agg221
-
Posts
1,470 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by agg221
-
-
17 minutes ago, spud said:
alec says "(Neptune?)", which means it might or might not be neptune - which it aint. picken got naughty lass
Thank you - I got the correct first letter but not having looked at the letter which goes with the painting in 20yrs I hadn't got the rest of it right. The letter is in the loft and I don't want to go and see what else may be lurking up there until I have to! It also ties in as HNBC lists Nautilus as a burnt out wreck c,1964.
Alec
-
On 04/02/2024 at 18:43, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
I meant to ask the date.Is it an orignal water colour?
Or a print?
I’m quite jealous.
It is an original, and there are no prints of it (in fact, the picture on this thread is the first time anyone has ever seen it beyond the artist and his wife, and visitors to my house).
It was painted for me by Garth Allan in about 2003 to record an event from around 1967. After icebreaking was abandoned in 1963, the BCN ice boats were gathered up at Bradley and eventually sold off, most of them passing through the hands of Alan Picken at Stoke Prior. Alan Picken bought the first batch of three, along with the burnt out motor (Neptune?) and and Garth Allan towed them down to Stoke Prior in exchange for a repaint on his own boat. Apparently they towed perfectly in a straight line. One of the ice boats was Samson which I now have.
Alec
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
Just looking again,
Of course it’s Factory Locks!
It is indeed, as they were in 1967.
Alec
-
11 minutes ago, Mike Nicoll said:
Clearly not Alan Firth!
Indeed not. We seem to have moved on to other artists. This hangs at the back of our living room.
Alec
-
Another picture which could go in the ‘Where I Am’ thread. This one hangs on my hallway wall.
Alec
-
Photos of the current stove would help next time you are at the boat. Not just the stove, but also what's around it.
Oil stoves do not create ash and some do not get hot at the base or sides - they work by convection. That means the hearth can often be a lot simpler, ie less heat resistant because it is safe to do so. The BSS only looks for signs of scorching, it doesn't specify exactly how the hearth must be built. That means if you have a purpose-built hearth for the oil stove it may need uprating to take a wood burning stove which can transmit significant heat to the surroundings. If the stove is small and the space is tight, you may need to consider how you would rearrange things to fit this in (on the other hand if it's a large corner of the cabin it may not be a problem. Worth a look.
Alec
-
What I am not quite clear on is whether you are intending to put the boat on the land whilst replating it and then head off onto the water, or aiming to leave the boat there permanently?
If the latter, you don't really have any options other than to try and get planning permission for a residence. It wouldn't be classified as a permanent structure because it is not attached to the ground and could be removed within a short time (craned onto a lorry) but it's the residential part that would be the issue.
If the former, I think you would stand a good chance of not being noticed if you worked on it where it is placed (quite legitimate) and just didn't go 'home' at the end of the working day. This is somewhat subject to who might be able to see it, and hear it. If it's away from anywhere and not overlooked, the chances of being noticed within a year or so are minimal. Even if it was noticed, you would have a decent period (a few of months) from being noticed, questions being asked, deliberations happening, formal notice being received, responses to queries, notice period given etc. For once, beaurocracy being slow would work in your favour. I reckon if you cracked on with the hull repair and got it done in a couple of months you would probably be fine, but it would be as well to have a plan b.
Alec
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:
Every day for those five years?
Fortunately (for me) not, but directly as a result of them. Robert Runcie had formerly been Dean of the college I went to and arranged a room for him after his release. It suited him well I think as he could stay within his room, walk around the college or go out if he wanted but it wasn't fully public and the public could not come in and disturb him. I used to row, with practice very early in the morning, and Terry Waite would generally come in for breakfast at about the same time as I got back.
Alec
-
1
-
-
Oh, and I used to regularly have breakfast with Terry Waite.
-
A pint with George Harrison, a cup of tea with David Jason.
(I have also had a pizza with Matt Hancock but that was in a professional capacity rather than for pleasure).
Alec
-
32 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:
As we know the OP hasn’t posted all the survey. We got fully comp insurance agreed with a repeat survey in 10 years on the basis of the survey from 2 years ago.
The hull readings seem OK. I think I would save the money on another survey and put it towards getting the boat epoxied. That assumes the OP really likes the boat
We managed to get comprehensive insurance on the basis of the vendor's hull survey from a year before we bought. This was specifically because he had the hull surveyed to identify the necessary remedial work, then confirmation from the original surveyor that the work had been completed to the required standard and then used this to get comprehensive insurance. The insurance company agreed that if we re-insured with them, they could accept the survey for the remainder of their normal interval.
Personally, I would be wanting to pull that boat out and see whether the lower readings (4.2mm) were due to local pitting or general loss of section. Grit blasting prior to epoxy coating will uncover any pitting, so I would plan for welding up the pits if present. If it's due to loss of section that might get me questioning the ongoing cost of ownership as substantial work could be pulled up as a requirement with only a fairly minor additional loss, perhaps even when grit blasting.
Alec
-
2
-
-
-
3 hours ago, MtB said:
Yes and the solicitor will have only known about it because it is recorded at the LR!
Not necessarily. Our house came with a folder full of paperwork, covering everything from manorial rights to wayleaves. Only a few parts of this appear on the Land Registry record, the rest having been retained when the house was first registered. When I bought the field next to the house it was unregistered and I did the conveyancing. Registering it was simple in principle but the paper trail created to do it was considerable. It required over an inch high stack of papers to comprehensively address the questions, which I still have, including copies of records dating back to the 1500s. BW is relatively modern!
Alec
-
14 minutes ago, Ewan123 said:
I've seen a few steel narrowboats with a seat and wheel-steering, including a couple with centre cockpit. If you can afford to, I'm sure it's possible to have a narrowboat converted to wheel steering as an option. That way you might get the best of both worlds.
Martin Fuller's boat 'Cutter' shows just how far you can take this idea - some good photos if you scroll down on this page:
https://nbalbert.blogspot.com/2013/04/blake-mere-ellesmere.html
Alec
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:
Some here seem to think that Parry is doing a poor job, and describe what he should be doing instead. None of what is suggested is difficult to understand. Parry is intelligent & can read what is said here, so why do they think he is not doing what they suggest? If he is not doing what is bleedin' obviously necessary, why do the critics think he is choosing to behave in this way? I think he is probably doing the best possible with the options at his disposal, but I have no info to back this up.
I generally agree with you, with a couple of caveats.
1. Richard Parry is one man at the top of a large organisation. We focus on boating but there are a whole load of other aspects to the business - the property business, other assets, safety, HR etc. I can well believe that there may be some points of weakness within the business structure, things which are not working, and that he may not be aware of them.
2. There are always potential improvements to be made. Sometimes something which worked fine previously may no longer be the best option - there are changes in financial circumstances but also in relative costs; sometimes new technology can make something cheaper etc. and when people on the ground are getting on with the job, they may not be aware of potential improvements.
Sometimes things go wrong because people are human and they make the wrong call based on the limitations of their knowledge, often because they do not know that better information is available, let alone where to look for it. It's no bad thing to flag issues when they arise, in the spirit of constructive criticism.
Alec
-
1 hour ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:
weren’t they advertising this last year?volunteers to assess assets?
1 hour ago, Stroudwater1 said:@agg221its a very good point, the restored parts -phase1a of the Stroudwater has the whole length covered by volunteer lengths people/folk/men. Interest may wane here and there over time of course!
There may well be some of this already happening - I must admit, living in Essex my options for offering practical support are limited so I don't check adverts for volunteers that often. However, I was thinking of the specific opportunity for getting people involved who live near/walk along a canal but have no other connection, in a way which is genuinely useful and also ticks some boxes. They aren't going to see an online advert.
On the other point of discussion around best use of resources, it is clear that there are questionable decisions being made, with the bridges on the Oxford and the bridge repainting discussed by @Francis Herne as prime examples. I feel it is important not to pre-judge the thinking that leads to these decisions, but there should certainly be a route to challenging it, ideally in advance but if not then definitely in the context of lessons learned. One point which is often overlooked is that you can email Richard Parry directly and get a personal answer - that is a pretty rare thing in a CEO and I would not presume that the same would be true of his successor. However, it would be better if there was a less nuclear option available. The relationship between CRT and its users is far more symbiotic than the average business/customer/shareholder relationship and there appear to be some good grounds to build on here.
Alec
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Ian Mac said:
<RANT>
As the trust has no money due to the erosion of the government Grant by inflation, (was planned I suspect) which in real terms has reduced the available pot by about 20%. This means the trust is in Fix on failure mode, it does not have the resources to do preventative maintenance. This situation has been made far worse, because the rules for reservoirs have change, as a result of Todbrook. This does not just apply to C&RT but also the Water utilities, it is costing a mega fortune to fix them all. The trust can not say they will do them tomorrow the law does not allow that as an option. So ever since Todbrook the trust has been spending tens of millions on reservoirs, each year. Another problem is that the trust is the only charity, which I am aware of, which has statuary duties IE things it must do by law. Providing free towpath access is one of those duties, so towpaths have to come first. The right of navigation was removed over 60 years ago.
Changing the CEO will not alter any of this, in fact it will prove to be a very expensive process, as I'm sure you will find out in the not to distant future when Mr Parry decides to step down. Getting a new CEO will be an expensive process, unless you want a muppet to do the job, and you may get one anyway, if care is not taken. The Trust is one of the top 30 charities in the country and CEOs even for charities do not come cheap. The CEO of the Welcome Trust is on well over half a million a year for example. Oh! plus benefits of course.</RANT>
--
cheers IAn MAc
Ian,
You probably have the best insight of anyone on here into the framework within which CRT is constrained to work and also (unfortunately) following the recent elections, less ability to influence that which can be changed within the bounds of the possible.
I did have a few thoughts which I would welcome your views on around volunteers. I am aware of the concurrent thread on the subject, but your post on this thread seems more aligned as a jumping off point.
If you take as a starting premise that there is not enough money to do all that needs to be done, and that there is no realistic route by which the funding will be significantly be increased, the conclusion becomes that it will either not be done, or it will have to be done without money (or at least with a lot less money) since, as @Grassman discussed, there are costs and allowances for volunteers). However, in parallel, there are things which if done now are a lot cheaper and a lot less disruptive than if done later, but the challenge is to identify them without that carrying a significant cost. So here are a couple of thoughts.
1. Volunteer lengthspeople. There is no realistic prospect of paid lengthsmen returning, but much of the network is used by people on foot - in fact this is actually one of the key indentified values of the system as an open space/linear park/pedestrian and cycle route away from traffic. What if people who walk a length on a daily basis were able to volunteer as a 'lengthsperson' whose job was simply to spot potential issues. The difference between this and a layperson would be a) some basic training on what type of thing to look out for and report and b) sharing the map/plan with them for the length they have volunteered for so that they know specifically what to keep an eye on - culverts etc. I'm not talking about proper inspections but if you walk the dog daily and one day you see water running and you know there is a culvert there, that could be a whole lot less costly to sort out than a full breach and at least it could pinpoint where to send inspection teams. It has the added advantage of not actually taking any time that is not already spent, so increasing the number of volunteer hours against KPIs.
2. Anecdotally, I hear of a mismatch arising at times - there is a list of minor issues that need resolving but with a triage approach they never make it to the top of the list. Simultaneously, there are times when the on the ground CRT maintenance teams are sent to a job but the materials don't turn up, or it takes less time than expected. It does appear that there is potential resource available to address some of these minor issues if the operational side was coordinated - some with volunteer labour (filling in holes behind piling so people don't break their ankle does not require specialist training for example), some with formalised volunteer labour through canal society work parties where slightly more specialist skills may be required (there would appear to be things which the teams @Grassman mentioned would be well placed to tackle) and partly by an approach of 'the CRT team will be on the ground at this location today - priority 1 is the job they are going there to do, but if they get done early or a problem arises, these are the things to put on the van so that the team can go on and deal with these minor issues'. The number mentioned last summer was 8000 outstanding minor jobs so the backlog will not get dealt with quickly, but there could be a way to at least stop it growing?
I would welcome your thoughts on the above. Am I heading down a sensible thought line here or are there good reasons I am not aware of why it is not practical? Any other areas which from your experience there may be ways to tackle within the current, and ongoing, constraints?
Alec
-
4
-
-
38 minutes ago, MtB said:
Its not for sale, its for rent. £25k a year.
What a bleak and miserable place it looks too!!
We moor less than a mile from there so go past it every time we move the boat. The photos do not do it any favours but it definitely has potential, but of the sort which a freehold owner/occupier would realise, not a renter. It has been used in the past as a convenient site for boat repair as you can get a crane right alongside.
32 minutes ago, Tacet said:One to suit both canal and tidal water enthusiasts. Unsure whether or not it would appeal to railway buffs.
Coincidentally another place I have a connection to, having gone to school just up the road. If the industrial estate right next to it hadn't obliterated the link to the canal, which was in water just beyond the estate, then it would have a lot of potential.
Alec
-
1 hour ago, cuthound said:
We had real switches and switchboards too, it was just that they were switching 50 volts DC. The only fake thing was the standby generator, which was a cassette player playing a recording of a diesel.generator... 🤣
Once you had passed the initial course you were then trained on specific real installations and if successful given either an 'HV Approved Person' or 'HV Competent Person' ticket, which was valid on that specific installation for one year
Later I became the 'Engineer HV' for a site and eventually 'Senior Engineer HV' for an area. These roles were mainly administrative, writing or approving method statements and switching schedules.
Totally OT but this reminded me of something.
We were once working on a project related to a new type of high efficiency cable. There were various companies involved - the company developing it, a cable manufacturer and a utility. Our job was working out how to join it. To understand the requirements, the utility arranged for us to attend a splicing job where a buried 11kV line was being cut and extended into a new substation; I attended with my project engineer and lead technician and all the other companies involved also sent a couple of people so that we could all go away understanding what needed to be done to make this work.
The cable was buried along the side of a minor country road so there was traffic control in place and we stood along the closed side of the road behind the barriers, all in hi-viz provided by the utility company, wearing hard hats. Towards the end of the day, we realised that all day long anyone passing would have seen this this highly visible line of nine people all wearing the utility's logo on their hi-viz, staring into a trench, while two people were actually doing any work, and probably concluded that the ratio of supervisors to workers was why their electricity bills were so high!
Alec
-
2
-
2
-
-
The big challenge with battery (and any other energy) storage is energy density. Performance is measured as Wh/kg which is a direct measure for most transport applications but is also an indicator for £/Wh, although the two are not directly linked.
Agreed that LFP is now developing fast (partly due to certain patents ending) but at the moment it only achieves half the Wh/kg. In a car that roughly equates to half the range, which fits with the Chinese model of car ownership for local travel but less well in the West where longer ranges are expected and range anxiety is a real problem. When you are less driven (if you will excuse the pun) by range and more by price then it comes down to whether using twice as many batteries is cost-effective.
You hit a different problem when you go the opposite way and increase energy density, which is BoP and battery management systems . When a cell fails in a lead acid battery it can get hot and release hydrogen but there is very rarely severe damage beyond the battery itself hence relatively limited BoP and no BMS. When a lithium cell fails it can catch fire. The intensity is low enough that the design of the battery is allowed to be such that the fire can propagate but the probability is high enough that a BMS is required. If you increase the energy density further with sodium cells then I am not yet sure what level of control will be mandated. If it requires reasonable prevention of flame spread between cells then the net energy density may not increase significantly when you factor in the volume and weight of containment, and the cost will also inevitably be negatively impacted. I can’t yet estimate what the net effect will be.
I should perhaps mention that I am not a fanatical zealot with regard to hydrogen, or any other technology for that matter. I have worked on parts of many different energy technologies, including batteries, and have no vested interest other than a potential consumer wanting a cost-effective source of energy for personal applications. I just prefer to work from facts rather than personal prejudices.
Alec
-
12 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:
I was under the impression that the proposals to use hydrogen were based on the assumption that surplus green energy that would otherwise be wasted, would be available to power the inefficient methods of hydrogen production. That is the rationale for the hydrogen-powered scottish islands ferry experiments: the island generates more green energy than it is possible to export.
Given that the proposed switch to heat pumps and electric cars means that the grid is going to have problems keeping up with demand, plus the proposals for battery banks to maintain the grid when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, which would soak up spare off-peak generating capacity, is there going to be much surplus electricity available at a cheap enough price to make hydrogen production on a large scale viable economically?
There are certainly some places where green hydrogen from electrolysis of water looks to be a viable option. In the short term, the worked out Rough gas field is being developed as a hydrogen storage facility to use the surplus power from the North Sea offshore wind turbines. The facility can store around 54 billion cubic feet of gas which equates to around 10TWh of hydrogen. With a production efficiency of around 33%, that handles about half the 60TWh of annual production potential which is currently not generated from offshore turbines because it falls out of sync. with demand (2021 figures).
There are other potential sources too. So called blue hydrogen is controversial, but if energy demand/cost goes high enough then the Liverpool Bay fracking projects may get progressed (currently under exploratory development under the name HyNET). The plan would be to extract gas and convert it to hydrogen through methane steam reforming, then separate the CO2 and pump it back into the field. This is nominally 'zero emissions' as the CO2 is not released into the atmosphere.
The UK has invested heavily in nuclear, with Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C sequenced for construction in quick succession. Nuclear fission does not like being ramped up and down to meet demand, so again there will be surplus electricity within the daily cycle.
Storage of surplus electricity as electricity is nearly 3x as efficient as using it to electrolyse water to hydrogen. However, for that to be viable you need a storage medium which is scalable and lithium batteries simply aren't due to lack of cobalt. For context, annual production of cobalt is around 200,000 tons, most of which comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo which is morally difficult to say the least. New reserves have been discovered in less controversial locations which currently produce around 50,000 tons of that total. These are stated to be scalable but best estimates indicate that they could achieve around 300,000 tons annually, taking the total to 450,000 tons. The cobalt which is currently produced isn't sitting around doing nothing - it is being used, so you would reckon on an optimistic 300,000 tons annually available for battery manufacture. For context on what that would achieve, it isn't even enough to meet the 350,000 tons needed annually to switch global car production to EVs. To match the Rough field alone as electrical storage you would need 100,000 tons of cobalt to make the batteries.
On a different point, @MtB, something I was going to address from early on in this thread is the idea that hydrogen is difficult to contain because it is very small.
Surprisingly, it isn't that small. The misconception arises because hydrogen is the smallest, lightest element but it is found as a molecule H2 rather than a single atom and because of the difference in the bond structure the bond between the atoms is long compared to that between carbon and hydrogen, making the molecule larger. The kinetic diameter of a hydrogen molecule is around 290picometres (pm) whereas methane is 380pm. Water is only 265pm. What that means in practice is that keeping hydrogen from leaking out of most domestic gas plumbing is no more difficult than it is for natural gas.
There is a mechanism by which hydrogen can travel through metals in a way that methane can't, but it is not very quick and certainly would not create a detectable leak rate at domestic pressures.
Alec
-
1
-
-
Rather later than the requested 8am, but our experience is the same - we took Oates through a couple of miles of 4” thick ice last year with no issues on the epoxy - less effect than rubbing on a lock wall.
Alec
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:
You do rather seem to be avoiding @IanD's main point of concern.
It's all technically feasible, but it uses between 2 and 4 times the energy input compared to the useful energy output.
Does it make more sense to charge the batteries 4 times using the same input power or to fill the hydrogen fuel cell once?
The only sensible use of Hydrogen as a fuel is to convert it to Helium, but that's called fusion ... and has been thirty years in the future for the last 80 years or so!
Personally I don't believe we'll get there unless we figure out how to control gravity, so our nearest useful fusion reactor is about 92 million miles thataway! ☀️
You are correct, I have not addressed this. I have started by trying to address misconceptions and questions where the answer is a clear-cut fact. I do not find these posts particularly easy to write for various reasons and I also do not overly enjoy it when there is either no interest in reasoned discussion or pointless sniping from the sidelines as some posters seem to want to do. Bluntly, it's my time spent typing them and I find myself thinking I would be better off spending the time doing something more worthwhile like working on bits of my boat. However, then there is polite, reasoned engagement and I find myself pulled back in to engaging with it because that is actually an enjoyable way to spend my evening.
The simple answer to the energy cost question is that today, building a hydrogen powered narrowboat as a commercial proposition doesn't add up, but there are a lot of things which don't add up to start with, although they are technically feasible. But if you break down the top level challenge into individual steps, you can sometimes attack costs in one part of the chain that brings the cost down to the point where it meets a niche need. That provides a commercial return, so you move from something which is purely investment to something which can sustain an amount of commercial re-investment, and slowly you chip away at the barriers and it snowballs as each cost reduction unlocks some more niche applications until sometimes there is a breakthrough and the whole thing adds up for mass application.
Two specific examples, one well known, the other very niche but I know it very well from the inside. The first is solar power. Bequerel discovered the photovoltaic effect in 1839 and the first patented cell design was in 1888. The first commercial cells were launched in 1955 but it was too expensive for general use so pretty much the only application was in space. They first became generally available in the 1980s but only in ultra-low power devices such as calculators and later watches because they were so expensive per W and as late as 2006 photovoltaics were regarded as too expensive for domestic installation and people installed solar thermal on their rooves instead. Then there was a step change with dedicated PV silicon foundries, cutting the cost and some significant changes in efficiency of low cost cadmium-free materials and suddenly the average boat owner can cost effectively install a few hundred watts of solar just to top up the batteries. The second is much less visible to most people as it does not have a domestic application but it relates to a particular welding technology invented in 1992 at the place where I currently work. It worked really well for aluminium, was good for copper but not cost-effective for steel because the equipment could only make a metre of weld before a very expensive component had to be changed. We worked at this around the edges through various research grants to find out why. They would generally be titled 'investigation into welding of X' and would often fail, but we would know more at the end of each grant - sometimes what not to do, sometimes which direction to go with the next project. Eventually we established what a suitable material to make the component from would be, but there was nobody who could actually make it. Roll on a decade of no activity because there was no route forward and a company built some equipment to make parts for the mining industry that happened to be in the right material and the right size. That was game-changing. We engaged with them about making the component and they agreed to have a go (around a heads of terms for a commercial licencing agreement which I was involved in thrashing out). The first ones we tested achieved over 50metres and we can now regularly do 100metres. That is game-changing for the shipbuilding industry and probably within a decade there will be a saving of years of time and tens of millions of pounds in building a large ship, which will also be more energy-efficient into the bargain.
I am sure some people will feel inclined to snipe at the above examples. What has that got to do with a hydrogen narrowboat? The point is, sometimes when you break the question down, you find there are good reasons why something is fundamentally not possible - it would break the laws of physics, in which case don't waste your time trying, but sometimes you find it is a matter of cost, as it is with hydrogen, and often those costs come down over time, sometimes through deliberate work on the problem, sometimes through developments in other fields which can be transferred in. It can sometimes be a chicken and egg question and public funding is part of getting over that phase, known as the 'valley of death', though often not in a single step.
I am happy to offer thoughts on where the gaps for hydrogen currently are, what is currently going on to address them and what that might mean if anyone is interested, but I do recognise that these would be predictions and may well not turn out that way so equally happy to go back to building my under-counter storage locker instead.
Alec
-
4
-
-
1 minute ago, nealeST said:
Would that be one of these?
Yes, although that one was originally horse-drawn so if you revert it to original propulsion you need a rather different form of fuel! Spey is a good one to look up for an example.
6 hours ago, Heartland said:At the heart of this discussion is the viability of Hydrogen as a means to reduce the carbon contribution to transport. Birmingham University was quite active in developing the technology and I recall a trade show at the NEC when the fuel cell was being developed and also the lack of noise when a vehicle using a fuel cell was brought into a hall.
It would seem that the fuel cell technology is still developing and the boat in Yorkshire is a representation of the advances. But in the search for a carbon neutral transport network the advances still have limitations. The increased use of batteries of the Lithium-ion type has the unfortunate incidence of combustion associated with it as the recent fire on a bus in London demonstrated. There are now experiments with a battery using Sodium instead of Lithium which are being trialled.
So there is still the reliance on the fossil fuels that have been the means of supplying petrol and diesel even though there have been pledges for eradication in the future.
As to the carbonization process that made town gas, that was done in retorts and may be there might be a modern innovation where hydrogen can be extracted from the products of carbonization, as coal is still available, and done in such a way that all useful by-products can be separated and used accordingly.
Transporting hydrogen gas can be an issue, as noted, and it is rate limiting step in the wider use of hydrogen, so are there other means of propulsion that can be harnessed in the future?
Kevin Kendall at Birmingham ran a very active group on hydrogen transport. Rex Harris was working on hydrogen storage at the same time, although the route he went down was not very scalable. Kevin has retired and Rex has died, so whilst the publications stand, most of the know-how has been lost.
Fuel cells have been under development for well over a century. Early in my career I clearing out a lab before a move and found a poster from 1953 showing a fuel cell powered tractor. One of my sardonic colleagues said 'Fuel cells, the power of the future. Always have been, always will be' but they kept him gainfully employed until he retired.
One option under serious consideration is liquid ammonia as a source of hydrogen for use on ships. It has the advantage of being relatively easy to transport (no more difficult than LNG) but it does have a limitation in that it produces NOx emissions in use. There is a piece of political signposting to watch - what does 'net zero' get suffixed with (because at the moment the answer is nothing). If it becomes 'net zero emissions' which is the ultimate aspiration then that is a very hard target but there is an intermediate of 'net zero carbon' which is a much less aggressive target. This allows NOx emissions, which allows the use of liquid ammonia and also hydrogen combustion which is far less expensive to implement.
None of the above addresses the question of where the hydrogen comes from, but there are several answers to that, some more palatable than others; some short-term, some medium, some long to the point of being nothing more than aspirations at this point.
Alec
Short tester holiday
in New to Boating?
Posted
I suggest looking at Norbury Wharf as somewhere to hire from, on the Shropshire Union. If you are thinking of going out of season they may well be amenable - they do winter hires for example. If you want to minimise locks, I would head south, then turn right at Autherley and head down a bit of the Staffs & Worcs. There are some nice places with good pubs not that far down. If you find you want to travel for longer then it continues to be a pleasant route as far as you would reasonably get. There are also some nice places to stop on the southern Shropshire Union itself - Brewood and Gnosall spring to mind. it is a sensible trip back from Gnosall on the final morning if you moor there on the last night and there is a good choice of pubs for food.
Another option would be to hire from Chas Hardern and head north to Chester, with the option of going on up to Ellesmere Port. This is not very far and not particularly ambitious, so if you found you were back early you could head down to Barbridge in the opposite direction. I think you would fairly easily do pick up on day 1 and head towards Chester. Head on the next day and go to Ellesmere Port for an afternoon at the museum, then head back late afternoon and moor in Chester. Day 3 would be either a walk around Chester and back up to the general vicinity of the boatyard, or a shorter walk around Chester and up as far as you get (Bunbury or Barbridge) and Day 4 would be head back, depending on whether it is a full day or a short day would determine where you wanted to moor.
Both are pleasant, fairly easy routes. Slightly more locks on the latter but they are not difficult with a crew of three or more.
Alec