OT: Aero cargo ships

[thwart]

OK, this is almost a year old, but kinda cool.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1064579_nissan-goes-toyota-one-better-with-cooler-looking-cargo-ship-video?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=outbrain

This really surprised me:
Cargo ships in general are a huge source of air pollution, with a single ship of the largest category emitting as much air pollution as roughly 50 million individual cars.

[Louis]

I suppose every little bit helps.

[MattTuck]

Not to get all nerdy, but the primary reason the ship has an order of magnitude higher emissions than cars is NOT aerodynamic drag, it is the fact that cars have catalytic converters that eliminate a huge amount of the VERY intense emission products. For instance, if CO2 = 1, the same amount of nitrous oxide is 281. Per same unit of fuel, cars have much better emissions controls for those more 'intense' pollutants.

[monkeybanana86]

that looks like a Miyazaki (Princess Mononoke, Spirited Away, etc.) creature!

[Fixed]

Umi Bozu
Cheers

[Chance]

Would like to see an estimate of aerodynamics versus hydrodynamics for very large ships. Like cyclist, the bigger the less important the aero component of the equation. Although like Louis says every bit helps. Still, would be nice to know if we are looking at 0.1 percent or 10 percent.

The hybrid ship reference is a little out there. It’d be great if they gave more information because it’s hard to imagine a ship that size storing a significant amount of energy in batteries to then turn around and using it to propel the ship any real distance. If they stored a small amount to power computers or air conditioners while docked that’s a different issue. Story needs context before many of us will jump on the “aero” or “hybrid” ship bandwagon. Without numbers it could be more about marketing cars than anything else.

[Jaq]

Would like to see an estimate of aerodynamics versus hydrodynamics for very large ships. Like cyclist, the bigger the less important the aero component of the equation. Although like Louis says every bit helps. Still, would be nice to know if we are looking at 0.1 percent or 10 percent.

The hybrid ship reference is a little out there. It’d be great if they gave more information because it’s hard to imagine a ship that size storing a significant amount of energy in batteries to then turn around and using it to propel the ship any real distance. If they stored a small amount to power computers or air conditioners while docked that’s a different issue. Story needs context before many of us will jump on the “aero” or “hybrid” ship bandwagon. Without numbers it could be more about marketing cars than anything else.

Before nuclear power, the world's submarines all used batteries when submerged. At low speeds and careful operation, submarines could stay submerged for quite some time; up to 2 or 3 or more days of continuous operation.

A lot of countries still use batteries for their subs. And now, with battery & energy-storage tech constantly evolving, it would seem pretty reasonable that a ship could get some decent performance out of batteries.

What's just as interesting are the modular nuclear reactors (Small Modular Reactors, or SMRs) designed for urban applications. I believe they're decay-based reactors. They're about the size of a small bus, and they generate enough power for a small block of apartments - about a dozen or so - for a few years. Put a couple in a ship, couple them with some solar collectors that store power either in batteries or by cracking water, and they could generate enough power to drive it with incredible efficiency.

The bigger problem, though, is maritime law. It's just do damned arcane and shady, with various shipping corporations dodging all the environmental laws by registering their ships through third parties in 3rd world countries like Liberia.

[Chance]

A lot of countries still use batteries for their subs. And now, with battery & energy-storage tech constantly evolving, it would seem pretty reasonable that a ship could get some decent performance out of batteries.

How so?:confused:

It's not like they are plug-in ships. Power has to be produced from fossil fuel engines to charge the batteries first. For cruising across an ocean (the use implied in the ads) it's just adding a lot of cost, weight, and inefficiency. Ships don't need added power for acceleration or climbing hills like a car, so their engines can be run at optimum efficiency most of the time. So what do the batteries contribute?

And as engines go, those very large engines that ships use can be as efficient as electric power plants. Even if ships were plug-in in nature (which they can't be due to limited range) the electric grid wouldn't save a lot over the large diesel or steam power units. Don't see how this can be much more than a scheme to look good to a certain group of eco car buyers.

Wish it were real but something seems out of whack.

By the way, subs use batteries because engines need air, which is a little hard to get underwater. Batteries, while workable for subs, are not used to save energy. They are a necessary evil for traveling underwater. Unless you go nuclear of course. Or use compressed air which is easy for the enemy to spot.