New propulsion sytems for ships

[FAST FRED]

" Re; the space shuttle, the first what, 80 flights were flawless,"

This was because the during first flights the foam covering the cold liquid fuel tank was insulated with foam that used FREON,

When NASA was forced to become PC and abondon freon as a blowing agent the foam became a sponge for frozen condensate .

Foam seperation did not cause those deaths , PC hunks of ice crashing at speed did.

But at least they died "saving the world" from freon.

The "Greens" should ALL be so privleged,

FAST FRED

[Kiteship]

You're showing your politics, Fast--but I still got a chuckle out of your post. Too right. NASA should be a military org, subject to military rights and requirements, and not a civilian entity, subject to that quite different set of metrics. IMHO. Right on, brother!

[sigurd]

Scifi
Would be nice to fill the tanks in the middle of the ocean from wavefarms?
Kite wind farms?
Is it probable we will see fleets of fast cargo ships, 30-40kt?
And surface effect planes?
When the wind is favorable it could become feasible to recharge a kite hybrid ship with water turbines - assuming that the kite was generating more than useful thrust at some times?

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by sigurd

Scifi
Would be nice to fill the tanks in the middle of the ocean from wavefarms?
Kite wind farms?
Is it probable we will see fleets of fast cargo ships, 30-40kt?
And surface effect planes?
When the wind is favorable it could become feasible to recharge a kite hybrid ship with water turbines - assuming that the kite was generating more than useful thrust at some times?

Interesting questions. Maybe not so Scifi, after all.

Here you have a floating wind farm idea that could work as a wandering 'gas station' for ships:
http://www.opensourceenergy.org/txtl...f-aa653124a093

The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory has done a preliminary evaluation of floating platform wind farms, and concluded that they would be able to produce power for as little as $0.05/kWh:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/34874.pdf

There's even a new concept of wind turbine, said to be more efficient than conventional ones:
http://opensourceenergy.org/txtlstvw...d-2a44417a564b
Could it be used as propulsion for an hybrid ship? Maybe Cousteau should try again with a new Alcyone?

Here's an interesting paper on Waves Offshore Farms:
http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/documents/d...Paper_Wave.pdf

And here Savitsky's report on fast monohull ships, where some considerations are made on a 50-knot displacement hull:
http://www.sname.org/newsletter/Savitskyreport.pdf

Finally, some surface (water) effect planes: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...r/4346/S90.htm

Cheers

[Kiteship]

Heh, heh! I was going to caution Sigurd on what he terms "scifi," but you have beaten me to the punch, Guillermo. Remember, things from nuclear power to putting men on the moon started out as scifi. As were sub-80 day circumnavigations!

(You must have a vast bookmarks folder, Guillermo! Would you consider sharing it?)

While I am bullish on wind power, it's been my observation that economics have yet to catch predictions; while it is possible for wind power to break the 'magic' nickel/Kw barrier, currrent commercial output isn't there yet--let alone after adding the additional steps of dissociating water, storing and transporting hydrogen, and converting it back into thrust on the ship. Closer to 30-40 cents/kw more closely reflects current capability--which, however, isn't all that far from commercial parity, compared with other forms of energy generated at sea.

(Need I point out that sailing--direct conversion of wind's momentum to ships' momentum--actually is capable of the magic nickel/Kw, now? The number is "magic" because it is the necessary threshold to attract investment capital)

As to WIGE craft; I hear--from aeronautical engineers--everything from it being a savior to a hoax; the best input I've heard is that a big WIGE plane might save half the fuel/hour a 747 uses--while travelling at 1/6 the velocity. 3 times more expensive than current airfreight, in other words. (think about it; a 747 flies in very thin air, at an indicated airspeed of about 350 kts--but an over-ground speed nearer 600 kts. A WIGE flies in very thick air--at circa-100 kt speeds.)

Last, fast ships are certainly possible (military vessels have had circa-50 kt capability for decades), but again the economic model is incomplete--a 50 kt ship requires 4-6 times the horsepower of a 25 kt cargo ship--and thus 4-6 times the operating costs (from fuel to amortization of equipment), and a whopping 10 times the horsepower of a 16 kt bulker/tanker. A market for this class of cost/delivery time has yet to be demonstrated. Such a ship is much slower than jets, yet much more expensive than current surface shipping.

We have investigated this at some length. It is--just--possible to envision large sailing craft capable of 50 kt speeds--with no fuel costs at all. Even with the huge power-generating budgets suggested, beyond the gee-whiz factor, we have yet to find an economic model which is viable.

sigh,

Dave

[Guillermo]

More on fast cargo monohulls:
http://www.fastshipatlantic.com/inno...hipdesign.html
(Referred by Stephen Ditmore in other thread)

[Kiteship]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

More on fast cargo monohulls:
http://www.fastshipatlantic.com/inno...hipdesign.html
(Referred by Stephen Ditmore in other thread)

Thanks, Guillermo.

So, here we use 335,000 hp to move 10,000 net tons at "up to" 38 kts. This equals about 1000 tons/day of (in this case) $600/ton diesel fuel for her gas turbines (I'm assuming they can burn the cheaper diesel, rather than jet fuel)

They are suggesting a 100-hour crossing, meaning about 4000 tons of diesel or $2.4 million, one way, for each 10,000 ton trip, for fuel alone (that's 40% of the cargo's weight). By comparison, a 10,000 ton tanker, steaming at 18 kts, might need 8-9000 hp, burning about 24 tons of $300 HFO/day. Presuming this ship takes twice as long to cross (8 days instead of 4), she'll burn a total of 192 tons of fuel, or about $58,000, total, for fuel. That's a 40:1 differential, to reduce transit time from 8 days to 4. And that's just for the fuel. (Remember that a 747 makes the crossing in 5 *hours*; can thus make 5-8 round trips (10-16 flight segments) in 4 days.)

As you might imagine, the fuel is only a small part of such a vessel; imagine the cost differential between a single 8000 hp diesel engine and the 5 big gas turbines, each making 67,000 hp, and think about the amortization cost for each ship. Think about the construction cost, first of a 600' long, 18 kt cargo ship, and then of a 900' long 38 kt highly-stressed "giant speedboat". And remember they each carry the same amount of cargo--10,000 tons. FWIW, modern big container ships carry around 70,000-90,000 tons of cargo, and routinely steam at ~24 kts, on around 60-90,000 hp.

The most revolutionary thing I see on the Fastship website is the specialized cargo handling equipment and procedures they propose. IF this is possible (this company can't be the first who've ever tried specialized handling), the savings in trans-shipping and actual door-to-door delivery time could indeed be revolutionary. This part, though, has nothing to do with ships or ship technology.

Sorry to be a naysayer, but in these days of *reducing* petroleum usage, profligate increases in same seem to be contraindicated.

Dave

(I wonder why these several high speed ship concepts consider only monohulls. 38-40 kts is prime multihull territory, and 10,000 tones is certainly doable. A data point: The big G-class cats and tris do 40+ kts gathering on the order of 600-1000 hp from their rigs. They gross about 12-16 tons. Anybody want to run Luzakas' VPP on say, a 600' proa weighting 20,000 tons and see what horsepower is indicated at these speeds? I bet it's a much lower figure than 335,000)

D.

[Stephen Ditmore]

I'm also not convinced the FastShip freighter is a good economic proposition. But I think the research into semi-displacement hull design could help motor yachts that routinely operate at semi-displacement speed/length ratios (a.k.a. Froude numbers) to do so more efficiently.

The freighter's lines are published in David Giles' patents. Since Giles only claims vessels over 200 feet in his patents, anyone designing a boat less than 200 feet is free to use the lines. I only caution that the beam for smaller scale versions should be checked against How wide should it be?...a method proposed.

Guillermo: Are the European monohull fast ferries similar to the FastShip hull, or do you see differences?

[Note: this discussion is related to Displacement Glider, PowerKeel, etc?]

[Guillermo]

I think main reason for the FastShip project is:
"....to meet the needs of high value, time-sensitive cargo, the fastest growing segment of the market."...."The stark choices between air and ocean freight create dilemma for global supply chain managers."

So It seems they do not want to compete with actual container ships, much more fuel efficient, economic to build and load-able for the same size, absolutely, but with air cargo.

Something has to make sense with this idea, when there are reputable organizations both sides of the Atlantic seeming to be available to throw $175+ millions into it, for a 3 ships program and two terminals....Let's wait and see.

Some years ago, here in Spain a fast monohull ferry concept was developed (The Alhambra series), within the EU "Marco Polo" program, but with road cargo competition in mind. See: http://www.rina.org.uk/rfiles/navala...izar_jan03.pdf
As far as I know, those were deep V hulls, not semiplanning.


Have a look at these interesting papers on the design of a Deep V hull form with a bulbous bow and a modified aft and transom stern, for operation at Froude numbers between 0.2 and 0.388:
http://www.friendship-systems.com/ge...05-KohEtAl.pdf
http://www.marsys.tu-berlin.de/getDo...lHullLines.pdf

Here more general info on the FANTASTIC European project:
http://www.ec-nantes.fr/sirehna/fant..._Fantastic.pdf

Here the MARCO POLO program:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/marcopolo/index_en.htm

Cheers

[marshmat]

It would be interesting to see the FastShip project compared against a Boeing 747-400, or an Airbus A340, in terms of initial cost, cost per kilogram of cargo in one crossing, and speed of crossing. Yes, it's not going to be viable against a conventional freighter, but aircraft are notoriously thirsty and it would be interesting to see how a fast freighter stacks up here.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Kiteship

...The most revolutionary thing I see on the Fastship website is the specialized cargo handling equipment and procedures they propose.... This part, though, has nothing to do with ships or ship technology...

Well, as matter of fact it greatly influences the ship's design, as we can see in this FastShip proyect and in new trends for container ships and ferries.

Just divulgative but nice:

Container Ships:
http://www.solentwaters.co.uk/Vessel...201/page3.html

Ferries:
http://www.solentwaters.co.uk/Vessel...203/page3.html

Fred Olsen's new Fast Ferry:
http://www.bymnews.com/new/content/view/11850/82/

[Guillermo]

From Datatrac:

French aeronautical engineers have devised a new concept in high-speed vessels, which use both ground effect and the air cushion technique, claiming to offer competitive tonne-kilometre costs relative to conventional
cargo carrier and ferry designs.

The team proposing the ‘Grefco’ solution has been at work for 15 years. Its programme has included the building of several prototypes and the development of a powerful calculation and simulation tool. Initial Grefco designs have been formulated for ro-pax and supply ship applications, and future targets include the feeder container vessel and trailership sectors.

Cornerstones of the concept include comparatively low power in relation to attainable speeds up to 50 knots or more, high stability and seakeeping properties, predisposition towards standard marine propulsion systems and diesel engines, and a fully amphibious capability.

The promoters have tried to obviate shortcomings associated with previous air-cushion craft. It is claimed that the overall costs of the design in its 62 m ferry version would amount to just $0.03 per ton deadweightkm — less than the $0.045 tdw/km attributed to road freight, and substantially less than other high-speed ferries and projected fast ships.

Plans are now being laid to start the Grefco business. It is understood that the financial requirement is in the order of 50m ($64.7m

A distinguishing technical feature of Grefco is the division of the air support system into a minimum of four cushions, with segregated air inputs. The width of the cushion overall is much greater than that of the hull, so as to realise full air cushion efficiency potential. The air flow into each compartment is regulated in such a way as to confer a very large righting moment, contributing to stability characteristics

The designers have opted for mass produced, economical diesel engines as the prime movers, with propulsive effect at sea delivered through either waterjets or maritime propellers, rather than air propellers. Conventional ground propulsion will serve the craft on land or on ice.

Initial proposals include a 50- knot ferry of 62 m length overall, laid out for 600 passengers and 120 cars, or eight buses plus 80 cars, and a 57-knot, 148 m ro-pax design, in a number of variants, including a load capacity for 2,500 passengers, 60 trucks and 800 cars."

[Guillermo]

Interesting info on double ended Super C Class ferries' propulsion:
http://www.skibstekniskselskab.dk/do...ouble_TUHH.pdf

[Guillermo]

More interesting news on SkySails' kite propulsion system:
http://skysails.info/fileadmin/user_...tter_0206e.pdf
http://skysails.info/fileadmin/user_...nformation.pdf

[Guillermo]

Taken from IBI news:

"German naval architects SCHIFFKO and its partners are developing a revolutionary high-speed craft that will be driven by a submerged waterjet.

SCHIFFKO is leading a consortium that also includes Voith Turbo Heidenheim, which is responsible for the development of the submerged waterjet, and SVA Schiffbau Versuchsanstalt Potsdam.

Speaking exclusively to IBI, SCHIFFKO said the design features MTU engines and MAAG gearboxes that would give the boat a speed of 30-40 knots.

Renowned as a manufacturer of propellers and thrusters and sophisticated propulsors such as the Voith Schneider Propeller (VSP), Voith Turbo Marine is expanding its marine portfolio by moving into the market for waterjets with the Voith Water Jet (VWJ), which it plans to launch at the 22nd Shipbuilding, Machinery & Marine Technology (SMM) exhibition in Hamburg in September.

In a statement, Voith said the new 'sub-surface' VWJ had been developed especially for craft operating at speeds of between 25 knots and 40 knots and consists of a specially shaped jet, rotor and a stator."

SCHIFFKO High Speed Coast Guard / SAR boat:
http://www.schiffko.com/news/current-engineering.htm