NYK SUPER ECO SHIP 2030 More info about the ship: www.nyk.com/english/csr/envi/e... Contact Elomatic: www.elomatic.com/xml/articles/... Music by Incompetech: incompetech.com
It is a fantastic out of the box thinking presentation. for this you have my respect.. for the realisation of the project I have more than a few doubts though... Like wave impact on solar panels, bending and torsional strength of such a large vessel at the connection points of the modules. Hold ventilation, crews safety, etc. (hmm not enough characters to sum it up) if it was meant as a presentation of a vision great job! If not I really hope you will prove me wrong and overcome my doubts!!
by the looks of it, it seems it would cost about 2 bn $. i wonder who's gonna pay so much for container vessel ?! even with 70% fuel saving which is doubtful since current biggest container ships power exceed 80MW which is enough to power a city of 100 000 people. and with all the technology (such as superconductors, glass helicopter pad haha...) year 2300 is more likely
Uh. Nhìn lại thì đây là 1 thiết kế quá lý tưởng , lý tưởng nhất là lấy năng lượng mặt trời, gió , pin. Cấu trúc bốc dỡ hàng. Đặt biệt hơn là tách con tàu ra thành 4 phần. Điều này thì cũng có thể làm được 😁 và chỉ áp dụng cho những tuyến đường thủy lý tưởng như chạy trong 1 cái hồ bể nước lặng sóng. Còn mà chạy ngoài biển thì cần còn tàu leo lên đỉnh sóng tương đối cao tầm 3 mét thôi thì con tàu sẽ tự tử bằng chính trọng lượng của mình nó sẽ bẻ gãy con tàu ra thành 4 khúc mà thuyền trưởng không cần bấm nút hoạt động.
Filip Von Filbert I finally understand what he said and it took 2 months He is surprised that the collision cracked the ship I was thrown off because the hull wasn’t split it’s just one of the upper decks
Solar energy has a long way to go before it's reliable long term. Most of those solar panels would need to be replaced within 5 years due to clouding of the transparent top layer. Whatever efficiency those panels start out at, they will only get worse over time. Next, wind. Wind is never a guarantee at sea. Yes it's quite common, but the doldrums are a real thing (open sea with no wind). Thus on a cloudy day with no wind, you're essentially back to a regular freighter anyway. Finally, creature comforts are not a thing on freighters. If it won't help the ship do a better job, it's not in the plan. Large GLASS helipad? Right... Not to mention the onboard garden and space-wasting circular ramp. Those would be the first items to be axed when the budget gets tight. Next, a modular ship that's engineered to break apart? Nope...too much weight would be lost in reinforcing those joints, and exactly how will those smaller portions maneuver in port? To get to the next level you need to realize what container ships are right now; powered boxes that can displace a stupid amount of mass. Simple, low maintenance, and predictable cost of operation. Any shipping company wanting to buy these (assuming they perform to projected levels, which is suspect) would need to factor in the functions and abilities against the costs to have them. Those costs include financial, structural, performance, reliability, durability, and profitability just for starters. The next concern is to have a dockside infrastructure ready to capitalize on the ships abilities and features. Setting the bar higher and meeting that level is fine, but most companies will want to see at least a +10% return on investment before they buy into cutting edge anything.
Some one had one of those 'good ideas'; the sort that need to get taken down by the 'grown ups' before they, the liberal arts graduate management clique with the MBa's, kill & maim real people.
Stability, the hull is relatively heavy while the top layers are relatively light. Ship stability is a subject that can get very complicated very fast so unless you have a lot of time trust the experts on this they have had lots of practice and are good at getting the most cargo in the available space. Tankers and ore carriers have a relatively low profile when loaded compared to the freeboard when in ballast.
Research continues. Wallenius are currently giving wind power a go with wing form ‘sails’ but evidence is a little short of proof as of this date. KTH (Kungliga Tekniska högskolan), a sort of up market university in Stockholm, who are using the funding to derive results will probably, and eventually, in the best traditions of academia ‘publish’ a ‘paper’ unless the funders invoke the well known ‘commercial sensitivity clause’ of their funding agreement with the KTH. Ten years in academia is but the blinking of an eye.
Edit: so... this comment was basically stupid past me thinking he knew better than paid professionals since I'd read like 5 wikipedia pages and bashed this design in favor of a 1890s steam-sailboat... yeah, it aged like milk- also, I completely agree with the replies, yall have a great day :D
Coal might take up a lot of valuable cargo room don't you think? Think of how much coal had to be brought along behind old trains, and they didn't have any water resistance to deal with. A better idea might be a hydrogen propulsion system which would have only water vapor emissions and no shortage of saltwater fuel...
Considering that many ships weigh in excess of 50,000 tons, sails could not work as the main source of energy because of the massive force needed to move a ship through water. By using sails you lessen cargo carrying capacity because sails and their support structures take up a lot of space. A ship that weighs 50,000 tons requires a lot of energy, around 25MW when steaming ahead, small wind turbines could not provide the extra power need to move the ship through water because of the abysmal amount of power they produce(100kW each), (1200-2400kW when considering your ship concept.) These wind turbines would cannibalise even more cargo space, be a hazard to the crew, and would be hard because of the sails. Coal fired power plants require large boilers and are woefully inefficient, in addition to this coal is a very polluting fuel, producing harmful gases and particualte matter. In short, no ones gonna cannibalise your idea.
Sail technology isn't significantly better now than it was 100 years ago. It might've been a long time ago but there were some clever people about. Centuries... no, millenia of evolution and refinement went into sail technology, under intense pressure to evolve over that time by wars and competition for profit (including speed). By the late 1800s / early 1900s they really knew how to sail, yet the whole world abandoned it for power (apart from sailing purely for enjoyment/sport), they wouldn't have done that without good reason. Some modernised equipment such as electric winches wouldn't make much difference compared to the cheap expendable labour they had back then. Any minor improvement in sail would be offset by the major improvements in engine technology since it first bettered sailing. Plastic and metal sails aren't practical due to their weight and manageability, and they're not much more efficient anyway. If they were advantageous then pleasure/racing yachts would be using them all over already. Watch some sail races or go to a harbour full of modern cruising yachts, they still all use canvas. It would certainly be less polluting to go back to using sailing as a primary means of getting about, but at the cost of an infeasibly massive reduction of speed and capacity. We probably should anyway to aid our inadequate attempts at stopping destroying the planet, but it's part of a many number of things we should be doing but people are too greedy for, it's a big sacrifice for about 2% of the world's pollution, what about the other 98%? The effect of wind turbines would be in direct opposition to the sails. Any gains in electricity generation would be lost in sailpower/speed. There's a reason people switched from coal to oil in the first place. Too much to get into here, watch "The Great Big Move"'s youtube video about "Coaling/Bunkering an Ocean Liner" as a start. It's good to think innovatively but it's not easy to come up with something that works.
@@alkaholic4848 True, true. sails ain't getting any faster, turbines would help about as much as stomping on the brake pedal and coal probably isn't the best. I completely agree with ya on all those now also, thanks for finding this old comment! opinions change and I've kinda been meaning to get rid of these for a while now...
Why not nuclear? The navy had had success, pretty sure the US navy is 100% safe as well. Spare me the nuclear waste, I realize that. I’m talking clean amd efficient now!
If you do a web search for ‘nuclear ship savannah’ you will see that it has been tried and did not work. A similarly vessel heavily subsidised, by the government, vessel is in use in Russia which also operates, in support of the Northern Sea Route, a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers all of these may, or may not, have been completely without issues. Just think; would you have full confidence in the management of a nuclear reactor under the control of an anonymous entity only traceable, perhaps, via a letter box in a FOC (flag of convenience) nation state? If you are, could you sell that confidence to Japan, the state that hosted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear detonations as well as more recently the Fukushima ‘event’? Then try that same, or a similar, sales strategy on Ukraine, the nation state that as a part of the USSR (CCCP) hosted the Chernobyl ‘event’. Modern iterations of nuclear energy, thorium fuel, molten salt reactors or fusion reactors, will carry the legacy of past problems. It is the global trepidation of anything with 'nuclear' in the name and the economics of nuclear having transitioned from 'energy to cheap to charge for' too 'the costs of remediation are incalculable' that will prevent the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of creating energy at sea. Modern reaction systems may have overcome the safety problems but the general public, having been misled in the past, will be reluctant to believe the fresh new promises. The incident of the ‘Ever Given’ blocking the Suez Canal, March 2021, may also have a little to add to this debate. The cooling water on ships tends to get taken in from near the bottom so when running aground the inlets are in a prime spot to get plugged up restricting, if not stopping, the flow of coolant. One thing that the TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents all had in common was that the supply of coolant, or rather lack thereof, was a fundamental cause. ‘They’ say nuclear is cheap, it’s not it is expensive and has a large embedded carbon quotient as well as being complicated, dangerous, not universally socially acceptable and having only ‘no need for refuelling’ as a questionable advantage; actually it does need refuelling just not as often. When ‘they’ do need to refill the warming up stuff it takes considerable longer than pumping tonnes of thick black stuff, cSt380 HFO, or thin runny stuff, MDO, onboard which is one of the reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are pushed about by ICEs and gas turbines thus using a similar fuel as the aircraft that fly off of them. The Royal Navy (RN) with a high degree of skill and expertise uses, at vast expenses to the UK taxpayer, a current operational nuclear fleet of 11 submarines (also known as ‘boats’) in two flotillas, seven attack subs and four ballistic missile boats. The carbon footprint of all the extra bits of hardware and the fuel, including processing thereof, from ground to propeller, are the external costs that never seem to get considered. Disposal, (deleted but yes it would be an issue) The USN is not, as far as I know, a commercial organisation working to very tight margins and also has the skill and expertise to handle the complexities of nuclear power; so as well as submarines their aircraft carriers are nuclear powered and each of the current iteration has a build cost three times that of QE/PoW, bigger crews and more generous funding. For those who still think that nuclear energy might be the answer I recommend this report: - www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines?ocid=ww.social.link.email. The navy of the USSR might have been under resourced and over extended but it was still generously supported in comparison with merchant shipping
@@BernardLS thank you for an intelligent sourced argument. I’m sold, I didn’t even factor in build cost, which would be a prohibited factor in a private sector non subsidized company. I rest your case. The one factor you figure in, that I could care less about is the “socially acceptable” since that is more feelings based and highly subjective. Too many people are shallow in their beliefs, mainly because they are driven by headlines, which then factors in to a confirmation bias. I am a little guilty of that here, reacting with my nuclear comment. I’m glad I did given your well thought out and fact based argument against.
@@mitchcumstein9808 my pleasure. I have been following the video since it was first posted so have developed the response based on the input from others fusion or SMRs may have a commercial chance once proven but will still have the emotional hurdle and legacy issues to overcome.
This looked like a fantastic idea right up until the ship broke itself into pieces to dock. That part of the design seems to fail on multiple levels. 1. It's adds a ridiculous level of complexity to the design. Power, data, water, hydraulics et al will all need multiple hardened interconnections at every single break point. 2. the ship will need multiple absolutely massive structural elements throughout that will add huge weight and be a corrosion hotspot as multple internal areas will be repeatedly exposed to salt water and then sealed shut again. 3. all of these modular joins will run through the full cross section of the ship and be able to be fully detatchable yet also completely watertight *and* flexible enough to allow for the movement of the hull with hogging/sagging, as well as lateral movements. All in all, though the rest of the design seems interesting (there are some elements I don't see working or that are good in concept but I think will stuggle to gain traction, namely the split cargo system which I think will struggle to be efficient when working with existing port infrastructure) I think this element adds nothing but needless cost and complexity.
Considerate comment. Interesting word "hogging". Took only a moment to glean the meaning. Sitting beside "sagging" helped. But they seem a little odd together. I see it like a show car. Plenty would be lost before the production phase. If it ever got that far. Notice the pretty sketches? Often the target audience of these things is wealthy ideots with a drink in their hands. I can pass along a word to you also: Seduction.
