Bargebuilder

But energy recovery facilities do already exist, street waste and dog waste bins are already in place, trucks and operatives are already out there collecting the mixed waste and district councils are encouraging people to use them. Councils are equally keen that dog waste should be bagged and placed in household waste bins alongside soiled nappies etc. You don't paint a very nice picture of where you live and although in recent years I've lived just south of London, to the east of London and down in the West Country, I've never witnessed the disgusting conditions you describe. Back in the 70s and earlier, the grass verges were littered with dog poo and it wasn't unusual to pick it up on your shoe and carry that horrible smell with you until you could clean them properly, but dog fouling has been barely a problem at all wherever I've lived, chiefly through education of dog owners and the provision of dog waste bins. I don't see using a facility provided for the purpose as dodging ones personal responsibility, on the contrary, many would thank users of dog bins for actually being responsible.

This is an extract from the Viridor website, the people who run the plants: "Energy recovery facilities use a technology that sees waste burned at high temperatures under carefully controlled conditions. The process is extremely sufficient, robust and safe. Emissions are treated to meet required standards under the stringent European Industrial Emissions Directive, which is strictly enforced and monitored by the Environment Agency. The electricity that ERFs produce is fed into the National Grid and the heat can be utilised locally, presenting opportunities for additional commercial development and improving resource efficiency." Perhaps this isn't such a bad way to process non-recyclable waste after all.

The discussion was, that if councils are happy for raw excrement to be bagged and placed into street litter bins, the contents of which are then used to generate energy, might that be a solution for boaters with separating toilets. Litter bins are not uncommon alongside or near to canals, and there is nothing sloppy about the product from a separating loo. The contents of separating toilets build up very slowly, because it is constantly drying out and breaking down, so one could cruise for weeks looking for a suitable bin without accumulating too much humanure.

Covered or otherwise, if they are designed for sloppy, fresh dog poo in the thinnest of bags, then partially dessicated humanure in a bin liner or even double bagged should pose less of an threat.

If councils are replacing poo bins with multi-use poo friendly street bins that are usually considerably larger, then then this might work to the advantage of boaters.

They describe it as an 'energy recovery facility' not an energy consuming facility.

This is lifted from Fareham borough council's web site. "The Council, in line with many other local authorities is gradually replacing 'dog bins' with regular litter bins. This is because street litter and dog waste can now be placed in any litter bin other than those located inside a play area. Separate bins for dog waste were provided originally because it was felt that this material should be incinerated rather than sent to a landfill site. Nowadays all street waste is sent to the Energy Recovery Facility where it's incinerated, so now there is no need to provide two different types of litter bin." So if someone were to put small deposits of semi dessicated human waste, bagged of course, into council litter bins alongside the dog poo, then all would be used to generate energy, which maybe a good thing?

And it benefits millions of dog owners, and everyone else who doesn't want to tread in dogsh!t... If your point that dog waste bins are worthwhile and economic because their cost is divided between millions of users, plus they protect the environment, then perhaps councils should allow boaters to use them, increasing the number of users still further and protecting the hedgerow from illegal dumping? Even more people benefit and even more of the environment is protected! Only users of composting toilets will know how much more pleasant partially dessicated human waste is than dog poo. I have seen dog poo bins being emptied and the operative doesn't touch the contents of the bin and of course at the processing plant the plastic bags are ripped off mechanically. Canal-side bins could be larger, but even several weeks of human 'deposits', having dried out and shrunk as they do, amounts to a tiny volume that needs binning. It could be that those unlucky enough to not have composting facilities of their own are already do this.

Not that it should be encouraged, but it is certainly true that allowing urine to enter the canal 1/2 litre at a time as it's passed would certainly be better for the environment than filling a container with many litres and tipping it all in one place. Human urine is usually almost sterile (some strange folk drink it!) and it is a very weak fertiliser. A dog weeing on a lawn may cause a 'burn' but human urine will simply green it up and initiate some extra growth. Nobody would condone putting urine in the canal, but in practice, the dilution rate of an already dilute fertiliser would make little difference to weed growth. Perhaps someone wishing to prove the point one way or the other will calculate how many litres of water there are in the entire network and how much urine would be produced if all boaters used separating toilets and let it enter the canal. Some areas of high concentration live-aboards could see increased weed growth and perhaps already do.

There seems to be no advantage to either pump-out or Elsan over separating toilets, in fact it would appear only disadvantages. The only reason why separating toilets are criticised is because of the issues with disposing of the product. A reasonable conclusion is they are by far the easiest to live with and by a long way the cheapest option for boaters if they have a legal method of disposal; a suitable compost facility at home for instance. Believe me, once you have continuously cruised for 3 months with a separating loo and not needed to empty it in that time, have not had to lug cassettes to Elsan points every few days or had to search and pay for pump-out facilities, you would never entertain changing back. But do sort out disposal before you take the leap.

Semi-dry toilet waste would be bagged if it was destined for a collection bin in the same way that dog poo is. These bags are ripped off at the processing plant by a machine, so operatives shouldn't come into direct contact with the material. There is, without doubt, the unresolved issue of dealing with the partially dried-out waste from separating toilets, but they do have major advantages over pump-outs and cassettes, and maybe are overall better, both for the user and for the environment, with the only unsolved issue being the arrangement to collect and process the waste? I wonder where councils send the waste from dog bins? The C&RT have already invested in pump-out facilities and spend fortunes struggling to maintain the same, plus, they are in effect also paying for the drinking water we use to flush down the toilet, assuming we fill up from canal-side water taps. If the waste were to be commercially composted for use as a soil conditioner and fertilizer, then the use of manufactured artificial fertilizer could be reduced. Such fertilizers being neither environmentally friendly to manufacture or to spread onto our fields with the resulting run-off into water courses. The recent rocketing of fertilizer prices should make composted humanure a more valuable product. If the waste was sent to a digester, the gas produced could generate electricity and waste heat could heat glasshouses for the production of crops. Not just the humanure from boats of course, but in 2010, composting toilets were given official approval by 'Building Control' for use in domestic dwellings as an alternative to flushing toilets. I understand of course that nobody wants to pay, and I see no reason at all why they should, but maybe composting loos are the future??? Separating loos: 1. cost a tiny fraction to Instal; perhaps 1/10 or less of the cost of a macerator, tank and all the associated cabling and plumbing. And: Lower input of raw material and energy in the manufacture of a composter compared to the ceramics, pumps, plumbing and storage tanks of pump-outs. 2. Cannot block; ever. 3. Cannot smell within the boat and usually hardly noticeably outside. 4. Require you to store two or three small buckets (10Kg each) of maturing compost, instead of hundreds of litres of the most foul smelling slurry. 5. Avoid the often unpleasant nature of macerator toilet repairs and maintenance tasks. 6. Avoid the regular carting of heavy toilet cassettes and those splashes in the eye! 7. Vastly reduce the amount of water you need on board and so the frequency of fill-ups compared to a boat with a flushing macerator loo. 8. Avoid the need to contaminate highly processed and valuable, pure drinking water and the subsequent processing of liquid sewage, some of the processes being consumers of energy and chemicals. 9. Avoid the need to use 'blue' chemicals that may be toxic to the environment and to the bacteria that live in sewage treatment works. 10. Have almost zero maintenance costs: no macerator pump or control box failures, no flexible hose replacement, no aggressive 'black' water eating away at steel or even stainless steel tanks from the inside. 11. For static live-aboards, means no more trips to the pump-out in mid-winter when the canal might be frozen. 12. The compost produced is an excellent soil conditioner and useful fertiliser, reducing the need for energy hungry, industrially produced inorganic chemical fertilizers.

Councils make no fuss about providing numerous and widespread dog waste bins where raw excrement is deposited, so it can't be that difficult or expensive.

Most definitely, you would only choose a 4 blade if 3 didn't offer the 'grip' on the water that was needed.

To increase the disc area ratio: a common trick where a bigger diameter is not possible because of clearances or maybe desirable if picking up rubbish from the bottom is a concern.

Ah, that's why I wasn't aware of pro oil propaganda, I don't take a newspaper and I've never been on Facebook. They won't be aiming their investment at me anyway, as I won't be swapping my diesel car or boat for electric any time soon.

I'm not questioning you, but you've mentioned the billions that oil companies are spending on pro oil propaganda many times, but what are they spending it on? Perhaps my life is a sheltered one, but I can't think of an occasion when I've been aware of being influenced to keep using or to use more oil.

I'm guessing that most of us are not thinking as far forward as 2050; if only! As for the availability of diesel, nobody knows, but if nobody is using oil for vehicles or heating then it could be that the remaining reserves will last pretty well. Supply and demand is a huge driver of fuel costs and who knows what will happen when none of us are using much of it any more.

That's what you would expect, but it doesn't mean that going big is better for the engine or its fuel consumption or even for the noise level in the cockpit if proper noise attenuating methods and materials are used.

Silence is indeed golden, in more ways than one. It must be lovely to hear nothing but the gurgling of the prop in the water from an electric powered boat, but in comparison to installing a 25Hp diesel, a diesel electric setup with super silent generator, lithium batteries, running gear, control gear, solar panels plus their charge controllers, doesn't come cheap unless you are confident to go second hand. In fact, a new super silent generator alone would be of similar cost to a 25Hp inboard diesel. The diesel inboard wouldn't be as silent as the electric, but properly silenced, it could be made quieter than most narrowboats today with 43Hp diesels run at very low revs to their detriment. I'm not sure how relevant fuel economy is between a small diesel inboard and a diesel electric given the huge installation cost disparity. If a 25Hp inboard diesel burns 3 litres of diesel in a 6 hour cruising day, just how much money can you save by going diesel electric and would the payback time have been reached before the diesel electric equipment needs replacing? We know the inboard diesel should be good for 30, 40 or even 50 years, but an electric motor in the bowels of a boat?

You are spot on of course, and yes, why wouldn't engine manufacturers push the bigger engines in their range. When buying a new boat, I understand why people think bigger must be better, but is it? A modern 25Hp diesel, I know from personal experience only consumes an average of 1/2 litre per hour when run at 1600rpm with the prop only needing 4 or 5 Hp in order to achieve canal cruising speeds; a fuel consumption figure that includes time at tickover past moored boats and in locks. Surely, before we consider investing huge sums of money into going fully electric, we should consider a smaller diesel, running it more efficiently and burning less fuel and using sound attenuation techniques to achieve the silent cruising that we all crave.

I come from a lumpy water background where it seems to be much more common to look after ones diesel engine by routinely running at around 2/3 throttle, both because that's where the engine is more efficient and also because it is much better for it. Endless hours running a big engine outputting just a few horses to achieve 3mph or just to charge batteries will long term risk cylinder glazing and poor compression. I don't understand why many narrowboaters would rather abuse an engine of twice the necessary Hp by running it at a tiny fraction of its capability just for a 'quiet life', when lumpy water boaters often install a correctly sized engine, run it at an output that's good for it and use sound attenuating multi density, 'lead' lined foams for blissfully silent cruising. I know it's possible to 'silence' a narrowboat engine because I often remark on very quiet boats and am often told about sound insulation and hospital silencers etc. If even for emergency stopping and pushing against a current only a 25Hp diesel is needed, why not save a bundle on the installation, buy a smaller lump, fit modern sound insulation, run it at an output that's good for it, match a nice bid grippy propeller via an appropriate gearbox and save money on fuel as well.