Ferry fire in Norway

It seems to me that other than scale, the two have VERY similar profiles, and the same technology might well work for both (with the aforementioned difference in scale).
Both need variable power, including relatively short (minutes to hours) periods of full output; both would like to be able to recharge quickly, and both would like to have a safe, self-managing profile.

Why would they need different technology?

The difference is obviously size, but also the environment the batteries are intended to work in. I don’t know enough about the details of the actual technology of individual batteries to say for sure if there is any major difference between automotive and maritime use, but from what I read and hear the development is happening fast and furious to improve both efficiency and safety on all sides.

Large capacity battery banks are now used both on ferries and other short haul vessels as main propulsion. The have to be recharged quickly at the short stops (5 -10 min.) at each stop on the route to make it operationally feasible and emission free. (Contact free charging is the latest as far as I know)

On cruise ships and some larger ferries they use batteries for propulsion for short periods when in sensitive areas, but charging is from their DG, so not exactly “emission free”, only reduced.

More and more uses for battery power in the maritime world is found and developed, but nobody is talking about battery powered ships crossing oceans. (Yet?)

1 Like

Given the losses inherent in all energy conversion techniques, the emissions are actually increased. They are not reduced, they are relocated.

There are possibly places and systems where that’s true but it’s not absolutely true. The energy systems like the Waste Heat arrangements described in another thread shows that when used in a system that can be improved it cuts down on emission. It’s just about taking advantage of opportunities to squeeze more energy and efficiency out of whatever system is involved. DC Grid on OSVs is another example, like those couple of boats in Norway show. Once you’re not a slave to maintaining 1500 or 1800 rpms just cause of AC you can adjust generator turns based solely on load.

1 Like

I can only refer to numerous articles about the subject and I would be very surprise if all these people are just spouting BS. Test and and by now some years of actual use of battery technology appears to prove the fuel saving (and thus emission reduction)
I don’t see how serious owners/operators of many different types vessels would invest in such technology unless it gave some advantages.

PS> Even the Bayou boys are getting in on the act:

This is from Corvus Energy’s website:

All depends on how much time or shore power is available for recharging and where that power comes from.

Batteries are great for short term high output operations but the replacement energy is always greater than that consumed. If we are looking at a diesel hybrid, recharging means you have to produce more diesel power than that consumed by the entire operation.

BSFC is better at high loads so doing long slow low rate charging means you run the engine longer and at low load unless you have multiple small generators available and manage their loading to obtain best BSFC. If the operation requires frequent high loads then the generator(s) must have enough capacity to supply the load plus the losses.

Since emissions are measured by g/kWhr, if it takes 1000kW to turn the wheel it will take 1000+ to recharge the battery. and that + will emit more g/kWhr of crud. Unless shore power is involved, all the power consumed plus the losses comes from the fuel tanks.Some fuel might be saved if a whole bunch of super efficient super clean little engines with a NASA grade power management system was part of the system.

While the concept is good it still involves a lot of marketing hype and vaporware.