Slashdot Mirror
Rolls-Royce Launches New Battery System To Electrify Ships (electrek.co)
Rolls-Royce, a British power system company (not to be confused with the luxury automobile maker), is launching a new battery system to electrify ships. "Rolls-Royce now offers SAVe Energy, a cost competitive, highly efficient and liquid cooled battery system with a modular design that enables the product to scale according to energy and power requirements," the company said in a statement. "SAVe Energy comply with international legislations for low and zero emission propulsion systems." Electrek reports: The company has been working on battery systems for years, but the recent improvements in li-ion batteries are now resulting in a boom of electrification of ships. Andreas Seth, Rolls-Royce, EVP Electrical, Automation and Control for Commercial Marine, said the company expects to deploy more batteries next year than they did over the last 8 years combined: "The electrification of ships is building momentum. From 2010 we have delivered battery systems representing about 15 MWh in total. However now the potential deployment of our patent pending SAVe Energy in 2019 alone is 10-18 MWh."
Seth said that they are delivering the first system to Prestfjord as part of Norway's effort to electrify its maritime transport: "Battery systems have become a key component of our power and propulsions systems, and SAVe Energy is being introduced on many of the projects we are currently working on. This includes the upgrade programme for Hurtigruten's cruise ferries, the advanced fishing vessel recently ordered by Prestfjord and the ongoing retrofits of offshore support vessels. As a system provider we can find the best solution considering both installation and operational cost."
Seth said that they are delivering the first system to Prestfjord as part of Norway's effort to electrify its maritime transport: "Battery systems have become a key component of our power and propulsions systems, and SAVe Energy is being introduced on many of the projects we are currently working on. This includes the upgrade programme for Hurtigruten's cruise ferries, the advanced fishing vessel recently ordered by Prestfjord and the ongoing retrofits of offshore support vessels. As a system provider we can find the best solution considering both installation and operational cost."
As in thermal runaway. No thanks.
Rolls-Royce, the company, IS actually the 'power' company. The luxury automaker is now a licensed marque that is owned by BMW, but the name is only used by permission.
I recently installed a Tesla PowerWall in my boat. Works great. I use solar power to recharge it.
Maybe they mean the engines?
What happens when Rolls Royce decides they want to make a jet engine. Or Rolls Royce decides to get into the electric propulsion game. Who's trademark wins that dispute?
Thermal runaway is mitigated with special cell construction making sure adjacent cells are not affected and water sprinkler systems to cool away the energy. Most dangerous thing with lithion ion on ships is getting rid of the generated steam and the pressure it generates.
Congratulations, you win the internet for Sunday, August 19, 2018!. Check in next Saturday to see if you win the internet for the week. I'm pulling for you!
Why use batteries. Modern ships already use electric engines driven by multiple diesel generators. The diesel fuel is far more energy dense than batteries, so it is a more efficient storage medium than batteries anyway. Even if you use the batteries, you still have to use diesel generators to charge the batteries.
Why use batteries? To me it seems inefficient and unnecessary.
Most dangerous thing with lithion ion on ships is getting rid of the generated steam and the pressure it generates.
A nice steam turbine will turn that bug into a feature.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
I bet those are the Rolls Royce of batteries.
" Weight, even on something as weight insensitive as a ship at sea, will become an issue with this kind of energy density differential."
Perhaps the batteries can replace some of the ballast?
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Perhaps the batteries can replace some of the ballast?
Ballast free ship designs are likely to be a thing in the very near future.
https://shipinsight.com/articl...
Ballast is just dead weight, by definition. It is used to balance the ship for safe transport. To do this the ballast has to be able to be moved with relative convenience and speed. A battery pack is unlikely to meet this definition.
A typical Panamax container ship will carry over a million gallons of fuel. To fit through the Panama Canal the ship will have to meet the very tight constraints on depth, width, and length. Taking on enough batteries to make any kind of impact on the fuel burned will make an impact on the cargo it can carry. Then there are maximum sizes for the Suez Canal and for the ports these ships serve.
If a Panamax ship needs 1,000,000 gallons of fuel to complete it's journey, and just 10% of that fuel is replaced by batteries, then how much extra weight, length, depth, and so on would this ship have to be to carry the same amount of cargo? If my math is correct 100,000 gallons of diesel fuel weighs 300 tons. To get the same energy in a battery would mean carrying 30,000 tons. That's half the cargo capacity of a Panamax ship.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If you read that thinking about cars, remember that battery are heavy, and that weight is much more a problem for a car than for a boat.
I agree. Who needs one of those new fangled horseless carriages; noisy, slow, break down a lot. A horse and buggy, boy, it worked for our fathers, grandfathers a long ways back. No need to invest in this troublesome new technology. Mark my words, in fifty years, no one will own these silly horseless carriages!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
they'll be as successful as electric cars
I think you're exactly right. Just like electric cars, they will become the desirable vehicle anywhere they are feasible. Short-haul ferry service, for example. It won't be all pure-EVs, though. The key to understanding who will want this lies in the following sentence:
Ports around the world are banning the burning of bunker fuel. How do you solve this problem? You can carry multiple kinds of fuel, or you can use a hybrid system. You don't need full speed within ports, so the energy requirements are far lower there. You charge the batteries while underway, then you switch to electric while within the region controlled by the port. Once you've left, it's back on the bunker fuel. This solves the problem of poor air quality in the port itself, at least for the pollution produced by ships. The other source of poor air quality in ports is from semi-trucks doing port drayage. Anti-idling laws have improved that problem (especially in California) and hybrids and hydrogen vehicles will essentially solve it completely.
So you're right, we're not going to see the ICE depart shipping any time soon. However, we are going to see electrification of basically all ships, just as we're going to see electrification of basically all automobiles.
In the longer-term, floating solar swarms can be installed along trade routes currently followed by container ships, and used to recharge them in mid-journey. Larger and larger percentages of motive power can be supplied to hybrid ships over time, until they are finally using their ICEs only for emergencies or in inclement weather.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This means nuclear power, or liquid fuels derived from nuclear power.
It is unfortunate that synthetic fuels don't get more attention, because they offer the potential to make all of our existing liquid fueled machinery carbon-neutral. Electric cars will be useful, especially within cities, but they are not a panacea. Energy dense liquid fuels will continue to be indispensable for some applications, including air travel. The focus on electric cars for decarbonization is a distraction, and synthetic fuels should be a higher priority.
Lesser known, is the issue of ammonia for fertilizer, which like oil and gas, is also distributed by pipelines. It will remain indispensable, yet is also a huge consumer of fossil energy resources today. Producing synthetic ammonia is easier as well, as it needs no carbon feedstock. Nitrogen constitutes the bulk of Earth's atmosphere, making ammonia very attractive as a carbon-neutral synthetic fuel, in addition to its ongoing use for fertilizer.
There is talk of storing surplus wind and solar energy as synthetic fuels, but with their low capacity factor, they are unlikely to ever do this economically. However, nuclear heat is an ideal fit, since it is available 24x7, and avoids the electric conversion losses.
In the future any ship of sufficient size should be nuclear powered. How big is "sufficient"? I'm guessing Panamax or bigger, that would be about 50,000 ton displacement.
"Sufficient" should also shrink with time, as reactor technology advances. Molten salt reactors are especially attractive, since they do not suffer xenon poisoning as in solid fuels. Contrary to naval reactors, which require highly enriched fuel and careful reactivity control, MSRs naturally follow load, responsively, and contain much less fissile content. These attributes make them more attractive for commercial maritime transport.
how could the OP be naive as to say " not to be confused with the luxury automobile maker" Doesn't she know about TMs ??
In the longer-term, floating solar swarms can be installed along trade routes currently followed by container ships, and used to recharge them in mid-journey. Larger and larger percentages of motive power can be supplied to hybrid ships over time, until they are finally using their ICEs only for emergencies or in inclement weather.
Or, we could keep those solar collectors on shore and use them to produce synthetic fuels. Then the fuel can be poured into any existing ship that burns diesel fuel, with no sulfur like in bunker fuel or low grade marine fuel. That means no stopping in the middle of their route, no dangerous at sea recharges, and no fancy batteries that don't exist yet.
Waiting for battery powered ships to become economically viable is, quite literally in this case, waiting at port for a ship that may never come. We've been synthesizing hydrocarbons for a very long time. This hasn't been done to make fuel, except in times of war, due to the costs. It has been used for a long time now to make high performance lubricants. The US Navy has a program to both bring down the cost and scale up production.
https://www.zmescience.com/res...
Which is more likely to be successful sooner? These solar swarms of recharging ships for cargo carriers that do not yet exist? Or, a fuel synthesis process that allows the use of most any source of electricity to produce fuels that work in every ship at sea, and every plane in the air, right now?
Another alternative for large "green" ships is the use of nuclear power. This is a technology that has been at sea for decades. A technology that 60 years ago, almost to the day, sailed to the North Pole. A technology used in Russian icebreakers. If you want to discuss "inclement weather" then I believe that nuclear power passed that test a long time ago.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
People have been working on electric propulsion on sea (and land) for over 100 years and it's still not competing with nuclear, wind, or diesel. You think this will change all that quickly? Even if the problems on this are solved tomorrow this will still have to be brought up to mass production and that will not only take a long time but still face resistance over fears of performance, long term economics, and so on.
What we know does work is nuclear power. It's as "green" as anything and has had 60 years of experience to prove it viable. There is an existing capacity to build these ships right now. It might take a while to ramp up production but this shouldn't be too difficult. The engineering behind naval reactors might take 21st century computing and technology but the actual construction is something from the early 20th century. Making the reactors is one small step up from hammer and tongs steelworks.
Another long standing technology is synthetic fuels. This can be synthesized hydrocarbons, which again is 100 years old, and can use energy from most any heat and/or electrical source. Synthetic ammonia is a good choice for fuel, another century old technology. These fuels will burn in existing engines, with little or no modification. Any resistance to this should be easily overcome since it requires nothing or next to nothing done by the ship operators to adopt.
Battery electric propulsion still faces a lot of technological hurdles. The problems with nuclear propulsion, or synthetic fuels, are largely problems of policy. We can change the political rules that keep these ships from sailing. Changing the rules of physics and/or economics are far greater challenges.
We can keep working on electric ships. I'm certainly not going to stop you. What should we do until these ships arrive? What do we do if this technology never gets beyond the prototype? I say we try nuclear power and synthetic fuels. We can do that today and with century old technology.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
There is one good reason to use battery only to leave the port. The engine just makes too big of a stink and pollution. I don't know how much it would help in Panama itself. Probably there are spots where not stinking up is better and others you may pollute more. But imagine just 100-200 tons of batteries to move the ship a bit, 400 tons, I don't know.
Since we established that the ship can be moved by electric (uh, isn't the big diesel engine coupled to the propellers? or is electric motors a done deal on huge container ships?) you'll want electricity. You probably have, need or want auxiliary generators on the ship. So, supplement the batteries with diesel generators running on "clean" diesel fuel.
This is my little, very armchair admiral idea.
In the longer-term, floating solar swarms can be installed along trade routes currently followed by container ships, and used to recharge them in mid-journey. Larger and larger percentages of motive power can be supplied to hybrid ships over time, until they are finally using their ICEs only for emergencies or in inclement weather.
You really ought to read Entropy, Energy and Order in the Universe. Large and complex systems harvesting diffuse energy flows are just not thermodynamically attractive.
This is essentially the same thing, as the electricity to power the ship will likely come from natural gas power plants, which are usually just a generator hooked up to a gas turbine. At destination sites in Asia, the recharging will likely be done via a coal fired plant.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Thank you too about setting things straight on "green" bio-mass fuels. If we really did need and use them on any massive scale instead of very limited applications we would end up destroying and cutting down everything on Earth till there's nothing but wasteland and desert and goat and cattle skulls.
Agrarian analogy in the Iron age or such : let's slaughter our cattle and burn the grain harvest to BBQ them - not before having made a lot of beer, which is another interesting bio-mass.
This could be an awesome week of partying. A case of voluntary civilizational collapse but fun while it lasts.
This means nuclear power, or liquid fuels derived from nuclear power.
A bit of liquid fuel from hydro power I can see done, or liquid fuel from geothermal in Iceland though that might be very little next to global needs.
Dreaming of liquid fuel from solar but well. Doubtful. Let's just make billions tons of NH3 and CH4 from air and water, and funny combinations but the energy requirements seem disastrous unless breakthroughs on energy efficiency and cheapness of electrolysis and other chemistry come true.
Here's my armchair engineer response.
A 400 ton battery would have about the same energy as 4 tons of diesel fuel. 4 tons of diesel fuel is about 1200 gallons. A large ship doesn't get "miles per gallon" it gets "feet per gallon". Getting just orders of magnitude here this is between 100 and 10 feet per gallon. How far will that 400 ton battery take a cargo ship? Somewhere between 120,000 and 12,000 FEET. Again in orders of magnitude this is between 20 miles and 2 miles. The Panama canal is about 50 miles long.
I'm no sailor but I've met a few and the big ships do often have backup generators in case of a main engine failure, usually more than one backup generator. These are not intended to propel the ship, only to provide lights, communication, and such, to prevent a collision and aid in recovery. Turning off the main engine is a BIG DEAL and not done often as that runs the risk of it not starting again. Doing so out of port means the possibility of going adrift. This is a hazard for the ship and other ships in the area.
The old diesel electric submarines kept two diesel engines on board. This was so they could still move under power if one engine was in need of repair. When submerged both engines would be stopped. When surfaced normally only one engine would be run. If that engine sucked in water, or some other kind of failure, then they could still run on the other engine until the problem was repaired. I assume in times of great need they could run both engines for higher speeds. If a cargo ship was similarly equipped, with two "main" (prime mover) engines, then perhaps one could be shut off when in or near port to reduce pollution. However, these engines are very large, very expensive, very reliable, and therefore only warships have two main engines. Deviating from what I assume to be nearly 100 years of common practice on commercial shipping would likely be met with considerable resistance from both the shipping companies and the regulators. Just getting transoceanic airplanes to shift from four to three engines was met with considerable resistance. This is not just an engineering problem, but one of regulations.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Alright. I was estimating some energy roughly enough to enter Panama canal or to exit it, but not cross it.
But any fantasy of turning off, then turning on midways, then turning off (then turning on) seems not reasonable at all after reading you. I was willing to consider one engine turn off and one engine start, when leaving Panama from the West or the East, if somehow it will feel safer doing this when the ship gtfo. It might be hardly better an idea and I get how terrifying an absolutely huge and heavy floating brick may be.
Very interesting about military ships.
Did you know the French aircraft carrier was criticized for having two submarine engines?
The catch is, these are two submarine-derived nuclear engines. The media also liked to report on the woes (broken propeller, snapped clean. and "oh shit! the flight deck is slightly too short")
Rolls-Royce Launches New Battery System To Electrify Ships
That'll take care of those stowaways!
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
I see this replacing the "clean" engines they have to run close to land. Then they will switch to the bunker fuel engines like normal at sea and recharge these batteries. This would make the most sense for such a system.
I see this replacing the "clean" engines they have to run close to land. Then they will switch to the bunker fuel engines like normal at sea and recharge these batteries. This would make the most sense for such a system.
Have you considered how much weight this adds to the ship? Batteries, even the best on the market, weigh 100 times as much as diesel fuel for the same energy output. You can argue on the specific battery technology or such if you like but this is going to be a rounding error. Then consider just how much fuel a ship burns per mile. Here's a reference I found on that:
https://newatlas.com/shipping-...
The title of worldâ(TM)s largest container ship is actually held by eight identical ships owned by Danish shipping line Mærsk. All eight ships are 1300ft (397.7m) long and can carry 15,200 shipping containers around the globe at a steady 25.5 knots (47.2 km/h, 29.3 mph) .
At five storeys tall and weighing 2300 tonnes, this 14 cylinder turbocharged two-stroke monster puts out 84.4 MW (114,800 hp) - up to 90MW when the motor's waste heat recovery system is taken into account. These mammoth engines consume approx 16 tons of fuel per hour or 380 tons per day while at sea.
This is an extreme example of a very large ship but also a fairly new design and therefore presumably reasonably efficient per ton of cargo moved. California maintains a 24 mile clean burning border out to sea from it's coasts, where ships are prohibited from burning the nasty bunker fuel mentioned in the article. To replace the 16 tons of fuel it burns in one hour, for the roughly 30 miles to clear this zone, it would need 1600 tons of batteries to get the same energy. That weighs nearly as much as the engine, or as much as 100+ cargo containers it would not be able to take as cargo. As it can carry 15,200 cargo containers this might not seem like much, but that's the reduced cargo capacity for every trip it takes for the life of the ship.
Remember that this does not reduce the total fuel burned, the batteries would have to be charged up in transit.
There's been other ways to meet these emissions demands with far less impact on the ship. Each ship already has multiple fuel tanks, simply fill one tank with "clean" fuel for while near the coasts. This not only reduces the total "dirty" fuel burned but it requires no modifications to the ship.
Another popular tactic, though not mentioned in the article, is using liquid natural gas on a dual fuel engine. These can switch from bunker fuel to far cleaner natural gas when near the ports. This does require some modification, but far less than trying to make room for a very large and heavy battery pack. The article also makes mention of the possibility of nuclear powered ships, which is where I expect us to get to eventually.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The Danish Ferries do exactly this, and Blindseer is to blind to see it ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Ships have plenty of other ways to use small amounts of steam. Industrial cleaning of tanks, heating of spaces, tanks, and hot water etc. Having a steam turbine on a ship is generally too complex and space-inefficient to justify any energy savings. Much better to make battery cooling a closed loop freshwater primary system with seawater secondary cooling.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
To replace the 16 tons of fuel it burns in one hour, for the roughly 30 miles to clear this zone, it would need 1600 tons of batteries to get the same energy.
You are of by a factor 20 - 100. I doubt they would need more than 50 tons of batteries.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
People have been working on electric propulsion on sea (and land) for over 100 years and it's still not competing with nuclear, wind, or diesel. You think this will change all that quickly?
It depends on what you classify as "electric propulsion". If it's only electricity on-board, then I think you are correct (except for specific use cases like the ferries in this story).
However, something like combined diesel-electric and gas (CODLAG) or Integrated electric propulsion (IEP), which is more hybrid, is more promising:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_diesel-electric_and_gas
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_electric_propulsion
You have electric engines, which are awesome for torque, powered by electrical generators (with a modicum of battery storage as a buffer).
The 'problem' with traditional diesel (marine) propulsion is that it is only most efficient at a particular RPM range; that RPM corresponds to particular ship speed. However, ships travel at a variety of speeds at various times and so you have the traditional engines running in a less-efficient manner for much of the time.
With the CODLAG / IEP model, your electrical (turbine) generators can operate a their peak-efficiency RPM, and the engines can run at whatever RPM they need to for the desired ship speed.
Of course there are trade-offs with this approach (you need bigger generators, which take up more space/volume and displacement), so that increases upfront costs. However, over the lifespan of the vessel, it can save fuel / pollution and thus money (including externalitites).
Or, we could keep those solar collectors on shore and use them to produce synthetic fuels.
Your solution is to sacrifice efficiency by adding another conversion step?
Then the fuel can be poured into any existing ship that burns diesel fuel, with no sulfur like in bunker fuel or low grade marine fuel.
It will still have emissions. You will still need a separate fuel tank, and to purge fuel.
Waiting for battery powered ships to become economically viable is, quite literally in this case, waiting at port for a ship that may never come.
They are literally already viable, which is why they're being produced now.
Another alternative for large "green" ships is the use of nuclear power.
Not until the waste problem is solved, and you figure out how to get uranium without strip-mining. Until then, it's the opposite of green.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You really ought to read Entropy, Energy and Order in the Universe. Large and complex systems harvesting diffuse energy flows are just not thermodynamically attractive.
We already do the automotive equivalent with plug-in hybrids, which are charged at night with a large and complex system harvesting diffuse energy flows ("the grid"), and fueled during the day from a large and complex system harvesting diffuse energy flows (the worldwide network of oil pumps, fuel refineries, and fuel transportation systems.) In fact, a seagoing solar swarm would involve a shorter chain than charging from the grid.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Thank you too about setting things straight on "green" bio-mass fuels. If we really did need and use them on any massive scale instead of very limited applications we would end up destroying and cutting down everything on Earth till there's nothing but wasteland and desert and goat and cattle skulls.
Only idiots believe this, as a result of being led by the shills of Big Oil. You can make biofuel from algae, and in fact that's the most efficient and effective feedstock. The technology was developed at Sandia NREL back in the 1980s. Today, we have the technology to make not just diesel fuel, but also Butanol, a 1:1 substitute for gasoline. Butanol is made by bacteria rather than esterification or fractional distillation, and therefore can reasonably be carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative.
Topsoil-based fuels are indeed wrongheaded, and corn ethanol in fuel is a massive boondoggle that the USA will learn to regret. But biofuel does not necessarily mean environmental devastation, and repeating that lie only hastens our downhill slide into oblivion.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How does CA enforce a 24 mile sea border when international law only recognizes 12?
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Do references to modulating polluting behavior based on proximity to port and/or coastline belie non-comprehension of the finite boundaries of the oceans? Is out of sight really out of mind? Are we truly frogs in the boiling pot? Let’s just leave all those pesky ecological cost accruals to our grandchildren and finally admit that we simply cannot govern ourselves. We can free ourselves from responsibility by agreeing to more convenient facts. So let’s also agree that fish is no longer food, garbage can be beautiful and plastic is a dietary supplement. I could go on ...
Prove it.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Do references to modulating polluting behavior based on proximity to port and/or coastline belie non-comprehension of the finite boundaries of the oceans?
It's a comprehension of political boundaries. California cannot dictate behavior beyond it's borders. As those borders are defined now they include 24 miles out to sea from the coastline. If you want less polluting behavior from these ships outside these boundaries then we must offer them one in which they would choose that give them the most benefit. They can buy this bunker fuel real cheap in places like China. If you'd rather they buy cleaner fuel then offer them something cleaner for a lower price.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Your solution is to sacrifice efficiency by adding another conversion step?
What extra conversion step?
Your solution:
Solar -> electric -> chemical battery -> electric -> motive force
My solution:
Nuclear thermal -> chemical fuel -> thermal -> motive force
There's more than one way to define efficiency. Maybe we should try with energy returned on energy invested, solar gets about 10x return while nuclear gets about 50x. With that kind of return at the start we can tolerate some losses in the conversion later.
It will still have emissions.
Yes, there are emissions. These emissions are collected in the fuel synthesis process. It's a closed loop.
You will still need a separate fuel tank, and to purge fuel.
I don't know what you are talking about. I'm quite certain you don't either.
They are literally already viable, which is why they're being produced now.
Battery powered ships are prototypes, with limited utility. Diesel ships are exceedingly common and have been for decades. Same for nuclear. If we are taking this "green" idea to an extreme I could include wind powered shipping. The last commercial ship with sails stopped commercial service in the 1950s, but people try to bring sail ships back once in a while and with the right conditions it might be profitable again.
Not until the waste problem is solved, and you figure out how to get uranium without strip-mining. Until then, it's the opposite of green.
Where do you think the solar panels for your idea of solar collecting ships comes from? People are literally stealing the beaches to get high grade silicon for PV cells. If you want to see an environmental disaster then go right ahead with your solar collector idea.
The nuclear waste problem is solved, except the politicians try as best they can to prove otherwise. What of the solar power waste problem? That hasn't been solved yet. I suggest we hold off on the PV cell production until we figure out what to do with the worn out ones we got.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
You can make biofuel from algae, and in fact that's the most efficient and effective feedstock.
And you can synthesize diesel fuel from seawater and nuclear power. As it is now both processes are in the prototype stage.
I have an idea. Let's have both processes compete in the open market. We can have the Department of Energy dump a bunch of money into research on both and see which one will win out in the end.
Oh, but wait, that's already happening. Except maybe it's the Department of Defense that is dumping more money into both right now. The USAF put a lot of money into jet fuel from algae. The US Navy put a lot of money into jet fuel from nuclear reactors.
The technology was developed at Sandia NREL back in the 1980s.
And the Fischer-Tropsch fuel synthesis process dates back to the 1920s.
But biofuel does not necessarily mean environmental devastation, and repeating that lie only hastens our downhill slide into oblivion.
The same can be said of nuclear power.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
It's called the "contiguous zone".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm more curious on how California is given such wide latitude on dictating behavior in what I would consider federal waters.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
No, 1600 tons is about right.
https://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/17435/Will-Your-Electric-Car-Save-the-World-or-Wreck-It.aspx
Not only are batteries a terrible means to store energy for transportation, the mining of the lithium for the batteries is an environmental disaster, and the batteries are nearly impossible to recycle.
How to prove a no brainer?
https://stateofgreen.com/en/pa...
Those ferries are diesel electric hybrids, the electricity they store, is the equivalent of 600 hybrid cars.
That is far from your 1600 tons in batteries
Hint: it helps to have some common sense, or perhaps I lack the understanding what kind of ton you are talking about and american tonns are super small?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Hint: it helps to have some common sense
You mean like the common sense of comparing a 150,000 ton transoceanic cargo carrier to an 8,800 ton short run ferry? The fuel on the cargo carrier weighs more than that entire ferry.
You are an idiot.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
We talked about a 30 miles trip, right?
The ferry does not weight 8000 tonnes, from what reading comprehension missmatch did you get that again?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I'm pretty sure you are still an idiot.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Do you really believe that your (or anyone else's) belief in political boundaries has anything at all to do with (will prevent spreading) of dangerous pollution. Do you really believe that your opinion is worth a damn when the ecosystem is destroyed? Perhaps I didn't make myself clear...you seem to be trying to prioritize price over planet and I am trying to reverse that in the belief that the resource is more important than quarterly results. Something like a "balance sheet" argument over an "income statement" argument. What is it about this that you do not want to understand? That you seem to fear so much? Please help me understand how longer term thinking on this (and many others) is not the wisest path? It feels and reads like willful ignorance but I acknowledge you may know something I don't...please explain.
Up to you ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.