Future of ships


Beer delivery has come a long way since horse and wagon transport:

Heineken, Nedcargo and the Port of Rotterdam are looking into the possibility of replacing the diesel generators of a containership with an ‘emissionless’ alternative such as batteries, hydrogen or a combination of the two The concept was discussed during a meeting of industry stakeholders earlier this month which looked at how to achieve zero-emission sailing between Alphen aan den Rijn and the port of Rotterdam. ‘I think there were a lot of parties present [at the meeting], who want to invest in this, who have a lot of knowledge,’ said Nedcargo’s Bert van Grieken. ‘I’ve heard many good questions, suggestions and ideas.’ Ankie Janssen, Business Developer LNG, Port of Rotterdam, added: ‘We want clean, climate-friendly and
future-proof inland shipping. That has a big strategic interest for us. We’re going to set up projects to show the market there are people who will and can do this. It can be done without emissions.’ Heineken Nederland Supply’s Sustainable Development Manager, Jan Kempers, was equally enthusiastic. ‘Today went better than I could have hoped. At a certain point I asked them who was really willing to participate to write a project proposal and to eventually organise the project. Three quarters of the attendees stood up. That really touched me in a positive way.’ He added: ‘It’s going to happen. No doubt about it. We are going to produce the first electric inland vessel for containers.’ As previously reported, in June, Heineken Netherlands and Nedcargo teamed up with sustainable fuels manufacturer GoodFuels. The trio launched a pilot to demonstrate a sustainable drop-in marine fuel onboard the For-Ever – an inland barge which transports Heineken export beer from the Heineken brewery in Zoeterwoude to the deep-sea terminals in Rotterdam. Source : Bunkerspot #[/quote]

That is after going green with bio-fuel for transport of beer from the brewery to Rotterdam:


China is also in on the act. The first fully electric inland ship has been launched:
It will run a regular route on the Pearl River and carry coal to produce the power it needs to recharge batteries.


Oh the irony. An electric powered coal carrier.


This is an interesting video talking about the limitations of batteries and why we will likely never safely get much better than current battery technology. I doubt that worldwide trading ships will ever be fully electric.


Fully electric yes, but with hydrogen fuel cells to produce the power, possibly with batteries as back-up and temporary storage.


But where do you get the hydrogen?


It has been discussed at great length here before,
It has also been in gcaptain newsletter several times, latest today:
And in this article from 01. May 2017:


Cyber security is the main concern for those who are working on the development of autonomous ships:

(Don’t know how well this article in Nynorsk will translate to English)


Rolls-Royce open the first Ship Intelligence Centre in Aalesund, Norway:


Are these ships a step too far?

Eight life boats per side, 5,000 plus passengers, maybe 2,500 crew.

At 50% per side that means each boat has to take ~450 people, basically boarding a jumbo.




Sounds like they’re planning on not sinking and regulators are failing at oversight. The second one is a result of flags of convenience and our bullshit system of classification societies.


According to SOLAS the requirement is only 75% coverage in life boats. (37.5% each side)
The rest can be by life rafts, (mostly for crew) for a total of 100% POB

Key specs for the new Seaside EVO class are as follows:
Length/beam: 1,060 ft. / 134 ft.
Gross tonnage: 169,380 GRT
LSA: 7,280

37.5% lifeboat capacity, each side: 2730 pers.
Divided in 8 lifeboats = 342 pers/boat (Min. required)

I cannot find any data for the actual lifeboats on the MSC Seaside, but other “Mega Cruise ships” have lifeboat with a capacity of 370 pers.:

These mega ships are basing their safety plan on “Safe Return to Port”:

Which place great onus on crew capability and training:

PS> I have raised this issue in earlier posts, but not received much response


So in other words, scapegoat the mariners for poor preparation and training when the eventual mega disaster happens.


That is about it, I believe.

We can only hope that WHEN the inevitable occure the ship will sink on even keel AND take it’s time about it.
Better still, reach safe port with all hands alive and the next day’s headlines are about non-functioning toilets and refunds.

We just had a near miss, but a “major catastrophe” was averted by someone who managed to put the ship on the rocks at just about the only place where it could not fully capsize, or sink.

Very well done by someone, considering that there were no power, or means of propulsion at the time.
No, his name was NOT Capt. Schettino. He goes by many names and is almighty to his believers.


Just got the spade out and digging a canal to my place, now I just need to mess with the autopilot.


It appears it is not only on this forum where there are a lot of “not in my llifetime” deniers of the development happening in clear view in front of their eyes.
Here is a report from Splash 24/7 today:

Maersk is obviously not of that opinion, despite (or because of??) suffering badly from a recent cyber attack:


For the Maersk story, I keep hearing the “Bob’s” from Office Space in my head.

“Oh yeah, we’re bring in some entry-level graduates, farm some work out to Singapore, that’s the usual deal.”


Seems strange at first, LNG powered coal carrier?


Environmentally friendly LNG powered Coal Carrier DOES sound like a contradiction in terms.
If it was up to President Trump, would it have been the other way around??