The first ever all-electric cargo ship is in operation in China's Pearl River

The power and efficiency of brushless electric motors combined with cell-phone battery technology will bring down Big Oil:

China is now the proud owner of the world’s first all-electric cargo ship and has already put the vehicle to use. As reported by China Daily, the 2,000-metric-ton ship was launched in the city of Guangzhou last month and runs in the inland section of the Pearl River.

Constructed by Guangzhou Shipyard International Company Ltd, it can travel 80 kilometers (approximately 50 miles) after being charged for 2 hours. As noted by Clean Technica, 2 hours is roughly the amount of time it would take to unload the ship’s cargo while docked

All electric cargo ship

a reply to: dfnj2015

This will not bring down big oil.
They will just buy the company's building the tech.

How do you figure that "Big Oil " will be brought down ? That is a silly statement especially since electricity, you know the stuff that the "all electric" boat runs on is produced by the same carbon fuels you claim it to replace.

I do not understand the rush to go all electric when the marjority of all of our electricity is produced in coal burning power plants producing the same electricity. The trade off may be worth it in the long run as far as the pollution we can see but what about the pollution we do not see ?

Some very harmful chemicals are used and exploited to manufacture the multiple batteries it takes to fuel the new pollution makers and disposal of the batteries is a whole new mess that in my opinion is much worse.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Wonder how much coal is needed to charge this thing once. Probably dedicate one of their hundreds of coal powerplants to just juice this thing up.

a reply to: dfnj2015

“As the ship is fully electric powered, it poses no threats to the environment,” said Huang Jialin,

what utter bollox - why do people lie ?

and as for your own delusion that this will :

bring down big oil

ROFLMAO

step one : google : the petrochemical industry

step 2 : learn how much of our 21st century existance uses crude oil as a feedstock for NON ENERGY Processes

step 3 : realise how assanine your boast is

a reply to: dfnj2015

And where does the electricity come from?

a reply to: DJMSN

1) The majority of "our" electricity is produced in coal burning power plants: you mean the USA? Not only is that not even true for the US, but it's certainly not true for every country in the world

2) Bunker fuel used in ships is faaaaar worse than burning even coal, and shipping is the biggest polluter of carbon emissions

Moving away from bunker fuel is a big step towards reducing carbon emissions.

a reply to: GetHyped

Ok...coal...natural gas....and nuclear are the primary methods in the us. Outside the US...coal and peat...natural gas...hydroelectric.

Aside from hydro...all are fossil fuels burned to produce electricity. The bunker oil will just be refined more to...wait for it...be burned to produce more electricity.

And since this crap is the biggest scam on earth...al gore...just give me 19 trillion and I will save us...still must charge something that uses batteries with electricity produced largely by burning fossil fuels.

You are gaining nothing...unless you count the gains of hazardous chemicals in the landfills from producing all the batteries...not to mention the additional strip mining from acquiring the materials to produce the batteries...oh...don't forget the mountains of hazardous batteries going to landfills to spew crap out for generations into not only the air but into the groundwater as well.

Not to mention the cost of these electric monstrosities which are only affordable because of government subsidies.

Perhaps someday with better ways of propulsion we can finally leave the oil in the ground but I would rather use something natural than something created with more toxic items than oil...an item which still requires fossil fuels to work...and something that requires disposal with long term dangers...they can keep it as far as I am concerned.

And wrong you are...shipping is not the most carbon producing product...29% of greenhouse gasses are produced by...wait for it...electricity production...shipping accounts for what is considered a generous percentage of 17% of green house gasses. Transportation combined comes in at 27% which is below...wait for it...electricity production...not gaining anything

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: dfnj2015

And where does the electricity come from?

A: From the plug in the wall!

a reply to: manuelram16

Just like magic.

There were plans for wind powered cargo ships. Either they would have huge sails or they would have aircraft like wings to provide enough lift to pull them out of the water.

www.sail-world.com...://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newma n/gfx/news/hires/2015/34-researchersa.jpg

a reply to: DJMSN

All fossil fuels are not equal:

Crucially, shipping exploits a ready supply of the world's cheapest, most polluting "bunker" fuel. Marine heavy fuel oil, which is burned by all large ships, is the residue of the world's oil refineries and is so thick that when cold it can be walked on. It is 60% cheaper than cleaner oils and, according to the report, demand for it is soaring.

"Bunker fuel is just waste oil, basically what is left over after all the cleaner fuels have been extracted from crude oil. It's tar, the same as asphalt. It's the cheapest and dirtiest fuel in the world," said Christian Eyde Moller, chief executive officer of the Rotterdam-based DK Group, a leading shipping technology company.

www.theguardian.com...

Air pollution from cruise ships is generated by diesel engines that burn high sulfur content fuel oil, also known as bunker oil, producing sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate, in addition to carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrocarbons. Diesel exhaust has been classified by EPA as a likely human carcinogen. EPA recognizes that these emissions from marine diesel engines contribute to ozone and carbon monoxide non-attainment (i.e., failure to meet air quality standards), as well as adverse health effects associated with ambient concentrations of particulate matter and visibility, haze, acid deposition, and eutrophication and nitrification of water.[21] EPA estimates that large marine diesel engines accounted for about 1.6 percent of mobile source nitrogen oxide emissions and 2.8 percent of mobile source particulate emissions in the United States in 2000. Contributions of marine diesel engines can be higher on a port-specific basis. Ultra-low sulfur diesel (U'___') is a standard for defining diesel fuel with substantially lowered sulfur contents. As of 2006, almost all of the petroleum-based diesel fuel available in Europe and North America is of a U'___' type.

In 2016 the IMO has made new sulfur regulations which must be implemented by larger ships by 2020.[22]

Of total global air emissions, shipping accounts for 18 to 30 percent of the nitrogen oxide and 9 percent of the sulphur oxides.[23] [24] Sulfur in the air creates acid rain which damages crops and buildings. When inhaled, sulfur is known to cause respiratory problems and even increases the risk of a heart attack.[25] According to Irene Blooming, a spokeswoman for the European environmental coalition Seas at Risk, the fuel used in oil tankers and container ships is high in sulfur and cheaper to buy compared to the fuel used for domestic land use. "A ship lets out around 50 times more sulfur than a lorry per metric tonne of cargo carried."[25] Cities in the U.S. like Long Beach, Los Angeles, Houston, Galveston, and Pittsburgh see some of the heaviest shipping traffic in the nation and have left local officials desperately trying to clean up the air.[26] Increasing trade between the U.S. and China is helping to increase the number of vessels navigating the Pacific and exacerbating many of the environmental problems. To maintain the level of growth China is experiencing, large amounts of grain are being shipped to China by the boat load. The number of voyages are expected to continue increasing.[27]

en.wikipedia.org...

It is cool and a step in the right direction, but it is made to move COAL. Of all things. lol


It probably does make good business sense to go electric. It is probably cheaper to recharge the energy than to create it on board, That's my guess and if true they will probably produce more.

a reply to: GetHyped

Keep telling yourself that. You have no idea...just what your told and unable to even think for yourself....and lol I didn't even see that it hauls coal.
..that is so liberal stupid

Now that is a place you can save a ton of gas.

Instead of a battery, somebody should try to think of a way to use some sort of reaction to generate energy/electricity.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
It is cool and a step in the right direction, but it is made to move COAL. Of all things. lol

Considering the electricity used by the ship probably come mostly from the burning coal, it seems fitting actually.

China gets 70% of its electricity from coal-burning power plants.

a reply to: GetHyped

Ironically the NOx gasses, Sulfur Dioxide, and particulates actually work to counteract global warming.

The breakdown of NOx gases gives rise to increased OH abundance and so helps to reduce the lifetimes of greenhouse gases like methane. Sources of NOx include fossil fuel burning, biomass burning and emission from soils.

And the particulates and Sulfur Dioxide ultimately increase the planet's albedo, reducing the amount of solar radiation that is absorbed.

We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. But we always have to take into consideration all aspects of the problem before we make any drastic changes to the way we do things...

-dex