Japanese firms to partially propel cargo ship via solar panels
First things first -- when we say "partially" propel, we mean partially. Nippon Yusen and energy distributor Nippon Oil are teaming up to spend around $1.37 million in order to equip a car-hauling cargo ship with 328 solar panels. Rather than just provide energy for the crew's on board entertainment system, it will be the first solar installation to actually produce a smidgen of power for the boat's engine. If successful, the panels would provide 0.2% of the ship's energy consumption for propulsion, and they're hoping to raise that to a whopping 1% by 2010. Gives a whole new meaning to "baby steps," huh?
Filed under: Transportation
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Homeboy @ Aug 28th 2008 6:27AM
It's a waste of time and money especially when cargo ships usually have next to no spare surfaces for solar panels.
Gurp @ Aug 28th 2008 7:12AM
True, which is why they used a car carrier, which kinda does have a large deck surface for them. The pic of a container ship is misleading on that front.
Flashpoint @ Aug 28th 2008 10:12AM
I really think a Hydrogen engine would work best here.
Wind or solar energy charges batteries which are then used to power the water pump and hydrogen seperator/burner.
Nuclear would probably be the most efficient way though.
qwert @ Aug 28th 2008 6:41AM
Baby steps indeed.
I do not expect that this is a real try to go to all solar powered cargo ships (they need way to much power to even come close to a reasonable amount by solar power), so i dont quite understand waht they want to accomplish with that.
Maybe it is simply a test on how to use solar panels in harsh conditions? Saltwater, temperature differences, high winds, movin ship and all that.
the knowledge obtained from that could be quite usefull, say for example for smaller boats, for buoys or other uses. all this stuff might not save the planet alone, but could be usefull.
pundit @ Aug 28th 2008 6:44AM
Have you ever been to a marina? Small sailboats (
Rebel6381 @ Aug 28th 2008 4:05PM
Thats an excellent point about buoys. Weather buoys have small solar panels on top that powers them completely. So testing them for there ability to stand up to harsh conditions has already been done. It does seem that this would be a good test for large applications, not necessarily a cargo ship though, due to the enormous amount of energy required to power them.
pundit @ Aug 28th 2008 6:41AM
Well, that's a good start, I suppose. But considering how much fuel these suckers burn (the per-container amount is almost nothing, but I'm talking in total), 1% savings is probably enough to take a lot of cars off the road... My guess would be at least 5,000.
zomg0t @ Aug 28th 2008 6:43AM
How ironic to measure the savings in cars for this cargo ship.
Shadows1990 @ Aug 28th 2008 7:10AM
Isn't that shot of the cargo ship from Batman Begins?
acb @ Aug 28th 2008 7:22AM
A better idea would be to build hybrid powered/sailing ships. Rig out a ship with sails like an old-fashioned tea clipper (only, with computer modelling and modern materials, the sails could be much more efficient), and put a small engine in the hull, for use when the wind isn't favourable. The sails would be mechanised, with servo motors adjusting them in response to conditions gathered from sensors and weather reports. For extra points, make the sails out of photovoltaic material.
walle @ Aug 28th 2008 7:26AM
I think this test is to get data on solar at sea, the odd thing is they could build an engine to run off of Hydrogen it is not new and a Hydrogen engine just needs anything water based, to make Hydrogen from the sea it is very simple. it is clean and er free, so they probably would not used it.
ford built a test car using a hydrogen engine and they managed to get up to 207 MPH. I also have a hydrogen booster in my car to save fual.
the way of the future has to be in some cell type of some kind. sun, sea, air are the only resources that are not going to run out.
DaveO. @ Aug 28th 2008 10:03AM
To break water into Hydrogen and Oxygen takes MORE energy that you get from burning the Hydrogen, so if you have adequate energy available on the ship to break water, why not just use that energy to propel the ship?
If you can find a free way to break water, you should apply now for your Nobel prize. You'll soon be far richer than Bill Gates.
dj496 @ Aug 28th 2008 7:26AM
It's gotta start from somewhere, this principle is general is WONDERFUL,the more the better.
gad get @ Aug 28th 2008 7:27AM
They're going to use solar panels to "partially propel" the ship? How do you "partially propel" it? Split it into pieces and propel only part of the ship? I don't get it.
P.S. I do get it. I just like to make jokes. Leave me alone.
kyle @ Aug 28th 2008 7:54AM
@acb
Well a sail system has already been designed for ships such as this. But the photovoltaic idea might be good once panels become flexible. That might be possible in the future with all this talk of flexible displays. I wonder how hard it would be to print solar panels on one of those flexible e-ink type pages.
JoeNES @ Aug 28th 2008 8:20AM
Won't that small gain be eaten up by the extra weight of the batteries, cables, equipment, and panels themselves? I'm just sayin...
jbella @ Sep 1st 2008 1:23AM
I dont think so for a few reasons:
1) If the solar panels are powering all the ships electrical systems, plus .2 percent of the propulsion that would equate to quite a bit of diesel, which is not very light itself.
2) Ships excel in moving heavy loads efficiently.
jim @ Aug 28th 2008 8:39AM
Aren't they just missing the obvious… Wind Power. They would get a far higher return of extra energy by sticking a few windmills up.
John @ Aug 28th 2008 8:41AM
Not really. Unless the wind is coming from the stern, and blowing faster than the ship is moving, all they're going to do is produce drag.
Timothy Sottek @ Aug 28th 2008 9:26AM
1) Additional weight.
2) More drag on the ship's forward motion.
nick @ Aug 28th 2008 8:42AM
Figure that's about 7,000 gallons of fuel.
40-50k saved per trip, or say... every 2 weeks to be pessimistic.
You'll see a return on investment within a year.
I am a contractor that works heavily in the steel industry. The mill near me uses over 30MW peak, probably between 30 and 50.
Right now they are planning on installing around 20 wind turbines inside the plant with a peak output of 40MW. Their return on investment? Independence from energy fluctuations and a severe drop once that initial investment is made.
This in addition to recycling hot waste water to recycle into steam rather than pulling cold water from natural sources...
Large industry does not spend that money to look good. They see potential for a reduction in overhead. Renewable energy is a very lucrative option towards energy needs if they find it feasible. It was not before, but the technology has been maturing fast the past few years.
d4rk_b@dg3r @ Aug 28th 2008 10:20AM
Awesome work.
So beautifully put.
rcappo @ Aug 28th 2008 10:03AM
They should look into nuclear powered cargo ships. Similar to an aircraft carrier and about the same size. It may reduce the number of ports it can go to, but it could carry a lot more containers and not incur too much expense each trip.
awk @ Aug 28th 2008 11:12AM
I agree, nuclear would be better, but it's not politically 'enabled' right now. You can't do anything with the waste (which is stupid, but that's the reality) because lib's are idiots.
Maybe they should use sails?
I believe the solar panels would be 'placed' individually on top of the upper cargo containers. They would 'snap on' for the trip, and be taken off to unload the nuc-lar-less wessel.
Chuchi @ Aug 28th 2008 11:26AM
Didn't Genepax invent a hydrogen converter system for cars recently? It takes water and converts it to usable fuel-grade hydrogen for cars. You'd think this would have been applied to ships by now, considering they're floating in fuel. Imagine the possibilities of having a ship that would never need refueling. Why haven't these people put 2 and 2 together yet?
requiem @ Aug 28th 2008 1:15PM
It would work great except for those pesky thermodynamics. It would take more energy to create the hydrogen from the water than you would get out of it. Any such energy would be better spent propelling the boat directly.
motoxxbiker @ Aug 28th 2008 1:58PM
I mean, it's pretty hard to replace however many diesel engines crank away on that thing with..... solar.
Togran @ Aug 28th 2008 3:03PM
Couldn't you place something on the back of the boat behind the rotors, that don't create too much drag, and collect the energy from the tides and water flow of a moving ship? Essentially like a hydroelectric dam on the back of the ship? You're already displacing all that water, use it to your advantage.
Ian @ Aug 28th 2008 3:37PM
well thats the problem.. anything you want to create energy needs to produce drag other wise it has no force to turn the generator. so u may be able to put a tiny one back there to use for a TV or something but anything bigger will just cut down on fuel efficiency and thus make the problem worse
Guy @ Aug 29th 2008 2:58AM
I don't care how effective this is, at least indicates an interest to find alternative fuel sources for another industry heavily dependant on the price of a barrel of oil.
Cassini @ Aug 29th 2008 3:46AM
"Gives a whole new meaning to "baby steps," huh?"
Yeah... it also gives new meaning to the term "waste of money".
Adrian @ Sep 7th 2008 7:54PM
Any idea when the Japanese will make an environmentally friendly solar-powered whaling ship?
deewreck @ Oct 7th 2008 9:02AM
As someone said car carriers look much different than a container ship as shown here. They are funny looking beasts with huge sides.
I guess most people do not realize the massive amount of energy required to power a ship. The heavy fuel and engines can be placed way down low and help keep the ship stable. It's really all about energy density and placement of equipment. I doubt there is any solution as dense as conventional fuels and engines, and things like solar panels and especially sails need to be placed way up high to be effective. This screws up the boats stability. In addition the excess weight of the less effective propulsion systems means the ship weighs more, that increases the draught and that means greater resistance.
It would generally be impossible to take advantage of solar cells or fancy sails anywhere in cold temperatures, the icing that would occur would likely damage the equipment and make the vessel extremely unstable.
As for the notion of a 'dam' behind the ship, it would just create more drag and since the effectiveness of the process is relatively low you would almost certainly lose energy. There are things called vane wheels which can help capture some of the lost energy but they are expensive to manufacture and generally not robust enough to be installed in heavy duty applications.
There are dozens of options but, unfortunately, until there is solution that has a high energy density, a low centre of gravity and a high reliability commercial vessels will continue to spew tons and tons of the most putrid exhaust gases emitted anywhere.