Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

World's First Crewless, Zero Emissions Cargo Ship Will Set Sail In Norway (cnn.com) 107

A Norwegian company has created the world's first zero-emission, autonomous cargo ship that is expected to journey between two Norwegian towns before the end of the year. CNN reports: It's not the first autonomous ship -- an autonomous ferry launched in Finland in 2018 -- but it is the first fully electric container ship, say its makers. Developed by chemical company Yara International, the Yara Birkeland was designed to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, which are toxic pollutants and greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide, as well as moving freight away from roads to the sea. The shipping industry currently accounts for between 2.5% and 3% of global greenhouse gases emissions, according to the International Maritime Organization.

First conceptualized in 2017, the ship was created in partnership with technology firm Kongsberg Maritime and shipbuilder Vard. Capable of carrying 103 containers and with a top speed of 13 knots, it will use a 7 MWh battery, with "about a thousand times the capacity of one electrical car," according to Jon Sletten, plant manager for Yara's factory in Porsgrunn, Norway. He says it will be charged at the quayside "before sailing to container harbors along the coast and then back again, replacing 40,000 truck journeys a year."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World's First Crewless, Zero Emissions Cargo Ship Will Set Sail In Norway

Comments Filter:
  • Very interesting concept and I wonder if it would be applicable in other locations.

    I'm thinking locally, namely the Toronto area, where we have a lot of tractor trailers bringing goods into the city as well as through the city and the distances aren't that great. Ships bringing containers from Niagara Falls (really Queenston-Lewiston) would bypass the QEW all together and could drop off/pick up cargo in Hamilton, Mississauga, Toronto, Oshawa saving huge amounts of fuel and wear and tear on the various hi

    • by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2021 @09:31PM (#61730841)

      Ships bringing containers from Niagara Falls (really Queenston-Lewiston) would bypass the QEW all together and could drop off/pick up cargo in Hamilton, Mississauga, Toronto, Oshawa saving huge amounts of fuel and wear and tear on the various highways.

      A nice idea, until you realize that going uphills the Niagara Falls is a nearly impossible task.

    • The SF bay area may be a bit more challenging, as most of the bay coast is either already developed or protected wetlands. Furthermore, the most of the bay itself is fairly shallow as a consequence of gold mining runoff during the 1800s, and dredging a path for ships to reach the port of Oakland is already a large task.

      However, the bay area would be an ideal location to try electric truck deliveries: distances are short, traffic tends to be stop-and-go or on surface streets a lot of the time, and there's al

    • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Unlikely any time soon. Navigation in busy waterways is extremely complex. The main problem with autonomous carriers like these is navigating the ports. This is why this one is designed to go from one specific small low traffic port to another specific small low traffic port across a relatively uncongested path.

      As for powering such a vessel electrically, maritime logistics is the only place in heavy logistics where batteries as a source of power actually make sense. Cargo ships carrying containers or simila

  • They will need a lot of investment to build the charging infrastructure equivalent of 1000 electric cars to make this viable for daily use.
    • And how long will it take to connect and disconnect those 1000 cables every time they want to charge?

    • Once completed it ends any need for fuel truck traffic, and reconnecting between trips while loading is an easy way to keep topped off.

      • As with cars, doesn't it require a green electricity source, otherwise you're just pushing CO2 production elsewhere for no net gain?

        • by Tom ( 822 )

          Even if your electric car is powered by coal power plants, it is better. Because the main problem with cars is that it takes forever to replace all or most of them. Centrally managed systems such as an energy grid are easier to transition. Just look at how long it took for e-car charging infrastructure to become common.

        • Itâ(TM)s Norway. It will be powered with hydro.

        • No, because mobile power sources are not as efficient, since they have to be mobile. A combined-cycle gas turbine is much more efficient than an ICE.

          There's losses getting the energy from the power plant to the propellers/wheels, but the extra efficiency at the power plant can offset those. You'd basically have to calculate for every individual charging location to figure out if you're currently better, worse or more-or-less-the-same with electric.

          Plus this ship is operating in a country where there's bas

        • A car's combustion engine is not even 20% efficient.
          A fossile power plant is in the 42% - 45% range.

          An electric car is far above 90% efficient (including power transmission and charging).

          The math is up to you.

    • by dromgodis ( 4533247 ) on Thursday August 26, 2021 @12:43AM (#61731091)

      They could put the battery in a container, and just load/unload it with the rest of the cargo. Those battery containers could be charged anywhere and distributed to the harbours, e.g. by cargo ship.

      • While this sounds great in theory, that would rely on a human species capable of working together and doing things such as standardising charging infrastructure, standardising connections on ships (to this day despite 80 years of incidences filling crude tanks there is still no standard connector on major hazard vessels to trip a ship's pump, and that's both a safety and environmental risk, not some global warming that people care even less about), the same actually applies to electrical connections on shor

      • They could put the battery in a container, and just load/unload it with the rest of the cargo. Those battery containers could be charged anywhere and distributed to the harbours, e.g. by cargo ship.

        Interesting concept, the containers could have a robust set of connectors on the tops and bottoms that would allow them to be stacked for additional capacity.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The battery is 7MWh. There will be some charging loss but a 1MW supply could charge it in probably around 8-10 hours. 1C is quite conservative for charging.

      Given that it's a container ship that's not a big issue because it will take hours to load an unload.

      A 1MW supply is not particularly large, many EV charging locations have much more than that to support a large number of 350kW chargers. In fact I imagine they probably already have way more than that available at the port for shore power to fossil ships,

    • 7 MWh is about 100-150 cars, not 1000. A car with a battery of 7 KWh would have only 30-50km of range.

  • You know those maiden voyages are risky.
    • Yup, it happens all the time right? I mean, the year 1912 .. that's practically like it happened yesterday. Not like technology has advanced at all since then.

    • I'd probably be more worried about pirates (the real, cargo/ship stealing ones, not copyright infringers). As autonomous/remote controlled as this thing is, there's still a bridge somewhere, or else a power cable to unplug to stop the ship moving while you get a ransom paid.

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        Well, in this case I think the term "hijackers" would be more appropriate, as this ship doesn't sound designed to sail on the high seas.

      • What are the pirates going to do? They can't unload the cargo, sail off with the ship, or even hold anyone hostage. As soon as you know they're on board you can just send in a kill team. About the worst they can do is threaten to destroy the ship. Most probably don't have access to the kind of explosives to do that and since there's no human crew, access to vital areas can be more restricted or even sealed off entirely.
        • I'd imagine the ship will still have corridor access to all kinds of stuff - sure, they may be able to lock the doors, but I'm pretty sure an angle grinder would take care of that problem. It's maybe a bit basic, but "we're going to take the ship to pieces until you pay us a ransom" might have some effect. I'll bet there are some valuable metals and other materials on board - it's going to be easier to steal them if there are no pesky humans around to get in your way.

          I agree, there are no humans to ransom w

      • This could *ruin* the poor pirates!

        Grabbing a cargo ship is one thing. *keeping* it is another.

        Not having hostages eliminates the detergents to storming the vessel and shooting all resistance.

      • While Norway was famous for its pirates^h^h^h^h^h^h Vikings, 1200 years ago: I doubt piracy is an issue in the northern sea or Atlantic.

  • They are supposed to have someone on watch at all times. Watching for other boats among other things.

    And why bother? A small crew is cheap compared to the cost of the ship and cargo.

    • From TFA:
      "The project has also required regulations to be developed together with the Norwegian maritime authorities to allow an autonomous ship to navigate the country's waterways for the first time"
      ""The Yara Birkeland operates along the Norwegian coast, but if it went further, then it might encounter other territorial regions with perhaps different rules and regulations that need to be met," says Negenborn. "Who is liable if something goes wrong?""

    • by Shinobi ( 19308 )

      Rolls-Royce, SAAB and quite a few other companies are working on remote oversight+operation(it's already in testing on some ferries), with 50-60 cameras, for use in littoral/near-shore operations.

      As for why, they'll still save a lot of money, not just on the crew itself, but in removing a lot of structure for crew space+support, which in turn increases cargo carried per unit of energy.

      • The additional cargo space freed up is a tiny fraction of the overall capacity. The labor costs of having trained personnel operating in 24/7 shifts is the real savings.

        • by Shinobi ( 19308 )

          I actually saw a presentation about this by some ship architects, and for coastal shipping, like the ship the news article is about, it could actually be as much as a 30% increase. What you get rid off is not just the berths, galley etc. It's all the storage facilities for food, water, sewage. All the human life support equipment and piping etc etc

    • Signing paychecks sucks even worse when you're a sociopath.
  • Given how bad the energy density of batteries is, compared to hydrocarbons. ^^

    And before the trigger army arrives to terrror-moderape me down for things I stand for in their minds:
    No, I'm not pro fossil fuel. I'm pro fully synthetic hydrocarbons "burned" 100% cleanly in a fuel cell, and the resulting CO2 being captured and compactly stored in a tank until the entire "battery" is "recharged", or at least buying the capturing it from the air with the thing you're buying and making it illegal to have non-close

    • by Luckyo ( 1726890 ) on Thursday August 26, 2021 @03:07AM (#61731197)

      Thing is, this is pretty much the only really viable way to use batteries for transit. Of all main methods of logistics (aerial, automotive, rail, riverine and deep water), deep water is by far the least weight constrained. In fact, you want to have a large and stable amount of weight positioned at the bottom of your ship for ballast. If you have fuel stores at the bottom for this purpose, you'll often need to take on ballast water as you expend fuel to maintain balance of the ship.

      In all other modes of transit, near constant heavy weight of batteries is a strict negative, that is so extreme that in long range automotive and pretty much any range air, it's just not doable. And rail is already electrified with wires, and now that it's becoming clear that batteries in heavy trucking isn't going to be a thing because roads will not survive the weight with any meaningful payload, there are now serious people starting to look at pulling wires over highways and other commonly used long range trucking routes.

      TL;DR: shipping is the only form of heavy cargo logistics where batteries as a source of energy for movement actually make sense.

      • by 3247 ( 161794 )

        TL;DR: shipping is the only form of heavy cargo logistics where batteries as a source of energy for movement actually make sense.

        Not really the only form.

        For cargo trains, you can use battery-powered locomotives for shunting and to cover the last mile into industrial areas.

        For lorries, you can equip motorways and other highways with overhead wires, and the battery would be used to cover the last mile to the destination.

        • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          >For cargo trains, you can use battery-powered locomotives for shunting and to cover the last mile into industrial areas.

          And for trucking, you can use forklifts to move cargo. Holy shit, this logic works for everything!

          >For lorries, you can equip motorways and other highways with overhead wires, and the battery would be used to cover the last mile to the destination.

          Why am I not surprised that someone who uses this sort of logic didn't read to the second paragraph.

      • Thing is, this is pretty much the only really viable way to use batteries for transit.

        Complete falsehood.

        Of all main methods of logistics (aerial, automotive, rail, riverine and deep water), deep water is by far the least weight constrained.

        Nonsense. Trains can be essentially as long as you want if you distribute the motive power throughout their length.

        In fact, you want to have a large and stable amount of weight positioned at the bottom of your ship for ballast.

        In fact, trains need a large amount of weight at the bottom too, so they stay planted on curves.

        In all other modes of transit, near constant heavy weight of batteries is a strict negative

        It's a negative in shipping as well, and what's more, you have to have it for cargo ships to work so it's a negative which is always present. It's not nearly as big a problem in trains as you imagine it to be, because they only climb limited grades (< 8%) and just like other EVs

        • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          >Nonsense. Trains can be essentially as long as you want if you distribute the motive power throughout their length.

          Remember folks, there are no clearly defined and quite limiting weight limits to train bridges. Just shove the batteries in there. It'll be fine!

          >It's a negative in shipping as well

          Which is why ships often carry ballast water. A lot of it. They just love being inefficient!

          I'm just done with green anti-reality nutjobs.

          • Remember folks, there are no clearly defined and quite limiting weight limits to train bridges.

            If you actually think this is a factor against electrification you know nothing about the construction of existing locomotives.

            It's a negative in shipping as well

            Which is why ships often carry ballast water. A lot of it. They just love being inefficient!

            You read the comment, but you did not understand the comment. You thought you understood the comment, so you commented, and proved you did not understand the comment.

            I'm just done with green anti-reality nutjobs.

            You wouldn't recognize reality if it tore you a new asshole inside of your existing asshole.

            • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

              >If you actually think this is a factor against electrification you know nothing about the construction of existing locomotives.

              Remember folks, weight capacity is not a thing in rail. Load it up! You know those texts on the side of a lot of rail cargo? They're there just as art decorations!

              >You read the comment, but you did not understand the comment. You thought you understood the comment, so you commented, and proved you did not understand the comment.

              "I'm smart, I'm so smart. Let me gaslight you a

      • that is so extreme that in long range automotive and pretty much any range air, it's just not doable

        What is long range automotive? We already have sufficient range for automotive applications to the limits of safety. And by that I mean if you're driving more than 2-3hours in one stretch without a break then you're a menace who should get off the road before you get someone killed.

        The only requirement is to providing charging infrastructure at rest stops.

        The application that doesn't work is heavy haulage on road. You can charge a Tesla in 15min enough to get you well and truly through your next 2 hours of

        • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          Remember folks, when you have pot holes in the road, this is the type of a person who is creating them. "Weight constraints? I don't believe in weight constraints!"

          • Remember folks, when you have pot holes in the road, this is the type of a person who is creating them. "Weight constraints? I don't believe in weight constraints!"

            Potholes are created when the road surface cracks and water doesn't drain off underneath. This is either due to complete lack of maintenance or poor up front engineering / construction. They don't get automatically created due to additional weight. Weight increases wear, but that's a simple maintenance task to deal with.

            Ironically for your example I live in a country where the roads used by the heaviest vehicles are the ones in the best condition. Incidentally a country in Europe with one of the largest mov

    • I'm not pro fossil fuel. I'm pro fully synthetic hydrocarbons "burned" 100% cleanly in a fuel cell

      So what you're in favor of is gross wastes of energy, because it takes a lot more energy to do that than to just use a battery.

  • by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Thursday August 26, 2021 @05:16AM (#61731379)
    So would these ships be obligated to answer a mayday call? Would they understand the rules of right of way with other shipping, including the exceptions? Would another vessel in their path be able to raise them by VHF? What happens when there is a risk of collision and how do they assess that? I could see the whole idea going great until the moment it doesn't.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They have a pre-planned route that they don't deviate from. Drones do not have to answer mayday calls, only manned vessels.

      Presumably they have radar, cameras and more to detect any other ships nearby. Generally though these big ships can't exactly swerve out of the way so unless they spot an obstacle on radar from considerable distance it's already too late.

      • Modern ships have AIS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
        And as this particular ship has "right of way" as it is operating in "Traffic separation areas" aka "sea water ways" everything that has no AIS has to give way.

        Generally though these big ships can't exactly swerve out of the way so unless they spot an obstacle on radar from considerable distance it's already too late.
        Radar goes till horizon. Depending on size of ship (and this one is big) that is roughly 50km - 100km.

    • Assuming there is someone on duty in a control room somewhere, and the ship has radar/camera/ vhf / etc on board, whoever is in the control room can do whatever is necessary, including answering the radio, which will be broadcast from ths ship like a normal ship with people working in them.

      And a single person could be able to monitor a bunch of ships in the middle of the ocean at any one time - it's not like you have to be answering radios on ships 24/7.
      Maybe when the ship get closer to shore / more crowded

    • So would these ships be obligated to answer a mayday call? Would they understand the rules of right of way with other shipping, including the exceptions?
      Seriously? How hard exactly is it to translate word for word a maritime rule into computer code?

      Would another vessel in their path be able to raise them by VHF?
      Yes, and they would be dispatched to a land based operator ... seriously?

      What happens when there is a risk of collision and how do they assess that?
      By slowing down, giving sound signals and doing the

  • by FaxeTheCat ( 1394763 ) on Thursday August 26, 2021 @06:10AM (#61731463)
    For those interested in more details, check here: https://www.kongsberg.com/mari... [kongsberg.com]
  • These boats are going to be great targets for pirates.

    Less casualties and resistance.

    Even better, hijack the automated systems and redirect the boat to where you want it to go.

    • I'd be curious what a terrorist could do with a few million kilos traveling at 13 knots. It's a pittance compared to a big container ship, but still an impressive amount of potential energy.

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      This ship seems targeted only as short hauls. As such, any redirection would be a job for the local (national) police. I
      IIUC, they haven't even negotiated agreements allowing them to be used outside of Norway.

    • Yes, all those pirates currently raiding the Norwegian coastline.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Not necessarily - there's huge losses to efficiency when there are multiple hulls. Look how barges on the Mississippi are made as long as possible to reduce the number of hulls being towed.

      While putting this nuclear tug in international waters would avoid the port restrictions, there's still all the very costly legal and logistic issues of building it, launching it, and finding a country's flag to sail it under. Furthermore, maintenance without a port (especially for the reactor) would be insanely expensiv

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Efficiency in this context is not pure energy exchange efficiency. So while nuclear power is very efficient for production and energy exchange, it is highly inefficient in logistic, procurement, construction, security, and maintenance considerations. You have to consider the entire system around supporting it.

          Maintenance actually is a big deal. Even though the US nuclear fleet has self-contained reactors allowing them to stay at sea for longer durations, those ships also spend a lot of downtime in port with

  • ARRRR, Mateys, we be havin' an easy time gatherin' loot from this here Ghost Ship, no crew to slow us down!

    Actually, pirates might not bother with these automated cargo ships; no crew to kidnap for ransom or to sell into slavery; that's where the real money is, if you're a modern-day pirate.
  • Coming to a robot ship near you. What will the hijackers do with a hijacked robot ship if the owners won't pay?

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Working...