Ark Angel LSV: Sauter's latest green megayacht gets speed injection


March 20, 2011

Sauter Carbon Offset Design's Ark Angel LSV

Sauter Carbon Offset Design's Ark Angel LSV

Image Gallery (2 images)

Like its Super Nova and Ocean Empire LSV stablemates, the 78 meter (256 ft) Ark Angel LSV (Life Support Vessel) from Sauter Carbon Offset Design harnesses energy from a variety of renewable sources to achieve up to 100 percent reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. When using its four 400 kW Daimler Bluetec Turbo Compound DD16 diesel engines, Sauter says that the green megayacht is capable of sailing at 28 knots while still reducing fuel consumption and emissions by 50 percent.

The renewable energy is supplied from multiple sources including a motion damping regeneration (MDR) system that captures energy from the waves is rated at up to 100 kW, as are the solar cells deployed throughout the vessel's exoskeleton as deck spoilers and a radar tower canopy. An auxiliary SkySail harnesses wind power and is rated at 300 to 400 kW with power sailing regeneration.

These systems combine with plug-in power sources to charge the Ark Angel's 3,000 kWh lithium-ion uninterruptible power supply (UPS) that is used to power all the vessel's five star hotel services day and night or allow it to navigate harbors or inland waterways with zero local emissions.

When the batteries are low, the Ark Angel can turn to its four 400 kW Daimler Bluetec Turbo Compound DD16 diesel engines which Sauter Design says deliver a reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of 50 percent when sailing at 28 knots, increasing to 75 percent when slowing to 18 knots and up to 85 percent when traveling at 14 knots. Its carbon neutral cruising range at 14 knots is 5,000 nautical miles, while its zero carbon cruising range at an average 10 knots is unlimited.

Other features include a computerized energy management, maintenance and guidance system, energy efficient AC and refrigeration systems with waste heat recovery and a wave piercing hi-speed displacement hull design.

The company says that, as a certified carbon offset project, the Ark Angel should save on average 4,000 tons of CO2 per year and, when plugged in, she is capable of feeding 450 MWh's of electricity to the grid – which is enough to offset up to 5,000 nautical miles of cruising every year.

Sauter Carbon Offset Design's Ark Angel sports an aluminum superstructure and carbon/Kevlar composite hull and decks. It has berths for 18 guests and 16 crew, as well as a fishery, hydroponic farm, helipad and a couple of 9.5 m (31 ft) Solar Hybrid Atlantic Guardian S Class tenders.

About the Author
Darren Quick Darren's love of technology started in primary school with a Nintendo Game & Watch Donkey Kong (still functioning) and a Commodore VIC 20 computer (not still functioning). In high school he upgraded to a 286 PC, and he's been following Moore's law ever since. This love of technology continued through a number of university courses and crappy jobs until 2008, when his interests found a home at Gizmag. All articles by Darren Quick

\"100 percent reduction in fuel consumption\" = it consumes 0

Great to see that energy saving technologies are sterting to be applied to yachts too.


All I see is a CAD image, and not a very detailed one at that. I suspect this is just a press release not something that has been actually built. I will reserve my judgement until after it is built and working


Shame the same can\'t be said for getting backwards and forwards via the helicopter. Probably blows the neutral carbon footprint out of the water.


What do you mean when you say "capable of feeding 450 MWh's of electricity to the grid"?

Her batteries hold 3 MWh's, so you cannot be talking about discharging her batteries.

Her diesel engines total rating is 1.6 MW, plus solar panels at 0.1 MW, and wave power at 0.1 MW, so are you saying that after discharging the batteries, the remaining 447 MWh's come from draining the diesel fuel to run generators, plus solar and wave power? At 1.8 MW (combining diesel with the solar and wave power) it must run for 248.3 hours to put the remaining 447 MWh's onto the grid. Please explain how you came up with the 450 MWh's.


I love all this tech but something these guys (and Toyota) won\'t want to talk about is the embodied energy - the amount of energy it took to make this thing. I can not imagine them ever repaying in carbon savings the amount of extra energy it took to make this vessel over and above a similar, completely conventional one. I have read that hybrid cars are the same - the batteries use a crazy amount of energy (and hence CO2 emissions) in construction that there is no hope of every repaying in savings. A similarly sized diesel car, over its whole life, will have a much lesser impact on the planet.

I am not picking on Toyota or the designers of this boat - I am glad they\'ve been thinking and working on this kind of stuff. I just think they\'d be better off spending the extra dollars on contributing to research for things like biofuels that their cars and boats can run on - and maybe eventually make them net CO2 reducers.

As a more general comment, seeing as this article is about \"green\" tech, I am starting to realise that we\'ve been kind of hypnotised by the idea of reducing emissions as being the goal when pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere is what is actually needed. I am a big fan of luxury boats and this one would tread much more lightly on the planet but I can only view it as a very early stepping stone towards actually fixing the problem, rather than merely slowing the rate at which it is getting worse.


The important question is: Does it have a Kahlenberg horn on it?

Doug Johnson

Why the inane arguments about the carbon cost of building the thing in the first place? No matter how its done, there will be significant energy expended to build it. Why not look on the bright side and count the many years of carbon savings available to the planet as a result? Moreover, if certified, the owner could probably qualify for carbon offsets which would further reduce the cost of operations.

And, you can be sure that some enterprising group will come up with a method to reinvigorate, or recycle, lithium-ion batteries once they have reached the end of their service life.


I am confused. A 50% savings only has meaning unless we know what 100% means. I\'ve read and reread this, I still don\'t know what a yaght like this would normally use per fuel consumption per mile. How much oil per mile? If it uses BLANK gallons per mile, and this new one uses 1/2 that. How many gallons per mile?


Green megayacht - now there is a classic oxymoron in the making. Any idea how many thousands of barrels of oil went into the manufacture of the fiberglass and steel or how much it tool to mine and smelt the metal and how many batteries had to be manufactured and where they will go in 2-3 years when they need to be replaced. This is as ludicrous as carbon offsets where Al Gore will fly to Asia but pay to have trees planted like that is going to really make a difference. Yachts like this are but one more symptom of the disconnect in people understanding the link between a record number of billionaires and their new toys and billions of people going without food or medical care. The Lauderdale paradox is exemplified in the shrinking of the real American economy regardless of the phony GDP figures. The millions of Americans who lost their homes, their jobs, and their medical insurance, know very well the sorry state of this country even if the people at gizmag do not.


I like Gizmag. Hell, I like Gizmag a lot. But all these concept sketches dressed up as reality without the slightest hint of critical analysis? They all make me like Gizmag just a little bit less.

C\'mon fellas. You\'re a beacon in a sea of dross. Stay that way.

And besides. A helicopter? 1600 kw worth of diesel engines? Green? Fig off.

Russ Pinney

Seriously, compared to old engines it may seem cleaner but just how many gallons per MINUTE are those four engines burning when running? ONE gpm would be impossible  under load (between all 4 engines)....

For what it\'s worth, Turboshaft engines running on  bio-diesel have cleaner emissions than diesels of comparable power.

More complete combustion.

Our company ( was involved in testing bio-diesel emissions in Turbines and they also specifically had 0% Nitrous Oxide emissions.

For the record, major impending environmental regulation was the final nail in the coffin of Chrysler\'s Turbine Car program. Their Nitrous Oxide emissions were simply unacceptable.

That would no longer be a problem.... if we merely change fuel.

We have also produced a 320HP bio-diesel fueled Turbine outboard that uses less gallons per hour than the gasoline piston engine that was replaced... AND made 70 more HP- so fuel efficiency CAN be superior with Turbines.

So far, that is rare but obviously possible.

It is also the largest diesel fueled outboard ever built.

Back to the point (environmental impact) SUSTAINABLE bio-diesel programs, such as the algae version,  may be a large part of the answer to our concern.

Of course, I do believe that the time spent arguing over which energy form is best is  ill-advised.

\"Less talk- more synthohol!\" -Worf Star Trek:The Next Generation

It will be a combination of approaches and there will be a trial&error curve of experience to transition to better systems.

I am only saying that Turbines, especially the Tesla Turbine, ARE  multiple-fuel by nature AND are  lighter and simpler by design principle.

Whatever fuel is chosen, Turbines can adapt, yet- they are irrationally overlooked... then there\'s also Turbine-electric.

When first used in military/aerospace the costs were high. Greed has kept them high. Turbines no longer require the tooling or complexity of R&D that they once did.

A Turbine has less moving parts and CAN be produced from scratch, cheaper than a comparable new piston design- if you eliminate corporate waste and  administrative inefficiency.

Also, just show me any Diesel engine that makes over 300HP AND weighs under  150lbs.

Of course,I am speaking primarily of non-aviation applications. The FAA makes EVERYTHING unnecessarily expensive.

Turbines make more power, are simpler,lighter,  and are, overall, (in their applications) a superior engine (as combustion engines go).

Pistons are cheaper only because of sheer availability,market saturation  and a massive program of development that has passed it\'s prime.

Millions&more are now being spent for marginal gains.

The challenge is really streamlining  our development procedures instead of throwing billions and billions of dollars into extravagant \"fuelishness\" and claiming marginal gains as major accomplishments.

Speaking of which, it is the parasitic loss of GREED that we need to overcome (chief amongst other things).

I would say that making our energy use more efficient is mere child\'s play compared to overcoming the criminal wastefulness of our race, rich AND poor.

Honestly, many of the poor would be just as bad... if given the chance.

However, the rich have had enough education that they should know better.

Still- that boat, if built, will cost more than the national budgets of several African countries combined, for one year.... or maybe even more.

Is this really progress?

I don\'t know about everybody else but I have spent enough of my life putting up with conventional wisdom and all its abuse of clever numbers and loopholes just to sound impressive.

All this for 18 guests? On a 256 foot boat?

I will not and cannot endorse the emperor\'s new yacht.

This boat could help things in a  trickle-down effect but I am tired of that excuse for inefficiency as well.   Must the rich and powerful always be pandered to?

So, Thank you for the free forum to vent on, GIZMAG!

I mean what I say- stay tuned for more info on our  \"little\" Turbine Outboard.

It is the mouse that roars!

In conclusion, since it\'s now using100% less fuel- if you made it like the REAL ark with NO engines, would it produce free energy?{^,^}

Carry on%u2022


PS After reviewing this further, Gizmag has written at least 3 articles on this firm\'s designs.

Have they actually built any of these?

The overall response has been pretty negative (albeit mostly by non-potential customers,I\'d guess).

What was the speed injection,anyway? 28knots is not fast.

As long as we\'re in the fantasy zone, how about nuclear fusion? Where\'s the flux capacitor?


Wow, yet another ridiculous excess being touted as green because of a bit of potential carbon offsetting etc. The only green megayacht is one that is never built. No-one needs one of these things, and the planet can\'t afford them, so the bozos coming up with these designs needs to get new jobs, find something useful to design instead.

Mr T

Leave the mega-yachts alone! They\'re \"mega\", and \"mega\" is cool. :-) If it makes you feel better, think of it this way... the more green mega-yachts there are, the more people like Donald Trump will be sent far out to sea with a sunny, windy day their only chance of returning to civilization. Except for rowing, and that looks like it might take a while.


Everyone is going on about environmental production cost of this rich mans toy, the rich man still wants his toy no matter what the cost is to the environment this is a step in the right direction... get real people, how much is the environmental cost of a conventional boat construction and running over its life time?

Post a Comment

Login with your Gizmag account:

Related Articles
Looking for something? Search our articles