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
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.
Indeed, defiantly solvable! I'm guessing they're playing it safe and reducing risk where they can for the first generations of electric ferries. And it's probably much cheaper for the company to sell food from a vending machine than having a full kitchen onboard, so they might be using lack of power as an excuse.
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.
Even for BBQ charcoal is the traditional way, with propane grills only becoming a thing in the last decade or so.
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...
Propane is popular because it's convenient, but it's hardly "the 'American' BBQ experience", King of the Hill aside.
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.
Whenever I think of Norway I think "vikings" (honestly, whenever I see pictures of Norwegians, men or women, that don't look like the stereotypical hefty viking I have to do a double take ;-) The vikings did a lot of helping other Europeans regions go Scandinavian, whether they wanted it or not (My family is from the Manchester region of England, but DNA tests show that something like 60% of my DNA is Scandinavian in origin - huh, I wonder how that happened). Maybe it's just Karma!
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?
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.
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.
Somewhat, though even before the introduction of electric ferries the new models replacing the older ones have had an emphasis on vehicle units over passenger comforts.
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.
Ranging from 10 minutes to 3.5 hours (from lofoten to bodø, longest I've taken, but there might be other longer routes).
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 :)
- 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]
They don't need to charge the full battery in 10 minutes, since they didn't fully discharge it in the previous 20 minutes of cruising.. The article didn't say how long the service could be sustained without any charge but if the battery can be topped up at intervals so that the ferry can keep running all day until it recharges fully overnight then that would be a good result. Also there will be margin built in because it costs a lot more if you have to replace the batteries when they fall to 95% of the original capacity rather than 80% or less.
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...
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.
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).
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.
This is incorrect. Diesel engines are not 100% efficient, with passenger vehicles (especially lacking regenerative braking that is standard in all production EVs) being closer to 25-33% efficient. So increase the diesel emissions to about 750 to 1000g_CO2/kWh.
"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).
...half is still much better. Besides, there's a lack of local emissions (and therefore no increased asthma risk, etc) which is often under-rated IMHO.
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.
I believe comparing engines to batteries is misleading. As you are comparing _capacity_ to _energy_, and although the units are the same the meaning is very different. The emissions to produce the initial capacity may be similar (200g vs. 250g), however those emissions are spread over the life of the battery (~1000 cycles). So ignoring power input (which is a bad assumption) batteries would be 0.2g/kWh vs. diesel at 250g/kWh. Of course ignoring power isn't fair, but it shows the manufacturing emissions are neglible compared to diesel engine emissions when spread over the batteries lifetime.
I think you got the emissions of a charge cycle mixed up with emissions of battery production per capacity unit.
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.
"For the CO2 per 1 kWh capacity, the emissions of battery production are 200 KILOgrams."
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.
An example of a battery factory powered (eventually) by 100% renewable energy is the Gigafactory using a combination of wind and solar. Even today, it is entirely powered by electricity. It doesn't even have a gas line (as would be common for any large building, especially an industrial one). Its solar roof is eventually going to be 70MW. They've just started installing part of it, and from satellite and aerial imagery it looks like they have a few Megawatts already installed.
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.
I see your point, my mistake. However there are still many arguments to be made for this strategy. First of all, in terms of carbon capture it is much easier to capture carbon at a factory then on a boat, or any mobile vehicle for that matter. Secondly, arguing that diesel is equal is ignoring that diesel needs to be transported to and from the fueling station, and extracted from the ground, this should be factored into it's emissions (I'm not sure how). As far as I know moving electricity is far easier than moving liquid fuel, as long as you are in a preexisting industrial zone.
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).
Refining oil also requires substantial amounts of power. From what I’ve read the power to refine a litre of gasoline e.g. requires as much power as an electric car would need to go the distance 1 litre of gasoline gives you.
If refining 1 liter of gas took the energy potential of 1 liter of gas then we wouldn't be dominated by the petroleum industry... The chemical energy storage in hydrocarbons is stupid efficient compared to the alternatives.
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).
You're comparing indirect emissions with direct emissions. For a fair comparison, if you're including manufacturing costs for the battery on one side, you should also include manufacturing costs for the fuel on the other side.
It expands:
"The largest part of the emissions, around 50%, is
currently from battery (including cell)
manufacturing, but if the material processing to battery grade is viewed as one total it is in the same
order of magnitude."
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...
I was just Googling it, I don't have any better sources sorry. It is showing me a registration nag screen now too. But it was companies like Samsung, LG, Panasonic and then some Chinese companies that I hadn't heard of.
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)
the same electricity could be used to displace dirty power if exported to Denmark
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
Sails don't collect nearly enough energy to move a ferry which is capable of moving hundreds of people and over 100 cars.
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.
> 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)?
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.
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.
One of the great things is that the world has already dealt with this problem much the same way we've dealt with cars breaking down on the road and trains breaking down on the tracks: We can tow them away.
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.
In the US, coal electricity is now just 30% of the grid, compared to 32% for other fossil fuels (almost all natural gas), and actually 38% for emissions-free (half of that is nuclear and the other half a mix of wind, hydro, solar, and geothermal roughly in that order).
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.
Norway gets most of its energy from renewable sources (99% of mainland electricity). See 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).
I came here to comment the same.
Oddly enough, you can still pay an extra fee on your electric bill to be certain the energy comes from a clean energy source. My house does so.
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.
> You're not necessarily going green if you use coal-based electricity.
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.
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-...