Jump to content

Future of electric canal boats


IanD

Featured Posts

4 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

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.

Hydrogen probably will be used for spare energy storage like this but as you say it's horribly wasteful, as well as being a swine to deal with. As soon as the government can find any better solution that's less wasteful and easier to use -- batteries, gravity, compressed gas, there are lots of ideas -- they'll drop it like a shot.

 

I thought there were heat-pump A/C units (cooling and heating) with CoP up to around 7 nowadays (see REWTHE) but I'm not sure about this. Decent CoP is the only thing that would make sense of the government drive to replace gas CH with heat pumps, but I'd hardly want to put that forward as evidence ?

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 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

There are, and this is a clear case where extra charging points would be needed. How many of those gaps don't have towns/villages along them that could provide power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

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.

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

 

A major advantage of algae based e-fuel is that it doesnt require the minimg of rare earth metals or litnium and thus is sustainable in the long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

A major advantage of algae based e-fuel is that it doesnt require the minimg of rare earth metals or litnium and thus is sustainable in the long term.

Been round this a million times. Lithium is used now because it's the best choice for high energy densities, there are many other options for batteries in the future including chlorine, which the world has enough of to last for millennia.

 

Cars and trucks and ships will need 10000x as much of whatever it is as narrowboats, so if they don't solve the problem the entire world will grind to a halt and worrying about narrowboats will be the least of our problems...

 

Also something that trebles energy usage because of overall inefficiency can hardly be said to be a sustainable long-term solution, it's a short-term sticking-plaster at best.

 

Anyway by the the lithium runs out we'll probably have fusion power ?

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

Been round this a million times. Lithium is used now because it's the best choice for high energy densities, there are many other options for batteries in the future including chlorine, which the world has enough of to last for millennia.

 

Cars and trucks and ships will need 10000x as much of whatever it is as narrowboats, so if they don't solve the problem the entire world will grind to a halt and worrying about narrowboats will be the least of our problems...

 

Also something that trebles energy usage because of overall inefficiency can hardly be said to be a sustainable long-term solution, it's a short-term stocking-plaster at best.

 

Anyway by the the lithium runs out we'll probably have fusion power ?

 

Yes we have, but ultimately if we are to look after the planet, energy solutions will have to be sustainable. If something is sustainable but less efficient, it is better for the planet than something efficient but unsustainable.

Edited by cuthound
Phat phingers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Yes we have, but ultimately if we are to look after the planet, energy solutions will have to be sustainable. If something is sustainable but less efficient, it is better for the planet than something efficient but unsustainable.

If the eventual source of the power is the sun, either via algae to so-called e-fuel or solar to batteries, you also have to look at things like the total amount/area of land needed to collect this energy, and this is going to be difficult enough to do even with the most efficient ways of transferring and using the power (currently for transport this is solar/grid/batteries/electric motor) -- we're talking tens of thousands of square miles of solar farms here, go and read SEWTHA if you haven't already. Batteries/supercapacitors of some sort will undoubtedly be sustainable in the long run, the only question is what chemistry will be used.

 

So it's literally inconcievable that the world will widely adopt an energy solution (algae/efuel or hydrogen or anything else) which needs 2x or 3x the (already huge) area/cost to generate the same amount of usable energy at the end -- and who would buy/use this energy at 2x or 3x the price?

 

The answer is cases which absolutely can't use batteries because of weight/power density, and the only definite one so far is long-distance air travel (unless there's an enormous breakthrough in batteries). Long-range ships are another one, but given that the entire world economy currently relies on dirt-cheap intercontinental container shipping you can see there will be huge pressure to find a way to make this work efficiently too. This may mean enormous batteries (maybe bigger/heavier/cheaper) and lower ship speeds, nothing will be as fast and cheap as burning fuel oil but this won't be acceptable any more so another solution will have to be found.

 

Change is coming, and saying "but it's not as cheap and easy and as much fun as burning fossil fuels!" won't cut it any more, whether this is cars with big rumbling V8 engines for petrolheads or dirt-cheap dirty diesels in narrowboats. Energy efficiency will be the #1 priority in this brave new world, with sustainabilty a close second.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Long-range ships are another one, but given that the entire world economy currently relies on dirt-cheap intercontinental container shipping you can see there will be huge pressure to find a way to make this work efficiently too.

 

It's likely they'll end up building big battery banks into standard shipping containers for that one.  Plug them together and accept the loss of some cargo capacity for the ease of swapping them out dockside.

 

Sails might make a comeback too!  I understand that what killed the Australia - UK grain trade was that it cost too much in fuel to make the trade worthwhile once they started using steamships instead of sailing ships.  Before that it was "free" transport.

 

Sadly neither of these suggestions are likely to help on narrowboats ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, IanD said:

There are, and this is a clear case where extra charging points would be needed. How many of those gaps don't have towns/villages along them that could provide power?

Remember that below Cromwell the river is tidal and there is only one mooring pontoon between Cromwell and Torksey The distance is about 20 miles. 

The pontoon is near Newton on Trent (15 'ish Miles from Cromwell) but it would require a power supply running from NoT, over the bridge and then down to the pontoon.

Achievable but expensive.

 

 

Screenshot (11)_LI.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

It's likely they'll end up building big battery banks into standard shipping containers for that one.  Plug them together and accept the loss of some cargo capacity for the ease of swapping them out dockside.

 

Sails might make a comeback too!  I understand that what killed the Australia - UK grain trade was that it cost too much in fuel to make the trade worthwhile once they started using steamships instead of sailing ships.  Before that it was "free" transport.

 

Sadly neither of these suggestions are likely to help on narrowboats ...

 

Going slower is another option, many container ships are already doing this. Fuel consumed per day is proportional to speed cubed, so fuel for a given journey is proportional to speed squared. Dropping from 20kts to 14kts halves the fuel used for a trip, which takes 40% longer, so one ship can only deliver 70% as many goods (capital cost depreciation) but uses 50% or the fuel (running cost). This is why going slower and slower eventually becomes counter-productive, for a given fuel cost there's an optimum speed -- this drops whenever fuel prices go up and so the ships slow down, there's loads of data showing this.

 

There will be exactly the same tradeoff if ships use batteries, cost/size of batteries/energy vs. cost of ship and shipping time. Minimum shipping cost will mean travelling more slowly, maybe even slower than the "slow steaming" ships do now. But a solution *will* be found, and for sure it won't be burning heavy bunker fuel like they do now...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming

 

People are proposing sails but they have the same problem that solar does on land, low energy/power density -- as ships get bigger (which means cheaper per ton of cargo) it gets more and more difficult to fly big enough sails to pull the ship along. Worked fine in the days of 1000-ton tea clippers, not so good for a 100000-ton container ship...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

If the eventual source of the power is the sun, either via algae to so-called e-fuel or solar to batteries, you also have to look at things like the total amount/area of land needed to collect this energy, and this is going to be difficult enough to do even with the most efficient ways of transferring and using the power (currently for transport this is solar/grid/batteries/electric motor) -- we're talking tens of thousands of square miles of solar farms here, go and read SEWTHA if you haven't already. Batteries/supercapacitors of some sort will undoubtedly be sustainable in the long run, the only question is what chemistry will be used.

 

The answer is cases which absolutely can't use batteries because of weight/power density, and the only definite one so far is long-distance air travel (unless there's an enormous breakthrough in batteries). Long-range ships are another one, but given that the entire world economy currently relies on dirt-cheap intercontinental container shipping you can see there will be huge pressure to find a way to make this work efficiently too. This may mean enormous batteries (maybe bigger/heavier/cheaper) and lower ship speeds, nothing will be as fast and cheap as burning fuel oil but this won't be acceptable any more so another solution will have to be found.

 

Change is coming, and saying "but it's not as cheap and easy and as much fun as burning fossil fuels!" won't cut it any more, whether this is cars with big rumbling V8 engines for petrolheads or dirt-cheap dirty diesels in narrowboats. Energy efficiency will be the #1 priority in this brave new world, with sustainabilty a close second.

 

Super capacitors and conductors are likely to need rare materials, so unlikely to be sustainable in the long term

 

Did you not read the Wikipedia link? It states the the algae can be grown in saltwater or lakes and would require only 0.42% of the US land mass to meet current petrol & diesel needs if grown in purpose built lakes. To use soley as fuel for ships and planes would take even less land mass, which does not need to be arable.

 

I disagree with your last sentence. Ultimately I think it will be the other way round. 


 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Super capacitors and conductors are likely to need rare materials, so unlikely to be sustainable in the long term

 

Did you not read the Wikipedia link? It states the the algae can be grown in saltwater or lakes and would require only 0.42% of the US land mass to meet current petrol & diesel needs if grown in purpose built lakes. To use soley as fuel for ships and planes would take even less land mass, which does not need to be arable.

 

I disagree with your last sentence. Ultimately I think it will be the other way round. 


 

There is a huge amount of work going on to find materials for batteries/supercapacitors/motors which are more common than rare earths and lithium, for example chlorine (batteries)/carbon nanotubes(supercapacitors)/other less-rare-rare-earths(neodymium) or other magnetic materials or field coils instead of PMs.

 

Yes I read the link. That area figure (15000 square miles) is just for the USA. Let me quote some other bits from the link:

 

"Whereas technical problems, such as harvesting, are being addressed successfully by the industry, the high up-front investment of algae-to-biofuels facilities is seen by many as a major obstacle to the success of this technology."

 

"The group found that capital cost, labor cost and operational costs (fertilizer, electricity, etc.) by themselves are too high for algae biofuels to be cost-competitive with conventional fuels. Similar results were found by others,[155][156][157] suggesting that unless new, cheaper ways of harnessing algae for biofuels production are found, their great technical potential may never become economically accessible."

 

You might also want to read this:

 

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/lessons-from-the-great-algae-biofuel-bubble

 

When compared to renewable like solar power the picture is even worse...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

 

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.

Their is a huge difference in power usage between my 2 boats, honestly boaty shape and weight is the way forward for low energy use this for electric 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

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.

So where do you think the energy goes, apart from wake and skin drag?

 

The Vicprop calculator says that for a typical 57' narrowboat *in deep water* 3kw/4bhp (1400rpm on a Beta 43) will propel it at 3.7knots which is 4.2mph, which seems about right to me -- slower than this (3-3.5mph) in a narrower shallower canal because it's harder to push the water back past the hull. These calculations include wake and skin drag, no magic fairy anchors or anything else to absorb the power.

 

If you look at the Beta 43 data sheet, the fuel consumption is almost flat at low revs -- about 0.8l/h at idle rising slowly to 1.5l/h at 1400rpm/4bhp (~20% thermal efficiency), so it's not surprising that most boats are in the 1-1.5l/h range since the engine consumes 0.8l/h when going nowhere. This doesn't apply to electric motors where the efficiency remains high at low power because they consume nothing when not moving -- Vicprop says dropping the power to 1bhp drops speed to 2.3knots, 60% of speed for 25% of power.

 

So with electric power the drag (and energy consumption) differences with speed are much more apparent -- and real, I'm afraid that *is* why you need power to push a narrowboat along ?

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going slower is not always going to be a commercially-acceptable option. When I was with GEC In the 1990's I once had dealings with Paxmans. Their then-new diesel was an attractive option for certain ferry operators in the Baltic whose ferry boats were then taking over 9 hours for a crossing. With the newer, more powerful engines, this could come down to under 8 hours, meaning that the services could be operated using only one 8 hour watch rather than two. Halving the labour cost more than compensated for the increased fuel consumption. I guess different economic conditions apply to modern mega-container shipping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

Going slower is not always going to be a commercially-acceptable option. When I was with GEC In the 1990's I once had dealings with Paxmans. Their then-new diesel was an attractive option for certain ferry operators in the Baltic whose ferry boats were then taking over 9 hours for a crossing. With the newer, more powerful engines, this could come down to under 8 hours, meaning that the services could be operated using only one 8 hour watch rather than two. Halving the labour cost more than compensated for the increased fuel consumption. I guess different economic conditions apply to modern mega-container shipping.

That's what I said, the slower you go the fewer trips you get out of the ship and the more the crew costs, but the less the fuel costs. It's a trade-off to get lowest overall cost, more expensive fuel means going slower and vice versa.

 

Doesn't really affect boats on the canals in the same way, but with a diesel engine which burns fuel even when idling there's still a most economical speed which is probably a couple of mph. With electric power slower means less energy right down to hardly moving at all, though I doubt many people would want to go at 1mph all day just to keep the kWh down -- but this would work if you had a long gap between charging stations or your batteries were running low...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Remember that below Cromwell the river is tidal and there is only one mooring pontoon between Cromwell and Torksey The distance is about 20 miles. 

The pontoon is near Newton on Trent (15 'ish Miles from Cromwell) but it would require a power supply running from NoT, over the bridge and then down to the pontoon.

Achievable but expensive.

 

 

Screenshot (11)_LI.jpg

Is anyone aware of similar long (>10 miles) boatyard/marina/town/village-free stretches on the canals?

 

If not (or there are only a few gaps), this suggests that the "charging problem" isn't really a problem, apart from needing somebody (CART?) to get off their a*se and make it happen -- which probably needs somebody senior in CART to take charge of it and push for it to happen and try and screw some money out of the government to pay for it.

 

You'd think that wouldn't be too difficult given the (alleged) commitment to Going Green (including for boats) and the negligible cost compared to all the other stuff (including pointless greenwashing and consultants) that the government is spending vast amounts of money on, but I expect their instinct will be to try and get the private sector to pay for it (and make profit out of it) instead of looking at it as an investment into improving a much-loved historical asset which belongs to the country... ?

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make all non-river canals one way.  Install stationary electric pumps and generate an artificial current of about 2pmh. Make all boat drift-able.  Develop superior fendors to allow bouncing off things (TimFenders).  Instal JenTractors on those sections where this is not practicable. Adapt the principle for locks etc.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks very much to everyone who's contributed to this thread. It's been very interesting and quite hard keeping up with so much going on!

 

Because we're 7 days in I think I can see certain sub-threads that emerged: I'll try to deal with these in turn so that people can keep track... inevitably there'll some overlap and of course some places where you may not agree with my division between sub-threads :(

 

 

Ian's starting point (hire fleets have to go electric) is a good one and talking about the infrastructure needed for this to happen is important and has taken up a large proportion of the debate.

 

The next question raised was about the end of life of existing diesel engines. In various guises this also took up quite a lot of debate.

 

Then there was the question of zero emissions v zero carbon which I'm going to expand to cover depletion of natural resources and disposal. Maybe climate change (not sure about this since, as was stated many times, collectively we are a tiny source of carbon emissions).

 

There was an interesting diversion to question the viability of fuel boats. I do like the idea of fuel boats but, quite honestly, I don't see how they can survive in a battery powered world. Still, the timescales before no-one is allowed to use diesel will be long enough for other businesses to grow in their place.

 

Alternatives to fossil derived diesel got a good airing. Maybe there's something in that for those boats with modern diesel engines that are still being produced.

 

Some people wanted to discuss Hydrogen. Does anybody really think that's going to be viable for leisure boaters?

 

Some very alternative solutions got posted too. I really wasn't sure whether that was thinking outside the box or frivolity. Maybe a combination.

 

Off on one of the tangents: how are tractors and other agricultural vehicles going to be powered? Diesel does have an extremely high energy density. I can't see farmers wanting to recharge every hour especially when they're working on the other side of the farm [anecdote – my next door neighbour's nephew is a farmer in Nebraska, a couple of years ago he was harvesting some crop (wheat probably) and went 2 miles over the boundary into the next farm before he realised... ]

 

What about safety? That didn't get much of a look in. Personally I think it deserves more attention.

 

Then there's the question of how much energy a boat needs to carry around and where to store it?

Apart from the question of propulsion there's all the other energy use to consider.

 

Anybody like to come back on any of those? Did I miss anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/10/2020 at 17:00, IanD said:

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?

Bridgewater, if its like sanitary stations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, I've been looking at various types of lithium cells.

@peterboat is using lithium polymer (Lipo) cells. I have heard these can be pretty unstable if mistreated (not that I'm suggesting anyone on this forum would) whereas LiFePO4 (LFP) are supposed to be much more stable.

Then there's LTO which seem to me to be the way to go although they are much more expensive to buy and their energy density is only about half that of LFP. To me the big plus is they are supposed to be able to both charge and discharge down to -40 degrees C and a 40Ah cell can charge at 400A which is going to be a big advantage for hire fleets who want to turn the boat around in the minimum time possible. They also claim 30,000 cycles as opposed to 500 for Lipo.

 

I would like to see some independent verification of these figures - so far most of what I have comes from one vendor https://shop.gwl.eu/.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, George and Dragon said:

Thanks very much to everyone who's contributed to this thread. It's been very interesting and quite hard keeping up with so much going on!

 

Because we're 7 days in I think I can see certain sub-threads that emerged: I'll try to deal with these in turn so that people can keep track... inevitably there'll some overlap and of course some places where you may not agree with my division between sub-threads :(

 

 

Ian's starting point (hire fleets have to go electric) is a good one and talking about the infrastructure needed for this to happen is important and has taken up a large proportion of the debate.

 

The next question raised was about the end of life of existing diesel engines. In various guises this also took up quite a lot of debate.

 

Then there was the question of zero emissions v zero carbon which I'm going to expand to cover depletion of natural resources and disposal. Maybe climate change (not sure about this since, as was stated many times, collectively we are a tiny source of carbon emissions).

 

There was an interesting diversion to question the viability of fuel boats. I do like the idea of fuel boats but, quite honestly, I don't see how they can survive in a battery powered world. Still, the timescales before no-one is allowed to use diesel will be long enough for other businesses to grow in their place.

 

Alternatives to fossil derived diesel got a good airing. Maybe there's something in that for those boats with modern diesel engines that are still being produced.

 

Some people wanted to discuss Hydrogen. Does anybody really think that's going to be viable for leisure boaters?

 

Some very alternative solutions got posted too. I really wasn't sure whether that was thinking outside the box or frivolity. Maybe a combination.

 

Off on one of the tangents: how are tractors and other agricultural vehicles going to be powered? Diesel does have an extremely high energy density. I can't see farmers wanting to recharge every hour especially when they're working on the other side of the farm [anecdote – my next door neighbour's nephew is a farmer in Nebraska, a couple of years ago he was harvesting some crop (wheat probably) and went 2 miles over the boundary into the next farm before he realised... ]

 

What about safety? That didn't get much of a look in. Personally I think it deserves more attention.

 

Then there's the question of how much energy a boat needs to carry around and where to store it?

Apart from the question of propulsion there's all the other energy use to consider.

 

Anybody like to come back on any of those? Did I miss anything?

 

10 minutes ago, George and Dragon said:

Meanwhile, I've been looking at various types of lithium cells.

@peterboat is using lithium polymer (Lipo) cells. I have heard these can be pretty unstable if mistreated (not that I'm suggesting anyone on this forum would) whereas LiFePO4 (LFP) are supposed to be much more stable.

Then there's LTO which seem to me to be the way to go although they are much more expensive to buy and their energy density is only about half that of LFP. To me the big plus is they are supposed to be able to both charge and discharge down to -40 degrees C and a 40Ah cell can charge at 400A which is going to be a big advantage for hire fleets who want to turn the boat around in the minimum time possible. They also claim 30,000 cycles as opposed to 500 for Lipo.

 

I would like to see some independent verification of these figures - so far most of what I have comes from one vendor https://shop.gwl.eu/.

No I use LifePo4s on my boat, the lithium polymer I use in my electric car, I have watched tests on them conducted by a friend overcharged short circuit and mechanical damage did not result in a fire of any sort Dr Bob has seen the video as well. 

As for electric in boats my solar system works for me, I cannot see CRT doing anything for us when we have to lose diesel, Finesse are building 9 out of the next 10 boats all electric, so they seem confident that the government mean business. I think that when the ICE ban comes in for vehicles we will follow suit, bio and efuel might give older boats a longer lease of life but natural wastage will get rid of diesel along with probably higher prices. 

Solar panels will soon be the coating on objects with a 35% efficiency so maybe that will do? I do know we won't be left alone as I have said all along we will be collateral damage 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

 

No I use LifePo4s on my boat, the lithium polymer I use in my electric car, I have watched tests on them conducted by a friend overcharged short circuit and mechanical damage did not result in a fire of any sort Dr Bob has seen the video as well. 

As for electric in boats my solar system works for me, I cannot see CRT doing anything for us when we have to lose diesel, Finesse are building 9 out of the next 10 boats all electric, so they seem confident that the government mean business. I think that when the ICE ban comes in for vehicles we will follow suit, bio and efuel might give older boats a longer lease of life but natural wastage will get rid of diesel along with probably higher prices. 

Solar panels will soon be the coating on objects with a 35% efficiency so maybe that will do? I do know we won't be left alone as I have said all along we will be collateral damage 

I'd take the "35% efficient solar panels with coating on objects" with a bucketful of salt if I were you, for the same reason that the "new 45% efficiency record" isn't relevant -- using solar concentrators and quadruple-layered panels using rare earths is fine for a lab record (at 10x or 100x the cost per watt), but for low-cost mass-produced panels nobody worldwide is betting on significant improvements over monocrystalline silicon in the near future. Like new-super-duper batteries there are sites that publish fantastically upbeat articles about things like this which never come to fruition, but a year later do the same all over again.

 

The point is that unlike battery aeroplanes we don't *need* any big technological breakthroughs to make all this work *for narrowboats*, all the technology already exists -- the two sticking points are getting battery costs down (which cars will do for us anyway, and also they'll deal with all the safety issues which are *much* worse for them -- narrowboats don't often crash at 100mph) and sorting out charging, which is the real issue for canals.

 

All the "big issues" with obsoleting diesel/cost of replacements/grid power/renewables are the same problems as cars have, so let them solve the problems for us.

Link to comment
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   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.