The Wave-Powered Paradigm: A Zero-Fuel Autonomous Cargo Vessel (Open Source)

Engineering Marine Engineering
1

Autonomous Hybrid Wave & Current Powered Bulk Cargo Concept – Energy-Driven Routing and Twisted Screw Hydrodynamics (Zenodo DOI)

Hi all,

I would like to share an open-source research concept for a zero-fuel autonomous cargo vessel (AWEV) intended for continuous operation on energy-rich Atlantic and Pacific trade lanes.

The concept is explicitly aimed at bulk and non–time-critical transport, where schedule flexibility is acceptable and routing is governed by environmental energy availability rather than just-in-time logistics.

The work is shared as an early-stage engineering concept, with the intent of inviting technical feedback, numerical validation, and constructive discussion.
Full Technical Report (CC BY 4.0 / Zenodo):

Core Operational Logic (Energy-Driven Navigation)
“Sailing” strategy:

In a manner analogous to sailing vessels optimizing wind rather than distance, the AWEV does not prioritize the shortest geographical route. Instead, algorithmic routing is used to “tack” through the ocean by following corridors of elevated wave orbital motion and sub-surface current density. Transit time is therefore an outcome of environmental energy availability, which is acceptable for bulk transport.
Wave-permeable hybrid hull:
The hull architecture is intentionally designed to admit wave-induced orbital motion and steady sub-surface currents through internal flow channels. The objective is to extract usable mechanical energy from both oscillatory and uni-directional marine motion, harvesting the environment rather than opposing it.

Twisted LA-screw turbines:

At the core of the propulsion and energy conversion system is a modified Archimedes screw featuring a continuous axial twist combined with airfoil-based blade geometry.
The axial twist is intended to maintain favorable angles of attack across a wide range of flow velocities and directions, enabling lift-based torque generation under both oscillatory wave motion and predominantly uni-directional current flow. This allows the screw to operate across mixed hydrodynamic regimes typical of open-ocean bulk routes.

Submerged cargo platform:

The primary cargo mass is located at approximately 10 m depth, providing inherent stability and acting as active ballast. This configuration is intended to reduce wave-induced accelerations and structural stress on the surface hull, while decoupling bulk cargo dynamics from surface sea states.

Integrated Subsystems (Conceptual, Mechanically Grounded)

IAKKS coating:

A ceramic composite coating derived from industrial brake-pad and friction-material technology, selected for extreme wear resistance, thermal stability, and a projected long service life in abrasive marine environments. The intent is to support long autonomous bulk transport cycles with minimal maintenance.

RDG & PHST:

A shaftless, gearbox-free generator architecture employing passive hydrostatic stabilization to maintain micrometer-scale mechanical clearances without active electronic control or lubrication systems.

DALAS:

A purely mechanical energy recovery concept intended to convert impulsive wave-slamming loads into linear mechanical energy.
Operational Context and Development Outlook
The vessel is not intended for just-in-time shipping. It is designed for bulk transport where energy-adaptive routing, low operating cost, and reduced emissions take precedence over schedule rigidity. Vessel performance is therefore treated as an evolving outcome of turbine efficiency, materials, routing algorithms, and numerical optimization rather than a fixed design constant.

Why share this now?

Feedback from a professional naval architect has characterized the concept as “not out of the realm of possibility,” while noting that verification of efficiency and structural response would require PhD-level analysis, including custom MATLAB and CFD simulations.

The work is therefore shared openly to encourage informed technical discussion and potential collaboration.

I am particularly interested in discussion around:

Numerical modeling: CFD approaches for coupled wave–current–structure interaction and twisted screw hydrodynamics.
Structural integrity: FEM analysis of permeable hull architectures under heavy and breaking sea states.
Operational realism: Practical constraints and failure modes associated with long-duration autonomous bulk transport on transoceanic routes.

Best regards,

Göran Skoog

2

Show me a picture. I can’t understand the gobbledegook.
Is this going to be a power driven vessel, sailing vessel, drifting vessel? Or a drifting obstruction?

2 Likes
3

Fair question.

This is not a sailing vessel and not a drifting object. It is a power-driven vessel, where propulsion power is harvested continuously from waves and ocean currents rather than from onboard fuel.

Think of it as closer to a current-powered bulk carrier than to a sailboat: it follows COLREGs as a power-driven vessel and maintains controlled propulsion and steering at all times. The “tacking” reference is about route optimization through energy-dense corridors, not about passive drift.

There are schematic figures in the linked DOI report; I avoided posting images here initially to keep the discussion technical rather than visual.

Happy to clarify specific points if useful.

4

That honestly sounds pretty neat, but I’m curious how it’s intended to get in and out of port. Does it generate electricity underway to store in batteries or something so it can drive itself like a traditional cargo ship once it’s in the harbor?

5

Thanks for the question – it’s an important operational point.
Because the AWEV concept relies on a submerged cargo platform and energy-harvesting hull, its draft is relatively deep, which means it cannot access every port directly. The idea is to use logistically strategic transport hubs for large bulk cargo operations along major trade routes. For example, ports like Long Beach (23 m draft) or Port of Kennedy in Brazil (25 m draft) could accommodate such vessels.
During paradigm shifts like this, it is common that new piers or dredging may be required to allow access, especially for deep-draft vessels, depending on regional port infrastructure. This approach focuses on the largest routes and primary hubs connecting Europe, China, the US, and other major trading regions.
Regarding propulsion in port: the vessel would rely on stored energy, for maneuvering in and out of port, similar to battery-electric ships. The main energy-harvesting hull is designed for open-ocean operation, so in-port navigation is a secondary, managed mode.
Hope this clarifies the operational concept.

6

Having made passages in a bulk carrier in ballast I would have zero interest in being on a vessel designed to perform like a metronome to make headway.

1 Like
7

I completely understand that perspective.

That said, this concept is explicitly autonomous and unmanned, so crew comfort and personnel rotation are not part of the design drivers. The whole point is slow, energy-adaptive bulk transport with good logistics, where time is not the critical constraint.

In that sense, it’s designed to do exactly the kind of passage most humans would not want to be on.

8

Yeah, nano-whiplash gently liquifies the cargo and disassembles the vessel.

This kind of reminds me of something along the lines of those old-fashioned ice cube tray devices that has a bunch of plates hinged along a spine. Picture them working like snake ribs rattling back and forth in the waves …

image
image275×183 26.2 KB

9

I see the analogy, but the system isn’t based on articulated plates or uncontrolled oscillation.
The energy capture is internal, rotational, and mechanically constrained, with the hull designed to reduce wave-induced structural motion rather than amplify it.
The intent is continuous, controlled power generation in open-ocean conditions — not dynamic flapping structures.

10

So show us a model or a drawing that illustrates the technique.

1 Like
11

Understood — let me be precise.

The work is intentionally presented at a conceptual engineering level, not as a preliminary design. Its purpose is to describe the operating logic, physical principles, and system interactions, rather than to provide finalized drawings or visualizations.

At this stage, detailed schematics or layout drawings would add apparent certainty without having resolved the underlying feasibility questions. Those visuals belong to a later phase, once the physics and scaling behavior are better constrained.

The vessel is intended to operate as a power-driven autonomous bulk carrier, not as a drifting structure. Regulatory classification, port integration, and detailed layouts are outside the current scope.

If someone wants to discuss the physics, routing logic, or hydrodynamic assumptions on that basis, I’m glad to do so.

12

A simple doodle will do.

Pardon my skepticism but as a holder of two patents on a marine engineering device that has been manufactured for the past 12 years I fully understand the concept of conceptual and the difference between a concept and a con.

1 Like
13

The concept has already been reviewed at a professional level by a naval architect, confirming that it is physically plausible and within established marine engineering principles.

The current stage is explicitly pre-design: validation, modeling, and test planning rather than execution or detailed layout. That distinction is clearly stated in the DOI report.

Further development would naturally involve prototyping and empirical testing, which is where visual schematics and geometry become meaningful rather than illustrative.

For clarity: the report is published under an open license on Zenodo.
Nothing is being sold or withheld — it’s a concept released explicitly for technical scrutiny and further development.

14

Excellent. Now how about providing a link to that report. Surely it contains at least a doodle …

Back to my original request, if you are at the test planning stage, surely someone in the group has an idea or back of the envelope doodle of a “conceptual” arrangement might be fitted to or inside a floating object.

1 Like
15

The link to the DOI report was provided in the opening post. For clarity, I will provide it again:

To address your request for a “doodle”: This project is currently in the conceptual validation phase, specifically focusing on the logic of energy transduction and system interactions. I am explicitly seeking collaboration with institutions or engineers to move this into the next stage, which involves computational modeling (e.g., MATLAB/Simulink) and empirical testing.

In professional R&D, geometry follows physics. Providing an illustrative sketch at this stage would be speculative and premature. It would only serve to invite superficial discussion on aesthetics or secondary mechanical details rather than the core physical principles which are the current focus.

If you have a specific technical critique regarding the power-generation logic or the hydrodynamic assumptions detailed in the report, please define it precisely. I am interested in discussing the engineering and the data. If your only critique is the lack of a “doodle” in a pre-design conceptual paper, then you are addressing the wrong phase of development.

16

That sounds like you want someone else to start the heavy lifting for you.

For those who might be wondering what this is about, look up machine design procedures or paths. The legitimate route between idea and machine dates back thousands of years is well understood and well documented.

How can you “validate” the “concept” of a mechanism that exists only in the imagination of a dreamer or schemer. Why such resistance to explaining or diagramming the “concept” to this group of marine engineers and seafarers who have an intimate understanding of seaborne locomotion? Why post here?

I can’t speak for others but my BS meter is off the scale high.

1 Like
17

The “heavy lifting” of defining the energy-adaptive logic, the physics of the twisted screw, and the hydrodynamic assumptions is exactly what is contained in the technical report I have provided. If reviewing the data and the math before seeing a drawing is considered “heavy lifting” to you, then we are simply operating at different stages of the engineering process.

Every forum has its share of provocateurs, but I am surprised to see this level of dismissiveness here. Instead of reading the report and referencing something concrete or exact, you rely on sweeping generalizations. Had you presented a serious technical objection, I would have welcomed the opportunity to address it professionally.

Resorting to name-calling and “BS meters” instead of engaging with the provided data is mere mud-slinging. It contributes nothing to a serious technical forum and suggests that you are either unable or unwilling to discuss the project on an engineering level.

In modern R&D, validation starts with numerical modeling and logic—not with a “doodle.” I am still waiting for a specific technical challenge based on the actual contents of the report. Until then, I will focus my energy on those who are prepared to discuss the math and the physics.

Addendum on design procedures:

To clarify for those familiar with formal R&D protocols: This project is currently at TRL 1-2 (Technology Readiness Level). At this stage, the “design procedure” dictates the formulation of basic principles and conceptual applications backed by analytical data.

Providing a mechanical layout or a CAD-model now would be a breach of professional engineering methodology. In advanced system design, we do not produce “doodles” to satisfy visual curiosity; we establish the governing physics first.

The next step is TRL 3, involving numerical validation through CFD and MATLAB simulations to verify the lift coefficients of the twisted screw geometry. Once that data is consolidated, the project moves to TRL 4, where physical schematics and prototyping become relevant.

If you are unfamiliar with the TRL-scale or the transition from conceptual physics to mechanical engineering, I recommend reviewing the NASA or ISO 16290 standards. I am here to discuss the former; the latter will follow in due course.

18

Come back with a serious technical description to illustrate the technique and you might get some serious technical discussion.

Until then a science fiction word salad doesn’t float that boat.

Good luck.

19

It is difficult to provide a more “serious technical description” than a 19-page research paper (38 pages including the Spanish translation) containing references and a registered DOI.

If you dismiss published data, fluid dynamics logic, and established energy-transduction principles as “word salad” without pointing to a single specific error or paragraph in the report, it is clear where the lack of seriousness lies. Professional technical discussion requires the effort of actually reading the material.

I will keep the thread open for those who are prepared to engage with the actual content of the DOI.

My focus here is to connect with peers who are interested in the granular engineering work and TRL-3 validation—those who are comfortable working from data and physical principles to move this concept forward.

I look forward to a serious technical exchange with anyone who has actually reviewed the material.

Good luck to you as well.

20

I won’t be as immediately dismissive as my fellow commenters, but I too am struggling to visualize this, particularly with the Simplified Schematic Sketch For Overall Concept you included in your link.

If anything that concept drawing alone is enough to turn anyone with a serious background in marine engineering away. It looks like AI slop. You have 400m vessel with what therefore appears to be 100m breaking wave crashing over it.

You’ve moved the “cargo mass” below the rest of the hull, which even if you perfect this ceramic-based anti-fouling coating to reduce drag, you’ve still effectively tripled the wetted surface area by this design. And shipbuilding is already not an inexpensive venture with current hull and coating costs. This design alone seems cost-prohibitive before you even start discussing large scale installation of “A corrosion-resistant conductive mesh in titanium or nickel-plated carbon fiber embedded in the mass.”

And the cargo mass is suspended by columns, yet the paper discusses containerized cargo at a one-in/one-out column loading system. It would take a month to discharge a vessel of that size, and it’s draft-restricted so can’t even pull into port but relies on feeder vessels? But that notwithstanding, is this lower hull air ballast or otherwise flotation compensated? What percentage of space does that take up?

I don’t see anything resembling an archimedes screw, but nevertheless to think that wave action on a moving vessel would be enough to generate enough power to move what you have described as a half-million ton displacement seems to defy the laws of physics. If I understand the paper and description you keep the vessel heading such that wave energy passes through the hull channels to be captured by the AS? This sounds like thinking you’ll power your Tesla by only driving downhill and generating power from regenerative braking.

And not just power for direct propulsion, but according to your premise battery stored energy for maneuvering and load/discharge time. Do you have any concept of the sheer size and weight of the energy storage system that would take to provide continuous thrust for that displacement size vessel? More weight, more displacement, more energy required to move it…

Who is the end user who wishes to have their cargo take an unknown but significant amount of time to travel, then to sit offshore and await feeder vessels (and a what additional cost is that?). Certainly not everyone is shipping just-in-time, and all the major carriers have cut speed for fuel efficiency (read: cost savings), but double/triple/quadruple lead-time feels like a hard sell for solid cargo.

I love technology and development, so I don’t begrudge dreamers and developers. And academic discussions can be fascinating. But the concept first needs to make sense, not just from an engineering standpoint, but also from a plausibility standpoint, use-case, and financial case. Having seen none of those readily apparent it’s difficult to engage further.

2 Likes