←back to thread

32 points gnabgib | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
nwah1 ◴[] No.42197717[source]
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.

replies(3): >>42197773 #>>42197809 #>>42198032 #
ViewTrick1002 ◴[] No.42197809[source]
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...

replies(1): >>42197860 #
nwah1 ◴[] No.42197860[source]
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...

replies(1): >>42198187 #
1. ViewTrick1002 ◴[] No.42198187[source]
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.