The Future of the Marine Industry

It's not my field at all. Though I think your thesis should contain some analysis of what had been already done in alternative energy and propulsion methods for vessels. Just have a look here. Isn't it an example of "embracing a new technologies"? I personally was so impressed.

caramba,

Thank you for the reply. Yes, I am aware of this and cover it in my reasearch. In fact, there are at least two companies that are doing this same thing. I personally think it's fantastic. I am a big fan of old sailing vessels, Patrick O'Brien, Hornblower, etc., etc. For me, seeing this renews a bit of the romanticism for the "days of sail."

Something you may be interested in taking a look at is Enercon's, "E-Ship 1" being built in Kiel, Germany. It is using Flettner-style rotors for propulsion.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/flettner-rotors-cut-fuel-use.php

Thanks again,

Chad

The world's navies have had great success with nuclear power. I believe that there may have been 2 or 3 commercial experiments which were not successful. This is an area that should be revisited, the savings in fossil fuel consumption, green house gas production and air pollution from other contaminants in the fuel and as a result of the combustion process (NO_X and SO_X) would also be avoided.

Commercial vessels will not have access to the highly enriched fuels that the navies use which gives the 25+ year refuelling cycles but they would still achieve 3-8 year or better refuelling cycles. Modular reactors could simply be swapped out and the refuelling would occur in a factor built for the maintenance of these reactors.

There is some concern over the amount of uranium that is available. In part that is a function of cost. The amount of uranium available is a function of how much people are prepared to pay for it. Fast Breeder Reactors (FBR's) can produce more fuel than they consume from the normally non-fissile ²³⁸U. The is possibly more thorium in the world than uranium, non-fissile ²³²Th can be transmuted to ²³³U a fissile isotope of uranium like ²³⁵U. This does not require FBR technology but can be accomplished in a CANDU reactor which is a heavy water moderated power reactor. This is currently being worked on in India which not only has a pair of CANDU reactors but they have also made several CANDU clones by reverse engineering their CANDU reactors which Canada quit selling to them after they became a nuclear weapons state.

Of course this means that reprocessing of "spent" fuel must take place in countries other than Japan, Russia, The United Kingdom, and France. What most people don't realize is that "spent" fuel is neither truly spent, or waste. Todays nuclear power plants typically only realize about 1% of the potential energy in the fuel that they load into their reactors. Reprocessing and the use of FBR's can eventually increase the amount of energy used to 99% and the amount of waste to be disposed of to 1% of the original fuel load.

It should also be noted that the largest percentage of the world's uranium is produced in Australia and Canada. Both countries have stable governments and are on friendly terms with many countries.

It is interesting to note that the nuclear educated President of the US, Jimmy Carter is the one that banned reprocessing.

The bunker oil saved by building ships with nuclear power plants could be upgraded by breaking down the heavy hydrocarbon molecules, adding some hydrogen to them and produce liquid fuels where there are not readily available or suitable substitutes for things such as aviation fuel, and some vehicles that are not big enough or suitable for anything but liquid fuels. The replacement of bunker oil would also make more space available for useful cargo.

I would recommend that you acquire a copy of Douglass Lightfoot's DVD "Nobody's Fuel" It tracks the progress from renewable fuels, in this case wood, to the first fossil fuel, coal, and proceeds into the nuclear age. You can purchase a copy at the following web site http://www.nobodysfuel.com/ One of the messages is wealth requires energy.

Please forgive the long post, I hope that it will give you some food for thought.

The curious one,

Thank you. I have not heard of this DVD but will definitely purchase a copy for reference. It sounds like exactly what I have been looking for.

I agree with your statements regarding nuclear power. It seems like a necessary option for the future for the exact reasons that you state. The problem that we have in the U.S. (and in other so-called "superpowers") is that there is very little communication between the military and commercial sectors in regard to new technologies that can benefit both parties. Nuclear power has been used for decades in the military with fantastic success. The issue is that they are very tight about letting out technology that could help implement these technologies in the commercial sector. Of course, the unlimited budget of the military would be greatly beneficial to the R&D departments of commercial shipping lines, as well.

There is also the unavoidable (and, my opinion, unsubtantiated) fear of nuclear power in the general public. Nuclear power is extremely safe and has been for a long, long time. The issue of waste is still relevant, but (to your point) one needs to consider the amount of "traditional" waste (that is just as damaging) that will be eliminated. I will only mention the fact that any fuel outside of distillates contains radioactive elements.

Thank you for the suggestion, I will purchase the video.

Regards,

Chad

As for other fuels containing radioactive materials. You should see what coal contains. People who are afraid of nuclear power plants should be aware of what coal plants release to the environment in terms of radioactive materials.

The development of small reactor technology will be of great benefit to the marine industry.

Given your knowledge of sea going vessels, what portion of the ships volume is given over to carrying fuel oil? How much could be gained in terms of useful cargo space. Google Adams Atomic Engines, he is working on small reactors suitable for commercial vessels. The Russians have been using nuclear powered ice breakers for decades. What about the modular pebble bed reactors. Just one or two modules would probably provide enough horsepower to propel a ship.

Back to my original question how much does it cost a ship to drag its fuel along with it. I have seen documentary shows on TV where a massive container ship might make a non-stop journey from Shanghi to New York or some German Port. Nuclear ships might leave countries like New Zealand out in the dark because the don't allow nuclear fuelled vessels to enter their waters. I guess that they would have to use a system of lighters and the frieghters would anchor just outside the terratorial waters.

Given voyages that may last weeks, and dailly fuel consumptions that measure in the tens of tons per day There is much to be said for a compact power unit that only gets refuelled every three or more years. You could plan the refuelling operation for times when the ship was down anyway to get its barnacles scraped, new anti-fowling paint applied and other routine maintenance.

Rememer also that most of the worlds uranium comes from stable democratic countries like Canada and Austrailia, countries who like the US.

The curious one,

Thank you for your well-thought out replies and suggestions. I have purchased the "Nobody's Fuel" DVD and will watch it as soon as I get it. I have also hunted down and downloaded the transcripts and various Internet-available data related to the DVD.

Any more suggestions will be welcomed.

Thanks again,

Chad

As for nuclear merchant ships, it's been done:

http://www.atomicengines.com/ships.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

Perhaps, in todays world with high oil prices, a ship such as the NS Savannah could be economically feasible.

I got to tour this ship as a kid. It was absolutely beautiful, and I was very impressed.

Bricktop,

Thank you for the references. As noted in my post above, I am definitely including research into nuclear vessels.

Regards,

Chad

Personally, I would rule out nuclear power for any marine application other than military. High costs and highly trained personnel would be required to keep a nuclear power plant safely operable at sea. The possibility of collisions at sea and natural disasters would always be a worry. For the same reason, we will never see nuclear powered cars, buses, trucks, trains or planes. That leaves fossil fuels, solar, biodiesel, and wind. I know this doesn't help you too much, but at least I have narrowed it down somewhat.

Ron,

You are very right in pointing out that highly trained personnel would be necessary. One of my bases for this thesis is that any solution that is proposed will require the full cooperation of industry, government, military, etc. In this particular example, the state and federal maritime academies would have to upgrade their engineering curricula to cover this. It has been done before when new Diesel power plants came into use in the Merchant Marine in early-to-mid twentieth century. Any new propulsion system, alternative fuel, alternative power source, etc. will require upgraded training that goes hand-in-hand with the new technology.

The viewpoint that I am coming from as the author is that this change is all but unavoidable. Green technologies are here for the future and any industry that does not embrace it will more than likely fail, or at the very least, have a very tough row to hoe. It will take acceptance and participation from all involved parties to make it work. But, if that does indeed happen, the benefits will be immense--to the industry, the nation, and the environment.

Thoughts?

Thanks and regards,

Chad

Welcome aboard, Chief! Propulsion systems and energy sources for ships are pretty much moot in nations where shipbuilding is not an industry of note. I've read reports of the declining state of US shipbuilding, and I think this would need to be addressed first. If we aren't building ships, we don't really need to worry about propelling them.

If we aren't building ships, we don't really need to worry about propelling them.

You've got to be kidding. That's like saying that if they quit building cars and trucks in the USSA then we won't need to worry about having gas and diesel available. What about the millions of vehicles (ships) already on the road (afloat and in service)? Do you think they will just disappear?

A parallel observation is Boon Picken's idea to shift natural gas from power plants to vehicles. What about the millions of vehicles out there that run on gas? Who's going to pay to convert all of them? (And in reality, just because there are more wind mills generating power does not mean the owner of a privately held power plant is going to just close the doors to make way for the wind mills and free up natural gas... they are in business to make money.)

Travis

Travis,

Conversion is definitely an issue, but somewhat secondary in regard to this study. Fossil fuel is here for a long time to come and I don't propose that we drop it "cold turkey." Rather, we admit that there is a problem quite possibly caused by fossil fuel usage and spend money in researching new alternatives (because there is money in the alternatives, as well). We begin utilizing these alternatives in new builds and convert existing vessels as can be reasonably accomplished, phasing out vessels that burn strictly fossil fuel as they come to the end of their lifespan.

Again, to drop fossil fuel immediately is not reasonable. But if we can start utilizing the alternatives now, we can reduce our fossil fuel usage within a reasonable timeframe rather than having to scramble when it becomes an emergency. This will take time.

Regards,

Chad

EnviroMan,

Duly noted, but I would like you to consider some items.

I would argue that the majority of the nations of the world are maritime, if only by proximity to the oceans and by the fact that the number of coastal countries far outnumbers those that are landlocked.

That aside, the world's merchant marine fleet (regardless of country of origin) carries about 95% of the worlds trade by volume and approximately 65% by value (SEE NOTE #1) all while burning a fraction of the fuel in comparison to overland trucking and rail transportation methods when considered on a per ton-mile basis(SEE NOTE #2). However, all of this being said, it still contributes a horrendous amount of pollutants into the atmosphere(SEE NOTE #3).

Imagine the benefit to the industry, the nation, and the environment if we (the nation's maritime industry) could provide the same efficient means of transportation but minus the carbon footprint (or at least with a reduced carbon footprint). We could set the standard for the rest of the world.

Don't misunderstand, you make an excellent point about shipbuilding. However, as the industry stands, we have no reason or motivation to build more vessels. If we embrace earth-friendly principles behind vessel power and propulsion, we could revitalize the shipbuilding industry as well.

Thank you and regards,

Chad

Oh, and as a former USN sailor, I'm all for the shipbuilding industry to make a comeback in the USA. But until we are building (and flagging) the ships, where is the impetus to worry about their powerplants? Do you mean we should determine the best method(s), produce that, and sell it to the dockyards of the world?

EnviroMan,

In a word, "yes."

Regards,

Chad

Short, simple, and to the point. I like it! Guess if we can sell powerplants overseas to shipyards it will at least create SOME jobs!

EnviroMan,

Just an additional word of explanation.

The U.S. shipbuilding industry is still alive. It may not be nearly as vibrant as it was, but it does exist, especially if you consider Naval shipbuilding facilities (although there are others). If alternative propulsion technologies can be shared between the commercial and military industries (yes, I realize that this is a whole different subject altogether), the U.S. shipbuilding industry, such as it is, and the merchant fleet, such as it is, can be the platforms for new propulsion methods and technologies. By successfuly using new methods and technologies on a smaller scale, we can build the impetus to further apply these technologies to larger vessels.

To your point, without an economic reason, we cannot simply jump back into building large commercial vessels. There would be no fanancial backing or even U.S. companies to purchase the vessels after they are built. Any new technologies need to be proven on a smaller scale first.

Additionally, we cannot begin to once again build large commercial vessels with Diesel plants in them, if the rest of the world is turning to nuclear propulsion plants and solar and wind power as supplemental power sources. We will end up the same as we did at the beginning of the Civil War. In the mid-19th century, the U.S. shipbuilding industry was putting out the most beautiful sailing ships the world had ever seen. However, the rest of the maritime world was already putting steam propulsion plants into their vessels. Before long the demand on the U.S. shipbuilding industry was next to zero and they lacked the technology and the know how to catch up to the U.K.

I appreciate your arguments. This is what I need to revise/refine/alter my thesis and overall objectives. Keep 'em coming. Thank you.

Regards,

Chad

switzerland doesn't even have a sea port, and we all know where Sulzer engines come from.It's taken over by wartsila, but that's different issue.

Don't know if you saw this in the Blog section, but it was interesting. Sail and Solar.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/7330/Solar-Sailor-Sun-Sails-To-Be-Fitted-to-Chinese-Cargo-Ships

charsley99,

Excellent! Thank you.

Chad

Hello Chad

It my opinion that the marine industry needs to get away from displacement type ships with their associated wave resistance and limiting speed. It is my opinion that the future of the marine industry lies with Wing In Ground Effect (WIG) Vessels. The Von Karman-Gabrielli transport efficiency diagram is the basis for that opinion.

There are design concepts by Beriev, a Russian Aircraft Company known for seaplanes and amphibian aircraft, Be-2500 which can carry a payload of 1,000 metric tons.

Boeing has as a design concept which they call the Pelican which has a 1250 metric tons payload capacity. Boeing claims the Pelican can carry 750 metric tons a distance of 10,000 nm. This capability would support Seabases directly from the United States without requiring advance bases.

Oh by the way, when I got out of the Marine Corp, I went to MEBA and sailed as 3rd Assistant Marine Engineer on the S.S. Greenwave and ended up back in Vietnam.

All the Best

Thanks Gannet,

This is an interesting topic that I was not aware of. In doing some superficial Web research, it is a shame that the Soviet "Lun" is just rusting away in Kiev. I am going to look further into this one.

Regards,

Chad

Many approaches to improving propulsion. Not all of which have to do directly with the engine room it seems! Some while back, there was a thread here about undersea cargo tows - like what Frank Herbert wrote about in "Dragon In The Sea". Sausage-shaped flexible "barges" towed by submersibles, so relatively unaffected by weather, and not well tracked by people wanting to do so for bad purposes. Might be interesting to you, I suggest a search for that thread. The last I knew, the US shipbuilding industry was pretty moribund, so thanks for the update.

I guess my question would be; is where are you going to put the 1000 plus 40 foot containers in the WIG. Even if you could, how would it approach the container dock so a crane could unload them. One wing would have to be removable. Yeah, I know, I'm just being silly, but silly is my thing.

These WIGs would be more economically efficient then shipping cargo by aircraft and thus providing more business opportunities for the marine industry

niche vessels, i.e.: very high speed container boats made of titanium/carbon composite or any other material where routine blasting and painting is no longer required.

propulsion: hydrojet powered by diesel electric centralised system with a combination of compressed air/battery energy storage system.

Thus, when the diesel engines run, it's either run at optimum/max./thrash load or not at all. Whatever is needed to run the move the boat goes to the thruster, and the rest to the storage system.

imagine having a dozen or 1000kw SINGLE cylinder/unit engine-generator sets. This would provide incredible operational flexibility/redundancy. The collective engine size would actually be much much smaller and compact since power is individually transmitted versus that on a conventional marine engine.....thru' one massive shaft!

the engine design would be simpler too, as it only needs to operate at a single load condition, so,all parameters and componenets could be made just for that condition alone.

and all these could be done in the US with off the shelf technology.

compressed air;

channel that thru' an air boiler/heater then to a power turbine, coupled to genset of course.

here too, the turbine shall operate at a single load condition only.

here's the thing, there is plenty of coal all over the globe. How about forming these into standard bars or rod and burn these in a purpose built burner----- with pure oxygen. Oxygen(gas or liquid) could be produced onboard or loaded just as you would regular bunker.

Each of the above components or modules of such an onboard power system could be easily modularised and dumped into a standard 20' or 40' container, even the fuel!

Which means basically all that needs to be done is build a ship with suitable points to mount these containers and the boat would be ready to go!

Built the hull in Timbuktu and drag it to US for outfitting or keep everything at home!

This is my (unstable) sailing boat. (I built a model..it doesn't balance well) but.. it has some ideas I still like.. omnidirectional wind turbines that drive propellers.. so that it doesn't matter which direction the wind is moving.. also, the solar panels on the dec, plus greenhouse windows and growing spaces on the thin edges.. growing small vegetables, algae..whatever.. Not shown is a system of internal counterrotating flywheels for energy storage, plus batteries..hopefully a completely green offshore living experience.. (the flywheels keep the ship stable in high seas too)

chris