Fully Electric Cargo Ship for Amazon River (Boat Design: 1st Post)

Just found this, from the US National Academy of Science, Transportation Research Board:

https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1394592

 

You can also paddle like it's been done for millennia.

 

Nothing to forgive!

The only solution is to come up with a battery which does not exist and likely never will for a very long time,if ever.

I'd like to see miniature thorium reactors.

But you must understand how many times I have seen trusting people lose their life's savings in shady investments. And instead of living their golden years securely,are homeless or living in a van on welfare.
Because of my knowledge,I take it upon myself to look out for these people.

Yes a "20 ton/100 mile range electric riverboat" thread would be great...so long as it doesn't need hundreds of tons nor $500k worth of batteries.

 

Sam Sam and others. Regarding power, if you look at the historical development of river steam ships, I think you will find that 67hp in 200 tons would have been a luxury for quite a few years. Fulton's North River ( North_River_Steamboat) is estimated to have had 19hp, displace about 120 tons and was about 150' LOA. There is no reason a local small pusher boat couldn't be used for short stretches of fast water. Ideally, it would also have a genset and allow the ship's motors to run full power without draining the ship's batteries. So, depending on the details of the river, a 100 to 150 hp motor, but with batteries sized for 50 hp average cruise seems plausible enough if, and it's a big if, the hull is super efficient and customized for the river. And obviously, it would help if the up-steam cargo was lighter and higher value than the down stream cargo. As a very rough estimate, it appears that a diesel genset driving the electric motors would, at the present time, have a LCOE (Level Cost Of Electricity) about 1/4 of a battery setup if they came in at the same weight and footprint. If the battery bank was heavier and bulkier, the LCOE would need to be adjusted even further to reflect this. A direct drive diesel would be more efficient, but not necessarily cheaper overall if it was a proper marine diesel installation.

I found this document, which may be of general interest. It has a lot of cost comparison data for electric storage for 2015 and projected to 2020. https://www.lazard.com/media/2391/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-analysis-10.pdf

 

Bottom line is this battery boat is a barmy idea, the more so for being targeted at the Amazon.
"Why have you got all those batteries?"
"Oh, we need them to provide the power to move the batteries"
Up sh*t creek without a paddle is likely to be the outcome, assuming it ever makes it in the first instance.

 

When all this was blowing up-I don't recall anyone pointing out the fact that the Amazon flows at low water at 2 mph,and gets higher with rain and in the spring,often at 4 mph.
So he needs enough horsepower to push a freighter at 2-4 mph...just to go nowhere.

The steam is valid,however for every 1 horsepower,they usually boot out (give or take) 20-25 pound feet of torque.
So that 20 hp steamer is putting out likely 500 pound feet,at any where up to maybe 500 rpm at the prop.

Roughly,gearing down a 20 hp Yanmar to get that would be what...20:1? which would give you 150 rpm? at the prop.

Like I said before,they use engines that are many hundreds of hp.

 

WestVanHan - you lost me on the hp and torq mix. High torq and low hp also means low rpm. A hp is a hp. 1 hp from 10000rpm engine or 40 rpm engine is the same amount of power. And if both engines are geared (up or down respectively) to lets say 500rpm, both will be giving out same torque at that rpm.

 

AS I POSTED IN THE BEGINNING a wood fired steam engine pushing a prop or an electric
engine is as GREEN as you are going to get.

 

Wood fired is very likely not green at all

 

Steam boiler manufacturers I believe provide filter systems depending on the type
of fuel you use. I have seen systems for burning coal.

 

Thank you, but have a look at this article Power dense zinc-manganese power unit as cheap as a car battery
Colin Jeffrey April 27, 2016

Researchers have discovered a way to fix the reliability problems of zinc-manganese batteries and produce a high-energy-density, rechargeable unit that could provide an inexpensive solution for alternative energy storage (Credit: PNNL)
A team of scientists working on analyzing energy flows in prototype zinc-manganese batteries have stumbled upon a new way to make these power cells much more reliable, with many more recharge cycles than the humble lead-acid car battery, but costing around the same to produce. The creators claim that the new battery could become an inexpensive, ecologically-sound alternative for storing energy from renewable sources and a high-density solution for storing excess energy from the power grid.
Working at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), the researchers discovered a new way to approach the reliability problems of zinc-manganese batteries, that were cheap and easy to make from abundant materials, but which would fail after only a few charge cycles.
"The idea of a rechargeable zinc-manganese battery isn't new; researchers have been studying them as an inexpensive, safe alternative to lithium-ion batteries since the late 1990s," said PNNL Laboratory Fellow Jun Liu. "But these batteries usually stop working after just a few charges. Our research suggests these failures could have occurred because we failed to control chemical equilibrium in rechargeable zinc-manganese energy storage systems."
Collaborating with researchers at the University of Washington, Liu and his team had begun by investigating rechargeable zinc-manganese batteries as inexpensive alternatives to lead-acid batteries because of the plentiful and cheap supplies of zinc and manganese. Whilst not expecting to produce any ground-breaking discoveries, the PNNL researchers had hoped to at least produce a better-performing, longer-lasting Zn-Mn battery by seeing if they could overcome earlier failures by other scientists.
Years of study on lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries and their electrical characteristics had blinkered many researchers into believing that the behavior of lithium ions in those batteries would be replicated in the Zn-Mn cells. To store and release energy in Li-ion cells, a process known as intercalation (where lithium ions moving in and out of microscopic spaces in between the atoms of the cell's two electrodes) occurs.
Much to the surprise of the PNNL team, however, a range of tests actually showed that the device being analyzed was undergoing a completely different process. Where a Li-ion battery would move its ions around in the charging process, the Zn-Mn version was actually being subject to a (hitherto unknown) reversible chemical reaction that transformed the active materials in the electrodes into a completely different substance known as zinc hydroxyl sulfate.
Once the team realized that something different may be going on in the Zn-Mn unit they built, and that something may be that the Zn-Mn battery acted more like a lead-acid one, they decided to bring out the big guns in the form of X-ray diffraction, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and transmission electron microscopy.
What they found was a complete surprise to them all. Tests showed that the battery's manganese oxide positive anode was reversibly reacting with protons from the water-based electrolyte in which it was immersed, to create the new zinc hydroxyl sulfate material. As a result, the new material soon coated the electrode, and the power flow and cycle capabilities were reduced considerably.
Using their new-found knowledge, the team then went about finding ways to reduce (or even stop) this process. Realizing that chemical conversions were the culprit, they simply figured out that the pace at which the manganese was being transformed could be reduced by upping the manganese concentration in the electrolyte before applying power. (Interestingly, this is not too dissimilar to the research on Lithium-air batteries that sees great improvements when their electrolyte mixes are altered to reduce electrode disintegration.)
And it worked. The researchers claim that the tiny test battery achieved a storage capacity of 285 mAh per gram of manganese oxide over an extraordinary 5,000 cycles, with 92 percent of its initial storage capacity retained.
"This research shows equilibrium needs to be controlled during a chemical conversion reaction to improve zinc-manganese oxide battery performance," said Liu. "As a result, zinc-manganese oxide batteries could be a more viable solution for large-scale energy storage than the lithium-ion and lead-acid batteries used to support the grid today."
The researchers plan to carry on their analysis of how the zinc-manganese oxide battery operates, in the hope of further increasing their knowledge of the reactions and to fiddle with the electrolyte concentrations to try and wring out as much efficiency as possible.
The results of this research were published in the journal Nature Energy.
Source: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Tags
#University of Washington
#Rechargeable
#Power
#Battery
#Zinc
#PNNL
Share this article
⦁
⦁

No not me, they are more dangerous than zinc-manganese batteries or Lithium (the good one's)

I stick to what I have said; this is a forum for solutions on problems with boats and yachts. Your very noble worries belong on a police forum.

I hope not that there is not a typing error and 285 mAh per grams should read something else. It is still the most likely battery of the future.
285 mAh x 1000 gram = 285.000 mAh per kilo or stated otherwise: 285 Ah. At 1,4 Volt. Equals 399 Watt-hour
10 cells of 1 kilo in serial would give you 14 Volt battery and 3990 watt-hour equals 3.99 KWh per 10kg battery. 100 of those in serial/parallel = 399 KWh energy for 1000 kg. Yes, indeed you are right; we have to add some overheads for the casings and terminals. I leave that over to your imagination. My calculations tell me this would give a 20 ton Amazon river-boat, 100 miles with a 30 KW motor. If the Amazon boat is made of light material, there is enough weight left over for transporting goods and people.
Also, like I have done with my cabin electric boat, I would cool the motor with transformer oil. Although one can with a small pump do water cooling through the stator of a brushless out-runner.
Also I would have probably designed the boat with 4 x 7,5 KW motors driving the propeller shaft. Each motor, having a “clutch” , connecting the motor to the shaft. Also 4 battery banks in 4 water proof compartments. We all know that water and battery terminals are not great friends. That sizzling noise from shortening battery terminals from water should be avoided.

Oh. P.S. International Rectifiers have now brought on the market a 1000 Ampere MOSfet IRLB3034N At 24 Volt and 400 Ampere , you could easy drive a 7,5 Kw electric brushless motor, or whatever kind electric motor. Refer my reason for editing. One Mosfet will not do the job, however, Provided if one use MOSfets from the same batch, one could place them parallel. One MOSfet is build up from thousands little transistors , and thus provided from the same batch parallel switching has not been a problem.

Yes, I would have some wind generators and solarcell panels which can generate energy during rain, overcast and sunshine for extending the trip.

Far sought? It is coming. I have no doubt about that. To all the negative forum members, dream nicely, you may wake up too late. Bert

 

Those publications do not emphasize that it was a tiny test battery and more often than not they won't scale up. I work in battery research and development and see this kind of claim quite a lot. The other key words to look for are "could" and "may". They are a good indication that they are covering their butts and not committing themselves to their claims.

 

Hi Gonzo, you may be right, but when the Nano technology was announced, similar negative comments was also viewed and now basically every lithium battery has now Nano technology incorporated. I am optimistic that this technology of having 40 years made wrong conclusions on the anode performance, which made the battery lasting for only 2 to 3 recharges, is now resolved and then indeed more high energy batteries and lower weight could be manufactured. My problem is, has the oil industry still money in their kitty, so to buy this most likely patent up and put it in the safe or charges ridicules high license fee's. Bert

 

Surely you're not suggesting they store it with the patent they've allegedly had for years for running i/c engines on water, are you?

 

The oil companies are investing heavily on alternative sources or energy and energy storage research. They will sell potato juice if there were money in it. There is nothing approaching the energy density of fossil fuels. Also, there is nothing as cheap. That is what all new technologies have to compete against. Usually, new technologies or fuels, like ethanol, are in the market through political decisions. Also, don't forget that fossil fuels are fossilized solar energy.