Future of electric canal boats

[peterboat]

3 minutes ago, Detling said:

Hire boat often have 4 or 6 people who like a shower on the morning, and like to move a long way each day so there won't be much surplus solar power most days even with 1.5 kW of solar which is about all you can easily get on a narrow boat roof and of course this assumes the crew don't want to sunbathe on the roof as you often see. I think there is still a disconnect between peoples desire and the physical reality of thermodynamics.

It was mentioned earlier that heat pumps may help but the best I have seen only give a x3 gain so that would be about 1 kW per hour to heat the boat in winter, the extra 2kW comes either from the air via a noisy fan or from the water, nice and quiet but when the double moored boats in London all extract that heat the canal will become a giant ice cube.  At least it will prevent them having to move.

I guess that if the plan comes to fruition then unless charging points exist hire boats wont then

[cuthound]

21 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

When we had the house built we had to have 'power' run down to it It was approximately 300 yards from the power lines (not Pylons).

We needed a new transformer and a trench, trunking and 300 yards of split concentric cable.

Quoted Price £25,000.

 

Having a digger, I asked for a price with me doing the ground works, they dropped the price to £20,000 which we ended up doing.

 

Just because a power line is 'within a couple of miles' does not mean that it will be economic to get power to the canal-side. There will be a need for a transformer to step down the transmission voltage* to 230v. You cannot just 'splice a bit of cable in' and connect it to a 'socket'.

 

*Overhead & underground power lines in both rural and urban areas run at up to 138Kv (EHV - Plyons - goes up to around 800Kv)

 

Exactly, and there is not much spare capacity in most of the local distribution networks, so even if there is a close electrical supply nearby, pehaps feeding a village, the cables and substation (and possibly those that feed it) may require upgrading.

 

This is already becoming a costly headache for capacity planners trying to plan for a greater uptake of EV's.

 

The local HV to a town or village is usually 3 phase 11,000 volts, transformed down to 415  volts three phase, with domestic premises and light industrial being supplied at 230 volts from a single phase. To get to 11kV from 133kV requires three substations (133kV/66kV, 66kV/33kV, 33kV/11kV), all of which may need replacing, along with the cables between them.

 

Someone is going to have to pay for this. The Government will probably chip in to cover part of the infrastructure upgrades needed for EVs to encourage take up, but I can't see them subsidising the cost for electric boats, so I think it will the boaters who pay via vastly increased licence fees.

 

I can see a vicious circle developing where the increased cost discourages boaters, forcing CRT to further increase licence fees, until it ultimately causes closure of the network.

Edited October 18, 2020 by cuthound
Clarification

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

 

Exactly, and there is not much spare capacity in most of the local distribution networks, so even if there is a close electrical supply nearby, pehaps feeding a village, the cables and substation (and possibly those that feed it) may require upgrading.

 

This is already becoming a costly headache for capacity planners trying to plan for a greater uptake of EV's.

 

The local HV to a town or village is usually 3 phase 11,000 volts, transformed down to 415  volts three phase, with domestic premises and light industrial being supplied at 230 volts from a single phase. To get to 11kV from 133kV requires three substations (133kV/66kV, 66kV/33kV, 33kV/11kV), all of which may need replacing, along with the cables between them.

 

Someone is going to have to pay for this. The Government will probably chip in to cover part of the infrastructure upgrades needed for EVs to encourage take up, but I can't see them subsidising the cost for electric boats, so I think it will the boaters who pay via vastly increased licence fees.

 

I can see a vicious circle developing where the increased cost discourages boaters, forcing CRT to further increase licence fees, until it ultimately causes closure of the network.

I think we will end up with solar on the roof, full movement in the summer and limited movement in the winter, all trying to collect as much wood as possible to heat our boats! So nothing has changed for me

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

I can see a vicious circle developing where the increased cost discourages boaters, forcing CRT to further increase licence fees, until it ultimately causes closure of the network.

 

Either that or boaters go back to GRP or plywood boats displacing 4 tonnes instead of steel boats displacing 12-15 tonnes for leisure use.  Less power needed to move them, less infrastructure damage caused by collisions with edges and furniture, shallower draught so less dredging needed.

 

It's more likely than the whole network being closed, and it's about where canal leisure boating was in the 60's and early 70's.

 

It won't fix the power problems for liveaboard boats, but it would massively help with propulsion demand for cruising.

[cuthound]

7 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I think we will end up with solar on the roof, full movement in the summer and limited movement in the winter, all trying to collect as much wood as possible to heat our boats! So nothing has changed for me

 

I'm hoping that the algae based e-fuels I mentioned earlier will be allowed, certainly in the interim, thus allowing boats to continue as they are and preserving the livelihood of the fuel boats.

 

From what I have read they are clean and sustainable without taking up any arable land.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Either that or boaters go back to GRP or plywood boats displacing 4 tonnes instead of steel boats displacing 12-15 tonnes for leisure use.  Less power needed to move them, less infrastructure damage caused by collisions with edges and furniture, shallower draught so less dredging needed.

 

It's more likely than the whole network being closed, and it's about where canal leisure boating was in the 60's and early 70's.

 

It won't fix the power problems for liveaboard boats, but it would massively help with propulsion demand for cruising.

 

Will it? The extra power is only needed to overcome the weight when accelerating, which doesn't happen that often when boating. 

Edited October 18, 2020 by cuthound
To insert spaces between merged posts

[IanD]

3 hours ago, Detling said:

But who monitors when the boat is moved off, yes it has been unplugged after charging, but you cannot fit a sensor in the ground to detect if it is still clogging the access. Car sensing is easy so you know when the car has moved away. Without a means of automatic policing and fining for overstay, there are some who will happily spent weeks there, particularily in winter when space heating is requred.

Like I said, use that horrible technology that everyone hates so much. It's very likely that all-electric boats -- especially hire ones -- will have Wi-Fi/cellular/Bluetooth radios in because they're dirt cheap (every phone has one) and it allows remote monitoring/fault-finding like Victron does now -- in fact having one fitted could be a condition of being allowed to use the charging points. Combine that with Bluetooth distance-finding -- like the Covid-19 app uses -- and "the system" can tell whether a particular boat has moved away from the charging point after charging or not. And if people stay there after a period of grace, charge them say £5 an hour, doubling after a couple of hours.

 

None of this is either difficult or expensive nowadays, and something similar will be needed anyway with widespread use of car chargers because there will never be enough at busy times and prats will stay parked there unless they're made not to.

 

So the answer is, no person monitors it -- like cars, all the charging points have to work unattended, it's not like a petrol station. If you want to add a webcam so nobody can claim it wasn't them. And they have to have secure payments which are tied to a known user account, just like the banks do with online banking. This is yet another case where we can borrow a solution that another industry has come up with and made to work because they have to.

 

People need to start thinking 21st century, because that's what we're in ?

Edited October 18, 2020 by IanD

[peterboat]

Just now, cuthound said:

 

I'm hoping that the algae based e-fuels I mentioned earlier will be allowed, certainly in the interim, thus allowing boats to continue as they are and preserving the livelihood of the fuel boats.

 

From what I have read they are clean and sustainable without taking up any arable land.

I have just had it on my Google feed according to the article it's a waste of time and extremely wasteful of energy! Of course it was about cars, which after energy losses on electric are 70% efficient, efuels are horrendously inefficient so the question is why bother?

[IanD]

41 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Will it? The extra power is only needed to overcome the weight when accelerating, which doesn't happen that often when boating. 

No it's not. At slow speeds most of the power when moving a boat goes to pushing water out of the way (wake drag) and friction (skin drag), the first is proportional to weight and the second to surface area which also increases with weight because the boat sits deeper in the water.

Edited October 18, 2020 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, peterboat said:

I have just had it on my Google feed according to the article it's a waste of time and extremely wasteful of energy! Of course it was about cars, which after energy losses on electric are 70% efficient, efuels are horrendously inefficient so the question is why bother?

The idea (that I read) was to use excess electric, (for which we are currently paying the generating companies to switch off when not needed), and produce the EFuels at periods of minimum domestic and industrail demand (overnight was suggested) that means that the energy used (even tho very inefficient) is, to all intents and purposes, 'free' so it doesn't matter it uses 2x or 3x the power that conventional diesel production uses.

[IanD]

14 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I have just had it on my Google feed according to the article it's a waste of time and extremely wasteful of energy! Of course it was about cars, which after energy losses on electric are 70% efficient, efuels are horrendously inefficient so the question is why bother?

Who is going to spend a fortune building the plants to grow the algae and extract the fuel when these are going to be obsolete well before they're worn out? If this was such a good idea you'd already see massive ones being rolled out worldwide...

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The idea (that I read) was to use excess electric, (for which we are currently paying the generating companies to switch off when not needed), and produce the EFuels at periods of minimum domestic and industrail demand (overnight was suggested) that means that the energy used (even tho very inefficient) is, to all intents and purposes, 'free' so it doesn't matter it uses 2x or 3x the power that conventional diesel production uses.

Except the alternative idea for the longer term is to either find more efficient ways to store the "spare" energy or ship it long distances using UHV DC links to places that can use it, because this gives 3x the energy bang for the buck when it's then used.

 

This doesn't work today because neither the energy storage or transport infrastructure exists yet (so it works as a short-term stopgap) but it will have to by the time electric transport takes over the world.

 

Anyway we're trying to solve all the world's problems again instead of the canals' ?

Edited October 18, 2020 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Also who is going to spend a fortune building the plants to grow the algae and extract the fuel when these are going to be obsolete well before they're worn out? If this was such a good idea you'd already see massive ones being rolled out worldwide...

Except the alternative idea is to either find more efficient ways to store the "spare" energy or ship it long distances using UHV DC links to places that can use it, because this gives 3x the energy bang for the buck when it's then used.

Rather than pay firms not to produce, why don't we already just 'ship it to where its needed' ?

Could it be that like the 'algae farms' that the infrastructure and the 'will' is not there.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Rather than pay firms not to produce, why don't we already just 'ship it to where its needed' ?

Could it be that like the 'algae farms' that the infrastructure and the 'will' is not there.

It's not there now, just like I said, because it doesn't make sense until renewable energy and electric transport are a much bigger fraction of the market. But for the long-term it's the way things will go, because making the best use of energy is the only sensible thing to do.

 

Like hydrogen, e-fuels are an inefficient stop-gap, largely promoted by people backed directly or indirectly by the fossil fuel industry because it's close to their existing business -- if you don't believe me, go digging into the backgrounds of people and institutes doing this. The car manufacturers aren't going either of these ways because they can see the writing on the wall, and it says batteries ?

Edited October 18, 2020 by IanD

[peterboat]

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

Who is going to spend a fortune building the plants to grow the algae and extract the fuel when these are going to be obsolete well before they're worn out? If this was such a good idea you'd already see massive ones being rolled out worldwide...

Except the alternative idea for the longer term is to either find more efficient ways to store the "spare" energy or ship it long distances using UHV DC links to places that can use it, because this gives 3x the energy bang for the buck when it's then used.

 

This doesn't work today because neither the energy storage or transport infrastructure exists yet (so it works as a short-term stopgap) but it will have to by the time electric transport takes over the world.

 

Anyway we're trying to solve all the world's problems again instead of the canals' ?

 

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Rather than pay firms not to produce, why don't we already just 'ship it to where its needed' ?

Could it be that like the 'algae farms' that the infrastructure and the 'will' is not there.

The government is already going the hydrogen route for the spare energy from the wind turbines, so I don't see anything else getting a look in, no matter how good the idea. The only hydrogen boat I know about failed miserably and last I heard was tied up at Birmingham university unless its recently changed 

[IanD]

2 hours ago, peterboat said:

I guess that if the plan comes to fruition then unless charging points exist hire boats wont then

They'll certainly be far less appealing to a lot of people who hire a boat for a week and *like* travelling long days and doing lots of locks, because they're on a canal holiday.

 

People who live aboard tend to travel much less because they're on the canals all the time, they'll be fine without charging points unless they're using a lot of power in winter.

 

But liveaboards who do this (fine for them) will be disappointed if they expect all hirers to switch to their point of view, many of these will stop hiring. Maybe they'll be replaced by more leisurely silent pootlers, but I doubt it.

 

I suspect the net result would be a big loss of income to the canals, and probably a significant shift up in age of hirers. Some may say that's a good idea, I wouldn't...

 

Meanwhile, are there any more positive ideas on how to make this all work for boaters and canals?

Edited October 18, 2020 by IanD

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The idea (that I read) was to use excess electric, (for which we are currently paying the generating companies to switch off when not needed), and produce the EFuels at periods of minimum domestic and industrail demand (overnight was suggested) that means that the energy used (even tho very inefficient) is, to all intents and purposes, 'free' so it doesn't matter it uses 2x or 3x the power that conventional diesel production uses.

As I said the government has earmarked it for hydrogen production as its really simple and be added to the gas supply as well as other uses that already use dirty hydrogen 

[cuthound]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

No it's not. At slow speeds most of the power when moving a boat goes to pushing water out of the way (wake drag) and friction (skin drag), the first is proportional to weight and the second to surface area which also increases with weight because the boat sits deeper in the water.

 

Yet most people's experience is that canal boats conume 1-1.5 litres of fuel per hour, irrespective of weight and size, so the energy requirements cant vary that much, can they?

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Yet most people's experience is that canal boats conume 1-1.5 litres of fuel per hour, irrespective of weight and size, so the energy requirements cant vary that much, can they?

My 32 x 12 broads cruiser uses a fraction of the power to propel it in comparison to the 57 x 12 widebeam,  it also does this at 24 volts rather than 72 volts,  boaty shape and weight make a big difference in the needs to push a boat along 

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Yet most people's experience is that canal boats conume 1-1.5 litres of fuel per hour, irrespective of weight and size, so the energy requirements cant vary that much, can they?

Because diesel engines already consume about 0.5l/hr without any prop load at all. If you think canal boats can break the laws of physics and thermodynamics, maybe you should write a paper, it could win you a Nobel Prize ?

[cuthound]

2 hours ago, peterboat said:

I have just had it on my Google feed according to the article it's a waste of time and extremely wasteful of energy! Of course it was about cars, which after energy losses on electric are 70% efficient, efuels are horrendously inefficient so the question is why bother?

 

This Wikipedia article suggests the yields are better than existing biofuel crops, but will cost more to produce.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

 

Can you provide a link to the article you read please?

 

I think it has a future as a stop gap until electric vehicles are cost and range competitive with current ICE vehicles.

[cuthound]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

Because diesel engines already consume about 0.5l/hr without any prop load at all. If you think canal boats can break the laws of physics and thermodynamics, maybe you should write a paper, it could win you a Nobel Prize ?

 

No one disputes that diesels consume fuel when idling at locks etc and electric motors don't consume power when stationary. The slight difference in fuel consumption between canal boats of widely different weight, lengths and drafts shows that the energy required to overcome  wake and skin drag is not that significant on typical canals.

[IanD]

7 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

I agree, and this is a message we need to get out loud and clear 

 

The aim is no more than four hours between facilities - it's an aim not a golden rule but CRT will look to "do something" where there are bigger gaps

 

I have had several discussions on facilities per boat as well as facilities per mile. The 8 hour gap with only one tap could have 600 boats in it!

Four hours is about ten miles or half a long days cruising, this sounds like a good target for charging points as well as water points -- in both cases you can usually go two days between fill-ups when travelling but every day is advisable in case the next point is busy, and you don't want to find out that if it's a day to the next one.

 

I'd estimate that most of the well-used parts of the system have boatyards/hire bases ten miles or less apart, so these would fit with the four-hour gap target.

 

I also think that even where this isn't the case there will usually be a town or village in the gap to act as a power source (let's not get into whether the grid and town wiring can cope, remember we're talking about maybe 10000x smaller energy usage than all the UK cars).

 

I'm trying to think of rural canals where this might not be true, for example the Llangollen, Leicester Ring, HCN, Rochdale -- anyone think of any other particularly empty stretches?

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

'Im trying to think of rural canals where this might not be true, for example the Llangollen, Leicester Ring, HCN, Rochdale -- anyone think of any other particularly empty stretches?

Are you also including Rivers ?

[Ronaldo47]

The July 2020 isse of "Modern Railways" has an article that discusses the government's decarbonisation proposals for railways that confirms the government's intention to use spare electricity capacity for hydrogen production.  Due to conversion losses a hydrogen train needs about 3.4kW of grid energy to deliver 1kW to the wheel, compared with 1.2kW for one powered directly from the grid, so only by using off-peak power would it be economically feasible, and these conversion losses would no doubt be the same for canal boats. Hydrogen also need seven times as large a storage tank as diesel for storing the same amount of energy, so for the same size of tank, a diesel tank's weeks would be a hydrogen tank's days.

 

Re heat pump efficiency, my recollection from thermodynamics lectures at university is that a gain of about three is the theoretical practical maximum.

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

This Wikipedia article suggests the yields are better than existing biofuel crops, but will cost more to produce.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

 

Can you provide a link to the article you read please?

 

I think it has a future as a stop gap until electric vehicles are cost and range competitive with current ICE vehicles.

It might have, the big question is whether anyone (government or private) will invest in scaling it up to mass production in the knowledge that it's only a stop-gap.

 

It works fine in the lab and small-scale, but I don't think it will ever go mass-market if there's no money to be made manufacturing it and nobody will buy it because it's too expensive.

 

Even biofuel is in a difficult position now for transport because it might be better for CO2 than fossil fuels but it's still nothing like as good as renewables/batteries, never mind the issues with land use. So it's also a stopgap, but probably a better one than algae because it's already there in mass production and algae isn't.

 

It's the same position turboprops were in, better than IC engines for planes but nowhere near as good (for planes) as jets -- used as a stop-gap but superceded as soon as jets worked reliably. Or even steam engines on canals, better than horses but vanished when diesels came along.

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Are you also including Rivers ?

Of course, same issue applies. Just remember this is a canal forum though so this is the #1 priority for most people on here... ?

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Of course, same issue applies. Just remember this is a canal forum though so this is the #1 priority for most people on here... ?

 There seems to be very many using the Rivers to gate from Canal A to Canal B

 

The River Trent seems to be a major thoroughfare for NB's and there are certainly 'gaps' in excess of 10 miles between locks &/or marinas as you get downstream of Nottingham