16 votes

Maersk is investing £1bn to speed up its switch to carbon neutral operations – eight methanol fuelled vessels could help save more than 1m tonnes of carbon emissions a year

9 comments

  1. [9]
    nukeman
    Link
    Said it before, gonna say it again: N U C L E A R M A R I N E P R O P U L S I O N More related to the article: While Maersk’s plans are admirable, I’m concerned that biofuels suffer from a time...

    Said it before, gonna say it again:

    N U C L E A R
    M A R I N E
    P R O P U L S I O N

    More related to the article: While Maersk’s plans are admirable, I’m concerned that biofuels suffer from a time deficit; that is, carbon is burned (a few minutes) far quicker than it is reabsorbed (decades), and that heavy biofuels use will lead to continued carbon emissions issues, along with possible habitat losses.

    6 votes
    1. gpl
      Link Parent
      This is a bit tangential, but the time deficit isn't really what matters, its the usable energy density. Nuclear doesn't have a great time deficit either, in that it takes ~10s of years to burn...

      This is a bit tangential, but the time deficit isn't really what matters, its the usable energy density. Nuclear doesn't have a great time deficit either, in that it takes ~10s of years to burn but creates waste that will last thousands. The difference is you need a lot less nuke fuel to keep things running so you win out in the end.

      6 votes
    2. teaearlgraycold
      Link Parent
      Even though I think nuclear power is our best chance to survive the next hundred years I have to acknowledge it's one of the top candidates for the great filter. I've tried to imagine what a being...

      Even though I think nuclear power is our best chance to survive the next hundred years I have to acknowledge it's one of the top candidates for the great filter. I've tried to imagine what a being capable of interstellar travel would be most shocked by on Earth. Our willingness to do in-atmosphere nuclear fission is at the top of the list. We're blessed with a magnetosphere that blocks radiation but choose to create artificial radiation on the inside of that bubble.

      4 votes
    3. JCPhoenix
      Link Parent
      Too bad it didn't take off in the civilian space. For those that don't know, there's a nuclear powered icebreaker still in service and there have been a few other attempts at civilian...

      Too bad it didn't take off in the civilian space. For those that don't know, there's a nuclear powered icebreaker still in service and there have been a few other attempts at civilian nuclear-powered ships. The NS Savannah, which was a US government project was one, and another was the German Otto Hahn. Regarding the latter:

      In 1972, after four years of operation, her reactor was refuelled. She had covered 250,000 nautical miles (463,000 km) on 22 kilograms of uranium.[1]

      I don't know how much fuel is needed for an equivalently-sized cargo ship to travel 250k NM, but it sure isn't 22 kg of diesel or fuel oil.

      4 votes
    4. [3]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. [2]
        vektor
        Link Parent
        Ohh, that's neat. I knew there exists a similar approach for synthetic methane: Using electrolytic hydrogen to create methane, which acts as long term storage that can be utilized using natural...

        Ohh, that's neat. I knew there exists a similar approach for synthetic methane: Using electrolytic hydrogen to create methane, which acts as long term storage that can be utilized using natural gas infrastructure (i.e. gas power plants, gas pipelines, etc)

        Didn't know you could use methanol like petrol.

        Nuclear is expensive, because you need more highly qualified people in charge of a nuclear vessel, which might put it out of reach of freight shipping, which typically keeps labour costs down by having a very small, mostly low-paid, crew in charge of a very large vessel.

        Nevermind the concern of having 1000s of reactors at sea. I barely trust navies to take care of their reactors (looking at you, soviet union), and at least the USN takes reactor safety quite seriously. To have reactor safety on a budget like it is in commercial power, except an order of magnitude more reactors in quite difficult situations (at sea, ya know) doesn't make me feel very safe. Nevermind that I don't think the tech will be ready in time. (And yes, I'm going to beat that drum every time someone mentions nuclear power for emission reduction. Building reactors takes time, developing them even more so. We don't have time. We have technologies that can solve a lot of the problems we have right now, we have to scale them up now. What if in 10 years we discover that marine nuclear reactors aren't viable in freight shipping? We can't afford to waste time like that.)

        3 votes
        1. [2]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. vektor
            Link Parent
            Oh yeah, I completely overlooked that part. There's some interesting stories about that broad topic that don't exactly make me hopeful.

            Oh yeah, I completely overlooked that part. There's some interesting stories about that broad topic that don't exactly make me hopeful.

            2 votes
    5. [3]
      vektor
      Link Parent
      Why are you so concerned about the carbon emissions of biofuels? Aren't they by definition carbon neutral because the carbon they emit must have been taken from the atmosphere beforehand? All they...

      Why are you so concerned about the carbon emissions of biofuels? Aren't they by definition carbon neutral because the carbon they emit must have been taken from the atmosphere beforehand? All they do is undo the sequestration progress that was made when we created them. Considering for biofuels the alternatives in terms of long-term storage aren't thaaaat great, I don't see anything wrong with that.

      1 vote
      1. [2]
        Tardigrade
        Link Parent
        The fertiliser used to grow them and all of the processing costs results in a non carbon neutral fuel. Better than fossil fuels sure but there's a long way to go to get them carbon neutral.

        The fertiliser used to grow them and all of the processing costs results in a non carbon neutral fuel. Better than fossil fuels sure but there's a long way to go to get them carbon neutral.

        3 votes
        1. vektor
          Link Parent
          Fair, but not unsolvable either. We can also sort those problems out independently. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. The processing costs are also something that could conceivably do supply...

          Fair, but not unsolvable either. We can also sort those problems out independently. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. The processing costs are also something that could conceivably do supply following. (Is there a better term for the technique of shutting down consumers when green power is low?)

          3 votes