hckrnws

> The researchers analyzed US-flagged ships less than 1,000 gross tonnage, which includes primarily passenger ships and three types of tugboats.

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.

> Very little of the shipping industry is US-flagged.

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.

There is very little shipping between us ports. Not zero, but not much.

It could be the ships they are studying are the most inefficient, and pollute the most near people. Maybe they make the most sense to electrify. It could also be the only ones that can be forced to electrify by law.

Large container ships are pretty efficient and mostly stay away from populated areas.

Several of the diesel ferries that operate from Auckland harbour will be replaced with electric ferries next year and in 2026. Apparently ferries in Auckland carry only 6% of public transport passengers, but account for 20% of the public transport emissions [0].

0. https://at.govt.nz/bus-train-ferry/ferry-services/low-emissi...

Going fast in water takes incredible amounts of power.

I don't know why hydrofoils aren't more popular

Although the US isn't a member of one of the various large port state organisations it is enormous, and it has a lot of coast, so the US Coast Guard effectively acts as a Port State Control authority the way that say the Paris MOU or Tokyo MOU do, but with potentially less friction because instead of Spain and Germany or Japan and Australia having to agree what happens it's just Florida and New York, which are ultimately both responsible to the US Federal government.

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.

~40% of cargo tonnage is moving fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) around [1] [2]. I would expect this volume to decline as the global energy transition continues to ramp. China's economy and EVs are already depressing global oil prices [3] [4] [5], for example. Also consider global decoupling and repatriating of supply chains [6] [7].

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...

Hah, if we're only going to talk only about tiny US ships, run them on whale oil for all I care.

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.

For now it seems the improvements (sulphur regulations) only made the situation worse, in term of climate change.

That's the wrong framing. The NOx and SOx emissions were going to have to go eventually. It's true that it might have been better to phase it out over a year or two so it was less of a shock as the hard deadline that ended up hapenning, but we couldn't keep constantly polluting forever (which is the only way to keep those aerosols in the air).

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.

This feels dishonest? The sulfur clouds were keeping temperatures down. Largely in ways that were not really related to green house gasses. Exposing the ocean to more sun increases temperatures of the ocean. Likely influences currents, as well. In ways independent of heat we are trapping in the atmosphere.

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.

I'm surprised I don't see that discussed more. Too easy to slide into denialism? I thought there was a strong case a lot of the immediate ocean temperature changes these past few years was this. Which is not to deny climate change, but we should pay attention to all changes. Instead, I've seen more denial that cloud seeding could do anything.

You'd need to compare the harm done: acid rain versus warming due to less sulphur.

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.

Agreed. Also hard not to see that the extra sun on the Atlantic is almost certainly rising temperatures. It isn't an either or. All if this is happening.

A Lithium fire battery in a cruise ship in the middle of the Pacific would be a truly unique experience.

There's hope that sodium-ion tech will come to the rescue, here. The energy-density is bordering on 'good enough' but it's not quite there, yet.

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.

I am counting my chickens before they hatch, but sulfur chemistries should help quite a lot. Same abundance of materials, 2x to 3x the energy density.

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.

Almost as bad as a fuel oil fire on a cruise ship.

Lithium batteries are more prone to self-immolation/thermal runaway; heavy fuel oils aren't prone to spontaneous ignition at typical temperatures & pressures.

Use lithium ferrophosphate instead- no fire

Wow, this is a really good paper. Supplementary info is really great too- they get into details down to floating charging port stations as part of the infrastructure. Surprising how much demand is from tugboats. I have questions about how you'd safely hook up 5 MW connections, but it's definitely solvable.

Tugboats are a perfect use for battery electric boats! Most tugs work close to a port, they don't need to travel very far, need to be extraordinarily powerful for their size, and they need to change power output rapidly to manoeuvre a ship.

A harbour tug internally is almost entirely engine. Well, two engines, because an engine failure during tug operations is almost always disastrous.

Electric ferries have already proved out high-power dockside charging, though I'm unsure whether that's primarily marine or freshwater in practice.

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.

Here is a LinkedIn post from my friends in Plug with a video! It's for connecting to a cruise ship, which are often around 5MW https://www.linkedin.com/posts/plugport_some-great-insight-i...

There are IEC 60309 industrial power connectors that can handle 8MW (1000V, 800A).

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.

Isn't that 0.8MW?

8001000=800,000. (81 and 5 zeros).

looks like 800kW to me. Nice catch.

The future of shipping is ammonia. It has, pretty much, all the attributes of fossil fuels but being NH4 it doesn't produce an earth warming byproduct.

I support this idea but I stopped reading when the costs factored included the social costs of CO2 emissions. which I'm sure are important, but shipping operates on the actual cost of fuel and equipment, until CO2 tax is in that aren't we just making up economics?

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.

They split the emissions cost out separately, FWIW: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-024-01655-y/figures/3

The reason those generators run is because the cargo requires them, or ships would not be able to take anything refrigerated or frozen, removing a large part of very profitable cargo from them. If the power to those boxes fails for a long enough period of time the load is completely destroyed.

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.

[dead]

You've been sitting at port a week past unloading please move along! Sorry doc command, were still charging, should be on our way in 8 more days.

Ferry service in the Puget Sound (Seattle Area) has suffered due to delays with electric ferries. The state refuses to maintain their existing fleet. Every line has frequent delays, and the international route which was suspended for “a couple years” in 2021 is now delayed until 2030.

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 .

It looks like that is a conversion and retrofit of ships that were already unmaintainable: https://washingtonstatestandard.com/briefs/conversion-of-was...

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

Sure but you have to think of the entire system which includes staff, training , charging infrastructure, power supply, possibly fuel for the charging infrastructure, backup/redundancy, maintenance, parts / distribution etc. An entire infrastructure network that had been operating for decades.

Diesel is more than just fuel, it’s an entire system.

I also heard the power companies just don't have the extra power to supply the ferries. The terminals need to be redesigned to receive and emit that much juice.

Meanwhile Norway has 80 electric commuter ferries in service. https://businessnorway.com/articles/norway-showcases-award-w...

The Norwegian ferries appear to be much smaller than the Washington state ferries.

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...

> Here is the largest e-ferry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ferry_Ellen

Norway's largest e-ferry is three times larger. https://www.electrive.com/2021/03/02/worlds-largest-electric...

According to your link (and all other articles I found on that vessel), that ferry is capable of operating all-electric, but actually operating as a hybrid.

Although the news at that time was about delivery of a first electric ferry, that was 2021 and things change. The Ferry company's web site says now it has three electric ferries as a result of conversions and indeed they charge at both ends of the route. It's in Norwegian but the translation looks reasonable to me.

The Seattle ferries GP was talking are also retrofitted to be hybrid-electric, so that does seem very comparable

I was initially responding to a post stating that there were many all-electric ferries, and my point was that there were none (operational) of a size comparable to WA state ferries. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42197763

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.

your point?

I don't know what you mean by dogmatic. Alternatives to electric are still the primary workhorses in most industries, but falling prices for batteries mean they are rapidly becoming more competitive.

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.

I've traveled on a battery electric ship in Norway, quite a few years ago. It recharged while docked loading passengers using two high voltage high current cables slung from a crane.

this? https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/ele...

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.

Technology won't become ready without users unfortunately.

The frustration should be that in the US management is functionally incompetent.

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 forgot the part where "Proposal" has been promoted twice based on a hurried launch and only "Counter" is left to take the blame for the messups.

[dead]

Energy density of batteries is much lower than that of fossil fuels. Which means that the weight of the ships would increase. In addition to the high price of the batteries, potential risks of electrocution, etc.

There are intermediate options. Moving away from diesel towards natural gas would dramatically reduce emissions (including sulfur emissions), while retaining high energy density.

LNG and LPG marine engines do exist, and are gaining popularity. The main issues are the price of gas fuel compared to marine diesel - which is the fraction too soft for roads and too viscous for other engines so is often really cheap - and safety considerations when retrofitting in to existing ships.

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.

> and safety considerations when retrofitting in to existing ships.

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?

> 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.

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.

Electric is an immediate option. Norway has 80 electric ferries in service. https://businessnorway.com/articles/norway-showcases-award-w...

It may be an immediate option for places that have a very strong desire to reduce carbon emissions, but for profit-driven entities the push towards natural gas ends up as both more economical and more ecological.

https://www.lngindustry.com/special-reports/21112023/the-ris...

Not going to work in the EU.

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...

Looks like another intermediate option is bio-methanol. But, both options are very rare, with diesel being the overwhelming majority of international shipping.

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...

Yep, everything is on the table. All done through complete lifecycle well to wake calculations to prevent hiding emissions in intermediate steps.

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.