Consultation on exhaust emissions on inland waterways

[Mad Harold]

Peterboat,I find your posts about electric boating very informative and interesting.

You seem to be taking a bit of flak from some members, but I for one (I am sure others too) hope that you keep us informed of progress with your crusade.

 

Nil Illigitemum Carburundum.

[peterboat]

6 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

Peterboat,I find your posts about electric boating very informative and interesting.

You seem to be taking a bit of flak from some members, but I for one (I am sure others too) hope that you keep us informed of progress with your crusade.

 

Nil Illigitemum Carburundum.

Its because we won't have a choice! Johnathon Wilson are building four of them and have done a couple already 

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, Mad Harold said:

Peterboat,I find your posts about electric boating very informative and interesting.

You seem to be taking a bit of flak from some members, but I for one (I am sure others too) hope that you keep us informed of progress with your crusade.

 

Nil Illigitemum Carburundum.

 

53 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Its because we won't have a choice! Johnathon Wilson are building four of them and have done a couple already 

I have developed a little bit of sympathy for Peter reading this thread but while the contributions on real life experience of electrical propulsion are interesting I think there’s a bit of a backlash by the forum to a lack of balance in the considerations.

 

As for not having a choice I concur the internal combustion engine will one day be superseded. I’m very much less convinced it’s total demise will be any time soon or that it’s long term replacement is electric propulsion.

 

JP

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I have developed a little bit of sympathy for Peter reading this thread but while the contributions on real life experience of electrical propulsion are interesting I think there’s a bit of a backlash by the forum to a lack of balance in the considerations.

 

Peter's 'set-up' suits his boating style, adds to his enjoyment, was an interesting build project and helps the environment.

 

The (current) problems are that others cruising patterns are very, very different.

I cited earlier that I can coastal cruise for 12 or 13 hours (60 miles) then anchor up. I would then have to stay there for a couple of days whilst recharging my vast (13 hour+) battery bank with my little 1.6Kw generator and 50 amp charger.

 

With my existing engines and fuel capacity I have a safe range of 2000+ miles.

 

Similarly, my other boat is in Plymouth it is about 330 (nearly all M/way) miles from home and currently takes 5-6 hours.

With current car 'real life' ranges (assuming its not raining, cold or at night) of typically 150 miles* it would take me a couple of days, a couple of 'charges' and a night in a hotel for the family.

 

* Yes I could buy a 'Tesla' at £XXX,000 and get 300 miles.

 

As I see it, the technology is not yet available for anything more than a 'milk-float' or a local commute to work.

Sales reps (I used to do 1000 miles a week), truck drivers, etc etc would just not be able to function with what we have now.

The imposition of 'travel restrictions' which will be the result of these 'environmental plans' will throw us back into Victorian times unless some new 'step-change' happens in electricity storage and recharging ability.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

On 19/07/2019 at 22:44, peterboat said:

The hilarious thing is that when you lot aren't boating because it's to expensive, or diesel is difficult to get, I will still be boating! Why I can't be bothered answering inanely stupid questions is simple, what's the point? You have read the consultation it doesn't give a keep the status quo, so you Will have to do something or give up boating simples

What would I really expect to pay for an electric engine? 

Excluding batteries and fitting. 

 

Sorry if’s been mentioned already but there’s now 12 pages to sift through, if I’ve seen any figures they look like guesses. 

 

 

[Jerra]

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Peter's 'set-up' suits his boating style, adds to his enjoyment, was an interesting build project and helps the environment.

 

The (current) problems are that others cruising patterns are very, very different.

I cited earlier that I can coastal cruise for 12 or 13 hours (60 miles) then anchor up. I would then have to stay there for a couple of days whilst recharging my vast (13 hour+) battery bank with my little 1.6Kw generator and 50 amp charger.

 

With my existing engines and fuel capacity I have a safe range of 2000+ miles.

 

Similarly, my other boat is in Plymouth it is about 330 (nearly all M/way) miles from home and currently takes 5-6 hours.

With current car 'real life' ranges (assuming its not raining, cold or at night) of typically 150 miles* it would take me a couple of days, a couple of 'charges' and a night in a hotel for the family.

 

* Yes I could buy a 'Tesla' at £XXX,000 and get 300 miles.

 

As I see it, the technology is not yet available for anything more than a 'milk-float' or a local commute to work.

Sales reps (I used to do 1000 miles a week), truck drivers, etc etc would just not be able to function with what we have now.

The imposition of 'travel restrictions' which will be the result of these 'environmental plans' will throw us back into Victorian times unless some new 'step-change' happens in electricity storage and recharging ability.

To me this sums up the whole problem and the reason the human race is very probably doomed.

 

People refuse to accept the need to change quickly and will be in denial until (they hope) technology will allow them to cary on with their current style and standard of living.  Complete refusal to accept we must all change and what we are able to do will reduce.

[peterboat]

27 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

I have developed a little bit of sympathy for Peter reading this thread but while the contributions on real life experience of electrical propulsion are interesting I think there’s a bit of a backlash by the forum to a lack of balance in the considerations.

 

As for not having a choice I concur the internal combustion engine will one day be superseded. I’m very much less convinced it’s total demise will be any time soon or that it’s long term replacement is electric propulsion.

 

JP

 

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Peter's 'set-up' suits his boating style, adds to his enjoyment, was an interesting build project and helps the environment.

 

The (current) problems are that others cruising patterns are very, very different.

I cited earlier that I can coastal cruise for 12 or 13 hours (60 miles) then anchor up. I would then have to stay there for a couple of days whilst recharging my vast (13 hour+) battery bank with my little 1.6Kw generator and 50 amp charger.

 

With my existing engines and fuel capacity I have a safe range of 2000+ miles.

 

Similarly, my other boat is in Plymouth it is about 330 (nearly all M/way) miles from home and currently takes 5-6 hours.

With current car 'real life' ranges (assuming its not raining, cold or at night) of typically 150 miles* it would take me a couple of days, a couple of 'charges' and a night in a hotel for the family.

 

* Yes I could buy a 'Tesla' at £XXX,000 and get 300 miles.

 

As I see it, the technology is not yet available for anything more than a 'milk-float' or a local commute to work.

Sales reps (I used to do 1000 miles a week), truck drivers, etc etc would just not be able to function with what we have now.

The imposition of 'travel restrictions' which will be the result of these 'environmental plans' will throw us back into Victorian times unless some new 'step-change' happens in electricity storage and recharging ability.

 

6 minutes ago, Goliath said:

What would I really expect to pay for an electric engine? 

Excluding batteries and fitting. 

 

Sorry if’s been mentioned already but there’s now 12 pages to sift through, if I’ve seen any figures they look like guesses. 

 

 

I have consistently said LPG would sort out emissions to a great extent, electric suits me as Alan says. Cost wise less batteries 1K bought all my electrics solar I had and the batteries were about 3K ish

 I did it myself and sold my old diesel for 2.5K so it wasn't to bad. Narrow boats would be cheaper. I understand Alan's view but the government has no choice in this, they byUK law have to get NOX down to safe levels and big sticks plus high costs will I suspect be employed shortly

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, Goliath said:

What would I really expect to pay for an electric engine? 

Excluding batteries and fitting. 

 

Sorry if’s been mentioned already but there’s now 12 pages to sift through, if I’ve seen any figures they look like guesses. 

 

 

Peter can give you his figures for his DIY system, but buying an off the shelf solution would be somewhere North of £10,000 - or more depending on battery bank size.

Victron do one - have a look on their website.

 

If you are happy to buy an old fork-truck and strip out its motors, pick up some second hand batteries and do some magic with electronics to ensure correct charging, then you can go DIY as well.

I think Peter also has 3000w of Solar panels on his WIDEBEAM roof.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

To me this sums up the whole problem and the reason the human race is very probably doomed.

 

People refuse to accept the need to change quickly and will be in denial until (they hope) technology will allow them to cary on with their current style and standard of living.  Complete refusal to accept we must all change and what we are able to do will reduce.

Well said Jerra on the button 

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Peter can give you his figures for his DIY system, but buying an off the shelf solution would be somewhere North of £10,000 - or more depending on battery bank size.

 

If you are happy to buy an old fork-truck and strip out its motors, pick up some second hand batteries and do some magic with electronics to ensure correct charging, then you can go DIY as well.

I am happy to chat and help anyone that goes down the same route as me, Pm me your number and I will help

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, Jerra said:

To me this sums up the whole problem and the reason the human race is very probably doomed.

 

People refuse to accept the need to change quickly and will be in denial until (they hope) technology will allow them to cary on with their current style and standard of living.  Complete refusal to accept we must all change and what we are able to do will reduce.

Yes there is large element of that, but also remember that your loaf of bread, pint of milk, tin of beans and bag of crisps are all carried 100's of miles in (currently) diesel engine trucks.

Try telling all those Londoners they need to move out of the city and go and live nearer to the actual manufacturing areas.

 

Or (maybe) more importantly - your pint of beer will only be available within a 20 mile radius of Burton-On-Trent.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[Jerra]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

Yes there is large element of that, but also remember that your loaf of bread, pint of milk, tin of beans and bag of crisps are all carried 100's of miles in (currently) diesel engine trucks.

Try telling all those Londoners they need to move out of the city and go and live nearer to the actual manufacturing areas.

My milk comes from a very local farm thank you.   However you miss the point it seems.  Food not necessarily crisps or beans is what you might refer to as essential (well it is to me you might survive on air).  Even the supply of that and what we eat is going to chance.

 

However cruising for 13 hrs or driving 300+ miles isn't essential those sort of things will change more dramatically and hopefully sooner if the species is to survive.

[Richard10002]

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

To me this sums up the whole problem and the reason the human race is very probably doomed.

 

People refuse to accept the need to change quickly and will be in denial until (they hope) technology will allow them to cary on with their current style and standard of living.  Complete refusal to accept we must all change and what we are able to do will reduce.

These things are obviously happening quite slowly.... but they are happening. More and more people are conscious of the issue and, where money allows, some are getting on board..... and perhaps that is the crux of it - money. Plus availability.

 

I bought a second hand narrowboat for £18,000, and it has a diesel engine. If there had been lots of electric "engined" second hand boats, and I was convinced of their reliability and their ability to go where I wanted, and the money was similar, I would probably have bough an electric.

 

It sounds like Peter has the skills to put together an electric system for not as much money as new.... a couple of thousand, funded by the sale of his diesel engine, as against a 5 figure sum - an early adopter perhaps?. I would have no idea where to start and I dont know of anyone offering it as a service - in fact, the labour would bump it up a lot.

 

On top of that, he has a huge roof and 6 times as much solar as I have, (500W). I could probably double my solar, but there isnt much point - I could never have enough to run an electric engine and get far. What I have seems to be fairly optimum, and means I dont have to run the genny or engine much for half the year.

 

On the pollution side of things, it seem that a lot of our "clean" energy is nuclear. I still think this is merely storing up a huge problem for future generations. How are we going to dispose of the radioactive waste that's being stored up in what we hope are secure facilities - when that starts to leak.......... ???

 

I have no doubt that there will come a point where solar, wind, tide, hydro, are advanced enough, and widespread enough, to supply our needs. In addition, there is a strong chance that the solar we have on our boats may become advanced enough to power electric engines well enough.

 

As with everything in its early stages, there is a shallow learning curve. Hopefully, it will get steeper, and these things will become the norm and mass market.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

I have consistently said LPG would sort out emissions to a great extent,

 

I am equally confident it won't because LPG is a fossil fuel adding to exactly the same problem as diesel. CO2. 

 

Yes it has lower Nox etc but that does not mean it bungs out any less CO2, and CO2 is the biggie that needs fixing. All the rest is fiddling around the edges of the elephant in the room. 

 

They are already planning to ban gas appliances in houses so why should boats be exempt?

 

 

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, Richard10002 said:

These things are obviously happening quite slowly.... but they are happening. More and more people are conscious of the issue and, where money allows, some are getting on board..... and perhaps that is the crux of it - money. Plus availability.

 

I bought a second hand narrowboat for £18,000, and it has a diesel engine. If there had been lots of electric "engined" second hand boats, and I was convinced of their reliability and their ability to go where I wanted, and the money was similar, I would probably have bough an electric.

 

It sounds like Peter has the skills to put together an electric system for not as much money as new.... a couple of thousand, funded by the sale of his diesel engine, as against a 5 figure sum - an early adopter perhaps?. I would have no idea where to start and I dont know of anyone offering it as a service - in fact, the labour would bump it up a lot.

 

On top of that, he has a huge roof and 6 times as much solar as I have, (500W). I could probably double my solar, but there isnt much point - I could never have enough to run an electric engine and get far. What I have seems to be fairly optimum, and means I dont have to run the genny or engine much for half the year.

 

On the pollution side of things, it seem that a lot of our "clean" energy is nuclear. I still think this is merely storing up a huge problem for future generations. How are we going to dispose of the radioactive waste that's being stored up in what we hope are secure facilities - when that starts to leak.......... ???

 

I have no doubt that there will come a point where solar, wind, tide, hydro, are advanced enough, and widespread enough, to supply our needs. In addition, there is a strong chance that the solar we have on our boats may become advanced enough to power electric engines well enough.

 

As with everything in its early stages, there is a shallow learning curve. Hopefully, it will get steeper, and these things will become the norm and mass market.

Virtual greenish Richard

[StephenA]

4 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

They are already planning to ban gas appliances in houses so why should boats be exempt?

 

 

Very true - Gas CH and cooking with Gas is the next big target. Not sure how our street's infrastructure will cope with 60+ houses heating off electricity in winter and charging the cars, although i suspect the pavements wont need gritting due to the red hot cables underneath them.

 

LPG and enclosed spaces do not get along well.

[peterboat]

6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I am equally confident it won't because LPG is a fossil fuel adding to exactly the same problem as diesel. CO2. 

 

Yes it has lower Nox etc but that does not mean it bungs out any less CO2, and CO2 is the biggie that needs fixing. All the rest is fiddling around the edges of the elephant in the room. 

 

They are already planning to ban gas appliances in houses so why should boats be exempt?

 

 

The overall pollution from LPG is way better than diesels it is a bi product so for a fee thousand boats would do the job. The alternative is electric or bow hauling?

[Alan de Enfield]

45 minutes ago, peterboat said:

The overall pollution from LPG is way better than diesels it is a bi product so for a fee thousand boats would do the job. The alternative is electric or bow hauling?

I may be wrong (so open to correction) but isn't LPG a by-product of the manufacture of Petrol & Diesel.

No petrol or Diesel production = no LPG production.

[StephenA]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I may be wrong (so open to correction) but isn't LPG a by-product of the manufacture of Petrol & Diesel.

No petrol or Diesel production = no LPG production.

Yes as far as I am aware it is, and in a way diesel and petrol are a by-product of LPG production.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, StephenA said:

Yes as far as I am aware it is, and in a way diesel and petrol are a by-product of LPG production.

Then LPG doesn't have much of a future unless the full cost of refining is covered by its retail price.

Petrol & Diesel will be 'obsolete' in the next few (20-30) years. so will be a by-product to be disposed of by ?????? (burning off ?)

[Richard10002]

The Middle East will be an interesting place when nobody wants their oil?

[Chewbacka]

50 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

The Middle East will be an interesting place when nobody wants their oil?

But they do also have a lot of sunshine so can make electric power or use the power to make hydrogen which is used to fuel power stations.  Either way they can sell power.

[Mike Todd]

5 hours ago, peterboat said:

 

 

I have consistently said LPG would sort out emissions to a great extent, electric suits me as Alan says. Cost wise less batteries 1K bought all my electrics solar I had and the batteries were about 3K ish

 I did it myself and sold my old diesel for 2.5K so it wasn't to bad. Narrow boats would be cheaper. I understand Alan's view but the government has no choice in this, they byUK law have to get NOX down to safe levels and big sticks plus high costs will I suspect be employed shortly

There are two separate, but overlapping, objectives in environmental regulatory changes under discussion. The first is the need to reduce harmful emissions so that the atmosphere is not in danger of killing us all with pollution. This debate was made all the more divisive when some regulator devised a standard for diesel engines that the manufacturers proceeded to meet. As with all benchmarks, they often distort the behaviour in ways that were not intended. In this case the cars passed the tests (good) but failed to reduce the emissions (bad). Rather than admit that they cocked kit up (almost always happens with target setting politics) they opted to bad mouth the manufacturers who only took advantage of poorly drafted rules.

 

The second objective is decarbonising the economy - mainly on the grounds that carbon fuels will run out one day and it is better to have alternatives in place well ahead of a collapse in fuel availability. Currently, the pressure to 'go electric' does not always do much for decarbonising if the generation and supply of electrical energy comes from 'conventional' power stations. But it does sometimes seem as if public opinion is driven by what it can see rather what it cannot see.

 

Too often the alternative schemes either for reducing emissions or decarbonising, lack a comprehensive assessment of the implications, but depend on small order changes. In fact, the scale of the problem is such that only large order changes will achieve the aim and history shows that we do not have a good track record on predicting the outcome of such scale change. We may eliminate the original presenting issue but unwittingly introduce something else, perhaps even worse in its impact. Most electrical storage technologies at present involve the use of rather unpleasant substances which are often extracted from the ground in socially dubious contexts.  What happens if we all go solar only to discover that we have used up all of the materials used in their, and battery, manufacture?

 

One thing that policy makers and influencers have discovered is that the 'hair shirt' argument rarely gets much traction. Ways forward have to start from enabling people to keep doing the things they have come to take for granted, otherwise, short of a world melt down, they will never agree.

[Mike Todd]

5 hours ago, Jerra said:

My milk comes from a very local farm thank you.   However you miss the point it seems.  Food not necessarily crisps or beans is what you might refer to as essential (well it is to me you might survive on air).  Even the supply of that and what we eat is going to chance.

 

However cruising for 13 hrs or driving 300+ miles isn't essential those sort of things will change more dramatically and hopefully sooner if the species is to survive.

None of modern conveniences is necessary and we could all return to the cave ages with equally short life spans and illnesses that are excruciating. Human society moves forwards - it cannot go backwards.

4 hours ago, peterboat said:

The overall pollution from LPG is way better than diesels it is a bi product so for a fee thousand boats would do the job. The alternative is electric or bow hauling?

What use is a by product of the the main product is not produced?

[Flyboy]

51 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

What use is a by product of the the main product is not produced?

I agree, no oil company is going to produce LPG alone. They would have to destroy/dispose of the other fractions.

 

 

 

[peterboat]

50 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

None of modern conveniences is necessary and we could all return to the cave ages with equally short life spans and illnesses that are excruciating. Human society moves forwards - it cannot go backwards.

What use is a by product of the the main product is not produced?

 

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I may be wrong (so open to correction) but isn't LPG a by-product of the manufacture of Petrol & Diesel.

No petrol or Diesel production = no LPG production.

 

3 hours ago, StephenA said:

Yes as far as I am aware it is, and in a way diesel and petrol are a by-product of LPG production.

 

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Then LPG doesn't have much of a future unless the full cost of refining is covered by its retail price.

Petrol & Diesel will be 'obsolete' in the next few (20-30) years. so will be a by-product to be disposed of by ?????? (burning off ?)

 

1 hour ago, Richard10002 said:

The Middle East will be an interesting place when nobody wants their oil?

 

1 hour ago, Chewbacka said:

But they do also have a lot of sunshine so can make electric power or use the power to make hydrogen which is used to fuel power stations.  Either way they can sell power.

 

56 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

There are two separate, but overlapping, objectives in environmental regulatory changes under discussion. The first is the need to reduce harmful emissions so that the atmosphere is not in danger of killing us all with pollution. This debate was made all the more divisive when some regulator devised a standard for diesel engines that the manufacturers proceeded to meet. As with all benchmarks, they often distort the behaviour in ways that were not intended. In this case the cars passed the tests (good) but failed to reduce the emissions (bad). Rather than admit that they cocked kit up (almost always happens with target setting politics) they opted to bad mouth the manufacturers who only took advantage of poorly drafted rules.

 

The second objective is decarbonising the economy - mainly on the grounds that carbon fuels will run out one day and it is better to have alternatives in place well ahead of a collapse in fuel availability. Currently, the pressure to 'go electric' does not always do much for decarbonising if the generation and supply of electrical energy comes from 'conventional' power stations. But it does sometimes seem as if public opinion is driven by what it can see rather what it cannot see.

 

Too often the alternative schemes either for reducing emissions or decarbonising, lack a comprehensive assessment of the implications, but depend on small order changes. In fact, the scale of the problem is such that only large order changes will achieve the aim and history shows that we do not have a good track record on predicting the outcome of such scale change. We may eliminate the original presenting issue but unwittingly introduce something else, perhaps even worse in its impact. Most electrical storage technologies at present involve the use of rather unpleasant substances which are often extracted from the ground in socially dubious contexts.  What happens if we all go solar only to discover that we have used up all of the materials used in their, and battery, manufacture?

 

One thing that policy makers and influencers have discovered is that the 'hair shirt' argument rarely gets much traction. Ways forward have to start from enabling people to keep doing the things they have come to take for granted, otherwise, short of a world melt down, they will never agree.

 

52 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

None of modern conveniences is necessary and we could all return to the cave ages with equally short life spans and illnesses that are excruciating. Human society moves forwards - it cannot go backwards.

What use is a by product of the the main product is not produced?

Oil is used for other than making petrol and diesel, so I expect we will still need it and no doubt LPG will still be produced as a bi product of that? (Where is DT Bob when you need him?) 

At the moment NOX is what the courts have said must be reduced so that is a diesel problem so the government has to sort it. As Mike says we have other problems but with luck we will reduce those with electrification from clean sources, which is ongoing. Anyway anybody filled in the consultation?