| ▲ | Worlds largest electric ship launched by Tasmanian boatbuilder(theguardian.com) |
| 81 points by aussieguy1234 5 hours ago | 49 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | jillesvangurp 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The Guardian article glosses over a few things that are actually interesting about this ship: - It's made out of aluminum instead of steel. The resulting weight savings make it a bit more efficient. That's something this shipping yard specializes in. - Because it is going to run in shallow water on the river Plate, it doesn't actually have propellers but a water jet propulsion system. Fully charged did a video on the construction of this ship early last year: https://fullycharged.show/episodes/electric-ferry-the-larges... The project of getting this ship from Tasmania to South America is also going to be interesting as well. It can't do it under its own power; it's designed for a ~50km crossing, not a trans Pacific/Atlantic journey. At the time, they were thinking tug boats. |
| |
| ▲ | mk_stjames an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I'd wager they will use what is known as a 'Float-on/float-off' ship for transport... it's rather common actually- It's a ship with a very low deck line that partially submerges itself, with the center of the deck underwater deep enough so the other vessel can 'float on' over the deck. They they pump the water back out, raising the deck above water and the boat on top it just rests flat. They do this for some oil rigs as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy-lift_ship#Semi-submersib... | |
| ▲ | SideburnsOfDoom 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The project of getting this ship from Tasmania to South America is also going to be interesting as well. Indeed. As I remarked last time (1) "it's long distance and can be rough seas" They get to pick a good time of year, but either route goes past places known for storms and shipwrecks in the winter (June to September). Would you choose to go via Cape Agulhas or around Cape Horn? It would be annoying to be ready to deliver the ship, but due to schedule over-runs, to have to wait 4 months for the weather to improve. 1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45844832 | |
| ▲ | wepple 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The relocation was the big question on my mind. The other is: when will they charge? Does this ship not run at night? | | |
| ▲ | robin_reala an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | If it’s anything like the electric ferries that cross the Öresund beween Helsingborg and Helsingør, they grab charge while they’re unloading and loading at each terminal: Each trip consumes approximately 1,175 kWh, which is nearly the same amount a residential home consumes in a month. In each port is a tower with a robot arm that connects the charging cable automatically every time the ship comes to the dock. The system charges 10.5 kV, 600Amp and 10.5MW. The batteries have a total capacity of 4,160 kWh, which means that we always have a surplus of electricity if for some reason we cannot load during a stop or if the transit takes more time than usual. In Helsingör the ferries charge for approx. 6 minutes and in Helsingborg the ferries charge for approx. 9 minutes. This is enough to suffice for the journey across the strait.[1] Side note: you can also charge your car on board from the boat’s batteries. [1] https://www.oresundslinjen.com/about-us/sustainability | | | |
| ▲ | SideburnsOfDoom 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Q: > when will they charge? A: > The ship... will travel between the ports of Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Colonia del Sacramento, Uruguay. The two cities are 60 kilometers apart, a distance it is expected to travel in 90 minutes. > Direct-current charging stations will be installed at each port... A full charge is expected to take just 40 minutes. https://spectrum.ieee.org/electric-boat-battery-ship-ferry | |
| ▲ | pjc50 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Also: installing the charging infrastructure. Special docking requirements for the non electric Spirit Of Tasmania were a big problem. |
| |
| ▲ | potato3732842 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "Ship" >It's made out of aluminum instead of steel. <alarm bells going off> >it is going to run in shallow water on the river Plate Oh, phew. | |
| ▲ | merek 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thanks for the video link, it's way more informative than the original article. | |
| ▲ | tedk-42 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Article quotes `40 megawatt-hours of installed capacity.` - Surely this can get you pretty far from Tasmania to South America. | | |
| ▲ | chii 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | apparently, 40MWh of capacity is enough to travel 40 nautical miles. The distance between Tasmania and South America is around 6,500–7,500 nautical miles. | | |
| ▲ | rcxdude an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I would be extremely surprised if the ship were designed to use 100% of its capacity in one way of its intended route. | |
| ▲ | amelius 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | For comparison, a wide body airliner needs ~0.15MWh to travel 1 nautical mile. | | |
| ▲ | eesmith 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | A wide body airliner doesn't carry "up to 2,100 passengers and 225 vehicles". | | |
| ▲ | verandaguy an hour ago | parent [-] | | It also does so in a medium where the main drag force is induced by air rather than water, which is probably a comparably significant factor | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It also needs to beat up that air enough to make the resultant forces overcome gravity acting on the airliner whereas the ship just gets to float there. Apples to orages. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The drag on a vessel is orders of magnitude larger than the drag on a car. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | TinyBig 7 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I've taken one of the electric roll-on/roll-off ferries that cross from Denmark to Sweden over the Øresund strait. Zero fumes, zero vibration, incredibly quiet. Awesome to see this tech being used for longer crossings. |
|
| ▲ | cfn 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I would like to know its price. Here in the Azores Islands there was a project to replace an ICE ferry with an electric one but they couldn't agree on the price with the boat builders. It went up to as much as 35 million Euros but it ended up being cancelled as that, apparently, wasn't enough for a ferry that can do 1-1.5 hour crossings with a dozen cars or so. |
| |
|
| ▲ | SideburnsOfDoom 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Previously, 55 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45844832 Discussion on a different article, about the same boat. |
|
| ▲ | NooneAtAll3 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I hope that such a flat roof will be covered in solar |
| |
| ▲ | red75prime 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It should take around 50 hours to fully charge its batteries under ideal conditions. That is 5 - 10 days realistically. I guess it's impractical considering that it will ferry across the River Plate. | | |
| ▲ | reactordev 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Any flat surface on a ship that is designed for electric should be covered in flexible solar panels. Why do this if it can’t fully charge the ship? To offset the costs of charging the ship at port, to provide longer range by providing a lower voltage power source for 12V DC charging (cell phones, iPads, 5w LED lights). So the commenter is correct, she needs panels and the fact that this isn’t part of the launch shows that they were more interested in being first than practical. | | |
| ▲ | cush an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s possible adding panels could reduce the range because they’re heavy and so high up on the ship. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm an hour ago | parent [-] | | Weight won't matter much (you typically only accelerate it once, and the additional drag is small), it is just that the surface area is so small relative to what's needed that it just doesn't move the needle. | | |
| ▲ | arijun 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | From the current top comment on this thread: > It's made out of aluminum instead of steel. The resulting weight savings make it a bit more efficient. That's something this shipping yard specializes in. According to that person, weight does indeed matter. |
|
| |
| ▲ | servo_sausage an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not a long range vessel, but it should have a fairly long service life. Additional weight and complexity on a one off boat would be more expensive than a seperate much more standard solar and battery system on land. And you might be able to get additional value out of selling electricity from an oversized storage. It's not sensible to draw your system boundaries around the boat by itself; there is significant terminal infrastructure; and even grid electrical infrastructure to consider. |
| |
| ▲ | teiferer an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | If it can charge while sailing there is no downside. At least as long as a substantial percentage of total charge can come from the integrated solar. |
| |
| ▲ | victorbjorklund 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Probably more efficient to keep inverters, panels etc on land. | | |
| ▲ | phinnaeus 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m not a sparky but would you need inverters if the panels are just for charging batteries? On the other hand, there is probably already inverters onboard to provide AC power to passenger power points. | | |
| ▲ | servo_sausage 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, you need some kind of DC converter to regulate voltage, but no inherent requirement to go to AC. Lots of small camping and off grid systems do that. Although at the scale of a one off boat i would think it's cheaper to use the more widespread systems for bigger grid connected panel installations; so you are back to inverters. |
| |
| ▲ | reactordev 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You would be consuming fossil fuels to charge a ship when the sun is giving you energy for free. At least capture some of that to charge some batteries or extend the length of your voyage. | | |
| ▲ | WJW 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The energy is not free, since the solar panels cost money and don't last forever. Even at optimistic prices, it's still something like 0.03 USD/kWh. Install them on a boat and they have to deal with constant vibrations, humid conditions, seagulls shitting all over them, etc etc etc. I used to work on ships and almost everything constantly breaks down without constant maintenance. I bet it would be much cheaper to put the solar panels on land and charge the ship when it's in port. | | |
| ▲ | teiferer an hour ago | parent [-] | | That may all be true, but there are other benefits that could make it worth it. For example it could be, in theory, self-sufficient forever if something else breaks down making it unable to maneuver. Then you can at least sit in the middle of the sea and have your heating and cooking and desalination working until you repair the propulsion. | | |
| |
| ▲ | cush an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why don’t electric cars and trucks have solar panels then? |
| |
| ▲ | NooneAtAll3 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | more efficient to leave surface unused? | | |
| ▲ | scraptor 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | More efficient to spend the same amount of money on shoreside panels with lower installation costs. | |
| ▲ | jeltz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Do you have solar panels on top of your head? If not why do you leave that space unused? Space being there is one of the worst possible reasons. That bloats designs and makes them expensive to build and maintain. | |
| ▲ | servo_sausage 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Same reason EVs rarely have solar panels; adds weight and complexity, making it more expensive than putting the panels somewhere less wet and salty. | |
| ▲ | bell-cot 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Talk to a marine engineer about the overhead (equipment, training, emergency procedures, etc.) of adding a small-scale solar plant to all the things that they've already got to deal with on a ship. And recall that this bridge - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Balt... - will need a multi-billion dollar replacement, because the tiny engineering staff of a huge freighter could not diagnose and correct a surprise electrical failure. Within the maybe 3 1/2 minutes between the initial fault, and when the collision became physically inevitable. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | trebligdivad 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Does anyone have a feel for how heavy the weight of an equivalent oil(?) driven ship would be? It has the big number for the weight of batteries, but I've got nothing to compare against. |
| |
|
| ▲ | cush an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 250 tonnes of batteries… |
|
| ▲ | t0lo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Spent a few months down in Hobart sussing out an antarctic science degree- really cool marine industry nexus down there with world leading research, all of the antarctic operations, and this stuff. Definitely the most nautical feeling city in Australia |
|
| ▲ | DemocracyFTW2 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Ugly as hell as far as ships go. Ugly as hell like almost all new cars, trains and buildings. |
