Novel civil cargo ship, 8.10.2020

 

Novel civil cargo ship, 8.10.2020

Author: David Judbarovski, systems engineering, principle invetor, retired

judbarovski@gmail.com

 

Key ideas of my concept of a sea transport of 360 km/h and 6500 ton, breaking all stereotypes, and its theoretical consideration you can see in “Novel fast and heavy ship, Corrected on 5.10.2020”, judbarovski.blogspot.com/2020/10 , was posted on 8.10.2020.

 

Here I consider it as a civil cargo ship at 120 km/h.

Its recommended dimensions are about 6 m draft submerged, 10 m beam submerged and 10 m nose length tilted back and submerged.

At 120 km/h and 6,500 dwt, its power consume would be about 25,000 kW, while conventional ship of the same velocity and the same dimensions would be enormous near million kW, or 40 times bigger.

Conventional civil cargo ships were known as the most economical kind of transportation. Fuel consume of them is proportional to velocity squared. And for more heavy ships and at more smaller velocity it can be seemed out of competition.

Nevertheless, such ships are very expensive thing.  

As result, my ship can be more preferable as a fast transport and by economics point of view..

About decade ago I had found that market prices of typical cargo ship could be approximately estimated as Q (USD) = ~DWT * sea steel price USD/ton * k. The steel prices are quite conservative, now it being ~ USD 640/ton, and k = 2 (from 1.4 to 2.5 for most of sea ships) and can vary depended on a health of the world economics, while navy ships prices are shamelessly overstated and growing rapidly from year to year.   

For example

I can suppose my ship is 1.5 times more expensive per DWT unit than typical Handysize conventional ships, and for very large one – 1.8 times  

For comparison of my ship with different conventional ones:

(1) High speed cargo ship

48,000 dwt, 32,000 kW, 25 knots = 46 km/h

(6,500 / 48,000) * (120 / 46) = 0.35

(0.35 * 48,000) / (6,500 * 1.5) = 1.72 times better by capital cost

25.000 / (0.35 * 32,000)  = 2.2 times more fuel consume 

(2) Low speed cargo ship

49,000 dwt, 13 knot = 24 km/h, 27 TO/d ~= 5,300 kW  

(6,500 / 49,000) * (120 / 24) = 0.66

(0.66 * 49000) / (6500 * 1.5) = 3.3 times better by capital cost

25,000 / (0.66 * 5,300) = 7.0 times more fuel consume  

(3) Very Large cargo ship of low speed

185,000 dwt, 12,700 kW, 13 kn = 24 km/h

(6500 /185,000) * (120 / 24) = 0.175

(0.175 * 185000) /(6500 * 1.8) = 2.8 times better by capital cost, 

25,000 / (0.175 *12,500) = 11.4 times worse by fuel consume

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Progressive city-car realization and powering-Updated,#1

Progressive city-car realization and powering-Updated, #1 Author: David Judbarovski, principle inventor, retired engineer, Israel judbarovski@gmail.com   Short CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-judbarovski-1390944a/ Archive since 2017 yr: http://judbarovski.blogspot.be Archive since 2006 yr.: http://judbarovski.livejournal.com [3791]-3/11/2017,   My three levels’ conception of progressive transportation was disclosed in http://www.judbarovski.blogspot.co.il/2017/05/progressive-transportation-manifesto.html  (Progressive transportation manifesto, May 02. 2017). Its first level is a city-car.   Special designed city-car is a car moved electrically and equipped by very small battery as a city-grid element, and it isn’t big news now. Such cars are to be much cheaper and simpler than conventional cars and save a lot of energy. But I can suppose strictly to reject all sorts of powering them from underground, because it is energy ineffective and ...
Read more

Green and cheap H2, CO, and hydrocarbons. July 14. 2025

Green and cheap H2, CO, and hydrocarbons. Corrected on August 04, 2025. Author: David Judbarovski, systems engineering, principle inventor, retired. judbarovski.blogspot.com, judbarovski@gmail.com. Abstract Simplified technology promises USD 161/ton H2, USD 11.5 /ton CO, and hydrocarbons of USD 6 /bbl. They are OPEX, and in order of magnitude cheapеr than prices of fossil fuel and can use now existing infrastructure. (a) CO2 [1] + H2 = CO + H20 - 3 kJ negligible. Here everywhere CO2 is circular and free. A cost of H2O is negligible. If Q served for a cost, Q(CO) * 28 = Q(H) * 2, so Q(CO) = Q(H) / 14. (b) [2] CO + 1.5 H2O = CO2 + 1.5 H2 + 0.25 O2 + 146 kJ. 146 kJ = 146 * 4/ 3.6 [3], [4] = USD 161.0 /Mmol. 1.5 * 2 * Q(H) - 161 = Q(CO) * 28 = 2 Q(H). So Q(H) = USD 161 / ton H2. and CO = Q(H)/14 = USD 11.5 /ton CO. QED ! CO2 + 3 H2 = CH2 (hydrocarbons) + 2 H2O - 240 kJ. 240,000 * 0.3 (efficiency heat in electricity) * 0.03 (tariff) / 3.6 = USD 600 /Mmol So 14 * Q(CH2) = 5 * ...
Read more

it can change a game for satellites

. Author: David Judbarovski, systems engineering, principle inventor, retired. judbarovski@gmail.com, judbarovski.blogspot.com. It doesn't need a special start/land pods, but only permitted by ordinary air traffic safety regulation. Abstract. A key element of the possible invention is a VTOl and strategy can lift and land a satellite or/and materials relatively free if the VTOL design of my invention of 40 kW/ton, see Vertical take-off amd Landing Device - 20.07.2020, see judbarovski.blogspot.com/2020/07, posted on July 20, 2020. Satellite is served on low orbits, its PV direct solar illumination can be 10 hr.* 1.4 kW * 365 days a year = 5000 kWh/m2 of the PV receiver. Down to 10 km using ICE, expenses are negligible, then and lower than designed orbit it is CH2 + pressed oxigen for jet mover, and then accelerated. For example, if 100 ton satellite, to reach an orbit 300 km hight it consumes 2 hours and about 1.6 ton kerosene and 4.5 ton 300 atm. pressed oxigen by a tota...
Read more