Bargebuilder

Especially since most narrow boat thruster tubes aren't formed with the correct edge radius where they penetrate the hull. Most tubes also don't terminate perpendicular to the length of the boat, instead terminate to follow the line of the hull. Some even have grills over the ends of the tubes. Between these three, a large proportion of the advertised thrust is lost. The picture is of a thruster tube correctly installed for maximum thrust on a grp boat, but I've seen similar work done on a steel replica Dutch barge.

Especially a variable speed one.

Many, in fact probably most boatyards don't even offer the very best steel coatings, those that are used for power station cooling water inlets, tanker ballast tanks, oil rigs and of course the Forth Bridge, maybe because such coatings are designed to offer 25 years of protection in aggressive salt water environments; not good for business perhaps.

A marina in Leicestershire has, on the instruction of their insurance company, banned all lithium chemistry batteries from boats berthed with them.

This Chemco coating provides a degree of protection against MIC according to the manufacturer. It was applied to all underwater areas of my boat 14 years ago and shows no signs of failure anywhere. It is said to last for 25 years and it looks like this is a very reasonable claim based on performance to date. It is highly surface tolerant and water tolerant during application and can be infinitely overcoated with minimal preparation when those inevitable scratches and scrapes occur. Might be worth a look for anyone concerned about MIC. Solvent-free Wet tolerant – Can be applied on soaking wet surfaces Excellent chemical resistance and abrasion properties Glassflake-reinforced for added protection Can be applied in any environmental condition No operational shutdown; nearby work can continue without disruption 100% solid / Zero VOC NSF certified for potable water applications User-friendly with high flexibility and ease of application No recoating limitations No humidity or dew point restrictions Health & Safety risk and Fire Hazard significantly reduced Quick back-in-service times APPLICATION AREAS RA 500M is fully compatible with all methods of surface preparation (abrasive blasting; water jetting; mechanical) and has been extensively used for almost all vessel areas: All Tank internals Pipework (internal/external) Decks (internal/external) Accommodation Blocks Underwater Areas

I have two of them on different boats for many years and they have proved to be 100% reliable. I have also recommended their use to sailing friends who have also fitted them, been delighted and saved a fortune. One of my friends who has one on his yacht is currently sailing around Iceland, and he isn't concerned about reliability! But if you want to pay original manufacturers prices then that's fine too.

Anyone who's bought a manufacturers own, or specific marine radio controlled thruster switch has wasted hundreds of pounds. I paid a bit over £10 for mine and it works a treat. I can even operate the thruster from the bank to draw the bow closer. On my lumpy water boat, I've used one of these to control both my bow thruster and my anchor windlass remotely. Easy to fit and has proved reliable for at least 6 years.

My understanding of FUD is using misinformation to scaremonger, whereas I'm simply quoting professional websites who presumably base their text on research and real life examples.

https://www.cpduk.co.uk/news/why-do-lithium-ion-batteries-catch-fire

I'm not well informed enough to contradict this statement, but this is text taken from the CPD certification website: "LFP batteries are often portrayed as a safer battery technology. You can find false information, stating that LFP batteries do not burn and some sources even state LFP batteries cannot go into thermal runaway. LFP batteries tend to produce less gas during thermal runaway, which makes them safer in some way, but LFP batteries can go into thermal runaway, they can burn, and there are reported cases of Li-ion battery fires with LFP batteries." Perhaps CPD are wrong, but it could be such information that the insurance companies are using.

Which was why I was careful to write lithium and not specifically lfp. However, I was interested enough to 'google' the subject and several websites make comments along these lines: " Can LiFePO4 Batteries Get Wet? The answer is nuanced. LiFePO4 batteries can endure a certain degree of humidity and splashes, but submersion or prolonged exposure to water can be detrimental. Here’s why: Corrosion: Water can lead to corrosion of the metallic parts inside the battery. Corrosion affects the battery’s ability to conduct electricity, diminishing performance and potentially causing the battery to fail. Short Circuits: When water infiltrates the battery, it can create a path for electricity to flow uncontrollably, leading to short circuits. This not only damages the battery but also poses a safety risk. Chemical Reactions: The electrolyte in LiFePO4 batteries reacts adversely with water, potentially generating heat and gas, which can be hazardous."

On that occasion, there was no damage to a third party, but had there been a fuel spill, I very much doubt that they would have paid the fines. If a lithium battery were to have got wet, shorted and caused a fire that spread to surrounding boats, I doubt that they would cover those 3rd party claims either.

Even if the boat owner has no idea that they have been negligent and is convinced that they have taken all reasonable precautions. I know a couple that own a wide beam that perforated at the waterline. By the time it was noticed the boat was sinking. Once craned out and examined by the insurer, they refused to pay out stating that there were insufficient anodes.

The concerns may be, rightly or wrongly, that the above dangers can be almost eliminated by certain actions by the boats owner/crew, whereas there are reports of modern electric vehicles spontaneously combusting whilst sitting on the driveway, not even on charge, and in no way avoidable by the owner.

I can only speak from personal experience, having crossed both The Wash and navigated the tidal Severn from Sharpness to Portishead and then up to Bristol in my NB. On neither trip did I take a pilot or follow another boat and neither trip was particularly demanding in terms of navigation. Of the two, I found the Severn to be the most straightforward because the navigation marks are superb, with leading marks that are unmistakable. It's important that in both cases you do all the 'homework' and it's essential that the weather is calm and forecast to stay that way all day in the case of The Wash, and for a few hours in the case of the Severn. The boat must be prepared for lumpy conditions, vents taped up, fuel tank checked for sludge, a new fuel filter and several spares etc. I used and would highly recommend the use of the Navionics App, download to a phone and tablet so you have a backup. It shows you exactly where you are and where the shallow bits are and makes either voyage easily doable without a pilot. I have done some coastal sailing, so I wasn't put off by those who talk of sea monsters and other terrors, and we were rewarded with trips that were both memorable and great fun. In fact, we may do the Severn again next year.

With the case recently highlighted on a TV documentary, where an EV car that had not been driven for many hours and was not on charge burst into flames on the owners driveway, who's insurance company would pay out? Could similar happen on a boat?

If the internet is to be believed, this is the situation where a house fire affects a neighbour's property and the neighbour wishes to claim against them. "Proof of Negligence or Liability: The first requirement is to prove the neighbour was negligent or legally liable for the fire. Under UK law, negligence means showing the neighbour failed to take reasonable care to prevent the incident and that failure caused the fire. Examples include failing to maintain electrical wiring or allowing hazardous materials to be improperly stored. Causation: There must be a clear causal link between the neighbour’s actions (or inactions) and the fire. This means proving that the fire directly resulted from the neighbour’s negligence and that the resulting damage to your property was a foreseeable consequence." Perhaps it's similar with boats.

But are they making the distinction?

I'm guessing that many, possibly most boats that have lithium batteries also have solar panels which charge them in their absence. It does sound as if insurance companies, both those covering private boats and those covering commercial businesses, are getting increasingly twitchy about lithium batteries.

If it's not unique, might it be a trend? Lithium batteries can represent quite an investment, so to be told they must be removed would be frustrating to say the least.

E-bikes and for that matter mobile phones, battery tools etc weren't mentioned specifically. The implication was just house/cranking batteries and of course battery powered/engined boats. It's possible that if a fire were to be caused by any lithium battery, even a phone, their insurance company may use the exclusion to avoid paying out.

Good point, but are there many cases of petrol in fuel tanks spontaneously combusting? Also, petrol can be extinguished with the correct extinguisher.

I know of a marina in Leicestershire that has banned completely boats with lithium chemistry batteries: I've seen the circular they sent to berth holders. They blame their insurance company, stating that accidents involving lithium batteries aren't covered. Is this marina unique in this respect, or are there others? Might other marinas follow?

Our 30' narrow beam GRP cruiser has a 25hp Vetus diesel which consumes 1/2 litre per hour at 1400 rpm at which we are traveling at our usual 4mph. If there were no locks or moored boats to slow down for, we would be doing approximately 8 miles per litre or 36 miles per gallon. We draw very little water and anyway our hull has a shallow 'V' profile so she doesn't notice shallow canals unless they are incredibly shallow, hence, water depth tends to make no difference to our fuel consumption or speed. Yoghurt pots are brilliant!

...and presumably, since a freezer has considerably more insulation, it will have less useable volume inside. Perhaps a mains fridge could have more external insulation added if there is space for such, making sure that any condenser is not covered.