Bargebuilder

But why do some boaters behave like this, is it selfishness or ignorance or what?

I used 15% because that is a good average for the efficiency of most of the flexible panels currently installed. You can, of course, spend 5x as much to gain another 5% in efficiency, but that will give you just an extra 5 watts per m² on a gloomy mid-winter's day. Very much a diminishing return for ones investment and for those for whom money is not a barrier, but then, for the benefit of 'silent' running, some will seemingly spend whatever it takes. I am all for people spending their money on what brings them pleasure, providing they don't insist that everyone should travel everywhere at no more than 3mph and graciously let people by who wish to cruise at 4mph when it is safe and acceptable to do so.

Indeed they are, but the less ugly stick-on versions are very much lagging behind in the efficiency stakes. The rigid panel versions may, before too long, reach the golden 50% efficiency figure, but they don't look particularly tidy on a boat's roof, and the real life efficiency would be much lower unless they were able to track the Sun's position in the sky, which is practically impossible on a narrowboat. Even in the summer, the Sun is only high in the sky and anywhere near the ideal angle for a horizontal panel during the middle segment of the day. In the Winter, any solar radiation that does penetrate the cloud comes in at such a low angle that much of its potential is lost entirely. Improvements in efficiency there may be, but if very little solar radiation is hitting a panel then very little extra electricity will be generated. Just for the sake of interest, below is a direct lift from exeoenergy.co.uk. The figures are for solar radiation hitting the ground, but a stick-on panel may not exceed 15% in efficiency, so mid-day on a sunny midsummers day you might get 150w/m², but on a cloudy midwinter day you will only get a 15w output and only then for a very few hours. sunny, clear sky summer: 600 - 1000 W/m² winter: 300 - 500 W/m² sunny, skattered clouds or partly cloudy summer: 300 - 600 W/m² winter: 150 - 300 W/m² cloudy, fog summer: 100 - 300 W/m² winter: 50 - 150 W/m²

My wife and I lived aboard an off-grid barge for a number of years and I can say from personal experience that advertised solar pv outputs only deliver under very particular circumstances. Of course you need strong sunshine, but also the panel being perpendicular to the Sun's rays is important. For a boat with horizontal panels, particularly in the winter when the Sun is low in the sky and light intensity is lower, you would be lucky to get 1Kw out of a 10Kw array of PV panels. The other obvious problem is that winter daylight hours are very short, as little as 8 hours, and very often the Sun is nowhere to be seen in any of them. Anyone who buys a wind turbine/generator in the hope that in winter, wind power, 24hrs a day, is the answer, will also be disappointed. Wind turbine manufacturers are ridiculously optimistic about outputs, the figures quoted requiring a lamina air flow, so very high above the ground and 'miles' from trees, buildings etc, batteries that are almost flat and cables with a cross sectional area much greater than suggested in the instructions. We had 3x 300w wind turbines: 12v so an advertised peak of about 25 amps output each. We were 1/4 mile from the coast, trees or buildings and the turbines were atop 6m scaffold poles, so it was usually windy and often very, but we could only rely on 3 or 4 amps from each and in a real blow they peaked at 9 amps each, so about 1/3 of the advertised peak, but even so, useful for us when the solar panels produced next to nothing on dull November days.

Don't worry, 3000 tonnes per day does seem impossibly large at first glance.

If you read the article properly, it says 340g per day, not 3,000g.

Perhaps you should check your maths before insulting others; feel silly now? The figures were lifted from 'The Guardian ' online.

With 9,000,000 dogs in the UK producing an estimated 3,000 tonnes of waste per day that is considerably more dangerous than partially dried out humanure, it certainly puts the problem of a few hundred separating loos on boats into some perspective.

Binning partly dried out human waste should of course be discouraged, but at least it is reported to be less harmful to people and the environment than dog poo, the dumping of which in bins is encouraged.

Understandable... Councils seem either to send the contents of dog poo bins/street waste bins and domestic non-recyclable bins, any of which may contain dog poo or human waste/nappies etc to either landfill or for incineration/energy reclamation, but I didn't know the following: "Is it OK to flush dog poo down the toilet UK? Don’t flush animal mess down the loo You should not flush animal poo down the toilet. The wastewater treatment process is only designed to treat human waste and animal poo has much higher levels of bacteria, as well as a higher nitrate content."

Amen to that.

I experienced the same effect when I had my 'blacking' removed by wet blasting back to bare steel, a coat of surface tolerant primer, followed by a glass flake epoxy coating, both coatings being supplied by Chemco in Scotland. From memory, I think it was RA500 or something like that. The finish was silky smooth, like running your finger over the enamel of a new bath, making it very slippery through the water and resistant to the accumulation of surface 'muck'. The difference in speed was very noticeable, or at the same speed the fuel savings were very obvious. Good for fuel economy, good for reduced emissions, so good for me and the planet. The coating is used on oil rigs, cooling water intakes in power stations etc and is said to last for up to 35 years. The glass flakes within the coating align themselves with the steel's surface like tiny overlapping platelets, providing an incredibly tough, hard layer that is highly resistant to scrapes and erosion. The best bit is, that it needn't be removed before overcoating or patching up localised damage: you just clean up the surface. Apply by roller or airless spray if you have one. As standard it comes in grey, but they will mix it to any RAL colour: I had black of course. After 11 years in sea water, the glass flake was still in pretty much the same condition with many years of life still ahead of it. It is more expensive than 'blacking' but just think of the savings over 20 years or more.

Peter, I think you may be missing a trick: a gallon of wee won't go that far when just watered onto your veg plot, but if poured into a waterway it will make duckweed grow for miles. That volume of duckweed when scooped out and stacked with some dry fibrous material would make tonnes of excellent compost😁

Even if someone were to ignore the rules and tip a gallon of urine the other side of the tow path and into the hedgerow, probably 10 feet from a canal with lined or puddled sides and bottom, I am confident that pretty much none of it would reach the water. "Miles of canal covered in duckweed" Really! I took a barge down the French canals many years ago when all boat's dumped everything overboard. I even witnessed villagers coming to the waterside, unzipping and relieving themselves directly into the water. What I didn't experience was an excess of duckweed. The only thing that blocked our raw water intake was polythene bags. And no, I'm not suggesting that we do as the French did years ago.

Enjoy😁

Quite right: people scattering relatives ashes at the top of mount Snowdon has had quite a negative impact locally, but nettles, brambles and the like will simply put on a flush of growth. There'll be no harm done, no smell just an angry bloke who wants you off his land.

Only slightly?