# Converting Large Vessels To Na-S Battery Electric

Started by 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:&nbsp;&nbsp; 1,000 kilo ton&nbsp; (~300 m LOA)
>>
>> Prop power:&nbsp; 80 MW
>>
>> Na-S battery density:&nbsp; 0.150 MW-hr/ton
>>
>> Voyage time:&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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 gioved&igrave; 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&#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.

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
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

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

```