
Europe Takes First Steps in Electrifying World’s Shipping Fleets - ISL
https://e360.yale.edu/features/europe-takes-first-steps-in-electrifying-worlds-shipping-fleets
======
Erwin
2 out of the 5 ferries running between Helsinborg and Elsinore are now battery
powered. The ferries leave every 15 minutes nearly 24/7, and arrive after 20
minutes: it's the largest amount of ferry departures on a single rout in
Europe.

The route supposedly was mentioned as far back as the 11th century and the
bridge across the Øresunds strait has yet to kill it.

The ferries are 8 _thousand_ tons (the article says just 8 tons) and take
1200+ passengers and 200+ cars with them. They contain 640 6.5 kWh batteries
which recharge in just 5-9 minutes (the ferry is only very shortly in the port
before leaving for the other country).

As you go on board you get the usual tax free shop but amusingly you can buy
tax-free alcohol only while the ferry is the Danish waters. Halfway through
the journey, a bell sounds -- and you are now allowed to buy tobacco, as
you've entered Swedish waters.

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

~~~
adrianN
640*6.5 kWh in less than ten minutes must require impressive cables. That's
something like 25 MW flowing into those batteries.

~~~
thinkingkong
They do top up charging on each side to prevent the need for such much power.

[http://corvusenergy.com/all-electric-car-ferry/](http://corvusenergy.com/all-
electric-car-ferry/)

------
curtis
> _... but the task of greening the high seas fleet is far more daunting._

I think large ocean-going vessels is one place where hydrogen might make
sense. The biggest problem with hydrogen is storage, but when you start
talking about really large fuel tanks storing liquid hydrogen becomes a lot
more practical. All of the hydrogen powered automobiles I've heard of rely
either on high-pressure gas storage (requiring heavy tanks) or metal hydride
storage (requiring heavy metal hydrides) which pretty much make them inferior
to modern battery-electric vehicles.

Storing cryogenic liquid hydrogen doesn't have the same weight penalty, but
has a huge volume penalty, plus it has the additional problem of keeping the
hydrogen really cold until you're ready to use it. However, on a cargo ship,
the large volume of the tank probably isn't a big restriction, and keeping the
hydrogen cold enough is going to be a much smaller problem. That's because
heat-loss is going to be proportional to the surface area of the tank, rather
than the volume.

Hydrogen still suffers from energy loss at production. Hydrogen production by
electrolysis is nowhere near 100% efficient, nor is turning the hydrogen back
into motive power, either with internal combustion engines or with fuel cells.

On the flip side, I think as long as wind power makes up a substantial portion
of electrical generation capacity, there will be times when the cost of
electricity actually goes negative. If you can do most of the hydrogen
production at times when electricity is really cheap, and you are planning to
store it for relatively long periods of time anyway, then most or maybe even
all of this overhead can be offset.

~~~
maxerickson
I wonder about just converting the hydrogen to methane for storage and
transport. There seems to be a bit of serious research into it.

Being able to reuse existing infrastructure is a pretty big win.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
Ammonia is a much better candidate, since it doesn't contain any carbon, so
using it can't cause any CO2 emissions. But as others have said, the
efficiencies are horrible, so its better if we just figure out H2 transport
and storage.

Edit: for large ships, my personal bet is on liquid H2 storage and then
combustion in gas turbines. You get a lot of synergies between cryogenic fuel
and a gas turbine. Tupolev even built and flew a liquid H2 fueled narrow-body
jet in the 80s.

~~~
maxerickson
If you get the carbon from the air it doesn't cause any carbon emissions
either.

Or an existing stream that is currently being emitted into the air.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
To your first point: correct. But the concentration in air is so bloody low
for any chemical process (air is <0.5% CO2) that you'll have to put in huge
amounts of energy. It's not going to be economically feasible.

To your second point: capturing CO2 and then re-emitting it is completely off
the table. It will be (or already is, depending on your interpretation of
Directive 2008/98/EC) banned in Europe, likely with an exception for
greenhouses (where they need to use CO2 for growing plants, and currently get
it from burning natural gas).

------
acidburnNSA
Kind of diappointing that the word "nuclear" didn't show up in this article.
Exceedingly low-carbon nuclear-powered ships are a very mature technology
(Navy), and the shipyard construction environment offers very interesting
solutions to the biggest problem with nuclear (cost). For instance, you can
serialize production of very large structures. It's Henry Ford to the rescue
again but where economies of mass production meet economies of scale.

A few merchant ships with nuclear propulsion have sailed before, like the NS
Savannah [1].

If we're going to have a serious conversation about low-carbon long-haul
shipping it really should involve consideration of the vast and high-density
energy resource in the nucleus.

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

~~~
nabla9
First you need to develop a economic naval reactor type that works with
minimal manning that keeps the crew within Minimum Safe Manning Certificate.
Replacing Pilipino engineering watches with expensive certified nuclear
engineers is not cheap.

Secondly you need to make them tamper proof. They must withstand terrorism,
theft, hijacking and collisions and the core must be easily separated in the
case it's needed.

Thirdly you need to deploy security force that can retake ships within limited
time-frame everywhere they operate.

Overall global shipping is has very low CO2 footprint per tonne. Changing to
LNG, building thinner and larger ships etc. to reduce CO2 footprint is
cheaper.

------
DenisM
Important because shipping produces 2% of global CO2 emissions and is the
lowest hanging fruit given how few sources there are.

Also important: marine dispels stink. Sitting on the beach downstream from one
is not fun.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_ship...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping)

~~~
fpoling
I second the observation about stinking. It became much more pleasant to cross
Norwegian fjords with electrical ferries. Now one can enjoy the scenery while
staying outside. With disel ferries staying on the upper deck in front with
strong wind one still feels the smell and on the back side, with wind blocked
by the ship, the smell can be rather terrible.

------
adrianN
We could try adding some sails to save energy:
[http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2007/09/sailing-ship-
re.html](http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2007/09/sailing-ship-re.html)

~~~
ATsch
I'm curious, I saw this talked about a lot approximately 5 years ago. I'd have
expected this to be relatively standard by now, but it appears not. Does
anyone know why this happened?

~~~
dredmorbius
The notion recurs ever few years. I've seen it periodically over the past 50.

A windjammer fleeet operated profitably thrrough the 1940s on long-haul
routes:

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

------
illys
The fossil oil is an issue, but massive use of batteries is another one.
Besides liquid carburants have proven themselves. I just don't find proper
explanation why there is no massive investment in carbon cycle carburants such
as seaweed agriculture.

------
ummonk
Will they make electric oil tankers?

~~~
woodandsteel
hahahahaha

~~~
dang
Please don't do this here.

