> The researchers analyzed US-flagged ships less than 1,000 gross tonnage, which includes primarily passenger ships and three types of tugboats.
This is the buried lede. They are excluding basically all cargo shipping.
- Very little of the shipping industry is US-flagged. Most commercial ships sail under flags of convenience such as Panama and Libera, because of their reduced regulations and costs.
- Nobody carries cargo any distance in vessels of less than 1000 gross tons, because that scale would be uneconomical to operate. Modern seagoing cargo ships have about one crew member per 8000 tons of cargo.
It could be the ships they are studying are the most inefficient, and pollute the most near people. Maybe they make the most sense to electrify. It could also be the only ones that can be forced to electrify by law.
Large container ships are pretty efficient and mostly stay away from populated areas.
Several of the diesel ferries that operate from Auckland harbour will be replaced with electric ferries next year and in 2026. Apparently ferries in Auckland carry only 6% of public transport passengers, but account for 20% of the public transport emissions [0].
Hah, if we're only going to talk only about tiny US ships, run them on whale oil for all I care.
Seems to me the 80/20 here would be to attack the problem near the top of the stack, not the bottom. Those massive heavy fuel oil burning container ships that basically just smog the ocean 24/7 might be a good target for improvements; as well as just general code enforcement.
To be honest, the massive heavy fuel oil container ships are remarkably efficient. The amount of energy they use to move a given weight of cargo a given distance is minuscule compared to that of trucks, and still much better than even trains.
Scale has an advantage all its own when it comes to combustion engines.
Although the US isn't a member of one of the various large port state organisations it is enormous, and it has a lot of coast, so the US Coast Guard effectively acts as a Port State Control authority the way that say the Paris MOU or Tokyo MOU do, but with potentially less friction because instead of Spain and Germany or Japan and Australia having to agree what happens it's just Florida and New York, which are ultimately both responsible to the US Federal government.
If you have a Port State Control regime then the Flag State Control doesn't matter so much and so while it's true that most of these ships do not fly a US flag, they're not really sailing under a foreign flag for the reason you expect. A big reason instead is that these states have an Open Registry, which means everybody in the world can put a ship on their register. To fly the US flag, the ship's owners must be Americans.
Why doesn't Flag State matter so much (if you have PSC) ? Because the port states in effect control regulations if you visit their port, and unless your vessel somehow makes sense just pootling around in the ocean forever you will want to visit a port and thus be subject to their rules. Now, if that port doesn't have Port State Control, which fifty years ago none of them did, the Flag State is the only authority, but in 1978 the Europeans are agreeing rules to protect workers on ships in their water when blam - a shipping accident off the French coast causes world headlines. So of course journalists want to know, you're agreeing a treaty, how will your treaty fix this? And the bald answer for the intended treaty text was "It makes no difference, fuck off". But there are international journalists up in your grill and you've been telling everybody how important your treaty is and so... Port State Control, the Paris MOU is signed a few years later to formalize how Europe's states will coordinate to police everybody, regardless of the flag they're flying, if they enter a port.
The Paris MOU was a huge success, and soon anywhere with money imitated it. Tokyo MOU, there's a Carribean one, Indian Ocean, Black Sea... Anywhere you'd actually deliberately sail cargo ships to has Port State Control these days.
So yes, this does exclude all the cargo shipping, but not really because of the flag, it's because the cargo ships are enormous and so fall out of the size restriction.
~40% of cargo tonnage is moving fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) around [1] [2]. I would expect this volume to decline as the global energy transition continues to ramp. China's economy and EVs are already depressing global oil prices [3] [4] [5], for example. Also consider global decoupling and repatriating of supply chains [6] [7].
My analysis: We're potentially going to require much less marine transport capacity in the future. How much of that can be electrified is the question, imho (versus "green ammonia" produced from low carbon energy [8]).
Id guess its because large oceanic shipping ships have incredibly fuel efficient engines and batteries cant compete since they're recharged with thermal plants of similar efficiency.
Wow, this is a really good paper. Supplementary info is really great too- they get into details down to floating charging port stations as part of the infrastructure. Surprising how much demand is from tugboats. I have questions about how you'd safely hook up 5 MW connections, but it's definitely solvable.
Tugboats are a perfect use for battery electric boats! Most tugs work close to a port, they don't need to travel very far, need to be extraordinarily powerful for their size, and they need to change power output rapidly to manoeuvre a ship.
A harbour tug internally is almost entirely engine. Well, two engines, because an engine failure during tug operations is almost always disastrous.
There are IEC 60309 industrial power connectors that can handle 8MW (1000V, 800A).
There are also power connectors for cruise ships while they are in dock that handle lots of power. It looks like they use IEC 80005 for shore power. It looks like it is AC only but probably could be made to use DC.
The ship would need to be designed around it, but the battery could be set up in a way to allow it to burn out without affecting the rest of the ship at all, it is not that hard to isolate a battery from the rest of the system.
Although it would be better if the battery is at the bottom of the ship so there would also need to be some sort of air exhaust system for when that happens, hopefully one that prevents the fumes from reaching the passengers at all but I don't think that would be possible without a chimney.
Lithium batteries are more prone to self-immolation/thermal runaway; heavy fuel oils aren't prone to spontaneous ignition at typical temperatures & pressures.
There's hope that sodium-ion tech will come to the rescue, here. The energy-density is bordering on 'good enough' but it's not quite there, yet.
There's other technologies that they're trialing for boats that seem silly but works on paper at least. We're currently building a ferry with a massive flywheel to store lots of rotational inertia to convert to electricity, which on the face of it is bonkers but again, the maths says it's good.
I am counting my chickens before they hatch, but sulfur chemistries should help quite a lot. Same abundance of materials, 2x to 3x the energy density.
It's my impression that a lot of sulfur and other "advanced" chemistries are held up by operating restrictions like temperature for consumer vehicles, but industrial transport vehicles might not have such requirements because they have constant output.
For marine applications, I think propane fuel cells will work better than batteries. Unlike batteries, energy density of liquified propane is good. Unlike hydrogen, logistics of propane is solved by now as it’s already widely used to fuel vehicles.
Currently people usually burn propane in combustion engines, instead of oxidizing in fuel cells. In theory, fuel cells are more efficient than combustion engines.
There’re commercially available fuel cells used for marine applications https://wattfuelcell.com/ however it seems low powered, not enough power for propulsion.
And there’re different ways being researched to synthesize propane: some biotech bacteria, traditional industrial chemistry with new catalyzers like trimolybdenum phosphide nanoparticles, etc.
The future of shipping is ammonia. It has, pretty much, all the attributes of fossil fuels but being NH4 it doesn't produce an earth warming byproduct.
I wonder how viable an autonomous single-container electric cargo ship would be, instead of massive ships you could have thousands of tiny ones. With automated loading/unloading it could massively simplify logistics
A solar panel covering the ship and one of those flaps to generate power from wind with a EV-scale battery could be enough for containers moving light non-time-sensitive stuff. Probably wouldn't be able to run the engine at night for long though.
Heck throw some wheels at it and fast charging at docks and it could even potentially drive down the road as a truck directly from sea.
If they are that small and autonomous the concept of a port would likely be very different than what it is today. More like thousands of small drop-off points around the coast.
I support this idea but I stopped reading when the costs factored included the social costs of CO2 emissions. which I'm sure are important, but shipping operates on the actual cost of fuel and equipment, until CO2 tax is in that aren't we just making up economics?
They're also factoring in the value of the batteries second life, which seems at best, speculative.
ships should be electric, they're filthy to be around with 24/7 diesel generators running even on the quayside. if ship electrification prompted better port facilities of shore side hookup just that would be a win.
The reason those generators run is because the cargo requires them, or ships would not be able to take anything refrigerated or frozen, removing a large part of very profitable cargo from them. If the power to those boxes fails for a long enough period of time the load is completely destroyed.
Ships use power for all sorts of things. Steering, ventilation fans, and water pumps just to name a few. Motor power is only a fraction of what a boat can do, and most boats connect a generator to the main shaft, because the power is more important than the motive force.
For their comparisons, they used the "social cost" of CO2 emissions, I presume a detriment to combustion engined ships, a benefit to battery powered ones? Also they used the "2nd life" of the battery too, batteries that have not been repurposed at any meaningful scale yet?
I'm becoming more skeptical of reports, especially government reports, like this; there's a thumb on the scale toward solutions that are politically favored. Clearly this report was trying to find any way to boost the appearance of EVs.
Ferry service in the Puget Sound (Seattle Area) has suffered due to delays with electric ferries. The state refuses to maintain their existing fleet. Every line has frequent delays, and the international route which was suspended for “a couple years” in 2021 is now delayed until 2030.
The frustration people have with electric isn’t the technology – it’s the dogmatic commitment to technology that isn’t quite ready, based on false promises of it solving climate change .
Modernizing all the control systems etc is the nightmare. The ferries were already electric- all ferries are; they have diesel engines driving generators which drive electric motors. They still have the exact same generators running the same motors. The batteries are installed and ready even though they won't be used until the port is electrified years from now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkgT9Z8Z2RU
Sure but you have to think of the entire system which includes staff, training , charging infrastructure, power supply, possibly fuel for the charging infrastructure, backup/redundancy, maintenance, parts / distribution etc. An entire infrastructure network that had been operating for decades.
Diesel is more than just fuel, it’s an entire system.
I don't know what you mean by dogmatic. Alternatives to electric are still the primary workhorses in most industries, but falling prices for batteries mean they are rapidly becoming more competitive.
My experience is that people don't have a good grasp of how effective electric is, and think it's somehow worse than the alternatives and winning via subsidies, which is not really the case today. Likewise for things like solar.
I imagine many businesses are hoping to put off their next replacement cycles for more effective, cheaper technology rather than incur big Capex expenses on soon to be obsolete and more expensive technologies.
dogmatic in this case refers to tolerating critical service disruptions despite strong signal that electric is not yet ready, when you could easily continue service with diesel, the mature technology.
I've traveled on a battery electric ship in Norway, quite a few years ago. It recharged while docked loading passengers using two high voltage high current cables slung from a crane.
It also doesn't help that the bid/contract process is skewed to select the lowest bidder.
You can always forget to add some margin here or there, or fail to plan for problems that might pop up. It's easy to game the system because sunk costs make it nearly impossible to switch once you've started.
Energy density of batteries is much lower than that of fossil fuels. Which means that the weight of the ships would increase. In addition to the high price of the batteries, potential risks of electrocution, etc.
There are intermediate options. Moving away from diesel towards natural gas would dramatically reduce emissions (including sulfur emissions), while retaining high energy density.
LNG and LPG marine engines do exist, and are gaining popularity. The main issues are the price of gas fuel compared to marine diesel - which is the fraction too soft for roads and too viscous for other engines so is often really cheap - and safety considerations when retrofitting in to existing ships.
Unlike diesel fuel, gas fuels are readily ignitable and present a suffocation hazard in enclosed spaces. This is solvable with installation of a proper gas detection system, but if you've ever dealt with the shipping industry you'll know that maintenance is not top of their list.
Also gas fuels require new port-side storage and handling equipment, and in the case of liquified gas this might require a refrigeration system.
Electricity on the other hand is already port-side, and most ports will have a significant supply available.
As for weight, that's not really a problem for ships, especially tugboats. In the case of tugs the near instant peek power of electric propulsion is a huge advantage.
> and safety considerations when retrofitting in to existing ships.
So, we're keeping the fire hazard, but adding a stored energy hazard in the form of compressed gas? All in a retrofit? This doesn't sound like a good idea for international ships.
> and most ports will have a significant supply available.
It may be an immediate option for places that have a very strong desire to reduce carbon emissions, but for profit-driven entities the push towards natural gas ends up as both more economical and more ecological.
Looks like another intermediate option is bio-methanol. But, both options are very rare, with diesel being the overwhelming majority of international shipping.
Shifting to either would be a very significant improvement over the status quo. Whether that meets EU requirements is another matter.
> The researchers analyzed US-flagged ships less than 1,000 gross tonnage, which includes primarily passenger ships and three types of tugboats.
This is the buried lede. They are excluding basically all cargo shipping.
- Very little of the shipping industry is US-flagged. Most commercial ships sail under flags of convenience such as Panama and Libera, because of their reduced regulations and costs.
- Nobody carries cargo any distance in vessels of less than 1000 gross tons, because that scale would be uneconomical to operate. Modern seagoing cargo ships have about one crew member per 8000 tons of cargo.
> Very little of the shipping industry is US-flagged.
That's true for international shipping, but for shipping between U.S. ports, the ships have to be U.S. flagged due to the Jones act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920
I agree though that focusing on small U.S. flagged ships is not very representative of shipping in general.
There is very little shipping between us ports. Not zero, but not much.
9 replies →
It could be the ships they are studying are the most inefficient, and pollute the most near people. Maybe they make the most sense to electrify. It could also be the only ones that can be forced to electrify by law.
Large container ships are pretty efficient and mostly stay away from populated areas.
Several of the diesel ferries that operate from Auckland harbour will be replaced with electric ferries next year and in 2026. Apparently ferries in Auckland carry only 6% of public transport passengers, but account for 20% of the public transport emissions [0].
0. https://at.govt.nz/bus-train-ferry/ferry-services/low-emissi...
4 replies →
Hah, if we're only going to talk only about tiny US ships, run them on whale oil for all I care.
Seems to me the 80/20 here would be to attack the problem near the top of the stack, not the bottom. Those massive heavy fuel oil burning container ships that basically just smog the ocean 24/7 might be a good target for improvements; as well as just general code enforcement.
For now it seems the improvements (sulphur regulations) only made the situation worse, in term of climate change.
7 replies →
To be honest, the massive heavy fuel oil container ships are remarkably efficient. The amount of energy they use to move a given weight of cargo a given distance is minuscule compared to that of trucks, and still much better than even trains.
Scale has an advantage all its own when it comes to combustion engines.
Until we can find a battery with the energy density of fuel oil, then it isn't possible to transport sea cargo on batteries.
Fuel oil is approximately 80x the energy per KG when compared to lithium.
Although the US isn't a member of one of the various large port state organisations it is enormous, and it has a lot of coast, so the US Coast Guard effectively acts as a Port State Control authority the way that say the Paris MOU or Tokyo MOU do, but with potentially less friction because instead of Spain and Germany or Japan and Australia having to agree what happens it's just Florida and New York, which are ultimately both responsible to the US Federal government.
If you have a Port State Control regime then the Flag State Control doesn't matter so much and so while it's true that most of these ships do not fly a US flag, they're not really sailing under a foreign flag for the reason you expect. A big reason instead is that these states have an Open Registry, which means everybody in the world can put a ship on their register. To fly the US flag, the ship's owners must be Americans.
Why doesn't Flag State matter so much (if you have PSC) ? Because the port states in effect control regulations if you visit their port, and unless your vessel somehow makes sense just pootling around in the ocean forever you will want to visit a port and thus be subject to their rules. Now, if that port doesn't have Port State Control, which fifty years ago none of them did, the Flag State is the only authority, but in 1978 the Europeans are agreeing rules to protect workers on ships in their water when blam - a shipping accident off the French coast causes world headlines. So of course journalists want to know, you're agreeing a treaty, how will your treaty fix this? And the bald answer for the intended treaty text was "It makes no difference, fuck off". But there are international journalists up in your grill and you've been telling everybody how important your treaty is and so... Port State Control, the Paris MOU is signed a few years later to formalize how Europe's states will coordinate to police everybody, regardless of the flag they're flying, if they enter a port.
The Paris MOU was a huge success, and soon anywhere with money imitated it. Tokyo MOU, there's a Carribean one, Indian Ocean, Black Sea... Anywhere you'd actually deliberately sail cargo ships to has Port State Control these days.
So yes, this does exclude all the cargo shipping, but not really because of the flag, it's because the cargo ships are enormous and so fall out of the size restriction.
~40% of cargo tonnage is moving fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) around [1] [2]. I would expect this volume to decline as the global energy transition continues to ramp. China's economy and EVs are already depressing global oil prices [3] [4] [5], for example. Also consider global decoupling and repatriating of supply chains [6] [7].
My analysis: We're potentially going to require much less marine transport capacity in the future. How much of that can be electrified is the question, imho (versus "green ammonia" produced from low carbon energy [8]).
[1] https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2022/01/12/almost-40-...
[2] https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2019_en...
[3] https://www.iea.org/commentaries/china-s-slowdown-is-weighin...
[4] https://theprogressplaybook.com/2024/09/18/chinas-ev-and-hig...
[5] https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/chinas-slowing-oil-dem...
[6] https://www.axios.com/2024/11/14/companies-global-trade-chin...
[7] https://www.bain.com/about/media-center/press-releases/2024/...
[8] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Id guess its because large oceanic shipping ships have incredibly fuel efficient engines and batteries cant compete since they're recharged with thermal plants of similar efficiency.
Wow, this is a really good paper. Supplementary info is really great too- they get into details down to floating charging port stations as part of the infrastructure. Surprising how much demand is from tugboats. I have questions about how you'd safely hook up 5 MW connections, but it's definitely solvable.
Tugboats are a perfect use for battery electric boats! Most tugs work close to a port, they don't need to travel very far, need to be extraordinarily powerful for their size, and they need to change power output rapidly to manoeuvre a ship.
A harbour tug internally is almost entirely engine. Well, two engines, because an engine failure during tug operations is almost always disastrous.
Not to mention that many of them are diesel-electric hybrid already, going back to the 1940's.
Here is a LinkedIn post from my friends in Plug with a video! It's for connecting to a cruise ship, which are often around 5MW https://www.linkedin.com/posts/plugport_some-great-insight-i...
Electric ferries have already proved out high-power dockside charging, though I'm unsure whether that's primarily marine or freshwater in practice.
https://www.stemmann.com/en/products/charging_systems/ferryc...
This company has designs that go up to 23MW @ 15kV, though I'm unsure what their largest actual installation is.
The Maid of the Mist boats at Niagara Falls have been fully electric since 2023: https://www.maidofthemist.com/maid-of-the-mist-sets-the-stan... They don't talk too much about battery capacity or charging but I'm sure the information is out there.
Here's more about electric tugboats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu9XZIpOTcw
They can have super high torque. Quiet motors allow them to operate where diesel wouldn't be allowed due noise pollution.
There are IEC 60309 industrial power connectors that can handle 8MW (1000V, 800A).
There are also power connectors for cruise ships while they are in dock that handle lots of power. It looks like they use IEC 80005 for shore power. It looks like it is AC only but probably could be made to use DC.
Isn't that 0.8MW?
1 reply →
A Lithium fire battery in a cruise ship in the middle of the Pacific would be a truly unique experience.
The ship would need to be designed around it, but the battery could be set up in a way to allow it to burn out without affecting the rest of the ship at all, it is not that hard to isolate a battery from the rest of the system.
Although it would be better if the battery is at the bottom of the ship so there would also need to be some sort of air exhaust system for when that happens, hopefully one that prevents the fumes from reaching the passengers at all but I don't think that would be possible without a chimney.
Almost as bad as a fuel oil fire on a cruise ship.
Lithium batteries are more prone to self-immolation/thermal runaway; heavy fuel oils aren't prone to spontaneous ignition at typical temperatures & pressures.
3 replies →
There's no need to lie. Lithium battery fires are a fucking nightmare.
There's hope that sodium-ion tech will come to the rescue, here. The energy-density is bordering on 'good enough' but it's not quite there, yet.
There's other technologies that they're trialing for boats that seem silly but works on paper at least. We're currently building a ferry with a massive flywheel to store lots of rotational inertia to convert to electricity, which on the face of it is bonkers but again, the maths says it's good.
I am counting my chickens before they hatch, but sulfur chemistries should help quite a lot. Same abundance of materials, 2x to 3x the energy density.
It's my impression that a lot of sulfur and other "advanced" chemistries are held up by operating restrictions like temperature for consumer vehicles, but industrial transport vehicles might not have such requirements because they have constant output.
Is LFP an option ? Thermal runaway, O2 venting, they go away AFAICT.
For marine applications, I think propane fuel cells will work better than batteries. Unlike batteries, energy density of liquified propane is good. Unlike hydrogen, logistics of propane is solved by now as it’s already widely used to fuel vehicles.
Currently people usually burn propane in combustion engines, instead of oxidizing in fuel cells. In theory, fuel cells are more efficient than combustion engines.
There’re commercially available fuel cells used for marine applications https://wattfuelcell.com/ however it seems low powered, not enough power for propulsion.
And there’re different ways being researched to synthesize propane: some biotech bacteria, traditional industrial chemistry with new catalyzers like trimolybdenum phosphide nanoparticles, etc.
The future of shipping is ammonia. It has, pretty much, all the attributes of fossil fuels but being NH4 it doesn't produce an earth warming byproduct.
now imagine a leak of it.
fuel oil.. you just fence it off and scoop up.
ammonia.. evacuate the port and city
Studies have been done comparing gasoline vs. ammonia and while there are differences overall the dangers and mitigations are about the same.
I wonder how viable an autonomous single-container electric cargo ship would be, instead of massive ships you could have thousands of tiny ones. With automated loading/unloading it could massively simplify logistics
A solar panel covering the ship and one of those flaps to generate power from wind with a EV-scale battery could be enough for containers moving light non-time-sensitive stuff. Probably wouldn't be able to run the engine at night for long though.
Heck throw some wheels at it and fast charging at docks and it could even potentially drive down the road as a truck directly from sea.
While I don't have any deep foundational knowledge, I do know that:
- the energy required for moving in a fluid grows sub-linear with the vessel's volume
- larger motors tend to be more efficient
- your autonomous swarm will be a gigantic waste of steel and batteries.
Not to mention the problems around the autonomous part, without which you'd also have a huge waste of manpower.
See also https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/38252/why-on... for some points by people I assume know a bit more than me.
My dream variant of this notion is a waveglider. Super efficient, if a little slower.
Bonus points for adding a big scoop, to slurp up trash and filter out microplastics.
That sounds like a nightmare in port. Instead of one ship, now you have thousands arriving one after another.
If they are that small and autonomous the concept of a port would likely be very different than what it is today. More like thousands of small drop-off points around the coast.
I support this idea but I stopped reading when the costs factored included the social costs of CO2 emissions. which I'm sure are important, but shipping operates on the actual cost of fuel and equipment, until CO2 tax is in that aren't we just making up economics?
They're also factoring in the value of the batteries second life, which seems at best, speculative.
ships should be electric, they're filthy to be around with 24/7 diesel generators running even on the quayside. if ship electrification prompted better port facilities of shore side hookup just that would be a win.
They split the emissions cost out separately, FWIW: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-024-01655-y/figures/3
The reason those generators run is because the cargo requires them, or ships would not be able to take anything refrigerated or frozen, removing a large part of very profitable cargo from them. If the power to those boxes fails for a long enough period of time the load is completely destroyed.
Ships use power for all sorts of things. Steering, ventilation fans, and water pumps just to name a few. Motor power is only a fraction of what a boat can do, and most boats connect a generator to the main shaft, because the power is more important than the motive force.
[dead]
For their comparisons, they used the "social cost" of CO2 emissions, I presume a detriment to combustion engined ships, a benefit to battery powered ones? Also they used the "2nd life" of the battery too, batteries that have not been repurposed at any meaningful scale yet?
I'm becoming more skeptical of reports, especially government reports, like this; there's a thumb on the scale toward solutions that are politically favored. Clearly this report was trying to find any way to boost the appearance of EVs.
Ferry service in the Puget Sound (Seattle Area) has suffered due to delays with electric ferries. The state refuses to maintain their existing fleet. Every line has frequent delays, and the international route which was suspended for “a couple years” in 2021 is now delayed until 2030.
The frustration people have with electric isn’t the technology – it’s the dogmatic commitment to technology that isn’t quite ready, based on false promises of it solving climate change .
It looks like that is a conversion and retrofit of ships that were already unmaintainable: https://washingtonstatestandard.com/briefs/conversion-of-was...
Modernizing all the control systems etc is the nightmare. The ferries were already electric- all ferries are; they have diesel engines driving generators which drive electric motors. They still have the exact same generators running the same motors. The batteries are installed and ready even though they won't be used until the port is electrified years from now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkgT9Z8Z2RU
Sure but you have to think of the entire system which includes staff, training , charging infrastructure, power supply, possibly fuel for the charging infrastructure, backup/redundancy, maintenance, parts / distribution etc. An entire infrastructure network that had been operating for decades.
Diesel is more than just fuel, it’s an entire system.
1 reply →
Meanwhile Norway has 80 electric commuter ferries in service. https://businessnorway.com/articles/norway-showcases-award-w...
The Norwegian ferries appear to be much smaller than the Washington state ferries.
Here is the largest e-ferry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ferry_Ellen
And a guide to the WA fleet: https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/WSF-FleetGu...
5 replies →
your point?
I don't know what you mean by dogmatic. Alternatives to electric are still the primary workhorses in most industries, but falling prices for batteries mean they are rapidly becoming more competitive.
My experience is that people don't have a good grasp of how effective electric is, and think it's somehow worse than the alternatives and winning via subsidies, which is not really the case today. Likewise for things like solar.
I imagine many businesses are hoping to put off their next replacement cycles for more effective, cheaper technology rather than incur big Capex expenses on soon to be obsolete and more expensive technologies.
dogmatic in this case refers to tolerating critical service disruptions despite strong signal that electric is not yet ready, when you could easily continue service with diesel, the mature technology.
I've traveled on a battery electric ship in Norway, quite a few years ago. It recharged while docked loading passengers using two high voltage high current cables slung from a crane.
This sounds like a great way to keep consumer e-vehicles from hogging charger spots.
The frustration should be that in the US management is functionally incompetent.
Proposal: If we do it this way we won't have to spend as much money.
Counter: That's really hinky and it probably will blow up in our face.
Proposal: Yes but you can't prove it will. So it's what we're going to do.
Later: Blows up and goes over budget and takes two to three times longer.
It also doesn't help that the bid/contract process is skewed to select the lowest bidder.
You can always forget to add some margin here or there, or fail to plan for problems that might pop up. It's easy to game the system because sunk costs make it nearly impossible to switch once you've started.
you forgot the part where "Proposal" has been promoted twice based on a hurried launch and only "Counter" is left to take the blame for the messups.
this? https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/ele...
interesting they're struggling to get ship builders to bid.
Seems like a lesson learned is to build new boats until service is over capacity before refitting old boats where the unknown unknowns lurk.
Hackernews needs a better way to highlight stimulating comments. This one generated a healthy discussion, still 0 points.
I advocated for a controversial ranking before and it’s still relevant.
Technology won't become ready without users unfortunately.
[dead]
Energy density of batteries is much lower than that of fossil fuels. Which means that the weight of the ships would increase. In addition to the high price of the batteries, potential risks of electrocution, etc.
There are intermediate options. Moving away from diesel towards natural gas would dramatically reduce emissions (including sulfur emissions), while retaining high energy density.
LNG and LPG marine engines do exist, and are gaining popularity. The main issues are the price of gas fuel compared to marine diesel - which is the fraction too soft for roads and too viscous for other engines so is often really cheap - and safety considerations when retrofitting in to existing ships.
Unlike diesel fuel, gas fuels are readily ignitable and present a suffocation hazard in enclosed spaces. This is solvable with installation of a proper gas detection system, but if you've ever dealt with the shipping industry you'll know that maintenance is not top of their list.
Also gas fuels require new port-side storage and handling equipment, and in the case of liquified gas this might require a refrigeration system.
Electricity on the other hand is already port-side, and most ports will have a significant supply available.
As for weight, that's not really a problem for ships, especially tugboats. In the case of tugs the near instant peek power of electric propulsion is a huge advantage.
> and safety considerations when retrofitting in to existing ships.
So, we're keeping the fire hazard, but adding a stored energy hazard in the form of compressed gas? All in a retrofit? This doesn't sound like a good idea for international ships.
> and most ports will have a significant supply available.
Are you sure about that?
1 reply →
Electric is an immediate option. Norway has 80 electric ferries in service. https://businessnorway.com/articles/norway-showcases-award-w...
It may be an immediate option for places that have a very strong desire to reduce carbon emissions, but for profit-driven entities the push towards natural gas ends up as both more economical and more ecological.
https://www.lngindustry.com/special-reports/21112023/the-ris...
1 reply →
Not going to work in the EU.
Fossil fuels like natural gas are assumed to be the baseline in the Fuel EU directive entering into force in 2025.
All required reductions will have to come on top.
https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/maritime/deca...
Looks like another intermediate option is bio-methanol. But, both options are very rare, with diesel being the overwhelming majority of international shipping.
Shifting to either would be a very significant improvement over the status quo. Whether that meets EU requirements is another matter.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/maersk-buy-bio-m...
1 reply →
You've been sitting at port a week past unloading please move along! Sorry doc command, were still charging, should be on our way in 8 more days.