Title is misleading. The vessel has "autonomous navigation", I guess this is some autopilot function which is probably widespread these days.
I thought of "autonomous" as in "no crew onboard". That would be good for piracy (there is nobody to kidnap and no hostage which could die). For everything else I think the few humans and their facilities onboard don't make a big difference in payload or so. Having a human onboard is still an asset in many situations.
Not many pirates on the Chinese coast these days since the Zheng Yi Sao in the beginning of the 1800s. She had a fleet of 400 ships and 50,000 pirates.
this ship just takes a short route back and forth between two cities.
> Title is misleading. The vessel has "autonomous navigation", I guess this is some autopilot function which is probably widespread these days.
AIUI not really for basically the reason you describe, that if we're moving 100_000 + DWT a handful of humans are inconsequential so you might as well. The radio gear on a big cargo ship will be generations better than on the New York to Paris jet you flew on but the navigation is much less sophisticated.
The Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) mandates Digital Selective Calling, which is 1980s digital radio technology. You could do much better if you started from scratch with today's technology, but the technology on that jetliner is 100+ year old AM VHF analogue radio. DSC can manage the "Dawn Treader" wants to talk to "Happy Fishing", the "Happy Fishing" wants to talk to all six other "Fishing" vessels including "Grumpy Fishing" and "Doc Fishing", and Exxon Champion has an emergency so it needs to tell everybody it's on fire and come help -- without a problem while air radio needs everybody to be patient and just shut up so that one person can talk at a time.
On the other hand the jetliner can hold altitude, plan approaches, and even complete a landing unassisted if absolutely necessary whereas the boat needs a human at the controls, all day and all night, 24/7 while at sea. This is tedious work but it isn't automated and the result is that humans routinely fall asleep and cause serious problems.
That’s a nice development. But the article fails to mention which kind of battery the vessel will use, which I thought was the main reason we didn’t have these kinds of ships yet.
19600 kWh of stored energy is about equivalent to 7 ton of diesel when burnt in diesel engine with 25% thermal efficiency
"Fuel consumption by a containership is mostly a function of ship size and cruising speed, which follows an exponential function above 14 knots. For instance, while a containership of around 8,000 TEU would consume about 225 tons of bunker fuel per day at 24 knots. At 21 knots, this consumption drops to about 150 tons per day, a 33% decline."
It's very important for people to understand that China has something like 260x the ship building capacity of the US and about 60% of the global total[0] while Japan and South Korea make bulk of the rest with the rest of the world working out to be a rounding error.[1] Domestic ship production capacity in America has gotten so bad that the US Navy is looking at outsourcing naval ship production to SK and Japan.[2]
With the United States having just expended a significant portion of their missile stockpiles[3] in the recent conflict against Iran and China apparently resupplying Iran with air defenses[4] it isn't certain how America will be able to ensure the safety of this outsourced naval ship production.
New developments like this electric ship show that China is just so far ahead of the game from anyone else in ship building and that it won't be possible for them to catch up.
This is really nice, and it’s good to be pushing the boundary of what’s possible with electric-only propulsion.
However, whether people like it or not, the most ecological alternative, all things considered, is still heavy fuel oil.
Other fuel sources might look cleaner at first, but after you do the whole analysis (how much cargo is moved, how long the engine lasts, how much energy it takes to create the components, how much is involved in their disposal, ...) it might end up being the opposite.
Title is misleading. The vessel has "autonomous navigation", I guess this is some autopilot function which is probably widespread these days.
I thought of "autonomous" as in "no crew onboard". That would be good for piracy (there is nobody to kidnap and no hostage which could die). For everything else I think the few humans and their facilities onboard don't make a big difference in payload or so. Having a human onboard is still an asset in many situations.
Not many pirates on the Chinese coast these days since the Zheng Yi Sao in the beginning of the 1800s. She had a fleet of 400 ships and 50,000 pirates.
this ship just takes a short route back and forth between two cities.
> Title is misleading. The vessel has "autonomous navigation", I guess this is some autopilot function which is probably widespread these days.
AIUI not really for basically the reason you describe, that if we're moving 100_000 + DWT a handful of humans are inconsequential so you might as well. The radio gear on a big cargo ship will be generations better than on the New York to Paris jet you flew on but the navigation is much less sophisticated.
The Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) mandates Digital Selective Calling, which is 1980s digital radio technology. You could do much better if you started from scratch with today's technology, but the technology on that jetliner is 100+ year old AM VHF analogue radio. DSC can manage the "Dawn Treader" wants to talk to "Happy Fishing", the "Happy Fishing" wants to talk to all six other "Fishing" vessels including "Grumpy Fishing" and "Doc Fishing", and Exxon Champion has an emergency so it needs to tell everybody it's on fire and come help -- without a problem while air radio needs everybody to be patient and just shut up so that one person can talk at a time.
On the other hand the jetliner can hold altitude, plan approaches, and even complete a landing unassisted if absolutely necessary whereas the boat needs a human at the controls, all day and all night, 24/7 while at sea. This is tedious work but it isn't automated and the result is that humans routinely fall asleep and cause serious problems.
> I guess this is some autopilot function which is probably widespread these days.
Hopefully it's better than FSD
That’s a nice development. But the article fails to mention which kind of battery the vessel will use, which I thought was the main reason we didn’t have these kinds of ships yet.
The main reason we don't use batteries for ships is energy density of batteries and as a consequence the range of the ship.
"The vessel is equipped with 10 container-shaped power units with a total power supply capacity of about 19,600 kilowatt-hours."
https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202604/16/WS69e0ee90a310d...
19600 kWh of stored energy is about equivalent to 7 ton of diesel when burnt in diesel engine with 25% thermal efficiency
"Fuel consumption by a containership is mostly a function of ship size and cruising speed, which follows an exponential function above 14 knots. For instance, while a containership of around 8,000 TEU would consume about 225 tons of bunker fuel per day at 24 knots. At 21 knots, this consumption drops to about 150 tons per day, a 33% decline."
https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/transportat...
Standard LFP cells - with higher QA and optimized for safety over performance
The pack/container is (over?) designed for fire suppression and humidity control
CATL and also CALB have specific marine-grade product lines
At sea - even at full power - the packs discharge relatively slow
It is especially profitable for China. Promoting batteries for shipping is their strategic direction. They hold control over the global supply chain.
It's very important for people to understand that China has something like 260x the ship building capacity of the US and about 60% of the global total[0] while Japan and South Korea make bulk of the rest with the rest of the world working out to be a rounding error.[1] Domestic ship production capacity in America has gotten so bad that the US Navy is looking at outsourcing naval ship production to SK and Japan.[2]
With the United States having just expended a significant portion of their missile stockpiles[3] in the recent conflict against Iran and China apparently resupplying Iran with air defenses[4] it isn't certain how America will be able to ensure the safety of this outsourced naval ship production.
New developments like this electric ship show that China is just so far ahead of the game from anyone else in ship building and that it won't be possible for them to catch up.
[0] https://www.construction-physics.com/p/how-china-became-the-...
[1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/countries-dominate-global-s...
[2] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/could-us-navy-build-n...
[3] https://www.csis.org/analysis/last-rounds-status-key-munitio...
[4] https://thehill.com/policy/international/5827443-china-prepa...
This is really nice, and it’s good to be pushing the boundary of what’s possible with electric-only propulsion.
However, whether people like it or not, the most ecological alternative, all things considered, is still heavy fuel oil.
Other fuel sources might look cleaner at first, but after you do the whole analysis (how much cargo is moved, how long the engine lasts, how much energy it takes to create the components, how much is involved in their disposal, ...) it might end up being the opposite.