
Norwegian Shipbuilders Turning to Battery Power - zerogvt
http://gcaptain.com/going-green-norwegian-shipbuilders-turning-to-battery-power/
======
pi-rat
Norway, with it's many fjords and ferries has a long tradition for ferry
foods. Along the (mid) western coast taking a ferry without eating a svele[1]
(looks similar to an american pancake) is pretty much unthinkable :) This type
of food is usually cooked and served fresh on the ferries.

I live near the Ampere ferry pictured in the article. And one interesting
side-effect of electrification is that they don't have enough power to spare
for a full kitchen (with griddles, etc)[2].

Now they have to sell ready-made sveler instead of cooking them on the spot
and serving them fresh[3]. Electric ferries are essentially killing "norwegian
ferry food culture" to much despair for svele loving passengers :P

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svele](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svele)

[2]: [https://www.nrk.no/sognogfjordane/droppar-kiosken-pa-
batteri...](https://www.nrk.no/sognogfjordane/droppar-kiosken-pa-
batteriferja-1.11761283) (article is in nynorsk ("new-norwegian") and google
translate is basically useless)

[3]: [https://www.nrk.no/sognogfjordane/no-er-den-forste-el-
ferja-...](https://www.nrk.no/sognogfjordane/no-er-den-forste-el-ferja-i-
drift-pa-anda-lote-1.13882041)

~~~
LeifCarrotson
That's surprising! A griddle does take a fair bit of power, but aren't these
griddles usually heated with natural gas or propane?

I know that some use electric heat - a quick search suggests up to 10 kW for a
decent-sized commercial unit - but it seems more likely that they opted to
increase the efficiency of the ferry and make it cheaper by removing the
kitchen than that it was an unsolvable conundrum.

~~~
bigiain
Propane/LPG is problematic in boats - it's heavier than air so it sinks down
into the hull and pretty much stays there unless you actively ventilate it.
It's not an insurmountable problem - petrol/gasoline fumes have the same
"builds up to explosive concentrations in the bilge" problem too, and lots of
boats use that as fuel (at least down in recreational sizes, not so much in
ferry sized vessels I don't think) - but I wonder if the combination of
propane buildup in the bilge combined with the possibility of sparks from very
high power electric motors and controllers is a showstopper in these cases?

~~~
ams6110
CNG (compressed natural gas) doesn't have that problem.

~~~
bigiain
Yeah - you trade it for the 250bar/3600psi storage pressure problem (compared
to 8bar/120psi for LPG). It's also about 1/3rd of the energy density of LPG,
so you need to carry a lot more of it.

~~~
ams6110
You wouldn't need to carry all that much for cooking. The storage pressure is
a solved problem in cars, so it shouldn't be difficult to manage on board a
ship.

------
donquichotte
Missing from the article:

\- Battery capacity: 1MWh [1]

\- Charging power: 6MW (assuming they charge the full battery in the 10
minutes mentioned in the article)

Unfortunately, I cannot find the article, but I believe I once read that
charging the batteries that quickly caused problems with power grid stability,
so they had "auxiliary batteries" at the ports that they charged with lower
power, and then transferred the energy from those batteries to the ship
batteries with high power, which effectively tripled the battery cost. [EDIT:
the issue is actually mentioned in article [1], where they have two 410kWh
shore charging stations]

[1] [http://corvusenergy.com/marine-project/mf-ampere-
ferry/](http://corvusenergy.com/marine-project/mf-ampere-ferry/)

~~~
Robotbeat
Depends. They can offset the cost of the stationary buffering batteries by
using cheaper time of use electricity. I believe that's what Tesla does (when
they can) with Superchargers. ...and this is /part/ of the reason why 7 cents
per kWh for their Tesla Semi Megachargers isn't _completely_ bonkers...

~~~
toomuchtodo
Tesla uses batteries at supercharger to avoid demand charges from spikes in
power demand when vehicles are charging (load shaving).

------
fulafel
How much CO2 per kWh does it come to when you divide the total CO2 footprint
of the battery manufacture and materials over the charge cycles of the
battery?

edit: One study[1] indicates the figures are 150-200 kg CO2 equivalent per 1
kWh of battery. So for 1000 cycle durability, that would make 150-200 g per
kWh even without counting the CO2 effects of charging power[2]. Diesel engines
emit 250 g per kWh[3] of energy produced. Doesn't sound like such a great
tradeoff.

[1]
[http://www.ivl.se/download/18.5922281715bdaebede9559/1496046...](http://www.ivl.se/download/18.5922281715bdaebede9559/1496046218976/C243+The+life+cycle+energy+consumption+and+CO2+emissions+from+lithium+ion+batteries+.pdf)

[2] Even if Norway produces low emission hydro electricity, the same
electricity could be used to displace dirty power if exported to Denmark etc.

[3] [https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-
d_1085...](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-d_1085.html)

~~~
sov
I think you're rather far off the mark here. NB: I work in this field, so,
take that for what it's worth.

Yes, material recycling could be better from a pyrometallurgic perspective,
but that's only an issue once a significant amount of batteries approach their
EOL, so, 20+ years down the road.

It's clearly incorrect to compare the sum emissions of battery construction +
lithium acquisition + cell fab + energy cost + implementation to just the
diesel engine's CO2 during its burn. This is not even close to the same
ballpark, as you're neglecting the costs associated with the extraction,
transport and chemical treatment of the fuel.

Further, you're comparing the CO2-eq to out of date fab processes and cell
chemistries, which, while based on a study published in 2014, means that it
actually ignores significant industrial advances over the past decade. But,
even granting little advancement in cell fab/chems, the comparison is wrong
because the quality of energy available during manufacturing (the lions share
of the CO2-eq) is better than the quality of energy available when the ship
actually wants to use it (eg: at sea).

Lastly, comparing CO2-eq from the batteries to 100% efficient diesel is
misguided. Ships don't typically use diesel--they use bunker fuel (with much
worse CO2-eq than diesel), and the actual energy conversion is nowhere near
100% efficient. Inefficiencies made _even more_ pronounced once you take into
account regenerative effects on the batteries and the energy-availability
delay of the fuel (lithium is on-demand, burning fuel has latency).

~~~
fulafel
By "not in the same ballpark", do you mean that diesel co2 emissions are
hugely bigger vs the co2 released from its combustion? I don't know the
figures but this sounds surprising.

------
0xFFC
As someone who doesn’t know anything about batteries, I have some questions
about lithium.

1) Do we have lithium shortage?

2) When do we expect to have lithium shortage?

3) Do we have any alternative technology for batteries?

4) How green is lithium in the environment?

5) Is lithium recyclable?

6) What is the future for batteries?

Sorry, I asked a lot of questions.

~~~
nico_h
1) no

2) Don't know (maybe extraction shortage but not absolute shortage)

3) Aluminium air "batteries", Lithium Ion Graphene battery, solid state, flow
battery ...

4) not super green

5) yes

6) different technologies for different applications

~~~
MertsA
Aren't there pretty big unsolved problems with recharging Aluminum air
batteries?

------
dougmany
from a separate article: [http://corvusenergy.com/marine-project/mf-ampere-
ferry/](http://corvusenergy.com/marine-project/mf-ampere-ferry/)

>Rather than installing additional electrical capacity to the ports, an
onshore Corvus Energy 410kWh ESS comprised of 63 AT6500 Liquid-Cooled modules
was installed on both sides of the route, each providing near instantaneous
transfer of power to the vessel ESS.

~~~
draggnar
That's a fantastic idea.

~~~
mschuster91
And it could be used in a smart grid environment to provide a stabilization
power... after all, it's known when a ship will be needing the power (divide
the distance by the top speed and the ship physically cannot arrive earlier),
and so as long as it is ensured that the battery is topped up when the ship
arrives for a recharge, the capacity can be used for grid stabilization.

~~~
zeristor
I imagine when batteries are more prevalent there will be far more competition
in providing grid stabilisation services.

A second order affect I imagine, once there are scores of other systems
available locally.

------
bjourne
How come sails aren't making a comeback? Seems like an ideal complement to
electric ships. Use the wind to recharge the batteries using generators or to
propel the ship forward. When there is no wind, run on the energy stored in
the batteries.

~~~
CodeCube
This is in the works ... not to recharge the batteries, but literally as an
assist to the existing engines: [https://www.iims.org.uk/quadriga-set-become-
worlds-biggest-s...](https://www.iims.org.uk/quadriga-set-become-worlds-
biggest-sailing-cargo-ship/)

edit: I can't find it offhand, but remember also seeing a video of a startup
in SF, that's experimenting with an innovative sail system for the purpose of
outfitting on ferries. These sails look more like vertical wings than the
usual sail (which on many points of sail is actually a vertical wing) ... and
the "flight controller" would basically trim them via rotation to the ideal
position when they can eke out any knots to help them preserve diesel. And if
they get caught in a squall, they simple head the sails into the wind to
reduce windage. So it should be a very safe system to reduce the ferry
system's usage of fossil fuels. Looked like a really interesting idea.

~~~
dougmany
you are describing the sailrocket. The designer intended to outfit larger
ships with the technology.

[http://sailrocket.com/](http://sailrocket.com/)

~~~
CodeCube
That is extremely cool, but no, it's not the one I was thinking of ... this
one was explicitly targeting the application of ferries in SF bay.

------
jnsaff2
Let’s not forget that battery powered ships (in the form of diesel-electric
submarines during the world wars) have been around for a long time.

~~~
digi_owl
Interestingly they may be on their last leg.

Since Sweden first introduced them more and more nations seem to be switching
to Sterling engines for submerged operations.

While clearly they can't match nuclear powered sub, they seem capable of
staying down for far longer than the old diesel-electrics.

------
gjem97
> For now, electric ships make most sense in populated waterfront areas where
> they can be recharged easily and improve air quality and noise pollution

And probably requires a duty cycle that can afford sitting at a dock for hours
a day to recharge, right? So passenger ferries (that typically don't run
24-hours a day)?

~~~
skykooler
It spends ten minutes at the dock charging on each trip.

------
spodek
The best way to reduce emissions is to reduce consumption. Let's help the
process by buying less stuff to reduce the number of ships.

We'll produce less litter and pollution too.

~~~
narag
The best often diverges from the good. Ad absurdum: if we get extinct, we'll
produce less litter and pollution.

~~~
digi_owl
"Perfect is the enemy of good"?

------
zombieprocesses
Battery powered ships to transport all the oil they are selling?

------
heisenbit
One of the problems is having enough safety margin for energy storage. When a
car runs out of power there is a shoulder to cry on nearby. With a ship adrift
things can get ugly in no time.

~~~
Robotbeat
With a ferry, you have a short route and a need for a fast recharge time. For
longevity reasons, then, it is better to therefore use at least double the
battery capacity as you think you need for a nominal trip and only use the
middle capacity of the battery.

That does two things: 1) Increases the life of the battery non-linearly. If
you use half of the battery capacity in this way, your cycle life doesn't
merely double. It may triple or quadruple. That saves a lot over the long run.
In fact, if you're doing (say) 10 charge cycles a day, you might want to
install an even larger than double capacity battery. 2) It means that you
always have a very large emergency reserve. Slow speed also increases
efficiency. Those two combined provide a very healthy margin.

------
corradio
Let's also remember it matters where the electricity comes from. You're not
necessarily going green if you use coal-based electricity.

Source: [https://www.electricitymap.org](https://www.electricitymap.org)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Norway gets most of its energy from renewable sources (99% of mainland
electricity). See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway).
This greatly exceeds any state in the west (the closest being Washington
State, who gets 75% of their energy from hydro).

~~~
napoleond
_> This greatly exceeds any state in the west_

Technically true regarding _states_ , but there are several Canadian
_provinces_ which get more than 95% of their energy from renewables, some of
whom are serving a larger population base than Norway.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Sorry, I meant the USA, not west! It was a big typo on my part. BC is in much
the same boat as Washington, as are Oregon and Idaho to lesser extents.

