Jump to content

The now of electric boats...


magpie patrick

Featured Posts

I thought I'd start another thread rather than get the existing ones even more confused...

 

A friend of mine has turned his caracruiser all electric, or at least all electric propulsion!

 

Solar panels on the roof powering a bison electric outboard - initial trails used no batteries this summer got 3mph on a fine day and 2mph on an overcast one. The boat slowed through bridges and for obvious reasons they didn't try any tunnels. 

 

As he pointed out, a Caracruiser has a very large area of roof for the size of boat, so his solar-to-weight ratio is unusually high. He is also fitting some batteries so that tunnels are possible and he can at least make it to the next pub if the storm clouds gather. 

 

I realise the boat is very lighweight but I was impressed by the direct solar-to-motion performance.

 

I'm in the process of ordering a new (petrol) outboard for Juno - I think my type of cruising might be too challenging for this arrangement (rivers, possible tidal rivers, even Clifton Gorge) but it's interesting to note... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magpie patrick said:

I thought I'd start another thread rather than get the existing ones even more confused...

 

A friend of mine has turned his caracruiser all electric, or at least all electric propulsion!

 

Solar panels on the roof powering a bison electric outboard - initial trails used no batteries this summer got 3mph on a fine day and 2mph on an overcast one. The boat slowed through bridges and for obvious reasons they didn't try any tunnels. 

 

As he pointed out, a Caracruiser has a very large area of roof for the size of boat, so his solar-to-weight ratio is unusually high. He is also fitting some batteries so that tunnels are possible and he can at least make it to the next pub if the storm clouds gather. 

 

I realise the boat is very lighweight but I was impressed by the direct solar-to-motion performance.

 

I'm in the process of ordering a new (petrol) outboard for Juno - I think my type of cruising might be too challenging for this arrangement (rivers, possible tidal rivers, even Clifton Gorge) but it's interesting to note... 

You are probably aware of the electric "water taxi" based near Bathampton on the K & A.

A very fine stainless hull, and seems to operate very reliably all day.

Unfortunately the local swan was not impressed, and continuously used to chase it up and down the cut - until it got too close to the prop once!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

I thought I'd start another thread rather than get the existing ones even more confused...

 

A friend of mine has turned his caracruiser all electric, or at least all electric propulsion!

 

Solar panels on the roof powering a bison electric outboard - initial trails used no batteries this summer got 3mph on a fine day and 2mph on an overcast one. The boat slowed through bridges and for obvious reasons they didn't try any tunnels. 

 

As he pointed out, a Caracruiser has a very large area of roof for the size of boat, so his solar-to-weight ratio is unusually high. He is also fitting some batteries so that tunnels are possible and he can at least make it to the next pub if the storm clouds gather. 

 

I realise the boat is very lighweight but I was impressed by the direct solar-to-motion performance.

 

I'm in the process of ordering a new (petrol) outboard for Juno - I think my type of cruising might be too challenging for this arrangement (rivers, possible tidal rivers, even Clifton Gorge) but it's interesting to note... 

Outboard on a Narrowboat, strapped to the rudder, I have no idea how well it performed.

smallDSCF4519.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

In that position I doubt it provides much motive power - it may be a little better if it is put into the water.

Maybe it's based on a modified Ecofan.  The draught produced by the propeller would blow the boat along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a massive carbon footprint lingering around the ten tons of steel used to make a narrowboat. The environmental damage caused by how that ten tons of steel is propelled during it's lifetime is probably very small, in comparison. It would be interesting to have confirmation of this, or otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/10/2020 at 10:53, magpie patrick said:

I thought I'd start another thread rather than get the existing ones even more confused...

 

A friend of mine has turned his caracruiser all electric, or at least all electric propulsion!

 

Solar panels on the roof powering a bison electric outboard - initial trails used no batteries this summer got 3mph on a fine day and 2mph on an overcast one. The boat slowed through bridges and for obvious reasons they didn't try any tunnels. 

 

As he pointed out, a Caracruiser has a very large area of roof for the size of boat, so his solar-to-weight ratio is unusually high. He is also fitting some batteries so that tunnels are possible and he can at least make it to the next pub if the storm clouds gather. 

 

I realise the boat is very lighweight but I was impressed by the direct solar-to-motion performance.

 

I'm in the process of ordering a new (petrol) outboard for Juno - I think my type of cruising might be too challenging for this arrangement (rivers, possible tidal rivers, even Clifton Gorge) but it's interesting to note... 

That is very interesting to me as I am giving electric propulsion some thought for my Norman 20,which I think will be a similar size as a Caracruiser.

I assume your friend is using the 100lb thrust Bison motor.

What wattage of solar does he have to achieve the performance he's getting?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two main reasons many narrow boats have big engines it for working against a current, mainly rivers, but the tunnels and aquaducts on the llangollen have quite a strong current. The other reason is 10 or more tons of boat moving at even 2 MPH takes a lot of stopping, if you want to stop in less than 3 or 4 boat lengths you need a significant amount of power. You can bow haul one quite easily but it takes a minute or two to get moving with some steerable, stopping is basically takes a controlled crash into the bank to do it, as pulling backwards just drags the boat towards the bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mad Harold said:

That is very interesting to me as I am giving electric propulsion some thought for my Norman 20,which I think will be a similar size as a Caracruiser.

 

It's the shape of the superstructure not just overall size that makes the difference I think.  A Caracruiser has a lot of (nearly rectangular) flat cabin top to mount solar on, a Norman 20 doesn't.

 

161654-145419.jpg?itok=MWDUfU-H   

 

or

 

ZjFB_aD20Tg225MniUc7IKozHsYsKadmcc-5QSDT

 

I think you'd successfully be able to cruise a Norman 20 on a low powered electric motor, but unless you make a carport style framework and cover it in solar panels I'm not sure you have enough area, and if you did this you might not have any stability left!

 

Batteries charged by a source off the boat should work(shorepower or solar array on the bank?), with a couple of small solar panels on the cabin to help out a bit on a sunny day.

 

Electric Caracruiser:

http://www.pikelock.co.uk/electric_boating/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/10/2020 at 10:53, magpie patrick said:

I thought I'd start another thread rather than get the existing ones even more confused...

 

A friend of mine has turned his caracruiser all electric, or at least all electric propulsion!

 

Solar panels on the roof powering a bison electric outboard - initial trails used no batteries this summer got 3mph on a fine day and 2mph on an overcast one. The boat slowed through bridges and for obvious reasons they didn't try any tunnels. 

 

As he pointed out, a Caracruiser has a very large area of roof for the size of boat, so his solar-to-weight ratio is unusually high. He is also fitting some batteries so that tunnels are possible and he can at least make it to the next pub if the storm clouds gather. 

 

I realise the boat is very lighweight but I was impressed by the direct solar-to-motion performance.

 

I'm in the process of ordering a new (petrol) outboard for Juno - I think my type of cruising might be too challenging for this arrangement (rivers, possible tidal rivers, even Clifton Gorge) but it's interesting to note... 

Was it this one? http://www.pikelock.co.uk/electric_boating/index.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have said in other threads the Broads cruiser [bathtub] takes little power to move it and that is 32 x 12 and has a great roof for solar, I am glad the chap has proved that cruising from the sun is practical because its how I have been doing it for a couple of years

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, peterboat said:

As I have said in other threads the Broads cruiser [bathtub] takes little power to move it and that is 32 x 12 and has a great roof for solar, I am glad the chap has proved that cruising from the sun is practical because its how I have been doing it for a couple of years

I did contact him to query why ne did some of the things he did, not sure that is how I would have connected everything up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best reason for a steel boat is at end of life it can be recycled but what do you do with tons of GRP? Same as aircraft the 787 fuselage is carbon fibre what do you do with at end of life carbon fibre coke tins lol.it 

As to electric what harm is done making shed loads of batteries which have a limited life span. The thing to look at is the carbon foot print over the items complete life birth, use and death. A few years back a Jeep Wrangler was best for this as its mostly steel little plastic and limited electronics so overall came out top for life time carbon foot print.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Oddjob said:

Best reason for a steel boat is at end of life it can be recycled but what do you do with tons of GRP? Same as aircraft the 787 fuselage is carbon fibre what do you do with at end of life carbon fibre coke tins lol.it 

As to electric what harm is done making shed loads of batteries which have a limited life span. The thing to look at is the carbon foot print over the items complete life birth, use and death. A few years back a Jeep Wrangler was best for this as its mostly steel little plastic and limited electronics so overall came out top for life time carbon foot print.

What you say is true but unfortunately the public have been duped into believing that damage to the environment is only caused by propelling vehicles, boats etc. That they appear, and disappear at the end of their lives as if by magic, with no damage caused. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

What you say is true but unfortunately the public have been duped into believing that damage to the environment is only caused by propelling vehicles, boats etc. That they appear, and disappear at the end of their lives as if by magic, with no damage caused. 

And a lot of people repeatedly trot out the tired anti-green tropes about "what about the carbon footprint and cost of mining all that lithium and making all those batteries and building all those windfarms and making all those solar panels?" while carefully ignoring the point that Oddjob made, which is that lifetime footprint including all manufacturing and recycling/disposal costs is what matters -- and when this is done, all these renewable-based solutions (batteries, windfarms) come out way ahead of fossil-fuel transport or power generation.

 

Incidentally I believe the same is true for carbon-fiber planes like the 787 -- it does take a lot of energy to make the materials and they're difficult to recycle, but this is far outweighed by fuel (CO2) saved over the life of the plane from the weight saving because planes use a *vast* amount of fuel and lighter planes use less...

 

Always check the numbers, "common sense" and intuition is very often wrong ?

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

And a lot of people repeatedly trot out the tired anti-green tropes about "what about the carbon footprint and cost of mining all that lithium and making all those batteries and building all those windfarms and making all those solar panels?" while carefully ignoring the point that Oddjob made, which is that lifetime footprint including all manufacturing and recycling/disposal costs is what matters -- and when this is done, all these renewable-based solutions (batteries, windfarms) come out way ahead of fossil-fuel transport or power generation.

That may be so, based on a new build/ manufacture. However, if we have a perfectly serviceable item that can continue to be used, with regular servicing, and repair when necessary, that will most certainly come out on top, in green terms, rather than scrapping this and building a whole new electric replacement. I know, people's jobs depend on us scrapping serviceable items, we need the growth in the economy and all that. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

That may be so, based on a new build/ manufacture. However, if we have a perfectly serviceable item that can continue to be used, with regular servicing, and repair when necessary, that will most certainly come out on top, in green terms, rather than scrapping this and building a whole new electric replacement. I know, people's jobs depend on us scrapping serviceable items, we need the growth in the economy and all that. 

Again, that may or may not be true, only the numbers will tell -- it depends on the fuel/energy/CO2 savings of the new item (e.g. boat/car) compared to the old one. What's certainly true is that your assertion in not certainly true... ?

 

I'm not just nitpicking here, I just hate sweeping generalisations and "certainties" that aren't backed up by the facts. Say I drove an old (but beautifully made) gaz-guzzler that did 20mpg on fossil fuels and I plan to drive 50000 miles a year in it for the next 20 years instead of replacing it with an electric car that does the equivalent of 100mpg on renewable energy, are you seriously saying that it's better to keep the old banger even though it will chuck out the extra CO2 equivalent to burning 45000 gallons of petrol? Never mind all the other hideous pollutants like NOx and particulates...

 

Yes this is an extreme case, but there are many others where the "old=good new=bad" idea falls apart, as well as plenty of cases where it's true. Planned obsolescence is indeed a bad thing, but so is carrying on using old kit which has a terrible environmental impact. The facts will tell us which is better in each case.

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

I'm not just nitpicking here, I just hate sweeping generalisations and "certainties" that aren't backed up by the facts. Say I drove an old (but beautifully made) gaz-guzzler that did 20mpg on fossil fuels and I plan to drive 50000 miles a year in it for the next 20 years instead of replacing it with an electric car that does the equivalent of 100mpg on renewable energy, are you seriously saying that it's better to keep the old banger even though it will burn 900,000 miles worth of extra petrol?

It is a rather extreme example. However, based on studies (rather than sweeping generalisations) it's been established that the design, manufacture, transportation, sales process and eventual disposal of a car causes more damage in the lifetime of an average car than does the (petrol/ diesel) used to propel it an average distance, during its lifetime. And so we can say with some certainty that it would be better for the environment to keep a car doing average mileage going indefinitely rather than replacing it with an electric version because the latter would be more damaging, overall. I know, less people are going to be able to earn 6 figure salaries with this approach but one day the reality will hit: It's not sufficient to mitigate the damage of perpetual growth with 'green' technologies. It's not a bad thing to do this of course but if success is required the growth itself must be mitigated, i.e. stopped.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

It is a rather extreme example. However, based on studies (rather than sweeping generalisations) it's been established that the design, manufacture, transportation, sales process and eventual disposal of a car causes more damage in the lifetime of an average car than does the (petrol/ diesel) used to propel it an average distance, during its lifetime. And so we can say with some certainty that it would be better for the environment to keep a car doing average mileage going indefinitely rather than replacing it with an electric version because the latter would be more damaging, overall. I know, less people are going to be able to earn 6 figure salaries with this approach but one day the reality will hit: It's not sufficient to mitigate the damage of perpetual growth with 'green' technologies. It's not a bad thing to do this of course but if success is required the growth itself must be mitigated, i.e. stopped.

Well that's interesting, because that goes against information I've seen, here are a couple of examples from a quick Google search:

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/green-guide/buying-guides/car/environmental-impact/

 

"Production, recycling, and disposal costs to the environment are difficult to quantify and largely beyond the control of most consumers. It's also true that most of an automobile's environmental impact, perhaps 80 to 90 percent, will be due to fuel consumption and emissions of air pollution and greenhouse gases that climate scientists say are driving global warming."

 

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/are-electric-cars-actually-worse-for-the-environment/

 

"Vehicle ‘lifecycle analyses’ - which take account of all the emissions right the way from the mining of ores, the manufacture of vehicles and batteries, and in-use energy consumption of petrol, diesel or electricity - show large overall CO2 savings for EVs compared to conventional vehicles. 

The Road to Zero estimated that in 2018 an EV car in the UK currently has total associated greenhouse gas emissions 66% lower than a petrol car and 60% lower than a diesel car. "

 

If an electric car has 66% lower lifetime emissions than a petrol car (i.e. a third of the emissions), it's literally impossible that the lifetime emissions of a petrol car are dominated by manufacturing/disposal costs, and your statement must be wrong.

 

Of course it's possible that one side or the other has cherry-picked data to support their case, which is *extremely* common when they have an axe to grind, which is certainly the case for the fossil fuel industry and any "research institutes" funded by it -- they're almost as bad as the tobacco industry was at doing this.

 

And there you go with your "some certainty" again -- which at least had been downgraded from "most certainly". If you can provide data (from a reputable source) which backs up your statement I'd love to see it ?

 

But I do agree with you that government targets for perpetual economic growth are unsustainable...

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, roland elsdon said:

Not well I think it’s in the place on the towpath  we passed by it 4 weeks ago.
“Sorry crt it hasn’t been suNay enough for the engine to work”

Tixall

1 hour ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

It is a rather extreme example. However, based on studies (rather than sweeping generalisations) it's been established that the design, manufacture, transportation, sales process and eventual disposal of a car causes more damage in the lifetime of an average car than does the (petrol/ diesel) used to propel it an average distance, during its lifetime. And so we can say with some certainty that it would be better for the environment to keep a car doing average mileage going indefinitely rather than replacing it with an electric version because the latter would be more damaging, overall. I know, less people are going to be able to earn 6 figure salaries with this approach but one day the reality will hit: It's not sufficient to mitigate the damage of perpetual growth with 'green' technologies. It's not a bad thing to do this of course but if success is required the growth itself must be mitigated, i.e. stopped.

I wonder what the effect of the Scrappage program was, crush old but serviceable cars to replace with new ones

Getting back to boats here is a Video that has popped up on FB of a DIY installation on a yacht

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IanD said:

... ?drove an old (but beautifully made) gaz-guzzler that did 20mpg on fossil fuels and I plan to drive 50000 miles a year in it for the next 20 years

If you happen to know of an old car with 30 years/one million miles life in it I'm interested! I normally get about 5 years and 80k miles from mine! 

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.