# Coal powered freighters and yachts should come back.



## steel (Sep 1, 2010)

I know this is a sailing forum but I have a big imagination. I know that many people simply could not afford to burn oil to power their boat. But what if you didn't have to sail?

I've researched some and the only coal fired boat that I know of is the Luddington Ferry which I have been on. It was pretty nice. The was a large pile of coal on the Wisconsin side like the kind you would see at a power plant.

Anyway, back over 100 years ago pretty much everything on the water and on rails burned coal. Then oil came along. The heavy oil like #4 and #5 bunker fuel which need preheating to burn in a diesel engine were just waste at the refinery and would be burned off. It could be purchased for pennies a gallon or sometimes even under a penny since it was only a fraction of the cost of the lighter fuels like gasoline. I can't find any actual data on how much it cost. So everything got converted from being coal fired to oil fired. Then since they were now using liquid fuel they started using diesel engines and the boilers were a thing of the past. 10 years ago bunker fuel was about half the price of diesel (#2), when diesel was $1 a gallon. Now it is about 7/10 the price of diesel at $700 a ton.

Because of increasing oil costs and the quickly shrinking ratio of bunker fuel to diesel costs the shipping industry has slowed the speed of their freighters to sometimes as low as 15 knots, which compares to the speed of 19th century sailing ships. Those ships have had operating costs at $15,000 per day!

Coal costs under $100 per short ton (2000 pounds). Anthracite has 7/10 the energy per weight as diesel. Power plants today are able to do over 40% energy conversion efficiency. Commercial electricity from a power plant can be as low as 5 cents per kWh.

Diesel at 7 pounds per gallon is 286 gal/ton or $1000 per ton at $3.50 a gallon. At 1/15 gallons per kWh on a larger (38% efficient) diesel engine that's 23 cents per kWh not counting any other costs.

At $100 coal it should be about 3 cents per kWh compared to 23 for diesel so 1/8 the cost.

Cheap steam turbines which run at 150 PSI and are only 10% efficient are available. But to do a 40% efficient system you have to have very high pressures.

It would be a fun engineering project. If some day I can get my hands on a steel boat that's over maybe 70 feet I'll try to convert it to coal ($58 a ton now) and go around at a fraction of the cost!

I'm surprised the larger ships aren't burning coal again. A small several megawatt power plant could easily fit inside a big ship.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

steel said:


> I'm surprised the larger ships aren't burning coal again. A small several megawatt power plant could easily fit inside a big ship.


Steel, assuming you actually believe the content of your own post..  I'll give this a shot:

1. First off, although it was certainly cheap, nobody ever in history just "burned off" heavy oil. Amongst other things like oil lamp fuel, it was used to make the roads you drive on.

2. Coal is basically solid carbon. Do we assume you've not heard of Global Warming/Climate Change, etc?

3. What do you think the greenies would have to say about coal-burning ships?

4. Have you any idea of the handling issues surrounding large quantities of coal? Besides the obvious fire/explosion risk in confined spaces ship-board, think about what coal dust does to your lungs!..

5. You won't get either a "several megawatt power plant", or anyone to run coal-fired boilers, inside any big ship these days. Even if the economy was there (and it isn't, when you take space contraints into account), OH&S simply will not allow it.

IIRC, one of the major reasons behind the move away from steam was the enormous amount of space the boilers and the associated ventilation apparatus took up... but there were many, many other reasons - mostly to do with safety of both ship and crew.

Have another think about why they won't come back..


----------



## stormsailer1 (Jan 20, 2011)

*Coal Powered .....*

OMG, why can't these people just let it go! Don't come close to our Chesapeake Bay with your @#%A^*& coal fired boat, we're just getting the water cleaned up, don't need to start on the air. Calculate your environmental costs for using coal, from personal experience, I'd suggest you take a "road trip" to China and see coal immissions at it's finest. Gheezeeee....:hammer


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

Where is the imagination...Coal? We can do better...we must do better...Tearing up the mountains/ground for fossil fuels or fracking gas and poisoning the aquifers? Let's get real...we're running out of time to still be going down the saem old road..that roads a dead end pretty soon...We need investment in new ideas and need taxes on oil/gas/coal over and above a certain percentage that must be re-invested in R and D that excludes fossil fuels. Too much fossil thinking going on...


----------



## Nautichthys (May 2, 2010)

Imagination needs to be backed by solid research. There are very good reasons for oil supplanting coal and economics was only part of it. 

Consider safety. The town I'm in was founded on coal mining. I can take you to the site of a ship wreck that occurred when coal dust in its bunkers spontaneously combusted. Yet to best burn coal in a modern fluidized bed system the coal needs to be as fine as possible. 

Reintroducing coal fired vessels would be a bit like trying to reintroduce horses into city transportation. There are situations where you can make an economic argument for it but I doubt people want to deal with the stink and tetanus again. 

(p.s.: I love my horsies...)


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

stormsailer1 said:


> OMG, why can't these people just let it go! Don't come close to our Chesapeake Bay with your @#%A^*& coal fired boat, we're just getting the water cleaned up, don't need to start on the air. Calculate your environmental costs for using coal, from personal experience, I'd suggest you take a "road trip" to China and see coal immissions at it's finest. Gheezeeee....:hammer


Looking the other way, I mean no pollution and a decent speed (8/10K) without being wind dependent there are two boats around, one circumnavigating (alright it is a odd and very expensive boat) :

YouTube - Solar-Powered Boat Docks in South Florida - Video - WPLG Miami.flv

YouTube - MS TÃ›RANOR PlanetSolar: el mayor barco solar del mundo (HD)

PlanetSolar :: First Around The World With Solar Energy ::*Home*

They have a cruising version of that one :

Catamaran à moteur : super-yacht de luxe (à énergie solaire) - TURANOR PLANETSOLAR - LOMOcean Design

And another that seems a lot more interesting to me. I saw this one on the Paris boat show and it seems almost a "normal" boat and it is not expensive, it was made by recycling old racing trimarans bits and pieces that were not used anymore:

Solar Odyssey par Lemer Pax

Battre le record de l'Atlantique en trimaran solaire

Solar Odyssey

Not boat related, but energy related, maybe you find this interesting:

Portuguese island to become first CO2-free island | euronews, hi-tech

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

Hartley18 said:


> 5. You won't get either a "several megawatt power plant", or anyone to run coal-fired boilers, inside any big ship these days. Even if the economy was there (and it isn't, when you take space contraints into account), OH&S simply will not allow it.
> 
> IIRC, one of the major reasons behind the move away from steam was the enormous amount of space the boilers and the associated ventilation apparatus took up... but there were many, many other reasons - mostly to do with safety of both ship and crew.


Both these statements are incorrect. I recently retired from a forty plus year career as a marine engineer. I was an engineer on large steam cargo ships, a design and project engineer for a major ship design firm, and most recently a professor of marine engineering teaching power plant design. I can assure that coal is a viable marine fuel, that the engine room of a steam ship is actually smaller than that of a modern slow speed diesel, and that the technology to handle and burn coal is readily available. Keep in mind every nuclear submarine and most large LNG tankers are powered by steam turbine power plants. The reason we don't see new coal powered ships being built is economics. Yes the fuel is cheaper, but the lower power plant efficieny offsets much of that. Coal takes up more volume than oil and the storage bunkers must be fitted in valuable cargo storage areas. And coal bunkering facilities are not readily available in major ports anymore. If the price difference between coal and oil widens (and stays that way for a long period of time) we will see coal powered ships being built again. But not yet.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JimsCAL said:


> Both these statements are incorrect. I recently retired from a forty plus year career as a marine engineer. I was an engineer on large steam cargo ships, a design and project engineer for a major ship design firm, and most recently a professor of marine engineering teaching power plant design. I can assure that coal is a viable marine fuel, that the engine room of a steam ship is actually smaller than that of a modern slow speed diesel, and that the technology to handle and burn coal is readily available. Keep in mind every nuclear submarine and most large LNG tankers are powered by steam turbine power plants. The reason we don't see new coal powered ships being built is economics. Yes the fuel is cheaper, but the lower power plant efficieny offsets much of that. Coal takes up more volume than oil and the storage bunkers must be fitted in valuable cargo storage areas. And coal bunkering facilities are not readily available in major ports anymore. If the price difference between coal and oil widens (and stays that way for a long period of time) we will see coal powered ships being built again. But not yet.


Hei Jim, nice post

Thanks for sharing that knowledge. I knew that some electricity plants run on coal instead of fuel, but they don't have the storage space problem of a ship.

Regarding boats one of the things that I always have find puzzling was the power and speed some of the steam World war I Warships had. Take for instance the Goeben, that could make 27K and that even with a damaged boiler could evade all the British navy in an epic pursuit (I had read the book, an old one belonging to my grand father, and the story is really fabulous).

Pursuit of Goeben and Breslau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only much later could diesel engines match that power and speed or at least is the idea I have.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

A modern steam turbine is way smaller than the old piston clanking steam engine. One big advantage from an engineering standpoint is once you convert the energy to steam you have big flexibility. Basically anything that burns can be used to generate steam. 

To those who don't think we should burn any fossil fuel, buy a bunch of 200ft oars, I'll buy the pair of drums.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

This is where the term "Black Gang" came from. The men shoveling the coal into the fire boxes of the boilers in order to make steam for the steam engines & generators. on board the ships. Even with the modern screw coal feeders for those boilers it is still a dirty job. 
No Thank You. 
I am a Deck Officer; that means I'm up on an open decks & pilot house in the clean air. An it shall stay that way...
And like when the Engineers get feeling full of themselves; I always tell them that I don't need them because I can always rig sails.


----------



## captbillc (Jul 31, 2008)

in 1952, when i sailed on the silvania on the great lakes (triple expansion steam engine) the boilers were hand fired. as oiler, one of my jobs was to start up the ash elevator and sluce the ashes over the side while the coal passer shoveled the ashes into the ash elevator buckets from the fire room floorplates.you would not be able to get rid of the ashes like that now. because of pollution laws, so where would you get rid of the ashes?


----------



## captbillc (Jul 31, 2008)

by the way, Boasun, we called the guys on topside "deck apes"


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

captbillc said:


> by the way, Boasun, we called the guys on topside "deck apes"


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Boasun said:


> This is where the term "Black Gang" came from. The men shoveling the coal into the fire boxes of the boilers in order to make steam for the steam engines & generators. ...


----------



## steel (Sep 1, 2010)

> To those who don't think we should burn any fossil fuel, buy a bunch of 200ft oars, I'll buy the pair of drums.


That's really funny. But somehow the people who have this idea always manage to be the people who are being rowed by someone else or have the drums.












> Thanks for sharing that knowledge. I knew that some electricity plants run on coal instead of fuel, but they don't have the storage space problem of a ship.


Only some burn coal? It's 57% in the US and 41% in the world for electricity generation. A lot burn natural gas. Only 6% comes from oil. coal electricity, coal power plants - World Coal Association

Yes coal does take more space for storage. But not that much more.

There are problems like the coal dust and coal fire hazard, but those can be overcome. The other problems have been overcome in power plants. It can be done on ships too. That power plant in the picture is 1000 MW or 1,340,000 horsepower! The Emma Mærsk is 80MW.



> you would not be able to get rid of the ashes like that now.


Dump them in the ocean or put them in one of the coal bunkers and then dump it out when in the middle of the ocean. The Luddington Ferry is still dumping the ash in the lake but they have to change that soon, and they don't want to.


----------



## steel (Sep 1, 2010)

Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Wow it looks like the pollution from burning bunker fuel is really bad. They say that they put out more harmful pollution than all of the world's cars combined.

Nobody here works for an oil company do they? Why is there so much opposition to using coal? There are coal power plants everywhere. Sure they put out pollution but nothing near as bad as bunker fuel. What's wrong with having a coal power plant at sea?

I think CO2 is good for the environment, even though the amount we make isn't really significant. Plants get bigger and use more CO2 to make more oxygen. Then everything thrives.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

JimsCAL said:


> ... and most recently a professor of marine engineering teaching power plant design.


Jim - Were you at Webb? I'm class of '82. I had Jens Holm and Allan Rowen.


----------



## JordanH (Dec 13, 2008)

Perhaps digressing...
I remembered reading about this a few years back but haven't heard much since.
BBC NEWS | Europe | Gone with the wind on 'kite ship'
Kite-powered ship sets sail for greener future - Telegraph
and more recently...
Cargill ship will be largest ever to utilize kite power

Claims of up to 35% fuel reduction seems like a good thing to me if they can apply it practically.


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

SVAuspicious said:


> Jim - Were you at Webb? I'm class of '82. I had Jens Holm and Allan Rowen.


No, US Merchant Marine Academy (Kings Point). I did once teach a course as an adjunct at Webb in the 80s. Sophomore Marine Engineering. And I am currently working with a pair of seniors there on their thesis project - use of alternative fuels in a diesel engine. Never met Jens Holm but know Al Rowen very well. Small world!


----------



## Tocsin (Apr 4, 2011)

The RMS Segwun out of Gravenhurst, Ontario:

RMS Segwun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Burns coal.

I get mildly amused with the vocal "Save the Whales, Kumbaya" gang who are themselves profligate consumers of the Earth's resources.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

JimsCAL said:


> Both these statements are incorrect. I recently retired from a forty plus year career as a marine engineer. I was an engineer on large steam cargo ships, a design and project engineer for a major ship design firm, and most recently a professor of marine engineering teaching power plant design. I can assure that coal is a viable marine fuel, that the engine room of a steam ship is actually smaller than that of a modern slow speed diesel, and that the technology to handle and burn coal is readily available. Keep in mind every nuclear submarine and most large LNG tankers are powered by steam turbine power plants. The reason we don't see new coal powered ships being built is economics. Yes the fuel is cheaper, but the lower power plant efficieny offsets much of that. *Coal takes up more volume than oil and the storage bunkers must be fitted in valuable cargo storage areas.* And coal bunkering facilities are not readily available in major ports anymore. If the price difference between coal and oil widens (and stays that way for a long period of time) we will see coal powered ships being built again. But not yet.


So you actually agree with me? Jim, just to set the record straight:

1. I have no problem with steam power plant - indeed the humble old steam engine is far more efficent than any internal combustion engine, but the topic of this discussion is *coal-burning*- not nuclear or LNG or anything else.

To compare "apples with apples", when thinking about a coal-burning steam plant (an external combustion engine) you *must* include at least the engine, boilers and ventilation systems, even if you allow the same size for fuel storage - which you seem to agree also takes up more space. To say that this equipment takes up less space ship-board than an equivalent internal combustion engine and its liquid fuel storage is just crazy stuff!! 

As a marine engineer, you, of all people, should be well aware of the significant difference in ventilation rates and air quantities required to operate a steam boiler, compared to the token requirements for an internal combustion engine of any size. The *only* reason there are steam turbines in use on shipping today is that there are ways to generate steam to power them without using a boiler. eg. Nuclear.

2. My other point that you disagree with seems to be the handling of the stuff. Coal dust is a huge problem - everywhere. It is not only explosive (when mixed with air in the right amounts) and easily ignited by sparks from rock carried within the product itself, it can spontaneously combust unless the humidity is controlled. Everyone I've talked to at coal-handling terminals and bulk carriers in my regular line of work hates the stuff and would much prefer handling liquids any day.

3. Do you really think that the OH&S issues surrounding the use of coal to power a ship can be easily overcome by the regulatory authorities involved, when diesel/fuel oil is completely safe by comparison?? Good luck!! 

I know there are plans afoot to liquify coal and feed this into engines of some sort, but am not aware of any advancing past pilot stage. Perhaps you do??


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

steel said:


> Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated' | Environment | guardian.co.uk
> 
> Wow it looks like the pollution from burning bunker fuel is really bad. They say that they put out more harmful pollution than all of the world's cars combined..


Sounds like you've never in your life had a whiff of "stack gas". Quite an experience, let me tell you.  



steel said:


> Nobody here works for an oil company do they? Why is there so much opposition to using coal? There are coal power plants everywhere. Sure they put out pollution but nothing near as bad as bunker fuel. What's wrong with having a coal power plant at sea?


Yes. Because coal = solid; oil = liquid. It is far easier/safer/cleaner/cheaper to handle liquids than solids.

I take it you've not noticed that coal power stations tend to be built on or next to coal mines? How on earth do you propose getting coal out to sea?? 

FWIW, Coal power plants are yesterday's news and are being progressively shut down all over the world. In the last 2 years, five new Natural Gas Turbine power stations have been constructed here Down Under and the same trend is happening globally (except maybe China) - they are smaller for the same output, cheaper to build and run, and safer and more efficient than the old coal-burning dinosaurs.

The latest tech seems to be Coal Seam Gas (CSG) power generation - where the coal is left in the ground and the methane used to generate power.


----------



## steel (Sep 1, 2010)

Yeah LNG is a good fuel too.

But the price has varied widely in the past hasn't it? Kind of like bunker fuel.

A coal / LNG ship would be nice! It would have a boiler either way.


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

Just to clarify a few things:

1. For the same power, the engine room of a modern slow speed diesel plant (including all auxiliary equipement) would occupy more space than that for a steam turbine plant (including boilers and all auxilliary equipment. 

2. The diesel is more efficient than the steam turbine plant. A modern slow speed diesel has a thermal efficience of over 50%. As marine steam plant is around 30-35 % efficient. A reciprocating steam engine plant is maybe 10 to 15 % efficient. So the modern diesel plant is actually 3 to 4 times more efficient than the reciprocating steam engine.

3. A diesel actually requires MORE combustion air than a boiler. Some boilers run with excess air levels of only 3 to 5 percent. A diesel at full load may be at 30 to 50 percent excess air and over 100 percent at part load.

3. Coal has a lower heating value than oil so you need more for the same amount of energy. This is one of the disadvantages of coal as compared to oil. But the lower cost of coal for the same amount of energy offsets that.

4. Coal has been used as a marine fuel for over a century. More electricity is generated by coal in the US than any other fuel. Thousands of smaller industrial boilers (similar in size to marime boilers) use coal as the fuel because of the lower overall costs. Yes there are considerations that have to be taken to handle and burn coal safely, but this is a fully developed technology with thousands of installations doing this routinely on a daily basis. 

5. The use of coal as a fuel to power ships comes down to economic considerations, not engineering or technical ones. After oil spiked in price in the 1970s, a number of new coal-fired ships were built. Most were either bulk carriers or coal colliers. When oil then dropped in price in the 1980s new construction went back to oil as the fuel. We'll see if the current oil price situation will again result in a reconsideration of coal as a marine fuel.


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

Isn't it true that coal dust can be piped as a liquid when mixed with an anti caking agent? Or as a slurry?


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

CapnBilll said:


> Isn't it true that coal dust can be piped as a liquid when mixed with an anti caking agent? Or as a slurry?


Yes, it can - although it's highly abrasive and hence doesn't do the pipelines any good. ..but you have to get it back out of it's slurry form (usually by hot-air drying) to be able to use it again.

I'm not against coal per se - there will always be a need for mining the stuff for steel-making, manufacturing and fuelling heritage ships and trains - but with so many Greenies and Tree Huggers around in this world of ours, it is simply not, right now, a viable (read "politically correct") alternative fuel for commercial applications given the host of other options out there.

Last I heard, someone was trying to run a diesel engine on a modified coal slurry - but I don't know how successful that was.


----------



## AdamLein (Nov 6, 2007)

I know this thread has sort of died but I just had to.


http://wondermark.com/tink2/


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

When I worked on some ships, they had steam deck winches. To me they were smoother and had more variable speeds in operations than an electric winch does. 
The boilers on the ships burned special Navy fuel... Not as much crap came out of the stacks when they blew tubes.


----------



## GulfTriton (Apr 15, 2011)

Coal...you guys are funny! Why not just burn old used tires to power your boat? Personally I prefer wind energy!


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

Boasun said:


> When I worked on some ships, they had steam deck winches. To me they were smoother and had more variable speeds in operations than an electric winch does.


..they also had amazing amounts of *torque* for their size - which was why, even after some working boats converted to heavy oil, the old winches, powered off heat-recovery boilers, were often the last things to go.

Electric winches are only in the last few years, with the invention of 21st century electronics and efficient VVVF variable-speed torque-controlled motors, becoming a true like-for-like replacement for the old steam deck winch.


----------



## sailjunkie (Nov 4, 2009)

Okay, this is the General Discussion forum and I guess anything goes. That said, does anyone else find it ironic that this thread is on a web site called Sail Net? I just had to ask.


----------



## Cruxandreams (Mar 8, 2011)

stormsailer1 said:


> OMG, why can't these people just let it go! Don't come close to our Chesapeake Bay with your @#%A^*& coal fired boat, we're just getting the water cleaned up, don't need to start on the air. Calculate your environmental costs for using coal, from personal experience, I'd suggest you take a "road trip" to China and see coal immissions at it's finest. Gheezeeee....:hammer


TRUUUU Dat! sailings about not destroying the world as fast as possible.


----------



## sailortjk1 (Dec 20, 2005)

Just an FYI, that last remaining Coal Fired Ship on the Great Lakes that you reefer to in your OP is required to convert it's boilers by 2012, find another way to dump it's ash or it loose it's license.



steel said:


> I've researched some and the only coal fired boat that I know of is the Luddington Ferry which I have been on. It was pretty nice. The was a large pile of coal on the Wisconsin side like the kind you would see at a power plant.


----------



## John9999 (Jun 26, 2011)

*Coal Electric Power Plant YouTube*

There are some great videos on YouTube of the workings of coal power plants.

I would think if you leave the coal in a coarse state in the bunker, then send it through a pulverizer near the boiler that you could cut down on coal dust. Coal power plant technology is well developed, safe, and could probably be easily adapted to shipping. Coal power plant emissions controls are also well developed.

The end of oil is nigh. It was a great, compact fuel, but it's days are numbered. Oil is already starting to become uneconomic as a fuel. Considering the time and capital it takes to build shipping fleets, it's probably time to start planning for the end of oil as a practical fuel.

I think we're already well into the end of the oil age. Oil production has probably peaked and I doubt we will ever see truly cheap oil again. There will probably be brief times when it is cheap due to temporary supply gluts, but I think it will be expensive far more often than it is cheap. Volatile fuel prices can kill a shipper.

The alternatives to fossil fuels are a return to sail power or nuclear. Both are not very practical on a commercial scale.


----------



## manhattan08 (Mar 2, 2009)

As one of the largest buyers of coal in this country, I find this thread interesting. 

As you would imagine, I am very pro coal (since I buy 20 million tons per year); however I am not going to step up on my soapbox....... at least not yet.


----------



## ColoGuy (Jan 7, 2010)

Just not seeing coal power freighters and yachts coming back anytime soon. 

Sec of St Tillerson sounds like he wants the oil off of the northern shores of N Korea. What could possibly go wrong?


----------

