New propulsion sytems for ships

[Kiteship]

Originally Posted by marshmat

It is fairly common knowledge both in and outside the shipping industry that ocean-going ships are very efficient, in terms of the fuel needed to carry a certain weight a certain distance (and thus the CO2 emissions, a direct consequence of the amount of fuel burned). That doesn't mean that they couldn't be more efficient, which is one point of the article. Just because something is reasonably good at what it does, is no reason to stop trying to make it better.

I am very much in agreement with Marshmat. Please do not take this as criticism. Ships are *horrible* polluters; to claim otherwise is simply falling for and promulgating a cheap and shallow bit of flak from that industry. They burn fuel which would be--has been--condemned for any other purpose by *all* governments (save perhaps China). The sulphur compounds they emit are quite literally killing the earth's oceans, and not slowly (cf acidification of the Earth's oceans; it will only take a few more parts per million before all sea shells become soluble--this means the extinction of more than enough of the world's food chain to doom half of Mankind--and completely extinguish thousands-to-millions of other species).

This acidification is the direct result of two compounds being released into the atmosphere--sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide, each of which creates acid when dissolved in seawater. If it comforts you to believe that acidification is due to a "natural" swing of these compounds, please feel free to do so, but the result is the same; acidification of the Earth's oceans will kill most currently living Humans unless WE stop it. Nature will survive either way. The earth doesn't care whether Humans persist or not (and by current actions, clearly Humans, as a species, don't either).

More to the point, the shipping industry *knows* precisely what they are doing, yet do it anyway (sulphur is a lubricant; de-sulphured fuel sharply increases maintenance and lubricant costs aboard ships, in addition to being more expensive itself). On-land petroleum-fired power plants were forced to clean up their acts 20 and 30 years ago--though they were burning far less polluting fuels than ships do today--because they were demonstrably killing the environments around them. Today we allow much, much worse to happen at sea, because 1) we don't see it in our back yards and 2) there are no international accords on the high seas--and huge commercial pressure to maintain this status quo.

It is a sorry state of affairs, and I very much fear we are not up to the challenge of responding to it.

Dave

[Guillermo]

Dave,
I've been 'elaborating' on AGW since several months ago at:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/ope...nge-21390.html
I would appreciate very much if we could debate such matters there, not here.

Thanks and best regards.

[brian eiland]

Video released recently. Interestingly an AC motor rather than DC....well that's what drives our trains

http://www.rasertech.com/media/movie...fev_jan09.html

[FAST FRED]

It is a sorry state of affairs, and I very much fear we are not up to the challenge of responding to it.


Actually the ability to lower CO 2 levels has been EZ for decades.

Of course WHY one would wish to destroy plant food is beyond me.

It certainly isn't "Global Warming" , as the Earth is actually cooling , and we are between glacial ages.

Its not even as warm as when Greenland was providing grape crops to Eric the Red.

TO wish to return to the disaster of the "Little Ice Age" , and starvation and crop failures is a strange desire.

However if CO2 is your personal demon , the simple addition of ground iron ore causes a huge bloom in ocean carbon capture , as has been demonstrated.

Ships could easily carry a few tons to disperse as they travel.

Of course the price of ocean transport would rise , but no one seems much concerned with the world loss of 15% of fuel mileage mandated for cars and trucks . Price that out in tons of carbon! Or billions of dollars for nothing.

[Guillermo]

My opinion is we need to lower the sulphur emissions from ships as much as we can, as SOx and other accompanying products are strong polluters. About the CO2 we really should do nothing from the enviromental point of view, in my opinion. But lowering CO2 emissions means lowering fossil fuels consumption, which is desirable. So, ahead with the lowering of SOx and CO2 emmissions from ships!

Cheers

[brian eiland]

Originally Posted by brian eiland

I might make the suggestion that you visit this film that I referenced in this discussion of "CRUDE"
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/ope...ram-21427.html

...a YouTube presentation of the film
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...40072407639740
(I just found a video of this film on a Google site. The sound is screwed up for the first couple of minutes, but then it seems to straighten out)

...now fast forward to minute 59:00 to the discussion of this 'carbon loop' that produced the very conditions that resulted in the formation of the crude oil in the first place.

Imagine an ocean that is losing much of its sea-life, and then an anoxic event that pushes it into greater stagnation....Ocean Stagnation, it has occurred before. (1hr:02 minutes of the film)

Then have a look at 'the engine of ocean circulation' (1hr:8min:30sec)

Questioning anoxic events?? Take a look at some lakes in upstate New York (1:10:30)

Originally Posted by Fast Fred

Actually the ability to lower CO 2 levels has been EZ for decades.

Of course WHY one would wish to destroy plant food is beyond me.

However if CO2 is your personal demon , the simple addition of ground iron ore causes a huge bloom in ocean carbon capture , as has been demonstrated.

It's not so much a question of lowering our present CO2 levels....that might be good also. BUT if we can find a way to burn coal without its SIGNIFICANT contribution to the problem, then we here in the USA have solved a big energy problem for a significant intermin time period, as we have a HUGE reserve of coal. With that resource properly developed we would lower our demand on the world's energy resources, and benefit the rest of the world for some considerable time while we look at other technologies.

I'm sure the economy of the world as a whole could utilize a little help at this time....and ours as well. These lower oil prices will not be with us for long.

I for one would much rather see us compressing these foul gases and putting them back underground than seeding our oceans with damaging materials.

[Boston]

I just got out of a meeting at the Denver Zoo and it was partly about the Gasification process by which we will be heating and cooling our new exhibits
basically using animal waste combined with combustible trash to power the system
reduces the waste leaving the zoo and keeps our overall footprint lower

I keep wondering what energy potential algae has as fuel or as a feed stock for celulitic alcohol production
the alcohol group I belong to had no literature on algae as a feed stock although it was suggested that the salt content was to high and would kill the yeast cultures

lets hope there are some changes in the allowable limits for emissions from blue water vessels as we all seem to agree these ships are serious polluters

[masrapido]

Originally Posted by Boston

... the alcohol group I belong to ...

Just a lapsus or time to start some confessions?

[sigurd]

boston, is an alcohol generator a big bulky unit or something that can be used in a small vessel?

[Boston]

its a distillers club knuckle head
rehab is for quitters

the production unit would be best on land were mixing can be better controlled
although it could work on board
as for size yes it could easily fit on board

the business end of of any ethanol production is the sill itself
the most popular one for about the last twenty years is the Charles 804
reflux still
its a tube about 3" in diameter and six feet or so high capable of putting out 190+ proof ethanol and it costs about $1,000 to buy the kit
but you can get the plans for about $20 and likely get away with paying half that to just build it yourself as it real easy and thats pretty much what every one does
its automated temperature control so its dam efficient and pounds out about 16 liters an hour
although there are several versions of the charles still up to 6" diameter
in a nut shell the limiting factor in distilling fuel alcolol is the yeasts tolerance for alcohol
there is a lot of work going into developing yeast strains that can tolerate high alcohol content mash but so far its about fifteen % tops
that basically means that if you have 100 liters of mash in the boiler you get 15 liters of fuel in aprox one hour
and fermenting takes about two to three days depending on a lot of things
but there are breeder rigs that put out a constant flow of alcohol
the size of the rig depends on the amount of output you are after
INHO the best set up is a multiple fermentation unit with multiple distilling stacks and a boiler size of about 400 liters
if you had say four of them it would take one day to set up the mash
maybe two depending on temp and mixing rates to ferment and one more day to distill it all and start again
lots of sitting around and babysitting a fire once you get the mash going
the yeast pretty much do all the work from there all you do is turn some valves and clean out the kettles for the next batch

empty weight is about zero
and capacity is all about boiler size

if you were mostly sitting in harbor you could set up a still in your back yard and make your own fuel no problem with whatever was handy as feed stock
some just takes longer to ferment than others
cat tails are the best silly as it seems
corn actually has a fairly poor yield
sugar beats are ok
cane sugar is the bomb
but cat tails are a close second
if you want to use wood pulp you can but you have to steam fracture it before you mash it
I think the enzymes are different but the yeast is whatever the highest yield stuff is you can get a hold of
the enzymes break the starchs into sugars and the yeast eat the sugars and excrete alcohol till the alcohol content gets so high it kills em

ask away
Ive been a student of the process for some time and have sat in ( and hoisted a few ) with the Colorado brewers association on many occasions

oh
I asked around about the sea weed for a feed stock and got some pretty strange silence out of everyone except this one professor friend of mine
she said they got there best yields out of Hydrilla which is a water plant
so my idea of using seaweed really got her going with the suggestion of finding the right enzyme to most efficiently break it down in the digestive tract of a sea urchin since they eat the kelp for a living and are bound to be the most likely source of just the right enzymes

there is some secrecy and subterfuge involved in the hole area of research as the profit potential is huge
Ill include a note I got from one of my professor friends so you can see what I mean ( leaving out names of course )
it read as follows

I greatly appreciate your input. We recently returned from three months in the Rio Grande Valley where I had access to the University of Texas Pan American Coastal Lab computers to print out academic papers through their research center--a paid subscription of the university. In most states, state supported schools share with the public and many have grants that pay grad students to show an inquiring investigator how the system works. Almost fifty dollars to read the article on fish digestion is a whopping big sum; yet, it could be the answer to many questions about cell wall destruction. We also need to understand the diet of the species being studied. What do these fish eat?

Termite guts have a number of microorganisms that work in combination to break down cellulose and they have been studied in-depth. As I recall the information about the total number of bacteria there hare several reported numbers from 17 to 27 or so . (Most likely the termite information is filed in one of three computers--Ha! I'm overrun with great information and relish the introduction of more new ideas!) Anyway the comment that I seem to recall is that the researchers believe the cellulosic breakdown process is best done through a symbiotic relationship among microorganisms. In developing GMO's they attempt to embed certain characteristics into a more limited number of organisms instead of using multiple combinations. In my humble opinion, I would recommend doing a series of trails on various combinations and stick with nature. (But then they could not patent it.)

In our trials we used a combination of animal digestive enzymes because they were affordable for the demonstration but not affordable for commercial application. I do NOT want to get into a forum war with people telling me what to do with information that I cannot prove or reproduce at this time. Our previous biochemist used a heavy hand with his battery acid (less expensive than hydrochloric acid) which also leads me to insist that results need to be carefully measured in a systematic study. Even health-food digestive enzymes worked well; yet, are EXTREMELY expensive. Since then two additional biochemist have attempted to wring out information from me and then go off on their own to develop their 'secrets' without sharing back with the world. Greed seems to dominate most people once they think they have a glimmer of enlightenment.

Don't get me wrong. I intend to make significant profit from various biofuels/ biomass projects. Yet, knowing that there is plenty of wealth to share, I have not sold out to dominant investors. They have proved to be viscous. And the government bows to existing 'big business' destroying the effort and intent of the mandated small business development programs (SBIR). And that is another rant.

On a bench test (very small run) the human digestive enzymes also showed hope and demonstrate proof-of-concept for small quantities which is a reason to experiment with packing house waste. We walked a few people through cactus to ethanol steps which also seems reasonable as a feedstock. Cacti are slow growing and not recommended as an energy crop. However, some ranchers have a cactus elimination plan and I represent equipment available to remove cactus without significantly disturbing the land. I really need a lab to make uTube clips of all these things that I have witnessed.

Please let me know more about your interest. I am never bored with good input. Thanks for sharing. I look forward to learning about sea urchins.
Best wishes,
xxxxxxx

[sigurd]

human digestive enzymes... distill your liquor, drink it, puke over the next batch of seaweed and start again.. sustainable intoxication?

Thanks boston, I'll look further into it soon.

[Boston]

this is a new rig that is presently being discussed by the alc group
its simple and small and could be built cheep
kinda a start up rig to help you get the hang of it

http://gillesenergies.webs.com/still....htm#216381801

its not the bomb ethanol still
but its a good starter as it looks to be about $200 to build
and
you can make beer in it
hmmmm
beer

[FAST FRED]

"then we here in the USA have solved a big energy problem for a significant intermin time period, as we have a HUGE reserve of coal."

We have newly discovered nat gas that rivals any find in the world AND at least a centuries worth of shale , that refines to oil in a very clean process.

BUT our congress is determined to only support financially unsucessfull methods , of well paying campaign fund "donors"..

FF

[FAST FRED]

Discussing our congress reminds me of an unsucessful experiment I tried.

Propane is a great fuel for ranges and heaters and lamps ,
BUT has the danger of being heavier than air and Explosive.

The other gas that makes sense is Acceteline , lighter than air .

But the tanks are really heavy , and in our overregulated society are hard to refill.

About 1900 many apartment houses would have Acceteline generators in the back yard providing gas to the units.

Although I built a bunch of test generators I could never get the right combo to run a range.

Sure would be EZ to go cruising with a few cans of rocks (Calcium Carbide), to burn with sea water!

FF

[mydauphin]

Waterworld here we come...