Forums

Entering a new market,, the sea,, The fastest ship on the globe, U.S.S. United states, needs a re-power

Entering a new market,, the sea,, The fastest ship on the globe, U.S.S. United states, needs a re-power

From an engineering standpoint;
It is a 5 compartment ship, with a boatload of government Aluminum, making it incredibly light.

4 screws in 4 steam turbines, in 2 compartments, rip most of history out, (leaving one powerplant as a museum).

Shed gobs of weight, install utility scale storage, matching then exceeding diesel output.

Here is the caveat, we not only have the 3rd fastest car in the world, but the fastest ship on the globe, "two markets". Also a little side benefit, currently the US Navy has the fastest ship on the planet, the U.S.S. United States could probably beat current top speed by 20%.

trx430ex | 4 augustus 2015

What better Irony, then to take the best design, add cunard's to the port and bow. Side thrusters,make the design ,sink in the "bank" in speed, then rise for straight line performance. Building on the original design.

Timo | 5 augustus 2015

How is this relevant to Tesla?

DTsea | 5 augustus 2015

Why bother. Who travels on ships????????

Dramsey | 5 augustus 2015

Nobody ever does that math, sigh.

Dear OP: your idea is both stupid and unworkable.

trx430ex | 5 augustus 2015

Dramsey, if I do your job, & my job, & make the arithmetic work, what would you say?

The Problem is,It is already 6 feet above red line, = "0" unfitted,,(Could we please step up to a truetype font in here, Apple/Google made their own fonts and were in Adobe). Displacing all the weight of steam boilers, puts it 10 feet above red line. Then replacing all that with batteries and electric motors it still only comes back to 8 feet above red line.

The problem is becoming,, it is too light with that much power, that is why I added the cunard updates to pull it down in the water. Granted that uses a lot of energy, but if we trade that energy loss for real high up in the water in a straight line, the dividends pay.

The lady has to bank at high speeds, were talking 45 knots, to keep 0 notice onboard. If one placed a Gimbal on top of a gravity sensor, took the data and balance it to the electric drives. No plates go flying off tables, and walk around like it is nothing but a trip from New york to London in three days.

AN ancillary problem, it goes so fast that the paint does not stick to the bow. It has to be coated with something else.

trx430ex | 5 augustus 2015

Dramsey

This was the same generation that did the Apollo program for NASA, with a slide rule. It is worth taking a look at, the #'s work.

trx430ex | 5 augustus 2015

To break the Trans-Atlantic record,, again, with the same ship with electric drives,,, that's priceless, kiss my ass Q-E2,, yesterday.

Timo | 5 augustus 2015

Asking again, how is this relevant to Tesla?

DTsea | 6 augustus 2015

And who cares about ship speed records?

A truly silly 'idea.'

Dramsey | 7 augustus 2015

Dramsey, if I do your job, & my job, & make the arithmetic work, what would you say?

You haven't done any arithmetic. Or any design. All you've done is posted poorly punctuated, stream-of-consciousness ramblings about some wildly impractical blue-sky ideas you have about a battery-powered ship that can cross the Atlantic without being recharged.

I have no "job". I point out the unworkability of your idea for free.

trx430ex | 7 augustus 2015

Well I guess my workload just got lighter.

Q, whats this to do with Tesla, it is one industry in many that have yet to be disrupted.

Nautical being a rather large market cap, this would be an R&D project to make the fastest ship on Earth,, again like Tesla is doing to cars.

The arithmetic is based on weight, and power to weight VS energy. The steam boilers weigh an enormous amount, with them gone, and all the square foot space of the fuel tanks the numbers add up VS the weight of energy in Tesla commercial power grid storage.

For not proving the check to the balance in generation VS storage I apologize. See the 2 giant stacks of red exaust on the USS United states, that is a lot of solar real estate. Maybe an acre of space to generate power. Given known parameters of how often a ship sails VS docked it could easily stay above 80% charge. If more is needed, ribbons of solar could run right down the side of the ship.

This is an all in up front cost project, but once done, does not sip one drop of diesel. The biggest cost in shipping, and is the fastest ship in the world.

trx430ex | 7 augustus 2015

When was the last time you went on a fishing trip and think about the amount of money is spent just in energy for that endeavor?

Take that small energy from the fishing trip and scale all the way up to an aircraft carrier. It is an enormous amount of energy to displace.

trx430ex | 7 augustus 2015

Nautical aside what is proving to be a sticky wicket, is global communications, broadband anywhere on the globe on our own network, at any speed in any weather.

Currently only the United States government has that in scale.

trx430ex | 7 augustus 2015

The reason Boeing & Lockheed formed a consortium for the space launches was that there would be no competition on the bid. This is the same thing but going after the fat suckulent tit of Newport News of Virginia. And picking up Louisiana's defence business on the way by.

DTsea | 8 augustus 2015

Yawn.

trx430ex | 8 augustus 2015

Well I am glad you asked,

I updated the design, no more canard's needed. The temporary way to get off pier & Coast Guard Certified is to weld 2 water turbines, one on each side mid ship. Install 2 Cat Container size diesel generators on deck then return helm control and power to the bridge. That a couple fire extinguishers, a lifeboat, and the dock ropes can be cut.

The temporary power/propulsion was designed to stay out of the way of restoration. But the temporary propulsion is looking more and more a permanent solution in efficiency. Being a 5 hull ship gives one 5 hard points to attach drives on each side. But we need more lateral control which brings to the next update, blowing a 5 foot hole sideways in the Bow to insert a lateral thruster. The same is done with the rear, all shafts are pulled (mucho weight) the rear is capped off with a nice cubby that a rear thruster can hide in at high speed.

The reason to ditch the rear shafts is they pull way too much water out from under the ship. Pulling the ship down in the water scrubbing speed. If we pull the water down the side of the ship it raises the draft and increases efficiency & speed.

So we have 10 side drives & 2 thrusters to produce 180,000-old,, 250,000 new + KW, & I believe it would get more efficient over time in tweaking.

And people ask,, what would this be to Tesla/Space X?

It would be an global office
A vacation retreat for workers
Labs to do work
Conference rooms
Place to check out the closest re-entry landing of a rocket launch.
Restaurants, Starbucks
Jet ski launches/ Fishing boat launches
2 helipads on top of the twin stacks.
2 25X25 foot fold down dock access doors (Aft) to drive on whatever up to 30 car capacity

trx430ex | 8 augustus 2015

Here is an even bigger question? What would it mean in Tax Status if the corporation was registered in "International Waters"?

There is no precedent in tax law that I can find.

trx430ex | 8 augustus 2015

Then if one can get past US tax law, it transfers into global trade agreements, which can get really murky. What becomes a product and what becomes a service?

adoh2010 | 10 augustus 2015

Actually I did the math, on the largest, most efficient cargo carrier ever that's under construction currently "Maersk E-line" assuming the same hull and the same power output but using electric motors instead of diesel engines. I didn't factor in the cost savings of using motors over engines and not having to use 8 MAN semi truck engines for on-board electricity generation. I also didn't factor in the weight saving of using batteries with enough range for 2 days compared to a diesel tank that's good for 30 days or so "I couldn't find the fuel capacity so I guessed it".

For that same ship, using $250/kWh batteries and $0.05/kWh electricity price and assuming that marine diesel price don't go up ever the ROI is 8.4 years! A more realistic 10 cents/kWh yields double the time.

The main problem, however, is that in no way is it ever possible at the current battery prices and weight to have enough capacity for transoceanic range. The ship will travel 800km per day at its cruising speed, so 2 days range is 1600km "1000 miles" and that'd require $200M worth of batteries, which is how much the fuel powered ship costs!

A more realistic solution is to have charging stations en route, solar farms with overhead cables charging the ship as it travels. A massive infrastructure that requires marine transport giants to get together and do it. If these stations can be built and deliver an overall electricity cost of 10c/kWh then we need to get started ASAP.

Keep in mind that I did the comparison with the most efficient ship ever built and they will start delivering in 2015/16. Now compare with current cargo ships that are up to 50% less efficient and the numbers make even more sense.

I don't know where I dropped the papers where I did the calculations on so these numbers are not so accurate they're what I remember.

Dramsey | 10 augustus 2015

The arithmetic is based on weight, and power to weight VS energy. The steam boilers weigh an enormous amount, with them gone, and all the square foot space of the fuel tanks the numbers add up VS the weight of energy in Tesla commercial power grid storage.

There is no "arithmetic". You haven't done any. You've stared at the ceiling, and thought "Hm. I'll bet the batteries and electric motors would weigh less than the boilers and steam engines." Of course you have no f**king idea what any of these components weigh, or how much you'd need in battery weight to provide the same amount of energy as the Diesel fuel required to cross the ocean. Here's a hint: the Tesla Model S85 battery pack contains the energy equivalent of about 3 gallons of gasoline.

It weighs about 1,200 pounds. Three gallons of gas weighs 18 pounds. Now think about how large a battery pack you'd need to replace a hundred thousand gallons of Diesel fuel. So why exactly do you think a battery-powered ship would be much lighter?

I am criticizing your idea because you're making bold assertions about what's possible without having put in any effort at all to determine if it is possible. I don't think it is possible, but I haven't done the math either. Then again, it's not my idea.

Timo | 10 augustus 2015

Hybrid works. That's how many of the ships are already build. Electric motor turning the screws, a huge generator providing the power.

trx430ex | 10 augustus 2015

Thank you both for providing current sobering statistics.

Kinder Morgan just inked a deal for $568 million for 4 ships.
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20150811_Kinder_Morgan_paying__568...

One could get this ship for 2 million, it has a 5 compartment hull (hard points) of drive. OK if the offset of energy is 200 million, that is 202 million total, another 100 million in R&D and refit.

The cost curve of storage energy is coming towards us depreciating @ 1 % per month.It is getting cheaper by the day to own this, one can not build this for the price of owning it.

The goal is to build the first self sustaining ship in the world, that breaks the Trans Atlantic record. And reclaims the Blue Riband for East & West passage.

This I believe is the best candidate globally, nothing new could be built for the same price.

Energy displacement,,, Energy replacement, hell we could even drop anchor in a stream of strong tide and have the drives spin backwards charging @ utility scale in an hour.

That is why we need 10 drives 5 a side, that spin just as well backwards as they do forwards. It is a breakdown of above the water line energy & below water line energy divided by time.

trx430ex | 11 augustus 2015

This is a long game to break the Transatlantic speed record with electric in 2 years. Then break it it every year for the next 5 years by 2 knots per year.

After that point the design is run out.

Timo | 11 augustus 2015

Can't do, too heavy. It's that simple.

Timo | 11 augustus 2015

Lets make some calcs:

USS United States has 180000 kW of installed power. Lets say it uses half of that to get to average speed of about 60km/h which is needed to match the record.

Shortest possible distance to travel 2575 km across Atlantic.

2575/60 ~= 43 hours. 90000kW * 43h = 3870000 kWh.

300Wh/kg batteries without any supporting structures would be 12900000 kg of batteries.

USS United States Displacement is 45,400 tons. 4540000kg.

45400000/12900000 ~= 28% of the vehicle weight just to get shortest possible distance across Atlantic. Something like Spain to USA is 7584 km which is about three times as much. Now you have reached the point where batteries alone weigh more than whole USS United States weigh.

And I was counting that with half the power. You probably need more than that to keep that high speed.

See? It's impossible with batteries.

Timo | 11 augustus 2015

SS United States. Not USS United States.

DTsea | 11 augustus 2015

Timo you made a mth error. The batteries in your rough calc weigh 4TIMES the shop displacement not one quarter.

With 250 Wh per kg batteries a transoceanic ship is impossible.

DTsea | 11 augustus 2015

Dang phone. 4 times ship displacement.

DTsea | 11 augustus 2015

Btw a battery ship would be a BS since a steam ship is an SS. Haha!

Timo | 11 augustus 2015

Made typo turning ton to kg. In actual calc -line it's correct. 45+Gg vs 12+Gg.

Timo | 11 augustus 2015

But still, I was very generous in battery weight, because that's without any supporting structures, and power used to reach that speed with that much extra weight would also be a lot more.

It's just impossible. No way around it until we have a lot better batteries, in like 2kWh/kg or similar. And nuclear power station in every harbor to recharge it in less than a year.

(3870000kWh with double-SC 240kW = 16125 hours = 672 days.

DTsea | 11 augustus 2015

I still dont see why anybody would care about a ship speed record.

DTsea | 11 augustus 2015

I still dont see why anybody would care about a ship speed record.

trx430ex | 11 augustus 2015

Timo, thanks for the spec, I really want to understand these formulas.

First of all, I agree that storage alone would not even cover half the trip, generation must walk check & balance with progress.

I will do the math, but I am missing some benchmark specs from Tesla on commercial power storage blocks in weight, how close they can be stored together, heat dissipation in density.

I am missing how efficient, 4 × Westinghouse double-reduction geared steam turbines
8 × Babcock & Wilcox boilers operating at 1000 psi and 975°F
4 × shafts,,,,, "are" Vs the heat going up the stack?

The next caveat is that steam boilers need a ton of water to turn into steam. What I learned today is the there is also 4 desalination diesel powered water producers sucking off the bunker teet.

So 180,000 KW may be a false reading of drive power to shaft. Or inefficiency that we don't need in electric drive.

But even that is a waste of conversation if the energy generation does not match consumption. Worse yet, the east west passage for the record exposes the least amount surface area to the sun for recharge, with the bow pointing directly into the sun.

On a plus note for the days research, both masts are just empty space, with nothing but a cooling system pulling cold air down, and ejecting heat in the center.

On a side note, how can a 2100lb battery be only worth 3 gallons of gasoline energy in electric? That is 100 miles per gallon efficiency?

Thanks for the educational conversation.

trx430ex | 11 augustus 2015

In other research, I did find a Westinghouse wind turbine, that could work as an outboard drive. Take the windmills off it, weld it to the side of the ship with gimbal controls. Add a 20 foot titanium 8 blade prop and run it in reverse, it is gear reduced for the torque needed.

On the other side of the coin, the prop could spin forward in a "anchored" tide providing check to the balance in charge in moring. Forget ports as a place to hang out,(they are dead energy water) we want to hang out in the tides broadside to the sun collecting energy from both solar and tidal X 10 props.

Timo | 12 augustus 2015

Actually 85kWh ~= 2 gallons of diesel. ICE in cars is just really inefficient. However you can easily get 30+mpg in efficient diesel car at optimal speed. So 1200lbs battery vs about 9 gallons of diesel. 1200 lbs battery vs 67 lbs of diesel. It's a big difference. I suspect that ship diesels are even more efficient than that.

Wind turbines and solar combined would give you perhaps one mile more range / day. Don't bother even considering them. The energy requirements to move something as large as SS US is huge. In a very good day you could get perhaps 5400kWh of solar. Ship uses about 90000kW of power to move. 324000kWminutes/90000kW = 3,6 minutes worth of charge. At 60 km/h speed that's 1 kilometer.

Considering battery powered transatlantic big cruiser is just idiotic. I'm done with this.

trx430ex | 13 augustus 2015

You think picking off the foremost naval architect of the greatest generation is going to be easy? I picked the subject because it is hard. And it will surely not get solved in just 2 pages of a forum.

metric ton of fuel is 308 gallons

10,306 tons of fuel on ss united states

= 3,174.248 gallons of fuel

42.5 KW = 1 gallon of diesel

3,174,248 gallons times 43 kw = 136,492,664 kw

or 136492.664 Megawatts

Think bigger..

trx430ex | 13 augustus 2015

That is the Max energy that design can carry, it cannot go any farther in current design.

Just one prop weighs 30 tons X 4 = 120 tons of today's lame crazy weight props. If one could cut that weight in half down to 60 tons, that is a 50% gain in efficiency. There is so much weight to take a cleaver to it keeps adding up.

Looking at the prints the stacks are empty except for the boilers exhaust all the way down to the keil. 12 decks + the stack, That is like a 20 story building in vertical re-design x's 2. Build it like a vertical data center of energy storage built in 3 cores. A chimney inside a chimney inside a chimney, using the original cooling system to suck in cold air that flows from the top of the stack to the keil. Then rises up through the three cores exhausting heat.

Thats just the storage side, and has nothing to do with generation side ,,yet.

Timo | 13 augustus 2015

You apparently don't even know difference between energy and power. Also FYI halving the weight doesn't do squat to efficiency.

Please educate yourself before posting another stupid post here.

trx430ex | 14 augustus 2015

I do believe from research done "William Francis Gibbs" the designer of the ss United states. Lifted the power plants from a decommissioned Ohio class (notation) battleship.
I would like to know what battleship gave it's last dying breath to put power to this ship?

And there lies the caveat, if one can see through the design, one can beat the design.

trx430ex | 14 augustus 2015

Timo, that is only one issue of 1469 + expanding, assigning an efficiency gain to any one part of the formula. It will go back and forth until a final design rises to the surface.

There are so many different variables.

DTsea | 14 augustus 2015

Cmcnestt why are you bumping every thread?