Jump to content

MartynG

Member
  • Content Count

    2776
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

434 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    River Trent

Previous Fields

  • Boat Name
    White Angel
  • Boat Location
    Farndon

Recent Profile Visitors

2482 profile views
  1. Therefore will an engine fed with HVO run cleaner and possibly get better fuel economy ?
  2. I see Shell are providing HVO to commercial customers but with different mix proportions of HVO to ordinary diesel but also an option including 100% HVO. So dinosaur diesel and HVO can be mixed.
  3. I do about 100 engine hrs a year on average . Last year was exceptionally low hours as it probably was for many - only bought 200 litres of diesel . Typically for us its a mix of mostly slow river speed and some fast cruising and comes to a little under 1000 litres consumed . I am used to paying around £1 , last year £1.11 per litre for red at the 60/40 split. If it was £1.30 per litre for HVO it would be worth trying. Possibly cleaner burning and could get better mpg - who knows. But I am not much in favour of lugging cans of fuel to the boat nor transferring fuel from
  4. £200 But if that 2000 litres takes 2 years to consume its £100 per year . Could be worth paying. But is it 10p per litre extra ? I expect it would be more than that .
  5. Wouldn't it be good to use a fuel that is more environmentally friendly ?
  6. Is there sufficient capacity to supply HVO (instead of red diesel it could be red HVO) to the inland waterways and coastal marine markets without competing with land for food crops and if so what would be the estimated cost of the fuel per litre compared to red diesel?
  7. https://seamarknunn.com/acatalog/fuel-tank-vent-12mm-2439.html?gclid=CjwKCAjw6qqDBhB-EiwACBs6xw3-o-MVEWy8SjMKhsFYAyMqTf-pvw675kA_P3T8Rb-rS2OJF6n2ORoCBewQAvD_BwE
  8. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  9. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  10. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a forum which requires at least 10 posts to view.
  11. Prohibiting boats passing under the bridge seems an extreme precaution so the bridge must be in serious danger of collapse. The bridge , or at least the metal parts of it and anchorages have clearly exceeded their reasonable life expectancy by a considerable margin. Six years is probably realistic to take it down and rebuild to current standards but it appears there is no action .
  12. Must have been taken be at least 15 years ago?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.