"Combining solar and LNG"
Hey, I slapped a solar panel on my gas stove to power the clock. Its green now.
"Combining solar and LNG"
Hey, I slapped a solar panel on my gas stove to power the clock. Its green now.
The ship’s solar system can produce up to 200 kilowatts at its peak and generates about 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity daily
The carrier also uses a dual-fuel propulsion system that operates on conventional fuel oil and LNG.
I was real excited for electric shipping since one ship like this produces an unbelievable amount of pollution, but this is kinda pitiful in comparison to the power needs of these ships:
The propulsion arrangement on each ship includes one MAN 6S60MC-MK 10.5-GI-EcoEGR main engine with a rated output of 14,950 kW (20,000 hp) driving a propeller, a 2,000kW bow thruster, and three Himsen 8H22CDF 1,500kW generators. The LNG fuel is stored in two type C tanks with a combined capacity of 1,700 cubic metres (370,000 gallons).
1000kwh isn't nothing and I suppose it might meet the ship's power needs while in port (edit: nvm average shore power consumption for a panamax is 600kw) but this feels like a whole lot of greenwashing given they don't mention the power requirements in the article.
That looks a little gimmicky to me. I'd expect more panels on that ship if they were going to have a meaningful impact.
I saw a story about a similar car carrier with solar panels, basically they're used to offset the hotel load of the ship, and have nothing to do with the propulsion.
Which is still a significant improvement considering how much time a vessel like this spends at port loading and unloading.
Man, I don't even have a 1 car carrier. It's never enough for some people.
So this ship is obviously just an experiment in greenwashing, it sounds like the panels basically just keep the lights on.
But if the 10,800 cars were all EVs equipped with V2L and you had them powering the ship, how far could their batteries at 100% propel the ship?
10,800 * 80 kWh = 864,000 kWh. Another post said the engine output is 15,000 kW, so it could go full steam for 864,000/15,000 = 57.6 hours? Although I guess using an electric rather than fossil engine will be a lot more efficient (2x? 3x?) Still, the energy density of oil is amazing...
Ultimately the paradigm of mass shipping millions of tons of cargo across the ocean needs to stop if the environment is something that anyone wants to pretend to care about. As far as the cargo that is shipped, Cars are certainly the worst.
I was actually thinking about this recently. It's now making a lot of sense to just cover the mega carriers in solar panels like this. Could probably even just carry a massive battery and be completely emissions free. Maybe a tiny nuclear reactor as an emergency backup?
By my estimates solar power would cover 0.3% of its propulsion cost, or 5% of its other electrical needs
Estimating 11000-14000kW needed at the shaft and up to 2000kW for other electrical needs
As is evidenced by their decision to go with dual fuel, the point of the solar was not to cover propulsion costs.
Nor does it even seem to cover a significant portion of auxiliary needs
Except it does.
This power helps run the ship’s operations, lowering fuel use and making the ship more energy efficient.
This is textbook peak shaving. Not to mention the engineering feat of integrating solar with LNG for this cargo application.
Hopping into the comments to decry the ship for not doing full propulsion via solar just shows your ignorance. It's like complaining about a hammer for not being able to screw in a fastener.
It's just greenwashing. Companies do it all the time. Slapp some solar on it or use some insignificant amount of recycling and you got your press release which lazy journalist just have to copy. That lead to clickbait articles.
And if you're being honest you're just defending it because the "by China" in the title.
This is an odd strawman to construct
doing full propulsion via solar just shows your ignorance
The only ignorant person here my friend is you, nobody has said or suggested such a thing
Soo, then why did you characterize the solar power as being inadequate for propulsion? That is a meaningless thing to point out - given how the solar is not intended for propulsion. What was your original point?
1 comment