3 ms·

Uh no. You are looking at a 20% load factor with solar, plus massive seasonal variations. It is completely non-doable with batteries. Seriously, you seem like

by _hypx 3y ago

Uh no. You are looking at a 20% load factor with solar, plus massive seasonal variations. It is completely non-doable with batteries. Seriously, you seem like someone who is obsessed with doing it with batteries, not a person even remotely interested in finding a working solution. Meanwhile, the alternative, just making hydrogen with the same renewable energy source and powering your ships with it, is sitting right there as an obvious answer. If you already admit to the existence of $0.02/kWh electricity, then the rest of the cost equation is also going to be low here. You've already solved the economics of the issue. The rest is scaling up, and this time there is no need for sails or downsizing ships.

Retric 3y ago
Do you forget what we were trying to do? The explicit goal is charging batteries in 40’ containers and clearly PV isn’t working at night so what matters is consistency during the daytime. A flat panel on a rotating circle has a maximum theoretical capacity of diameter/circumference = 1/pi or 31.847…% on earth it’s more complicated due to axial tilt etc, but what matters is how consistent the output per day not the number of minutes per day we’re getting power. Real world capacity factor Capacity factor 27.9% (average 2017-2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility that’s surprisingly close to the theoretical maximum for the location and design. Some break 30% but again it’s not about maximizing output just how much it cost to guarantee we can fill X TEU worth of shipping containers per ~week. Thus it don’t matter if there a 18 hour period one day when they aren’t being charged as long as you can charge enough on average. > Meanwhile, the alternative, just making hydrogen Sure let’s pay vastly more per gallon that’s an easy selling point. Hydrogen has maximum limits imposed by physics that severely limit end to end efficiency. It’s a dangerous bitch to store, transport etc. Low density, damages metals it comes in contact with etc, even rocketry got away from the stuff even though it has significant advantages for them. Nobody is using the stuff because it’s got huge problems.
- _hypx 3y ago
  Have you forgotten what your goal is? It is to get ships to zero emissions. Not force a physically nonsensical idea onto the shipping world. You've already admitted that solar is just $0.02/kWh. You can do the rest of the math and realize that hydrogen will also be very cheap. You're entirely thinking in cliches now. It is "battery = cheap, hydrogen = expensive" despite your own argument contradicting that claim. In reality, people will just some kind of chemical fuels. If not hydrogen directly, then something derived from it like ammonia or synfuels. It is already happening in fact, and your obsession simply won't happen.
  - Retric 3y ago
    I call green hydrogen expensive because that’s what it actually costs today. There’s a reason we only get 4% of hydrogen from electrolysis, it costs more than using fossil fuels. Look at hydrogen fuel station pricing sometimes even using fossil fuels and compare costs vs bunker fuel. There’s projections it could possibly get close to US gas prices in 20 years, but that includes road taxes, high refining costs, transportation, etc and are therefore much higher than bunker fuel actually used by boats. So the optimistic projections are doubling a ship’s fuel costs and current prices are much higher than that. As to your “nonsensical idea” complaint, companies actually saving companies money today using it. This isn’t some hypothetical, actual ships on the ocean are using large scale batteries to save on fuel costs. Further, the absolute largest car carrier in the world is smaller than the largest sailing vessel ever built, they load and unload from the front so sticking sails on top wouldn’t be a problem. Fossil fuels are cheap, but hydrogen isn’t viable today which is why ships aren’t using it and it’s not projected to be viable for decades. Anyone who tried using hydrogen would simply be eaten alive by the competition.
    - _hypx 3y ago
      You could've said the same thing about anything before it hits mass production. Wind and solar were expensive too at one point. It is not much of an argument. The thing about hydrogen is that is made from an extremely plentiful resource: water + green energy. That puts the cost floor at below that of bunker fuel. In fact, the cost floor is pretty close to zero. So you are basically repeating the generic "renewable resources can never be cheap" argument. But it has been discredited. Nobody uses anything like a battery powered ship for long distance travel. You are making up imaginary scenarios.

by _hypx 3y ago

Retric 3y ago

Do you forget what we were trying to do? The explicit goal is charging batteries in 40’ containers and clearly PV isn’t working at night so what matters is consistency during the daytime. A flat panel on a rotating circle has a maximum theoretical capacity of diameter/circumference = 1/pi or 31.847…% on earth it’s more complicated due to axial tilt etc, but what matters is how consistent the output per day not the number of minutes per day we’re getting power. Real world capacity factor Capacity factor 27.9% (average 2017-2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility that’s surprisingly close to the theoretical maximum for the location and design. Some break 30% but again it’s not about maximizing output just how much it cost to guarantee we can fill X TEU worth of shipping containers per ~week. Thus it don’t matter if there a 18 hour period one day when they aren’t being charged as long as you can charge enough on average. > Meanwhile, the alternative, just making hydrogen Sure let’s pay vastly more per gallon that’s an easy selling point. Hydrogen has maximum limits imposed by physics that severely limit end to end efficiency. It’s a dangerous bitch to store, transport etc. Low density, damages metals it comes in contact with etc, even rocketry got away from the stuff even though it has significant advantages for them. Nobody is using the stuff because it’s got huge problems.

_hypx 3y ago
Have you forgotten what your goal is? It is to get ships to zero emissions. Not force a physically nonsensical idea onto the shipping world. You've already admitted that solar is just $0.02/kWh. You can do the rest of the math and realize that hydrogen will also be very cheap. You're entirely thinking in cliches now. It is "battery = cheap, hydrogen = expensive" despite your own argument contradicting that claim. In reality, people will just some kind of chemical fuels. If not hydrogen directly, then something derived from it like ammonia or synfuels. It is already happening in fact, and your obsession simply won't happen.
- Retric 3y ago
  I call green hydrogen expensive because that’s what it actually costs today. There’s a reason we only get 4% of hydrogen from electrolysis, it costs more than using fossil fuels. Look at hydrogen fuel station pricing sometimes even using fossil fuels and compare costs vs bunker fuel. There’s projections it could possibly get close to US gas prices in 20 years, but that includes road taxes, high refining costs, transportation, etc and are therefore much higher than bunker fuel actually used by boats. So the optimistic projections are doubling a ship’s fuel costs and current prices are much higher than that. As to your “nonsensical idea” complaint, companies actually saving companies money today using it. This isn’t some hypothetical, actual ships on the ocean are using large scale batteries to save on fuel costs. Further, the absolute largest car carrier in the world is smaller than the largest sailing vessel ever built, they load and unload from the front so sticking sails on top wouldn’t be a problem. Fossil fuels are cheap, but hydrogen isn’t viable today which is why ships aren’t using it and it’s not projected to be viable for decades. Anyone who tried using hydrogen would simply be eaten alive by the competition.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    You could've said the same thing about anything before it hits mass production. Wind and solar were expensive too at one point. It is not much of an argument. The thing about hydrogen is that is made from an extremely plentiful resource: water + green energy. That puts the cost floor at below that of bunker fuel. In fact, the cost floor is pretty close to zero. So you are basically repeating the generic "renewable resources can never be cheap" argument. But it has been discredited. Nobody uses anything like a battery powered ship for long distance travel. You are making up imaginary scenarios.