Ferries in the Future

[Scott]

This thread is slightly different than most in this category, but I think it belongs here. My question:

How will ferries be powered with the demise of the internal combustion engine fueled by hydrocarbons?

There are a few reasons why this is a valid question. First, it would seem that our governments are moving to make major reductions in the production of greenhouse gasses in the next 10-20 years. They'll be looking to make vehicle and other engines more efficient and less polluting. Likely this will go hand in hand with more alternative fuel sources and different ways of powering our cars and creating power. Small cars can run on electric engines, larger vehicles like buses can be powered by CO2 conversion. Correct me if I'm wrong but these "solutions" would seem to be limited in their usefulness. Could a large ferry or airplane be powered by these new fuels or by electric engines? Or would larger machines have to use something else, like nuclear power?

It would seem that inevetably, maybe not in our lifetimes, we will run out of oil... so changes will have to be made. But all I've seen as far as ships and ferries are more fuel-efficient engines... which still rely on oil-based fuels. What might we see in the future?

[Nick]

This is the question that I asked one of the SuperC project managers at BCF. "Was any thought put into repowering these ships to run on something other than oil in their expected 40-50 year lifespan?"

The response I got was something like this: "No, the options we considered was a possible conversion to bunker fuel, but nothing other than oil".

Having said that, as a proponent of alternative energy sources, I think that a ship has great potential to use something other than oil. For example, if we can find a simpler way of creating hydrogen from salt water, there would be an abundance of fuel for ships. Another method I see for shorter routes (ie. shuttle island routes) could be an electric motor powered by a supercapacitor.

For those who don't know, a supercapacitor is a high capacity capacitor. It has about the same energy density as a Nickel-metal Hydride battery, but as the bonus of being able to be charged in minutes and seconds, rather than hours. This means it could be fully charged every time a ship loads and unloads.

And yes, John, there might be the possibility of nuclear power on our ferries.

These are just the options I can think of off the top of my head. I really think that in the great scheme of things, our ferries do not contribute a very significant portion of the province's carbon emissions. That being said, it would be amazing to be the world's first hydrogen/electric powered ferry fleet.

[Mill Bay]

You might also see an increase in jet propelled ships in favour over regular propeller driven ferries.

[shipchandler]

millbay said:

You might also see an increase in jet propelled ships in favour over regular propeller driven ferries.

do you mean jet, as in water jet or as in jet turbine??, because some cruise ships are already jet turbine

[WettCoast]

I understand that some research has been going into wind (believe it or not) as a means of propelling (or assisting) ocean-going freighters. Such ships would have computer designed 'sails' that would be automatically deployed and taken down as needed. Could wind be used to assist ferries such as ours in coastal services? Perhaps.

Another question....

Ferries as we know them today are designed to move people and their cars. What if we want to move people without their cars? In the not to distant future the car may be far less common then it is today. Might we see coastal ships more like the old CP steamships than the BCF's vessels of today? Are the Super C's just possibly a big mistake because their huge car capacity won't be needed just 15 years from today?

We will see...

[Scott]

Interesting. I think 15 years might be a little short, but I could be wrong! Look how much computers changed everything in 15 years. But it could be true that they may be the last of their era of "super floating garages". I just don't think people will give up their personal automobiles that easily or quickly. I don't want to take this topic off tangent already, but imagine what we could do with all the space in our cities that are devoted to the car...

Would it be easier and cheaper to use alternative fuel sources (or even wind) if ferries were smaller and carried fewer cars and passengers? Any cost savings would be traded off with increased costs in crewing since we would need more ferries if they got smaller.

[Hardy]

admin said:

This thread is slightly different than most in this category, but I think it belongs here. My question:

How will ferries be powered with the demise of the internal combustion engine fueled by hydrocarbons?

I think that this is a very valid question. Perhaps this alternate propulsion will make more sense in a few years once the costs of the alternatives come down. Oil is still relatively cheap, and most propulsion systems are designed around an ICM.

admin said:

Or would larger machines have to use something else, like nuclear power?

This would be the most likely source, at least IMHO. It has already been proven in other applications (mainly USNavy ships). I do not think that it has been ever applied in a commercial application, and especially not one where the vessel does multiple short legs. I am unsure if it is the ideal solution for this application. The reason that it has found favour in Navies (and especially submarines) is the operational factor of being able to sail unrefueled for 13 years. Fueling a ferry is not a big deal, as it is 'home' every night. Cost wise though, I am sure that nuclear is starting to become more viable than it has over the last years. As oil continues to climb higher, it could make nuclear more attractive.

This all being said, BC has stated it's opposition to nuclear power. This right now, is just on the BCHydro level, as they have veto'd any examination of nuclear power plants. AFAIK, the BC Govt is very concerned that Alberta is studying putting a nuke plant up in Northern Alberta.

The political climate being what it is, unless the business case for nuclear powered ships is a mighty strong one, I do not think that we will see this in this part of the world any time soon.

It would be, however, kind of neat to be on the bleeding edge of technology and development of something like this.....

Too bad it just won't happen ....

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

hardy said:

admin said:

Or would larger machines have to use something else, like nuclear power?

...I do not think that it has been ever applied in a commercial application...

Although government funded, Russia has been operating its nuclear powered ice breaker as a "tourist" ship for a number of years now, so there is some type of reasonable viability for this type of power source.

Petroleum products will likely remain a viable fuel source for many of our larger modes of transportation for many years to come. Trains apparently average 150 - 200 car equivalent mpg, and ships tend to be more efficient per tonne of cargo transported, though a quick back of the envelope calculation puts the new ferries at approximately 6 1/2 c.e.mpg.

I think we are limited in our power choices for a while. Unfortunately, we have yet to produce an alternate source of energy storage...and the idea of "energy storage" is the critical key here as that is all oil is...capable of providing the energy to weight ratio needed to make an alternate fuel ship feasible. Our best attempts to produce an electric car with equivalent performance parameters has yet to be fully realized.

And, unfortunately nuclear power, while an excellent alternative, suffers from far too many political obstructions.

I think, for now, we are limited to increasing fuel-efficiency and reducing emissions on our ships in our quest to reduce their impact...though we could mount a steerable airfoil for that little boost on a breezy day...

[Hardy]

I recently read, I think, in the Province (Vancouver based paper), about how the Federal Govt had stopped actively marketting the CANDU reactor, as several countries, cantons, states, etc were essentially beating down their door with queries/requests.

If we could somehow "ship-i-tize" the CANDU, which has been proven to be one of the worlds' safest designs of nuclear power plant, then I think that nuclear-powered ships would be a lot more feasible. However, the dynamics and engineering of having a ship-borne reactor are quite unique and there are precious few current designs that are relatively functional and efficient.

While still "out there", I think that with the right impetus and some market-specific interest (and perhaps rising world oil prices), that this could well be a feasible alternate power source for sea-faring vessels.

As you stated though, political climates and petty politics being what they are, certain countries or regions may DISALLOW passage, docking, berthing etc of nuclear powered ships. I know that there are these restrictions on USN ships currently that prohibit nuclear powerd ones from making several ports of call ........

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

hardy said:

I know that there are these restrictions on USN ships currently that prohibit nuclear powerd ones from making several ports of call ........

lol...if I am remembering correctly, Vancouver falls in that catagory...and, hmmm, the Province...such a wonderful standard of journalism...

[Northern Exploration]

I thought it wasn't whether the ship was nuclear powered but had to declare it wasn't carrying nuclear weapons. The USN has a policy of not discussing this so that is where the controversy was I believe.

[Hardy]

bcinnj said:

lol...if I am remembering correctly, Vancouver falls in that catagory.

Vancouver proudly proclaims that it is a "Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone". This, as has been pointed out, is completely different than nuclear-powered.

There have been several USN cruisers (CGNs) and USN aircraft carriers (CVNs) that have visited Vancouver over the past years; I know, as I used to attend the open houses. I also made several trips down state-side for this sole purpose as well.

As was also stated, the United States Navy (and as a matter of fact, all branches of it's armed forces) have a general policy of "we will neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board xyz." This being the official line, it has also been quoted to me directly by an 'un-named source' (mainly because I cannot remember who the heck he was) that the USN does not "under normal circumstances" go against the wishes of friendly nations when stopping in at ports of call with it's ships -- I paraphrase the following, from the late 90's when I visited an open house aboard an aircraft carrier in Vancouver Harbour: "we will offload the nukes to our tender ship prior to entering the territorial limits of friendly nations that have banned nuclear weapons. There have only been a few occasions (in the far East) where we have had undeclared nuclear weapons on board while in port." I believe that this may have been in reference to porting in the Philippines or some other "friendly" nation in that area in times when the North Koreans were "sabre-rattling".

bcinnj said:

hmmm, the Province...such a wonderful standard of journalism...

I was not so much holding them up to any kind of standard, but rather stating that they had an issue on the CANDU reactor. While I was not relying on any hard facts, other than AEC stating that they are not actively marketting but rather receiving calls from interested parties, I beleive that not even the Province could manage to muck up the information that I was passing along. Luckily I did not need any history or performance stats, as I would have myself been somewhat skeptical of these from the Province.

[Hardy]

pnwtraveler said:

I thought it wasn't whether the ship was nuclear powered but had to declare it wasn't carrying nuclear weapons. The USN has a policy of not discussing this so that is where the controversy was I believe.

You are indeed mostly correct. I have posted (just prior to this) my personal experience asking this question point blank to a USN crew member and my best interpretation of this matter.

"We can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board this vessel"

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

hmmm...I stand corrected...though I can't find any articles on nuclear powered vessels actually entering the port of Vancouver. Nuclear carrying, yes, but not nuclear powered. Neither the Constellation or the Ranger are, and the closest the John C Stennis got was Victoria. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just surprised there wasn't more reporting on the issue given how adamant some of the protest groups are.

A few relevant links with regards to Hardy's suggestion for a CANDU style reactor.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candu
www.ccnr.org/CANDU_Safety.html

And an answer to a question of mine: how safe is the waste produced.

www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionF.htm#j2

Due to the style of core on these reactors, I think Hardy has a very valid point suggesting them as a possible reactor design. There should be a significant amount of scalability due to their modular core design...one of the key features in their overall safety, ease of maintenance, and refueling. The use of natural uranium as a fuel source is also attractive; much less expensive to fuel. All fissile waste material is at worse "reactor grade"; a definite advantage when trying to convince regulating agencies to assess ship borne reactors as low risk.

The advanced CANDU is designed to remove the requirement for heavy water present in the current design of the CANDU(...hmmm, making it a CANH2O, or CANWAWA, which makes me chuckle as way over here on the east coast we have a convenience store chain called Wawa using a Canada goose as it's brand logo, and thirsty for some reason...), significantly reducing initial construction costs.

Marine nuclear propulsion types used at present:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion

A list of "civilian" nuclear ship both past and present:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_ships

News story about Vancouver's initiative to encourage "green" ships:
www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN3028357920070330

[Northern Exploration]

BCinNJ, something twigs in the back of my mind about the Nimitz Class CVN's not being able to fit under Lion's Gate except at the lowest of tides. I know the clearance under the bridge is around 61 metres. I believe the Nimitz Class is about 201' tall. Maybe I am wrong. I know they are a tight squeeze under the Verrazano Narrows Bridge as well. It has a clearance of almost 70 metres and the QM2 has to go through at low tide to fit under it. I know the US Navy doesn't like to have any of their carriers in restricted spaces they can't readily move from on short notice. I seem to have a recollection of a carrier moored in English Bay but again I could be wrong on that. The suckers are huge!

I don't know how compact they can make a Candu reactor. I know the Westinghouse ones they use on submarines and surface ships are fairly compact. There are some universities with small reactors. However they may not be suitable for marine application.

They are seriously researching putting a reactor in the tar sands. It takes so much energy to extract the oil from the sands that the costs are huge. A reactor while hugely expensive is relatively inexpensive to run.

I think costs of the reactor itself may preclude it from being used in a ferry. Beyond naval vessels there was the cargo ship Savanah that was used to test nuclear propulsion in a quasi commercial ship. Mind you it was done years and years ago and is moored in that city.

Now if Ballard could perfect the fuel cell better that may have real potential. We would see ferries with blimps of fuel tanks on the top though hehe.

[shipchandler]

the nimitz class use a westinghouse s-6 reactor similar to the one in my 1991 honda civic, as for the carriers port visits to vancouver [in the 40 years i have lived here anyway]the only ones i remember were the uss ranger and the uss constellation which both anchored in the inner harbour once each and english bay several times no nimitz class has ever passed under the lions gate or even been here [just victoria]check the two ships web sites for a port visit log ,they usually have them........

[Northern Exploration]

Shipchandler you must be the guy I saw my last trip to North Van who was glowing in the dark. Yeah I am sure that the Nimitz class nor the QM2 won't fit under Lions Gate. Maybe I am remembering the Constellation or the Ranger but I remember seeing one in English Bay and I am too lazy to wade through the boxes and boxes of slides in the basement to double check.

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

Yes, both the Ranger and Constellation have been to Vancouver. I know for sure the Ranger was actually in the port because the news was a-buzz when she only cleared by ~2m (There are photos out there taken from the Lions Gate as she passed under, I believe.) The QM2 is a tight squeeze under the Verrazano Narrows Bridge; I've seen video footage, and it is impressive, though not as impressive as the full speed transit they did under one bridge in Europe. The ship would not have fit under if she wasn't "squatting" when she passed under. One day I will have to convince the wife a trip to Staten Island timed with the arrival of the QM2 is cool.

As for the CANDU style reactor, looking at their construction, they maybe a modifiable type of reactor for the purpose proposed. Most of the older style ship based reactors appear to be of a similar water cooled type, though I suspect the newer types are likely metal cooled high efficiency types after reviewing some of the links I posted earlier.

Ballard was on my mind when I commented on how we just aren't quite there yet with battery technologies for transportation yet. Getting the energy density (increasing stored electrical energy while reducing the size of the battery) high enough to provide the megawatt-hours (22MW-hr needed to run a super c) needed is still just beyond our reach.

[oceaneer77]

Wow nuclear ferries!!! This may sound real cool but is not a feasible option for at least 100 years… we will never see it unless the tech changes to a cold fusion reactor (which have not been invented yet and may never be)
Can you imagine the regulatory pressures of running a nuclear powered ship in Canada with the current political landscape?
We will see the ferries get more and more fuel efficient and a return to lower and slower ships. This is a welcome change in the face of ship designs getting more inefficient with every new revision.
Also lots of R&D is going into bio fuel technology for the large diesel. We will see more synthetic and bio fuels for ships. We will make enough bio fuels to power ships and large trucks in time.
The fuel cell dream which always promises to be just over the horizon seems to stay just over the horizon. If the fuel cell technology would mature you would still be faced with the hydrogen dilemma. This includes the storage and manufacture of the hydrogen.
The storage would not be a huge problem due to the large void spaces in a ferry but the regulations would be mind blowing.. TC and Lloyds have a fit when you carry gasoline.. With pressurized hydrogen they would be almost impossible to deal with. But this does seem to be the next logical step for the marine sector although a very long way out.

We are seeing a slump in efficiency with all of the new Marpol regulations.. With the advent of new technologies the diesel engine will get cleaner and eventually more efficient. Naval architects will return to the sleeker designs and strive to make the ships more efficient to operate rather than cheap and fast to build.

That all said I cant wait to work on a fuel cell!!

oceaneer77

[Nick]

The whole point is that the internal combustion engine is grossly inefficient by pure design. It was all fine and dandy when fuel was 15 cents a gallon and nobody cared too much about air quality/pollution.

I was reading an article a few weeks ago about a company in europe doing preliminary trials with supercapacitor technology in ships. I can't find the link right now though. Also, a company called American Superconductor that has developed an electric motor for ships that is extremely efficient, allowing for smaller motors and less storage capacity.
Here's the link for that one www.physorg.com/news95525363.html

I refuse to buy the line that the internal combustion engine is here to stay. It really can't and would prove to be incredibly wasteful if it did. I do agree with oceaneer77 in that until we can separate hydrogen effectively from salt water, fuel cell technology is not the answer.

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

Some problems associated with capacitors are the high voltages and danger of explosive short circuiting. Since the stored energy in a capacitor is much more heavily dependent on the voltage capability of the capacitor than any other factor, the high voltages required to maximize energy storage while minimizing storage size create a tricky design endeavour. Air arc short circuits are not an uncommon hazard. Prudent, well thought out designs can minimize this risk, but explosive discharge is still a possibility, and the energy release in such a discharge would occur with the same ferocity, and in the same time frame, as some of the fastest (most explosive) chemical explosives.

I don't mean to be a nay-sayer about this technology, I think it has great potential; however, I've worked with these types of systems, albeit on a smaller scale, and seen the types of mishaps that occur when only a small imperfection is introduced to the system.

Oceaneer77, while I agree that the politics of today's world are not friendly to nuclear powered non-military ships, I would disagree with the idea that nuclear technology is not sufficiently advanced to use in commercial vessels. Cost of purchase is the greatest obstacle...well, maybe the second greatest obstacle...to the use of nuclear power in modern commercial shipping.

Also, producing hydrogen from saltwater is not that difficult. Merely add a distillation, or reverse osmosis, step to the system prior to breaking the water. Problem solved.

Coxnnick, if we can get the cost of alternate fuel sources down to a level where, over the life of the ship, cost of ownership is close to that of present technology, we will finally see some changes to the present system.

[Alex]

bcinnj said:

Also, producing hydrogen from saltwater is not that difficult. Merely add a distillation, or reverse osmosis, step to the system prior to breaking the water. Problem solved.

The problem, of course, is that it requires energy to produce hydrogen from water...more than you would get out from running the hydrogen through a fuel cell due to general losses. So you still have to get that net difference in energy from somewhere.

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

alex said:

bcinnj said:

Also, producing hydrogen from saltwater is not that difficult. Merely add a distillation, or reverse osmosis, step to the system prior to breaking the water. Problem solved.

The problem, of course, is that it requires energy to produce hydrogen from water...more than you would get out from running the hydrogen through a fuel cell due to general losses. So you still have to get that net difference in energy from somewhere.

Very true, though I was commenting on the availability of a process, not a method to manufacture a "perpetual motion machine". ;D

If fuel cells are to be contemplated, and self-generation of fuel is to be used, out-of-service time would be required to fully recharge the fuel cells. This additional shore-based power supply could be "green" using solar or wind energy...additional daily in-service energy could be obtained through ship-based solar collectors.

[Nick]

I suppose this is relevant to this thread. I was paroozing the Wartsila website (Finnish engine manufacturer), and I found this report on different drive systems for ferries. It is mostly about the larger single enders that are predominantly in Europe, but it is relevant here.

There is a lot of engineering babble, and is pretty long, but it is very interesting to read. It turns out that one of the most efficient methods of propelling a ship is to have 1 centre propeller and 2 azimuthing pods on each side, rather than a rudder. It gives far better maneuvering performance, with almost the same fuel economy, and much better fuel performance over twin shaft drive systems.

Anyway, I thought a few people here might be interested. Here is the link.

By the way, it's 18 pages long.

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

That's some nerd candy there ;D

I asked Markus about the idea of using an azimuth pod with a contra rotating propeller mounted directly behind the conventional shaft and wheel (podded CRP) as described in the paper, and he referred me to their propulsion designer. The information I got was the podded CRP has more cavitation issues than a traditional propeller and rudder configuration.

FSG uses a design technique known as "twisted rudder" where the rudder is shaped to optimize water flow over the rudder surface. This both significantly reduces cavitation and increases propeller efficiency due to suppression of turbulence off the props, i.e. the flow becomes significantly more laminar through the propulsion system.