alt Hacker NewsBatteries will not have the requisite energy density for anything remotely long-journey--notably Panamax+ container ships which, sadly, are also the biggest carbon & sulfur (yes low-sulfer regs/fuel exists, but not everywhere) polluters.
These large ships will likely be de-carbonized either with ammonia turbines or fuel cells. Mann has already been running a PoC ammonia turbine ship for about 4 years--the last 2 undergoing proper blue-water "sea-trials" journeys.
Replies
I wonder why ammonia became the solution that went ahead to prototype and now appears the top candidate for near future low carbon alternative?
You still have to deal with a lot of specialized infrastructure and engine design.
I would have thought something like processing coal or synthesizing ethanol to a more suitable drop in replacement fuel would be easier. Maybe less scalable or outright requires more energy input.
If we are thinking about ammonia as a fuel, why not go with hydrazine? It’s not as immediately lethal as ammonia and is much easier to contain and manipulate.
turning off sulfur exhaust caused fewer clouds, helping to lower earth's albedo and accelerate global heating. no wins without losses either way
Ammonia is not going to happen. Sorry. There's no way we're going to allow floating chemical weapons maintained by shipping companies that not just cut corners but angle-grind them.
Methane works perfectly well for shipping. It's cheap, abundant, and we already have all the infrastructure for it.
And to fully decarbonize it, we'll just shift to biogas or power-to-gas.
If ammonia fuel happens at all for merchant vessels then for efficiency reasons it will be run through reciprocating engines, not turbines.
https://www.wartsila.com/marine/products/engines-and-generat...
But I have my doubts. There's still no economically viable way to produce "green" ammonia at scale. It's hazardous to handle and less energy dense than liquid hydrocarbons.