phasing out of fossil fuels - programme

[IanD]

52 minutes ago, Jackofalltrades said:

Does anyone have any experience of the Vetus electric motor?

https://www.vetus.com/en/e-line-inboard-propulsion-motor-10kw.html?___from_store=nl

 

Direct drive brushless motor, 1,500 RPM, water-cooled, complete package (c/w controller etc).

 

 

Not experience but I looked at it, and have also had adverse comments from somebody else who did the same (and has seen it).

 

If you want a ready-built motor/controller solution the 15kW (20kW peak) Waterworld one is probably the best option at the moment, almost 2x Vetus power for about the same price, and half the price of Bellmarine (from Fischer-Panda) for the same power...

 

https://www.energy-solutions.co.uk/products/waterworld

 

Note their comment: "WW 15.0 INBOARD for vessels up to 15m in length or 12 tonnes, this is equivalent to a 30 HP combustion engine"

 

So if you also think this isn't enough power, VoltSport are working on a 25kW 48V solution, again for about the same price, but it's not all there yet -- and you need batteries that can supply 500A...

 

https://www.voltsport.co.uk/index.php?route=common/home

Edited January 16, 2021 by IanD

[IanD]

2 hours ago, NB DW said:

Cheers.

 

It was more diesel availability and cost in years to come which made me wonder what'll become of diesel heating systems.

A water-source heat-pump is the obvious answer, this would need about 1kW of electric power to give 5kW of heating -- but I don't know if one exists today, because everyone uses small cheap diesel heaters, so there's no demand for one...

 

If you're not plugged in to shore, the power would have to be added to the propulsion and domestic budget, which using the figures I gave before probably increases total power use by about 50% (10kWh/day) when the heating is on in the cold and you're travelling, or 200% if you're moored... ?

 

It's a problem ?

Edited January 16, 2021 by IanD

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, Jackofalltrades said:

Does anyone have any experience of the Vetus electric motor?

https://www.vetus.com/en/e-line-inboard-propulsion-motor-10kw.html?___from_store=nl

 

Direct drive brushless motor, 1,500 RPM, water-cooled, complete package (c/w controller etc).

 

 

Have a Google at plug boats they recently in  the last email had an electric drive comparison chart going through all the options available it might help you?

Edited January 16, 2021 by peterboat

[ditchcrawler]

https://www.electricmotorsport.com/ev-parts/motors/brushless-motors?limit=all

[peterboat]

15 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

https://www.electricmotorsport.com/ev-parts/motors/brushless-motors?limit=all

A company called golden motors are very good as well 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

Have a Google at plug boats they recently in  the last email had an electric drive comparison chart going through all the options available it might help you?

That's where I found out about the Waterworld system -- I've also been in direct contact with them with various questions, and it looks good so long as you're happy with 15kW.

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

That's where I found out about the Waterworld system -- I've also been in direct contact with them with various questions, and it looks good so long as you're happy with 15kW.

I have been getting the mail from them for ages I should have posted about them earlier 

[Jackofalltrades]

Thanks for the replies.

 

We've decided on a direct drive, brushless motor as there are less moving parts so less maintenance - they are pretty much fit and forget (or as near to as it's possible to get), and as they run slower they should in theory be quieter. I'd read the Plug Boats comparison a while ago and although there seem to be some interesting motors available many of them come from companies I'd never heard of and/or they're a long way away to deal with. So on the shortlist is the new Vetus E-Line 100 and the more powerful Waterworld motor.

 

The Vetus motor is watercooled (albeit also with a fan on the end) and looks like it is based on an industrial pump motor - not necessarily an issue AFAIK as many pumps are V heavy duty and go on for years without missing a beat. It also has the controller mounted on top of the motor itself so it's just one unit to install. It looks like the first one has been installed in a UK narrowboat only recently - Old Nick - and although I've read through the Sumpner's website, information is scarce - mainly I think due to the lockdown we're all in.

 

The Waterworld motor is air-cooled. Simpler, in theory, but does this make it less durable long term when having to cope with the one hot summer's day we get in the UK per year? It's another all-in-one unit like the Vetus. Have any been installed in UK narrowboats so far? It's available in a 10KW version, like the Vetus (9.5 contiunous) + a 15KW version.

 

Is 10KW enough? Is watercooling best?

 

Difficult to find any real-life owner experiences out there for either (apart from the Sumpner's blog).

 

Had a quote from Fisher Panda for a Bellmarine 15KW watercooled motor. It might be a very good motor (or it might not) but it's a rip-off price compared to the others. They'd need to offer a 50% discount to be competitive.

 

Thoughts would be appreciated. The shell build slot is late February and although we are definitely going for electric propulsion we still haven't committed to buying one - mainly due to the lack of info available from owners. I don't really want to go down the custom-putting-it-all-together-myself route but I don't want to be a guinea pig for a manufacturer either. Help!

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Jackofalltrades

[peterboat]

14 minutes ago, Jackofalltrades said:

Thanks for the replies.

 

We've decided on a direct drive, brushless motor as there are less moving parts so less maintenance - they are pretty much fit and forget (or as near to as it's possible to get), and as they run slower they should in theory be quieter. I'd read the Plug Boats comparison a while ago and although there seem to be some interesting motors available many of them come from companies I'd never heard of and/or they're a long way away to deal with. So on the shortlist is the new Vetus E-Line 100 and the more powerful Waterworld motor.

 

The Vetus motor is watercooled (albeit also with a fan on the end) and looks like it is based on an industrial pump motor - not necessarily an issue AFAIK as many pumps are V heavy duty and go on for years without missing a beat. It also has the controller mounted on top of the motor itself so it's just one unit to install. It looks like the first one has been installed in a UK narrowboat only recently - Old Nick - and although I've read through the Sumpner's website, information is scarce - mainly I think due to the lockdown we're all in.

 

The Waterworld motor is air-cooled. Simpler, in theory, but does this make it less durable long term when having to cope with the one hot summer's day we get in the UK per year? It's another all-in-one unit like the Vetus. Have any been installed in UK narrowboats so far? It's available in a 10KW version, like the Vetus (9.5 contiunous) + a 15KW version.

 

Is 10KW enough? Is watercooling best?

 

Difficult to find any real-life owner experiences out there for either (apart from the Sumpner's blog).

 

Had a quote from Fisher Panda for a Bellmarine 15KW watercooled motor. It might be a very good motor (or it might not) but it's a rip-off price compared to the others. They'd need to offer a 50% discount to be competitive.

 

Thoughts would be appreciated. The shell build slot is late February and although we are definitely going for electric propulsion we still haven't committed to buying one - mainly due to the lack of info available from owners. I don't really want to go down the custom-putting-it-all-together-myself route but I don't want to be a guinea pig for a manufacturer either. Help!

 

It's the way forward, I have played with brushed motors because they are very cheaply available 300 squids for a nearly new drive motor out of a forklift. My Agni Cedric lynch motor was 1300 ish complete with controller years ago. I am an engineer to trade so this for me is fun and as I am retired but still have an interest in a well equipped garage sort of keeping my hand in. Have a word with Riccy at Finesse he might have a system to buy as well 

[Jackofalltrades]

23 minutes ago, peterboat said:

It's the way forward, I have played with brushed motors because they are very cheaply available 300 squids for a nearly new drive motor out of a forklift. My Agni Cedric lynch motor was 1300 ish complete with controller years ago. I am an engineer to trade so this for me is fun and as I am retired but still have an interest in a well equipped garage sort of keeping my hand in. Have a word with Riccy at Finesse he might have a system to buy as well 

Thanks for the pointer to Finesse...

[ditchcrawler]

This is quite an old setup https://www.waterwayroutes.co.uk/blog/electric-propulsion/

[peterboat]

20 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

This is quite an old setup https://www.waterwayroutes.co.uk/blog/electric-propulsion/

That's what I was going to do with my old boat, but my electric motor wasn't clutched in, so I would have had regeneration available, so it would have been I hour diesel for one hour electric. Decided it wasn't worth it as I was changing to the current boat 

[jetzi]

On 14/01/2021 at 15:21, Dr Bob said:

You've got as much chance of persuading me biofuels are good as there is of getting Smelly to switch to a composting loo!

I'll give up now!

Can I have a go? This is how I understand it.

 

Conservation of mass: carbon isn't created on earth, just moved around.

 

Plants are made of carbon from the atmosphere. Animals are made out of the carbon from plants. While the carbon is in biomass, it's not causing a greenhouse effect, but whenever plants and animals rot or burn, their carbon is released straight back into the atmosphere. All plants and animals die so biomass is all temporary and it's carbon neutral.

 

 

Nowadays oxygen is about 20% of the atmosphere. Originally there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere - all of the oxygen was combined with carbon. This can't support animal life. Oxygen is reactive and doesn't really exist by itself except as produced by plants.

 

Two billion years ago a large amount of the atmospheric carbon was naturally sequestered when ancient biomass became fossil fuels. That great oxygenation event is the source of the majority of the free oxygen that we breathe today.

 

Now we are un-sequestering that carbon and converting the atmosphere back towards the ancient one. Pretty much everything that we do is carbon neutral except mining fossil fuels. If we stopped mining fossil fuels, the world would become carbon neutral overnight.

 

There's nuance of course. Methane (CH4) is worse than CO2, cement production also releases carbon from non-fossil sources, local air quality, etc. But the basics is conservation of mass. If you accept this then it's easy to see why biofuels are good - they are carbon neutral while sequestering carbon the entire time they are being produced and stored.

 

Biofuels are a leveraging of photosynthesis - a natural solar panel. I'd say the biggest problem with biofuels is the amount of land that they take up. But I think they can and should form a part of the transition. If we can stop using oil 1 year sooner because of biofuels it's worth it - they are infinitely better for the planet than fossil.

Edited January 16, 2021 by jetzi
Corrected chemical formula of methane, thanks Dr Bob! - the point I was trying to make is that methane is also a carbon based molecule like carbon dioxide

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, jetzi said:

Can I have a go? This is how I understand it.

 

Conservation of mass: carbon isn't created on earth, just moved around.

 

Plants are made of carbon from the atmosphere. Animals are made out of the carbon from plants. While the carbon is in biomass, it's not causing a greenhouse effect, but whenever plants and animals rot or burn, their carbon is released straight back into the atmosphere. All plants and animals die so biomass is all temporary and it's carbon neutral.

 

 

Nowadays oxygen is about 20% of the atmosphere. Originally there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere - all of the oxygen was combined with carbon. This can't support animal life. Oxygen is reactive and doesn't really exist by itself except as produced by plants.

 

Two billion years ago a large amount of the atmospheric carbon was naturally sequestered when ancient biomass became fossil fuels. That great oxygenation event is the source of the majority of the free oxygen that we breathe today.

 

Now we are un-sequestering that carbon and converting the atmosphere back towards the ancient one. Pretty much everything that we do is carbon neutral except mining fossil fuels. If we stopped mining fossil fuels, the world would become carbon neutral overnight.

 

There's nuance of course. Methane (CO4) is worse than CO2, cement production also releases carbon from non-fossil sources, local air quality, etc. But the basics is conservation of mass. If you accept this then it's easy to see why biofuels are good - they are carbon neutral while sequestering carbon the entire time they are being produced and stored.

 

Biofuels are a leveraging of photosynthesis - a natural solar panel. I'd say the biggest problem with biofuels is the amount of land that they take up. But I think they can and should form a part of the transition. If we can stop using oil 1 year sooner because of biofuels it's worth it - they are infinitely better for the planet than fossil.

I agree but could this cause food shortages? Also it still produces NOX, I prefer electric where possible and hydrogen produced by excess electricity from wind turbines. Lastly biodiesel for things that are older technology, like our boats until the engine dies anyway and then convert to something cleaner. But a great post that makes us think 

[TheBiscuits]

12 minutes ago, jetzi said:

Can I have a go? [snip]

 

Excellent post.

 

The other way of looking at it is that we have burnt 2,000,000,000 years worth of stored carbon in the last 200 years, and most of it in the last 50.

 

That's a lot of stored sunshine we won't be getting back anytime soon.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by TheBiscuits
Add a bit

[Jackofalltrades]

54 minutes ago, jetzi said:

Can I have a go? This is how I understand it.

 

Conservation of mass: carbon isn't created on earth, just moved around.

 

Plants are made of carbon from the atmosphere. Animals are made out of the carbon from plants. While the carbon is in biomass, it's not causing a greenhouse effect, but whenever plants and animals rot or burn, their carbon is released straight back into the atmosphere. All plants and animals die so biomass is all temporary and it's carbon neutral.

 

 

Nowadays oxygen is about 20% of the atmosphere. Originally there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere - all of the oxygen was combined with carbon. This can't support animal life. Oxygen is reactive and doesn't really exist by itself except as produced by plants.

 

Two billion years ago a large amount of the atmospheric carbon was naturally sequestered when ancient biomass became fossil fuels. That great oxygenation event is the source of the majority of the free oxygen that we breathe today.

 

Now we are un-sequestering that carbon and converting the atmosphere back towards the ancient one. Pretty much everything that we do is carbon neutral except mining fossil fuels. If we stopped mining fossil fuels, the world would become carbon neutral overnight.

 

There's nuance of course. Methane (CO4) is worse than CO2, cement production also releases carbon from non-fossil sources, local air quality, etc. But the basics is conservation of mass. If you accept this then it's easy to see why biofuels are good - they are carbon neutral while sequestering carbon the entire time they are being produced and stored.

 

Biofuels are a leveraging of photosynthesis - a natural solar panel. I'd say the biggest problem with biofuels is the amount of land that they take up. But I think they can and should form a part of the transition. If we can stop using oil 1 year sooner because of biofuels it's worth it - they are infinitely better for the planet than fossil.

I'm going to pour myself a second drink and read that again more slowly.

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Jackofalltrades

[Dr Bob]

51 minutes ago, jetzi said:

There's nuance of course. Methane (CO4) is worse than CO2

er Methane is CH4. CO4 doesnt exist.

I agree with what you say but I am saying eat the green stuff rather than burn it as biofuel- then you wont be making anymore CO2. The green stuff replaces all  the animals we eat (hence less methane) and electric/other green energy sources provide the energy (rather than burning fuel). We dont need biofuel if we moved to clean energy sources.

[jetzi]

4 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

er Methane is CH4. CO4 doesnt exist.

Thanks for the correction! Apologies for the mistake.

 

5 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

eat the green stuff rather than burn it as biofuel- then you wont be making anymore CO2

You won't be making any more CO2 anyway. That's my overall point. Whether you burn it or eat it, the carbon is released just the same.

 

39 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

The green stuff replaces all  the animals we eat

I definitely support eating less animals for a number of reasons. If we didn't have to grow feedstuff for animals we'd have a lot more land available - for both food and for biofuel.

 

7 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

We dont need biofuel if we moved to clean energy sources.

Biofuel is a clean energy source, in the sense that it's carbon neutral. Biofuel could help us transition to clean energy sources much quicker because it means we can use our diesel engines. I don't think biofuel is the ultimate solution but it's a good stepping stone.

 

52 minutes ago, peterboat said:

could this cause food shortages? Also it still produces NOX

Yes local air pollution remains a problem. No I don't believe the market would tolerate food shortages, but you're right we don't have the land available to grow enough biofuel to run our energy needs. Nor for that matter do we have the land available to put up enough wind farms. I think offshore could be a good solution - someone earlier in the thread mentioned algae for example.

Here's a great "reality check on renewables" TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o

 

I agree by the way that converting to electricity is the best plan, it gives us options because we can generate electricity in whichever way makes the most sense as our technology and economic situation evolves. But I'm afraid the best way we have is nuclear, or maybe geothermal.

 

I don't think people really understand how woefully inadequate renewables are at this point.

 

While talking about inadequacy - heating things off batteries (space and water heating) is simply not viable at this point. Battery powered rechargeable boats are fine for day cruises in the summer but the liveaboard lifestyle in the UK is entirely subsidised by high-density hydrocarbon fuel I'm afraid. We'd need to use biofuel unless we made some dramatic improvements in energy density of batteries that to be honest I think are too dramatic to be realistically forthcoming.

 

Maybe hydrogen could work like @peterboat suggests. Though, it's horrifically explosive, expensive to make and incompatible with all the equipment we currently use. It does have the fantastic advantage of being able to be made easily from electricity - so if we had a really abundant source of electricity (such as nuclear) it could be an option.

 

 

[peterboat]

17 minutes ago, jetzi said:

Thanks for the correction! Apologies for the mistake.

 

You won't be making any more CO2 anyway. That's my overall point. Whether you burn it or eat it, the carbon is released just the same.

 

I definitely support eating less animals for a number of reasons. If we didn't have to grow feedstuff for animals we'd have a lot more land available - for both food and for biofuel.

 

Biofuel is a clean energy source, in the sense that it's carbon neutral. Biofuel could help us transition to clean energy sources much quicker because it means we can use our diesel engines. I don't think biofuel is the ultimate solution but it's a good stepping stone.

 

Yes local air pollution remains a problem. No I don't believe the market would tolerate food shortages, but you're right we don't have the land available to grow enough biofuel to run our energy needs. Nor for that matter do we have the land available to put up enough wind farms. I think offshore could be a good solution - someone earlier in the thread mentioned algae for example.

Here's a great "reality check on renewables" TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o

 

I agree by the way that converting to electricity is the best plan, it gives us options because we can generate electricity in whichever way makes the most sense as our technology and economic situation evolves. But I'm afraid the best way we have is nuclear, or maybe geothermal.

 

I don't think people really understand how woefully inadequate renewables are at this point.

 

While talking about inadequacy - heating things off batteries (space and water heating) is simply not viable at this point. Battery powered rechargeable boats are fine for day cruises in the summer but the liveaboard lifestyle in the UK is entirely subsidised by high-density hydrocarbon fuel I'm afraid. We'd need to use biofuel unless we made some dramatic improvements in energy density of batteries that to be honest I think are too dramatic to be realistically forthcoming.

 

Maybe hydrogen could work like @peterboat suggests. Though, it's horrifically explosive, expensive to make and incompatible with all the equipment we currently use. It does have the fantastic advantage of being able to be made easily from electricity - so if we had a really abundant source of electricity (such as nuclear) it could be an option.

 

 

I have that electric boat and solar to charge it, 9 months of the year works, but 3 months don't which is why I am fitting a diesel genny powered by biodiesel from waste oils. Offshore wind turbines work for me, with some nuclear for base load, instead of turning off turbines they need to make hydrogen, which can then make electricity when turbines don't spin through poor wind. Boats will have to burn wood or something but what that something is who knows?

[jetzi]

1 minute ago, peterboat said:

I have that electric boat and solar to charge it, 9 months of the year works, but 3 months don't which is why I am fitting a diesel genny powered by biodiesel from waste oils. Offshore wind turbines work for me, with some nuclear for base load, instead of turning off turbines they need to make hydrogen, which can then make electricity when turbines don't spin through poor wind. Boats will have to burn wood or something but what that something is who knows?

That makes sense to me. Thanks for being part of the solution - I would love to be in your "boat" as it were. If I ever had the luxury of building a boat it would without doubt be an electric (or biodiesel-electric)! Propulsion is no problem as you point out, but heating can't be done by solar - quite obviously if you think about it, if the sun wasn't heating your boat effectively enough directly then it's hardly going to work to convert the light to electricity and then to heat!

Burning wood for heat is the clearest example of biofuel.

[NB DW]

14 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I have that electric boat and solar to charge it, 9 months of the year works, but 3 months don't which is why I am fitting a diesel genny powered by biodiesel from waste oils. Offshore wind turbines work for me, with some nuclear for base load, instead of turning off turbines they need to make hydrogen, which can then make electricity when turbines don't spin through poor wind. Boats will have to burn wood or something but what that something is who knows?

Excuse my naivety but how do you heat your water?

 

If you're out cruising and have a pure electric set up, how do you cope?

 

If you've got a diesel generator, could this be used instead of a calorifier / immersion / Webasto or equivalent etc?

[Tom and Bex]

On 15/01/2021 at 12:42, IanD said:

Domestic power use : 4kWh/day in summer, 5kWh/day in winter (more lights, Ebersplutter etc)

Sorry but I can't let that part of your post go unchallenged. If be amazed if virtually any narrow boat used anything close to those figures for domestic power. 4kwh is around 333ah @12v, 5kwh is 417ah! 

 

Our measured usage in winter (excluding washing machine) was around 90-100ah (1-1.2kwh) before we installed our lithium batteries. Since then, our usage has increased by around 50%, simply due to ease and speed of charging. We now use a measured 140-150ah average (1.8-2kwh @13v). That figure now includes an occasional cold wash, but that's not the main reason for the increase.

 

I'm not sure how we could use any more, let alone over double! We are far from economical with power use now, and don't really think about it since installing our lithium batteries 3 years ago. 

 

I think the rest of your figures look reasonable though. 

[Murflynn]

12 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

er Methane is CH4. CO4 doesnt exist.

I agree with what you say but I am saying eat the green stuff rather than burn it as biofuel- then you wont be making anymore CO2. The green stuff replaces all  the animals we eat (hence less methane) and electric/other green energy sources provide the energy (rather than burning fuel). We dont need biofuel if we moved to clean energy sources.

if you breathe you will be exhaling CO2 - perhaps the best solution is for 80% of the world's population to stop breathing.   David Attenborough estimated a reasonable global population of 1 - 2 billion.

[Alan de Enfield]

One way the future (will) may look :

 

 

Now, a new type of wind-powered super sailboat will be crossing the ocean again but it will be large enough to carry 7,000 cars. Built by Wallenious Marine, a Swedish Company, the OceanBird is totally powered by wind and shows that the maritime industry can make the break from fossil fuels.

Shipping is the way the world still moves 90 percent of manufactured goods according to Science Alert but it is a high emission industry. A report from IEA showed that international shipping was responsible for 2 percent of global CO2 emissions. While some shipping companies are switching to biogas, there is a still a long way to go to make the industry more sustainable.

 

This Giant Sailboat Will Transport Cars Across the Atlantic Ocean - Goodnet

 

 

 

[jetzi]

Just now, Murflynn said:

if you breathe you will be exhaling CO2 - perhaps the best solution is for 80% of the world's population to stop breathing.   David Attenborough estimated a reasonable global population of 1 - 2 billion.

Where does the carbon you breathe out come from?

 

The plants/animals you eat.

 

Where does the carbon that makes up the plants/animals you eat?

 

The atmosphere via photosynthesis.

 

In other words all the carbon you exhale was recently removed from the atmosphere.

 

It's a closed cycle and it's carbon neutral. Food is a kind of biofuel. Population size is irrelevant if that population isn't digging up fossil fuels (of course our giant population is a direct result of subsidisation by fossil fuels).

 

I know you were being a little facetious but its also the most pernicious misconception about sustainable energy. If we quit fossil fuels, nothing else matters in comparison.