Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Exploring the Cost and Feasibility of Battery-Electric Ships

newscenter.lbl.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 102 posts

Re: Exploring the Cost and Feasibility of Battery-Electric Ships

#51

Post by samplatt »

elzbardico wrote: post #45

A Lithium fire battery in a cruise ship in the middle of the Pacific would be a truly unique experience.

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.

Re: Exploring the Cost and Feasibility of Battery-Electric Ships

#52

Post by Polizeiposaune »

mcswell wrote: post #50
elzbardico wrote: post #45

A Lithium fire battery in a cruise ship in the middle of the Pacific would be a truly unique experience.

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.

Re: Exploring the Cost and Feasibility of Battery-Electric Ships

#53

Post by zdragnar »

taeric wrote: post #46
pingou wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For now it seems the improvements (sulphur regulations) only made the situation worse, in term of climate change.

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.

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.

Re: Exploring the Cost and Feasibility of Battery-Electric Ships

#54

Post by beedeebeedee »

Polizeiposaune wrote: post #52
mcswell wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Use lithium ferrophosphate instead- no fire

Re: Exploring the Cost and Feasibility of Battery-Electric Ships

#55

Post by bluGill »

elihu wrote: post #44
nominatronic wrote: post #31

> 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 c…

> 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.

Re: Exploring the Cost and Feasibility of Battery-Electric Ships

#56

Post by stephen_g »

pingou wrote: post #38
AcerbicZero wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Exploring the Cost and Feasibility of Battery-Electric Ships

#57

Post by AtlasBarfed »

samplatt wrote: post #51
elzbardico wrote: post #45

A Lithium fire battery in a cruise ship in the middle of the Pacific would be a truly unique experience.

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 m…

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.

Re: Exploring the Cost and Feasibility of Battery-Electric Ships

#58

Post by taeric »

zdragnar wrote: post #53
taeric wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Exploring the Cost and Feasibility of Battery-Electric Ships

#59

Post by nick3443 »

PlunderBunny wrote: post #49
m463 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Going fast in water takes incredible amounts of power.
Post reply on HN