New Ships-Hydrogen Fueled and Bigger

[Clay Clayton]

Interesting!

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/6901/

[philw1776]

Fond memories of Edward Teller

[duquephart]

38 minutes ago, philw1776 said:

Fond memories of Edward Teller

 

And the Hindenburg.

[chengkp75]

Reading a paper from DNV (the Norwegian class society) from just last July, made it clear that there is no approved method of using hydrogen on ships, it is a case by case study, that requires time for the class society to determine risks and mitigation procedures, and nearly every ship that is planned to use hydrogen (there are none at this time), plan to have the hydrogen tanks on deck (not a real attractive option for a cruise ship).

[Clay Clayton]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

Reading a paper from DNV (the Norwegian class society) from just last July, made it clear that there is no approved method of using hydrogen on ships, it is a case by case study, that requires time for the class society to determine risks and mitigation procedures, and nearly every ship that is planned to use hydrogen (there are none at this time), plan to have the hydrogen tanks on deck (not a real attractive option for a cruise ship).

So does that mean you think Tors was just wishlisting?

[Jim Avery]

I was going to remark on the need to make the ships larger in order to use hydrogen.  But then there just happened to be some leftover space for 25 or so new cabins.  What a coincidence.  Just like the airlines, more rears in more seats.....

[Clay Clayton]

While looking around the innerwebs, came across this article from 2017. Apparently, this isn’t the first time that Viking has discussed this:

https://www.blue-growth.org/Blue_Growth_Technology_Innovation/Hydrogen_Ferries_Cruise_Ships_Cargo_Vessels_Fuel_Cells/Viking_Cruises_Hydrogen_Fuelled_Cell_Shipping_Zero_Emission_Carbon.htm

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, Clay Clayton said:

So does that mean you think Tors was just wishlisting?

I think it may be that they will be using hydrogen fuel cells for supplemental power.  I didn't see a date for these new ships, so they may well be figuring on a long design process as well as a delayed construction time line to allow financial recovery from the shutdown.  Three new ships next year, is a large increase in capacity, in a down demand time.

7 minutes ago, Jim Avery said:

I was going to remark on the need to make the ships larger in order to use hydrogen.  But then there just happened to be some leftover space for 25 or so new cabins.  What a coincidence.  Just like the airlines, more rears in more seats.....

Yes, hydrogen takes at least twice as much tankage for the same energy as LNG, and over 6 times that of hydrocarbon fuels, like MGO.  Re-liquifaction equipment, inerting equipment, lots of challenges and space takers along with the cryogenic tankage.  I believe that fuel cells are of a lower power density (power generated per unit volume of plant) than diesels, so even more space is needed in engine room.

[Jim Avery]

Yes but how about extra space for 25 cabins?

[Heidi13]

4 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I think it may be that they will be using hydrogen fuel cells for supplemental power.  I didn't see a date for these new ships, so they may well be figuring on a long design process as well as a delayed construction time line to allow financial recovery from the shutdown.  Three new ships next year, is a large increase in capacity, in a down demand time.

Yes, hydrogen takes at least twice as much tankage for the same energy as LNG, and over 6 times that of hydrocarbon fuels, like MGO.  Re-liquifaction equipment, inerting equipment, lots of challenges and space takers along with the cryogenic tankage.  I believe that fuel cells are of a lower power density (power generated per unit volume of plant) than diesels, so even more space is needed in engine room.

 

Chief, the dates I have seen posted are:

 

Viking Mars (#8) - May 22

Viking Neptune (#9) - November 22

Viking Saturn (#10) - Mar/Apr/May 23

# 11 - 2024

# 12 - 2025

# 13 - 2025

# 14 - 2026

# 15 - 2026

# 16 - 2027

 

However, the un-named ships still all show a GT of 47,000 and capacity of 930 pax, so the published order book hasn't been updated. Not aware of any schedules posted for number 11.

[Selion]

14 hours ago, Jim Avery said:

Yes but how about extra space for 25 cabins?

Ships have multiple decks.  I don't see the hydrogen tanks taking up space from the keel all the way to deck 8.

 

Of course the hydrogen part perhaps is just marketing gimmick.  The real reason is to have more passengers on board for more $$$$.

[Heidi13]

14 hours ago, Jim Avery said:

Yes but how about extra space for 25 cabins?

 

Jim,

 

Unless they are doing a complete ship re-design, which I suspect is unlikely, I believe the additional length will be provided with a new section added to the middle. Most likely similar to how Mr Hagen modified the Royal Viking Ships back in the 1980's.

 

The existing decks of cabins will have additional cabins added. If the length increases by about 35 feet, that is probably an additional 3 cabins per side on each deck (3, 4, 5 & 6).

 

I expect a re-design of the engineering spaces and upper decks, but the pax spaces and cabins will probably remain very similar. 

[Jim Avery]

Thanks Andy.  One thing I know for certain is I have never seen any ship become a better place by adding MORE passengers.....😱

[duquephart]

Maybe a casino?

[donaldsc]

There are many many places around the world where you can refill your fuel tanks with normal fuel.  I wonder how many hydrogen refill stations there are.  Sort of like the effort to convince us to buy hydrogen powered cars.  You can buy a hydrogen car but there are only 45 public access hydrogen stations in the entire county and 43 of them are in California.  Do I see a bit or even a whole lot of PR  here.  

 

DON

[chengkp75]

33 minutes ago, donaldsc said:

There are many many places around the world where you can refill your fuel tanks with normal fuel.  I wonder how many hydrogen refill stations there are.  Sort of like the effort to convince us to buy hydrogen powered cars.  You can buy a hydrogen car but there are only 45 public access hydrogen stations in the entire county and 43 of them are in California.  Do I see a bit or even a whole lot of PR  here.  

 

DON

Well, over 75 million tons of hydrogen are produced in the world annually.  While delivery infrastructure is lacking, the 2017 article mentions that Viking would be working with Statoil to produce hydrogen and to build tankers.

 

The biggest problem with hydrogen production is that most of it today is from gasification of hydrocarbon fuels (coal and methane), and these release CO2, so it is not a zero-emission process.  Even hydrolysis from sea water requires energy to produce the hydrogen (as all methods do), so this must be factored into any "efficiency" calculations.

 

With the move towards "low flash point" fuels like LNG, thoughts of hydrogen were sure to follow.  Handling of LH2 (liquid hydrogen) would be similar to LNG, but a bit more dangerous as LH2 requires a storage temperature of -253*C (LNG at -162*C), so metallurgy and safety measures to prevent embrittlement of structure in case of release become an order of magnitude greater.  While the maritime industry may be looking towards some hydrogen fueled ships in the near future, I would be surprised to see a passenger vessel among the first to apply the technology.

[The Other Tom]

18 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

I think it may be that they will be using hydrogen fuel cells for supplemental power.  I didn't see a date for these new ships, so they may well be figuring on a long design process as well as a delayed construction time line to allow financial recovery from the shutdown.  Three new ships next year, is a large increase in capacity, in a down demand time.

Yes, hydrogen takes at least twice as much tankage for the same energy as LNG, and over 6 times that of hydrocarbon fuels, like MGO.  Re-liquifaction equipment, inerting equipment, lots of challenges and space takers along with the cryogenic tankage.  I believe that fuel cells are of a lower power density (power generated per unit volume of plant) than diesels, so even more space is needed in engine room.

Yes, seems to be fuel cells.

VIKING HYDROGEN FUELLED CELL POWERED ELECTRIC CRUISE SHIPPING ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS (blue-growth.org)

[Jim Avery]

2 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Well, over 75 million tons of hydrogen are produced in the world annually.  While delivery infrastructure is lacking, the 2017 article mentions that Viking would be working with Statoil to produce hydrogen and to build tankers.

 

The biggest problem with hydrogen production is that most of it today is from gasification of hydrocarbon fuels (coal and methane), and these release CO2, so it is not a zero-emission process.  Even hydrolysis from sea water requires energy to produce the hydrogen (as all methods do), so this must be factored into any "efficiency" calculations.

 

With the move towards "low flash point" fuels like LNG, thoughts of hydrogen were sure to follow.  Handling of LH2 (liquid hydrogen) would be similar to LNG, but a bit more dangerous as LH2 requires a storage temperature of -253*C (LNG at -162*C), so metallurgy and safety measures to prevent embrittlement of structure in case of release become an order of magnitude greater.  While the maritime industry may be looking towards some hydrogen fueled ships in the near future, I would be surprised to see a passenger vessel among the first to apply the technology.

It seems to me nuclear makes much better sense.  Lots of Navy ships safely use it.  But I have no idea of the total cost involved (massive I bet) but safety wise and pollution wise I would feel safer on a Nuke than with LH2 or LNG.  Glad I don't have to keep all the balls in the air the cruise industry is trying to do.  

[chengkp75]

28 minutes ago, Jim Avery said:

It seems to me nuclear makes much better sense.  Lots of Navy ships safely use it.  But I have no idea of the total cost involved (massive I bet) but safety wise and pollution wise I would feel safer on a Nuke than with LH2 or LNG.  Glad I don't have to keep all the balls in the air the cruise industry is trying to do.  

Gotta disagree with you Jim.  Navy doesn't have to make a profit, so the capital cost doesn't matter.  While the Navy's nuclear program has an outstanding safety record, so does the LNG shipping industry.  And, pollution between the two, LNG is short term, while nuclear is long term.  While my ideas are still out on LH2, I have no problem with LNG power.  I wouldn't want to deal with the liability issues of a nuclear powered cruise ship, where every passenger that gets sick at any time after cruising, can claim that exposure caused the illness.

[Jim Avery]

How true.  Gotta be someone else's fault I got sick.  I'm with you on being comfy with any of the power sources.  Used to carry tanker loads of gasoline and dock adjacent to LNG ships.  Cruise lines trying to convince masses of passengers that they are safe from every possibility is the hard part.  I suspect the extra measures required, both structural and procedural, over using fuel oil will add noticeably to the cost of passage.  I remember all the hoops we had to jump through to carry a cargo of NSFO (Navy Special Fuel Oil for the non Engineers out there)  I can only imagine what current rules might be for handling LNG or LH2.  🍸 

[Clay Clayton]

But I have a hydrogen allergy 😂

 

Regarding nuclear, I read in the last day or four somewhere that TH had said he hoped to have a nuclear powered ship sometime in the future.  It was probably one of the reports from one of the apparently hundreds of reporters and bloggers onboard Octantis from Barbados to NYC.  

[Heidi13]

3 hours ago, Jim Avery said:

How true.  Gotta be someone else's fault I got sick.  I'm with you on being comfy with any of the power sources.  Used to carry tanker loads of gasoline and dock adjacent to LNG ships.  Cruise lines trying to convince masses of passengers that they are safe from every possibility is the hard part.  I suspect the extra measures required, both structural and procedural, over using fuel oil will add noticeably to the cost of passage.  I remember all the hoops we had to jump through to carry a cargo of NSFO (Navy Special Fuel Oil for the non Engineers out there)  I can only imagine what current rules might be for handling LNG or LH2.  🍸 

Jim - my last command was converted to LNG a couple years after I retired and has been operational for about 4 years without incident.

 

The details are hazy now, so hopefully the Chief can confirm. Tanks - the double bottom tanks couldn't be used, so they had to install new Deep Tanks above the double bottom that had to be separate from the shell plating. They also require large vents running up the mast to vent off the boil-off to prevent over-pressure in the tanks. They still require diesel, as they may start on diesel, then switch to LNG, with a small amount of diesel injected with the LNG. Up on the Bridge they don't notice any difference.

 

Bunkering is done by road trucks at night, when the ship is non-operational.

[chengkp75]

The new systems are a little different, Andy, as your ship had pressurized tanks.  The LNG tanks have to be separate from the hull, as they are cryogenic tanks (basically vacuum bottles), and the void around them has to have leakage monitors.  They can be in the double bottom, but not within Beam/4 from the sideshell, and not in the sideshell.  There will be reliquifaction equipment to take the boil off and chill it back to liquid and reinsert it into the tanks.  The tanks have to be inerted.  The tanks are at less than 3 psi, and -130*C.  Bunkering can be tricky, as filling a completely empty tank requires spraying LNG into the tank so it flashes to gas, and starts the cooling down process, until you reach about -100 or so, and then bulk loading can start.

 

As you say, the diesel cannot run on 100% LNG, as the auto-ignition temperature of natural gas is 540*C, while diesel is 210*C.  A compression ignition engine (diesel) without a spark plug cannot reach 540*C, so about 5% diesel is mixed with the fuel to get the ignition going, and get the cylinder hot enough to ignite the methane gas.

[Jim Avery]

23 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

The new systems are a little different, Andy, as your ship had pressurized tanks.  The LNG tanks have to be separate from the hull, as they are cryogenic tanks (basically vacuum bottles), and the void around them has to have leakage monitors.  They can be in the double bottom, but not within Beam/4 from the sideshell, and not in the sideshell.  There will be reliquifaction equipment to take the boil off and chill it back to liquid and reinsert it into the tanks.  The tanks have to be inerted.  The tanks are at less than 3 psi, and -130*C.  Bunkering can be tricky, as filling a completely empty tank requires spraying LNG into the tank so it flashes to gas, and starts the cooling down process, until you reach about -100 or so, and then bulk loading can start.

 

As you say, the diesel cannot run on 100% LNG, as the auto-ignition temperature of natural gas is 540*C, while diesel is 210*C.  A compression ignition engine (diesel) without a spark plug cannot reach 540*C, so about 5% diesel is mixed with the fuel to get the ignition going, and get the cylinder hot enough to ignite the methane gas.

Thanks Chef,

That seems so much more cost and complexity.  Is it really worth the perceived "greenness" of the system.  Ships exhausts have been cleaned up significantly in the last 20 or so years so just curious how much all this would actually saves the environment.

[CurlerRob]

Thanks, Gents - this discussion has been fascinating and educational for a non-professional mariner!

 

I know nothing about LNG or hydrogen fuel cell systems, but to the earlier discussion on nuclear, I would expect that the cap. costs, engineering retrofits and necessity for highly trained operations staff would make the prospect untenable for cruise ships given the current state of the art.

 

With luck and research, that will hopefully change quickly, as small functional reactors have much broader usefulness than just on ships!  🍺🥌