictly regulated with the industry never recording a serious incident during cargo transfer.
@@jameslane2615 Sure, as long as things continue as they are. But they're massive terrorism bullseyes and if something *does* go wrong, it goes really really wrong.
I worked as a merchant marine engineer for a few years before retirement. The ships I sailed on were relatively small 30,000 ton bulk carriers with 14.000 hp and cruising at 14 kts. We burned approximately 200 BARRELS of heavy (very polluting) fuel oil and a few barrels of diesel for the generators every day while underway.
@@mathias8987 was meaning on some of the largest ships. Ones where it'd be financially viable to have such engines, also supplemented with the wind things mentioned in the video.
@@mathias8987 I don’t think it’s too expensive. It doesn’t compete with fossil fuels, but the costs aren’t out of control by any means. We’d have to see what alternative fuels cost to really get a proper impression. There has been interest from shipping companies in nuclear propulsion.
The D- Day series on Nebula is really a great watch, and I literally can't get enough. Well done Brian keep it up! Also enjoying the founders podcast. P.s. I find a trip to nature for a week or so can reset all of the buttons. Think Connemara.
I think us nuclear energy fans need to create an alternative "Real Engineering" UA-cam channel, but the channel mainly talks about nuclear energy applications.
@@faragar1791 do you know of any channels that do promote nuclear technology? I haven’t been able to find any and it would be nice to get away from the “nuclear is terrible” bullshit spread by uneducated people, like seriously some of the remarks about it on this video have no idea how it works
@@stefan514 Real Engineering already has dibs on that name considering the mountain of factors this channel overlooks when talking about implementing renewable energy sources.
I've been recently wondering why high altitude power kites haven't been thought about for sea transport. I'm sure it would be an engineering nightmare to get them back from such heights, but using jetstreams seems like a effective way to reinvent the sail.
My activism mindset and intrest in engineering and clean energy is what drives me to become an engineer. I love these videos, they are very fasinating to me.
Cost is a huge factor. Green electricity is getting so cheap nowadays that the only factor becomes where to put the generator. With nuclear reactors, while they may be amazing for providing power efficiently, they are hugely expensive. A cargo ship with 12000 TEU costs 104 million dollars. A Gerald R. Ford-class Aircraft carrier costs 13 billion dollars, which is 125 times the cost. Yes this isn't all the reactor, but you can assume the propulsion system is a large portion of that cost. Companies need to make profit, militaries don't. Its the same reason you don't bring a mining dump truck to a construction site, its unnecessary and expensive when a better option is available.
@@brendo3808 Sorry but nuclear energy is cheaper if green electricity is as you say why have I ended up paying more for my electricity then everyone else in the USA we also got rolling blackouts last summer because they could not provide enough to meet the Daman.
@@danstevens64 first of all, nuclear security will make it difficult to hand out reactors like that. Now regarding navel reactors, when outfitted they are effectively fuelled for life until the ship’s decommission. Not having to refuel will save these shipping companies a lot of money which could be invested back into more ships or something
@@danstevens64 easy, capitalism! The fossil fuel companies just make sure the ship keep running on oil and destroy the planet cause that how they make money
we need to get rid of fuels, they are the main problem, incresing efficiency of an inefficient technology makes no sense, electric is the only viable option that is better ine every way, biofuels are complete nonsense, so is hydrogen and e-fuels, its all nonsense fairytales.
Nuclear ships are nothing new, the Otto Hahn and NS Savannah were build in the 60s but were too expensive. Russia has their Icebreakers run on nuclear power. The technology is not a problem.
nuclear reactors ultimately rely on nuclear material which is once again finite and not renewable. then there also comes the issue of disposal of the used nuclear material which is radioactive. nuclear power can cut emissions but it will bring about a whole new problem if accommodated into such a scale which is why he said we have to choose the alternative very carefully moving forward as it will be catastrophic if we cannot deal with the consequences of the new chain of events it will bring. nuclear power should remain on a small scale like power plants for now.
@@kavikyu8703 there's enough radioactive materials to cover the whole of humanity's energy need for several thousand years, so that's far from being a problem. Disposal of used material is not a bigger issue than toxic materials from industry that is toxic for all eternity, it's even a lot easier. The quantity is ridiculously low at worst. Nuclear power should greatly increase, in small and large scale applications.
Small correction (if I'm not wrong) 3:12 "The fuel consuption rises exponentially with each knot of speed added ". That statement might actually be wrong: it rises with the cubic of the speed : Power = Force * speed Force = Drag = constant(depending on fluid, area etc) * speed^2 => Power = constant * speed^3 And Fuel Consumption is directly related to power (also efficiency is to be taken into account for the calculation but it only add a multiplicative term in the expression).
@Jeffery Lifsey RE: "because of the size and lifetime of those ships, they should have a nuclear reactor instead of diesel" Good for you! I'm glad to see someone else bring up the obvious solution: nuclear power!
@@bramvanduijn8086 The Emma Maersk class ships we out dated in about 3 year. As they were not built for slow steaming. And the crew is 13 people total. Not much for a nuclear power plant, Rusatom has a crew of 69 with similar electric power to the ships power.
@Real Engineering 3:10 Just because a graph is not a straight line does not mean that it is exponential. Only beyond the hull speed barrier does the power go up exponentially.
2:04 Real Engineering: to put that into more human terms... Me: Finally!! A metric system... That Irish engineer guy: 20 foot container can hold 6000 shoe boxes Me: Everyone else:
They said carriers have killed the battleship, but when we get railguns, it will be an era of weapons that cannot be intercepted like missiles, so we will return to big gunned heavily armoured ships, and they’ll be sexy as
@@thebaumfaeller1477 initially, but doctrine will be adjusted for when ships will be detected, they can’t avoid incoming rounds, and current ships wouldn’t be able to take the hit, then again, you may be right, as the armour might not even save them, and the smallest signature possible, the better
@@thebaumfaeller1477 technology tends to leap frog like that. The first metal armor made many weapons almost useless, then armor piercing weapons like pikes and javelins came along, but then sturdier shields like the scutum came and made those weapons less effective, until the weapons got better. Later arrows like the bodkin point or crossbow bolts became better at piercing armor until plate armor made arrows and swords almost useless, then guns made heavy armor useless, until tanks became impervious to small arms, so we got anti tank guns. Kevlar made smaller bullets useless so we got larger, faster, stronger bullets. Every time a new defense comes along it takes awhile for weapons to surpass the defense, then it takes awhile for the weapon to beat it.
The answer is probably not. Giant electromagnetic sails initially make sense but they come at some serious downsides mainly that you can't use the deck for storage which severely limits capacity numbers. Generally speaking Shipping is dictated by three things crew cost, turnover time, carrying capacity, and speed. Now there could be smaller bulk ships (i.e. corn, coal, ore, etc) that uses wind sails type system because they need to keep the product in the berth. But you are extremely unlikely to see Container ships or break bulk ships use it due to it screwing with either cranes or carry capacity. We'll like continue to see container ships using diesel until either Efuel or Hydrogen replaces it due it requiring minimal changes. I took some marine engineering courses before switching to chemistry.
Exactly! All US submarines and aircraft carriers are nuclear powered, from what I've read. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy#United_States_Naval_reactors
There was at least one cargo ship that was nuclear, but the maintenance is expensive. Of course having more ships could lower the costs thanks to standardization. These cargo ships can't go everywhere either, because some countries/harbours have 0 tolerance for nuclear vessels. It sounds great in theory but in real life it's not that great. You have more fuel than it's life time so you need special team to decommision the ship which is also expensive, dangerous and in worst case poluting.
@Papa Stalin RE: "I mean, we have nuclear and we have recycling nuclear reactors (waste based reactors)" I'm glad that someone finally brought up nuclear power and breeder reactors.
@@sabotabby3372 Nuclear is renewable on a timescale of millions or billions of years with more uranium leached from the earth's crust. The Sun is going to burn out in 5 billion years anyway.
The problem i see with wind powered ships is for example Sail boats are calculated as 1.5hp per sq ft of 60mph wind So if you have a 100sq ft windmill its taking in 150hp of energy (112kws) But that doesn't include generation efficiency which is about 70% But if its a head wind blowing it is putting roughly 150hp of stopping power on the ship, well only generating roughly 105hp of electricity at 70% efficiency exchange I.e its making more drag, then its making in power, costing more on fuel not less
Also how much of those should be in the Pacific. Sea is not a highway. There are hundreds of ports and ships got different routes. How much time would ships lost because they would have to deviate from fastest route to port.
@@ivannovakovic2156 The point is that they wouldn't have to deviate at all from the most efficient shipping lane as the refueling station would be built along it in the middle of the pacific
@@isakjohansson7134 I'm far too lazy to crunch the numbers but I know even a single large turbine can generate an impressive amount of energy. I think the extremely large investment cost and logistics of building it so remotely would keep this ever actually happening IMO also finding a suitable build location would be quite a challenge too I'm sure weather not withstanding
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?
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!
damn
converting current combustion engines to hydrogen combustion is the only realistic way forward, and it can be done cheaply and easily
Hope you will get better soon. Hi and thanks for the great educational videos from Spain.
Hope you feel better soon & thanks for the great content ❤️
Keep your head up! The content can always wait.
"I need to do more research on the topic to form an opinion"
most underrated sentence ever.
Not really, most bio fuels are just pork.
SUPRISE! I am the funniest YTer evah!!!! Just kidding, it was no surprise. Everybody knew already. HAHAHHAHA!!!! That was an amazing joke (it was real talk though). WAWAWAWAWA!!!! Good afternoon, dear alex
@@AxxLAfriku are you ok
Most underused sentence ever.
This is what pro-nuclear people say before they realise they are pro-nuclear.
The World: Meters and grams
The USA: football fields and humans
Real Engineering: Empire state building and shoeboxes
You never watch Galileo ......
Hey hey, never forget about our friends from Liberia and Myanmar.
Greta Thunberg be like:
how much is that in bananas?
In Germany we also measure Areas in the unit Saarland. F.e. total area of parking lots in Germany is two Saarlands.
Pretty sure *all* ships used to be wind powered, with occasional muscle power...
Yep. Our discovery of energy dense fuel allowed us to grow beyond the limits of wind.
Now that we're feeling the consequences of this we're starting to backpedal on that choise.
To address the suggestions that sail power is the answer I offer the following. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’, she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots, dependent on the prevailing wind, to harness the energy the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2. To round things out that was circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of cargo carried. The ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for employment in the tea trade where time on passage was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective but as soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through, she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort.
@@BernardLS Wind power in the form of sail was outclassed by steam engines, but if we can harness the wind power in a more efficient manner with modern technology it could prove useful.
I'm not convinced either, I think nuclear and potentially fusion engine is the way to go. But I think we shouldn't discount solar and wind yet just because modern technology diesel is better than 19 century sail. Maybe there's a way to use solar and wind efficiently with 21 century tech.
Many advances and many orders of magnitude scaling have been made in both solar and wind sector to the point that it's now cheaper than coal in half the counties which was unthinkable just 10 years ago when it was an order of magnitude more expensive than coal.
Without subsidy there are 20 year contracts signed for 4 cents/kWh for wind plants and below 3 cents/kWh for solar plants. For reference modern coal plant 20 year contract is 6 cents/kWh.
Same advances could be possible in ship space.
Weren't as effective as the ones used nowadays tho!
@Allen Loser Will happen.
‘Are renewable powered ships possible?’
Ship 200 years ago: ‘hold my sails’
More like 5000 years ago (~3000 BC)
Horses had once hauled carriages on land. Why not use whales to haul trade ships?
@@리주민 Or we put a moon on each ship to make the waves push it
@@buddy1155 No, ships had sails way past 5000 bc.
@@macaroon_nuggets8008 I wouldn't be surprised at all. I just did a quick google search,
Renewable transportation game:
Select your difficulty:
Causal - Railway
Easy - Cars
Medium - Trucks
Hard - Ships
Nightmare - Airplanes
Actually ships would be the easiest to convert to renewable energy... They aren't concerned about weight as much as trucks or planes
@@anonymousarmadillo6589 They are governed by size of canals and that is another set of issues.
@@cmdr1911 Yes, but they are not sensitive to a couple of kilos as trucks or cars are.
@@anonymousarmadillo6589 See what happens as you increase weight. Ships the same size sit lower in the water, require more power and will force a redesign of weight distribution. By far the best thing would be to use natural gas today and transition to using RNG from sewage and agricultural in the future since ports are typically near major cities and the US alone could produce 30% of today's natural gas demand from waste products.
Hardcore: Rockets
"I need to look into the subject in more detail, to form a more solid opinion."
Take notes politicians, this is how to create a healthy environment for debates.
Much respect
+
Don't be ridiculous - we need to take action NOW or the planet will cease to exist in 20 years. We must ban all fossil fuels right away, for a start. The time for debate is over. It's settled science.
@@commentsboardreferee7434 May we rest in peace in this case because fossil fuels aren't going away. It's a settled market
@@commentsboardreferee7434 you might be right, the more we drag on this over consumption the more it will impact the entire industrial world, including the fossil fuel industry. We are already in big debt to our environment, one day it will bust.
Politians are skilled lyars payed actors, they will say whatever they are payed to. Do not trust a word they say.
Wind power :
"You could not live with your own failure."
"Where did that bring you?"
"Back to me."
To address the suggestions that sail power is the answer I offer the following. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’, she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots, dependent on the prevailing wind, to harness the energy the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2. To round things out that was circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of cargo carried. The ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for employment in the tea trade where time on passage was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective but as soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through, she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort.
@Allen Loser Yes, I fell into the 'other' exam candidates folly; never mind the question display the knowledge you have! Still working on this though. Energy harvest is the key point, where does the energy come form and what is the cost of getting it to where you need it. With the side issue of how much do we need?
@Allen Loser The best resolution to the ‘side issue’ is still reduced consumption, both by reducing the number of individuals and their per capita resource use. WRT establishing a credible correlation between ‘a credible cost versus benefit analysis’ this is rather like ‘count the chairs, measure the table’. With the added difficulty of convincing a sceptical audience, at what stage does ‘evidence’ become ‘proof’? The cost of improvements, such as reduction of sulphur in hydrocarbon fuel, is easier to determine than the balancing benefit, the improved atmospheric environment for which the loss of commercial opportunity is often substituted. A last thought on the ‘Cutty Sark’ illustration is now, but may not have been when I posted that part of the sub thread to you, ‘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.’
@Allen Loser Good morning Allen. Something of a days 'work here', to avoid any 'off the cuff' remarks it will be at least 8 hours before I can address all the points you raise. Blue Crude will be a research project all its own, sulphur content in crude oil was usually indicated by how 'sweet' or 'sour' the crude was, sweet (low sulphur) crude did tend to have a premium over sour but often availability and processability tended to be the key factors in crude purchase decisions.
@Allen Loser If they still have LSD & ULSD in your area what is the price differential? I am taking ‘greed’ to be ‘enlightened and socially responsible self interest’. Sulphur is a corrosive and while not a lubricant in and of itself, it can combine with the nickel content in many metal alloys to form a low melting point eutectic alloy that can increase lubricity. The process used to reduce the sulphur also reduces the fuel's lubricating properties. Earlier information from my days hanging about the petroleum labs was that sulphur had some ‘lubricant properties’ which is why lubricity became an issue when in the early 1990’s ULSD was introduced, leading to much chatter about HFRR (high frequency reciprocating rig) performance and 'wear scar' values. If the wear scare was ‘off’ additives were, and still are, introduced into the blend to get the product back ‘on spec’. In Sweden Preem produce ‘bio diesel’ from forestry industry by product which is sold at the same pump price as fossil fuel; but supply of this ‘green’ fuel is limited by forestry production. My own vehicle use is a pre-owned high mileage Otto cycle Ford Focus running on E85, a blend available in Sweden that is 85% ethanol. The ethanol is mainly sourced from the Brazilian sugar industry and surprisingly though common in Sweden this grade is not available in the neighbouring countries; Norway, Denmark or Germany. The previous car I ran was a TDI (Diesel cycle) Ford Mondeo bought from my employer at the end of the corporate lease and again high mileage at purchase but when it stopped being economical to maintain at 17 years of age I downsized; the Mondeo, which ran on ULSD, had no fuel injector or DPF (diesel particulate filter) problems either from my own experience or in the service history.
I love watching videos like these to keep me aware of what side of the dunning kruger curve I am on regarding topics like these - very well done & thank you for the education
Nuclear powered ships?
@The Pursuit We call those space ships.
Yesterday I could not spell 'Dunning Kruger Curve' now I are one!
@The Pursuit discovered a new way of nuclear fusion that you're not telling us about, c'mon, fess up lolol
@Kelas Enterprise yes and submarines. Wouldnt it be great if we could use that tech for cargo shipping as well ?
I'm ready to believe it is more costly than burning oil.
I'm ready to believe it is a sensitive issue regarding security issues.
But technological it should not be a problem really. And if it becomes the norm and 100s of these ships are build anually, the cost could only go down as well.
www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/07/breakthrough-in-size-safety-of-a-complete-nuclear-power-module-in-a-shipping-container.html
One quote- “Everything, that is hard and challenging, is deemed impossible until its done...”
Sometimes it's also deemed just not worth the effort. :D
its clearly impossible, no one has ever managed to do it!
Which shouldn't be taken to mean that absolutely everything imaginable is possible.
*Cough* *Cough* "HyperLoop" "Loop" Are doing just fine, with the crappiest innovation designed.
@@klutzspecter3470 If their goal was to rake in money and accomplish absolutely nothing of value, yeah, they're doing great!
Nuclear powered ships?
This channel is historically anti-nuclear, despite generally being pro-science.
Uranium fuels unfortunately aren’t renewable - but abundant enough to be used until we have true renewable technologies for everything I guess
Nuclear is great but it's just not the best for portable applications for several reasons, first and foremost is shielding which as a rule is heavy, the second is availability and security of fuel because governments have a lot of red tape with transporting hazardous substances in and around them, and the third is the initial cost of installment and continued cost of maintenance and staffing.
A war will cause a catastrophy with a fleet of those. A single accident for any reason, an angry guy, will cause a disaster. Risky.
When facing a problem engineers shouldn't think of ways to add layers of complexity to a problem, but just on how to solve it. It can be done by asking the question differently. Instead of asking "Are Renewable Powered Ships Possible?" we should ask "how can we produce more locally so we don't need to transport a lot of useless stuff"
You: Are renewable ships possible?
17th Century Galion: Am i nothing to you??
Check out the iron-hulled sailing ships of the 20th century. Some of those "windjammers" were _fast._ Some cargos on some routes could still use mostly wind power I'm sure.
@@sietuuba way way waaaaayyyyy to much cargo. Some of your shorter range ships with inner cargo holds that operate mostly in islands? Possible. The crate haulers? No way. Those crates would mess bad with aerodynamics on the sails, even if you set them clear above (which you would have to anyway to catch enough wind for ships that big
@@MrCurbinator I think your comment shows a mindset focussed on what is familiar from the present and past. Forget about how containers are stacked on a conventional ship, forget how sails are mounted on a conventional ship. Go back to the basic question: Could it be feasible to move large loads using wind power ?
And then we get to that sentence "I need to do more research on the topic to form an opinion".
@@antondegroot6061 observing designs of the past and present is how you build for the future. Lets start small. Using modern synthetic metals, you could attach retractable rails to the superstructure to deploy studsails. You could run a sail on top as well (this is the best bang for bunk option, but creates instability). Rigging sails to the containers is right out. Companies ship excess product knowing a percentage will be rerouted to Atlantis. Cant rig to something that unstable and dynamic. Then theres the big question of water displacement. What is the ships ideal displacement, and do the added sails lift her up or push her deeper into the water. That will actually be what makes or breaks this idea because it dictates fuel efficiency.
@@MrCurbinator I don't know how containerships should try it but bulk carriers ought to be more straight-forward with their clear decks. They would need proper keels again, definitely, and lots of ballast tanks they could flood if needed, I suppose. I'm not a naval architect and not even a sailor so I don't have anything to put down on paper even, but it doesn't seem like an impossible design challenge even for an ocean-going cargo ship. We couldn't make the (free standing!) masts very tall to keep the draft and forces on each mast within reasonable limits but modern ships are stupendously long so we'd have lots of masts instead, each fully automated. Re-rigging costs would make a comeback so each sail, or maybe even the whole mast with its sails that reef inside it, would need to be as modular as possible to make replacing for refurbishment on land fast and routine...
Man, never apologise for having a bad mental health month! We care about you more than your content! Please put yourself first! Your content is honestly amazing, and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that it's frankly invaluable! But your mental health is so much more important than your content!
Agreed. It's far more renewable to solve the problems now before rushed choices impact your videos for months and years to come!
@@alexsis1778 no pun intended
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
Those cylindrical rotors look super cool, and an 8.5% fuel reduction is really impressive for such a simple change!
Especially if those savings affected millions of products they carry.
we need 100% reduction, means electric, hydrogen is useless everywhere
As long as it doesn’t mean a 10% less cargo
still amazes me how massive ships like these, carrying tons and tons and TONS of cargo and still float. like their very own floating island
"Nice boat you got there, what's its MPG?"
"207 tons per day"
Hahahah 🤣
Hey Brian,
I'm usually one of the quiet viewers, that never comment on a video but I just wanted to say that your videos and the messages that come with them inspired me to start studying mechenical engineering (this autumn) and I just wanted to thank you for that!
I hope you did more research beforehand, otherwise you are in for a bad awakening. You will not spend your time studying technologies on such a general makro level, however these days you will learn a lot about electronics, and you will spend a lot of time with graphs and maths.
@@MisterJingo93 It wasn't a spontaneous idea and I did some research beforehand. Did you also study mechanical engineering?
As someone who did study mechanical engineering and has been in the field for 30 years, I strongly recommend you to attend a program that has an option for a co-op program. I did, and while it extended my four-year degree to six, I had three years of experience when I graduated (it included summers for both school and work), I had no debt, and I had a better idea of what was important and what was not in my studies in later years. Also, after I graduated, I had *one* interview and was hired within the week.
Good luck, and get many opinions other than mine!
Good luck, Martin! I am 79 and spent most of my life as an Engineer, finishing up as a designer. I enjoyed (almost) every day. Playing with expensive toys, at someone else's expense, and getting well paid for doing it! I once fell into the trap of people management but it meant that I wasn't practising engineering so quickly back-tracked. Best decision I ever made.
I studied ME in the late 80s and spent 2 years in a ME role before branching out due to the lack of job opportunities. I spend more time managing Electrical and IT/Telco projects these days. A great grounding but decent jobs are scarce.
Been hearing about he mental health struggle you've been going through, glad to see another quality upload but please make sure you get the support you need! Sending love from Canada!
Mental health is so underrated. When you are trying to do something good and meaningfull, you have to ask yourself tough questions all the time. +working primarly by your self on those big projects needs a lot of self motivation.
This is a hard burden to carry.
I work in the shipping industry and this is the best video on this topic i have seen. Not super negative and pointing at real solutions and steps allready made. Great video !
A real solution to a non-problem? The ocean will eat all surplus CO2 anyway. Doesn't matter how much we burn, the ocean will eat it all, as it has done with the emissions from the volcanos for billions of years. There is no real problem to be solved - it's a religion.
@@elbuggo how does an ocean eat co2 exactly ?
@@thomasgo1234 CO2 is probably dissolved in the water and burried by sedimentation. But the rate is too small for it to safe human life if we keep blasting the carbon.
You can already see effects of the added carbon in coral reefs, a big ocean ecosystem responsible for oxygen production, because the corals die under the carbon stress. It has many bad feedback mechanisms we probably do not want to experience.
@@thomasgo1234 The ocean will convert CO2 to other substances, and store it on the seabed. Has already converted trillions of tons injected into the system by volcanoes for billions of years. All done chemically and without any effort - it is all automatically. There is no problem whatsoever, even in worst case. Some prominent geochemist explains it here, if interested: _Some Thoughts on Ocean Chemistry
, by Tom V. Segalstad, Professor of Geochemistry:_ www.co2web.info/Segalstad_Chapter-6-3-1-2_Ocean-Chemistry_NIPCC_CCR-II-B_2014.pdf
@@jonas99g it was kind of a retorical, question but i totally agree with you !
Great video!
９７％ ｏｆ ｔｅｅｎａｇｅｒｓ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｃｒｙ ｉｆ ｔｈｅｙ ｓａｗ Ｊｕｓｔｉｎ Ｂｉｅｂｅｒ ｏｎ ａ ｔｏｗｅｒ ａｂｏｕｔ ｔｏ ｊｕｍｐ． Ｉｆ ｙｏｕ ａｒｅ ｏｎｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ３％ ｓｉｔｔｉｎｇ ｔｈｅｒｅ ｗｉｔｈ ｐｏｐｃｏｒｎ， Ｓｃｒｅａｍｉｎｇ ＂ＤＯ Ａ ＢＡＣＫＦＬＩＰ＂ ｔｈｅｎ ｃｏｐｙ ａｎｄ ｐａｓｔｅ ｔｈｉｓ
@@bapposp5 no shut up
At 3:40 you are measuring fuel savings per day but lowering the speed also increases the amount of time required.
At 24 knots = 9.375 tons per knot, at 21 knots = 7.143 tons per knot, the savings are 23.8% not 33%.
If we lowered the speed limit to 30mph everywhere in the US we could save 10s of thousands of lives and many millions of gallons of fuel each year. I don't understand why we even allow vehicles to be built that go faster than say 40mph.
@@commentsboardreferee7434 30mph is reasonable for short journeys but unreasonable for long journeys which are pretty common in america. LA to san francisco, which are both in the same state, is 381 miles. It would take 12 hours. The trucking industry would be crippled and people who commute to work would have to spent an extra hour or two getting to work. america is too big and spread out to not allow high speed traffic.
@@pilchardpliskin9381 So you're more worried about industry and convenience than peoples' lives?
@@commentsboardreferee7434 yes we are
@@commentsboardreferee7434 not really, passing a regulation that cripples the economy will cause people to lose jobs and people die when lots of jobs are lost. How will food be transported? Will ambulances also be affected by this? There's a reason why pretty much no developed countries have national speed limits that low.
I think there's a mistake in the "world co2 emissions"-chart. The info under 'waste', has also been placed under 'agriculture'.
Also 'the Dutch West India Company' should probably be 'the Dutch East India Company'.
@@yodo9000 No Dutch East was in the Indian Ocean and the Dutch West was in the Atlantic
@James Smith carbon dioxide also reduces the nutritional value of food.
@James Smith go ahead look it up
@James Smith Sure is. It's also a greenhouse gas responsible for anthropogenic global warming. Many things in the world have more than one effect. Water is nice to drink, but you can also drown in it and if you heat it up to steam, that's also a greenhouse gas.
A video on biofuels will make for an interresting future topic. I work at a biodiesel plant in the US and we produce unfathomable quantities of fuel and other products. At our facility, we convert every portion of soy beans into a marketable product with virtually no waste in that regard. The fat is extracted from the solids which are converted into feed for livestock and then the fat goes through a chemical step to turn it into biodiesel and glycerol, which is further refined to a food grade glycerol. This process requires acids, bases, and catalysts at different steps, and we use steam from a central boiler to add heat as needed. As you've said, efficiency is vital when working with the scales that we do, but given all the carbon put into getting the beans to us, the fuel produced is far from carbon neutral. However, given the amount of farmland in the midwest that is best suited for feed products, converting soy into non-food products is a necessity to sustain midwest farming and the livestock producers that rely on the low cost feed it produces. My own conclusion, based on insufficient research, is that biodiesel specifically does not function as a step towards carbon neutrality but does provide a great variety of benefits that are realized in surprising places.
Nah at the rate we use fuel biofuels are also fueling mass deforestation and other issues amongst other things
@biohazardlnf user @Eric Lotze made this comment:
When most people hear "Biofuel" they think soybean oil etc -> biodiesel, corn->ethanol, and MAYBE anerobic digestion->biogas (and optinal upgrading to natural gas specs) This was all generation 1 -ish The recent stuff is much less of a food vs fuel arguement Mainly: - Algae as a feedstock (can grow in many places, grows VERY fast) - HTL and Pyrolysis to produce "Bio-Crude" oil (Which (to a certain extent) can be a "drop in replacement" for refineries - Cellulose etc -> ethanol ALSO There are many other products that will be NEEDED that require some form or refinery: - Lubricants - Plastics - Propellants (in aerosol canisters) - Refrigerents (Butane is a common one) - etc ALSO Biochar / Carbon Black (From methane -> hydrogen + cng, or other processes) can be buried for Carbon Sequestration Also the storage infastructure for methane and liquid fuels allows for energy storage via Power-to-X and Biofuels in all of the current "salt domes"
@Zaky-Bear
RE: ". . . we produce unfathomable quantities of fuel and other products."
I'm sure that the production engineering managers know EXCATLY how much is produced per hour, per day, per week, per month and per year.
@Allen Loser Do you know why most of the midwest grows primarily feed crops? Land and rain are plentiful, so growing at large scale is the best way to increase profits. Relatively few food crops can be grown at the scales that this region can support and none are in nearly as high of demand as feed crops. Soy based biodiesel only uses a portion of the bean. A large portion still is used as feed products. Only the soybean oil is used to make fuel and even then, glycerol is produced as a side product which also has food use. There are some food products that use soybean oil, but once again, fuel has the greater size demand, which has served to drive down the price of the food grade oil as well since more beans can be grown per acre than virtually any other crop.
@@spaceman081447 There is a difference between quantifying and understanding. If I told you that the average railcar carried 200 tons of meal and one customer buys 10 railcars each week to feed their poultry, you would know how many pounds those birds ate each week, but that doesn't mean you can even guess at how large the barns are that hold all those birds, or how many workers are involved in raising them.
Energy-related problem: *Exists*
Nuclear Power gang: "Allow us to introduce ourselves"
What could go wrong putting nuclear reactors on ships owned by private companies and sailing through pirate-infested waters?
*collides* with another nuclear powered ship
@@kariminalo979 Not an impossible challenge to solve, in fact, it's quite easy to counter
@@apacheattackhelicopter8185 Most nuclear reactors were designed by private companies, built by private companies and operated by private companies, the private ownership is irrelevant.
well the US did with it s carriers.
This got released literally 15 min before my essays deadline. Topic of the essay "Cargo ships and the enviroment"..........
GOT LUCKY HUH?!
Welcome onboard then ;) , I handed my exam in on Hydrogen-Based Fuel Cell Technology within the shipping industry some days ago
and? Was it a confirmation of the contents/conslusion of your essay, or did it show sometime you'd omitted to write about? Just curious :-)
My assignment spesified to only look at the environmental aspect of a technology, but had about the same conclussion even when not looking at cost
@@MacSvensson I got to the same conclusion though the concept of the Flettner rotor (7:00) was completely new
Nuclear powered ships are very cool. They can drive for decades without refueling and are independent on weather or climate conditions.
Just doesn't seem efficient for what they need
@@Aaron-wq3jz how so?
@@Pyriphlegeton well first you have to develop different reactors for different sized ships. Then redesign the structure of the ships due to weight of the reactors. Then the fuel is gonna cost more as u buy more material if suppliers cant keep up with demand. Then u gotta pay 2+ nuclear engineers 200k per ship. And when the ships service life ends that's even more money safely disposing the nuclear fuel. And the one if you main benifits of nuclear fuel is the ability to quickly increase power output which they really dont need to increase speed that quickly. Not to mention having having multiple companies who vary in how shady or trust worthy being in control of dozens of ships with nuclear fuel on it if mismanaged it could end up in th wrong hands. it just seems that the areas where nuclear fuel is efficient shipping companies don't care about or already have solutions on the way. And where nuclear fuel is inefficient is very expensive and complicated
@@Aaron-wq3jz It’s already been done economically. The Otto Hahn operated profitably using nuclear propulsion for several years. Additionally, there have been substantial developments in compact reactors recently.
@@Aaron-wq3jz a single NuScale SMR reactor module could in theory provide the power for a Triple E class container ship and i doubt it is much bigger or heavier than the two diesel engines
Ship propellers are also optimized for a specific speed. Changing the ships speed, velocity of advancement and propeller rpm has a negative effect on the overall propulsion efficiency.
I'd almost agree, but if shipbuilders can adapt the propeller designs used in nuclear submarines, the result would be ships that can generate a lot of propulsive thrust but with higher efficiency and more importantly, reduced issues from cavitation (cavitation forces can cause all kinds of problems, especially shortening the life of propellers).
@@Sacto1654 I suspect nuclear subs need to operate at a much greater range of speeds and as such sacrifice high efficiency at a narrow band of speeds to achieve this. Engineering is always about tradeoffs!
Iirc, some of the latest propeller designs are actually able to change the pitch of the blades much like modern turboprop aircraft can, whole still not as effective at certain speeds as something dedicated, it is better then they were. It is an expensive and complex system though.
@@Sacto1654 What you're describing are called controllable pitch propellers. They change the blade pitch based on speed and propeller rpm to keep the efficiency constant within a limited range. These are generally not used in commercial shipbuilding because of higher complexity and cost. Keep in mind military and commercial shipbuilders have very different objectives and requirements. I'd love to hear a military naval architects thoughts on this (if the subject is not classified), but I'd guess that nuclear subs don't have controllable pitch propellers for the sake of efficiency, but to minimize cavitation and thus reduce the acoustic signature.
@@FighterAceee94 The reason why I mention this: you wonder can they build six-blade propellers specifically for large container ships for optimized operation in the 16-20 knot range. Not only for lower fuel consumption, but also to reduce the physical effects of cavitation, which can be strong enough to break not only propellers, but the driveshaft itself.
“Only 780 ships”... that’s a lot of ships for one company,
When you consider that those 780 ships are transporting 17% of all freight by sea. Including oil, containers, etc. It's really not that many.
@@5tr4nge75 You are right. At least how I see it he might be referring to the concentration of wealth and power to a select few companies in the world.
The US Navy has less than 350-500 warships
He did say it was the biggest shipping company in the world, why are you surprised?
But for 17 percent it is less
"Industries around the world working to neutralize their carbon footprint an coming up ingenious technologies..."
Like shipping their manufacturing to China and lying about their numbers?
Tell them to come to INDIA!!!! OUR ECONOMY IS IN RUINS!!
This is what i thought of. China is getting not only dirtier, but richer.
@@priyansubhagabati8157 join the club
Literally this. It baffles me how anyone is taken in by that crap. It’s obvious that nobody is actually keeping track of the real carbon footprints of these companies.
@@airman122469 Unless you get spies into every company, that's all we can do. Assuming they even keep track of it at all.
New Real Engineering video!? LET'S GOOOO
converting current combustion engines to hydrogen combustion is the only way. it can be done cheaply and easily
I am not any sort of engineering genius or fanatic, but I am always going to love your videos.
10:00 if you are concerned about farmland used, then you should consider cutting back on your meat, dairy, and egg consumption. Alot of land is used to feed "livestock" for meat dairy and eggs. One additional benefit of biofuels is they can be used almost immediately on existing ships.
If you’re going through rough times, please don’t give up.
Better times are coming ❤️
Lies.
The ships are still coming, so all good 😋
Winston Churchill said ‘if you are going through hell, keep going’. However someone else said ‘if your find yourself in a hole, stop digging’. The real problem is knowing just which sort of mess you are in.
yes death is coming ..
@@hoppy7375 the only certainties in life, death and taxes, some septic said that or ACTAFI.
I'm so glad channels like you and real science exist. you guys put out some very interesting stuff that's fun to learn about. I think educational channels like you guys need more attention
@Saluki N Fair enough, I was just saying that real science and real engineering should probably get more attention as I like those channels the most
“It’s important to convert these ships to renewable technologies when their time comes” Is it? It seems like they are barely making a dent. Not that it’s a bad idea but how high on the priority list should it be if they are less than 2% of global emissions?
Well, thats the issue, you can say that for pretty much anything.
Cars, trucks, trains, ships, airplanes, mines, powerplants, factories, offices, datacentres, homes.
If you split it all up, everything only is a relatively small part of the problem and for every part people will say "should this be a high priority?"
It is also why it is such a humongously difficult problem to solve. Solving each of these parts alone are already huge undertakings for humanity. And then to realize that each individually makes barely a dent and we need to fix them all.....
5:25. Ah yes, the USS Deaware. It’s okay. I had a typo on my thesis
@@antondegroot6061 Exactly, net zero means we have to find a solution for all the small parts, so we should work on solutions for every part of it now, instead of pushing it off for the future.
Ships and aircraft are harder than cars and electrical generation. Do the easy stuff first.
Especially when you consider that their carbon capture technology we can us to make up for it
Great video! One thing that is important to consider is to actually reduce the total amount of kilometers traveled. If we can bring manufacturing closer to end consumers by regionalizing industries instead of traveling around the world then we can have large improvements in co2 reduction. Obviously still keep shipping not shift to land transportation.
Reducing economies of scale might actually make it worse.
Real Engineering: "Are renewable ships possible?"
Me missing the powered bit: "Yes! We just need to get really good at genetic engineering."
Me a sailor : just use sail lol
Just use slaves to row row row
Canoe carved from a single log
@@Fred_the_1996 which makes the question, how many slaves would you need to equal the power of a modern freight ship
@@carso1500 tons of them
5:25. Ah yes, the USS Deaware. It’s okay. I had a typo on my thesis
Oof
Maybe we should give Maersk special dispensation to use civilian nuclear reactors. Worst-case scenario, if there's a meltdown, they could eject the reactor core (just like in Star Trek!) and drop it to the bottom of the ocean where it can't hurt anyone. Seawater is a fantastic radiation shield.
The quality of your videos is astounding.
With the reductions of speeds sailing is becoming competitive as main power for boats.
A French startup called Neoline is currently working with partners to invent the first sail propelled cargo ship for transatlantic shipping.
Can’t wait to see the majestic big sails on the horizon !
Godspeed !
That seems extremely unlikely to ever be used commercially, which is the most important detail.
@@srs6461 Well, its a step.
And maybe we find a combination of all of it.
A Batterie powered Containership, using Hydrogen and Sails, that combined with Flettner Rotors.
Expensive, for sure but i guess its just "slightly" more compared to the overall costs of a Containership.
@@srs6461 why?
0 fuel costs
Even if it takes 5 times as long to cross, the cost reduction could probably make it viable
hey im sorry i gotta spoil something for you - it is not even close to the first sail propelled cargo ship, thats been around for some several thousand years
my masters group project was in designing a zero emissions ferry. I am also potentially doing a PhD in sail powered containerships. im hopefull
Anyway I could contact you sir ? I'm a Marine engineer looking for a decent project topic
Just don't think biogas is answer, shape of lng containers prevents it's high capacity storage on bulkers, roros and ropas
There are always emissions, human sweat at the very least from rowing. I suspect there is going to be an LCA in the project somewhere so once the group decide what the group wants to prove just adjust the choice of functional unit, measured parameters and boundary limits to get the desired results.
I remember reading an article proposing that ships could fly kites up into the high altitude winds to act as sails.
I think the company who wanted to do that went bankrupt. But Wallenius - a Swedish ship producer - wants to build the Oceanbird in 2024, a smaller cargo ship that uses wingsails to partially power itself through wind like smaller hightech catamarans are doing it.
What I would love to see is if you could fit a ship already using wingsails with a flying kite wind power plant. Because you could get a bit of acceleration from the kite acting as a sail, but also electrical power from having it fly figure 8s in front of the ship. And I know it wouldn't produce much electricity compared to what the ship would need, only a few megawatts at best, but it could reduce fuel consumption a bit and maybe double as a small power plant in harbour cities once the ship is docked.
@@midnight8341 the flying kite power plant is not possible. A kitesail is typically moved into the best position to provide thrust so there would be no practical way to generate electricity
@@jamesday7339 yet a kitesail is not economically practical in comparison to a wingsail, at least according to the companies. So you could integrate a kite wind power plant into the ship, since the ship is practically stationary compared to the kite, since it is moving pretty slowly. And depending on what method you use to generate electricity, I think a part of it could be used as thrust, even if it would be miniscule.
@@midnight8341 there is no way to generate electricity using a kite sail. They only provide thrust and as for the economics of kitesails vs wingsails kitesails will win in 90% of ship types because the deck space is too congested and there is too much over deck work done when in ports
To address the suggestions that sail power is the answer I offer the following. In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’, she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots, dependent on the prevailing wind, to harness the energy the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2. To round things out that was circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of cargo carried. The ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for employment in the tea trade where time on passage was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made her cost effective but as soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through, she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’. All this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort.
1:40, CTC No.1, built in 1943, she’s a B class L6 Maritimer built during WW2 to haul iron ore to feed the war effort. She’s currently laid up in Chicago IL last serving as a cement Transfer Center (CTC) in 2009. She is owned by Rand logistics/Lower Lakes Towing. She can’t be easily scrapped due to aspestos.
The fact that you as a creator admitted you need to do more research on a topic before formulating a complete opinion on biodiesel is beautiful. Another reason you are one of the best content creators on YT
3:13
Is it really exponential? I feel like it should be approximately quadratic function, because power is a quadratic function of speed for air drag right? And water is just a different medium
if it would only be friction drag, then yes. But you have wave drag and other forms of drag too. So that's why it is exponential
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation all formulas for drag seem to be quadratic, and if you have different kinds of drags they are just added up. If you think I'm wrong please name a source
@@Beerfazz research for example froude number
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froude_number
There are several effects which are not quadratic. In aviation for example the wave drag near the sound barrier. And for ships there exists a similar effect with it's own wave created at the bow. That's why the form of the bow is that important as real engineering stated in the video.
@BAT THINK 🤣😂
@BAT THINK Yeah you lost ne at "satanists and occultists".
Pass.
Finally someone's talking about it. Worldwide shipping industry could do lots of efforts in terms of eco friendly transport. These boats, aside from using very bad quality oil, also have bad impact on the ecosystems they "sail" through. When stopping e.g. in Singapore to load cargo, they pump water into the ship incl. microscopic animals, algeas and others. Then they sail all the way to let's say France and offload the cargo as well as emptt the water they pumped in Singapore. Local marine life then faces new non-indegienous plants and microscopic animals which have the potential to completelt overrun and destroy local marine life. Ships are far more problematic for the world than we think, and no one except you talks about it
They used to do yeah but that's not allowed any more there are now surtain areas where they have to lose the water and take on fees water so they don't get spread around
@@jobvanbommel3912 great to hear that it's coming under more control! Wasn't aware of that, thanks.
Nuclear power plants would be the only option but they're currently only for military use since you don't want to risk them ending up in the hands of very bad people. Sadly, there's nothing we can currently do about it. Oil is required to literally fuel innovation in other energy solutions such as solar power. You can't go through industrialization solely on wind power.
12:16 hey thats the boat in the canal right now right?
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).
3:20 I'd love if the grid lines matched up with marks on the graph to make it easier to inspect the graph more closely.
I always thought to make ships renewable it would take a mix of hydrogen and wind power, but I never new there was a wind alternative that was not sails until watching this video. Cool.
5:26 Not trying to sound super critical but you have a typo saying Deaware instead of Delaware
Was about to comment this. Evidently its not considered that big of a deal though, not like its misspelling Californa or Tixas, that would actually be a big deal. But a small, mostly unknown state like Delaware? Eh who cares
Energy is never renewable as entropy or disorder increases while work goes to heat.
The main problem with any large scale vehicles like ships or planes being electric is specific energy of the batteries. Unless there is orders of magnitude change in energy density of the batteries which also are safe to use, I think we will have to rely on fossil or nuclear fuel
Fun fact: the ship pictured at 7:50 ran aground a few days ago in Mariehamn
I think you just got me interested in shipping in a single 15 minute video.
Naval architect here working on this specific subject. The video is good and informative.
As added you could mention nuclear power which is currently investigated and also there is an interesting patent pending approval on this matter. Moreover, carbon pricing alongside carbon capture should be mentioned. They will probably play a role. But overall good.
question : wouldn't nuclear be an answer ?
it works for carriers , why wouldn't it work for cargo ships ?
it's cost isn't it ?
Whilst I’m pro nuclear, people in other comments have pointed out current sea going nuclear isn’t suitable due to the need of such highly trained specialists onboard, but I feel things like SMRs would be perfect for the job
most likely no, its regulations, nuclear is extremely regulated, air carriers are military so getting over those regulations is easier, for a private companies tend to avoid big regulatory messes when they can
A big technical challenge is that Naval reactors use highly enriched uranium (90%+) in order to keep the reactor size small. Anything above 20% is difficult for civilian application because of proliferation risks and regulation. There are those in the shipping industry looking into it though.
@Grace O'Malley yeah I agree, we need to remove all the stupid politics from it
Nuclear naval propulsion has been a solved problem for 50 years. It could literally take over global shipping, at any point. The tool is ready, the engineering is solved. All it takes is for people to get off their superstitious asses and do it.
I live in a port city so the scale of these ships is very easy to visualize and man are they HUGE!!!
Where do you live? I also live in a port city but we only get medium sized cargo ships :(
I saw a triple e it was huge
@@KAMZA. I live in the Norfolk, VA area. Norfolk is the deepest natural harbor on the east coast.
@@YHWHsam wow I didn't know that! Thank you for the info 😊
How did you make it through that entire video without once mentioning nuclear power?
Because its not renewable
@@isakjohansson7134 we that Arguement...the moon won't last to control the tides. The sun will not exist so no photons or atmosphere for earth so now wind.
We can do fusion and fission
@@TheMagicJIZZ fission is hard, dangerous and a long term pollutant.
@@TheMagicJIZZ i didnt mean to sy nuclear was bad, all i meant was that its not renewable and dont think the moon or sun will disappear anytime soon
@@TheMagicJIZZ before moon or sun will disappear there will be a lot more problems... like a lot A LOT.
those "sails" useing the magnus effect reminded me of something. there is a german company called Skysail that basically makes giant computer controlled air foil kites meant to drag cargo ships along the traditional trade routes that still follow mayor wind paths.
Okay I dont think they can fully drag them along but reducing the fuel consumption is their main goal I think...
they have been doing this for nearly 20 years now
At 3:20, fuel consuption per distance traveled would be a better choice. But ok, I'll work out the percentages myself for homework :D
I was searching the comments for this, thanks for being faster than me! :D
With respect energy cost per freight tonne mile would be even better especially if there was value judgement of externalised environmental cost.
Brilliant, Saw your excellent piece on RTE, about Turlough Hill a couple of weeks ago. Great work!
Working to license the footage now to adapt it to my style for UA-cam. Some cringe moments in there for me! Not used to be on camera
@@RealEngineering Cringe is the RTÉ way!
@@RealEngineering I think that's more so RTE's overall style and through line. I've worked with them on a project a few years back and there was a little bit of that cringe. But overall an excellent piece. The girlfriend and I are going to visit Turlough hill once lockdown ends, on your recommendation.
@@paddyokearney Yeah, I'm not sure what it is. They just like the very loud and short shouty pieces to camera that suddenly stop as you turn and walk away from the camera. It just feels super unnatural for me. The interview sections were fun for me and I learned a tonne from the producers. Great team to work with. Just had to let go of my desire for creative control a little.
@@RealEngineering I suppose that's probably down more so to RTE overall narrative style. It's kinda weird, but this lockdown has me watching more 'local' content. Definitely be great to see the likes of your creative influence on the network.
9:37 Also, LNG refueling stations can be extremely dangerous.
Not true. LNG transportation unlike other areas of the industry is incredibly safe and strictly regulated with the industry never recording a serious incident during cargo transfer.
@@jameslane2615 Sure, as long as things continue as they are. But they're massive terrorism bullseyes and if something *does* go wrong, it goes really really wrong.
@@jameslane2615 I would much rather work on a ship with a heavy fuel oil leak, than a gas leak...
I worked as a merchant marine engineer for a few years before retirement. The ships I sailed on were relatively small 30,000 ton bulk carriers with 14.000 hp and cruising at 14 kts. We burned approximately 200 BARRELS of heavy (very polluting) fuel oil and a few barrels of diesel for the generators every day while underway.
13:14 the smooth segue may have masked the fact that you are now listening to a 2 minute and 10 second commercial.
Pretty sure all ships used to be wind powered, with occasional muscle power...
Could we not use Nuclear cargo ships?
Yes we could do that but it is simply to expensive to use commercialy
@@mathias8987 was meaning on some of the largest ships. Ones where it'd be financially viable to have such engines, also supplemented with the wind things mentioned in the video.
@@RobinHilton22367 could probably be used on those huge ships but a sinking would be far more catastrophic in terms of pollution
@@mathias8987 I don’t think it’s too expensive. It doesn’t compete with fossil fuels, but the costs aren’t out of control by any means. We’d have to see what alternative fuels cost to really get a proper impression. There has been interest from shipping companies in nuclear propulsion.
Why not? The ships should be nearly completely safe
05:25 Behold, the mighty USS Deaware!
The only ship larger then the state it was named after!
Reason why I love this channel : The Intro lasted 4:40
The D- Day series on Nebula is really a great watch, and I literally can't get enough. Well done Brian keep it up! Also enjoying the founders podcast.
P.s. I find a trip to nature for a week or so can reset all of the buttons. Think Connemara.
You didn't mention Nuclear propulsion which is way more clean and efficient than any other solution currently available.
I think us nuclear energy fans need to create an alternative "Real Engineering" UA-cam channel, but the channel mainly talks about nuclear energy applications.
@@faragar1791 I think you´ll need to create your own channel called "solutions that could only work if no other factors would play any role"
@@stefan514 other factors, namely "nuclear fermongering".
@@faragar1791 do you know of any channels that do promote nuclear technology? I haven’t been able to find any and it would be nice to get away from the “nuclear is terrible” bullshit spread by uneducated people, like seriously some of the remarks about it on this video have no idea how it works
@@stefan514
Real Engineering already has dibs on that name considering the mountain of factors this channel overlooks when talking about implementing renewable energy sources.
I've been recently wondering why high altitude power kites haven't been thought about for sea transport. I'm sure it would be an engineering nightmare to get them back from such heights, but using jetstreams seems like a effective way to reinvent the sail.
Joby
My activism mindset and intrest in engineering and clean energy is what drives me to become an engineer. I love these videos, they are very fasinating to me.
I would have really liked you to talk about nuclear energy as well. Wouldn't that be a good fit for giant ships?
Exactly, things like SMRs have massive potential for powering large vessels
Cost is a huge factor. Green electricity is getting so cheap nowadays that the only factor becomes where to put the generator. With nuclear reactors, while they may be amazing for providing power efficiently, they are hugely expensive. A cargo ship with 12000 TEU costs 104 million dollars. A Gerald R. Ford-class Aircraft carrier costs 13 billion dollars, which is 125 times the cost.
Yes this isn't all the reactor, but you can assume the propulsion system is a large portion of that cost.
Companies need to make profit, militaries don't. Its the same reason you don't bring a mining dump truck to a construction site, its unnecessary and expensive when a better option is available.
This channel hates nuclear energy so don't hold your breath.
@@brendo3808 Sorry but nuclear energy is cheaper if green electricity is as you say why have I ended up paying more for my electricity then everyone else in the USA we also got rolling blackouts last summer because they could not provide enough to meet the Daman.
@@brendo3808 Great Answer, thanks!
Well, the US Navy has been doing it with nuclear power for decades now. Adapt them into thorium reactors for security purposes and go for it.
@@Bobspineable less space then fuel and engine, they are bucket size, BUCKET SIZE, switching to nuclear would give them MORE SPACE
@@LillyP-xs5qe oh so you're the expert huh? Then why aren't they doing this already? I bet you'll stump engineers globally with your response.
@@danstevens64 first of all, nuclear security will make it difficult to hand out reactors like that. Now regarding navel reactors, when outfitted they are effectively fuelled for life until the ship’s decommission. Not having to refuel will save these shipping companies a lot of money which could be invested back into more ships or something
@@mojojojo741852963 i don't disagree with anything you've said. You might be replying to the wrong person
@@danstevens64 easy, capitalism! The fossil fuel companies just make sure the ship keep running on oil and destroy the planet cause that how they make money
I really hope you will eventually do a video on different biofuels! But please, take your time, put your health first and take good care of yourself!
we need to get rid of fuels, they are the main problem, incresing efficiency of an inefficient technology makes no sense, electric is the only viable option that is better ine every way, biofuels are complete nonsense, so is hydrogen and e-fuels, its all nonsense fairytales.
The way you say "but" is so satisfying. 😄
I love how the Evergreen casually pops up in this video
Why no mention of nuclear? Or electric?
the electric option at the end of the day is one way to use nuclear power, as there is simply no other energy source large enough
Electric is being done for very short trips measured in hours, not days. The batteries are simply not good enough for 30 day long ocean voyages.
@Longrangehunter Just to clarify: hydrogen means electric propulsion.
Nuclear reactors? I mean Russia already has a floating nuclear power plant.
Nuclear ships are nothing new, the Otto Hahn and NS Savannah were build in the 60s but were too expensive. Russia has their Icebreakers run on nuclear power. The technology is not a problem.
nuclear reactors ultimately rely on nuclear material which is once again finite and not renewable. then there also comes the issue of disposal of the used nuclear material which is radioactive. nuclear power can cut emissions but it will bring about a whole new problem if accommodated into such a scale which is why he said we have to choose the alternative very carefully moving forward as it will be catastrophic if we cannot deal with the consequences of the new chain of events it will bring. nuclear power should remain on a small scale like power plants for now.
@@kavikyu8703 there's enough radioactive materials to cover the whole of humanity's energy need for several thousand years, so that's far from being a problem.
Disposal of used material is not a bigger issue than toxic materials from industry that is toxic for all eternity, it's even a lot easier. The quantity is ridiculously low at worst.
Nuclear power should greatly increase, in small and large scale applications.
Small correction (if I'm not wrong)
3:12 "The fuel consuption rises exponentially with each knot of speed added ". That statement might actually be wrong: it rises with the cubic of the speed :
Power = Force * speed
Force = Drag = constant(depending on fluid, area etc) * speed^2
=> Power = constant * speed^3
And Fuel Consumption is directly related to power (also efficiency is to be taken into account for the calculation but it only add a multiplicative term in the expression).
Are renewable ships possible?
Nah, we lost the technology to sew large sails of cloth. Tragic.
2:30 because of the size and lifetime of those ships, they should have a nuclear reactor instead of diesel
Climate folks hate nuclear worse for some reason.
@Jeffery Lifsey
RE: "because of the size and lifetime of those ships, they should have a nuclear reactor instead of diesel"
Good for you! I'm glad to see someone else bring up the obvious solution: nuclear power!
"Betteridge's law of headlines" applies to this video.
I have a Nebula account just to get your amazing series on D-Day, not to mention everything else. Thank you for the best content on the internet!
What about nuclear powered ship ? If they do it for airship carrier wouldn't it be smart to use that technologie on container carrier ?
Nuclear powered aircraft carriers does not go to New York as an example.
Nuclear is expensive and politically risky. Would be a good long term investment though, both economically and ecologically.
Thy are about one billion dollars more expensive so that might be a reason but i would love to see it happen.
@@bramvanduijn8086
The Emma Maersk class ships we out dated in about 3 year. As they were not built for slow steaming.
And the crew is 13 people total. Not much for a nuclear power plant,
Rusatom has a crew of 69 with similar electric power to the ships power.
Never thought of the cost 😂 I admit this will be overcost maybe
Yes, it is possible and has been in use in the military since the 50s: nuclear propulsion.
Cleaner=yes. Renewable=no.
I'm like 95% sure all ships were powered by renewables at one point. In fact, non-renewable powered ships are pretty recent.
@SAMUEL NAUMETS If you are looking just for eco friendlyness on those kinds of ships, then you have better options than renewable.
@Real Engineering
3:10 Just because a graph is not a straight line does not mean that it is exponential.
Only beyond the hull speed barrier does the power go up exponentially.
2:04
Real Engineering: to put that into more human terms...
Me: Finally!! A metric system...
That Irish engineer guy: 20 foot container can hold 6000 shoe boxes
Me:
Everyone else:
what we really need here is some portable fusion power and BIG rail guns on every ship. just because i said so.
They said carriers have killed the battleship, but when we get railguns, it will be an era of weapons that cannot be intercepted like missiles, so we will return to big gunned heavily armoured ships, and they’ll be sexy as
@@fraznofire2508 I think the problem there wold be that armor would be pretty useless. So its probably small very stalthy ships with a big gun.
@@thebaumfaeller1477 initially, but doctrine will be adjusted for when ships will be detected, they can’t avoid incoming rounds, and current ships wouldn’t be able to take the hit, then again, you may be right, as the armour might not even save them, and the smallest signature possible, the better
Forget the ships, just big rail guns in China. Shoot the freight across the Pacific!
@@thebaumfaeller1477 technology tends to leap frog like that. The first metal armor made many weapons almost useless, then armor piercing weapons like pikes and javelins came along, but then sturdier shields like the scutum came and made those weapons less effective, until the weapons got better. Later arrows like the bodkin point or crossbow bolts became better at piercing armor until plate armor made arrows and swords almost useless, then guns made heavy armor useless, until tanks became impervious to small arms, so we got anti tank guns. Kevlar made smaller bullets useless so we got larger, faster, stronger bullets. Every time a new defense comes along it takes awhile for weapons to surpass the defense, then it takes awhile for the weapon to beat it.
Even though you put it in real terms, im still trying to figure out 123 million pairs of shoes. thats...a lot
The answer is probably not. Giant electromagnetic sails initially make sense but they come at some serious downsides mainly that you can't use the deck for storage which severely limits capacity numbers. Generally speaking Shipping is dictated by three things crew cost, turnover time, carrying capacity, and speed. Now there could be smaller bulk ships (i.e. corn, coal, ore, etc) that uses wind sails type system because they need to keep the product in the berth. But you are extremely unlikely to see Container ships or break bulk ships use it due to it screwing with either cranes or carry capacity. We'll like continue to see container ships using diesel until either Efuel or Hydrogen replaces it due it requiring minimal changes.
I took some marine engineering courses before switching to chemistry.
I just want nuclear power in everything, so of course I'd say, make cargo ships nuclear.
Exactly! All US submarines and aircraft carriers are nuclear powered, from what I've read. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy#United_States_Naval_reactors
B-But nuclear bad :((
/s
@@ValentineC137 nope
İf you are unfortunet enough to get hit by a meteor yes but no
There was at least one cargo ship that was nuclear, but the maintenance is expensive. Of course having more ships could lower the costs thanks to standardization. These cargo ships can't go everywhere either, because some countries/harbours have 0 tolerance for nuclear vessels. It sounds great in theory but in real life it's not that great. You have more fuel than it's life time so you need special team to decommision the ship which is also expensive, dangerous and in worst case poluting.
I mean, we have nuclear and we have recycling nuclear reactors (waste based reactors)
@Papa Stalin
RE: "I mean, we have nuclear and we have recycling nuclear reactors (waste based reactors)"
I'm glad that someone finally brought up nuclear power and breeder reactors.
Are renewable ships possible?
Hyman G. Rickover: Hold my beer
And most of the people here have no idea who you are talking about.
@@poppys3728 I saw that name....some unpleasant memories came to the surface.
nuclear isn't renewable its just low emmisions
@@sabotabby3372
Nuclear is renewable on a timescale of millions or billions of years with more uranium leached from the earth's crust. The Sun is going to burn out in 5 billion years anyway.
@@gregorymalchuk272 that comment contributes absolutely nothing of value to this conversation
The problem i see with wind powered ships is for example
Sail boats are calculated as 1.5hp per sq ft of 60mph wind
So if you have a 100sq ft windmill its taking in 150hp of energy (112kws)
But that doesn't include generation efficiency which is about 70%
But if its a head wind blowing it is putting roughly 150hp of stopping power on the ship, well only generating roughly 105hp of electricity at 70% efficiency exchange
I.e its making more drag, then its making in power, costing more on fuel not less
Offshore Hydrgen refueling stations with their own windparks. Amazing idea
Thats some real utopian future shit right there
That would have to be one enourmous ass windfarm not to mention weather variety
Also how much of those should be in the Pacific. Sea is not a highway. There are hundreds of ports and ships got different routes. How much time would ships lost because they would have to deviate from fastest route to port.
@@ivannovakovic2156 The point is that they wouldn't have to deviate at all from the most efficient shipping lane as the refueling station would be built along it in the middle of the pacific
@@isakjohansson7134 I'm far too lazy to crunch the numbers but I know even a single large turbine can generate an impressive amount of energy. I think the extremely large investment cost and logistics of building it so remotely would keep this ever actually happening IMO also finding a suitable build location would be quite a challenge too I'm sure weather not withstanding
the answer again: yesn't
Why no nuclear ships?
'The truth about biofuels' coming out anytime soon?
love your videos!
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?