6 comments

  • jillesvangurp 1 hour ago
    The Guardian article glosses over a few things that are actually interesting about this ship:

    - It's made out of aluminum instead of steel. The resulting weight savings make it a bit more efficient. That's something this shipping yard specializes in.

    - Because it is going to run in shallow water on the river Plate, it doesn't actually have propellers but a water jet propulsion system.

    Fully charged did a video on the construction of this ship early last year: https://fullycharged.show/episodes/electric-ferry-the-larges...

    The project of getting this ship from Tasmania to South America is also going to be interesting as well. It can't do it under its own power; it's designed for a ~50km crossing, not a trans Pacific/Atlantic journey. At the time, they were thinking tug boats.

    • wepple 8 minutes ago
      The relocation was the big question on my mind.

      The other is: when will they charge? Does this ship not run at night?

      • pjc50 2 minutes ago
        Also: installing the charging infrastructure. Special docking requirements for the non electric Spirit Of Tasmania were a big problem.
    • merek 14 minutes ago
      Thanks for the video link, it's way more informative than the original article.
    • tedk-42 1 hour ago
      Article quotes `40 megawatt-hours of installed capacity.` - Surely this can get you pretty far from Tasmania to South America.
      • chii 1 hour ago
        apparently, 40MWh of capacity is enough to travel 40 nautical miles. The distance between Tasmania and South America is around 6,500–7,500 nautical miles.
        • amelius 44 minutes ago
          For comparison, a wide body airliner needs ~0.15MWh to travel 1 nautical mile.
          • eesmith 13 minutes ago
            A wide body airliner doesn't carry "up to 2,100 passengers and 225 vehicles".
  • NooneAtAll3 2 hours ago
    I hope that such a flat roof will be covered in solar
    • red75prime 2 hours ago
      It should take around 50 hours to fully charge its batteries under ideal conditions. That is 5 - 10 days realistically. I guess it's impractical considering that it will ferry across the River Plate.
      • reactordev 10 minutes ago
        Any flat surface on a ship that is designed for electric should be covered in flexible solar panels.

        Why do this if it can’t fully charge the ship? To offset the costs of charging the ship at port, to provide longer range by providing a lower voltage power source for 12V DC charging (cell phones, iPads, 5w LED lights).

        So the commenter is correct, she needs panels and the fact that this isn’t part of the launch shows that they were more interested in being first than practical.

    • victorbjorklund 2 hours ago
      Probably more efficient to keep inverters, panels etc on land.
      • reactordev 9 minutes ago
        You would be consuming fossil fuels to charge a ship when the sun is giving you energy for free.

        At least capture some of that to charge some batteries or extend the length of your voyage.

      • phinnaeus 2 hours ago
        I’m not a sparky but would you need inverters if the panels are just for charging batteries? On the other hand, there is probably already inverters onboard to provide AC power to passenger power points.
      • NooneAtAll3 17 minutes ago
        more efficient to leave surface unused?
  • trebligdivad 1 hour ago
    Does anyone have a feel for how heavy the weight of an equivalent oil(?) driven ship would be? It has the big number for the weight of batteries, but I've got nothing to compare against.
  • t0lo 2 hours ago
    Spent a few months down in Hobart sussing out an antarctic science degree- really cool marine industry nexus down there with world leading research, all of the antarctic operations, and this stuff. Definitely the most nautical feeling city in Australia
  • EB-Barrington 6 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • DemocracyFTW2 2 hours ago
    Ugly as hell as far as ships go. Ugly as hell like almost all new cars, trains and buildings.