The World’s First Zero-Emission Tanker Is Coming From Japan

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

28 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

That would be about $380 dollars per hour, assuming diesel is $3.00 per gallon. Maybe it's worth it.

Now, I was pretty sure that fuel oil and diesel were the same thing. Let me know if I'm wrong because I don't want to carry misinformation.

Nope.   Diesel is very similar to home heating oil, or #2 oil, while "fuel oil" has no lubricating additives added, has a typically lower cetane level, and encompasses a broad band of product specifications. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

The engines had two crankshafts and two pistons per cylinder, known as "opposed piston engines."  One big advantage was it eliminated tappet valves and their maintenance.  Another was that one shaft could be used mainly for driving the accessories, and the other direct-coupled to the generator. (The two shafts were coupled with bull gears at one end, but still split power duties).  This design was also incorporated in the liquid-cooled aircraft engines powering the Messerschmidt aircraft.  It was and is a great design. 

Until the start of the convoy system, the preferred sinking method of steamships was to surface, and hit the boat with deck gun shells.  Torpedoes were originally intended to fend off military ships, far too expensive to use on lone steamers! 

Opposed piston engines are very efficient. I'm sure you're aware of the triangle design that some train engines use, and I think the concept came from the aircraft you're talking about. Also, I didn't know about the use of the deck guns on cargo ships. Guess I need to read into more about early submarine warfare. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by KeyboardWarrior
grammar

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Nope.   Diesel is very similar to home heating oil, or #2 oil, while "fuel oil" has no lubricating additives added, has a typically lower cetane level, and encompasses a broad band of product specifications. 

Awesome. Glad to know this. Not to be confused with heavy fuel oil. The stuff we ripped North Korea off with so they couldn't use it for military purposes lol. More akin to coal than oil. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

That would be about $380 dollars per hour, assuming diesel is $3.00 per gallon. Maybe it's worth it.

Now, I was pretty sure that fuel oil and diesel were the same thing. Let me know if I'm wrong because I don't want to carry misinformation.

These systems are generally installed on smaller vessels which are more likely to be diesel fuelled. Heavy Fuel Oil is cheaper. 

The target markets were coastal / smaller freight ships, deep sea trawlers, and super yachts.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

8 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

That would be about $380 dollars per hour, assuming diesel is $3.00 per gallon. Maybe it's worth it.

Now, I was pretty sure that fuel oil and diesel were the same thing. Let me know if I'm wrong because I don't want to carry misinformation.

"modern sails" are being experimentet with on tankers where they don't up any deckspace that wcould be used for cargo. Estimates are they can reduce fuel consumption by 20 %. Considering that a VLCC can go through more than USD 60k fuel per day at max speed then this could amount to significant savings. 

The thing slowing this down is the regulatory approvals (class). 

There are lots of interesting things in shipping - in offshore there are experiments with unmanned vehicels launched from mother vessels. These will reduce fuel consumption by more than 50 %. The really interesting thing is that the driver for this is cost reduction; not some green idea... 

https://gcaptain.com/maersk-tankers-installs-sails-aboard-ship/

Edited August 8, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 8/7/2019 at 11:06 AM, NickW said:

Depends how much it costs. 

2MW is going to be consuming half a tonne of diesel an hour. Similar sums for fuel oil etc. 

I recall they were working on some 5 MW models. 

That should be included in the equations; reduced fuel loads could improve performance (capacity or speed).  Modern large aircraft only carry the fuel they need for the trip (with a little extra of course) as it saves a lot of money not lifting extra fuel.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

15 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

These will reduce fuel consumption by more than 50 %. The really interesting thing is that the driver for this is cost reduction; not some green idea...

Market forces are very powerful, hence carbon taxation should would very well.

When it comes to implementing pollution prevention regulations, companies always complain.. but then they innovate and survive.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 8/7/2019 at 9:13 PM, KeyboardWarrior said:

I'm sure you're aware of the triangle design that some train engines use, and I think the concept came from the aircraft you're talking about.

The "triangle design" you reference was developed by British engineers, not German, and used successfully in the "Deltic" rail engines.  The design had three crankshafts set up in a triangle, so there were these three cylinders connecting these three crankshafts, each with pistons inside them; so you had two pistons per cylinder or six per layer in the engine.  You could go as many layers deep as you wanted, so an engine with six cylinder banks or layers back from the front would have six pistons per layer or 36 pistons in there, all putting out the power.  It made for a compact and powerful diesel engine. 

My rather vague recollection is that the Deltic never made it outside Britain.  They were used on the North-South runs with good success.  It sounds like a complicated engine, good power to weight ratio, but I suspect (just my hunch) that it would have cooling issues.  PS: I never heard of them being used in aircraft, although weird engines wade it into aviation as well.  The big benefit of the Deltic is that it stimulated others to think of new approaches, which always is helpful.  

The American approach with respect to adding power cylinders to aircraft engines was exemplified by the Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Company of Connecticut, USA.  They built a monster engine with four banks of seven cylinders each, all in the radial layout where all the piston connecting rods of each bank would come together to a common crankshaft point.  I recall it was the R-4360.  Twenty-eight pistons in one gasoline engine! And two superchargers for lots of boost! These could produce several thousand horsepower per engine for take-off.  Four were fitted to the old Constellation aircraft that would fly trans-Atlantic, lumbering along at about 230 miles per hour.  Hey, it worked!   (Today, Pratt does not support the engine, and if you want parts, you have to salvage them from some other old motor.  Oh, well.)  (You will see these planes called "Connies."  Neat airplanes!  I actually flew in one across the Atlantic, back in the day.  Gasoline:  ya gotta love it!  Great stuff.)

Edited August 12, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

The "triangle design" you reference was developed by British engineers, not German, and used successfully in the "Deltic" rail engines.  The design had three crankshafts set up in a triangle, so there were these three cylinders connecting these three crankshafts, each with pistons inside them; so you had two pistons per cylinder or six per layer in the engine.  You could go as many layers deep as you wanted, so an engine with six cylinder banks or layers back from the front would have six pistons per layer or 36 pistons in there, all putting out the power.  It made for a compact and powerful diesel engine. 

My rather vague recollection is that the Deltic never made it outside Britain.  They were used on the North-South runs with good success.  It sounds like a complicated engine, good power to weight ratio, but I suspect (just my hunch) that it would have cooling issues.  PS: I never heard of them being used in aircraft, although weird engines wade it into aviation as well.  The big benefit of the Deltic is that it stimulated others to think of new approaches, which always is helpful.  

The American approach with respect to adding power cylinders to aircraft engines was exemplified by the Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Company of Connecticut, USA.  They built a monster engine with four banks of seven cylinders each, all in the radial layout where all the piston connecting rods of each bank would come together to a common crankshaft point.  I recall it was the R-4360.  Twenty-eight pistons in one gasoline engine! And two superchargers for lots of boost! These could produce several thousand horsepower per engine for take-off.  Four were fitted to the old Constellation aircraft that would fly trans-Atlantic, lumbering along at about 230 miles per hour.  Hey, it worked!   (Today, Pratt does not support the engine, and if you want parts, you have to salvage them from some other old motor.  Oh, well.)  (You will see these planes called "Connies."  Neat airplanes!  I actually flew in one across the Atlantic, back in the day.  Gasoline:  ya gotta love it!  Great stuff.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Deltic

Just a brief mention of a Class 55 Deltic will have many train spotters reaching for the Kleenex