Inside The World's First Electric Cargo Ship

Dubbed ‘the Tesla of the seas’ this fully-electrified, fully-autonomous cargo ship is already making waves. How does it work? Where will it sail? And why is it already helping save lives inland?
Join us today for a sneak peek inside the world’s first zero-emission cargo ship.
SUGGEST A TOPIC
techvision.tv​​​
Imagery supplied via Getty Images

[@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.

[@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.

[@markw4263]

Gotta start somewhere! Excellent test platform.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@FalconWing1813]

Good start in a good direction

[@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'.

[@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.

[@SciFiandComics]

Seems like a good start

[@Dav01969]

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

[@AnowarHossain-cy8tx]

Amazing ship

[@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.

[@AuntieBuddie]

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

[@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...

[@stopscammingman]

The Tesla of the sea? I like it!

[@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.

[@Mycobob]

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

[@fredsimon6640]

Good idea.

[@charliedevine6869]

For short journeys battery power can work well.

[@luiscosta9261]

Awesome news!

[@joshuasyrtash860]

It’s a start!

[@billwedeking797]

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

[@Pour-me-a-red]

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

[@wkmingus]

You’ve got to start somewhere.

[@jmonsted]

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

[@perforongo9078]

Is the battery pack easily replaceable? They could lift out the battery pack with the same cranes they use for the cargo. Recharge one pack while the other is in use.

[@andreassag]

Why? This ship will have more then enough time to charge when loading and unloading in port.

[@talentedmastersonzaiphanto3631]

Oh it did. Definitely did. 👍

[@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.

[@dertythegrower]

very cool

[@truesimplicity]

It's all good, as we have to begin somewhere... 🚣

[@alparslankorkmaz2964]

Nice video.

[@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.

[@jamesfranklin2203]

They should add sails to improove the autonomy

[@pantythief65000]

Yes,any zero emissions ship would be great. Look at the ship that runs primarily on long versus bunker sea oil.

[@dalentoews3418]

For a container ship seems that having a container battery pack that can be recharged and swapped would seem reasonable

[@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.

[@neelroy2918]

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

[@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.

[@backbayboy1]

Super Story!

[@cyberi4a]

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

[@breckintolman4769]

this would be great GO NORWAY!

[@redrooster303]

The UK would do well to use and innovate this.

[@1978rayking]

Nice world saver, the navy will still be needed and air force for some routes.

[@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'.

[@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.

[@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.

[@x4lifeful]

At this size and distance it looks promising could be used in rivers too

[@smartfreelanceracademy7080]

Nice 👍👍

[@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.

[@EssixMage]

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

[@ronnieg6358]

You should try and get out more.

[@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

[@Lwize]

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

[@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.

[@diannesapp5984]

Have to start sometime and with a unit that can be funded then placed into real world use. We have to start sometime. Wm

[@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.

[@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'.

[@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?

[@mrredpill3121]

Anything man made will never be zero emissions

[@rasmysticflame]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@mxdanger]

Why does the thumbnail show a non EV container ship?

[@mikerafone4736]

Why is the minus side ignored?

[@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.

[@Organic.Mechanic]

Good

[@anundisputed_force2955]

I think if someone can innovate a system that charges the ship's batteries from the ocean water movements while the ship is moving it will be a game changer, so a charging network isn't necessary.

[@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.

[@DhavalBrahmbhatt2627]

Hydrogen power could work but has long way to go to be safe. Till then, it’s gonna have to be batteries. They could do with replaceable bat tires tho. When cargo is unloaded and loaded, a fully charged battery can also replace the discharged one, saving on time spent on charging. Also allows for inspection and maintenance of the battery at the port.

[@woodhonky3890]

Inside? I must have missed that part.

[@raguramanb6622]

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

[@ABC-oo4vm]

Send this ship and all others to Florida

[@jamesday7339]

So to compare this to a olympic class container ship it is 240 times smaller and its range is 200 times less. And this is somehow supposed to be an improvement.

[@jellevanelsacker7353]

Amazing clickbait thumbnail!

[@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 (:-).

[@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

[@kodez79]

To reap a mustard harvest, first you have to plant a mustard seed.

[@whitezkullgamer1018]

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

[@henrysmith1464]

Basically, it is about cost. A race of time before it is too late.

[@Sometungsten]

It is not zero emission. How much of the dam's output is needed to charge the batteries? What is the plan if the dam is off line? How often will it be using fossil fuel generated power to recharge? What does it have for back-up propulsion?

[@ironhorsehero1988]

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

[@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

[@sammencia7945]

Every time the capacity is a fraction of oil. 100 TEUs vs. 24,000. This is due to the MJ of specific energy.

[@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.

[@RobertBOUSKILL]

YES. Good job !!! Now, eliminate the propellers and instead use internal turbines to power jets to move the ship. Save wild sea life.

[@congt9288]

What ? Props are very efficient. Turbines are not.

[@eviemoody]

Cool video! A thumbnail of the actual ship would’ve much better than the click baity one used.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@filipsaric4844]

Tesla wanted to do this over 80 years ago but many times because of bad weather, ships dock with many containers missing fires break out how will autonomous systems deal with this and will it be o good for the environment then

[@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'.

[@kurtloban3664]

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

[@bg73]

Yeah, I replayed that too...

[@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.

[@seththomas3418]

@@KieranMullen Hence nuclear power.

[@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?

[@Anomize23]

Hope they got plenty of security on stand by. Anyone seen the movie captain Phillips? Thats a pirates paradise if they are going to let that float on its own.

[@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' a 1 000 years ago (:-).

[@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.

[@ArpanMukhopadhyay93]

This a great first step

[@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.

[@ztechrepairs]

Thats alot of batteries!!!!