4 ms·

>The least efficient part of any ship is turning mechanical energy into electrical I think you meant "most". The least efficient step is converting chemical e

>The least efficient part of any ship is turning mechanical energy into electrical I think you meant "most". The least efficient step is converting chemical energy into mechanical energy. Given the cheapness of fuel oil and geneator sets, and the expense of batteries, what possible financial argument is there for doing this?

Scoundreller 4y ago
Fuel oil is an expensive way of generating electricity, which is why few on-land power plants use it. This is all about utilizing efficient grid power (hydro, nuclear, gas, whatever) on a ship. By grid-intertie at the ship level, re-fit costs are minimized. Kinda like rooftop solar.
- fdsafdsfdsa 4y ago
  Fuel oil is a very cheap way of generating power, when you have several thousand tons of it already on your ship :) The possible few percantage difference in efficiency between ship-based oil-powered generation, and land-based power generation, is more than wiped out by the storage and conversion losses of a battery-based system. It's also very expensive (and heavy). Why pay to fill a container with batteries, and then pay more to charge them, when you can be paid to carry a container of other stuff as cargo?
  - Scoundreller 4y ago
    Crude oil is about 3% of global electricity production and continues falling. And the efficiency is particularly bad when you’re using it in a reciprocating engine (as on a ship) instead of a turbine (as on land). Natgas and coal are cheaper hydrocarbons. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.PETR.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.PETR.ZS Oil’s benefit is its density, storability and pumpability. All I know is that a giant ship is the most cost-effective way to transport anything heavy by vehicle. A few percent improved efficiency in exchange for losing a handful of container capacity on a ship carrying several thousand is a net positive. And cargo shipping is a tight business. Battery storage and conversion losses are far less than the conversion losses from generating electricity from an ICE.
    - Panzer04 4y ago
      The primary issue with ships is you don’t get to recharge the batteries every night - so you need way more capacity than an equivalent application on land (even if ships are very efficient)
    - fdsafdsfdsa 4y ago
      >Battery storage and conversion losses are far less than the conversion losses from generating electricity from an ICE. No, they are not. Here's some research for large-scale battery storage systems: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1409737 https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1409737 Rround-trip energy storage efficiency is reported as 70% - 80%. Any crappy genset will match that. I really don't understand this idea for a "hybrid" ship. What size battery would you need, to power the electricals of a ship for a sea voyage? What is the payback period to the shipping company?

Scoundreller 4y ago

Fuel oil is an expensive way of generating electricity, which is why few on-land power plants use it. This is all about utilizing efficient grid power (hydro, nuclear, gas, whatever) on a ship. By grid-intertie at the ship level, re-fit costs are minimized. Kinda like rooftop solar.

fdsafdsfdsa 4y ago
Fuel oil is a very cheap way of generating power, when you have several thousand tons of it already on your ship :) The possible few percantage difference in efficiency between ship-based oil-powered generation, and land-based power generation, is more than wiped out by the storage and conversion losses of a battery-based system. It's also very expensive (and heavy). Why pay to fill a container with batteries, and then pay more to charge them, when you can be paid to carry a container of other stuff as cargo?
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Crude oil is about 3% of global electricity production and continues falling. And the efficiency is particularly bad when you’re using it in a reciprocating engine (as on a ship) instead of a turbine (as on land). Natgas and coal are cheaper hydrocarbons. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.PETR.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.PETR.ZS Oil’s benefit is its density, storability and pumpability. All I know is that a giant ship is the most cost-effective way to transport anything heavy by vehicle. A few percent improved efficiency in exchange for losing a handful of container capacity on a ship carrying several thousand is a net positive. And cargo shipping is a tight business. Battery storage and conversion losses are far less than the conversion losses from generating electricity from an ICE.
  - Panzer04 4y ago
    The primary issue with ships is you don’t get to recharge the batteries every night - so you need way more capacity than an equivalent application on land (even if ships are very efficient)
  - fdsafdsfdsa 4y ago
    >Battery storage and conversion losses are far less than the conversion losses from generating electricity from an ICE. No, they are not. Here's some research for large-scale battery storage systems: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1409737 https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1409737 Rround-trip energy storage efficiency is reported as 70% - 80%. Any crappy genset will match that. I really don't understand this idea for a "hybrid" ship. What size battery would you need, to power the electricals of a ship for a sea voyage? What is the payback period to the shipping company?