Inside The World's First Electric Cargo Ship

[@MrSmith-ok7tl]

The B-roll at 2:15 to 2:18 shows a smaller jet air craft engine, NOT a marine "tunnel thruster." Overall, this is an interesting first step though.

[@bg73]

Well spotted

[@congt9288]

Well spotted - just goes to show the amount of bulls**te around these days.

[@ryanroberts1104]

Not to mention almost all large ships these days are already powered by electric motors - they just make electricity with a diesel generator. There isn't any new technology in this thing.

[@tduic]

@@ryanroberts1104 Don't you think that a replacement of diesel engine with batteries is a very new technology for ships?

[@ryanroberts1104]

@@tduic No, that could not be more simple. The drive system itself is never changed, they had electric submarines in WW2. Nothing new has to be invented or engineered. The only reason it never caught on, and still won't, is it is not cost or weight efficient. This is the equivalent of replacing the alkaline batteries in your remote with rechargeable ones.

[@mwmentor]

Proof of concept is never cheap and it could just become a reasonable model for the future...

[@ligarsystm]

Good thing is there is a litany of mechanical stuff that gets eliminated. Things that are unmoving tend to be more reliable and cost less.

[@ryanroberts1104]

It's proof that this simply isn't possible until we make some huge breakthroughs in battery technology. This thing is little more than a decoration, it doesn't actually do anything useful.

[@ligarsystm]

@@ryanroberts1104 The same thing was said about the Tesla Roadster 10 years ago. Most of the needed technologies are already here, all that's needed is mass production on a scale that mirrors the current internal combustion infrastructure. I agree that long range cross Pacific and cross Atlantic is not really viable at the moment. But, anything else, short or intermediate is fully viable once the parts are available. The math already makes sense for this to happen. If you tell a ship owner "hey I can cut your fuel and maintenance bill by 70%" they will be more than willing to front the extra upfront.

[@ryanroberts1104]

@@ligarsystm Wrong. Current battery technology cannot support this. This is a *TINY* ship and it can only go 30 miles! The first Tesla roadster was much better than that and we had enough battery technology to power it. Until somebody makes a breakthrough that does not currently exist, this is not possible. If you put enough current technology batteries on this ship for a useful range it would sink. This is only a possibility when somebody invents an entirely new battery that blows away the best batteries we have today. That will likely happen eventually, but not for a very, very, very long time. It's also going to be more expensive for a very long time, and cargo companies are into shaving every last penny. They would still burn coal if they found it economical. And since they mostly travel in international waters with the flag of third world countries, there is no way to force them to do anything cleaner. Most modern ships use electric propulsion anyway, so there is nothing exciting or new here. They just replaced the diesel generator with a far more expensive battery.

[@ligarsystm]

@@ryanroberts1104 assuming the Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C in a large container ship (27K TEU) uses 25% of max power for 20 days. This works to only 25,000hp and 9GWH~ consumed. This would need 90,000 model S battery packs at about 54,000 tonnes or so assuming crap for batteries (18650 cells). It is unreasonable to say stuff hasn't gotten better in the last 10 years. More realistically is there is about a 30% efficiency improvement between packaging and moving to larger cells and chemistry improvements. Assuming the best stuff you can do today cost no object would be less than 30,000 tonnes needed. Since the C rate is so low passive cooling might be possible that would remove another 1000-500 tones of cooling alone? Also the Low C rate allows for further optimization of the battery for capacity density instead of power density. (about another 10%-15% here) Possible to get this to maybe 25,000 tonnes. Depends on exactly how its done. The Wärtsilä plus supporting fuel and equipment would work to about 20,000 -30,000 tones. Charging really is not an issue for the most part as the ships are normally docked for sever days to a week at a time. So no, it is totally reasonable, given current technology if you forgive manufacturing needed to make that number of batteries.

[@thehumancanary131]

Pure clickbait! The image to click on shows a container ship with thousands of containers - but the "fully-electrified, fully-autonomous cargo ship" which is the real subject of the video can only carry "a little over 100 containers." Why do you try to mislead people? Don't you have any probity at all?

[@BernardLS]

Just think of it as a research project and in the same way that the Wright Flyer gave us the Airbus 380 'mighty oaks from little acorns grow'.

[@FALprofessional]

That charge time must be loooooonnng. I want to see the thicker gauge charging cable and the charge rate they've managed.

[@busslayer4790]

Since this is a container ship, it seems like they could have batteries built the same size as a standard container and swap the battery at every port call using the same equipment used to load/unload. Then recharging time wouldn't be a concern.

[@ricksaunders3889]

@@busslayer4790 That sir is a brilliant idea.

[@markreed9853]

it will be in port a while so not an issue and if this use case didn't work they wouldn't be using it.

[@Anomize23]

While it docks unloading, im sure it could make up time for to charge

[@ArKritz84]

In all probability, they use a pantograph for charging. Smaller electric car ferries charge for about half the time they run, but I don't know if/how it scales.

[@Vanyali]

I admit it's a big improvement but you can't call an EV zero-emission if 'MOST' of it's power comes from clean energy what about the rest... but as said, it's a big improvement already and if we keep working on these vessels, we'll get there, hopefully not to late...

[@MrFredrikWolf]

99% in norway

[@rowaystarco]

Norway has been a net exporter of fully clean energy. In general more clean energy is exported than unclean energy is imported. So this ship probably is more or less zero emissions.

[@manuelmakaroni2641]

@@rowaystarco Norway doesnt need to import any energy norway is europes biggest EXPORTER of energy in europe, they have tons of oil and gas fields in the ocean that they tap into since 40-50 years.

[@lucyhumber6053]

With the fossil fuels used to power traditional engines you could produce 3 times the electricity for EVs, so it's a big difference regardless.

[@whitezkullgamer1018]

Elon Musk be like: *Write that down! Write that down!*

[@glennalexon1530]

I think 7 mwh is about 100 times as much as a typical 70 kwh EV battery, not 1000 times as much.

[@tomcapon4447]

Later they mention another number that sounds like it should have been 70MWh, which makes more sense to me. A Tesla Semi has a 1-2MWh pack and this ship is bigger than 7 of them!

[@batuhansanli869]

mega /kilo =1000 so he is right

[@RalphEllis]

7 mwh is 7,000 kwh. So yes, it is only 100 times the Tesla battery. R

[@makisekuurisuu]

This is very promising! Here's another step towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions and making use of the ocean as a path for transport to reduce energy spent on land roads.

[@donaldkuell3245]

Good

[@ryzlot]

C-OH-Two is NOT a greenhouse gas JR

[@motormech1h343]

Yeah and it will take you 3 months to get a new I phone

[@Steelrat1994]

But is this economically viable? They never said how it compares to ICE ships in production costs, operation and maintenance, costs, lifetime, repairs etc. If it isn't at least close enough to ICE haulers for them to become an economically attractive choice with some government subsidizing - they are quite pointless. We're currently so battery constrained, that it isn't likely ships would switch to electric in the next 30 years.

[@makisekuurisuu]

@@Steelrat1994 Unfortunately, we don't know if it's economically viable for now. If we can demand transparency in production, operation, and maintenance costs to compare it with our current ship models used in supply chains, then that's another big step to look into possible energy demand metrics based on quality and efficiency of both models. I'm not saying it's a panacea to solve climate change in general, but it's a very promising tool to at least reduce GHG emissions (if proven). In terms of sustainability, this electric cargo ship has the upper hand. Burning coal to power up our current ships emit a lot of GHG emissions (as much as cars, trains, planes, etc.) and in 2019, 29% of the world's GHG emissions were from the transportation sector. If we can transition into renewables to power up ships (like what we do in cars and trains), then it will make a lot of improvement to achieve ~net zero in the future but the question is 'when'? So, I agree with you in that part. There's no certainty yet. As for the possible battery supply scarcity, I agree with you as well. If we can't find alternatives to store energy in lithium-ion baterries from renewable sources, our mineral supplies in battery production will soon deplete. If we can optimize the use of Li-ion batteries to prolong battery life, then it's great but more likely, it will decrease battery capacity by 20% every 300-500 charge cycles or an estimated 3-5 years depending on maintenance -- then we have to discard it and change it again to keep the operation running. Bottomline: Innovation + a global collective effort are required to tackle climate change.

[@davidhugill4668]

KIS should apply here. Why test out electric propulsion AND autonomy at the same time? Failure in one aspect will throw doubt on the other (justified or not). A crewed electric ship would prove the feasibility of marine electric propulsion. Meanwhile, autonomic navigation can be tested out on a plethora of existing vessels, with a lot less cost. If and when both technologies are proven, then hallelujah - put them together. Good luck!

[@kendallbelletti5974]

I thought that too, but then thought about the additional demand that would put on the ship’s battery which would shorten its max travel capability. Just a thought

[@NickOvchinnikov]

Electrical propulsion has been used for awhile. Ship mains (generators) are located mid ship and provide power to propulsion motors. Doesn't seem to crazy... Just need energy dense electricity storage. I don't think it's any cleaner though...

[@rowaystarco]

Norway already has quite a few electric ferries. The electric propulsion tech is not new anymore.

[@martinsfernando2521]

Another awesome video!❤️❤️Am investing my time and money in crypto now with the help of Christine Taylor, this new price is a clear sign for new investors to come in ✅✅...

[@martinsfernando2521]

Orrr ͲeIєɠɾαm👉cryptotaylors

[@damietegillis9267]

Wow, I'm currently trading with Mrs Taylor too. She's the best at what she does. Very polite and credible.

[@davidjack9477]

Expert Christine Taylor has been managing my trade for months and I keep making profits every week, made $9,650 last week.

[@damietegillis9267]

I've worked with 4 traders in the past but none of them is as efficient as she is, her trading strategies are awesome.

[@damietegillis9267]

Her assurance has made me to invest without the fear of losing, I got four of my friends Involved with her already.

[@dylanmorgan5589]

Meanwhile every nuclear ship is just ignored due to being zero emission in the wrong decade and used by the Navy.

[@legopirat17]

Nuclear technology is far more complex to be implemented on small ship than electric propulsion. Also safety requrements are higher.

[@antgrkh588]

Come back when we will have cold fusion ships

[@hughlevantjames905]

Those reactors are expensive af

[@wolframsmith5]

simply because it's far more expensive than what it could offer for a cilivian use

[@markmoreno7295]

An autonomous ship, by definition, does not need a crew. A nuclear ship not only needs a crew, it needs a highly skilled one that is paid above the rank and file sailor. Even a sailing ship, crewed by apprentices who pay for their education with containers filled with harmless cargo, poses little harm if they are hi-jacked by pirates. A nuclear ship hijacked by terrorists could cause trouble. That is why such vessels are often operated by the military, since no terrorist would consider trying to attack one.

[@bruhder5854]

@Tech vision just a thought but given the fact that about every video of yours manages to get a chain of comments from crypto scammers, it might be a good idea to ban certain words like crypto or bitcoin.

[@FALprofessional]

It's definitely not exclusive to this channel. Anything relating to tech or economics gets these f00kers. It's a plague.

[@tootsie5052]

Noticed that last night on a video and thought it was a scam, all of the comments had the same grammatical errors.

[@bigb7965]

2:15 "..and a pair of electric tunnel thrusters..." shows a jet engine

[@congt9288]

Goes to show that even a site that calls itself Tech something or other cannot avoid showing their ignorance.

[@ezekielmorgan1042]

I think electrification of these boats makes much more sense for now than cars. If they can figure out a way to recharge at sea or make the batteries much more efficient, I can see this technology shaping the future of our commerce

[@tduic]

Definitely, because the weight of the batteries in ships can actually help the ship be more stable, replacing a part of ballast water that already has to be there. Recharging on sea is in my view possible only with a large array of sollar cells on deck, feasible on tankers and other cargo ships with deck covers, but not so easy with container ships.

[@bankoleogundero9446]

Hmm... The cons outweigh the pros. 1) It's more expensive than standard ships in its class 2) Maximum containers it can carry is 100 which is very tiny compared with standard ships in its class. 3) It's slower than other ships in its class. Business and economic wise, this does NOT make sense. If you swap out the battery for nuclear though, that will make more sense. Nuclear is also zero emissions.

[@BernardLS]

Just think of it as a research project and in the same way that the Wright Flyer gave us the Airbus 380 'mighty oaks from little acorns grow'. WRT nukes 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, small modular 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. Similarly and only months later, May 2021, had the ‘X Press Pearl’ been nuclear powered then a major port for a populous nation in the global South would have possible been the site of a significant exclusion zone due to a non power plant related incident. If the ‘X Press Pearl’ had on board a fired up but ‘safe’ molten salt reactor and found herself having to run down the possible 12.5 megaWatts of energy in the power cycle would a stable cool down have been possible?

[@stuarthirsch]

Better off using hydrogen fuel cells. Nuclear power plants could efficiently produce hydrogen.

[@jochenschrey2909]

Why should speed or capacity matter, if something gets its job done and doesn't need crew?

[@xx5zi]

The problem with nuclear is that you've never developed a safe disposal system for waste.

[@norbertcobangbang7878]

This is so amazing! If all machines are electrically generated, the world will be a better place.

[@richardwilde1348]

Provided the electricity is generated cleanly - although electric motors are also often about 3x more efficient, so it can be an improvement even with a somewhat dirty input.

[@congt9288]

Machines are not electrically generated. They are electricity consumers of electricity from machines that produce electricity.

[@neilsworkshopisaac8177]

You need to research the dirty business of Lithium and Cobalt mining in country's where this is happening you might think differently. Watch last weeks panorama program about the Electric car revolution and mining pollution.

[@ericrotsinger9729]

It's a good start. Don't believe in all this Climate Change hysteria but heading for cleaner air and cleaner water is never a bad thing.

[@maestrohun]

LOL. Were do you live , If you do not believe in? I am young but I still can you say that under 20 years, we have warmer summer and winter and less rain in the middle of Europe. My childhood were snow all winter. Recently if snowing during winter that is a kinda "miracle" and the avg temp at least 5C° more than 20 years before. Greeting from Hungary!

[@EIGYRO]

If you are doing a video about a small, short-range electric ship, don't intersperse clips of huge, ocean-going container ships. I gave it 0:28 before grading it B.S. Mindless enthusiasm doesn't cut it against physics.

[@BernardLS]

Just think of it as a research project and in the same way that the Wright Flyer gave us the Airbus 380 'mighty oaks from little acorns grow'.

[@EIGYRO]

@@BernardLS Correct. But that took 100 years or so. BTW, I built and flew my own flying machine(autogyro), and spent some years at sea, so I claim a little familiarity with both. It's the mindless enthusiasm with which the presenter misleads the uninformed that gets my goat. But only in a small way. It is only KZbin, after all.

[@mrredpill3121]

Anything man made will never be zero emissions

[@markw4263]

Gotta start somewhere! Excellent test platform.

[@jmonsted]

There's plenty of near-shore transportation being done, so this little ship will be a very welcome sight in my neighborhood.

[@marsrocket]

It’ll be interesting to see what the economic impact of replacing drivers for 40000 shipments “at a stroke” will be.

[@jonnyaxelsson9940]

A surplus of truck drivers is not a problem at the moment.

[@BernardLS]

A bad system will, when improved, have some immediate negative impacts but if the benefits out way the detriments must we keep pounding ourselves into the ground?

[@nathanieong6212]

But the average age of hauliers are old, in the U.K. it’s 53 which mean most of them will just retire when there’s a surplus.

[@shamicentertainment1262]

Heaps of industries will automate and replace millions of workers in the next few decades.

[@Anomize23]

They would be fools leaving them unmanned. Look at the movie captain phillips that tells a true story what happens when pirates get ahold of that precious cargo

[@stuarthirsch]

I think hydrogen fuel cell ships are more feasible. They will have some batteries but batteries won't be the major power system. They may have some wind/sail system to supplement. Automatic sailing and operation is inevitable however, but under human supervision and human ability to take over if neccessary.

[@ahnafhabib1337]

Hydrogen is expensive and more dangerous.

[@stephenmoncrieff2056]

This is very cool . Electric vehicles are definitely the way of the future . The only real concern I have about more vehicles going electric is the infrastructure needed to charge all this isn't even close to being ready .

[@traustitj]

Do you imagine that there were petrol stations everywhere just waiting for fuel cars in the 1900s? You can easily drive all over Europe in electric cars. There are charging stations almost every 150km radius. Some places are worse than others. But you always have an electric outlet near you. Hotels allow you to charge while you sleep. But mostly, you charge at home. I charge over 99% at home. Only while traveling I use chargers. It is also much cheaper.

[@stalkev]

I think it is an excellent test bed. Long term I wonder what will happen to the millions of disgarded batteries though..... Thank you for sharing...

[@bzdtemp]

This is very nice, but it will never be feasible to drive oceangoing ships on battery power unless there is like some miracle that makes batteries much much smaller and cheaper. Instead ships are going carbon neutral by burning green methanol or similar is much more likely to be the way forward, actually Maersk already have three ships being build meant to run carbon neutral.

[@juanjosefraga9310]

100% agree.

[@trcmf]

This is an amazing project. Bring in EV ships

[@rasimkazi7086]

But won't it affects for mechanical engineers??

[@Sumitkumar-hn7it]

@@rasimkazi7086 bro are you indian?

[@rasimkazi7086]

@@Sumitkumar-hn7it Yes bro. How to you know??

[@Sumitkumar-hn7it]

@@rasimkazi7086 because mechanical engineer from india are very tensed about their job

[@ironhorsehero1988]

100 containers vs 24k containers, 30/40 miles vs half way around the planet, chocolate teaspoon comes to mind.

[@dougm3037]

Hopefully a commercially viable version of this container carrier comes on the scene in the not too distant future when the supply chains are once more intact. Right now there's too many container ships anchored offshore waiting to be unloaded.

[@vernepavreal7296]

Great video and of course the electric ship is a great idea also your video was worth the like just for the concluding pun cheers

[@user-qx1qg6nl3p]

I achieved financial rest through my deliberate and insightful research on Investing in stocks and cryptocurrencies. Heartfelt regards to Mr Ethan J. krone, whose assistance and trading strategies are highly exceptional

[@explorenaked]

Hi Mitchell. Can I call you to get my Amazon refund?

[@user-qx1qg6nl3p]

@@explorenaked yeah

[@user-qx1qg6nl3p]

@@explorenaked for sure

[@user-qx1qg6nl3p]

† ①③❍⑤⑥⑨⑦③⑥❍①📝

[@erikschiegg68]

Depends on the lifespan of the battery and I doubt that the ship lasts three times longer. But hey, a first try.

[@J3FFXO]

so inter-swappable batteries and solar panels.. no worries your kids kids kids willl live on 💿

[@Bobbleoff]

Just look what the Tesla roadster started. People laughed at it at first and then the big legacy manufacturers soon found them self's needing to replicate what Tesla was doing.

[@cyberi4a]

Never thought I'd ever hear the phrase of 'fertilizer giant' spoken....LOL

[@Mycobob]

This is like 3 steps away from AI Vikings. Just calling it now.

[@Mark-gk1bu]

One of the best uses for electric propulsion to reduce carbon emission. They should drop the word "inside" from the title of this video though, because they didn't show anything about the inside of the ship.

[@itheniftyalpha5422]

Because of the economic crisis and the rate of unemployment, now is the best time to invest and make money 💯

[@molly8811]

You can say that again

[@matthewcox1948]

Crypto is the new gold

[@optionguide5893]

Stocks are good but Crypto is better

[@craighowell8052]

I wanted to trade crypto but got confused by the fluctuations in price

[@jessiedecker1443]

It won't bother you if you trade with a professional like Mr Jefferson Windham

[@atlanticjatt7525]

What about the immense pollution produced during production of such a missive 7mwh battery.

[@fredsimon6640]

Good idea.

[@Kilroy1225]

100 cargo containers? Wouldn't that be equivalent to a large train? With the route shown, why couldn't an electrified train cover this? No batteries needed. Seems like this would be inefficient. What am I missing? Anyone?

[@BernardLS]

Building railways in Norway can be tricky as some d..k head stuck mountains all over the place. When there is available water use that instead, the Norse have a long tradition with floaty things.

[@bengrant8890]

Anything is better than nothing.

[@jasonolinger7585]

100 containers is very small relative to the normal carriers.

[@BernardLS]

Just think of it as a research project and in the same way that the Wright Flyer gave us the Airbus 380 'mighty oaks from little acorns grow'.

[@xx5zi]

It's a step in the right direction.

[@md.mostafakhan4529]

Good news but that is not an "Inside" look.

[@eccentricsmithy2746]

A modern day pirates dream...no one around, take your time stealing the cargo.

[@BernardLS]

Not really a problem on that particular route, 1 000 years ago it would have been a real thing but the UK was a much better target for the locals in those days. Yes I know the UK was not a 'thing' 1 000 years ago (:-).

[@FriedrichOettingen]

Interesting project. And just like that, many truck drivers lost their jobs

[@BernardLS]

40 000 movements a year so 40 drivers doing 1 000 trips. Lots of infrastructure wear and tear, no economies pf scale and poorer environmental benefits. WRT job losses a bad system will, when improved, have some immediate negative impacts but if the benefits out way the detriments must we keep pounding ourselves into the ground? There are no benefits, long or short term, of being unemployed, or under employed, any unrealised potential is a waste but simply providing 'a job' so that 'a wage' can be paid is rather short sighted. Would it not be better to create fulfilling jobs that provide full realisation of the workers potential and maximum benefit to society?

[@ricr.4669]

We gotta understand where does electricity come from

[@xx5zi]

More and more, it's coming from renewable energy sources. It was mentioned specifically in the video that their chief source of electricity is hydro, and the Scandinavian countries have moved almost entirely away from fossil fueled power plants.

[@EssixMage]

That is one of the best ideas I've ever heard in my life.

[@ronnieg6358]

You should try and get out more.

[@nathanieong6212]

With that massive battery it’s putting enormous pressure on the grid to charge it. And if this is scale up charging time will most likely exceed loading and offloading time. I think hydrogen or maybe hybrid battery/ hydrogen is the better solution.

[@KieranMullen]

It takes electricity to make hydrogen which is lost in the manufacturing process.

[@nathanieong6212]

@@KieranMullen the weight of battery will require energy to carry it.

[@Predator42ID]

@@KieranMullen Hence nuclear power.

[@ragub6]

Why aren't nuclear powered cargo ships not talked about?

[@hunterprotv7780]

one thhing wrong it will kaboom

[@BernardLS]

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, small modular 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. Similarly and only months later, May 2021, had the ‘X Press Pearl’ been nuclear powered then a major port for a populous nation in the global South would have possible been the site of a significant exclusion zone due to a non power plant related incident. If the ‘X Press Pearl’ had on board a fired up but ‘safe’ molten salt reactor and found herself having to run down the possible 12.5 megaWatts of energy in the power cycle would a stable cool down have been possible?

[@xx5zi]

Because nuclear is not intrinsically safe, and there are no effective ways to safely store the wastes.

[@rtyertrt7876]

Watch the movie Shin Godzilla

[@Lwize]

What's the environmental threat if the cargo ship sinks with those batteries?

[@bobeden5027]

how to deal with onboard fires on an unmanned ship?

[@BernardLS]

A FSO (fire safety officer) once told me the three biggest causes of fires were 'men, women and children' ; so with them out of the way will there be any fires that need dealing with?

[@bobeden5027]

@@BernardLS so why do container ships catch fire, dangerous cargoes. But they do catch fire, hey?

[@BernardLS]

@@bobeden5027 agreed, an Argentine vessel just had a packaged timber cargo burn for about a week off Göteborg. The short range coaster trading of Yara Birkeland means they are only a helicopter ride away so the 'ground support' should be able to deal with all but the worst. As an aside my only 'fire scare' was when working ashore and some w..ker discarded a match in a wastepaper bin, bloody smokers.

[@bobeden5027]

@@BernardLS as an engineer aboard SS Nevasa I had to deal with many engine room fires, not my favourite pastime!

[@sorinelsorinul4084]

As always, people who never set foot on a ship are excited. Those who have a minimum understanding of what the sea is, laugh out loud towards all these “super ideas”

[@kl3664]

Am I tripping or are all the cranes bobbing up an down at 03:12?

[@bg73]

Yeah, I replayed that too...

[@Pour-me-a-red]

One small splash for a ship, one giant splash for shipkind.

[@supercadet111]

I think there would be many jurisdictions interested in the electric capabilities much more than the autonomy aspect. When the infrastructure is implemented for charging, commercial costs of operations would reduce significantly, making electric propulsion transportation the obvious business choice, ignoring the environmental aspect completely.

[@rishikeshbiswas4788]

What about the truckers who used to ship the cargo by roads They lost their jobs to make the roads quiter LOL

[@BernardLS]

A bad system will, when improved, have some immediate negative impacts but if the benefits out way the detriments must we keep pounding ourselves into the ground?

[@Dav01969]

Love the concept, hope it works bigger and better, humanity needs innovative ideas like this

[@RalphEllis]

So the two engines must be about 1 mw each, which is not big for a marine engine. Giving 3 hours total endurance, only good enough as an estuary cruiser. R

[@BernardLS]

Think of it as a research project and in the same way that the Wright Flyer gave us the Airbus 380 it may be that 'mighty oaks from little acorns grow'.

[@petercurrell9344]

It only does lo al routes where does the charging come from how was the steel for hull mad?

[@BernardLS]

Just think of it as a research project and in the same way that the Wright Flyer gave us the Airbus 380 'mighty oaks from little acorns grow'.

[@jeremyh4180]

The problem with autonomous is, it takes away jobs from regular people. Who, in fact, do need money to get through life.

[@BernardLS]

A bad system will, when improved, have some immediate negative impacts but if the benefits out way the detriments must we keep pounding ourselves into the ground? There are no benefits, long or short term, of being unemployed, or under employed, any unrealised potential is a waste but simply providing 'a job' so that 'a wage' can be paid is rather short sighted. Would it not be better to create fulfilling jobs that provide full realisation of the workers potential and maximum benefit to society?

[@bjornholmberg3208]

Its not the first ! The ferrys between Danmark and swedish port Helsingborg started 3 years ago.

[@BernardLS]

Well spotted, been on that and the even earlier Nodre älv ferry from Kornholm to the mainland.

[@dieselpreetsingh9544]

How much carbon was emitted while manufacturing this ship?

[@dieselpreetsingh9544]

@Right Wing I think a better way would be to ship using Diesel and Bio-Deisel blend and then control tailpipe emissions with DPF or SCR system or maybe both. 40% Bio-Deisel will reduce 40% diesel fumes and rest can be filtered out using DPF or SCR. This will dramatically reduce the emissions.

[@xx5zi]

The same amount of carbon emitted when a fossil fueled ship is built.

[@dieselpreetsingh9544]

@@xx5zi And what proof do you have?😂

[@naala]

Is it feasible or practical to have these shipping containers run on nuclear? like air craft carriers?

[@BernardLS]

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, small modular 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. Similarly and only months later, May 2021, had the ‘X Press Pearl’ been nuclear powered then a major port for a populous nation in the global South would have possible been the site of a significant exclusion zone due to a non power plant related incident. If the ‘X Press Pearl’ had on board a fired up but ‘safe’ molten salt reactor and found herself having to run down the possible 12.5 megaWatts of energy in the power cycle would a stable cool down have been possible?

[@carl8790]

Yeah it's possible, but it wouldn't be economical. Also, I wouldn't trust private entities disposing the waste properly, since it's expensive and companies love cutting corners.

[@PoisonNuke]

thumbs down for such a bad video-cutting. So many unrelated scenes which do not have in common with the topic.

[@allentoyokawa9068]

Nice try noRwaY but Japan has already done this

[@highnitro707]

2:16 wait a minute... that's an aircraft engine... lol

[@wildone8397]

But But.. Aircraft's are still electric though aren't they.. So it doesn't really matter if is.. 🙄

[@highnitro707]

@@wildone8397 you are implying a large range of points in saying that... aircraft do have electrical systems but are surely not primarily powered electrically (at least in the context of the aircraft engine showed at 2:16) not sure what your trying to say here guy... the video is about ships being powered primarily by electricity as opposed to the obvious chemical variants (which still have secondary electrical systems).

[@wildone8397]

@@highnitro707 I hate to do this to ya, but... WHOOOOSH!!!....... Come on bro.. You didn't get it! I'm not a greenie. I'm on your side! I'm Australian, & Zero emissions by 2050 ain't gonna happen!!!

[@highnitro707]

@@wildone8397 ahh I see, carry on sir I get it now😅

[@VishalRaj-gw7oe]

What a irony where we make electricity from ??

[@BernardLS]

They have a lot of hydro power in Norway.

[@rtyertrt7876]

Hydroelectric plants if you were paying attention

[@VishalRaj-gw7oe]

@@rtyertrt7876 talking about whole world dude still 85 percent of world need is fossil fuel !

[@rtyertrt7876]

@@VishalRaj-gw7oe I seriously doubt it's 85%

[@VishalRaj-gw7oe]

@@rtyertrt7876 it's about asian country to be precised ! And world percent is 70 percent

[@hectorkeezy1499]

As a very local solution, it seems fine. I doubt, that we will see it on the high seas.

[@adaslesniak]

Why, navigating sea is much easier than navigating streets and everyone is talking about autonomous cars. If you talk about energy requirements (amount of batteries) required for long distances... They are testing electric planes, so who knows.

[@rasmysticflame]

This is a very good idea and more companies need to start doing this, even planes too!!!

[@houssam5180]

How much time does it take to charge that huge battery?

[@BernardLS]

WRT charging think switching the containerised batteries out & in at loading and or discharge port on a batteries out last and in first to keep the stability reasonable basis.

[@dylanmorgan5589]

Why would they remove the safety crew at all? Having a few engineers on board to fix problems is a good thing. Especially out in the middle of the ocean.

[@dylanmorgan5589]

@@AskJgmail curruption? Backdoor trades? It's a dude on an electric boat in the middle of the ocean who's only job is to keep the thing running. Do you think humans can't do jobs? It's cheaper and easier to keep a person stationed on a boat to prevent every disaster than it is to hunt down a lost and broken boat in the Atlantic ocean. Plus how is your point even an argument? He has contact with literally two people, navigation services amd weather people. But in this scenario he isn't driving the automated boat so he's just watching some DVDs and running a daily check on every system on the ship. I'm sorry for making this long but that was the stupidest comment on earth.

[@TheKaffeeKlatsch]

Should make nuclear cargo ships and stop with the battery nonsense.

[@BernardLS]

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, small modular 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. Similarly and only months later, May 2021, had the ‘X Press Pearl’ been nuclear powered then a major port for a populous nation in the global South would have possible been the site of a significant exclusion zone due to a non power plant related incident. If the ‘X Press Pearl’ had on board a fired up but ‘safe’ molten salt reactor and found herself having to run down the possible 12.5 megaWatts of energy in the power cycle would a stable cool down have been possible?

[@TheKaffeeKlatsch]

@@BernardLS Well hundreds of nuclear vessels roam our seas daily and you don't even notice. I seemed to have survived living on a nuclear powered ship. Then if you believe the nut jobs, our planet will be destroyed in a few years and we'll all be destroyed..... compared to an occasional nuclear incident that a small few have died from.

[@larskronqvist9170]

30 nautical miles! A great step for Norwegians but a small step for mankind.

[@BernardLS]

Just think of it as a research project and in the same way that the Wright Flyer gave us the Airbus 380 'mighty oaks from little acorns grow'.

[@andymicklewright3749]

Bet the truck drivers are happy!

[@BernardLS]

A bad system will, when improved, have some immediate negative impacts but if the benefits out way the detriments must we keep pounding ourselves into the ground?

[@billwedeking797]

Thank you, Yara. Your future is brighter than you can imagine.

[@matt_88]

Let's get this straight... a ship that carries 1/200th of the most effective shipping vessels capacity at only half the cruising speed. Thus if done operationally correctly the larger and already-working shipping vessels can move almost 400 times more containers in the same amount of time. Batteries don't sound like the solution. Nuclear does.

[@DemPilafian]

Yep, you make a good point. Likewise, the ENIAC proves that the iPhone does not exist.

[@matt_88]

@@DemPilafian the ENIAC nor iPhone had to power physical motors nor were modern marvels of new electrical sources, but don't let that stop you making more irrelevant analogies 😂

[@BernardLS]

The vessel carries out the task that needs doing. Just think of it as a research project and in the same way that the Wright Flyer gave us the Airbus 380 'mighty oaks from little acorns grow'. 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, small modular 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. Similarly and only months later, May 2021, had the ‘X Press Pearl’ been nuclear powered then a major port for a populous nation in the global South would have possible been the site of a significant exclusion zone due to a non power plant related incident. If the ‘X Press Pearl’ had on board a fired up but ‘safe’ molten salt reactor and found herself having to run down the possible 12.5 megaWatts of energy in the power cycle would a stable cool down have been possible?

[@matt_88]

@Bernard Stewart if you're going to send drone ships places with shipping product, I guarantee there's still security personnel to make sure whatever is on the ship isn't stolen. Yes, batteries have nothing on the energy density of better alternatives. Also, nuclear technology can have improvements just like battery technology. Imagine that.

[@TCHSDragonflicks]

Didn’t we have sailing ships as the world’s first zero emission cargo ships

[@BernardLS]

To address the suggestions that wind power is the answer I offer the following. The canvas, cordage and extra manpower needed for sailing ships was never a very benign environmental option so please discount any idea of sail as ‘sustainable’ and this is without the problem that if ‘the wind don’t blow the ship don’t go’, when it does blow it often blows in the wrong direction for your cargo delivery needs and sometimes there is rather too much of it for comfort. Traditional sailing ships are unable to go directly up wind so if the wind is blowing from the direction your cargo needs to go then a zig-zag course must be steered, more distance and thus more time on passage at whatever speed is achieved. Wind speed is traditionally measured on the Beaufort Scale (wind speed) that runs from 0 (< 1kn or 0.5ms-1) to 12 (> 63kn or 32.5ms-1) and for sailing purposes the usable part of the range is ‘3’ (circa 8kn or 4.1ms-1) to ‘6’ (circa 24kn or 12.3ms-1). As the wind speed, and the amount of energy that may be harvested there from, increases the sea surface becomes progressively more disturbed which makes the harvesting process ever more difficult and increasing the stress on the vessel.

[@skaltura]

Just 7MWh battery pack? That's abysmal. That's not 1000x regular EV cars of capacity, compared to Model S that's just 70x, or even a typical Nissan Leaf just ~175x Tesla always went bonkers with power and capacity; So if this were to be Tesla of the Seas it would need to be running probably 10x the battery capacity and sail @ 3x the speed to clearly go faster than typical fossil fuels counterpart

[@eccentricsmithy2746]

It is NOT a zero carbon ship, it took carbon to build it from the manufacture. You forgot to factor that in. The carbon foot print left when building it.

[@BernardLS]

WADR it is the difference, in this case increased, embedded carbon in the structure, fuel storage medium and power train that is the issue. On the 'up side' is the fact that hydrocarbon fuel combustion uses the atmosphere a 'free common good' at no cost; so everybody suffers so harm so a few, relatively, may enjoy the benefit.

[@gj1234567899999]

What is the big deal with autonomous ships? Aren’t modern commercial ship crews small to begin with? Wouldn’t the crew of 20 people on ship with 20,000 containers be a negligible overall cost?

[@computerinsurgent1204]

Crews are not even expensives. They do not cost millions. But only landlubbers want these type of autonomous ships.

[@BernardLS]

@@computerinsurgent1204 I agree with your comment however 'the crew' are seen as an expense by the owners & operators so they will try to downsize or abolish them if money can be saved. Shipping is a cutthroat business and every penny counts to the customer; how much extra would you pay to ensure everybody in the supply chain got a living wage? Allowing that you and I would could we persuade the rest of society to have such high standards?

[@computerinsurgent1204]

@@BernardLS I have heard these ''autonomous ships'' are much more expensive and not all owners are luckily interrested in. Also if a ship is in international waters without a crew, and somebody of another company comes onboard of that ship, he/she can claim that ship for themself. This maybe can result in ''legal piracy''.

[@BernardLS]

@@computerinsurgent1204 'legal piracy' is an oxymoron. The French authorities have recently detained a vessel with a crew so State sponsored piracy is already a thing.

[@captiannemo1587]

You mean a windjammer right? Zero emissions.

[@BernardLS]

In 1870 a premium sailing vessel entered service, the ‘Cutty Sark’. The ‘Cutty Sark’ was 64.74 metres in length with a beam of 10.97 metres and a loaded displacement of 2 100 tonnes. She was able to carry, at best, 1 700 tonnes of cargo and to harness the energy in the wind the available spread of canvas was up to 2 976m2 which was tended by a crew of about 30 skilled men. The ratio between the sail area (SA) and the vessels displacement (D) determines how lively she was; ‘lively’ being nautical speak for ‘fast and manoeuvrable’. The carrying capacity of cargo ships is constrained in two ways, mass and volume which leads us to the ‘stowage factor’ of the cargo; the more mass on board the greater the displacement which in turn impacts the efficiency of the hull form and the sail area / displacement ratio. A vessel constrained by mass is said to be ‘down but not full’, while a vessel constrained by volume is said to be ‘full but not down. When in the tea trade, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was designed and built for with fine lines (more nautical tech speak, so again no need to worry about it) she could carry around 600 tonnes of cargo at speeds of up to 17.5 knots dependent on the prevailing wind and had a typical China to UK time on passage of 120 days. The tea trade was very competitive so ‘time on passage’ was a large factor in securing the premium freight rate that made the ‘Cutty Sark’ cost effective. Rounding things out, her maximum available sail area gave circa 5m2 of canvas for every tonne of tea carried. As soon as the Suez Canal opened, which the ‘Cutty Sark’ was unable to sail through; she lost her advantage, raw speed, to the steam powered ships of that era who could beat her ‘time on passage’ by taking that short cut. Mechanically powered ships have improved in terms of efficiency, on a freight tonne mile basis, by at least one order of magnitude since then. After losing out to the coal burning, fire tube boiler, steam reciprocating mechanical ships of the late 19th century ‘Cutty Sark’ was relegated to the Australian wool trade, just about the bottom of the barrel in maritime terms and only one small step up from being a 'honey barge'.

[@panama-canada]

What’s the distance?

[@BernardLS]

about 54km (circa 1.8km to a nautical mile) This is a short (very short) shuttle freighter used in house for routine movement of materials.

[@lamdo3003]

Should have the roof top make by expandable roof with solar.

[@BernardLS]

Solar power is next up; as an example the above container (called boxes by nautical folk) area of a Maersk Triple E is less than 399.2m by 59m. The 399.2m is the length between perpendiculars (marine tech speak - no need to worry about it) and the 59m is the width overall (more marine tech speak so again no need to worry about it) allowing for the sides, bow, stern & navigation/accommodation structure could we agree 340m x 56m, or 19 040m2, for the ‘top of stow’ area? Insolation rate in Joules will vary due to time of day, latitude of vessel, declination of sun, (those three impact the elevation of the power source) cloud cover, the efficiency of the solar panels and how clean they are. The Triple E class use two 29 680 kiloWatt each, at full whack, ICEs for propulsion plus some hotel and services power load cost; so for round numbers, could we agree 60 megaWatts? Solar panels create about 155 Watts m2 averaged out; 19 040 x 155 gives me 2 951 200 Watts (or 3 megaWatts for a round number) from the top of all the boxes. Those three megaWatts might allow you to distil enough fresh water from the sea to wash the crud off of the solar panels (surprise fact renewable energy comes with maintenance costs) but nowhere near enough to effectively 'push the boat along'. Fitting solar panels on top of the ‘boxes’ is worth, at most, 0.5% of your power requirement. Side mounted, let alone towed array, solar panels are not practical given the harsh conditions frequently / often found at sea.

[@lamdo3003]

@@BernardLS need something call Life Jacket for a Ship that expand out with a button and keep the ship balance in crazy weather. Expanding out from both side and folding back when don't need. Air pump in with button and release out by a button too. I would do it for a small one but for gaint container ship. I don't know 😕.

[@AuntieBuddie]

Really good to see. An axe shaped bow should make it even more efficient.

[@dustinyoung3069]

I'm really surprised they're not focused on electric Tugs and Barges. Seems a much better scale given the limitations of current energy densities in batteries. That may change soon, but for now, pragmatic applications are more valuable than idealized visions of where we'd like to be.

[@eslacarla8841]

Because of the economic crisis and the rate of unemployment, now is the best time to invest and make money 💯...

[@chrisrodriguez7012]

@SeF4n I strongly believe BTC $100k🚀🚀🚀💥.

[@chrisrodriguez7012]

Investing in Cry'pto now is very cool especially with the current rise now in market.

[@masonowen7473]

Stock are good too you know?

[@ShauryaVyas]

@@masonowen7473 Yea Stock are good but Crypto is much better.

[@sliviapilar6731]

@Richard Thomas That won't bother you if you trade with professional like Mrs Kimberly Bryan.

[@wkmingus]

You’ve got to start somewhere.

[@blackpanther6149]

making these batteries and recycling them is really what makes me scared

[@BernardLS]

Just think of it as a research project and in the same way that the Wright Flyer gave us the Airbus 380 it may be that 'mighty oaks from little acorns grow'.

[@silvanotonini9151]

How do you dispose of the massive batteries when they're finished with and how long does it take to charge them?

[@Scotto_desu]

Recycling 👍

[@jonnyaxelsson9940]

First they will enjoy a second life as energy storage for the grid (where energy density isn't much of an issue), then they will be recycled as even more efficient batteries as technology improves.

[@BernardLS]

WRT charging think switching the containerised batteries out & in at loading and or discharge port on a batteries out last and in first to keep the stability reasonable basis.

[@redrooster303]

The UK would do well to use and innovate this.

[@mxdanger]

Why does the thumbnail show a non EV container ship?

[@FalconWing1813]

Good start in a good direction

[@lelouchlamperouge3077]

It's so hard to recycle the battery too after it wears out.

[@danielstapler4315]

Batteries will be recycled because they are a cheaper source of battery materials than mining them from scratch -this is already happening.

[@lelouchlamperouge3077]

@@danielstapler4315 wow.. really ? But why people out there said that even EV batteries are so hard to recycle ?

[@danielstapler4315]

@@lelouchlamperouge3077 They are a little out of date and also there is an anti EV agenda out there and they like to put that sort of stuff out. EVs and batteries will disrupt (destroy) some industries.

[@glennalexon1530]

Something doesn't add up here. 40,000 containers per year, only 100 per ship, means that some days they will have to deliver twice; even working seven days per week. Why has the company been sending 40,000 truckloads a year over a route that could have been served by a small container ship?

[@BernardLS]

Shipping is traditionally a 24/7 business so running 365 days a year is expected. also if the rotation time is less than 24 hours 400 movements within a year would be practical. Any outage or shortage on the ship could be made up using the existing trucking system, such are the joys of the intermodular container. Until there is a sufficient base load the CAPEX for a dedicated ship would not get past the 'bean counters'. Trucking is 'Plan B' if this works and if it does not 'Plan B' gets promoted to 'Plan A'.

[@jameshamilton4327]

Looking forward to electric charging stations every 30 miles across the Atlantic and Pacific.

[@markreed9853]

no, they will be hydrogen fuel cell electric with possible rigid sails to help.

[@Belboz99]

They should add some Magnus-effect sails to improve it's efficiency. That said, I don't think batteries are the way forward for large industrial-scale vessels like this. Hydrogen would be a better route, especially once we have the tech to make hydrides that are infinitely reusable.

[@BernardLS]

Scale is everything and just because hydrocarbon fuel have an optimum range of use from a few kiloWatts up to 60megaWatts it is unlikely that their successors will each have that spread. Just think of it as a research project and in the same way that the Wright Flyer gave us the Airbus 380 it may be that 'mighty oaks from little acorns grow'. Flettner rotors might not be appropriate due to the topography of the limited route that particular vessel is deployed on and the very short voyages. Hydrogen has as many and perhaps more difficulties to overcome and again might not be the best option for that application.

[@neelroy2918]

Magnificent. Not to worry about future developments. Once it starts it has life of it's own.

[@andrewjensen8189]

There needs to be more government grants/subsidies for this type of innovation. The fossil fuel industry has been subsidized globally for a century giving any combustion machines a huge barrier of entry advantage since governments have helped drive down the price of high quality fossil fuels. Governments need to even the playing field by allowing new green innovations achieve profitability through the same subsidies oil giants got.

[@BernardLS]

The tax take from the FOGI (fossil oil & gas industry) exceeds any subsidy paid; even when the term 'subsidy' is stretched to include things like the UK pensioner winter fuel payment, on the basis that part of that is spent on fossil fuel. Governments can only subsidies from funds they collect from 'we the people', either directly or indirectly, as taxes and charges.

[@andrewjensen8189]

@@BernardLS You could make the exact same case for renewable energy innovations... The future tax revenue as the industry grows will cover any present subsidies... That's the whole point lol.

[@BernardLS]

@@andrewjensen8189 Indeed,and you make the point very well. The current subsidies are an incentive & they will drop out when the transition from one tax base (fossil fuel ) to the other (sustainable energy) is complete or even has sufficient momentum. The current subsidy of EV will not continue and the full operational cost plus the tax burden can only be reduced by reduced use or lower initial expenditure. The next generation may need to reinvent the Trabant rather than more widely adopt the Bugatti type of personal road vechile.

[@bobnouh4538]

Electrification is certainly a good future but limited to certain capacities and services. There is a big missing factor when doing cost analysis; this is life expectancy of battery and cost to replace it plus the environmental effect to dispose aged battery cells. Nobody talks about these factors as it will destroy all marketing efforts done on hybrid solutions. Also the discussion on grid capacity and being able to charge all these boats/ships/cars is big a question mark since it will lead us back to fossil fuel.

[@jamesfranklin2203]

They should add sails to improove the autonomy