6 ms·

I'm wondering what the "total ecological cost" is when also taking into account the sunken units. For a traditional vessel, the main pollutant will be from the

by dusted 3y ago

I'm wondering what the "total ecological cost" is when also taking into account the sunken units. For a traditional vessel, the main pollutant will be from the burning of fuel, and then leaking fuel when the vessel sinks. How much does a tank full of diesel (in additional to the pollution released during opteration over the life time of the vessel) in comparison to a battery pack leaking into the ocean ? These are questions, not challenges, I think it'd be very interesting to know, it might be that dumping some battery packs in the ocean is still overall better for the environment than burning fuel (and leaking some).

jillesvangurp 3y ago
You mean compared to the oil & fuel leaking alternatives (when they sink, and also all the time) that when they are not leaking are basically burning it? Compared to a battery with some metals and chemicals in relatively small quantities that in the rare cases that they sink that may or may not leak out in trace amounts? There's absolutely nothing clean about burning bunker fuel, which is the nasty toxic mess that is left after more pure fuels are refined from oil. If it burns, thick, toxic black exhaust comes out. And if it ends up in the water, it's nasty as well. And that of course happens a lot. Batteries are mostly just a bit of electrolyte and some metals that mostly occur naturally in sea level already (like lithium). The electrolyte compares quite favourably to bunker fuel probably. There may be some chemicals in there that probably aren't that great. But diluted in an ocean of water, they won't do a lot of harm. Mostly, you'd recycle the batteries as they are full of valuable commodities. So, dumping them in the ocean or a land fill would not be a common thing.
- dusted 3y ago
  Yes, I mean compared to that exactly. However, small correction, I don't believe small fishing vessels use HFO, I imagine either diesel or gasoline is used there. But yes, that's basically my question, how they stack up, like, "if we sink this battery boat" versus "if we sink this fossil-burning boat" then what are the ecological consequences, which is worse,and after long might the inflection point be where one becomes "better" than the other (if the best one does not consistently stay best).
pjc50 3y ago
It's a reasonable question, especially when you ask it about nuclear propulsion, but as you say the overall fuel saving hugely dominates. (I could counter argue that for the ecological damage caused by fishing, in both species depletion and nets lost to sea, the better solution might not to be allow small boat fishing at all for a few decades)

by dusted 3y ago

jillesvangurp 3y ago

You mean compared to the oil & fuel leaking alternatives (when they sink, and also all the time) that when they are not leaking are basically burning it? Compared to a battery with some metals and chemicals in relatively small quantities that in the rare cases that they sink that may or may not leak out in trace amounts? There's absolutely nothing clean about burning bunker fuel, which is the nasty toxic mess that is left after more pure fuels are refined from oil. If it burns, thick, toxic black exhaust comes out. And if it ends up in the water, it's nasty as well. And that of course happens a lot. Batteries are mostly just a bit of electrolyte and some metals that mostly occur naturally in sea level already (like lithium). The electrolyte compares quite favourably to bunker fuel probably. There may be some chemicals in there that probably aren't that great. But diluted in an ocean of water, they won't do a lot of harm. Mostly, you'd recycle the batteries as they are full of valuable commodities. So, dumping them in the ocean or a land fill would not be a common thing.

dusted 3y ago
Yes, I mean compared to that exactly. However, small correction, I don't believe small fishing vessels use HFO, I imagine either diesel or gasoline is used there. But yes, that's basically my question, how they stack up, like, "if we sink this battery boat" versus "if we sink this fossil-burning boat" then what are the ecological consequences, which is worse,and after long might the inflection point be where one becomes "better" than the other (if the best one does not consistently stay best).

pjc50 3y ago

It's a reasonable question, especially when you ask it about nuclear propulsion, but as you say the overall fuel saving hugely dominates. (I could counter argue that for the ecological damage caused by fishing, in both species depletion and nets lost to sea, the better solution might not to be allow small boat fishing at all for a few decades)