I should check this out before posting, but the numbers don’t seem quite right. At least I hope they aren’t!

The factoid is mentioned at the 12:05 time mark, but the link provided starts a bit earlier for some context.

Nuclear powered vehicles

Spiny Norman said:

I should check this out before posting, but the numbers don’t seem quite right. At least I hope they aren’t!

The factoid is mentioned at the 12:05 time mark, but the link provided starts a bit earlier for some context.

Nuclear powered vehicles

cargo ships don’t use diesel. so less refining.

Spiny Norman said:

I should check this out before posting, but the numbers don’t seem quite right. At least I hope they aren’t!

The factoid is mentioned at the 12:05 time mark, but the link provided starts a bit earlier for some context.

Nuclear powered vehicles

The bit about nuclear war planes? I guess he could be referring to an un-manned drone like an Aerosonde

comparing them to cars, as opposed to trucks, is misleading.

ChrispenEvan said:

comparing them to cars, as opposed to trucks, is misleading.

Trains might be even better.

Rule 303 said:

ChrispenEvan said:

comparing them to cars, as opposed to trucks, is misleading.

Trains might be even better.

trains are not bad. then trucks probably worse of all, but handy for local stuff.

Rule 303 said:

ChrispenEvan said:

comparing them to cars, as opposed to trucks, is misleading.

Trains might be even better.

Not really. Coal fired steam trains maybe but there aren’t many of those still in operation. Electric freight trains are about the most efficient more of land transport, and depending on where the electricity is sourced they can be the most eco-friendly.

party_pants said:

Rule 303 said:

ChrispenEvan said:

comparing them to cars, as opposed to trucks, is misleading.

Trains might be even better.

Not really. Coal fired steam trains maybe but there aren’t many of those still in operation. Electric freight trains are about the most efficient more of land transport, and depending on where the electricity is sourced they can be the most eco-friendly.

mode

Rule 303 said:

The bit about nuclear war planes? I guess he could be referring to an un-manned drone like an Aerosonde

There was much talk about nuclear-powered planes back in the 1950s. They be able to stay aloft indefinitely and all that.

The Americans built a functioning nuclear reactor inside a bomber (B-36 i think it was). Didn’t have anything to do with propulsion, it just ‘functioned’. The only shielding was between it and the cockpit, and the shielding (including windscreens etc) was so heavy that crews said it was like flying in a submarine. Couldn’t hear a thing.

Whenever it flew, it was accompanied by special company of paratroops in another plane, ready to jump and ‘clean up’ if the bomber had a crash.

Then there was Project Pluto.

Basically a nuclear-powered cruise missile, able to fly around and around indefinitely at like Mach 3.

It was meant to stay low, which meant that the shock wave from its passing would demolish most buildings that it flew over.

Added to that, it had no shielding, and spewed radioactive waste in its wake, cropdusting everyone and everything below with bad stuff.

Fortunately, the project did not progress far.

captain_spalding said:

Then there was Project Pluto.

Basically a nuclear-powered cruise missile, able to fly around and around indefinitely at like Mach 3.

It was meant to stay low, which meant that the shock wave from its passing would demolish most buildings that it flew over.

Added to that, it had no shielding, and spewed radioactive waste in its wake, cropdusting everyone and everything below with bad stuff.

Fortunately, the project did not progress far.

Probably some meddling do-gooder had it shut down. The bastard!

I figured out more than 10 years back that large container ships are both the most efficient and least efficient means of transport.

• In terms of pollution per km of transport they are the least efficient vehicles on the planet.
• In terms of pollution per kg of cargo per km of transport they are the most efficient vehicles on the planet.

So don’t sweat it.

mollwollfumble said:

I figured out more than 10 years back that large container ships are both the most efficient and least efficient means of transport.

• In terms of pollution per km of transport they are the least efficient vehicles on the planet.
• In terms of pollution per kg of cargo per km of transport they are the most efficient vehicles on the planet.

So don’t sweat it.

Until someone comes up with a more practical and efficient-per-kg method of transporting the quantities of stuff needed by modern societies in the timeframes that they require them, container ships are the go.

I’ve said it before: Australia is a maritime nation. There’s a huge collective denial of this, with the outback/stockman/bushman ‘legend’ taking priority in mass imagination.

The fact is that Australia depends on maritime trade for its existence. Always has. Air transport is useful, but it can’t possibly deal with the sheer quantities involved.

You want to cripple this country? Shut down the ports for a week. You want this country to surrender? Stop ships entering or leaving Australian ports for two weeks, a month at the outside.

FWIW

The 16 biggest ships produce more pollution than all the cars in the World

Big polluters: One massive container ship equals 50 million cars

Health risks of shipping pollution have been ‘underestimated’

They all say much the same thing, I’m still quite surprised they generate so much pollution and I have to wonder if there’s some additive that could be used in the fuel to reduce the emissions.

Spiny Norman said:

FWIW

The 16 biggest ships produce more pollution than all the cars in the World

Big polluters: One massive container ship equals 50 million cars

Health risks of shipping pollution have been ‘underestimated’

They all say much the same thing, I’m still quite surprised they generate so much pollution and I have to wonder if there’s some additive that could be used in the fuel to reduce the emissions.

That is both surprising and alarming.

Bunker oil:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil#Bunker_fuel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_fuel_oil

Michael V said:

Bunker oil:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil#Bunker_fuel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_fuel_oil

Ta. It’s rather disappointing that they’re allowed to burn such dirty fuel.

Spiny Norman said:

Michael V said:

Bunker oil:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil#Bunker_fuel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_fuel_oil

Ta. It’s rather disappointing that they’re allowed to burn such dirty fuel.

You can sort of understand why a lot of these ships fly under the flag of Panama but a shedload of the really big one’s are registered in Denmark. You’d have thought that the Danes wouldn’t be keen on this sort of thing, but apparently not.

Spiny Norman said:

Michael V said:

Bunker oil:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil#Bunker_fuel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_fuel_oil

Ta. It’s rather disappointing that they’re allowed to burn such dirty fuel.

Looks like another Job for Elon

sibeen said:

Spiny Norman said:

FWIW

The 16 biggest ships produce more pollution than all the cars in the World

Big polluters: One massive container ship equals 50 million cars

Health risks of shipping pollution have been ‘underestimated’

They all say much the same thing, I’m still quite surprised they generate so much pollution and I have to wonder if there’s some additive that could be used in the fuel to reduce the emissions.

That is both surprising and alarming.

You burn hydrocarbon fuel you produce lots of bad oxides.

This isn’t about GHG emissions.

dv said:

This isn’t about GHG emissions.

pats seat
Here deevs sit sown here and we’ll have a chat, just a bit of a chat.
Once you start including what things aren’t the list can get large but since you’ve started…….
It’s not about 17” T111 Khumo tyres.
You go.

Ian said:

Spiny Norman said:

Michael V said:

Bunker oil:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil#Bunker_fuel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_fuel_oil

Ta. It’s rather disappointing that they’re allowed to burn such dirty fuel.

Looks like another Job for Elon

Warships used to burn fuel oil (furnaces fuel oil, colloquially called ‘foo-foo’) to produce the steam for their steam turbine engines. FFO is just about the dregs of the fuel distilling process, so it’s comparatively cheap.

These days, it’s rare for a warship to be built with an oil-fuelled engine. Most use gas turbines, diesel engines, or a combination of those (abbreviated to acronyms such as CODAG, CODOG, COGOG). HMAS Stalwart had diesel engines so large that you could stand up inside the piston cylinders. Most newer merchant ships also get diesels, but certainly not all.

Nuclear ships still use steam turbines, but it’s the reactor heat that produces the steam.

Liquid natural gas tanker ships often have steam turbine engines, fuelled by the ‘boil-off’ LNG from their bulk tanks, which has to be bled off to maintain safe pressure in those tanks.

It’s only the business imperative of keeping costs low, and the number of older ships still in service, that keep oil-fuelled ships operating.

captain_spalding said:

Ian said:

Spiny Norman said:

Ta. It’s rather disappointing that they’re allowed to burn such dirty fuel.

Looks like another Job for Elon

Warships used to burn fuel oil (furnaces fuel oil, colloquially called ‘foo-foo’) to produce the steam for their steam turbine engines. FFO is just about the dregs of the fuel distilling process, so it’s comparatively cheap.

These days, it’s rare for a warship to be built with an oil-fuelled engine. Most use gas turbines, diesel engines, or a combination of those (abbreviated to acronyms such as CODAG, CODOG, COGOG). HMAS Stalwart had diesel engines so large that you could stand up inside the piston cylinders. Most newer merchant ships also get diesels, but certainly not all.

Nuclear ships still use steam turbines, but it’s the reactor heat that produces the steam.

Liquid natural gas tanker ships often have steam turbine engines, fuelled by the ‘boil-off’ LNG from their bulk tanks, which has to be bled off to maintain safe pressure in those tanks.

It’s only the business imperative of keeping costs low, and the number of older ships still in service, that keep oil-fuelled ships operating.

Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov

captain_spalding said:

Ian said:

Spiny Norman said:

Ta. It’s rather disappointing that they’re allowed to burn such dirty fuel.

Looks like another Job for Elon

Warships used to burn fuel oil (furnaces fuel oil, colloquially called ‘foo-foo’) to produce the steam for their steam turbine engines. FFO is just about the dregs of the fuel distilling process, so it’s comparatively cheap.

These days, it’s rare for a warship to be built with an oil-fuelled engine. Most use gas turbines, diesel engines, or a combination of those (abbreviated to acronyms such as CODAG, CODOG, COGOG). HMAS Stalwart had diesel engines so large that you could stand up inside the piston cylinders. Most newer merchant ships also get diesels, but certainly not all.

Nuclear ships still use steam turbines, but it’s the reactor heat that produces the steam.

Liquid natural gas tanker ships often have steam turbine engines, fuelled by the ‘boil-off’ LNG from their bulk tanks, which has to be bled off to maintain safe pressure in those tanks.

It’s only the business imperative of keeping costs low, and the number of older ships still in service, that keep oil-fuelled ships operating.

It should only take for a handful of advanced countries to band together and announce they are banning heavy fuel oil ships from their ports for the whole world to shift.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

This isn’t about GHG emissions.

pats seat
Here deevs sit sown here and we’ll have a chat, just a bit of a chat.
Once you start including what things aren’t the list can get large but since you’ve started…….
It’s not about 17” T111 Khumo tyres.
You go.

Miss me?

Tamb said:

captain_spalding said:

Ian said:

Looks like another Job for Elon

Warships used to burn fuel oil (furnaces fuel oil, colloquially called ‘foo-foo’) to produce the steam for their steam turbine engines. FFO is just about the dregs of the fuel distilling process, so it’s comparatively cheap.

These days, it’s rare for a warship to be built with an oil-fuelled engine. Most use gas turbines, diesel engines, or a combination of those (abbreviated to acronyms such as CODAG, CODOG, COGOG). HMAS Stalwart had diesel engines so large that you could stand up inside the piston cylinders. Most newer merchant ships also get diesels, but certainly not all.

Nuclear ships still use steam turbines, but it’s the reactor heat that produces the steam.

Liquid natural gas tanker ships often have steam turbine engines, fuelled by the ‘boil-off’ LNG from their bulk tanks, which has to be bled off to maintain safe pressure in those tanks.

It’s only the business imperative of keeping costs low, and the number of older ships still in service, that keep oil-fuelled ships operating.

Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov

It’s probably on fire.

Seriously though, that ship is bad luck. It is out of action at the moment because of an engine fire on board. Russia can’t afford to build a new one right now, and there is some doubt as to whether it is worth repairing it one more time.

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

Ian said:

Looks like another Job for Elon

Warships used to burn fuel oil (furnaces fuel oil, colloquially called ‘foo-foo’) to produce the steam for their steam turbine engines. FFO is just about the dregs of the fuel distilling process, so it’s comparatively cheap.

These days, it’s rare for a warship to be built with an oil-fuelled engine. Most use gas turbines, diesel engines, or a combination of those (abbreviated to acronyms such as CODAG, CODOG, COGOG). HMAS Stalwart had diesel engines so large that you could stand up inside the piston cylinders. Most newer merchant ships also get diesels, but certainly not all.

Nuclear ships still use steam turbines, but it’s the reactor heat that produces the steam.

Liquid natural gas tanker ships often have steam turbine engines, fuelled by the ‘boil-off’ LNG from their bulk tanks, which has to be bled off to maintain safe pressure in those tanks.

It’s only the business imperative of keeping costs low, and the number of older ships still in service, that keep oil-fuelled ships operating.

It should only take for a handful of advanced countries to band together and announce they are banning heavy fuel oil ships from their ports for the whole world to shift.

The tanker people would say “No ship, no oil”
Or “OK but the price of oil will increase.”

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

Warships used to burn fuel oil (furnaces fuel oil, colloquially called ‘foo-foo’) to produce the steam for their steam turbine engines. FFO is just about the dregs of the fuel distilling process, so it’s comparatively cheap.

These days, it’s rare for a warship to be built with an oil-fuelled engine. Most use gas turbines, diesel engines, or a combination of those (abbreviated to acronyms such as CODAG, CODOG, COGOG). HMAS Stalwart had diesel engines so large that you could stand up inside the piston cylinders. Most newer merchant ships also get diesels, but certainly not all.

Nuclear ships still use steam turbines, but it’s the reactor heat that produces the steam.

Liquid natural gas tanker ships often have steam turbine engines, fuelled by the ‘boil-off’ LNG from their bulk tanks, which has to be bled off to maintain safe pressure in those tanks.

It’s only the business imperative of keeping costs low, and the number of older ships still in service, that keep oil-fuelled ships operating.

It should only take for a handful of advanced countries to band together and announce they are banning heavy fuel oil ships from their ports for the whole world to shift.

The tanker people would say “No ship, no oil”
Or “OK but the price of oil will increase.”

The tanker people will be told to get fucked.

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

captain_spalding said:

Warships used to burn fuel oil (furnaces fuel oil, colloquially called ‘foo-foo’) to produce the steam for their steam turbine engines. FFO is just about the dregs of the fuel distilling process, so it’s comparatively cheap.

These days, it’s rare for a warship to be built with an oil-fuelled engine. Most use gas turbines, diesel engines, or a combination of those (abbreviated to acronyms such as CODAG, CODOG, COGOG). HMAS Stalwart had diesel engines so large that you could stand up inside the piston cylinders. Most newer merchant ships also get diesels, but certainly not all.

Nuclear ships still use steam turbines, but it’s the reactor heat that produces the steam.

Liquid natural gas tanker ships often have steam turbine engines, fuelled by the ‘boil-off’ LNG from their bulk tanks, which has to be bled off to maintain safe pressure in those tanks.

It’s only the business imperative of keeping costs low, and the number of older ships still in service, that keep oil-fuelled ships operating.

Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov

It’s probably on fire.

Seriously though, that ship is bad luck. It is out of action at the moment because of an engine fire on board. Russia can’t afford to build a new one right now, and there is some doubt as to whether it is worth repairing it one more time.

The Russians have never had much luck with their Navy. e.g. The Battle of Tsushima.

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

It should only take for a handful of advanced countries to band together and announce they are banning heavy fuel oil ships from their ports for the whole world to shift.

The tanker people would say “No ship, no oil”
Or “OK but the price of oil will increase.”

The tanker people will be told to get fucked.

We live in a country that has about two weeks worth of fuel reserves (at best). There’s plenty more like us.

Shipping companies can wait two weeks until the ‘political resolve’ wilts.

As well, you’re not going to replace large portions of the world’s merchant fleet overnight. It’d be a very gradual phase-out, at best.

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

Warships used to burn fuel oil (furnaces fuel oil, colloquially called ‘foo-foo’) to produce the steam for their steam turbine engines. FFO is just about the dregs of the fuel distilling process, so it’s comparatively cheap.

These days, it’s rare for a warship to be built with an oil-fuelled engine. Most use gas turbines, diesel engines, or a combination of those (abbreviated to acronyms such as CODAG, CODOG, COGOG). HMAS Stalwart had diesel engines so large that you could stand up inside the piston cylinders. Most newer merchant ships also get diesels, but certainly not all.

Nuclear ships still use steam turbines, but it’s the reactor heat that produces the steam.

Liquid natural gas tanker ships often have steam turbine engines, fuelled by the ‘boil-off’ LNG from their bulk tanks, which has to be bled off to maintain safe pressure in those tanks.

It’s only the business imperative of keeping costs low, and the number of older ships still in service, that keep oil-fuelled ships operating.

It should only take for a handful of advanced countries to band together and announce they are banning heavy fuel oil ships from their ports for the whole world to shift.

The tanker people would say “No ship, no oil”
Or “OK but the price of oil will increase.”

That is the aim of The Movement, to force up the price of petrol and make the useability of internal combustion engines out of reach for the poor masses and forcing them to buy expensive electric vehicles and then gain a monopoly of the means of production by nationalising the sector through the United Nations Regulatory Regime.

Tamb said:

The Russians have never had much luck with their Navy. e.g. The Battle of Tsushima.

Russia has usually considered its navy to be a third priority.

Until the 1960s, it was basically a coastal force, and then under Admiral Gorshkov they got more ambitious (had a ‘worldwide naval exercise ‘OKEAN 70’ in 1970, Russian ships appearing places like the Phillippine Sea), and they got to use Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam, and they started producing new ship designs.

Russian warships have always had an emphasis on weapons systems first, packing as many as they could into each hull. While this increased self-reliance for ships, it meant squeezing in people around all those weapons, and Russian ships were/are notably uncomfortable to live in, and their fuel space and engine spaces are often squeezy, too.

The Russian navy is not the most popular of their services to be in, and they’ve always had trouble retaining skilled people. This leads to operating and maintenance issues, as a lot of the personnel lack the necessary skills, and the load falls on to a comparatively small cadre of senior sailors.

Peak Warming Man said:

Tamb said:

party_pants said:

It should only take for a handful of advanced countries to band together and announce they are banning heavy fuel oil ships from their ports for the whole world to shift.

The tanker people would say “No ship, no oil”
Or “OK but the price of oil will increase.”

That is the aim of The Movement, to force up the price of petrol and make the useability of internal combustion engines out of reach for the poor masses and forcing them to buy expensive electric vehicles and then gain a monopoly of the means of production by nationalising the sector through the United Nations Regulatory Regime.

I see the dark hand of Big Coal behind this.

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

Tamb said:

The tanker people would say “No ship, no oil”
Or “OK but the price of oil will increase.”

The tanker people will be told to get fucked.

We live in a country that has about two weeks worth of fuel reserves (at best). There’s plenty more like us.

Shipping companies can wait two weeks until the ‘political resolve’ wilts.

As well, you’re not going to replace large portions of the world’s merchant fleet overnight. It’d be a very gradual phase-out, at best.

Not countries like us, we don’t have the power. But if the EU, Japan and the USA decided that such ships were going to be phased out by the 2030 … they will be phased out.

Can we convert all these vessels to nuclear power?

dv said:

Can we convert all these vessels to nuclear power?

No.

dv said:

Can we convert all these vessels to nuclear power?

No.

We should not do that.

A lot of merchant ships are crewed by people who, to put it bluntly, are not the sharpest tools in the shed. This may not be their fault, the countries in which they grew up may not have offered much opportunity.

But i’d rather not have them looking after nuclear reactors, thanks.

>> people who, to put it bluntly, are not the sharpest tools in the shed. <<

I would contend that this expression is still putting it euphemistically.

party_pants said:

dv said:

Can we convert all these vessels to nuclear power?

No.

Some could be converted to hydrogen

We should start seeing more hydrogen powered ships

Wikipedia Hydrogen-powered ship

Hydrogen ‘can power virtually all container ships crossing the Pacific’

First wave of ships explore green hydrogen as route to net zero

party_pants said:

dv said:

Can we convert all these vessels to nuclear power?

No.

Sounds like quitter talk.

party_pants said:

>> people who, to put it bluntly, are not the sharpest tools in the shed. <<

I would contend that this expression is still putting it euphemistically.

I accept your contention, and apologise for my inconsistency.

We should start seeing more hydrogen powered ships

Wikipedia Hydrogen-powered ship

Hydrogen ‘can power virtually all container ships crossing the Pacific’

First wave of ships explore green hydrogen as route to net zero

dv said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Can we convert all these vessels to nuclear power?

No.

Sounds like quitter talk.

Short answer is no.
Long answer is hell no.

It would be an environmental and health disaster waiting to happen. Not to mention the difficulty in decommissioning the ships and the proper disposal of waste. Then factor in all the weapons non-proliferation stuff and it become a nightmare scenario of rogue actors using shipping as a way of obtaining nuclear material. I say again, hell no.

party_pants said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

No.

Sounds like quitter talk.

Short answer is no.
Long answer is hell no.

It would be an environmental and health disaster waiting to happen. Not to mention the difficulty in decommissioning the ships and the proper disposal of waste. Then factor in all the weapons non-proliferation stuff and it become a nightmare scenario of rogue actors using shipping as a way of obtaining nuclear material. I say again, hell no.

Fine, hydrogen then

dv said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Sounds like quitter talk.

Short answer is no.
Long answer is hell no.

It would be an environmental and health disaster waiting to happen. Not to mention the difficulty in decommissioning the ships and the proper disposal of waste. Then factor in all the weapons non-proliferation stuff and it become a nightmare scenario of rogue actors using shipping as a way of obtaining nuclear material. I say again, hell no.

Fine, hydrogen then

They can use processed human sewage to make some kind of alternative fuel for all I care. Just not nukes.

dv said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Sounds like quitter talk.

Short answer is no.
Long answer is hell no.

It would be an environmental and health disaster waiting to happen. Not to mention the difficulty in decommissioning the ships and the proper disposal of waste. Then factor in all the weapons non-proliferation stuff and it become a nightmare scenario of rogue actors using shipping as a way of obtaining nuclear material. I say again, hell no.

Fine, hydrogen then

Or batteries

I imagine that a large jet engine, such as the Rolls-Royce Trent series, could be redesigned for maritime use. Use lower RPM & temp limits to extend the life of the engine and coat the blades to stop corrosion from the sea air.
They’d be a tiny fraction of the size of the big diesels as well – but they are quite expensive to purchase, over US$30 each or so for the aviation version.

First wave of ships explore green hydrogen as route to net zero

LONDON (Reuters) – Developers across the world are for the first time testing the use of hydrogen to power ships as the maritime industry races to find technologies to cut emissions and confidence grows the fuel is safe to use commercially.

To reach goals for the shipping industry set by the United Nations, industry leaders say the first net-zero ships must enter the global fleet by 2030. Ships powered by green hydrogen could help meet the target.

Made from electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity from renewable energy, green hydrogen is emissions free.

Oil major Royal Dutch Shell RDSa.L last month reiterated its commitment to hydrogen, which it saw as “advantaged over other potential zero-emissions fuels for shipping”.

more…

https://www.reuters.com/article/shipping-energy-hydrogen-focus-int-idUSKBN27F18U

Spiny Norman said:

I imagine that a large jet engine, such as the Rolls-Royce Trent series, could be redesigned for maritime use. Use lower RPM & temp limits to extend the life of the engine and coat the blades to stop corrosion from the sea air.
They’d be a tiny fraction of the size of the big diesels as well – but they are quite expensive to purchase, over US$30 each or so for the aviation version.

I think the new British carriers are powered by a brace of them

Spiny Norman said:

I imagine that a large jet engine, such as the Rolls-Royce Trent series, could be redesigned for maritime use. Use lower RPM & temp limits to extend the life of the engine and coat the blades to stop corrosion from the sea air.
They’d be a tiny fraction of the size of the big diesels as well – but they are quite expensive to purchase, over US$30 each or so for the aviation version.

I imagine that you’re right:

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/defence/naval/gas-turbines.aspx

Hydrogen ‘can power virtually all container ships crossing the Pacific’

Study shows that 99% of the vessels that traversed the ocean in 2015 could have been powered by clean H2, proving that the highly polluting sector can be decarbonised

Liquid hydrogen could power nearly all container vessels crossing the Pacific ocean — one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world — according to a new study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).

The international shipping industry currently uses heavy fuel oil derived from crude, and is a major source of CO2 emissions.

The ICCT study found that 99% of the transpacific voyages made in 2015 could have been powered by hydrogen and fuel cells, with more than half of those requiring either minor changes to fuel capacity — by replacing 5% of cargo space with extra storage for the clean fuel, or by adding an additional port of call to refuel. About 43% of the voyages could have taken place without any such changes.

more…

https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/hydrogen-can-power-virtually-all-container-ships-crossing-the-pacific/2-1-767073

Spiny Norman said:

I imagine that a large jet engine, such as the Rolls-Royce Trent series, could be redesigned for maritime use. Use lower RPM & temp limits to extend the life of the engine and coat the blades to stop corrosion from the sea air.
They’d be a tiny fraction of the size of the big diesels as well – but they are quite expensive to purchase, over US$30 each or so for the aviation version.

I think there is already a world market for gas turbines for electricity generation, given the popularity of combined cycle gas turbine plants and their energy efficiency and cleaner emissions. They are generally built a bit more heavy duty than aero engines since weight is not a factor.

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

I imagine that a large jet engine, such as the Rolls-Royce Trent series, could be redesigned for maritime use. Use lower RPM & temp limits to extend the life of the engine and coat the blades to stop corrosion from the sea air.
They’d be a tiny fraction of the size of the big diesels as well – but they are quite expensive to purchase, over US$30 each or so for the aviation version.

I imagine that you’re right:

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/defence/naval/gas-turbines.aspx

Very nice, ta.

Not that it’s any great advantage for civilian ships, but the average jet engine can go to full power as little as three minutes after starting. The big diesels & oil-burning steam ships would take a lot longer.

Spiny Norman said:

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

I imagine that a large jet engine, such as the Rolls-Royce Trent series, could be redesigned for maritime use. Use lower RPM & temp limits to extend the life of the engine and coat the blades to stop corrosion from the sea air.
They’d be a tiny fraction of the size of the big diesels as well – but they are quite expensive to purchase, over US$30 each or so for the aviation version.

I imagine that you’re right:

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/defence/naval/gas-turbines.aspx

Very nice, ta.

Not that it’s any great advantage for civilian ships, but the average jet engine can go to full power as little as three minutes after starting. The big diesels & oil-burning steam ships would take a lot longer.

The short start-up time is one of the things that navies like about gas turbines. Push the button, and you’re pretty much under way just like that.

With steam turbines, and starting from cold, it could take quite a while to ‘raise steam’ to drive the turbines. Basically, you had to boil some pretty big kettles.

big two-stroke diesel run 15RPM and upward, say maximum efficiency maybe ~70RPM, so no need for reduction gears probably, keeps it simple

very good at blackening the polar ice, helping it heat up, melting it

transition said:

big two-stroke diesel run 15RPM and upward, say maximum efficiency maybe ~70RPM, so no need for reduction gears probably, keeps it simple

very good at blackening the polar ice, helping it heat up, melting it

heavy fuel oil should say, whatever

Spiny Norman said:

I imagine that a large jet engine, such as the Rolls-Royce Trent series, could be redesigned for maritime use. Use lower RPM & temp limits to extend the life of the engine and coat the blades to stop corrosion from the sea air.
They’d be a tiny fraction of the size of the big diesels as well – but they are quite expensive to purchase, over US$30 each or so for the aviation version.

A bargain.

I’ll have two please.

Ian said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

Short answer is no.
Long answer is hell no.

It would be an environmental and health disaster waiting to happen. Not to mention the difficulty in decommissioning the ships and the proper disposal of waste. Then factor in all the weapons non-proliferation stuff and it become a nightmare scenario of rogue actors using shipping as a way of obtaining nuclear material. I say again, hell no.

Fine, hydrogen then

Or batteries

Nah.

Milk
cold cuts
relish
pawpaw
oranges
blueberries
fruit salad
brace of passionfruit
ice cream
fresh vienna bread
tea

Peak Warming Man said:

Milk
cold cuts
relish
pawpaw
oranges
blueberries
fruit salad
brace of passionfruit
ice cream
fresh vienna bread
tea

Not sure any of these would be a good alternative fuel.

party_pants said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Milk
cold cuts
relish
pawpaw
oranges
blueberries
fruit salad
brace of passionfruit
ice cream
fresh vienna bread
tea

Not sure any of these would be a good alternative fuel.

carbon, hydrogen and oxygen content?

A 13 minute video that has some relevance to this discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo-2gDg-37w&ab_channel=EconomicsExplained

Maybe diesel electric supplemented by solar on deck

Bunker oil is horrible stuff

You can make diesel from coal, you can make plastics and fertilisers from coal.

A ship is large enough to incorporate measures to remove soot from the exhaust flow.

You run the diesel engines as you need them a sunny day helps power the ship.

wookiemeister said:

Maybe diesel electric supplemented by solar on deck

Bunker oil is horrible stuff

You can make diesel from coal, you can make plastics and fertilisers from coal.

A ship is large enough to incorporate measures to remove soot from the exhaust flow.

You run the diesel engines as you need them a sunny day helps power the ship.

The diesel in some of these ships are over 80 MW. Solar panel are not going to make much of a dent in that and where would you put them anyway? The deck is full of containers that will be craned on and off.

Hydrogen is the way its going.

captain_spalding said:

I’ve said it before: Australia is a maritime nation. There’s a huge collective denial of this, with the outback/stockman/bushman ‘legend’ taking priority in mass imagination.

The fact is that Australia depends on maritime trade for its existence. Always has. Air transport is useful, but it can’t possibly deal with the sheer quantities involved.

You want to cripple this country? Shut down the ports for a week. You want this country to surrender? Stop ships entering or leaving Australian ports for two weeks, a month at the outside.

It’s our dependency on maritime trade that fuels our dependency on the USA. They have a big Navy, good for protecting cargo ships from pirates and ocean-brigands. Australia’s primary international allegiance shifted from the UK to the USA because the UK would not send ships to protect Australia and its supply lines in the Pacific from Japan during WWII and so that job fell to the Americans.

esselte said:

captain_spalding said:

I’ve said it before: Australia is a maritime nation. There’s a huge collective denial of this, with the outback/stockman/bushman ‘legend’ taking priority in mass imagination.

The fact is that Australia depends on maritime trade for its existence. Always has. Air transport is useful, but it can’t possibly deal with the sheer quantities involved.

You want to cripple this country? Shut down the ports for a week. You want this country to surrender? Stop ships entering or leaving Australian ports for two weeks, a month at the outside.

It’s our dependency on maritime trade that fuels our dependency on the USA. They have a big Navy, good for protecting cargo ships from pirates and ocean-brigands. Australia’s primary international allegiance shifted from the UK to the USA because the UK would not send ships to protect Australia and its supply lines in the Pacific from Japan during WWII and so that job fell to the Americans.

We could buy lots of Japanese built warships (in spite of their pacifist constitution they are very good at it) and crew them with Filipinos and Pacific Islanders. The crews would be offered citizenship after a stint of service.

party_pants said:

esselte said:

captain_spalding said:

I’ve said it before: Australia is a maritime nation. There’s a huge collective denial of this, with the outback/stockman/bushman ‘legend’ taking priority in mass imagination.

The fact is that Australia depends on maritime trade for its existence. Always has. Air transport is useful, but it can’t possibly deal with the sheer quantities involved.

You want to cripple this country? Shut down the ports for a week. You want this country to surrender? Stop ships entering or leaving Australian ports for two weeks, a month at the outside.

It’s our dependency on maritime trade that fuels our dependency on the USA. They have a big Navy, good for protecting cargo ships from pirates and ocean-brigands. Australia’s primary international allegiance shifted from the UK to the USA because the UK would not send ships to protect Australia and its supply lines in the Pacific from Japan during WWII and so that job fell to the Americans.

We could buy lots of Japanese built warships (in spite of their pacifist constitution they are very good at it) and crew them with Filipinos and Pacific Islanders. The crews would be offered citizenship after a stint of service.

Just like the Romans…

furious said:

party_pants said:

esselte said:

It’s our dependency on maritime trade that fuels our dependency on the USA. They have a big Navy, good for protecting cargo ships from pirates and ocean-brigands. Australia’s primary international allegiance shifted from the UK to the USA because the UK would not send ships to protect Australia and its supply lines in the Pacific from Japan during WWII and so that job fell to the Americans.

We could buy lots of Japanese built warships (in spite of their pacifist constitution they are very good at it) and crew them with Filipinos and Pacific Islanders. The crews would be offered citizenship after a stint of service.

Just like the Romans…

it worked for them. The Romans destroyed Carthage, eventually.

party_pants said:

esselte said:

captain_spalding said:

I’ve said it before: Australia is a maritime nation. There’s a huge collective denial of this, with the outback/stockman/bushman ‘legend’ taking priority in mass imagination.

The fact is that Australia depends on maritime trade for its existence. Always has. Air transport is useful, but it can’t possibly deal with the sheer quantities involved.

You want to cripple this country? Shut down the ports for a week. You want this country to surrender? Stop ships entering or leaving Australian ports for two weeks, a month at the outside.

It’s our dependency on maritime trade that fuels our dependency on the USA. They have a big Navy, good for protecting cargo ships from pirates and ocean-brigands. Australia’s primary international allegiance shifted from the UK to the USA because the UK would not send ships to protect Australia and its supply lines in the Pacific from Japan during WWII and so that job fell to the Americans.

We could buy lots of Japanese built warships (in spite of their pacifist constitution they are very good at it) and crew them with Filipinos and Pacific Islanders. The crews would be offered citizenship after a stint of service.

Australia is not at all bad at building warships.

The problems usually stem from picking the wrong designs. When the politicians get involved, looking to do favours for overseas friends and sponsors, and the bean counters (always anxious for a plastic solution where steel is needed), and every civilian bureaucrat in Canberra above the rank of acting temporary blank file has had their say, we usually wind up with precisely the ships that the people who know about such things would not have chosen, and their recommendations are ignored (not always so politely).

And then the shipbuilders have to untangle all of the ‘unforeseen’ problems, and the Navy gets the blame for the bungling, not the Depts of Defence, Finance etc.

Other Liberals were openly calling for the party to back the bill.

“I read reports about people praying, or some such to stop people from being gay or some rubbish,” Liberal MP Tim Smith said.

“I mean this is nonsense. You are what you are. You know, I prayed 20 years ago that I’d be 6“4, well I’m 5“10.

“This is quite insane. Like it’s demented. You are what you are.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-08/victorian-liberals-want-more-gay-conversion-ban-consultation/12959978

Young Tim better be careful taking a wild position like that.

sibeen said:

Other Liberals were openly calling for the party to back the bill.

“I read reports about people praying, or some such to stop people from being gay or some rubbish,” Liberal MP Tim Smith said.

“I mean this is nonsense. You are what you are. You know, I prayed 20 years ago that I’d be 6“4, well I’m 5“10.

“This is quite insane. Like it’s demented. You are what you are.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-08/victorian-liberals-want-more-gay-conversion-ban-consultation/12959978

Young Tim better be careful taking a wild position like that.

I refuse to apologise!

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

Other Liberals were openly calling for the party to back the bill.

“I read reports about people praying, or some such to stop people from being gay or some rubbish,” Liberal MP Tim Smith said.

“I mean this is nonsense. You are what you are. You know, I prayed 20 years ago that I’d be 6“4, well I’m 5“10.

“This is quite insane. Like it’s demented. You are what you are.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-08/victorian-liberals-want-more-gay-conversion-ban-consultation/12959978

Young Tim better be careful taking a wild position like that.

I refuse to apologise!

More pollution…

As for depending on the US Navy to protect maritime trade from ‘pirates and ocean brigands’:

such things are flea bites compared to submarine warfare.

Australia is an island, and inherently particularly vulnerable to interdiction by submarines.

Hitler entered WW2 with 27 long range submarines. The British had just about the largest merchant shipping fleet in the world, which they could count on to support their efforts to keep their islands supplied. Despite that, the Germans made it touch-and-go as to whether Britain would be starved out of the war.

Australia has a navy miniscule by the standard of the RN on the eve of WW2, and we have a merchant fleet that consists of the Spirit of Tasmania and some fishing boats.

In our region, China has at least 66 operational submarines. And they can gear up production overnight.

captain_spalding said:

As for depending on the US Navy to protect maritime trade from ‘pirates and ocean brigands’:

such things are flea bites compared to submarine warfare.

Australia is an island, and inherently particularly vulnerable to interdiction by submarines.

Hitler entered WW2 with 27 long range submarines. The British had just about the largest merchant shipping fleet in the world, which they could count on to support their efforts to keep their islands supplied. Despite that, the Germans made it touch-and-go as to whether Britain would be starved out of the war.

Australia has a navy miniscule by the standard of the RN on the eve of WW2, and we have a merchant fleet that consists of the Spirit of Tasmania and some fishing boats.

In our region, China has at least 66 operational submarines. And they can gear up production overnight.

We could build a few more Catalinas.

I reckon we make underwater drones disguised as sharks and other fish.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I reckon we make underwater drones disguised as sharks and other fish.

Why not just regular sharks? With (fricking) lasers?

furious said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I reckon we make underwater drones disguised as sharks and other fish.

Why not just regular sharks? With (fricking) lasers?

Ever tried training a shark?

captain_spalding said:

As for depending on the US Navy to protect maritime trade from ‘pirates and ocean brigands’:

such things are flea bites compared to submarine warfare.

Australia is an island, and inherently particularly vulnerable to interdiction by submarines.

Hitler entered WW2 with 27 long range submarines. The British had just about the largest merchant shipping fleet in the world, which they could count on to support their efforts to keep their islands supplied. Despite that, the Germans made it touch-and-go as to whether Britain would be starved out of the war.

Australia has a navy miniscule by the standard of the RN on the eve of WW2, and we have a merchant fleet that consists of the Spirit of Tasmania and some fishing boats.

In our region, China has at least 66 operational submarines. And they can gear up production overnight.

Prior to WW2 Australia had a stronger relationship with Britain and Europe than it did with the US. The fact that the British Navy was pre-occupied with war elsewhere and was unwilling to send ships to the Pacific to protect Australia against invasion from Japan is one of the primary reasons that relationship was replaced by a Aus-US relationship – largely because the US Navy was present fighting alongside the Australias at events like the Battle of the Coral Sea, whilst the British were absent.

Regarding submarines, yes, the US Navy is pretty much as good as it gets for protecting us from Chinese submarines. I imagine the USN pays some attention to China when it’s not chasing pirates.

sibeen said:

wookiemeister said:

Maybe diesel electric supplemented by solar on deck

Bunker oil is horrible stuff

You can make diesel from coal, you can make plastics and fertilisers from coal.

A ship is large enough to incorporate measures to remove soot from the exhaust flow.

You run the diesel engines as you need them a sunny day helps power the ship.

The diesel in some of these ships are over 80 MW. Solar panel are not going to make much of a dent in that and where would you put them anyway? The deck is full of containers that will be craned on and off.

Space can be made top side

Maybe you’d use the electrical power created to make the diesel engines more efficient – perhaps with electrical supercharging so compressed air is forced into the engine and drawn out.

Maybe you could use the solar power to split sea water into hydrogen and use that to make the engine more efficient ? Though super charging might be more useful ?

Maybe you design build specialised ships crewed solely with AUSTRALIAN nationals and use modular nuclear power generators. The fact you no longer need to buy millions of litres of diesel means you can crew it using trained and responsible people from your own country.? Many Australians no longer have jobs because manufacturing australian goods brings less tax revenue to the government.

So you build specialised container ships powered by modular nuclear units that are faster and more powerful than existing diesel or bunker oil powered ships that are crewed by Australian nationals.

wookiemeister said:

sibeen said:

wookiemeister said:

Maybe diesel electric supplemented by solar on deck

Bunker oil is horrible stuff

You can make diesel from coal, you can make plastics and fertilisers from coal.

A ship is large enough to incorporate measures to remove soot from the exhaust flow.

You run the diesel engines as you need them a sunny day helps power the ship.

The diesel in some of these ships are over 80 MW. Solar panel are not going to make much of a dent in that and where would you put them anyway? The deck is full of containers that will be craned on and off.

Space can be made top side

Maybe you’d use the electrical power created to make the diesel engines more efficient – perhaps with electrical supercharging so compressed air is forced into the engine and drawn out.

Maybe you could use the solar power to split sea water into hydrogen and use that to make the engine more efficient ? Though super charging might be more useful ?

Maybe you design build specialised ships crewed solely with AUSTRALIAN nationals and use modular nuclear power generators. The fact you no longer need to buy millions of litres of diesel means you can crew it using trained and responsible people from your own country.? Many Australians no longer have jobs because manufacturing australian goods brings less tax revenue to the government.

So you build specialised container ships powered by modular nuclear units that are faster and more powerful than existing diesel or bunker oil powered ships that are crewed by Australian nationals.

You’re over thinking it. There used to be these things called sails…

furious said:

wookiemeister said:

sibeen said:

The diesel in some of these ships are over 80 MW. Solar panel are not going to make much of a dent in that and where would you put them anyway? The deck is full of containers that will be craned on and off.

Space can be made top side

Maybe you’d use the electrical power created to make the diesel engines more efficient – perhaps with electrical supercharging so compressed air is forced into the engine and drawn out.

Maybe you could use the solar power to split sea water into hydrogen and use that to make the engine more efficient ? Though super charging might be more useful ?

Maybe you design build specialised ships crewed solely with AUSTRALIAN nationals and use modular nuclear power generators. The fact you no longer need to buy millions of litres of diesel means you can crew it using trained and responsible people from your own country.? Many Australians no longer have jobs because manufacturing australian goods brings less tax revenue to the government.

So you build specialised container ships powered by modular nuclear units that are faster and more powerful than existing diesel or bunker oil powered ships that are crewed by Australian nationals.

You’re over thinking it. There used to be these things called sails…

Sail power doesn’t add much power. They don’t make container ships from wood either. Constant raw power is the way to go. A nuclear container could be bigger and faster. What would be cool would be a drone to fly the containers off so the unions at the port would never touch them – you might not even need to dock .

wookiemeister said:

furious said:

wookiemeister said:

Space can be made top side

Maybe you’d use the electrical power created to make the diesel engines more efficient – perhaps with electrical supercharging so compressed air is forced into the engine and drawn out.

Maybe you could use the solar power to split sea water into hydrogen and use that to make the engine more efficient ? Though super charging might be more useful ?

Maybe you design build specialised ships crewed solely with AUSTRALIAN nationals and use modular nuclear power generators. The fact you no longer need to buy millions of litres of diesel means you can crew it using trained and responsible people from your own country.? Many Australians no longer have jobs because manufacturing australian goods brings less tax revenue to the government.

So you build specialised container ships powered by modular nuclear units that are faster and more powerful than existing diesel or bunker oil powered ships that are crewed by Australian nationals.

You’re over thinking it. There used to be these things called sails…

Sail power doesn’t add much power. They don’t make container ships from wood either. Constant raw power is the way to go. A nuclear container could be bigger and faster. What would be cool would be a drone to fly the containers off so the unions at the port would never touch them – you might not even need to dock .

Do drones have that lifting power at the moment

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

furious said:

You’re over thinking it. There used to be these things called sails…

Sail power doesn’t add much power. They don’t make container ships from wood either. Constant raw power is the way to go. A nuclear container could be bigger and faster. What would be cool would be a drone to fly the containers off so the unions at the port would never touch them – you might not even need to dock .

Do drones have that lifting power at the moment

You could make them

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

furious said:

You’re over thinking it. There used to be these things called sails…

Sail power doesn’t add much power. They don’t make container ships from wood either. Constant raw power is the way to go. A nuclear container could be bigger and faster. What would be cool would be a drone to fly the containers off so the unions at the port would never touch them – you might not even need to dock .

Do drones have that lifting power at the moment

Yeah but not for tankers.

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

Sail power doesn’t add much power. They don’t make container ships from wood either. Constant raw power is the way to go. A nuclear container could be bigger and faster. What would be cool would be a drone to fly the containers off so the unions at the port would never touch them – you might not even need to dock .

Do drones have that lifting power at the moment

Yeah but not for tankers.

They’d need to be super reliable as much as cranes otherwise you could lose the contents of the containers into the ocean/sea

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

Do drones have that lifting power at the moment

Yeah but not for tankers.

They’d need to be super reliable as much as cranes otherwise you could lose the contents of the containers into the ocean/sea

Imminent risk is always a factor.

• Sail power doesn’t add much power.

There is quite a lot of different wind assisted ship propulsion systems being investigated at the moment. Whether anything comes from them, only time will tell…

furious said:

• Sail power doesn’t add much power.

There is quite a lot of different wind assisted ship propulsion systems being investigated at the moment. Whether anything comes from them, only time will tell…

Wind turbine assisted?

Even after they’re loaded, they’re not always safe, as evidenced by that ship recently that had all those containers fall overboard.

Happens more often than you might think. Lost containers can be a hazard. Sometimes they float just at the surface, and are practically impossible to see. They’re tough, and can be a genuine hazard to even big vessels.

All you can do is note whatever numbers you can see, and sink them if you can.

As for loading containers by drone helicopter – good luck with that.

Ask any Navy helicopter pilot about landing on a deck, even in the best of conditions.

Getting a drone helicopter to position a loaded container with the necessary precision onto a stack of containers on a container ship that’s pitching and rolling at an open sea anchorage…let me know when the trials are to be held. It ought to be worth a guinea a minute as entertainment.

A 40 ft container can have a max weight of around 26 tonnes, with an empty weight of just under 4 tonnes.

A Chinook helicopter can lift about 4.5 tonnes maximum.
A Mil Mi-26 can lift about 20 tonnes. This is the largest helicopter in service.

Mi-26s are HUGE. You would need a drone larger than the largest helicopter currently in service to go around picking up loaded containers. Just because it is a drone does not mean it can be small. The rotor area is what determines lifting capacity. You need a massive rotor area to generate that much lift.

party_pants said:

A 40 ft container can have a max weight of around 26 tonnes, with an empty weight of just under 4 tonnes.

A Chinook helicopter can lift about 4.5 tonnes maximum.
A Mil Mi-26 can lift about 20 tonnes. This is the largest helicopter in service.

Mi-26s are HUGE. You would need a drone larger than the largest helicopter currently in service to go around picking up loaded containers. Just because it is a drone does not mean it can be small. The rotor area is what determines lifting capacity. You need a massive rotor area to generate that much lift.

It is a job for Elvis.

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

A 40 ft container can have a max weight of around 26 tonnes, with an empty weight of just under 4 tonnes.

A Chinook helicopter can lift about 4.5 tonnes maximum.
A Mil Mi-26 can lift about 20 tonnes. This is the largest helicopter in service.

Mi-26s are HUGE. You would need a drone larger than the largest helicopter currently in service to go around picking up loaded containers. Just because it is a drone does not mean it can be small. The rotor area is what determines lifting capacity. You need a massive rotor area to generate that much lift.

It is a job for Elvis.

8 tonnes.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

A 40 ft container can have a max weight of around 26 tonnes, with an empty weight of just under 4 tonnes.

A Chinook helicopter can lift about 4.5 tonnes maximum.
A Mil Mi-26 can lift about 20 tonnes. This is the largest helicopter in service.

Mi-26s are HUGE. You would need a drone larger than the largest helicopter currently in service to go around picking up loaded containers. Just because it is a drone does not mean it can be small. The rotor area is what determines lifting capacity. You need a massive rotor area to generate that much lift.

It is a job for Elvis.

8 tonnes.

It’s more than Elvis can handle. Leave him in the building.

The containers would be take on and off in calm waters not the high seas

The drones could be double bladed hexacopters

Battery operated. The batteries would be quick swap and charged up via the ships dedicated electrical system.

You don’t need cranes or ground crew , the truck might turn up and the drone grabs straight from the truck.

wookiemeister said:

The containers would be take on and off in calm waters not the high seas

The drones could be double bladed hexacopters

Battery operated. The batteries would be quick swap and charged up via the ships dedicated electrical system.

You don’t need cranes or ground crew , the truck might turn up and the drone grabs straight from the truck.

Fucking bullshit.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

The containers would be take on and off in calm waters not the high seas

The drones could be double bladed hexacopters

Battery operated. The batteries would be quick swap and charged up via the ships dedicated electrical system.

You don’t need cranes or ground crew , the truck might turn up and the drone grabs straight from the truck.

Fucking bullshit.

Like rockets that can land on their tails ?

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

The containers would be take on and off in calm waters not the high seas

The drones could be double bladed hexacopters

Battery operated. The batteries would be quick swap and charged up via the ships dedicated electrical system.

You don’t need cranes or ground crew , the truck might turn up and the drone grabs straight from the truck.

Fucking bullshit.

Like rockets that can land on their tails ?

No not like that at all. They (the rockets) actually exist.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Fucking bullshit.

Like rockets that can land on their tails ?

No not like that at all. They (the rockets) actually exist.

I’m spit balling ideas, its how you get to other ideas.