Norwegian Shipbuilders Turning to Battery Power
gcaptain.com
gcaptain.com
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
[2]: https://www.nrk.no/sognogfjordane/droppar-kiosken-pa-batteri... (article is in nynorsk ("new-norwegian") and google translate is basically useless)
[3]: https://www.nrk.no/sognogfjordane/no-er-den-forste-el-ferja-...
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.
However, there really isn't that much tradition for gas powered cooking in Norway (other than "BBQ"), almost everything is electric and power is really cheap.
Many of our other newer generation ferries are LNG powered, which probably comes with tons of strict rules for open flames on board. Might just be they've inherited some safety regulations for the electric ones as well.
And then mostly because of a combined effort between stores to try to sell the "American" BBQ experience.
Honestly hearing the "extreme" right fretting over the nation clandestinely going Muslim i point to things like the above and Halloween themed stores each September as an indication that we are already going American.
Damn it, for the last year or so there have been a "non-permanent" presence of US Marines on Norwegian soil, something that was never the case for the whole of the cold war.
I am honestly not sure what is going on with the nation any more...
For the troops in Norway, my guess is that NATO is trying to make sure that Russia has to watch it's entire western border, and the hope is that this will help spread their resources too thin to do anything like they've been doing in eastern Ukraine. But Erna doesn't seem to be interested in explaining why she invited them in.
Even if such a thing were feasible on buildings, the ferries navigate so the cells cannot be simply tilted south.
[1]: http://www.tinderangel.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/IMG_018...
[1] https://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/home/pictures-of-the-f...
You often end up going on multiple ferries on a trip, and timing ferries is an art ;)
If you want to travel between Bergen and Stavanger (A regular route for many people between two major cities on the south-west coast - along European Route E39 - total 5h travel time) you'll hit two ferries [2] - Halhjem->Sanvikvåg (40 min) and Arsvågen->Mortavika (22 min). In the past you'd hit 3 ferries, but one was replaced by one of the world's deepest and longest subsea tunnels[3].
A popular scenic route along Helgelandskysten has 6 ferries[4].
Amount of ferries required for a trip has been slowly dropping as we try to tunnel and bridge the most trafficked routes (ex: one of the world's longest suspension bridges - the Hardanger Bridge[5]). However, some of our fjords are really wide and over 1000 meters deep, I guess ferries are here to stay as building infrastructure is really hard in this country :)
[1]: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Bergen/Stavanger/@59.6316846...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_route_E39#The_E39_Fer...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bømlafjord_Tunnel
[4]: https://www.nasjonaleturistveger.no/en/routes/helgelandskyst...
Geez. Just use propane! Here are some American consultants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_the_Hill
I think this is the classic lets blame something else other than we're being cheap and lazy.
Kinda like how BART doesn't provide bathrooms anymore because '911'
Where as an older ferry near me used to offer a panorama view of the fjord during crossing, and ample space non-vehicle passengers, the new one barely have room for two people to meet while going to and from the toilets, never mind ordering some food and sitting down to enjoy it.
- 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]
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...
[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...
"The largest part of the energy use in the production of lithium-ion batteries comes from electricity use."
Converting ships to batteries allows them to become cleaner as the grid becomes cleaner.
So one half is amenable to improvements if the manufacturing transitions to clearn electricity. But this is not likely to happen in a big way anytime soon, because the manufacturing happens in coal-heavy Asian countries: https://www.statista.com/statistics/235323/lithium-batteries...
edit: BYD was the chinese one among the top 5.
There's a list of top lithium mining companies here: https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/energy-in... - those don't sound like places with zero emission power generation, either. (not to mention that mining typically produces power on-site with diesel generators)
Edit: Power --> energy
For the CO2 per 1 kWh capacity, the emissions of battery production are 200 KILOgrams. I got the 200 grams from 200 kg by dividing by a supposed 1000 charge-cycle life of a battery.
So my calculation showed that per 1 kWh power charged/discharged, the emissions come out at 200g per kWh. Which is comparable to using diesel to produce the same amount of power.
I don't know if that's true, but if it is, it will be largely due to the CO2 footprint of the grid. Battery manufacturing is energy-intensive.
A battery factory powered by 100% renewable energy, on the other hand, would have a greatly reduced carbon footprint. And producing more batteries enables more renewable energy sources, getting us closer to that goal.
I also believe that in this application (short-haul Norwegian ferry), the expected life of the batteries is far greater than 1000 cycles. These ferries do multiple trips per day, every day, and recharge each time. Since they've been in service since 2015, they will already have a lot more than 1000 cycles on the batteries.
And assuming the vast majority of the energy used in battery production is electricity, then the figure for emissions that you used is highly dependent on grid mix. For instance, coal is roughly 1kg of CO2 per kWh. The current US grid is less than half of that (~430grams/kWh by my calculations using data through December 2017). If your study assumed coal power for battery production and assuming the Gigafactory is no more efficient (doubtful), then even today before the solar roof is installed, the CO2 emissions is already closer to ~90kg of CO2 per kWh of capacity. The grid is improving roughly 4% per year, and the Tesla Gigafactory roof and wind turbines coming online should drop that even more.
...especially as the Gigafactory starts buffering its own electrical load with its own batteries to reduce the cost of its grid connection and transportation of the batteries and components is increasingly done with Tesla Semis.
EDIT: Source: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-gigafactory-1-solar-rooftop-...
So I do agree, perhaps on a pure emissions standpoint they may be more equal than most think, however in terms of environmental impact batteries seem to be able to cater to technological advances (carbon capture and better manufacturing with scale) much better than diesel (which you NEED to burn to use).
Oil refining is very energy intensive, but gasoline production is highly energy positive. Interestingly: atomic process heat for refining could tae a huge chunk of CO2 off our roadways and also improve oil production numbers significantly (20%-ish).
If you agree with the assertions in the green paradox[1] it's all a waste of time anyway. If Norway lowers its oil consumption then the price of oil falls in the global market and so Americans buy bigger trucks and we are back where we started.
From your third source (engineering toolbox): https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-d_1085...
"Note! Heat loss - 55-75% - in power generation is not included in the numbers."
.
EDIT: US CO2 emissions per kWh produced is now about 430 grams. So even including battery construction emissions (which are lower than your figure), EVs still win (by nearly a factor of 2).
And you're investing in a capability that will help further reduce emissions on the grid.
Think about the Tesla Gigafactory. At first, it'll be run with electricity from the grid. That means the first batteries cost 100-200 grams of CO2 per kWh cycle (well, significantly better than that as the NMC cells last for many thousands of cycles). But as you upgrade to buffered solar (and cut off from the grid to save the monthly fee), the input energy becomes cleaner, so the next round of batteries may be just 50 grams of CO2 per kWh. And by using /those/ batteries in the next Gigafactory, its effective emissions are even less.
That's why trying to electrify everything possible while greening the grid is so important: the effects compound each other. Ultimately, no emissions are required at all. Compare that to mere efficiency improvements on conventional fossil fuel tech: sometimes the lower costs enabled by greater efficiency can actually perversely lead to GREATER emissions as demand increases non-linearly.
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).
That will take too long time. The transport sector has to be electrified WHILE the power production is going renewable.
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.
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
>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.
A second order affect I imagine, once there are scores of other systems available locally.
What do you mean by recharging batteries using generators and using wind? If you mean turbines, keep in mind most turbines are hundreds of feet tall and their blades are extremely long. Overall, wind turbine technology is far, far too large for ships to utilize.
I recall reading about one suggestion for using high altitude "kites", and i could have sworn i have also seen one where the sails would be more similar to what you find on a Junk.
In both instances the operations would be largely computer controlled, and reserved for the open seas.
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.
NB i was on board coming around the tip of Manhattan soon after 9/11. US coast guard came up on us pretty quick. They thought they were misled too!
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.
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)?
We'll produce less litter and pollution too.
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.
In addition, it doesn't seem like a large hurdle to design ships designed to recharge another ship's battery similar to how we can design refueling ships.
Source: https://www.electricitymap.org
Agreed.
At the same time, moving from direct use of fossil fuels to even indirect use of fossil fuels via electricity is a real move that at a minimum facilitates future sustainability.
That means the US CO2 emissions per kWh are significantly better than Germany, by the way.
And beware of old data. Even a couple years makes a difference. From 2014 to 2017, CO2 emitted per kWh has dropped by 13%.
(My figures mostly come from here, which has up to date info through December 2017: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph... along with calculations for emissions per kWh based on efficiency and CO2 per heat unit for a given fuel source.)
By my calculations [1,2,3], the US produced approximately 450g of CO2 per kWh in 2016.
And note that the difference is due almost entirely because the US still gets ~19% of its electricity from nuclear power but Germany does not (450g/(1-.19) = ~560). For all of Germany's effort in renewables at great cost, all it has done (besides helping to fund the technology, which is useful) is compensate for the retirement of nuclear in Germany.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
[2] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_a_03.html
[3] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html
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.