4 comments

  • 56J8XhH7voFRwPR27 minutes ago
    I guess I want to know "oceanic" means in this instance. Is that just going out into the ocean a short distance? They mention the "Yangtze River Three Gorges 1" river cruise ship as an example. This thing has a range of like 100km. It seems we are far away from making true oceanic crossings of any long distance and I doubt that is coming by 2028.
    • Animats3 minutes ago
      East Asia has extensive coastal medium-distance trade. There are so many islands and island nations. That's oceanic trade, but not transatlantic or trans-pacific long hauls.
  • mcculley22 minutes ago
    I am very skeptical. Battery tech is still far away from the energy density of diesel fuel. How far could an electric ship go and what could it carry?
    • jacquesm19 minutes ago
      There are multiple electric ferries already in operation:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;MV_Ampere" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;MV_Ampere</a><p>They are quite impressive but they are still very far away from your average ocean going cargo vessel.
      • toast011 minutes ago
        Electrifying ferries is great, but this particular one has a run time of 20 minutes (and a charge time of 10 minutes). I get a totally different vibe from &#x27;oceanic ship&#x27; than a 20 minute ferry ride.<p>Near me, we now have a hybrid ferry, no charging infrastructure, but it still uses much less fuel than before it was refit, so that&#x27;s cool too. It&#x27;s bigger than the one you linked and sails on a longer route: 2,499 passengers, 202 vehicles, typically serves an 8.6 mile route.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;MV_Wenatchee" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;MV_Wenatchee</a>
  • zeristor39 minutes ago
    Cars have regenerative breaking which is a help in urban areas.<p>Ships tend to go not change course nearly as much on a several day journey. I guess a propellor could run in reverse for regenerative breaking, but it wouldn’t help much.
    • jacquesm23 minutes ago
      Ships are subject to so much drag that this is rarely a problem, only in emergency situations and there is not much that you can do to stop a vessel that weighs 100,000 tons or more except to run your engines in reverse and start praying to your deity. Regenerative braking for boats would be a complete waste.<p>There are some vessels that have single use emergency brakes, but the latest trend is to have motor &#x27;pods&#x27; that are electrical and that can be used both for normal propulsion as well as to perform emergency stops that are quite impressive given the size of the vessels they are on. Typically an oceangoing vessel requires at least 3, but commonly 5 to 10 ship lengths to come to a full stop from moving forward under power. This is not necessarily because of limitations of the propulsion unit, but simply because stopping that much tonnage too fast would do as much damage as a collision would. With classical engines there is far more rotating mass so it would take much longer than with electrical propulsion to react before the beginning of the braking phase.
      • NewJazz5 minutes ago
        <i>Regenerative braking for boats would be a complete waste.</i><p>Unless you have a large sail to generate thrust to spin the propeller...
    • tshaddox9 minutes ago
      Not changing course is good though. Regenerative braking is only good because it increases the efficiency when you absolutely must slow down, but it would always be more efficient to slow down less.
    • tmountain32 minutes ago
      Isn’t regenerative braking reclaiming otherwise wasted energy from necessary deceleration? Running the propeller in reverse would result in having to apply equal or greater energy to regain the current speed, so it’s a net loss of energy if I’m understanding the suggestion properly.
    • dyauspitr38 minutes ago
      Wind, large surface area for solar<p>Also wave based generators that could also act as dampers&#x2F;suspension and they wouldn’t steal energy from forward motion like wind would (depending on if you’re generating wind energy or using wind to buttress the batteries).<p>Ideally a combination of sails coupled with batteries and wave generators sounds like it would be very energy efficient.
      • jacquesm22 minutes ago
        Solar on board of cargo vessels is a pipe dream, as is &#x27;wave based generation&#x27;.
  • eimrine2 hours ago
    Is it possible for ocean vessel to generate from sun panels as much as needed for moving? I would suggest vessels does not need scarce Lithium, it is too needed for some other uses.
    • themanmaran43 minutes ago
      Unfortunately, it&#x27;s not even close. Maybe 1-2% in a highly optimistic scenario.<p>- 20k square meters of hull space<p>- If fully covered with solar panels, on a sunny day, you could expect 1-2 MWh (when averaging in night time)<p>- Current diesel engines typically output 60MWh continuously while underway.<p>And that&#x27;s not factoring in the solar panels getting covered in salt over time and losing efficiency. Plus preventing the ship from actually loading &#x2F; unloading cargo efficiently.<p>It&#x27;s not just a matter of panel efficiency either. If we had magic panels that could absorb 100% of the suns power over the 20k sqm deck, it would only equate to about four times as much (8% of the overall power need).
      • tshaddox7 minutes ago
        Did you mean MW rather than MWh?
    • epistasis25 minutes ago
      Lithium is not scarce, and not a limiting factor for scaling up batteries.<p>There&#x27;s more than enough lithium out there, more discovered every month, and the perception that we are limited by lithium is mostly out there because certain media sources are trying to help out there fossil fuel friends by delaying the energy interchange by a few years.<p>Whether battery ocean shipping containers make technical sense is a different question, but I wouldn&#x27;t worry about lithium use!
      • jiggawatts8 minutes ago
        All resources are &quot;scarce&quot; at very low price points, below which most nations are unable or unwilling to extract them.<p>Lithium, rare earth metals, and a bunch of others are only &quot;scarce&quot; because right now China is the only country willing to put up with the pollution levels that the cheap, dirty version of their extraction produces.<p>Everything can be produced cleanly, safely, etc... but that comes at a price.<p>It&#x27;s like when employers complain that &quot;nobody wants to work&quot;. That needs to be translated to &quot;nobody wants to work for the low wages I&#x27;m willing to pay&quot;.
    • givemeethekeys25 minutes ago
      There are examples of solar electric catamarans - but they are much smaller than a cargo vessel. It&#x27;s not nothing, but we&#x27;re some ways away.<p>I wouldn&#x27;t underestimate what creative and dedicated engineers can accomplish.
    • rgmerk38 minutes ago
      No.<p>I’m too lazy to do it myself but 5 minutes of searching and calculating will show you that the area of solar panels required to move a ship is far, far, larger than the area of that ship.<p>Not to mention that a container ship’s deck is typically completely covered with, well, containers.<p>Also, lithium isn’t scarce.
    • Onavo31 minutes ago
      No, but with wind it&#x27;s possible. Either vertical windmills or sails with modern signal processing.<p>Honestly DJI and Boeing should get into this business. A boat&#x27;s sail basically a plane&#x27;s wing, aerodynamically speaking. They share a lot of similarities with endurance gliders.
      • bluGill8 minutes ago
        Plenty of engineers exist in sailing who know all that and have studied this. Boeing brings nothing new if they get in. Well other than perhaps dollars, but that isn&#x27;t the problem for the most part.
    • ta900043 minutes ago
      [dead]