Slashdot Mirror

That's actually not correct. If you look at Figure 2-1 in the W46F product guide, you'll see that it provides propulsion from about 390 to 600 rpm. The listed speed of 600 rpm is just the maximum.

dom

This is already the case. Typical Wärtsilä diesel engine, which is used pretty much all over the maritime business is constant RPM diesel.

See:

https://www.wartsila.com/produ...

Select engine, click "technical data" and you'll see the RPM engine operates at.

There are many generating plants that support frequency response. The value of frequency response support is already recognized in some markets. Eventually the available ramp rate will become a component of the market price of frequency response. The ability to program static inverter power supplies to have a response that acts like high inertia generation with very fast throttle response+ is significant.

Here are some systems to compare.

Dinorwig Power Station Wales Hydro pumped storage
0 MW to 1800 MW load can be achieved in approximately 16 seconds

The starting loading capability is often quite different than the advertised ramp rate for gas turbines. Gas turbine ramp rates of 35 to 50 MW/min are achievable only after the unit has reached self-sustaining speed. The fastest loading gas turbine models produce 30% load delivery after 7 minutes and take nearly 30 minutes to reach full output under hot start conditions. Wärtsilä 34SG combustion engines have true quick start capability – an effective ramp rate of 50% per minute, reaching full load within 2 minutes. For a 200 MW plant, this equates to 100 MW/min.

The best you can do with an internal combustion engine in theory is 37%

Nonsense. Wartsila diesel engines can get up to 50% efficient. The best you can do with a heat engine in theory is limited only by the temperatures it operates between. In practice, there are materials limits.

Here's a cite for you: The island I live on has (almost) all of it's power provided by RECO, using Wärtsilä generators (disregarding the very low adoption of PV and wind, and the couple of gas stations that run their own generators).

According to the first link, RECO burns 15,000 gallons of diesel a day providing the power for this island, according to the second, it's one of 1550 such power plants around the world (specificly using Wärtsilä generators.).

Now, as you pointed out, this is a rather expensive way to go for power generation, but it's certainly done. Of course, the reason this makes any sense if because this is a relatively small island 50 miles off the coast of Honduras, we can't afford the infrastructure needed for a more efficient means of power generation.

Finally, in the interests of full disclosure, I will note that RECO was recently (3 or 4 years ago) bought out by an investor who has been investing massive amounts of money into it, and once he's done bringing the distribution infrastructure up to snuff, he's announced plans to change over to biomass generation.

Your math seems solid, but taking the Emma Maersk as an example doesn't quite work.

Container ships carry time-critical goods, meaning they have to be fast. The Emma Maersk is among the fastest cargo ships in the world, doing 25.5 knots. Tankers sail much slower, for example the Hellespont Alhambra does 16.5 knots, which is quite fast for a tanker. Lower speed means you need less engine power, which means you consume less fuel. While the Emma Maersk has an 80MW main engine and five auxiliary engines of 6MW each (totaling 110MW), the Hellespont Alhambra makes do with a main engine of 36.9MW along with three auxiliary engines generating 1.5MW each (totaling around 41.5MW).

Another difference is that containers have a very low density, meaning container ships have a relatively low deadweight tonnage (carrying capacity). The Emma Maersk can carry 156,907 tonnes, the Hellespont Alhambra can carry 442,470 tonnes.

This means the Hellespont Alhambra carries 2.82 times the amount of cargo, using only 37.7% of the Emma Maersk's fuel while running at 64.7% of the Emma's speed. This means it is (2.82*0.647/0.377) 4.84 times as efficient as the Emma Maersk.

Napkin math aside, they'd use smaller tankers for this, since Alaska doesn't have any ports that can accommodate supertankers with their 24m (80ft) draft.

A blown boiler is sure to ruin anyone's day.

While I agree that most merchant ships can't sustain 26 knots. I don't think many of them are steam powered anymore. They mostly use low speed diesel engines, such as those manufactured by Wartsila.

Hnm...the article is a little disreputable. As far as I can tell, here's what happened. Some guy named Todd Walke scraped photos and diagrams out of the pdfs on this Wartsila web page. He made his own web page, which, AFAICT from Google, no longer exists, possibly because he got a take-down notice from Warsila. Meanwhile, a bunch of other people have mirrored the page. So in other words, the Slashdot story linked to somebody's copyright-violating copy of a copyright-violating copy of some of Wartsila's pics. As other people have pointed out, it's actually not the world's most powerful diesel engine, either. Oh well, the pics are cool!

The product page has a couple of PDFs with actual technical data and some nice photos. Oh, and in terms of real units, the power output is up to 80 MW for the largest model.

We already grow all the biomass we need to replace fossil petrol.

Biodiesel isn't a good way to provide electricity... imagine running diesel generators non-stop to try and supply all the energy needs for even a small country.. impossible.

So I'm not even attempting to say that all fossil fuels will be replaced, just diesel and gasoline

If you add it all up we already produce billions of barrels of viable oils and with a demand market farmers would have even more incentive to grow these cash crops.

Tell me how much you're willing to wager, I can use the money.

We already grow all the biomass we need to replace fossil petrol.

Biodiesel isn't a good way to provide electricity... imagine running diesel generators non-stop to try and supply all the energy needs for even a small country.. impossible.

So I'm not even attempting to say that all fossil fuels will be replaced, just diesel and gasoline

If you add it all up we already produce billions of barrels of viable oils and with a demand market farmers would have even more incentive to grow these cash crops.

Tell me how much you're willing to wager, I can use the money.

nah with todays computer systems you will need something more on this scale.... Wartsila 46