phasing out of fossil fuels - programme

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, jetzi said:

I almost never switch off my engine in a lock, and the reason is simply that most of the reason I run my engine is for electricity and hot water. Motion is secondary. So there is no sense in turning off the engine to save 15 minutes of diesel only to run the engine for 15 minutes more once moored up in order to generate electricity.

 

 

I guess it depends on how much movement (cruising) you do, if, as you say, you only run the engine to charge the battery, and make minimum movements every so often to maintain your licence, then running the engine whilst in locks makes sense.

 

If you are using the boat for cruising, 4-6-8 hours per day (most days), the secondary benefit is it charges your battery, it makes sense to switch the engine off.

 

Horses for courses.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, jetzi said:

 

Are we suggesting that diesel/electric boats (diesel generator -> electric motor) are actually more efficient in practice than direct-drive diesel boats (diesel engine -> prop)?

 

I would have guessed that the efficiency losses in the transfer of energy in a diesel/electric would have wiped out any comparison, but given that I use my engine primarily for generating electricity and only secondarily for motion, perhaps this isn't the case. A diesel generator is surely more efficient at generating electricity than an alternator on an engine, I mean I know it's pretty much the same thing but it is designed for this purpose and will always run at the optimum speed for this purpose.
 

I figured that 6 months of having more than enough solar would still mean a diesel/electric boat would use less diesel overall than a diesel only boat. But perhaps this suggests that even without the solar diesel/electric offers efficiency gains? That's really interesting to me, because it is at odds with my intuition.

 

 

I almost never switch off my engine in a lock, and the reason is simply that most of the reason I run my engine is for electricity and hot water. Motion is secondary. So there is no sense in turning off the engine to save 15 minutes of diesel only to run the engine for 15 minutes more once moored up in order to generate electricity.

It all depends how much time you spend doing what -- but when I looked at this the answer was, yes, diesel-electric is more efficient *on narrowboats*, the fuel saving of at least 40% applies both when travelling and when stationary.

 

This is all because the efficiency of a diesel is terrible when used at a small fraction of full power, which is always the case on canals (not upstream on a river...), but a generator running at full load (always the case in a series hybrid) is better even allowing for all the losses. Efficiencies (in round numbers) come out like this, assuming all the power comes from diesel either in the engine or generator:

 

Diesel : 20% at 3kW (cruising), 10% at 1kW, (passing boats), 0% in locks, 10% when charging batteries (20% efficient engine + 50% efficient alternator)

Electric : 20% when moving, zero in locks, 25% when charging batteries from generator

 

For electric boats the 20% when moving is made up of 25% generator efficiency and 80% round-trip efficiency (charger, batteries, motor controller, motor)

 

What happens with domestic electricity and hot water is another issue. A diesel driving alternators has terrible efficiency for charging batteries (~10%) and this doesn't come for free just because the engine is running, the increased load on the engine consumes fuel. Hot water is "free" in the sense that the engine's burning around 0.5l/hr (5kW in fuel) when idling, typical rule-of-thumb is that half the fuel energy (~2.5kW) goes out of the exhaust and half (~2.5kW) into the cooling system -- but most of this goes into the canal through the skin tank, maybe about 1kW heats up your domestic hot water. So "water heating" efficiency is about 20%, funnily enough about the same as cruising efficiency.

 

The electric boat won't ever do any worse than this. If you run an immersion heater off the generator the efficiency is 25%, if you run it off the inverter it's about 23%. But if you use the same fuel in an Eberspacher or diesel stove with back boiler the efficiency is about 80% IIRC, so this is a far better option if you have one.

 

In both cases solar power can be used to charge the batteries for onboard mains, but only the electric boats can use any spare for propulsion.

 

Basically, a diesel on the canals has poor efficiency regardless of whether it's used for propulsion, battery charging or providing hot water/heating. It's easy to put all the numbers above into a spreadsheet to see what the fuel/CO2 saving is for an electric boat, I reckoned the minimum saving was about 40%, the best case when you can rely on solar power only (summer, 2~3 days per week cruising) is obviously 100%.

 

None of which gets anywhere close to justifying ripping out an existing diesel and replacing it with solar/electric/generator just to save money, though you might well decide to do it for other reasons -- no noise/vibration/smell when cruising, a huge battery bank with no lead-acid charging worries for onboard power, being green and able to use charging points if/when they emerge.

 

For a new build the cost difference is still quite large but is decreasing every year, and you have a potentially "zero-carbon" (yes I know...) boat which fits with future government policy. Just be careful when considering such a boat, from what I've seen many of the systems today (not all, Finesse for example) suffer from "corner-cutting" to keep the price attractive, such as lead-carbon batteries, underpowered (for a "go-anywhere" narrowboat) drive systems, or cheap inefficient noisier brushed motor drives instead of properly built PMAC ones.

 

If you can afford it today then I think this is the way to go -- if you can't then in a few years the cost premium over diesel will have dropped or disappeared, at which point the market will switch over instead of just being for those with deep pockets -- or those willing/able to roll-their-own using home-brewed components and secondhand batteries ?

[Up-Side-Down]

51 minutes ago, IanD said:

It all depends how much time you spend doing what -- but when I looked at this the answer was, yes, diesel-electric is more efficient *on narrowboats*, the fuel saving of at least 40% applies both when travelling and when stationary.

 

This is all because the efficiency of a diesel is terrible when used at a small fraction of full power, which is always the case on canals (not upstream on a river...), but a generator running at full load (always the case in a series hybrid) is better even allowing for all the losses. Efficiencies (in round numbers) come out like this, assuming all the power comes from diesel either in the engine or generator:

 

Diesel : 20% at 3kW (cruising), 10% at 1kW, (passing boats), 0% in locks, 10% when charging batteries (20% efficient engine + 50% efficient alternator)

Electric : 20% when moving, zero in locks, 25% when charging batteries from generator

 

For electric boats the 20% when moving is made up of 25% generator efficiency and 80% round-trip efficiency (charger, batteries, motor controller, motor)

 

What happens with domestic electricity and hot water is another issue. A diesel driving alternators has terrible efficiency for charging batteries (~10%) and this doesn't come for free just because the engine is running, the increased load on the engine consumes fuel. Hot water is "free" in the sense that the engine's burning around 0.5l/hr (5kW in fuel) when idling, typical rule-of-thumb is that half the fuel energy (~2.5kW) goes out of the exhaust and half (~2.5kW) into the cooling system -- but most of this goes into the canal through the skin tank, maybe about 1kW heats up your domestic hot water. So "water heating" efficiency is about 20%, funnily enough about the same as cruising efficiency.

 

The electric boat won't ever do any worse than this. If you run an immersion heater off the generator the efficiency is 25%, if you run it off the inverter it's about 23%. But if you use the same fuel in an Eberspacher or diesel stove with back boiler the efficiency is about 80% IIRC, so this is a far better option if you have one.

 

In both cases solar power can be used to charge the batteries for onboard mains, but only the electric boats can use any spare for propulsion.

 

Basically, a diesel on the canals has poor efficiency regardless of whether it's used for propulsion, battery charging or providing hot water/heating. It's easy to put all the numbers above into a spreadsheet to see what the fuel/CO2 saving is for an electric boat, I reckoned the minimum saving was about 40%, the best case when you can rely on solar power only (summer, 2~3 days per week cruising) is obviously 100%.

 

None of which gets anywhere close to justifying ripping out an existing diesel and replacing it with solar/electric/generator just to save money, though you might well decide to do it for other reasons -- no noise/vibration/smell when cruising, a huge battery bank with no lead-acid charging worries for onboard power, being green and able to use charging points if/when they emerge.

 

For a new build the cost difference is still quite large but is decreasing every year, and you have a potentially "zero-carbon" (yes I know...) boat which fits with future government policy. Just be careful when considering such a boat, from what I've seen many of the systems today (not all, Finesse for example) suffer from "corner-cutting" to keep the price attractive, such as lead-carbon batteries, underpowered (for a "go-anywhere" narrowboat) drive systems, or cheap inefficient noisier brushed motor drives instead of properly built PMAC ones.

 

If you can afford it today then I think this is the way to go -- if you can't then in a few years the cost premium over diesel will have dropped or disappeared, at which point the market will switch over instead of just being for those with deep pockets -- or those willing/able to roll-their-own using home-brewed components and secondhand batteries ?

So this is more or less where the IWA Sustainable Boating Vision document has arrived at as far as the "None of which gets anywhere close to justifying ripping out an existing diesel and replacing it with solar/electric/generator just to save money" goes! The simply solution is to use Hydro-treated Vegetable Oil which is a second generation biofuel, 92% carbon neutral, with none of the shortcomings of first generation biodiesel that is currently causing issues as the B7 component of pretty much all of today's diesel now available at the pumps. The only problem is availability, which is obviously directly linked to demand, with the price an inevitable element!

[IanD]

Just now, Up-Side-Down said:

So this is more or less where the IWA Sustainable Boating Vision document has arrived at as far as the "None of which gets anywhere close to justifying ripping out an existing diesel and replacing it with solar/electric/generator just to save money" goes! The simply solution is to use Hydro-treated Vegetable Oil which is a second generation biofuel, 92% carbon neutral, with none of the shortcomings of first generation biodiesel that is currently causing issues as the B7 component of pretty much all of today's diesel now available at the pumps. The only problem is availability, which is obviously directly linked to demand, with the price an inevitable element!

The cheap easy solution for existing boats is the same as for cars -- keep the ICE and use biofuel, which still needs producing and the land to grow the plants -- greener than fossil fuel diesel yes, but certainly not as green as solar/wind renewable power from the grid or onboard.

 

For a new boat the picture is different ?

[Up-Side-Down]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

The cheap easy solution for existing boats is the same as for cars -- keep the ICE and use biofuel, which still needs producing and the land to grow the plants -- greener than fossil fuel diesel yes, but certainly not as green as solar/wind renewable power from the grid or onboard.

 

For a new boat the picture is different ?

Currently all HVO is produced from waste cooking oil and fats. The feed stock is subject to a very rigorous monitoring process to ensure its origin and therefore that it is a waste product and not a virgin crop from land that could otherwise be used for growing food crops.

[IanD]

21 minutes ago, Up-Side-Down said:

Currently all HVO is produced from waste cooking oil and fats. The feed stock is subject to a very rigorous monitoring process to ensure its origin and therefore that it is a waste product and not a virgin crop from land that could otherwise be used for growing food crops.

Produced from waste oil, that's fine -- far better to use it than chuck it. The issue is supply, there's only a certain amount available and if demand exceeds this we're back to growing crops. Great so long as it's a niche product (e.g. for narrowboats!) but not really useful for ICE in general because the demand is >1000x greater. If it gets mixed with other biofuels in the fuel distribution system then you'll only be getting a tiny percentage of it -- still OK in the big picture since every litre reused is a litre that doesn't have to be grown, but as an end user you'll be mostly getting grown biofuel.

 

But as I keep saying, from a green point of view narrowboats use so little fuel anyway compared to cars that any effect on climate change is truly negligible. It doesn't mean that narrowboats going green/renewable isn't a good thing (especially if it reuses oil that would otherwise go to waste), but nobody should think that it's going to save the planet ?

 

Cruising without any noise/vibration/fumes or lead-acid battery worries, that's the real benefit ?

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by IanD

[peterboat]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

Produced from waste oil, that's fine -- far better to use it than chuck it. The issue is supply, there's only a certain amount available and if demand exceeds this we're back to growing crops. Great so long as it's a niche product (e.g. for narrowboats!) but not really useful for ICE in general because the demand is >1000x greater. If it gets mixed with other biofuels in the fuel distribution system then you'll only be getting a tiny percentage of it -- still OK in the big picture since every litre reused is a litre that doesn't have to be grown, but as an end user you'll be mostly getting grown biofuel.

 

But as I keep saying, from a green point of view narrowboats use so little fuel anyway compared to cars that any effect on climate change is truly negligible. It doesn't mean that narrowboats going green/renewable isn't a good thing (especially if it reuses oil that would otherwise go to waste), but nobody should think that it's going to save the planet ?

 

Cruising without any noise/vibration/fumes or lead-acid battery worries, that's the real benefit ?

 

My biodiesel supplier is struggling because of the virus, that many places closed where he got waste oil from is a real problem. He also supplies oil companies to put it in diesel and the increase to 10% is also going reduce the supply of pure biodiesel to us, its a finite resource as you say we will have to grow more, which raises the carbon footprint for it

[jetzi]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

the efficiency of a diesel is terrible when used at a small fraction of full power, which is always the case on canals (not upstream on a river...), but a generator running at full load (always the case in a series hybrid) is better even allowing for all the losses. Efficiencies (in round numbers) come out like this, assuming all the power comes from diesel either in the engine or generator:

 

Diesel : 20% at 3kW (cruising), 10% at 1kW, (passing boats), 0% in locks, 10% when charging batteries (20% efficient engine + 50% efficient alternator)

Electric : 20% when moving, zero in locks, 25% when charging batteries from generator

 

For electric boats the 20% when moving is made up of 25% generator efficiency and 80% round-trip efficiency (charger, batteries, motor controller, motor)

 

Thanks for the explanation, this all makes total sense!

 

The upshot is that a diesel engine is as efficient as a generator + motor combo (20%). However with electric you make savings everywhere else and can use solar.

 

Since most people need electricity on their boat anyway, and I think most people have some amount of solar (it's just so cheap these days) it seems to make sense to be able to convert that power to propulsion when it makes sense.

 

I know that @peterboat has separate drive and domestic banks. Seems to me that you'd get the most benefit out of having one large bank, though it would have to be 48V. Are there any particular reasons you'd want to keep them separate other than to maintain differing voltages?

 

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I guess it depends on how much movement (cruising) you do, if, as you say, you only run the engine to charge the battery, and make minimum movements every so often to maintain your licence, then running the engine whilst in locks makes sense.

 

If you are using the boat for cruising, 4-6-8 hours per day (most days), the secondary benefit is it charges your battery, it makes sense to switch the engine off.

 

Sure it depends on the way you boat. If you are cruising 8 hours a day most days even in winter then you probably aren't a good candidate for an electric drive.

But I would hazard a guess that I'm not unusual in that most of my engine running is for generating electricity rather than cruising. I work during the week so I can only really cruise on weekends.

 

3 hours ago, IanD said:

None of which gets anywhere close to justifying ripping out an existing diesel and replacing it with solar/electric/generator just to save money, though you might well decide to do it for other reasons -- no noise/vibration/smell when cruising, a huge battery bank with no lead-acid charging worries for onboard power, being green and able to use charging points if/when they emerge.

 

Indeed, I can't see myself justify doing it on my current boat. Unless maybe I have a catastrophic engine failure (here's hoping!). But if one day "my ship came in" and I could have a new build, an ICE wouldn't even be a consideration.

 

2 hours ago, IanD said:

The cheap easy solution for existing boats is the same as for cars -- keep the ICE and use biofuel, which still needs producing and the land to grow the plants -- greener than fossil fuel diesel yes, but certainly not as green as solar/wind renewable power from the grid or onboard.

 

For a new boat the picture is different ?

 

29 minutes ago, Up-Side-Down said:

Currently all HVO is produced from waste cooking oil and fats. The feed stock is subject to a very rigorous monitoring process to ensure its origin and therefore that it is a waste product and not a virgin crop from land that could otherwise be used for growing food crops.

 

I can't imagine the UK produces enough waste cooking oil even to power all the boats in the country surely?! I think using biofuel for all applications where converting to electric doesn't make sense could be a really appropriate step on the road to carbon neutrality.

 

The "greenness spectrum" really is an unfortunate red herring though. I understand that how it's currently produced might not be ideal, but it's theoretically possible to grow properly carbon-neutral biofuel and the increase in active biomass while it's being grown is a good thing for the carbon levels of the atmosphere. Biofuel will always result in some local air pollution but if it is used only for niche activities like boating and heavy machinery then it could form a small part of a comprehensive renewable energy solution. I despair that people are so quick to demonise it - the choice we are making in the near future is between petroleum and biofuel rather than between wind and biofuel. Solar and wind also takes up a heck of a lot of room like biofuel growing, and there are plenty of less-than-green aspects to the production of the generation equipment, transmission and storage of electrical energy. Incredible quantities of energy can be transported and stored in a tank of biodiesel and it's possible for it to be carbon neutral.

 

I wonder if this argument could be avoided with a process for generating synthetic hydrocarbons using energy from electricity - a kind of "synthetic biodiesel". That would combine the advantage of hydrogen as a fuel (it can be manufactured using electricity and water) with the backwards compatibility of biofuel in existing ICEs. We'd still end up with local air pollution but we'd avoid the less-than-green biofuel agricultural aspect. Wind/solar/nuclear power could then be used to produce diesel and our ICEs could become carbon neutral much faster than we could all convert to electric. Doesn't sound that far fetched?

 

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, jetzi said:

I wonder if this argument could be avoided with a process for generating synthetic hydrocarbons using energy from electricity - a kind of "synthetic biodiesel". That would combine the advantage of hydrogen as a fuel (it can be manufactured using electricity and water) with the backwards compatibility of biofuel in existing ICEs. We'd still end up with local air pollution but we'd avoid the less-than-green biofuel agricultural aspect. Wind/solar/nuclear power could then be used to produce diesel and our ICEs could become carbon neutral much faster than we could all convert to electric. Doesn't sound that far fetched?

 

Strange you should say that - there are already some small plants producing "diesel" from algae, it is produced by electricity which could / can be supplied by windfarms who are currently being paid to turn-off the 'wind mills' when power is not needed.

 

The algae can be grown on any damp / wet ground from 'bogs' to the open sea, the only cost being the harvesting of it.

 

Small production facilities are already available, and could be 'scaled up' - even if the cost is 2x or 3x the cost of hydrocarbon diesel it is still cheaper than scrapping an engine and replacing it with a £30,000 (?) electrical propulsion system

 

The science behind it is here :

 

Grow your own diesel: Is the future algae driven? | Brunel University London

 

From ponds to power: $2M to perfect algae as diesel fuel | University of Michigan News (umich.edu)

 

Energy 101: Algae-to-Fuel | Department of Energy

Edited January 26, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[peterboat]

14 minutes ago, jetzi said:

 

Thanks for the explanation, this all makes total sense!

 

The upshot is that a diesel engine is as efficient as a generator + motor combo (20%). However with electric you make savings everywhere else and can use solar.

 

Since most people need electricity on their boat anyway, and I think most people have some amount of solar (it's just so cheap these days) it seems to make sense to be able to convert that power to propulsion when it makes sense.

 

I know that @peterboat has separate drive and domestic banks. Seems to me that you'd get the most benefit out of having one large bank, though it would have to be 48V. Are there any particular reasons you'd want to keep them separate other than to maintain differing voltages?

 

 

Sure it depends on the way you boat. If you are cruising 8 hours a day most days even in winter then you probably aren't a good candidate for an electric drive.

But I would hazard a guess that I'm not unusual in that most of my engine running is for generating electricity rather than cruising. I work during the week so I can only really cruise on weekends.

 

 

Indeed, I can't see myself justify doing it on my current boat. Unless maybe I have a catastrophic engine failure (here's hoping!). But if one day "my ship came in" and I could have a new build, an ICE wouldn't even be a consideration.

 

 

 

I can't imagine the UK produces enough waste cooking oil even to power all the boats in the country surely?! I think using biofuel for all applications where converting to electric doesn't make sense could be a really appropriate step on the road to carbon neutrality.

 

The "greenness spectrum" really is an unfortunate red herring though. I understand that how it's currently produced might not be ideal, but it's theoretically possible to grow properly carbon-neutral biofuel and the increase in active biomass while it's being grown is a good thing for the carbon levels of the atmosphere. Biofuel will always result in some local air pollution but if it is used only for niche activities like boating and heavy machinery then it could form a small part of a comprehensive renewable energy solution. I despair that people are so quick to demonise it - the choice we are making in the near future is between petroleum and biofuel rather than between wind and biofuel. Solar and wind also takes up a heck of a lot of room like biofuel growing, and there are plenty of less-than-green aspects to the production of the generation equipment, transmission and storage of electrical energy. Incredible quantities of energy can be transported and stored in a tank of biodiesel and it's possible for it to be carbon neutral.

 

I wonder if this argument could be avoided with a process for generating synthetic hydrocarbons using energy from electricity - a kind of "synthetic biodiesel". That would combine the advantage of hydrogen as a fuel (it can be manufactured using electricity and water) with the backwards compatibility of biofuel in existing ICEs. We'd still end up with local air pollution but we'd avoid the less-than-green biofuel agricultural aspect. Wind/solar/nuclear power could then be used to produce diesel and our ICEs could become carbon neutral much faster than we could all convert to electric. Doesn't sound that far fetched?

 

My problem is that I purchased 36 volt  batteries very cheaply so a 72 volt drive system was best for me  72 volts is also used a lot for other things so speed controllers are cheaply available, series electric motors handle over voltage well so another cheap reliable choice. Can you see where this is heading? If I had a narrowboat I would have gone the 48 volts route as I could have picked up a victron inverter charger for 1100 squids as part of a failed contract  but the boat is a fatty and I have what I have which works well 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

My problem is that I purchased 36 volt  batteries very cheaply so a 72 volt drive system was best for me  72 volts is also used a lot for other things so speed controllers are cheaply available, series electric motors handle over voltage well so another cheap reliable choice. Can you see where this is heading? If I had a narrowboat I would have gone the 48 volts route as I could have picked up a victron inverter charger for 1100 squids as part of a failed contract  but the boat is a fatty and I have what I have which works well 

Most commercial electric/hybrid boats are 48V not just because there's a lot of kit available, but because extra electrical safety precautions (e.g. touchproof everything) are needed with higher voltages to avoid liability problems -- this is why 48V (not 72V or 96V or...) is common for "mild hybrid" car applications, the high-power ones (much more than boats need) then jump up to 350V-400V because once you're over the threshold higher voltage means thinner cables and lower losses in things like controllers.

 

Did you take any extra precautions with your 72V system, or just take the risk? (may be OK for you personally -- let's face it, the voltage increase isn't that big -- but very likely a big problem for any commercial suppliers of hybrid boats)

 

@jetzi even if you cruise 8 hours per day in winter, when you allow for slowing down past moored boats and locks the fuel saving is still there, and you can typically cruise for 2 days without recharging. Except for rare and exceptional days like doing the western part of the Cheshire Ring in a day in winter, 27.5m (took us about 9h) on mostly broad canals without stopping would mean similar fuel consumption for both...

 

BTW I'm not in any way demonising anything to help with climate change and reduce our use of fossil fuels, just saying that if you are concerned it's best to focus on things that actually make a difference. Remember somebody saying that if we all unplugged our mobile phone chargers when we weren't using them it would save [a big-sounding number of kWh] per year? Yeah except it's a tiny number compared to everything else, IIRC (from SEWTHA) the energy saved is equivalent to one hot bath per year or one weekend away by plane every 300 years...

Edited January 26, 2021 by IanD

[peterboat]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Most commercial electric/hybrid boats are 48V not just because there's a lot of kit available, but because extra electrical safety precautions (e.g. touchproof everything) are needed with higher voltages to avoid liability problems -- this is why 48V (not 60V or 72V) is common for "mild hybrid" car applications, the high-power ones (much more than boats need) then jump up to 350V-400V because once you're over the threshold higher voltage means thinner cables and lower losses in things like controllers.

 

Did you take any extra precautions with your 72V system, or just take the risk? (may be OK for you personally -- let's face it, the voltage increase isn't that big -- but very likely a big problem for any commercial suppliers of hybrid boats)

The 2 banks are on each side of the swim, the terminals have factory covers on them  and then a cover over the batteries. They are fused as it comes off the battery. The cable goes into a manual switch and then an electric switch, where cables go onto units its covered in heat shrink of the correct colour, except on the motor where the field polarity is swopped for forward and reverse.  On assembling it this next time shields are going on as well, 48 volts can destroy a spanner as easy as 72 volts, however the tingle is bigger from 72 volts ?.

I have made it as safe as possible and I am still looking at changes to the motor if I can find the one that I want. The last BSS wasn't concerned at the voltage as he couldn't touch anything that was live. 

For Finesse 48 volts makes sense for numerous reasons and its the way forward as 48 volt inverter chargers are freely available 

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, peterboat said:

The 2 banks are on each side of the swim, the terminals have factory covers on them  and then a cover over the batteries. They are fused as it comes off the battery. The cable goes into a manual switch and then an electric switch, where cables go onto units its covered in heat shrink of the correct colour, except on the motor where the field polarity is swopped for forward and reverse.  On assembling it this next time shields are going on as well, 48 volts can destroy a spanner as easy as 72 volts, however the tingle is bigger from 72 volts ?.

I have made it as safe as possible and I am still looking at changes to the motor if I can find the one that I want. The last BSS wasn't concerned at the voltage as he couldn't touch anything that was live. 

For Finesse 48 volts makes sense for numerous reasons and its the way forward as 48 volt inverter chargers are freely available 

The risk is small and the BSS examiner probably wouldn't have been concerned (assuming he's aware of the rules...) because there's no law that says you can't do things (like building your own boat electrical system) that might pose some risk to you, so long as they don't present a significant risk to anyone else.

 

To avoid potential liability issues, anyone building and supplying electrical equipment to the public -- like hybrid systems in cars and boats --  has to take notice of the "voltages above 60V may be dangerous" rules; if they don't and (though it's very unlikely) somebody is injured or even killed as a result (or their boat catches fire) the supplier wouldn't have a leg to stand on and probably wouldn't be covered by insurance, because the equipment has to be "safe" not just "not very dangerous".

 

It's the same issue as elf'n'safety at work; if you want to use a chainsaw you own at home and chop your own leg off nobody can stop you, if somebody is supplying chainsaws for hire or using them as part of their job the position is very different.

 

This isn't a "jobsworth" or "lawyers gone mad" issue, it's simply how the legal system works when you supply equipment to somebody else or install it for them, if you don't dot the i's and cross the t's and it all goes pear-shaped you're liable. If you installed and built a 72V system for another boater without taking all the proper precautions with the installation you could face exactly the same issue ?

Edited January 26, 2021 by IanD

[peterboat]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

The risk is small and the BSS examiner probably wouldn't have been concerned (assuming he's aware of the rules...) because there's no law that says you can't do things (like building your own boat electrical system) that might pose some risk to you, so long as they don't present a significant risk to anyone else.

 

To avoid potential liability issues, anyone building and supplying electrical equipment to the public -- like hybrid systems in cars and boats --  has to take notice of the "voltages above 60V may be dangerous" rules; if they don't and (though it's very unlikely) somebody is injured or even killed as a result (or their boat catches fire) the supplier wouldn't have a leg to stand on and probably wouldn't be covered by insurance, because the equipment has to be "safe" not just "not very dangerous".

 

It's the same issue as elf'n'safety at work; if you want to use a chainsaw you own at home and chop your own leg off nobody can stop you, if somebody is supplying chainsaws for hire or using them as part of their job the position is very different.

 

This isn't a "jobsworth" or "lawyers gone mad" issue, it's simply how the legal system works when you supply equipment to somebody else or install it for them, if you don't dot the i's and cross the t's and it all goes pear-shaped you're liable. If you installed and built a 72V system for another boater without taking all the proper precautions with the installation you could face exactly the same issue ?

The system we are putting on a mates boat is 48 volts, we will still do the same though no way for fingers to touch live terminals lids on batteries etc. For his needs his lynch electric motor is perfect for the job 

[IanD]

Just now, peterboat said:

The system we are putting on a mates boat is 48 volts, we will still do the same though no way for fingers to touch live terminals lids on batteries etc. For his needs his lynch electric motor is perfect for the job 

Glad to hear it ?

[Morat]

Does anyone have any figures for how much Diesel the UK narrowboat fleet burns in a year?

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Morat said:

Does anyone have any figures for how much Diesel the UK narrowboat fleet burns in a year?

About 10000x less than the UK car fleet...

[peterboat]

In the big boat world Amazon has joined in clean fuels 

https://splash247.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d9cd6e3c7ddb7a9f609caa158&id=b14d18e76e&e=ac5ded7dc2

[Murflynn]

On Sky News today I watched a Texan oil driller criticising any attempt by Biden to reduce oil consumption - "The Lord put the oil in the ground for our use".  

 

Regretfully another example of why religion is dangerous in so many situations where it is used to excuse the inexcusable - with the side-effect of course that the 'believer' demonstrates exactly how ignorant and stupid he really is, whilst expressing a belief in 'God'.   

[ditchcrawler]

On 15/01/2021 at 16:28, Alan de Enfield said:

Germany looks to use Gas pipelines to ship Hydrogen.

 

 

Repurposing gas infrastructure for hydrogen | 2020 | Siemens Energy Global (siemens-energy.com)

 

 

A growing interest in hydrogen is prompting planners to consider the reuse of existing gas pipelines and other infrastructure for transportation and storage. In Germany, a key region of Europe’s energy system, experts are testing the parameters for safe operation of an integrated hydrogen grid.

 

 

The EU’s “Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate-Neutral Europe” of July 2020 is only the latest in a series of programs designed to foster the use of hydrogen to decarbonize and integrate the energy system. The G20, Germany, and Japan have also indicated interest in developing this technology. And more recently, a white paper jointly produced by German pipeline operators Nowega and Gascade and Siemens Energy studied practical aspects of converting natural gas pipelines as pillars of a future hydrogen-based energy transition.

Beside decarbonized hydrogen produced from natural gas, green hydrogen produced with an electrolyzer powered by sustainable electricity can be used for sector coupling (“Power-to-X”) and for the large-scale storage of renewable energy.

Green hydrogen is becoming economically more viable due to the declining costs of renewable energy as well as of electrolyzers. Linking up all elements of the energy system with hydrogen promises to deliver efficiencies, cut carbon emissions, and increase the robustness of energy systems while ensuring security of supply. In this context, one often-cited advantage is that the natural gas infrastructure could be reused with minor modifications for transportation and storage of hydrogen.

Aberdeen hydrogen gas powered buses https://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/articles/aberdeen-council-launch-worlds-first-hydrogen-double-decker-fleet?utm_source=Public Sector Executive&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=12133146_Newsletter Jan 29 21&dm_i=IJU,781ZU,193AZY,T9UMT,1

[IanD]

A dose of realism for hydrogen fans who keep insisting it will be big in cars -- or if not in cars, at least in trucks...

 

https://newatlas.com/automotive/scania-ditches-hydrogen/?itm_source=newatlas&itm_medium=related-stories

 

"Scania has invested in hydrogen technologies," reads a press release, "and is currently the only heavy-duty vehicle manufacturer with vehicles in operations with customers. The engineers have gained valuable insights from these early tests and efforts will continue. However, going forward the use of hydrogen for such applications will be limited since three times as much renewable electricity is needed to power a hydrogen truck compared to a battery electric truck. A great deal of energy is namely lost in the production, distribution, and conversion back to electricity."

"Repair and maintenance also need to be considered," it continues. "The cost for a hydrogen vehicle will be higher than for a battery electric vehicle as its systems are more complex, such as an extensive air- and cooling system. Furthermore, hydrogen is a volatile gas which requires more maintenance to ensure safety."

 

Which is exactly what I've pointed out every time someone waxes lyrical about hydrogen while completely ignoring the efficiency problem... ?

[David Mack]

I can understand the safety issues with hydrogen and the higher costs of more complex systems, but why is the production of hydrogen so much less efficient? What happens to all the energy used in the process that doesn't end up as hydrogen? Presumably it all ends up as heat that goes to waste.

[TheBiscuits]

6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I can understand the safety issues with hydrogen and the higher costs of more complex systems, but why is the production of hydrogen so much less efficient? What happens to all the energy used in the process that doesn't end up as hydrogen? Presumably it all ends up as heat that goes to waste.

 

Cracking water to produce hydrogen and oxygen requires staggering amounts of electricity, which is why most of the world's hydrogen supply is currently done by steam reformation of methane despite the amount of CO2 this produces.

 

As a lab demonstration nobody really cares, but to provide transport fuel at scale it's a huge issue.  All the "Green Hydrogen" ideas being used or trialled use "waste" renewable power to produce hydrogen - it does make more sense than stopping the turbines, but it's incredibly inefficient.

 

In the article @IanD linked to above, Scania say "three times as much renewable electricity is needed to power a hydrogen truck compared to a battery electric truck. A great deal of energy is namely lost in the production, distribution, and conversion back to electricity."

[peterboat]

4 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Cracking water to produce hydrogen and oxygen requires staggering amounts of electricity, which is why most of the world's hydrogen supply is currently done by steam reformation of methane despite the amount of CO2 this produces.

 

As a lab demonstration nobody really cares, but to provide transport fuel at scale it's a huge issue.  All the "Green Hydrogen" ideas being used or trialled use "waste" renewable power to produce hydrogen - it does make more sense than stopping the turbines, but it's incredibly inefficient.

 

In the article @IanD linked to above, Scania say "three times as much renewable electricity is needed to power a hydrogen truck compared to a battery electric truck. A great deal of energy is namely lost in the production, distribution, and conversion back to electricity."

We in Rotherham have one of the few green hydrogen service stations in the UK  it has a dedicated wind turbine for its production, its run by Sheffield university so cost isn't an issue is it? It was set up for the university hydrogen vehicles, I suppose that's the only way to find out how impractical it is.

2 hours ago, IanD said:

A dose of realism for hydrogen fans who keep insisting it will be big in cars -- or if not in cars, at least in trucks...

 

https://newatlas.com/automotive/scania-ditches-hydrogen/?itm_source=newatlas&itm_medium=related-stories

 

"Scania has invested in hydrogen technologies," reads a press release, "and is currently the only heavy-duty vehicle manufacturer with vehicles in operations with customers. The engineers have gained valuable insights from these early tests and efforts will continue. However, going forward the use of hydrogen for such applications will be limited since three times as much renewable electricity is needed to power a hydrogen truck compared to a battery electric truck. A great deal of energy is namely lost in the production, distribution, and conversion back to electricity."

"Repair and maintenance also need to be considered," it continues. "The cost for a hydrogen vehicle will be higher than for a battery electric vehicle as its systems are more complex, such as an extensive air- and cooling system. Furthermore, hydrogen is a volatile gas which requires more maintenance to ensure safety."

 

Which is exactly what I've pointed out every time someone waxes lyrical about hydrogen while completely ignoring the efficiency problem... ?

I in the past delivered the Tesco lpg, cng fleet for London delivery vehicle's, now the LPG vehicle's were practical the CNG one's less so due to lack of filling stations ?

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Cracking water to produce hydrogen and oxygen requires staggering amounts of electricity, which is why most of the world's hydrogen supply is currently done by steam reformation of methane despite the amount of CO2 this produces.

 

As a lab demonstration nobody really cares, but to provide transport fuel at scale it's a huge issue.  All the "Green Hydrogen" ideas being used or trialled use "waste" renewable power to produce hydrogen - it does make more sense than stopping the turbines, but it's incredibly inefficient.

 

In the article @IanD linked to above, Scania say "three times as much renewable electricity is needed to power a hydrogen truck compared to a battery electric truck. A great deal of energy is namely lost in the production, distribution, and conversion back to electricity."

From the link I posted it looks as if Aberdeen, the UK oil capital is producing its own green hydrogen 

 

 

The zero-emission fleet only produces water from use of the hydrogen fuel cell, with the energy coming from water and wind, with the buses forming part of the city’s transition of green energy from oil and gas as part of the city’s Net Zero Vision.

Plans are in place for Aberdeen to start producing its own hydrogen for use in these buses, cementing Aberdeen as one of Scotland’s green cities in preparation for COP26.