This is the buried lede. They are excluding basically all cargo shipping.
- Very little of the shipping industry is US-flagged. Most commercial ships sail under flags of convenience such as Panama and Libera, because of their reduced regulations and costs.
- Nobody carries cargo any distance in vessels of less than 1000 gross tons, because that scale would be uneconomical to operate. Modern seagoing cargo ships have about one crew member per 8000 tons of cargo.
That's true for international shipping, but for shipping between U.S. ports, the ships have to be U.S. flagged due to the Jones act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920
I agree though that focusing on small U.S. flagged ships is not very representative of shipping in general.
A one-shot solution to reducing inflation and emissions would be in repealing the Jones Act. (Also, increasing the prevalence of ferry transport.)
https://capitalresearch.org/article/what-you-need-to-know-ab...
https://twitter.com/johnkonrad/status/1840904466310316459
" it’s somehow cheaper to truck containers hundreds of miles and let taxpayers foot the road repair bill than let the union touch it two more times for short sea shipping to work."
If every form of transportation had strong unions, the system could find whatever healthy or natural distribution was actually economically efficient. More stuff would be sent by Train and Boat, both substantially more efficient in most cases, and both industries that suffer in the US from being ignored.
Instead, so much of the US essentially just runs on Employee Coercion Arbitrage and we all suffer for it.
We should be able to shop around transportation choices without exploiting underpaid workers.
Realistically, a carbon tax would actually have the same outcome if you hate unions.
If that shipping method is cheaper than a union charge, then the union charge is too high.
Even though yes truck drivers should be getting paid more.
Like, okay, we could pay truck drivers twice as much and now it's only cheaper to truck the containers around 150 miles or whatever? That's still way too expensive.
And a carbon tax doesn't fix this. It makes trucking more expensive but it doesn't make the charge for using a crane less expensive.
Large container ships are pretty efficient and mostly stay away from populated areas.
0. https://at.govt.nz/bus-train-ferry/ferry-services/low-emissi...
Seems to me the 80/20 here would be to attack the problem near the top of the stack, not the bottom. Those massive heavy fuel oil burning container ships that basically just smog the ocean 24/7 might be a good target for improvements; as well as just general code enforcement.
Sulphur regulations just unmasked some of the global warming that had already happened, but that masking was only ever going to be temporary in the long run.
Should we have stopped the sulfur? Agreed that that answer is almost certainly still yes. Questions that this leads to are cleaner artificial clouds. Not to control weather, per se. Rather, to reduce ocean heating.
Given that it's possible to offset the rise of CO2 elsewhere, it's hard not to argue that the sulphur emissions are strictly worse, and we are better off for having less of them.
Scale has an advantage all its own when it comes to combustion engines.
Fuel oil is approximately 80x the energy per KG when compared to lithium.
If you have a Port State Control regime then the Flag State Control doesn't matter so much and so while it's true that most of these ships do not fly a US flag, they're not really sailing under a foreign flag for the reason you expect. A big reason instead is that these states have an Open Registry, which means everybody in the world can put a ship on their register. To fly the US flag, the ship's owners must be Americans.
Why doesn't Flag State matter so much (if you have PSC) ? Because the port states in effect control regulations if you visit their port, and unless your vessel somehow makes sense just pootling around in the ocean forever you will want to visit a port and thus be subject to their rules. Now, if that port doesn't have Port State Control, which fifty years ago none of them did, the Flag State is the only authority, but in 1978 the Europeans are agreeing rules to protect workers on ships in their water when blam - a shipping accident off the French coast causes world headlines. So of course journalists want to know, you're agreeing a treaty, how will your treaty fix this? And the bald answer for the intended treaty text was "It makes no difference, fuck off". But there are international journalists up in your grill and you've been telling everybody how important your treaty is and so... Port State Control, the Paris MOU is signed a few years later to formalize how Europe's states will coordinate to police everybody, regardless of the flag they're flying, if they enter a port.
The Paris MOU was a huge success, and soon anywhere with money imitated it. Tokyo MOU, there's a Carribean one, Indian Ocean, Black Sea... Anywhere you'd actually deliberately sail cargo ships to has Port State Control these days.
So yes, this does exclude all the cargo shipping, but not really because of the flag, it's because the cargo ships are enormous and so fall out of the size restriction.
My analysis: We're potentially going to require much less marine transport capacity in the future. How much of that can be electrified is the question, imho (versus "green ammonia" produced from low carbon energy [8]).
[1] https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2022/01/12/almost-40-...
[2] https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2019_en...
[3] https://www.iea.org/commentaries/china-s-slowdown-is-weighin...
[4] https://theprogressplaybook.com/2024/09/18/chinas-ev-and-hig...
[5] https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/chinas-slowing-oil-dem...
[6] https://www.axios.com/2024/11/14/companies-global-trade-chin...
[7] https://www.bain.com/about/media-center/press-releases/2024/...
[8] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
A harbour tug internally is almost entirely engine. Well, two engines, because an engine failure during tug operations is almost always disastrous.
https://www.stemmann.com/en/products/charging_systems/ferryc...
This company has designs that go up to 23MW @ 15kV, though I'm unsure what their largest actual installation is.
They can have super high torque. Quiet motors allow them to operate where diesel wouldn't be allowed due noise pollution.
There are also power connectors for cruise ships while they are in dock that handle lots of power. It looks like they use IEC 80005 for shore power. It looks like it is AC only but probably could be made to use DC.
looks like 800kW to me. Nice catch.
Although it would be better if the battery is at the bottom of the ship so there would also need to be some sort of air exhaust system for when that happens, hopefully one that prevents the fumes from reaching the passengers at all but I don't think that would be possible without a chimney.
There's other technologies that they're trialing for boats that seem silly but works on paper at least. We're currently building a ferry with a massive flywheel to store lots of rotational inertia to convert to electricity, which on the face of it is bonkers but again, the maths says it's good.
It's my impression that a lot of sulfur and other "advanced" chemistries are held up by operating restrictions like temperature for consumer vehicles, but industrial transport vehicles might not have such requirements because they have constant output.
Currently people usually burn propane in combustion engines, instead of oxidizing in fuel cells. In theory, fuel cells are more efficient than combustion engines.
There’re commercially available fuel cells used for marine applications https://wattfuelcell.com/ however it seems low powered, not enough power for propulsion.
And there’re different ways being researched to synthesize propane: some biotech bacteria, traditional industrial chemistry with new catalyzers like trimolybdenum phosphide nanoparticles, etc.
fuel oil.. you just fence it off and scoop up.
ammonia.. evacuate the port and city
A solar panel covering the ship and one of those flaps to generate power from wind with a EV-scale battery could be enough for containers moving light non-time-sensitive stuff. Probably wouldn't be able to run the engine at night for long though.
Heck throw some wheels at it and fast charging at docks and it could even potentially drive down the road as a truck directly from sea.
- the energy required for moving in a fluid grows sub-linear with the vessel's volume
- larger motors tend to be more efficient
- your autonomous swarm will be a gigantic waste of steel and batteries.
Not to mention the problems around the autonomous part, without which you'd also have a huge waste of manpower.
See also https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/38252/why-on... for some points by people I assume know a bit more than me.
Bonus points for adding a big scoop, to slurp up trash and filter out microplastics.
They're also factoring in the value of the batteries second life, which seems at best, speculative.
ships should be electric, they're filthy to be around with 24/7 diesel generators running even on the quayside. if ship electrification prompted better port facilities of shore side hookup just that would be a win.
Ships use power for all sorts of things. Steering, ventilation fans, and water pumps just to name a few. Motor power is only a fraction of what a boat can do, and most boats connect a generator to the main shaft, because the power is more important than the motive force.
I'm becoming more skeptical of reports, especially government reports, like this; there's a thumb on the scale toward solutions that are politically favored. Clearly this report was trying to find any way to boost the appearance of EVs.
The frustration people have with electric isn’t the technology – it’s the dogmatic commitment to technology that isn’t quite ready, based on false promises of it solving climate change .
Modernizing all the control systems etc is the nightmare. The ferries were already electric- all ferries are; they have diesel engines driving generators which drive electric motors. They still have the exact same generators running the same motors. The batteries are installed and ready even though they won't be used until the port is electrified years from now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkgT9Z8Z2RU
Diesel is more than just fuel, it’s an entire system.
Here is the largest e-ferry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ferry_Ellen
And a guide to the WA fleet: https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/WSF-FleetGu...
Norway's largest e-ferry is three times larger. https://www.electrive.com/2021/03/02/worlds-largest-electric...
There are many large hybrid vessels; notably, this has been common for submarines for a very long time. The largest currently operational diesel-electric (hybrid) submarine seems to be the Chinese Qing-class, of ~3800 tons surfaced displacement.
My experience is that people don't have a good grasp of how effective electric is, and think it's somehow worse than the alternatives and winning via subsidies, which is not really the case today. Likewise for things like solar.
I imagine many businesses are hoping to put off their next replacement cycles for more effective, cheaper technology rather than incur big Capex expenses on soon to be obsolete and more expensive technologies.
Proposal: If we do it this way we won't have to spend as much money.
Counter: That's really hinky and it probably will blow up in our face.
Proposal: Yes but you can't prove it will. So it's what we're going to do.
Later: Blows up and goes over budget and takes two to three times longer.
You can always forget to add some margin here or there, or fail to plan for problems that might pop up. It's easy to game the system because sunk costs make it nearly impossible to switch once you've started.
interesting they're struggling to get ship builders to bid.
Seems like a lesson learned is to build new boats until service is over capacity before refitting old boats where the unknown unknowns lurk.
I advocated for a controversial ranking before and it’s still relevant.
There are intermediate options. Moving away from diesel towards natural gas would dramatically reduce emissions (including sulfur emissions), while retaining high energy density.
Unlike diesel fuel, gas fuels are readily ignitable and present a suffocation hazard in enclosed spaces. This is solvable with installation of a proper gas detection system, but if you've ever dealt with the shipping industry you'll know that maintenance is not top of their list.
Also gas fuels require new port-side storage and handling equipment, and in the case of liquified gas this might require a refrigeration system.
Electricity on the other hand is already port-side, and most ports will have a significant supply available.
As for weight, that's not really a problem for ships, especially tugboats. In the case of tugs the near instant peek power of electric propulsion is a huge advantage.
So, we're keeping the fire hazard, but adding a stored energy hazard in the form of compressed gas? All in a retrofit? This doesn't sound like a good idea for international ships.
> and most ports will have a significant supply available.
Are you sure about that?
Indeed not, I haven't heard of any large cargo ship using gas fuel at sea other than gas carriers. I know that there are some dual-fuel ships, which use gas fuel in costal waters for emissions reasons, but they carry much less gas than would be required for a full voyage.
> > and most ports will have a significant supply available.
> Are you sure about that?
Ports have electric cranes (the big ones, not the straddle cranes), shore power supply for ships, bulk goods handling facilities, etc. They often have a high voltage (110kV+) supply. This won't be true everywhere, but it is common.
Of course it's not just a drop in process and it will be expensive to get all the new equipment in place.
My nearest port got their first electric tug two years ago and they documented what they needed to do. They did have to install a new substation, but their existing 110kV feeder lines have plenty of capacity, they already consume over 13GWh per year so the increase needed to charge the tug wasn't high.
I am ignoring the issues with charging battery-electric large cargo ships because the article did not consider those either.
https://www.lngindustry.com/special-reports/21112023/the-ris...
Fossil fuels like natural gas are assumed to be the baseline in the Fuel EU directive entering into force in 2025.
All required reductions will have to come on top.
https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/maritime/deca...
Shifting to either would be a very significant improvement over the status quo. Whether that meets EU requirements is another matter.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/maersk-buy-bio-m...
Works by forcing say 2% green fuel in 2028 and then a market for shipping companies to buy and sell rights. The requirement will increase every couple of years.
Which means old ships will continue to operate but will have to pay for their emission to greener vessels. Thus we have a very direct gain from going all the way rather than half hearted attempts, allowing modern green vessels to make a business case on selling their credits by being over performers.