3 ms·

Oh I read it... ....We assume an ICE tank-to-wake efficiency of 50% and electric motor and inverter efficiencies of 95% each28. Batteries yield an 80% efficien

Oh I read it... ....We assume an ICE tank-to-wake efficiency of 50% and electric motor and inverter efficiencies of 95% each28. Batteries yield an 80% efficiency improvement compared to their ICE counterparts, which translates to a 30% decrease in total energy needs for the battery-electric ship….We assume a containership carries enough fuel for a day’s voyage; in reality, this figure is probably higher, because ships often carry fuel for several days after bunkering… Most of the initial asssumptions are way off and rely on the 'tightening regulatory landscape' to make hte battery powered fantasy more convincing. Discuss this with anyone in shipping and they will just laugh

shkkmo 4y ago
If you have issues with specific assumptions and sources to cite showing how those assumptions are flawed, then you would be contributing to a productive conversation about the article. Simply saying "Batteries are really heavy and will be exhausted of power very quickly by the continuous load from underwater propellor propulsion." when those specific points have been discussed in the article does not contribute anything to the discussions and simply makes it appear as if you did not read the article.
markdestouches 4y ago
Could you, please, elaborate what realistic assumptions would look like? I am not in shipping industry nor am I a battery expert. I understand that batteries suffer from lower energy density and a number of other issues, but I'd really like to see how far off the tech is numerically.
- snovv_crash 4y ago
  As a start, they need a few weeks of fuel, not a day. Also, large ICEs are actually a lot more efficient than the little things we put in cars. Bunker fuel is also enormously cheaper than regular gasoline. The overall takeaway for me is that we need a 10x improvement in battery density, electricity costs to be 1/3 of today, plus a 30x reduction in battery costs, for this to be feasible. At that point, it is 'just' a capex problem to replace the fleet. These are still 'decades away' numbers IMO.

shkkmo 4y ago

If you have issues with specific assumptions and sources to cite showing how those assumptions are flawed, then you would be contributing to a productive conversation about the article. Simply saying "Batteries are really heavy and will be exhausted of power very quickly by the continuous load from underwater propellor propulsion." when those specific points have been discussed in the article does not contribute anything to the discussions and simply makes it appear as if you did not read the article.

markdestouches 4y ago

Could you, please, elaborate what realistic assumptions would look like? I am not in shipping industry nor am I a battery expert. I understand that batteries suffer from lower energy density and a number of other issues, but I'd really like to see how far off the tech is numerically.

snovv_crash 4y ago
As a start, they need a few weeks of fuel, not a day. Also, large ICEs are actually a lot more efficient than the little things we put in cars. Bunker fuel is also enormously cheaper than regular gasoline. The overall takeaway for me is that we need a 10x improvement in battery density, electricity costs to be 1/3 of today, plus a 30x reduction in battery costs, for this to be feasible. At that point, it is 'just' a capex problem to replace the fleet. These are still 'decades away' numbers IMO.