4 ms·

Green hydrogen is expensive, yes, but less expensive than synthfuel. I'm not thrilled at the prospect of a green hydrogen future, but it's our best option for r

Green hydrogen is expensive, yes, but less expensive than synthfuel. I'm not thrilled at the prospect of a green hydrogen future, but it's our best option for replacing fossil fuels currently, and so is what we should adopt if we can't come up with a better solution in the next 10-20 years. To my knowledge wind-powered cargo ships can only supplement cargo ships and can't fully substitute for a proper fuel source, but I would absolutely love to be proven wrong. The bulk of biofuels are a dead end (although some types of biofuels are valuable in recycling waste products), because modern agriculture basically just turns oil into food; BEV tractors basically don't work due to the range and charging-times needed on an already very heavy vehicle.

Retric 3y ago
BEV tractors work fine with hot swapping batteries. It’s not perfect in every single way, but there are significant benefits to offset the downsides. EX: “Monarch also offers a battery swap cart to keep the tractor running and uses 90% fewer moving parts than a comparable diesel unit. ” https://www.agweb.com/news/machinery/new-machinery/future-electric-farm-equipment https://www.agweb.com/news/machinery/new-machinery/future-el... I don’t think green hydrogen or synthetic fuel is a realistic option yet. As to a fully wind powered boats, the last fully wind powered cargo boat used commercially lasted until the 1960’s it lost but not by some huge margin. So yes fossil fuels win, but they don’t win by such a huge margin that a fuel costing 4x as much also wins. Hybrid battery/solar + wind boats are still a common thing for houseboats and pleasure craft in part because of the cost advantages. At even a 2x cost bump over bunker fuel I suspect bulk shipping would start to go a similar route. Militaries and billionaire super yachts might go with hydrogen or synthetic fuel’s it just a question of how quickly their prices fall.
- _hypx 3y ago
  I don't think you fully grasp the sheer inability of batteries to power a cargo ship. It is something like 50x too low energy density to work. Even with wind power, it is still far from being able to pull this off. Not to mention cost: The batteries will be many times more expensive than the ship itself. The whole idea is totally DOA. It is going to be some kind of chemical fuel, it is just a question of what and when. The alternative is just people not doing their physics homework and being totally wrong.
  - Retric 3y ago
    The batteries power electronics for navigation, communications, and ship’s systems like moving the tiller. That’s a tiny fraction of the energy needed for large cargo ship propulsion. Wind is what provides power and scales incredibly far, we already have individual floating 16MW wind turbines. The very largest ships are approaching 60MW, but rarely operate at full power instead “slow steaming” to conserve fuel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming The cost of the ship alone is irrelevant if you’re trying to sell fuel at 4x the price almost nobody is going to be willing to pay when they’re not even willing to pay full price at todays fuel prices instead choosing to travel slower than sailing ships while still paying for fuel. PS: As to battery weight, ships scale really well around weight which is why we have ships moving 200,000+ tractor trailers worth of cargo. There’s fully battery powered ships traveling hundreds of miles for local delivery to remote areas. Which actually means going from Asia to Europe or Africa with some battery swapping is viable. Higher upfront costs and extra stops, but drastically reduced fuel consumption.
    - _hypx 3y ago
      You're not putting anything like a 16MW wind turbine on a cargo ship. That thing is practically larger than the ship itself. Nor do wind turbines generate 16MW continuously. This is all just handwaving the fundamental problems away. You're going to need chemical fuels to solve this problem. You really have to get to grips with basic physics here. Global warming can't be solved by science deniers. PS: How are you going to battery swap on a ship? Nevermind the cost of such a thing. This is just another absurd idea stacked top of an already absurd idea.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Cargo ships swap 40’ containers at ports, many of those have electrical hookups for internal cooling. So, doing the same thing with bigger batteries and thicker cables is hardly a massive feat of engineering. You don’t even need charging infrastructure in port, toss them on a trick or train and charge em wherever is cheap. I am not suggesting a wind turbine is an ideal fit for a cargo ship just mentioning how much power we’re already extracting on floating devices that move with the ocean. Ultra slow steaming is 40% of max power for a 46MW cargo ship that’s 24MW so we’re in the ballpark what comes next is hardcore engineering by companies who understand the industry and they say the math is really close to working at current fuel prices. It’s you who wants people to swap to ultra expensive fuels and I’m just point out that “bunker fuel” > wind but wind > ultra expensive fuels.

Retric 3y ago

BEV tractors work fine with hot swapping batteries. It’s not perfect in every single way, but there are significant benefits to offset the downsides. EX: “Monarch also offers a battery swap cart to keep the tractor running and uses 90% fewer moving parts than a comparable diesel unit. ” https://www.agweb.com/news/machinery/new-machinery/future-electric-farm-equipment https://www.agweb.com/news/machinery/new-machinery/future-el... I don’t think green hydrogen or synthetic fuel is a realistic option yet. As to a fully wind powered boats, the last fully wind powered cargo boat used commercially lasted until the 1960’s it lost but not by some huge margin. So yes fossil fuels win, but they don’t win by such a huge margin that a fuel costing 4x as much also wins. Hybrid battery/solar + wind boats are still a common thing for houseboats and pleasure craft in part because of the cost advantages. At even a 2x cost bump over bunker fuel I suspect bulk shipping would start to go a similar route. Militaries and billionaire super yachts might go with hydrogen or synthetic fuel’s it just a question of how quickly their prices fall.

_hypx 3y ago
I don't think you fully grasp the sheer inability of batteries to power a cargo ship. It is something like 50x too low energy density to work. Even with wind power, it is still far from being able to pull this off. Not to mention cost: The batteries will be many times more expensive than the ship itself. The whole idea is totally DOA. It is going to be some kind of chemical fuel, it is just a question of what and when. The alternative is just people not doing their physics homework and being totally wrong.
- Retric 3y ago
  The batteries power electronics for navigation, communications, and ship’s systems like moving the tiller. That’s a tiny fraction of the energy needed for large cargo ship propulsion. Wind is what provides power and scales incredibly far, we already have individual floating 16MW wind turbines. The very largest ships are approaching 60MW, but rarely operate at full power instead “slow steaming” to conserve fuel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming The cost of the ship alone is irrelevant if you’re trying to sell fuel at 4x the price almost nobody is going to be willing to pay when they’re not even willing to pay full price at todays fuel prices instead choosing to travel slower than sailing ships while still paying for fuel. PS: As to battery weight, ships scale really well around weight which is why we have ships moving 200,000+ tractor trailers worth of cargo. There’s fully battery powered ships traveling hundreds of miles for local delivery to remote areas. Which actually means going from Asia to Europe or Africa with some battery swapping is viable. Higher upfront costs and extra stops, but drastically reduced fuel consumption.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    You're not putting anything like a 16MW wind turbine on a cargo ship. That thing is practically larger than the ship itself. Nor do wind turbines generate 16MW continuously. This is all just handwaving the fundamental problems away. You're going to need chemical fuels to solve this problem. You really have to get to grips with basic physics here. Global warming can't be solved by science deniers. PS: How are you going to battery swap on a ship? Nevermind the cost of such a thing. This is just another absurd idea stacked top of an already absurd idea.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Cargo ships swap 40’ containers at ports, many of those have electrical hookups for internal cooling. So, doing the same thing with bigger batteries and thicker cables is hardly a massive feat of engineering. You don’t even need charging infrastructure in port, toss them on a trick or train and charge em wherever is cheap. I am not suggesting a wind turbine is an ideal fit for a cargo ship just mentioning how much power we’re already extracting on floating devices that move with the ocean. Ultra slow steaming is 40% of max power for a 46MW cargo ship that’s 24MW so we’re in the ballpark what comes next is hardcore engineering by companies who understand the industry and they say the math is really close to working at current fuel prices. It’s you who wants people to swap to ultra expensive fuels and I’m just point out that “bunker fuel” > wind but wind > ultra expensive fuels.