[HN Gopher] Exploring the Cost and Feasibility of Battery-Electr...
___________________________________________________________________
Exploring the Cost and Feasibility of Battery-Electric Ships
Author : gnabgib
Score : 41 points
Date : 2024-11-20 16:52 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (newscenter.lbl.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (newscenter.lbl.gov)
| tonymet wrote:
| 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 .
| dboreham wrote:
| 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.
| euroderf wrote:
| This sounds like a great way to keep consumer e-vehicles from
| hogging charger spots.
| hwillis wrote:
| 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
| tonymet wrote:
| 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.
| itake wrote:
| I also heard the power companies just don't have the extra
| power to supply the ferries. The terminals need to be
| redesigned to receive and emit that much juice.
| Already__Taken wrote:
| 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.
| laurencerowe wrote:
| Meanwhile Norway has 80 electric commuter ferries in service.
| https://businessnorway.com/articles/norway-showcases-award-w...
| nickff wrote:
| 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...
| laurencerowe wrote:
| > Here is the largest e-ferry:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ferry_Ellen
|
| Norway's largest e-ferry is three times larger.
| https://www.electrive.com/2021/03/02/worlds-largest-
| electric...
| nickff wrote:
| According to your link (and all other articles I found on
| that vessel), that ferry is capable of operating all-
| electric, but actually operating as a hybrid.
| wongarsu wrote:
| The Seattle ferries GP was talking are also retrofitted
| to be hybrid-electric, so that does seem very comparable
| nickff wrote:
| I was initially responding to a post stating that there
| were many all-electric ferries, and my point was that
| there were none (operational) of a size comparable to WA
| state ferries.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42197763
|
| There are many large hybrid vessels; notably, this has
| been common for submarines for a very long time. The
| largest currently operational diesel-electric (hybrid)
| submarine seems to be the Chinese Qing-class, of ~3800
| tons surfaced displacement.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Although the news at that time was about delivery of a
| first electric ferry, that was 2021 and things change.
| The Ferry company's web site says now it has _three_
| electric ferries as a result of conversions and indeed
| they charge at both ends of the route. It 's in Norwegian
| but the translation looks reasonable to me.
| tonymet wrote:
| your point?
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| 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.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| 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.
| ajford wrote:
| 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.
| Epa095 wrote:
| Technology won't become ready without users unfortunately.
| Panzer04 wrote:
| 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.
| tonymet wrote:
| 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.
| hwillis wrote:
| 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.
| Epa095 wrote:
| 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...
| ianburrell wrote:
| 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.
| bittercynic wrote:
| Isn't that 0.8MW?
| telgareith wrote:
| 800 _1000=800,000. (8_ 1 and 5 zeros).
|
| looks like 800kW to me. Nice catch.
| sitharus wrote:
| 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.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Not to mention that many of them are diesel-electric hybrid
| already, going back to the 1940's.
| syncsynchalt wrote:
| 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.
| pornel wrote:
| 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.
| exhilaration wrote:
| 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.
| Already__Taken wrote:
| 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.
| hwillis wrote:
| They split the emissions cost out separately, FWIW:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-024-01655-y/figures/3
| akira2501 wrote:
| 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.
| nwah1 wrote:
| 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.
| laurencerowe wrote:
| Electric is an immediate option. Norway has 80 electric ferries
| in service. https://businessnorway.com/articles/norway-
| showcases-award-w...
| nwah1 wrote:
| 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...
| ajford wrote:
| It seems like the profit-driven attitude put us in the
| ecological situation and maybe it's time to put the
| environmental impact first.
| ViewTrick1002 wrote:
| 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...
| nwah1 wrote:
| 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...
| ViewTrick1002 wrote:
| Yep, everything is on the table. All done through complete
| lifecycle well to wake calculations to prevent hiding
| emissions in intermediate steps.
|
| Works by forcing say 2% green fuel in 2028 and then a
| market for shipping companies to buy and sell rights. The
| requirement will increase every couple of years.
|
| Which means old ships will continue to operate but will
| have to pay for their emission to greener vessels. Thus we
| have a very direct gain from going all the way rather than
| half hearted attempts, allowing modern green vessels to
| make a business case on selling their credits by being over
| performers.
| sitharus wrote:
| 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.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > 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?
| sitharus wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Indeed not, I haven't heard of any large cargo ship using
| gas fuel at sea other than gas carriers. I know that there
| are some dual-fuel ships, which use gas fuel in costal
| waters for emissions reasons, but they carry much less gas
| than would be required for a full voyage.
|
| > > and most ports will have a significant supply
| available.
|
| > Are you sure about that?
|
| Ports have electric cranes (the big ones, not the straddle
| cranes), shore power supply for ships, bulk goods handling
| facilities, etc. They often have a high voltage (110kV+)
| supply. This won't be true everywhere, but it is common.
|
| Of course it's not just a drop in process and it will be
| expensive to get all the new equipment in place.
|
| My nearest port got their first electric tug two years ago
| and they documented what they needed to do. They did have
| to install a new substation, but their existing 110kV
| feeder lines have plenty of capacity, they already consume
| over 13GWh per year so the increase needed to charge the
| tug wasn't high.
|
| I am ignoring the issues with charging battery-electric
| large cargo ships because the article did not consider
| those either.
| nominatronic wrote:
| > 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.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| ~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...
| tialaramex wrote:
| 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.
| AcerbicZero wrote:
| 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.
| pingou wrote:
| For now it seems the improvements (sulphur regulations) only
| made the situation worse, in term of climate change.
| taeric wrote:
| I'm surprised I don't see that discussed more. Too easy to
| slide into denialism? I thought there was a strong case a
| lot of the immediate ocean temperature changes these past
| few years was this. Which is not to deny climate change,
| but we should pay attention to all changes. Instead, I've
| seen more denial that cloud seeding could do anything.
| zdragnar wrote:
| You'd need to compare the harm done: acid rain versus
| warming due to less sulphur.
|
| Given that it's possible to offset the rise of CO2
| elsewhere, it's hard not to argue that the sulphur
| emissions are strictly worse, and we are better off for
| having less of them.
| taeric wrote:
| Agreed. Also hard not to see that the extra sun on the
| Atlantic is almost certainly rising temperatures. It
| isn't an either or. All if this is happening.
| stephen_g wrote:
| That's the wrong framing. The NOx and SOx emissions were
| going to have to go eventually. It's true that it might
| have been better to phase it out over a year or two so it
| was less of a shock as the hard deadline that ended up
| hapenning, but we couldn't keep constantly polluting
| forever (which is the only way to keep those aerosols in
| the air).
|
| Sulphur regulations just unmasked some of the global
| warming that had already happened, but that masking was
| only ever going to be temporary in the long run.
| taeric wrote:
| This feels dishonest? The sulfur clouds were keeping
| temperatures down. Largely in ways that were not really
| related to green house gasses. Exposing the ocean to more
| sun increases temperatures of the ocean. Likely
| influences currents, as well. In ways independent of heat
| we are trapping in the atmosphere.
|
| Should we have stopped the sulfur? Agreed that that
| answer is almost certainly still yes. Questions that this
| leads to are cleaner artificial clouds. Not to control
| weather, per se. Rather, to reduce ocean heating.
| m463 wrote:
| 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.
| PlunderBunny wrote:
| 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...
| nick3443 wrote:
| Going fast in water takes incredible amounts of power.
| m463 wrote:
| I don't know why hydrofoils aren't more popular
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Because they're expensive and unreliable for most
| applications. They need more power, they increase draft,
| they don't tolerate debris, and they _really_ dislike
| rough seas.
| lstodd wrote:
| They do fine for passenger traffic. Draft, debris and
| rough seas are not a problem. You need gas turbines or
| very unusual diesels for the power, that is the problem.
| elihu wrote:
| > 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.
| bluGill wrote:
| There is very little shipping between us ports. Not zero, but
| not much.
| euroderf wrote:
| Speculation: this system propped up by the long-distance
| trucking lobby.
| Polizeiposaune wrote:
| Longshoreman's union "touch fees" reportedly have a lot
| to do with it:
|
| https://capitalresearch.org/article/what-you-need-to-
| know-ab...
|
| https://twitter.com/johnkonrad/status/1840904466310316459
|
| " it's somehow cheaper to truck containers hundreds of
| miles and let taxpayers foot the road repair bill than
| let the union _touch_ it two more times for short sea
| shipping to work. "
| mrguyorama wrote:
| It's not the Longshoreman's union fault that truck
| drivers have zero leverage against their employers in
| comparison.
|
| If every form of transportation had strong unions, the
| system could find whatever healthy or natural
| distribution was actually economically efficient. More
| stuff would be sent by Train and Boat, both substantially
| more efficient in most cases, and both industries that
| suffer in the US from being ignored.
|
| Instead, so much of the US essentially just runs on
| Employee Coercion Arbitrage and we all suffer for it.
|
| We should be able to shop around transportation choices
| without exploiting underpaid workers.
|
| Realistically, a carbon tax would actually have the same
| outcome if you hate unions.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| The Jones act goes back to before the existence of long
| distance trucking, and has so many interested parties
| just on the maritime side that it will take a shift in
| world order for it to change.
| euroderf wrote:
| "Son, custody of the Jones Act has been passed down from
| technology generation to technology generation..."
| elihu wrote:
| I can believe that.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| 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.
| elzbardico wrote:
| A Lithium fire battery in a cruise ship in the middle of the
| Pacific would be a truly unique experience.
| mcswell wrote:
| Almost as bad as a fuel oil fire on a cruise ship.
| Polizeiposaune wrote:
| Lithium batteries are more prone to self-immolation/thermal
| runaway; heavy fuel oils aren't prone to spontaneous ignition
| at typical temperatures & pressures.
| beedeebeedee wrote:
| Use lithium ferrophosphate instead- no fire
| 1234letshaveatw wrote:
| I would think that preventative measures would be much
| easier to realize on big ships with lower density demands
| EricE wrote:
| Furthermore, oil fires can be extinguished by water and/or
| CO2 - Lithium battery fires can't be smothered and require
| exponentially more water to bring under control (producing
| copious amounts of heavily contaminated water too). And
| once put out can easily re-ignite.
| samplatt wrote:
| 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.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| 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.
| euroderf wrote:
| Is LFP an option ? Thermal runaway, O2 venting, they go away
| AFAICT.
| DanielHB wrote:
| 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.
| coding123 wrote:
| 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.
| entropicgravity wrote:
| 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.
| lstodd wrote:
| now imagine a leak of it.
|
| fuel oil.. you just fence it off and scoop up.
|
| ammonia.. evacuate the port and city
| DanielHB wrote:
| 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.
| thworp wrote:
| 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.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| That sounds like a nightmare in port. Instead of one ship, now
| you have thousands arriving one after another.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-21 23:01 UTC)