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."
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."
Practical in Toronto Ontario Canada? (Score:2)
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
Re:Practical in Toronto Ontario Canada? (Score:4, Funny)
A nice idea, until you realize that going uphills the Niagara Falls is a nearly impossible task.
Re: Practical in Toronto Ontario Canada? (Score:3)
Re: Practical in Toronto Ontario Canada? (Score:4, Informative)
It's not Kelvin * Watt / hour (*KW/h) but kiloWatt * hours (kWh).
Don't know what "kw" is supposed to mean. There's no unit with the symbol "w".
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know what "kw" is supposed to mean. There's no unit with the symbol "w".
Well, I explain it to you then. It is supposed to mean kW.
As it is a simply typo.
Sorry, living as an autist or asperger must be super hard. Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
A nice idea, until you realize that going uphills the Niagara Falls is a nearly impossible task.
I dunno, looking at how easily electric cars off lay waste to the fastest records of muscle cars...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Practical in Toronto Ontario Canada? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Imagine being so historically ignorant and ideologically deranged as to think that human greed is caused by capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's a good argument for at least some portion of human greed being a consequence of human stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
Gold is used for far more than jewelry. It's an extremely valuable metal in large part because of its industrial uses.
Re: (Score:2)
And even today, industrial demand for gold is a tiny fraction of the whole.
Ordered demand by sector:
1. "Investment" (see: dumb fucks who think it's a stable place to put their capital)
2. Jewelry
3. Central Banks
4. Industrial
Re: (Score:2)
When you open your "debunking" with... "gold is not a stable thing to put your capital into".
Reality? Nah, neverhöörd.
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond your idiocy, did you really think that your quip somehow changed the fact that you were flat out fucking wrong about gold's industrial use?
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help the fact that reality is an enemy to you. Tell me, on that chart of yours. Where's the zero point?
Yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond that, it's not even relevant. We were discussing stability, which it is not.
2004-2012 saw a huge increase in gold speculation, which resulted in a massive increase in its price.
Prior to that, it was a depreciating asset. I guess that's a kind of stability?
After that, it embarked on a 20 year long roller coaster of losing value, increasing value, but ultimately only losing value relative to inflation in the time period.
That's b
Re: (Score:2)
>The zero point is zero. What kind of stupid fucking question is this?
I see I nailed it on the head. You don't have even the most rudementary knowledge of math.
On the chart you linked, the default zero value (5d) is about 57300 USD/kg. Even at 30 year scale, which debunks the point you're trying to make, zero point is around 5000 USD/kg. The only way to get chart with zeo value at zero... is to go to "all". Which you clearly never did, as it makes the opposite of the point you're trying to make.
When you
Re: (Score:2)
I see I nailed it on the head. You don't have even the most rudementary knowledge of math.
I can see you're about to get even more stupid.
On the chart you linked, the default zero value (5d) is about 57300 USD/kg. Even at 30 year scale, which debunks the point you're trying to make, zero point is around 5000 USD/kg. The only way to get chart with zeo value at zero... is to go to "all". Which you clearly never did, as it makes the opposite of the point you're trying to make.
Yup, as I suspected. Even more stupid.
5d? You think I sent that link so that you could look at cherry picked timescales? What a fucking toolshed.
No, all does not make the opposite point I'm trying to make.
As far as that data set goes back, gold starts at a value of approx. $2500 (nominal), with a zero point on the graph (still not remotely fucking relevant, of 0).
I literally addressed that in the post, which you conveniently ignored.
When you don't even know basics of mathematics, such as what "zero point on the chart" means, perhaps you should try to avoid making any mathematical claims at all? Because it's better to stay silent and let others think you an idiot, rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Oh, horse shit.
You're t
Re: (Score:2)
Investing in Gold is kinda stupid. Gold will normally only adjust its values to meet inflation. So that Gold Coin you used to buy a Suite in 1950, if you held onto it today, the money from that Gold Coin you can still buy a Suite.
However If with that Gold Coin back in 1950 I bought stock in say IBM, The money where I could buy a Suite back then, will now be able to buy a company that sells suites.
Investing in Gold is a bit better than putting it in a savings bank. Probably around On-par with holding it
Re: (Score:2)
Investing in Gold is a bit better than putting it in a savings bank. Probably around On-par with holding it in a CD
People don't buy gold to rich quickly. As you pointed out there are far more profitable ways to do that. They buy gold because its stable and will always be worth something. So, if the economy tanks they won't be left penny less.
Virtually every "prepper" has some small cache of gold some where in their basement.
Re: (Score:2)
Investing in Gold is a bit better than putting it in a savings bank. Probably around On-par with holding it in a CD
Depends on the time frame.
For the last 50 years, gold mostly performed at far under inflation.
It wasn't until 2004 that it caught up for the previous 30 years of inflation. And then promptly lost 40% of its value almost decade later, only to have finally reached parity again (far, far behind inflation) a decade after that.
Of course you're still right, that that is much better than a savings account. But there are also way better places to put your money for "stability"
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it'll always be worth... something. But its raw value is quite low, so if you buy it now, at today's prices which are mostly set by speculation, after the collapse, it's going to be worth 20% of that.
You were better off investing in something of actual worth.
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part people wanted a lot of Gold because they can buy a lot of other stuff with it.
While Gold has some practical uses, Including being corrosion resistant, excellent conductor, easy to work with. It really isn't that useful for most people, However the people sold/traded such gold for things like a bigger house, better food, and in general things that would improve their lives.
Gold was easy to trade and a small amount can get you a lot in return.
I am not seeing where in the grandfathers post w
Re: (Score:2)
the most of the bay itself is fairly shallow as a consequence of gold mining runoff during the 1800s
Capitalism at its finest!
Capitalism wants to dredge bays 5 meters deeper so they can handle new "Superpanamax" ships, but expensive environmental delays thrown up by lawyers and politicians lining their pockets abusing your good will has caused this to take longer than the original protracted and difficult fabled original building of the Panama Canal.
Re: (Score:2)
Pardon me, 5 feet deeper. Yes, government is that pathetic. Empires collapse when government stops keeping the trade routes open, and a new core of empire then forms on the outskirts, out from under it.
Re: (Score:2)
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
How long does it take to charge? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how long will it take to connect and disconnect those 1000 cables every time they want to charge?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: How long does it take to charge? (Score:2)
The electric ferries in Norway actually use induction charging.
Re: (Score:2)
Did not know that, thank you Ost99.
Found some info on this stuff published in 2017:
https://maritimecleantech.no/2... [maritimecleantech.no]
Running power lines is nothing special. (Score:2)
Once completed it ends any need for fuel truck traffic, and reconnecting between trips while loading is an easy way to keep topped off.
Re: (Score:2)
As with cars, doesn't it require a green electricity source, otherwise you're just pushing CO2 production elsewhere for no net gain?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Running power lines is nothing special. (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s Norway. It will be powered with hydro.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:How long does it take to charge? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:1)
7 MWh is about 100-150 cars, not 1000. A car with a battery of 7 KWh would have only 30-50km of range.
Will probably hit an iceberg (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Will noone think of the poor pirates? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Is it even legal to be crewless? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?""
Re: (Score:2)
"Who is liable if something goes wrong?"
Seriously?
The owner, obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Is it even legal to be crewless? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Is it even legal to be crewless? (Score:1)
So half the cargo will be batteries then? (Score:1)
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
Re:So half the cargo will be batteries then? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>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.
Re: (Score:2)
"Batteries are impractical for shipping".
"Batteries are more effectively used in cars".
In other news, water is dry, Sun rises from the West and you logged in to post this nonsense.
P.S. Your "nuclear shipping" is going to be fun, shipping from [nowhere] to [nowhere] because there are few if any cargo ports that actually accept nuclear powered vessels for insurance reasons.
WRT nuclear cargo ships (Score:2)
This wouldn't be the first zero emissions cargo ship that was nuclear; that ship was the NS Savannah. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
>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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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!"
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I wonder how they deal with other shipping (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Nor does it mean the boat is necessary going to see other boats. Even large freighters equipped with powerful radar and AIS still need to maintain a watch, except now there is no wa
Re: (Score:2)
In the waters of Norway most certainly every "small boat" has a radar reflector.
Sorry, are you an stupid american?
If the ship/boat has radar, it also has AIS.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor does it absolve any company intending to use drone ships if they violate marine or Norwegian coastal law
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on Jursidiction.
In most areas, no boat without AIS is allowed. And most certainly not a boat without a radar reflector.
Nor is a reflector 100% effective or going to work in the shadow of a large boat or a confined waterway such as fjord. ... and I doubt it is legal to run a 10m boat without a radar reflector in Norway. It certainly is not in the Baltic Sea or the North Sea.
That is a silly argument, as you see the larger boat on radar
Nor is a reflector 100% effective
Yes, they are. Are you just sill
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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? ... seriously?
Yes, and they would be dispatched to a land based operator
What happens when there is a risk of collision and how do they assess that?
By slowing down, giving sound signals and doing the
More technical details here: (Score:4, Informative)
Looking forward to Intercontinental Travel (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, all those pirates currently raiding the Norwegian coastline.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, Nuclear, etc.
The neat part about having Electric motors vs ICE, is that you have a wide variety of sources that you can choose from to get electricity. While ICE can only take one type of Fuel, often a very particular grade of it, which often takes a lot of power and pollution for the energy just to refine it before it is burned.
We are not idiots, we know that electricity doesn't always come from carbon neutral source, however we also know they are other sources of energy that a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nuclear tugs (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
ARRRRR, Mateys! (Score:2)
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.
Autonomous Hijacking: (Score:1)