SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Many Norwegian fjords present similar difficulties to bridge builders, so instead the country's coastal population relies on ferries that link their often remote communities.
Each year, some 20 million cars, vans and trucks cross the country's many fjords on roughly 130 ferry routes.
Most of Norway's ferries run on diesel, spewing out noxious fumes and CO2.
But this is about to change.
Following two years of trials of the world's first electric car ferry, named Ampere, ferry operators are busy making the transition from diesel to comply with new government requirements for all new ferry licensees to deliver zero- or low-emission alternatives.
"We continue the work with low-emission ferries because we believe it will benefit the climate, Norwegian industry and Norwegian jobs," Prime Minister Erna Solberg said in a speech in April 2016, in which she vowed to help fund required quayside infrastructure.
Ferry company Fjord1, which operates the MF Norangsfjord, has ordered three fully electric ferries that are scheduled to enter active service on some of its routes in January 2018.
Norway has also been a strong adopter of electric cars.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @08:53AM (1 child)
...Won an award, you know. Lovely crinkly edges.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday April 05 2017, @09:35AM
"Electric Fjord Norway" would be a great name for a rock band. (apologies to Dave Barry.)
(Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Wednesday April 05 2017, @10:29AM (3 children)
The ferry seems to need a capacity of 1000 kWh batteries [fjord1.no] which will last several hours without recharging and the ferry will use 50% less energy than the alternative (diesel?).
World’s First Electric Car Ferry Recharges in 10 Minutes [wired.com] replaces a 2000-hp diesel engine (1.5 MW) and uses up 1000 m³ of fuel each year. The 800 kW battery that weighs 11 tons. The ship only weighs half as much as a conventional catamaran ferry, thanks to twin hulls made of aluminum. The ferry will need only 400 kW to cruise at 10 knots (5.1 m/s).
I saw some number on the cost being in the 20-30 million NOK range per ferry.
2 800 000 USD/ferry / ((1000 000 liter diesel * 1.5 US$/liter) - 400 kW * 0.16 US$/kWh * 10 h/day * 365.25 days/year) = Ferry cost payback in 2.2 years on fuel alone.
So the fine print is likely how often one needs to replace the battery and the cost of that. Let's not forget that it charges the ferry from a land based battery bank. So one replacement per every 5 years would equal to make it a really good deal. Plain economics will then likely make this a future trend rapidly. One cost reduction action would be to retire ferry batteries to the shore charge bank.
Or bad calculation?
In other news.. Norway Plans to Build World’s First Ship Tunnel [worldmaritimenews.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:44PM
Without trying to check your calculation, it makes conceptual sense to me. Purely in economic terms, electric (and hybrid) car payback is a function of mileage or use. Pay additional up front and slowly claw back the first cost on fuel savings. This ferry application is in use most of the day, much higher duty cycle than any typical car use, so it makes sense that the payback would be a few years, instead of 10+ years for a typical car. A bus or taxi duty cycle might be similar to the ferry application.
To add to a nearby post -- Norway uses hydroelectric for nearly all of their electricity and it appears they export surplus capacity. The ferry will be running on clean power -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Norway#Electricity_generation [wikipedia.org] This may explain why they are also early adopters of electric cars?
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Wednesday April 05 2017, @03:40PM
Ships are a large market for hybrid/full electric. A lot of them have predictable drive cycles, and ships are capable of handling additional weight relatively easily.
I interviewed for a job at XALT Energy a few years back and they were really excited about the European maritime market, particularly tugs and ferries. I couldn't find any mention of the battery vendor in the article, but wouldn't be surprised if it is XALT.
https://www.xaltenergy.com/index.php/industries/marine-maritime/sub-imo.html [xaltenergy.com]
https://www.xaltenergy.com/index.php/about/news/136-xalt-energy-to-supply-cells-for-world%E2%80%99s-largest-electric-ferries.html [xaltenergy.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:32PM
The electric ferry makes a lot of sense, because you know exactly how far you go, and you can easily plug in to top off, since you always dock at the same place (either end or both ends).
Maybe the first ship tunnel, but definitely not the first boat tunnel, by more than a hundred years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rove_Tunnel [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:17PM (6 children)
From TFA:
"And then my entire commute will be emissions free," Mr Bonesmo grins.
No, your electric car and the electric ferry it'll ride on will shift the emissions someplace else, where the power stations are. Unless said power stations are strictly solar, wind, waves, geothermal or nuclear, your electric means or transportation will produce emissions alright.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:55PM
Please refer to Norway's electricity figures, which indicate hydro, geothermal and wind production: https://www.ssb.no/en/energi-og-industri/statistikker/elektrisitet/aar. [www.ssb.no]
(Score: 4, Informative) by rondon on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:55PM (4 children)
Norway produces a ton of hydro power. So Mr Bonesmo is most likely correct. Also, I noticed hydro wasn't in your list, care to elaborate?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:57PM (3 children)
According to a 2005 article: especially in tropical countries, hydroelectric schemes can emit methane and carbon dioxide--in some instances, even more than an equivalent fossil fuel installation.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed/ [newscientist.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:07PM (1 child)
That is BS because it does not release FOSSIL carbon. It is carbon neutral on human timescales, unlike burning fossil fuels.
This is because large amounts of carbon tied up in trees and other plants are released when the reservoir is initially flooded and the plants rot. Then after this first pulse of decay, plant matter settling on the reservoir’s bottom decomposes without oxygen, resulting in a build-up of dissolved methane. This is released into the atmosphere when water passes through the dam’s turbines.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by butthurt on Wednesday April 05 2017, @05:00PM
No, "carbon neutral" means there's no net addition of carbon to the atmosphere, either because there's none added in the first place, or because carbon is removed. However, with a hydroelectric scheme, there's no process taking carbon out of the atmosphere--not until the reservoirs are abandoned and vegetation regrows. That could take centuries. The distinction between fossil carbon and biomass is unimportant here: the methane and carbon dioxide behave just the same.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:49PM
Why doesn't the article provide any support for the numbers that are thrown around willy-nilly? I agree with the initial premise - some foliage does rot when flooded, etc. However, the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri was created in 1929, and there are still many, many trees in that lake that haven't decomposed. I find it extremely hard to believe that Fearnside's conclusions are correct, especially when all of his reasoning is locked behind a paywall.
This strikes me as FUD, plain and simple.