Converting Large Vessels To Na-S Battery Electric

Started by Bret Cahill February 1, 2018
Knowing ship owners are the cheapest folk on the planet, it's 100% certain similar
calculation have been done before:

Vessel displacement:   1,000 kilo ton  (~300 m LOA)

Prop power:  80 MW

Na-S battery density:  0.150 MW-hr/ton

Voyage time:   720 hours

57,600 MW-hrs

80 X 720 / 0.150 = 384 kilotons ~ 38% of the weight of the loaded ship

The ship loses about a quarter of it's cargo capacity but can eliminate most or all
of the double bottom tank volume.


Bret Cahill 


On 01/02/18 04:15, Bret Cahill wrote:
> Knowing ship owners are the cheapest folk on the planet, it's 100% certain similar
calculation have been done before:
> > Vessel displacement: 1,000 kilo ton (~300 m LOA) > > Prop power: 80 MW > > Na-S battery density: 0.150 MW-hr/ton > > Voyage time: 720 hours > > 57,600 MW-hrs > > 80 X 720 / 0.150 = 384 kilotons ~ 38% of the weight of the loaded ship > > The ship loses about a quarter of it's cargo capacity but can eliminate most or
all of the double bottom tank volume.
> > > Bret Cahill
Large ships make their money by moving goods as quickly and cheaply as possible. Turnaround time in port is often less than 48 hours, sometimes less than 24. That means to partially recharge the batteries they will need around a 1GW supplied every hour (based on your 57.6 GW-hrs figure). You're going to need quite a few power stations to be able to supply that amount of energy on top of normal consumption (plus that for all the proposed electric cars which will be around?). -- Jeff
On 02/01/2018 05:37 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 01/02/18 04:15, Bret Cahill wrote: >> Knowing ship owners are the cheapest folk on the planet, it's 100% >> certain similar calculation have been done before: >> >> Vessel displacement:   1,000 kilo ton  (~300 m LOA) >> >> Prop power:  80 MW >> >> Na-S battery density:  0.150 MW-hr/ton >> >> Voyage time:   720 hours >> >> 57,600 MW-hrs >> >> 80 X 720 / 0.150 = 384 kilotons ~ 38% of the weight of the loaded ship >> >> The ship loses about a quarter of it's cargo capacity but can >> eliminate most or all of the double bottom tank volume. >> >> >> Bret Cahill > > Large ships make their money by moving goods as quickly and cheaply as > possible.  Turnaround time in port is often less than 48 hours, > sometimes less than 24. That means to partially recharge the batteries > they will need around a 1GW supplied every hour (based on your 57.6 > GW-hrs figure). You're going to need quite a few power stations to be > able to supply that amount of energy on top of normal consumption (plus > that for all the proposed electric cars which will be around?). >
Not to mention the cooling problem. At 95% efficiency, that's almost 3 GW. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 http://electrooptical.net http://hobbs-eo.com
Il giorno giovedì 1 febbraio 2018 05:15:59 UTC+1, Bret Cahill ha scritto:
> Knowing ship owners are the cheapest folk on the planet, it's 100% certain similar
calculation have been done before:
> > Vessel displacement: 1,000 kilo ton (~300 m LOA) > > Prop power: 80 MW
I would like to see a 80MW electric motor... Bye Jack
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 07:12:25 -0800 (PST), jack4747@gmail.com wrote:

>Il giorno gioved� 1 febbraio 2018 05:15:59 UTC+1, Bret Cahill ha
scritto:
>> Knowing ship owners are the cheapest folk on the planet, it's 100% certain
similar calculation have been done before:
>> >> Vessel displacement: 1,000 kilo ton (~300 m LOA) >> >> Prop power: 80 MW > >I would like to see a 80MW electric motor... > >Bye Jack
Many ships use diesel-electric power now. The QE2 was converted from steam to D-E, during her refit. I think in the future there will be even more electrically propelled ships. The diesel or gas turbine sits there fat dumb and happy turning at a constant RPM while the propellers are doing their thing rapidly changing pitch, speed and direction moving the ship along. Their efficiency is good and are more reliable when compared to mechanical transmission schemes. Electricity is useful for electric-hydraulic bow thrusters which aid in turning or docking ships, and the newer electric propulsion pods work like inboard-outboard motors with a 360 degree steering radius and can make the ship go sideways if necessary. Nice to have if you're visiting a port with limited or no tugboat services like some cruise ships in the Caribbean. If it weren't for transit speed requirements we might see a return to sail - or kite aided propulsion systems. Using a kite seems pretty far out until you consider the kites are steered similar to multi-line kite-boarding kites, but with servo motors up in the kite - they take up little deck space, are controlled by computers linked into the weather forecasts, and plan courses accordingly. Also winds aloft are greater and more predictable than surface wind.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:30:57 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>On 02/01/2018 05:37 AM, Jeff Layman wrote: >> On 01/02/18 04:15, Bret Cahill wrote: >>> Knowing ship owners are the cheapest folk on the planet, it's 100% >>> certain similar calculation have been done before: >>> >>> Vessel displacement:&#2013266080;&#2013266080; 1,000 kilo ton&#2013266080; (~300
m LOA)
>>> >>> Prop power:&#2013266080; 80 MW >>> >>> Na-S battery density:&#2013266080; 0.150 MW-hr/ton >>> >>> Voyage time:&#2013266080;&#2013266080; 720 hours >>> >>> 57,600 MW-hrs >>> >>> 80 X 720 / 0.150 = 384 kilotons ~ 38% of the weight of the loaded ship >>> >>> The ship loses about a quarter of it's cargo capacity but can >>> eliminate most or all of the double bottom tank volume. >>> >>> >>> Bret Cahill >> >> Large ships make their money by moving goods as quickly and cheaply as >> possible.&#2013266080; Turnaround time in port is often less than 48 hours, >> sometimes less than 24. That means to partially recharge the batteries >> they will need around a 1GW supplied every hour (based on your 57.6 >> GW-hrs figure). You're going to need quite a few power stations to be >> able to supply that amount of energy on top of normal consumption (plus >> that for all the proposed electric cars which will be around?). >> > >Not to mention the cooling problem. At 95% efficiency, that's almost 3 GW. > > >Cheers > >Phil Hobbs
You could use water cooling, if you could find enough water somewhere. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 12:11:18 -0500, default <default@defaulter.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 07:12:25 -0800 (PST), jack4747@gmail.com wrote: > >>Il giorno gioved&#2013265932; 1 febbraio 2018 05:15:59 UTC+1, Bret Cahill ha
scritto:
>>> Knowing ship owners are the cheapest folk on the planet, it's 100% certain
similar calculation have been done before:
>>> >>> Vessel displacement: 1,000 kilo ton (~300 m LOA) >>> >>> Prop power: 80 MW >> >>I would like to see a 80MW electric motor... >> >>Bye Jack > >Many ships use diesel-electric power now. > >The QE2 was converted from steam to D-E, during her refit.
Steam was reasonably efficient, but the plants were so complex that it was hard to find crew to keep them running. Direct-drive diesel is way simpler, and I guess that diesel-electric is pretty simple too, especially with multiple/redundant generators and motors. I rode the QE2 to Europe once. I couldn't get the engine room tour because they had just had a fire and it was a mess. It took us a couple more days than normal, because of the plant damage. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:15:43 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 12:11:18 -0500, default <default@defaulter.net> >wrote: > >>On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 07:12:25 -0800 (PST), jack4747@gmail.com wrote: >> >>>Il giorno gioved&#2013265932; 1 febbraio 2018 05:15:59 UTC+1, Bret Cahill ha
scritto:
>>>> Knowing ship owners are the cheapest folk on the planet, it's 100% certain
similar calculation have been done before:
>>>> >>>> Vessel displacement: 1,000 kilo ton (~300 m LOA) >>>> >>>> Prop power: 80 MW >>> >>>I would like to see a 80MW electric motor... >>> >>>Bye Jack >> >>Many ships use diesel-electric power now. >> >>The QE2 was converted from steam to D-E, during her refit. > >Steam was reasonably efficient, but the plants were so complex that it >was hard to find crew to keep them running. Direct-drive diesel is way >simpler, and I guess that diesel-electric is pretty simple too, >especially with multiple/redundant generators and motors. > >I rode the QE2 to Europe once. I couldn't get the engine room tour >because they had just had a fire and it was a mess. It took us a >couple more days than normal, because of the plant damage
In the 1920s ferries were used to cross the San Francisco Bay. Years later some of these freeies were bought by the Washington State Ferries. During the 80s I got to take a tour of the engine room on one of these old ferries while traveling on one when visiting the San Juan Islands. Besides having the original engines they also had the original generators and motors. So I think diesel-electric must be pretty good. Those old electrics were really cool. And in great shape too. All the engine, generator and motor controls were updated somewhere along the way but the basic machines were all original. It was obvious from the look of the windings that they were original. Sure couldn't get that kind of tour today. I just had to ask the Purser and it was up to him if I could get a tour. Things were quiet so he said sure. All the guys in the engine room were obviously proud of their work. I was really impressed. Eric
On 02/02/18 17:15, John Larkin wrote:
> I rode the QE2 to Europe once. I couldn't get the engine room tour > because they had just had a fire and it was a mess. It took us a > couple more days than normal, because of the plant damage.
If you ever get the chance to sail on the PS Waverley, then the engine room is a sight to behold. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vJNTCrZ8w but videos cannot do it justice. The same is true of any old beam-engine in steam.
> > Knowing ship owners are the cheapest folk on the planet, it's 100% certain
similar calculation have been done before:
> > > > Vessel displacement: 1,000 kilo ton (~300 m LOA) > > > > Prop power: 80 MW > > > > Na-S battery density: 0.150 MW-hr/ton > > > > Voyage time: 720 hours > > > > 57,600 MW-hrs > > > > 80 X 720 / 0.150 = 384 kilotons ~ 38% of the weight of the loaded ship > > > > The ship loses about a quarter of it's cargo capacity but can eliminate most or
all of the double bottom tank volume.
> > > > > > Bret Cahill > > Large ships make their money by moving goods as quickly and cheaply as > possible. Turnaround time in port is often less than 48 hours, > sometimes less than 24.
A lot of short routes are dedicated with cargoes that require a lot of handling on the loading and discharge, i.e., banana boats from Columbia to Florida. Owners don't like it but it's very common for the crew slow the loading, i.e., throttle back at the manifold on tankers, to spend more time at the mall. The dock rats are complicit for the easy overtime pay so the port captain is always pissed off at a lot of strangers.
> That means to partially recharge the batteries > they will need around a 1GW supplied every hour (based on your 57.6 > GW-hrs figure). You're going to need quite a few power stations to be > able to supply that amount of energy on top of normal consumption (plus > that for all the proposed electric cars which will be around?).
They'll need another big Na-S battery at the dock. Bret Cahill "They aren't making any money sitting on Rio de la Plata." -- Port Captain