sail/cargo ship old/new

Granted this board is mostly about smaller vessles with exceptions.
been doing looking and some studying with the recent cost of fuel is seems to me a sailing cargo ship would be highly acceptable if someone was looking to start a shipping buisness these days...that being said what do you designers have to say about the 7 masted schooner thomas w lawson.
say reduce her draft to 21,25, or 27' and design in 2 360 deg thrusters w styer monoblocks and 2 or 4 ht surface drives w matching styer monoblock turbo desils? iv read her handeling comments and depth of port issues and it seems to me that given a moderinzation of said design w nessary heat lights and eletronics etc it would make a very viable shipping platform in the 5000-7000 ton range thought im not shure i care for the water ballast that they fitted it with originaly im fairly shure a more efficient/faster bottom could be laid out for it as well without to mutch effort or am i wrong?
Ironmatar

 

With the size of the modern container/bulk ship and the slow-speed crude oil burning diesels, the cost per ton of moving modern cargo is a LOT less then you think. Oil would have to get to the $400-$800 a BBL before reducing the size of the modern fleet for sail would be even remotely effective. And LONG before anyone would even consider Sail, Im certain they would dust off the 1950s Nuclear technology.

K9

 

You know in this day and age, with the ease of which ships are hijacked,vs the global threats to many country's i very very very mutch doubt you will see nuclear powered ships in the hands of non military personel ever.
ironmatar

 

Tbh i really diden't start this thread to debate the validity of propulsions systems however. :] i wanted to propose something on a design that had been built but had some issues. we know it works , heck look at the eagle the uscg has kept her in fine shape and not a thing wrong with the ship. i wasen't suggesting trying to replace the bulk container fleet with sail ships but its seems to me there IS a place for the construction of a sailing cargo ship to replace many ineffiecient older ships under 10,000 t.
Ironmatar

 

There IS a place for sailing vessels. Its in Sail training vessels at large institutions that can afford them, such as the USCGA. And small pleasure craft.

Every time the price of gas rises $0.10 someone comes in here talking about how we should start making sailling frieghters, as they did in the 1800's.

And everytime those of us that make our LIVING at sea spend days and hours explaining just how unusable an idea this is.

So once again lets go over this.

Cost per ton to ship by rail source Landmark shipping:
1 ton of Material 423 miles 1 gallon non tax diesel = $3.50
http://www.landmark.pro/rail/

Cost per ton to ship by sea, source Goliath buisness knowledge on demand:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6125808/Shipping-paradox-Ocean-trips-to.html
"Not that long ago, it might run U.S. recycler $1,800 to send a loaded container from the West Coast to China. Today, that same container can be had for a few hundred bucks."

So lets see the average container holds 10 tons. The distance from allmost any US west coast port to china is 6000 miles. We will use the old number of $1800, so that 1800 / 6000 = $3.33 for 10 tons per mile so that is $0.33 per mile per ton. ( Note your milage may vary ).

Ok now on to your specific arguement about smaller ships on coastal runs.

Lets assume there are no trains in the world. Your idea would either have to build a very poor sailing charatrist ship that could handel 40x10' containers, creating a lot of unwanted sail area on the cargo deck. Or the cargo would have to be taken out of the container at the port, hand loaded into the hold of the sailing vessel, sailed to the next port, and then reloaded into a container for deliver by truck. Now WHY would you want to do this instead of simply lifting the container directly off the big ship and put it on a train or truck directly???? You wouldnt is the answer. The fact is never in the intire history of mankind on the earth has it been as cheap as it is today to ship goods across oceans.

I hope this clears up some of the mystery of shipping goods across the ocean.

K9

 

Thanks to Ironmatar for being the "candid" and thanks to K9 for the answer.

Yes the big container ships are very efficient with the very slow diesels (a Wartsila Suzler runs at about 120 RPM direct drive with a specific consumption of 102 gr/HP/hour of heavy oil) and slow propellers. With the containers system plus computerized management the time spent in harbour for loading-unloading is gone down to the minimum. I have been at Rotterdam and it's incredible to see the job.

The design of a sail boat or cargo is complicated (after all you put the "wind engine" very high on the boat) with stability issues and a very complicated system for the sails. Plus, wind doesn't blow steady in the good direction all the time, so you'll need a good thermal engine. Finally the expense of 2 engines (wind and thermal) has to be made. Add hydrodynamic problems and you have an economical failure. It's have been tried in the seventies: no worth the expense.

It's very hard to beat the global efficiency of a container cargo ship. It's true sea shipping has never been so cheap.

Would be better to switch from inefficient trucks to efficient rail and/or canal/river barges for shipping on land. Railroads are cheaper to make and easier to maintain than highways.

Look in Europe the freight and passenger trains. When I was living in Paris, I used to go to Lille (200 km, 125 miles) for business; with the TGV just 1 (yes one) hour from the center of Paris to the center of Lille with a so good price that you don't even think about a car or motorcycle. People are living in Le Mans at 150 km from Paris where they work every day. Why? less time and expense than taking a car from a parisian suburb in the middle of the traffic jam. Just 56 minutes well sitten, not 1.5 hour driving. With the TGV (or another high speed train lke the german or japanese) you make travels about 600 km downtown to downtown faster than the plane and far cheaper.

In terms of efficiency do you think is viable to use a Hummer or a F150 to transport a 200 pounds guy?

 

Hmm i suppose ill have to dig out the drawing i did of a tri with container wells in the outboard hulls 3x53' long 2x thick stacked 2 hi each side i est L x W oa 195'X75' w 3 masts, and each well could have the container racks as a drop in swappable with bulk product well inserts, i also wish to point out that rail lines are not very effective for island nations sutch as macronisa, or ports that dont really deal in containers but instead rely on break bulk traffic because their port's cannot handle modern container ships.
Perhaps i shoulden't have cited fuel costs as a concern really, though it does seem to me to be a concern on everyone minds. I do however think that the Clean Energy of Sailing might be a selling point.
Ironmatar

 

May I bring in two other facets to the problem, the cost of manpower, and cost of maintenance.

Back in the 1930's, Anton Flettner was engaged to create steel sails that could be controlled automatically, and avoid risky sail activity by sailors.

When maritime life was cheap and you could send a man up a yard, it didnt cost the shipping line much if he dropped overboard. Those days are long gone of course. Now we have self furling sails and self reefing mains, but there is still a big need for deckworkers wherever ropes and 'flopping things' are concerned. Certainly, the maintenance of most sailing systems are very high

These days, big steel ships are crewed by as few as half a dozen men in quite safe conditions. Even 6 men is too many, according to some owners, not satisified with hiring 3rd world sailors at a pittance.

Anton Flettner found he could simplify the entire 'sail' concept with spinning cylinders, that had no 'flopping' bits, provided excellent lift and propulsion in any speed wind and provided much lower maintenance costs.

Few people remember this proven technology when thinking about wind assisted commercial craft. High cost and high manpower Wing sails and Kites predominate many peoples thinking, despite the best efforts of Jacque Cousteau and Lloyd Bergeson (differing designs but both solid sail systems).

I would think that any commercial wind assisting system would need to reduce manpower and maintenance as much as electronics and hydraulics has, before the the bean counters gave it the thumbs up.

I would be checking out the solid sail technology long before the traditional 'sheets and canvas' approach.

 

Have any Links ?
Ironmatar

 

Magnus effect rotating sails are more complicated than you may think, and the true efficiency is not so great. Trimarans are expensive to build (three hulls, one deck with a decent weight). A such cargo ship would be unaffordable and economically unsustainable.

Plus the savings of fossil energy at world's level would be negligible.

Flettner made in 1924 a boat with such sails. I know the Alcyon (Cousteau's Magnus sails boat) and I wouldn't like to be caught in a true bad weather with it. When you see all the mechanisms and electronics which are on this boat...very expensive. The cargo capacity is close to zero.

Maybe a better share of the energy in the world, and a true effort from some nations to save energy (the true problem is: is a big SUV a good solution to move a 200 pounds guy from his house to his workplace? is a 400 HP truck an efficient solution to transport goods on long distance on highway? and so on) would be better answers.

 

Most big oil tankers are CHARTERED , not owned , at $35,000 to $80,000 a day any fuel "savings" hardly matter.

FF

 

Its easy to say - but have you got any figures and stats? All my research over twenty years indicates substantial performance figures, and "recent" articles (1984) support the older figures. It doesnt get much simpler than a cylinder on an axle with an electric motor.

"The german wind-turbine manufacturer Enercon launched and christened their new rotor-ship E-Ship 1 on the 2nd of August 2008. The ship will be used by the company to transport turbines and other equipment to locations around the world."


IronMater

I did a google search on 'flettner rotor' and got a lot of hits. eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flettner_ship
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/PopularScience/7-1933/med_rotor_ship.jpg (excellent alternate solid sail idea)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Buckau_Flettner_Rotor_Ship_LOC_37764u.jpg

http://www.physics.montana.edu/demonstrations/video/2_fluidmechanics/demos/flettnerrotor.html

"Enercon's E-Ship Uses "Sailing Rotors" To Cut Fuel Costs 30 Percent" at
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/flettner-rotors-cut-fuel-use.php


and a lot of others

Some of the best info on practical aspects is from two magazines I have
Popular Science January 1984 and Popular Science August 1983.

The first one featured a Rotor installed on 17 Ton motor cruiser by Lloyd Bergesen. The second in a rotor windmill.

I wrote to Lloyd and got a lot of info on the calculations on rotor power and development. I have also been collecting old articles from libraries etc.

The original concept suffered a lot from the limitations of technology in those days (vibration, weight etc), but my feeling is that modern materials could overcome most of those problems.

The Jaque Coustea technology hasnt had much publicity, and you may have to speak french to get details.

The first test would be to get a model boat and stick a battery powered drill in the hull, driving a vertical cylinder to check the drive.

And there are lots of variations on the theme to try out.

 

The Popular Science Article I have been looking for

http://www.rexresearch.com/flettner/flettner.htm

Popular Science January 1984

"Power Mode --- Ave. Wind (Knots) --- Ave. Boat Speed (knots) --- Ave Fuel Saving (%)

Rotor-Assist --- 16.1 --- 7.0 --- 44
Rotor-assist --- 12.9 --- 6.0 --- 27
Rotor Sailing --- 17.7 --- 5.3 --- 100

Under rotor power alone, the Tracker reached a maximum speed of 6.1 knots in an 18.4 knot wind and a true wind angle of 122 degrees.

Bergeson is demonstrating the Tracker to fishing-boat owners, talking to large shipping companies, and presenting scientific papers at maritime conferences. And interest is growing. He now has a Navy contract to study the conversion of a military sea-lift ship to rotor-assisted propulsion. He is also conducting similar studies for a number of independent shipping companies, including major oil and cruise-ship companies.

The economic potential certainly is there. Bergeson has calculated that the world’s shipping fleet consumes 730 million barrels of petroleum a year at a cost of $30 billion. If only 20 percent of the world’s fleet adopted sail assist, the savings would be on the order of 91 million barrels a year --- almost $3 billion.

The payback to an owner can be astonishingly quick. The entire rig for the Mini Lace cost $250,000. But the owner’s records show that the sailassit saves $48,000 worth of fuel a year. In addition, average speed is increased by 5 percent, which means that the ship can make more trips. Extra income from this source was $9200. At that rate, the rig would pay for itself in a little over 4 years. But there’s more. On the New Orleans-Jamaica route, where winds are usually unfavorable, the fuel savings was an incredible 36 percent, and the speed was up 18 percent. If the ship were used on similarly favorable routes, the payback would fall to an astonishing 1.7 years. "

 

I have already read all these documentation.

If the Alcyon was a tremendous success, you would find big papers, studies, PHD thesis in all Internet in English. If you find only a page in French, it's simply because it didn't worked as hoped. I read french and the page on Alcyon has nothing worth.

The Flettner ship was a refitted schooner, a sailboat and wasn't enough efficient to outmatch the power ships of the period.

Cargo ships owners are not stupid, they need to make enormous investments to survive in a very competitive marked. The global efficiency of the big freighters is very hard to surpass.

The fossil energy used by boats is just a small drop compared to global consumption in field transportation, electricity production and industrial needs.

Let's go to engineering issues in freighters:

- the most stupid: where to put the rotors on a container freighter without hampering the cargo ability?
- the most evident: stability and directional issues.

STABILITY The energy produced by the rotors is roughly perpendicular to the direction of the wind, with a center situated many feet above the deck like on any sail boat. Windward it will be a problem for most freighters: their center of gravity is already pretty high and the metacenter is far from being enormous.

So you have to redesign all the hull and surely lose cargo load. Plus the the weight of the rotors will add a momentum of rolling to the boat stressing the structure and affecting the stability.

The rotors won't be light, they have to withstand any weather even a hurricane and in bad weather will be unfurlable sails, with all the evident problems, simply in mooring.

DIRECTIONAL Going windward it will be some leeway. That means more friction on the hull and maybe the need to use the rudder, so more drag. Add probably more miles to make.

I'm afraid that at winward the rotors will become brakes.
A cargo making for example Shangai-Frisco round trip has one way against the wind, one way with the wind. I doubt that the energy savings downwind will cover the losses upwind.

Wind is very irregular, as any sailor needing to come back sunday afternoon has seen. Cargo ships have tight schedules. Harbour places have to be reserved weeks before. If you're late, you go to the waiting list and meantime you are not working. That's very expensive and your clients will be irate.

SCALING up the rotors. That will be a problem as they are turning pretty fast. Centrifugal forces on a large diameter rotor will be colossal, and the stresses won't be small. I imagine four 150 feet high, 20 or 30 feet diameter rotor spinning at 100 or more RPM on a big freighter...Good technical problem to solve.

So the owner (or user) of the ship has to balance the increased cost of building, maintenance (the rotors will need good maintenance, with engines, roller bearings, regulators, equilibration and so on), probably less cargo capacity, probable loss of efficiency of the hull against an eventual saving on the heavy fuel bill.

Public Funds are needed...

Sorry I've found nothing in internet about Rotors engineering and rotor ships freighters naval engineering.

The technique is already old, and it's not high tech in itself. Don't you think, if it is so efficient, that at least a small number of boats would be using it? Do you have some true and solid information (not claims or extrapolations) on commercial use of rotor powered ships? Nobody has and none private owned shipping company will take the risk to put a few hundred million bucks on that, they have enough loans to pay.

What happened to the contract between Bergeson and the Navy? What were the results? Probably it's declassified now...

So public funds again...It wouldn't cost no more that three F18 fighters.

 

Hi Ilan - Thank you for a well considered discussion. You do an excellent job of providing debate material. Can I throw a few more comments in to the pot.

Cant argue with that - I have very little info on the topic.

There is a bit more to it than that ...
Two Rotor ships entered commercial service. The Buckeau was the refitted schooner (originally the Kiel), but at 900 or 2000 ton (depending on the article you read) , not "just a schooner".

The Barbara was also built, "Barbara was 92m long and fitted with three rotors. Each rotor was 17m high, 4m in diameter and driven at 150 rpm by a 27 kW electric motor. The "Barbara" carried 3000 tons of cargo and a few passengers. She plied between Hamburg and Italy for six years."
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-11/910132843.Eg.r.html

I think that is a siginificant indicator.

Yes its a " a very competitive market" - to the extent that an extra crewmans wages is bitterly fought over between unions and owners. A return on investment is being sought at all levels.

I commend another entry in the forum
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?p=225301#post225301

that gives you actual proven "in field" figures of a much smaller boat, that provides some significant information including payback time and costs.

Well, I include a picture of the recently launched Eship with regard to positioning. other engineering concerns are ripe for new ingenuity with new materials.


re stability and directional issues ,another "obvious" *fact*, but very innacurate.
1) The wind resistance of a stationary cylinder in wind speeds of over 20 knots is less than the bare masts and rigging of the schooner Buckau, when she still had masts.
2) At wind speeds over 25 knots, the wind resistance cease to increase significantly.
3) When in operation, the cylinders lean *into* the wind, thereby *increasing* stability.

I really dont understand this logic you provide here. "Going to Windward" is done with tacking like any other boat - as is runnning downwind - like modern high performance catamarans. The 'lift' provided by rotors *is* perpendicular to the direction of the wind, but there is little corresponding drag as with sails. You get a high pressure on one side, and low pressure on the 'high' side, and the vector simply aids forward motion.

In the Buckau - they could point another 15-20 degrees higher than they could with sails.

ABSOLUTELY - you are 100% right, and that is why the rotors never went past the few production boats over the years.

ABSOLUTELY - you are 100% right. I am hopefull that modern technology can over come that. I will follow the Eship with interest.

NOT just a fuel bill. A previous link will show that the extra speed means that more trips can be made, and that the small trawler paid for $250,000 of rotor in 18 months, and small trawlers are not huge fuel users.

yes, that is indeed a puzzle. I have come across over 8 commercial small boat conversions, all *reporting* significant improvements, but it hasnt taken off commercially. It seems no-one is interested in promoting it, or confessing to the shortcomings.

The Eship may just be a publicity stunt (promoting the company that makes windmills) - but only time will tell.

The mystery continues!!