Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AssumptionWinter4442 t1_iuld5cx wrote

Simple answer. Any transference of energy is going to have losses. How would you create steam? By burning fossil fuels of course. So now you burn the fuel, create stream, use steam to generate electricity, use electricity to power ship. That’s two extra steps and potential loss of energy as opposed to just directly powering the ship by burning fuel. More energy lost means less efficient. Less efficient means more fuel burnt. Burning more fuel costs more money.

28

Juulmo t1_iulduc8 wrote

Your last sentence is spot on.

Fossil fuels are way cheaper. And what does the planets and humanitys survival matter opposed to some cruise liners revenue.

Aircraft carriers are powered by nuclear reactors so it's very much possiblebtw

3

gray_sky_guy t1_iulhvnf wrote

Steam isn't an energy source. You need an energy source to boil the water to make the steam. That could be coal, or gas, or oil, or wood, or something else you can burn. Or you can use nuclear energy to create the heat. either way you cant just have water, then convert it to steam magically, then power the ship.

10

TheNoobsauce1337 t1_iulimzn wrote

Couldn't you use electricity? Basically a system that uses the wires to heat the inside or outside of the tanks (like a space heater) with a startup battery configuration, which the generators can then recharge once the steam gets pressurized and flowing?

Not asking this passive aggressively. As I understand it, so long as you have sufficient power storage on hand, you could heat a boiler with electricity.

Even better, so long as the ship remains immersed in water, just keep the steam flowing once the initial heat systems have been up and running, and let the excess steam bleed off into the atmosphere once all necessary power storage systems are charged.

There's a previous comment here where I mentioned my thought process better. But that would be the gist of it.

I would think that it's possible, especially on cargo ships with extra space.

1

Mhgglmmr t1_iulj17w wrote

If you have enough electrical power on board already (generated by what exactly?), why would you use that to generate steam to power a turbine to turn generator to generate electricity for an electric motor? Just run the electric motor directly.

12

TheNoobsauce1337 t1_iulk00d wrote

This is my thought process:

Pre-charged startup batteries to begin boiling process with water brought in from the ocean.

Water begins to boil and is replenished from the ocean periodically.

Steam held at high pressure turns generators that sustain a constant flow of power.

Constant flow of power powers electric engines, boilers and backup batteries. Also recharges startup batteries in case the entire system needs to be restarted.

Engine and boilers relies primarily on generators at this point, which rely on periodic refills from the ocean (though battery backups are installed if something fails).

Basically a self-sustaining reaction so long as the system is started once.

Am I crazy for this? I can see it working, but I haven't built a test model to see if it would actually work.

0

thegagis t1_iulleq3 wrote

Boiling stops immediately if you stop making the boiling happen with heat. Water boils if and only if you dump a lot of energy into it somehow. It does not produce free energy from nothing.

4

TheNoobsauce1337 t1_iulltb8 wrote

But that's the thing. Part of the electricity in the generators would be re-routed back to the boilers to maintain the heat. Would that be possible?

Basically the water is constantly boiling, the generators have two circuits. The larger circuit powers the engine, the smaller circuit maintains heat in the boilers.

Would that be possible?

−1

SLR_ZA t1_iulm949 wrote

No, you cannot power a generator with steam then take part of that energy to make as much steam as powered the generator.

You require more energy to make the steam than you can recover from the steam max.

Cut out the electric generator and just imagine boiling water with steam to make steam.

You're trying to do that and get more steam out than went in plus enough to overcome the turbine and battery efficiency and have usable power left over for the ship

5

TheNoobsauce1337 t1_iulmgzn wrote

Ahh I see.

Believe it or not, I wasn't posting this to troll. I legit had a scientific question and wanted to test the idea out with other like minds.

Contrary to what you see on today's internet, I actually appreciate the criticism. Bouncing ideas back and forth (pending real experimentation) is what I think makes science both great and important. Seeking out truth through hypothesis and experimentation.

4

TheDawggFather t1_iulqdch wrote

This curiosity you have is great! However, It seems you might be operating without fully understanding some fundamental physical concepts. If your really interested in these kinds of things, im sure you would enjoy taking some time to learn more physics and engineering. I know that YouTube has some awesome video lectures and I've heard good things about Brilliant.com. I hope this helps, never stop being curious and asking questions! 👍

3

dudius7 t1_iulm9q2 wrote

No it would not be possible. You're talking about something like a perpetual motion machine.

If you used a battery to power an internal colandria to generate steam, then used that steam to power a turbine, you would have energy losses. Those losses would prevent you from recharging the battery, powering the colandria, and propelling the ship.

4

gray_sky_guy t1_iuliqcu wrote

same issue, where's the electric energy come from? a battery? cool, how did you charge it?

3

TheNoobsauce1337 t1_iulitxh wrote

Charged on land initially upon install, then charged by the generators on the ship once the process gets rolling.

0

gray_sky_guy t1_iulj54s wrote

so to charge it on land you need some other source of energy. if you're just trying to use the steam as a weird kind of battery, then you'd have to look at energy density of steam, and also consider how well you could insulate the thing. you're probably not gonna get across an ocean with stored steam energy.

for the generators on board, again, how are they generating the electricity? it doesn't come from nowhere

(i'm just gonna ignore the fact that it makes way more sense to use the electrical power you have stored to directly drive an electric motor that drives the propeller)

3

TheNoobsauce1337 t1_iulkk3z wrote

That's basically the idea. Use water from the ocean to periodically refill the boilers (since water below the waterline automatically generates a positive pressure towards the inside of the ship).

Basically think of it like this:

Water replenished periodically from outside > Boilers > Steam > Generators > Engines and boilers on separate circuits > Process repeats so long as you can keep replenishing water from the ocean into the boilers that are already heated.

The key thing would be to build generators that could generate enough electricity to maintain the heating of the boilers and run the engines simultaneously.

The volume of water in the ocean would be the source of power, provided you could generate enough electricity to keep the water boiling to keep the generators running.

A self-sustaining reaction once started.

Does that make sense? I feel like people keep thinking about this like a Tesla that has to be recharged with a cord. It's not that.

1

thegagis t1_iullan1 wrote

Its nowhere near self sustaining.

Turning water into steam USES absolutely massive amounts of energy. You need to constantly produce amazing amounts of heat to be able to do that.

Replenishing the water is not an issue, you can just direct the condensed water from the steam cooling back down back to the system.

This is how power plants work. They burn some fuel or run a nuclear reactor to convert massive amounts of energy into heat to heat water which turns into steam and that steam rotates a turbine with its pressure and the turbine rotates a generator.

Steam is not a source of energy, it is a local temporary storage for energy.

5

TheNoobsauce1337 t1_iullo5z wrote

Makes sense. So the amount of electricity to maintain a boiling temperature would be unrealistic with today's generator technology?

Again, not saying this to troll or be passive aggressive. Literally throwing an idea out in front of other scientific minds and seeing what they have to say and critique.

The water would be the source of the energy. Steam would just be a conversion to transfer that energy to a generator that could then keep the boilers AND engine running.

Basically two primary circuits: 80-90% of the electricity goes to the engine, 20-10% goes back to the boilers to keep the water boiling and steam incoming, reduced to high pressure for high RPMs on the generator.

Not possible or feasible then?

1

thegagis t1_iulmo3x wrote

Its unrealistic with physics. If entropy was not a thing, you could at best get exactly as much energy back as you used to boil the water with. In reality some of the energy is always wasted and depending on how good your generator is you get some % below 100% out as electricity.

Water is simply not a source of energy. Boiling water requires more energy than you can get by using the pressure of boiled water to drive a generator. Steam is just a way to move that energy from point A to point B.

4

SLR_ZA t1_iulmsij wrote

No, it's possible to boil the water to make steam

It is impossible to recover nearly as much energy from that that steam as it would take to boil it.

It's not a 'today's technology' thing it's a law of thermodynamics thing.

Water is not a source of energy, it is a medium of energy transfer.

Every kg of water at boiling point being converted to steam takes say 2133 kJ of energy.

You cannot then power a generator with that steam and get more than 2133 kJ of energy out of it. Your actual efficiency of a steam generator is 10-40%

So now you have 2133 x 0.4 = 853 kJ of electric energy.

So you take 20% to the boiler and you have 170 kJ of energy. Which is not enough to boil a kg of water.

Even if you had an impossible 100% efficiency boiler, steam system, turbine and battery system you'd never be able to pull even 1 kJ out without decreasing your steam volume.

3

MidnightAdventurer t1_iulk0q4 wrote

If you could get enough electricity storage on ship to heat steam to power the engines then why not just use the electricity to run the ship directly? It will be far more efficient that way both because you're not transferring energy from one form to another and back and you don't need to carry all the weight of the water, turbines, generators etc

2

cheses t1_iulkbl2 wrote

Ok, you want to charge the ship via a landline and when it is away from the harbor, it only runs on its thermal batteries so to speak? We could do the math, but there are two problems: you would need huge storages for the energy (it does not matter if you store the energy in batteries or as steam).

Ok I do the math quick and dirty: A big ship has an engine with 37 MW (megawatt) power (Jahre Viking). You can store 0,2 kWh (kilowatt) per kilo steam (at 100 bar at 500 °C), which means you would need 185 tons of steam an hour to drive your ship. When you are like four weeks at sea, you need 124.000 tons of storage for your steam.

2

TheNoobsauce1337 t1_iull8yx wrote

Almost, but not exactly.

Basically create a self-sustaining reaction where once you get enough water boiling, you can pressurize the steam to turn a series of generators and then have those generators power both the boilers and the engine. So long as you have a way of replenishing the water in the tanks, steam is constantly being generated and pressurized to where it can make the generators spin at very high RPMs, and then the system just works round-the clock. Basically see if you can create a system where, say, 80-90% of the power goes to the engines, and 20-10% of that power goes to maintaining the heat of the boilers. Water can be added without the need for a pump using the ship's weight and opening valves from pipes beneath the water line, or pumps that don't need as much suction because of that principle.

Basically the water is the power source converted into a form of energy that's more easily pressurized.

It is interesting reading the reactions, though. In my mind this is part of what science is all about -- someone presents an idea, then a bunch of counter-ideas based on learning and experience are presented.

I really do appreciate the feedback. Just wanted to see what people thought and what the limitations would be.

1

BobbyP27 t1_iulisow wrote

Nuclear powered commercial ships were tries, for example NS Savannah. They ended up getting barred from a lot of ports. The international shipping industry is extremely cost conscious, and that includes crew and maintenance. You need highly trained crew to safely run a nuclear reactor, which means high crew costs. Maintenance is also extremely important. If a Diesel engine breaks down it is a mild annoyance. If a nuclear reactor breaks down it is a serious problem.

Incidentally steam turbo-electric drive was used in ships in the past. Several US battleships and aircraft carriers of the 1920s era used it, for example. Geared turbine are generally cheaper and more reliable, though, but modern Diesel engines are even cheaper.

6

PerspectivePure2169 t1_iulnas6 wrote

Your proposal violates the first law of thermodynamics, in that it requires wholesale creation of energy.

That is not possible. That is what is known as a perpetual motion device. They have been proposed and claimed many times.

There has never, and will never, be such a thing. In layman's terms, you can't make something out of nothing. You can't turn the chemical energy contained in one battery into heat, then mechanical work, then electricity, then mechanical work again, while somehow multiplying it.

In fact, the real world does the opposite- entropy and inefficiencies bleed some off at every conversion.

Which means simpler conversions are more efficient ones.

As for electric drive ships, they have been and are still built. The reason internal combustion prevails is because it is cheaper to operate, requires less space so more payload, is relatively efficient, and takes less crew, training and maintenance.

6

SweetBasil_ t1_iulu4fd wrote

This is the clearest overall response. The system described will not be able to boil the water using only the energy from boiling the water. Let alone powering the ship as well.

2

ProductImmediate t1_iulkqe8 wrote

  • Boiling water using electricity and then generating electricity with that steam makes no sense, since this process only has a very low efficiency (limited by physics at around 50%, in practical applications more like 20%). My question to you: If you already have electricity on the ship, why not use that to drive the motors directly instead of losing energy on the way by conversion?

  • There are a lot of ships that use a diesel generator to power electric motors (search for diesel-electric transmission). Some ships also use a steam turbine instead of the diesel motor in this configuration (turboelectric transmission): some nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines, and a few cruise ships (e.g. the RMS Queen Mary 2 - the combination of steam turbine and electric motors makes for a much smoother ride than a diesel engine)

  • Why don't all ships use this? Diesel engines (I would call them oil sludge engines, since that better describes ship fuel) use cheap fuel, are cheap to build, cheap and easy to maintain and the logistics to service and refuel them are set up. There is no real incentive to change this.

  • There are also some vessels out there using solar panels to generate energy, but at the moment, these are mostly smaller ships like ferries.

2

[deleted] OP t1_iulexm4 wrote

[removed]

−4