Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
IanD

Future of electric canal boats

Featured Posts

I thought I'd start a new topic specifically on this since the other one has got very long and gone a bit off-track. It's a bit long so feel free to not read it if you can't be bothered.

 

Instead of complaining about how difficult it's all going to be and how it will drive people off the canals -- exactly the same objections as to BEV on the road -- I wanted to think about how it could be made to work on the (very likely) assumption that this change is inevitable. Unfortunately technology is involved, which I'm sure will offend some people 😉

 

Let's start from the assumption that the hire fleets *have* to go electric, they renew boats fairly often anyway (and have the money to do so from hire fees), they have facilities, and are not going be allowed an exception to the rule because they don't really have an excuse. So they switch to electric boats with a decent size battery bank onboard -- say 40kWh of 2V traction cells for the moment (see absorption comment below), lithium in the future if the economics (and charging) make more sense -- which together with solar panels on the roof (typically 2.5kW of mono bifacials) is enough to keep boats going for 2 or 3 days cruising (depending on length of day and enthusiasm of crew) before they have to stop and recharge -- a bit like water tanks.

 

Boatyards will have to install recharging facilities to deal with their own boats at changeover, big enough to turn round their entire fleet in time on changeover days -- sound like a lot but they only need about 10kW per boat which isn't so bad, the connection to the grid (probably 3-phase) would only be the size of maybe 3 houses (each of which are normally on separate phases) and the grid seems perfectly capable of supplying far more houses than this. On all the other days this supply is available to charge passing boats, probably at more than 10kW per boat because there will be fewer of them, so a charge would take an hour or so -- and the boatyard would charge for doing this, which helps them pay for the infrastructure.

 

Avoiding the need for long absorption charges for both their own boats and visiting ones would probably push the yards towards lithium batteries, which anyway is the way that cars are going so prices will continue to drop, and boats get a "free ride" on the propulsion technology (high-voltage battery packs and controllers, motors) developed for cars and made in big volumes. The battery state (and boat position) can be remotely monitored in the same way the Victron systems are, this can easily tie into a computer at the boatyard which can do things like warning hirers if their charge is running low, and giving them advice on where the next boatyard/charging station is and how long it will take them to get there -- this is the kind of thing that Teslas already do. The boatyards can then talk to each other via the internet to do things like booking charging slots, warning yards when a boat will turn up, and charging this back to the hiring boatyard who can then bill the customer at the end of their holiday, just like is done now for diesel (or lump it in with the holiday cost).

 

And all this is also available to non-hire boaters too, presumably they will pay more for the electricity to cover the boatyard's costs but this will still end up cheaper than diesel. Boats who only move a bit like peterboat can get enough power from solar and don't need to recharge, at least during the summer -- as in the other thread, things are going to be a bit tight for them in winter.

 

What happens if hirers ignore the warnings and run out of juice, I hear you say? Simple, the boatyard has a 10kW-20kW generator in the back of their maintenance van, they drive out to the boat and recharge it like they would for a breakdown -- and charge the hirer a decent fee (50 quid? 100 quid?) to cover the cost and discourage hirers from ignoring the warnings, just like if they block the pumpout.

 

From the boatyards point of view (once they've bought the boats) this is a winner for their business -- the cost of running and especially maintaining the boats is far lower because they're so much simpler, breakdowns would be few and far between, and they make extra money by selling electricity to passing boats (like they do by selling diesel to them today).

 

On most of the the canal network boatyards are closely enough spaced to make this all work, but there are some sections with few boatyards where additional charging stations would be needed -- the Rochdale and HNC spring to mind, otherwise Shire Cruisers for one are screwed. The obvious thing then is to install these at water points, these are often on towns/villages which have mains nearby. They'd have to be paid for, installation costs could come from CART or a shared levy on the boatyards, but they could make money back by charging more for the electricity at these charging points -- again, just like for BEV.

 

As far as I can see this will work just fine for hire boats, new builds, and anyone else who converts their diesel boat to electric -- which comes at a price, but there's no alternative if we assume this change *is* going to happen. Boating becomes much more pleasant and tranquil for everyone because the noise and fumes are gone, like horse-drawn days but without the sh*t. Some of the biggest objections will undoubtedly come from the traditionalists who (justifiably!) like engines that go chug-chug (or bonk-pause-pause-bonk-bonk...), presumably there would be a "vintage/traditional boat" exception to the rules for these in the same way that there is for classic cars -- but I also guess that building new replicas against the rules would be banned for the same reason. Doesn't affect the current owners since these engines go on pretty much forever, but stops them breeding --the boats, that is.

 

So the traditionalists can be kept happy, but the people who live on old scruffy boats because they're cheap won't be since they'll be unable to afford thousands of pounds to convert their boats to electric -- or will claim they can't afford it and protest mightily to the press (and the organisation we shall not name) about how they're being driven off the canals and their home is being taken away. It's difficult to see how this could be solved, because they basically want to carry on living on a boat which used to be legal but isn't any more -- should they just be accepted as a casualty of change, or should some subsidy be found to help them convert? I can hear the howls of protest now, "I'm not watching part of my license fees used to subsidise scruffy layaboats who break the rules"...

 

I'd love to get comments about this idea -- and if you're going to find problems and pick holes in it, maybe you could try and find solutions to the problems instead of just naysaying? Because even if every doom-monger on the canals doesn't like this change it's going to happen, the only question is when, and it would be better to find ways of making it work for the boating community than it being screwed by having change imposed by a government that doesn't understand the issues.

 

Over to you...

  • Greenie 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, IanD said:

Over to you...

A pretty good summary of where we are going to be.

 

On the subject of charging 'visiting' boats a premium to charge their boats, this is already covered in the legislation for 'reselling of electricity', in that suppliers of 'propulsion' electricity can charge more than they pay so as to recover infrastructure costs.

(unlike marinas' caravan parks etc that must sell at cost for 'residential / domestic' use)

 

From OFGEM

The MRP provisions were designed to protect domestic consumers at risk of overcharging by landlords. Electricity resold4 from charge points for EVs largely differs from this situation as the final consumer may have a choice as to the location and provider for the charging of their vehicle. This could include charging their vehicle at their home or workplace. EV charge points were not considered when the MRP provisions were amended in January 20025 as technology was not sufficiently developed to make general ownership viable. On 20 December 2012 we published a letter6 on our proposal to clarify that the MRP should not apply to the resale of electricity for EVs.

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A well considered post, covering many points

 

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

So the traditionalists can be kept happy, but the people who live on old scruffy boats because they're cheap won't be since they'll be unable to afford thousands of pounds to convert their boats to electric -- or will claim they can't afford it and protest mightily to the press (and the organisation we shall not name) about how they're being driven off the canals and their home is being taken away. It's difficult to see how this could be solved, because they basically want to carry on living on a boat which used to be legal but isn't any more --

The same clause that covers traditionalists would probably cover cheap liveaboards - at least initially. New fossil fuel installations would be banned but existing ones would not. With cars it is known that banning new FF cars in 2030 will probably see the last regular ones off the road by 2050, 15-20 years being the typical life of a car. Sometime around 2055 a special licence will be needed for FF vehicles which will get rid of those bangers which are being kept on only because they haven't expired yet - the lack of readily available fuel will have the same effect. "Special cases" will get a permit, rust-ridden bangers will not

One loophole which may need to be closed (or deliberately left open and exploited) is that diesel engines will run on vegetable oil, and that is technically carbon zero if not emission free - perhaps that is where the fuel for the last few vintage engines will be found? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

The same clause that covers traditionalists would probably cover cheap liveaboards - at least initially. New fossil fuel installations would be banned but existing ones would not. With cars it is known that banning new FF cars in 2030 will probably see the last regular ones off the road by 2050, 15-20 years being the typical life of a car. Sometime around 2055 a special licence will be needed for FF vehicles which will get rid of those bangers which are being kept on only because they haven't expired yet - the lack of readily available fuel will have the same effect. "Special cases" will get a permit, rust-ridden bangers will not

 

It is already well publicised - there is a lead time for boats. I have been posting this information for the last couple of years, and it is only now that a small number of forumites are accepting it and seeing it coming into force.

 

2025 - New boats must be built such that they are capable of being converted to zero emission propulsion, or, are Zero emission propulsion.

 

2035 - NO new boats can be manufactured or sold that are not Zero emission propulsion.

 

2050 - NO boats can be used on UK waters (inland and coastal) that are not Zero emission. All 'existing' diesel, petrol etc, powered boats must be removed from the waters.

 

 

Those of us that will still be around in 2050 have a choice - scrap our engines and replace with 'new technology' or scrap our boats.

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have it correct.

For propulsion lithium is the only way to go.

Charge points will spring up around the network but will likely be privately provided (Its sad that many boatyards have turned into housing developments that don't like boats). CRTt will likely fill in any gaps, rather like they do with pump out machines but almost certainly via a sub-contracted company.

The cheap housing boats/squat boats will still exist (unless a political action removes them) and be much the same, rather than messing about with outboard engines and cans of petrol they will use cheap electric outboards or improvised electric drives and not move very much.

 

Diesel is only needed once in a while but charging will be needed often, we might even see a resurgence of little boatyards, a sort of micro boatyard,  from enterprising canalside houses., its a steady earner with not too much capital investment needed.

 

.................Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dmr said:

I think you have it correct.

For propulsion lithium is the only way to go.

Charge points will spring up around the network but will likely be privately provided (Its sad that many boatyards have turned into housing developments that don't like boats). CRTt will likely fill in any gaps, rather like they do with pump out machines but almost certainly via a sub-contracted company.

The cheap housing boats/squat boats will still exist (unless a political action removes them) and be much the same, rather than messing about with outboard engines and cans of petrol they will use cheap electric outboards or improvised electric drives and not move very much.

 

Diesel is only needed once in a while but charging will be needed often, we might even see a resurgence of little boatyards, a sort of micro boatyard,  from enterprising canalside houses., its a steady earner with not too much capital investment needed.

 

.................Dave

Cuthound will become a millionaire :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are other possible futures, 2050 is a long way off.

 

1 Humans are extinct, our response to the virus and climate change shows just what a stupid species we are.

 

2 Canals filled in and turned into cycleways

 

3 Little nuclear fusion plants

 

3 would be good, and we could have a special vintage reactor for old working boats.

 

................Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

2025 - New boats must be built such that they are capable of being converted to zero emission propulsion, or, are Zero emission propulsion.

I'm aware of the concept but didn't know the date. I'm intrigued as to how capable of being converted is defined. It's difficult to imagine a boat that can't be converted to an electric engine although clearly the conversion might be messy. 

I'm not being facetious with this next comment - is it defined what the ZeroE propulsion must be? A boat Juno's size could be adapted to use oars (Juno isn't well suited, but a centre cockpit version could be) - a 70 foot narrow boat could have a mast and a luby to allow horse propulsion or bow hauling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good post Ian, however I move a lot, not this year but last year I was out at weekends and had an extended holiday, where Jayne caught the train to meet up with me for a couple of weeks, this year would have been similar but Corona put paid to it

Edited by peterboat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

I'm aware of the concept but didn't know the date. I'm intrigued as to how capable of being converted is defined. It's difficult to imagine a boat that can't be converted to an electric engine although clearly the conversion might be messy. 

I'm not being facetious with this next comment - is it defined what the ZeroE propulsion must be? A boat Juno's size could be adapted to use oars (Juno isn't well suited, but a centre cockpit version could be) - a 70 foot narrow boat could have a mast and a luby to allow horse propulsion or bow hauling. 

I'd have thought that any narrowboat with a diesel engine -- including those already buit -- *can* be converted to electric, the space freed up by removing the engine and fuel tanks will be more than enough for the electric motor + batteries, especially if lithium is used not lead-acid. So that clause is a get-out allowing diesel boats to carry on being built until 2035, which in a way seems a shame, all it does it put the evil moment off. Between now and 2025 would be plenty of time to sort out the infrastructure needed if the government and CART got off their collective ars*s and actually *did* something instead of publishing platitudes.

13 minutes ago, peterboat said:

A good post Ian, however I move a lot, not this year but last year I was out at weekends and had an extended holiday, where Jayne caught the train to meet up with me for a couple of weeks, this year would have been similar but Corona put paid to it

But as you've said before, even when you do move it's usually for a few hours not all day, and not day in day out like many hirers or CCers on a longer journey. Not in any way denigrating you for this, it's one reason relying on solar works for you -- the other being a wide boat big enough to fit 5kW of panels on 😉

Edited by IanD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

A well considered post, covering many points

 

The same clause that covers traditionalists would probably cover cheap liveaboards - at least initially. New fossil fuel installations would be banned but existing ones would not. With cars it is known that banning new FF cars in 2030 will probably see the last regular ones off the road by 2050, 15-20 years being the typical life of a car. Sometime around 2055 a special licence will be needed for FF vehicles which will get rid of those bangers which are being kept on only because they haven't expired yet - the lack of readily available fuel will have the same effect. "Special cases" will get a permit, rust-ridden bangers will not

One loophole which may need to be closed (or deliberately left open and exploited) is that diesel engines will run on vegetable oil, and that is technically carbon zero if not emission free - perhaps that is where the fuel for the last few vintage engines will be found? 

Peer pressure from other boaters acting on CART and the government might also force them off the canals -- once hire and private boaters have spent the money to go electric and got used to the lack of noise and fumes, they're much less likely to put up with people running noisy smelly generators or engines even between 8am and 8pm, Doing this may become as socially unacceptable as drink-driving or smoking, and lead to similar ever-tightening legislation...

Edited by IanD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

A well considered post, covering many points

 

The same clause that covers traditionalists would probably cover cheap liveaboards - at least initially. New fossil fuel installations would be banned but existing ones would not. With cars it is known that banning new FF cars in 2030 will probably see the last regular ones off the road by 2050, 15-20 years being the typical life of a car. Sometime around 2055 a special licence will be needed for FF vehicles which will get rid of those bangers which are being kept on only because they haven't expired yet - the lack of readily available fuel will have the same effect. "Special cases" will get a permit, rust-ridden bangers will not

One loophole which may need to be closed (or deliberately left open and exploited) is that diesel engines will run on vegetable oil, and that is technically carbon zero if not emission free - perhaps that is where the fuel for the last few vintage engines will be found? 

I am of the opinion that dates are easily changed when reality kicks in. I clearly recall the changeover to all digital radio and the demise of FM being going to happen a few years ago now and all over by 2016. Its been reviewed again recently and a further ten years given to FM stations from this year. The dates of up to 30 years in the future are easy now to publish as not one of the present bods in parliament will be around and when reality states it aint gonna happen, then the date will be kicked further down the road. Same with cars etc.

  • Greenie 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

is it defined what the ZeroE propulsion must be?

 

Pretty much all that is said is :

 

In the context of the UK, this Clean Maritime Plan sees zero emission shipping as a future whereby no GHGs or air quality pollutants are emitted by vessels (of all types) operating in UK waters or in the ship-to-shore activities required to facilitate those operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I am of the opinion that dates are easily changed when reality kicks in. I clearly recall the changeover to all digital radio and the demise of FM being going to happen a few years ago now and all over by 2016. Its been reviewed again recently and a further ten years given to FM stations from this year. The dates of up to 30 years in the future are easy now to publish as not one of the present bods in parliament will be around and when reality states it aint gonna happen, then the date will be kicked further down the road. Same with cars etc.

The clean electric generation is being increased all the time Tim , whether you like it or not oil is to valuable to waste on transport so electric transport will prevail 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, peterboat said:

The clean electric generation is being increased all the time Tim , whether you like it or not oil is to valuable to waste on transport so electric transport will prevail 

I agree, but only time will tell with the dates.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, peterboat said:

The clean electric generation is being increased all the time Tim , whether you like it or not oil is to valuable to waste on transport so electric transport will prevail 

Putting my Romanian Charity hat on, in a country a lot poorer and with a much thinner population, and much greater concept of communal resources, I'd say Transport, especially rural transport, is a good use of oil as transport serving these areas isn't susceptible to economies of scale whereas cities are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this thread as in most debates about alternatives to fossil fuels, there is confusion/conflation of zero emission and zero carbon.

 

The impact of zero emission is on the immediate (mostly) environment ie the reduction in pollution.

 

The impact of zero carbon is on the consumption of the earth's resources.

 

Both are worthy objectives but they are very different.

 

The use of electric propulsion does not, of itself, improve the use of earth's resources as it simply centralises the production. Of course, centralising can make a difference if it leads to greater quality control and stricter pollution restrictions - individual generation leads to poor quality production if maintenance is neglected and not controlled.

 

It is far from obvious that centralised production of electricity for propulsion purposes is a net gain for the environment. Delivering energy (cos that is what we actually want not electricity or fossil fuel) to mobile units has so far always been inferior, which is why fossil fuels have persisted so well. The debate about canal boats does highlight some of the more complex aspects of that inferiority. There are sociological/political issues as well as technological ones: if all our energy production is centralised then society becomes ever more dictatorial. Look at the impact that oil producers have on price, simply by turning the tap on or off. Most people seem to be opposed to the nanny state (ie governments telling individuals what they can or cannot do) until those controls impact on them - at which point they become libertarians. See how conflicted Boris has become: he is at heart a libertarian but is faced with only dictatorial remedies for COVID-19.

 

But the basic reality of physics is that no energy source is for free - either its inherent costs are lower but with worse side effects or the other way around but there is no win-win - otherwise our search would really be for perpetual motion machines.

 

Lithium batteries recharged from central production units may well be the favoured route at the moment but the world has yet to discover the long term downsides to this (I don't either but my physics, philosophical and engineering parts of my background tell me that there will be plenty)

 

Anyone who devises a means of delivering intensive energy comparable with (or better than) fossil fuel but with the demanded environmental gains will surely eliminate the market for lithium battery systems overnight, depending on the economics. Leaving aside the environmental aspects, battery propulsion is inferior in almost all aspects (except noise?) History tells us that folk don't vote for going backwards, either with the ballot box or their credit cards. And hair shirts are not generally popular either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I agree, but only time will tell with the dates.

With canals it's probably more an image/being seen to do something factor than a real climate issue, since there are 100x as many cars in the UK each using maybe 10x the amount of fuel of a narrowboat you could get the same CO2 reduction by making an extra 0.1% of cars electric as you could by electrifying all narrowboats. Given the (justifiable!) pressure to do something about CO2 emissions, it would put the government and CART in a very difficult position if that gave a blanket exception to all boats on inland waterways, or even offshore pleasure boats/liveaboards.

 

Personally I'd be *delighted* to get rid of diesels (with the exceptions noted) from the canals, both for propulsion and the bane of engine/generator running to charge batteries, gliding along in silence and having quiet unsmelly evenings would make boating even more of an absolute pleasure. I'm sure others will disagree...

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It is already well publicised - there is a lead time for boats. I have been posting this information for the last couple of years, and it is only now that a small number of forumites are accepting it and seeing it coming into force.

 

2025 - New boats must be built such that they are capable of being converted to zero emission propulsion, or, are Zero emission propulsion.  But not zero emission charging?  Hence generators?

 

2035 - NO new boats can be manufactured or sold that are not Zero emission propulsion. But not zero-emission charging?  Hence generators?

 

2050 - NO boats can be used on UK waters (inland and coastal) that are not Zero emission. All 'existing' diesel, petrol etc, powered boats must be removed from the waters.  Link please?  Can propulsion batteries be charged with back up generators?

 

 

Those of us that will still be around in 2050 have a choice - scrap our engines and replace with 'new technology' or scrap our boats.

 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

In this thread as in most debates about alternatives to fossil fuels, there is confusion/conflation of zero emission and zero carbon.

 

The impact of zero emission is on the immediate (mostly) environment ie the reduction in pollution.

 

The impact of zero carbon is on the consumption of the earth's resources.

 

Both are worthy objectives but they are very different.

 

The use of electric propulsion does not, of itself, improve the use of earth's resources as it simply centralises the production. Of course, centralising can make a difference if it leads to greater quality control and stricter pollution restrictions - individual generation leads to poor quality production if maintenance is neglected and not controlled.

 

It is far from obvious that centralised production of electricity for propulsion purposes is a net gain for the environment. Delivering energy (cos that is what we actually want not electricity or fossil fuel) to mobile units has so far always been inferior, which is why fossil fuels have persisted so well. The debate about canal boats does highlight some of the more complex aspects of that inferiority. There are sociological/political issues as well as technological ones: if all our energy production is centralised then society becomes ever more dictatorial. Look at the impact that oil producers have on price, simply by turning the tap on or off. Most people seem to be opposed to the nanny state (ie governments telling individuals what they can or cannot do) until those controls impact on them - at which point they become libertarians. See how conflicted Boris has become: he is at heart a libertarian but is faced with only dictatorial remedies for COVID-19.

 

But the basic reality of physics is that no energy source is for free - either its inherent costs are lower but with worse side effects or the other way around but there is no win-win - otherwise our search would really be for perpetual motion machines.

 

Lithium batteries recharged from central production units may well be the favoured route at the moment but the world has yet to discover the long term downsides to this (I don't either but my physics, philosophical and engineering parts of my background tell me that there will be plenty)

 

Anyone who devises a means of delivering intensive energy comparable with (or better than) fossil fuel but with the demanded environmental gains will surely eliminate the market for lithium battery systems overnight, depending on the economics. Leaving aside the environmental aspects, battery propulsion is inferior in almost all aspects (except noise?) History tells us that folk don't vote for going backwards, either with the ballot box or their credit cards. And hair shirts are not generally popular either.

Precisely this. As the published dates come closer and whoever is in parliament want to keep people voting for them they will move dates to keep votes. If its going to cost the average Joe Bloggs voter thousands to change tac then government will decide wether their survival by voting is more important than dates projected many years prior. It will be easy to say that 

" They " got it wrong in 2020 so the dates are now blah blah blah in the future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, peterboat said:

The clean electric generation is being increased all the time Tim , whether you like it or not oil is to valuable to waste on transport so electric transport will prevail 

That is not he point he made.

 

Yes leccy will prevail BUT the issue is whether it will prevail within the time frames being published now. Completion/target dates set by governments for the completion of major projects are notorious for not being met. Crossrail/HS2 anyone??

 

I have no doubt the full electrification of both the roads and (staying on topic) the waterways will happen but absolutely not within the time frames being set out now.

 

Edit - Oh and just a reminder that no fuel is actually 'clean'. There is no such thing. All fuels no matter how they are generated have an environmental impact somewhere.

Edited by The Happy Nomad
  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dammit, I took the bait didn't I? 😞

 

Could we try and keep the thread on subject and stop it descending into the usual I'm-not-listening-to-you arguments about climate change and fossil fuels and how/when anything will change or whether we'll all charge over the cliff edge together clutching our beloved petrol/diesel cans? 🙂

 

So, back to electric boats on the canals -- hopefully...

2 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

That is not he point he made.

 

Yes leccy will prevail BUT the issue is whether it will prevail within the time frames being published now. Completion/target dates set by governments for the completion of major projects are notorious for not being met. Crossrail/HS2 anyone??

 

I have no doubt the full electrification of both the roads and (staying on topic) the waterways will happen but absolutely not within the time frames being set out now.

So, when it *does* happen, how do you think it can be made to work?

Edited by IanD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IanD said:

Dammit, I took the bait didn't I? 😞

 

Could we try and keep the thread on subject and stop it descending into the usual I'm-not-listening-to-you arguments about climate change and fossil fuels? 🙂

 

So, back to electric boats on the canals -- hopefully...

So, when it *does* happen, how do you think it can be made to work?

I'm afraid you cannot separate the issues that easily.

 

But the only way I can see it working is by having a (fast) charging infrastructure installed right across the network and all boats to have solar arrays with vastly improved solar and battery technology. These of course would need to be metered. Smartphone technology would allow the meter to be activated from the phone with no need to use a card (A bit like Shell 'Pay at Pump' (which unfortunately doesn't always work!)

 

The charging stations would need to be at all VM's possibly lock landings (Ultra fast charging) and at regular spots on the tow path. They could be connected to the grid and in remote locations possibly solar powered with batteries. 

 

Will CRT/EA have the resources to do this?? That tis the million dollar question.

Edited by The Happy Nomad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

The charging stations would need to be at all VM's possibly lock landings (Ultra fast charging) and at regular spots on the tow path. They could be connected to the grid and in remote locations possibly solar powered with batteries. 

 

Will CRT/EA have the resources to do this?? That tis the million dollar question.

 

It occurs to me that why not standardise one existing vehicle charging technology, and install a 100kw charger at every water point. Assume power will run out at the same rate as water for the average boat, then you can do both 'charging' operations at once. That would be a good start without inconveniencing boaters too much.

 

You'd need a pretty massive battery to operate a fuel boat, however!

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.