phasing out of fossil fuels - programme

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, MartynG said:

cant say I record fuel consumption precisely but I would say that a very good  assessment , especially the 1200rpm figure.  I work on around 5 litres per hour in to total for twin engines  at 1200rpm . My engines rev higher than yours and  a little greater  max power but the comparison with your figures seems remarkably close  to my experience.

 

I have twin-engines also and work on a total of ~10 litres per hour at around 5knts thru the water.

The difference being I'm a 14 foot beam heavy displacement so need quite a few horse to push thru the water.

 

At 5kts (1500rpm) I'm generating approx 28hp per engine

At 8knts (2000rpm) I'm using 25 litres per hour (12.7 litres per engine) and generating 65hp per engine

 

Its not 'worth' doing more than 5-6knts, quieter, comfortable and cheaper - we still get there.

 

Get the WOT figures for your Volvos and apply them to the formula and see how it compares with your 'actuals'.

[nb Innisfree]

9 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

I recall reading that the optimum speed in a canal is the speed at which a wave propagates,  as you then achieve a sort of resonance where you are riding on the wave you have created.  It may have been in an article on Solitons, singular waves that propagate with  little attenuation, whose existence was first brought to notice by a gentleman riding his horse along the towath of the Caledonian Canal in the early 19th Century, one having been created when a barge (towed by two horses) was suddenly brought to a stop. (Google"soliton" for further info). Unless circumstances dictate otherwise, I try to adjust my speed to achieve this state. 

If you rode a real soliton wave you would be flying along at 8+mph!

[Up-Side-Down]

9 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

I recall reading that the optimum speed in a canal is the speed at which a wave propagates,  as you then achieve a sort of resonance where you are riding on the wave you have created.  It may have been in an article on Solitons, singular waves that propagate with  little attenuation, whose existence was first brought to notice by a gentleman riding his horse along the towath of the Caledonian Canal in the early 19th Century, one having been created when a barge (towed by two horses) was suddenly brought to a stop. (Google"soliton" for further info). Unless circumstances dictate otherwise, I try to adjust my speed to achieve this state. 

With the current levels of siltation on the Union Canal your wave propagation would probably commence at little over a mile and a half! As an aside it is pleasing to note that John Scott Russell (propounder of the Solitary Wave Theory) is commemorated in the name of the new aqueduct carrying the Union Canal over the busy City of Edinburgh Bypass just west of the Capital.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

But, of course, that electricity from the points is not entirely carbon free, nor even emission free, although it is at the point of consumption. I wonder what the comparison looks like when you take the efficiency from oil well or power station/wind farm/solar to prop. The distribution system is not loss free. (Just listen to it escaping when moored close to a HV pylon!)

When you take all the generation and distribution and losses into account the answer is the same as for BEV -- even if all the energy comes from fossil fuel ("well-to-wheel") the CO2 burden is at least 2x lower than ICE, because generating electricity in power stations and using it in motors is far more efficient than ICE (or an onboard generator), even when all the losses are taken into account.

 

With today's mix of grid sources including renewable energy the factor is bigger, at least 4x if half the energy is renewable (which is not all the time).

 

Plenty of research has been done into this by reputable scientists, I'm not just making this up ?

Edited January 24, 2021 by IanD

[IanD]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

I cant say I record fuel consumption precisely but I would say that a very good  assessment , especially the 1200rpm figure.  I work on around 5 litres per hour in to total for twin engines  at 1200rpm . My engines rev higher than yours and  a little greater  max power but the comparison with your figures seems remarkably close  to my experience.

 

Also interesting to note  a significant  jump in fuel consumption with only a slight increase from 1200  to 1400rpm which I have also observed. For  me the extra revs  gain be only a knot at the most.  However I do tend to use those 1400 revs  when conditions allow as it puts the engines to a little more work , which is always good for any diesel engine.

 

 

As Alan says, prop power is proportional to rpm^3 and hull drag power is also proportional to speed^3, so speed is proportional to rpm and fuel consumption to rpm^3. At low revs and power on canals the engine efficiency drops off and fuel consumption is higher, as my spreadsheet showed.

 

Going up from 1200rpm to 1400rpm will therefore give about 17% more speed (e.g. 3mph to 3.5mph) but burn about 60% more fuel. This is why all the arguments about fuel use or power consumption get so heated, it only takes a small difference in speed to make a huge difference to power.

Edited January 24, 2021 by IanD

[Momac]

44 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Get the WOT figures for your Volvos and apply them to the formula and see how it compares with your 'actuals'.

 

 

At 23-25  knts I work on 60 litres per hour (total) in terms of planning for fuel use  at sea or on the Humber.   That's on smooth or fairly smooth  water. After an experience a few years ago we try to avoid lumpy seas. 

Your 4.2 litres per 20hp figure seems about right.

 

In 2020  we did most of our travelling solo on the river (didn't go below West Stockwith) and were in no rush. I do think if you want to get somewhere fast its probably better to use some method other than a boat . But we do enjoy our occasional blast at 20 odd knots.

.

 

 

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Going up from 1200rpm to 1400rpm will therefore give about 17% more speed (e.g. 3mph to 3.5mph) but burn about 60% more fuel. This is why all the arguments about fuel use or power consumption get so heated, it only takes a small difference in speed to make a huge difference to power.

Yes . That's what I have experienced in principle from real life use. That extra half a knot isn't really worth the extra diesel. 

 

Sometimes we do have to (or decide to) do uneconomical things such as going against the tide at the lower end of the R Trent and then seeing the tide change under us on the Humber to arrive at Hull an hour after their high water .

It would require slightly different passage planning in a  slow boat. 

 

.

.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, MartynG said:

At 23-25  knts I work on 60 litres per hour (total) in terms of planning for fuel use  at sea or on the Humber.   That's on smooth or fairly smooth  water. After an experience a few years ago we try to avoid lumpy seas. 

Your 4.2 litres per 20hp figure seems about right.

 

The 'industry' quoted norm is 1 gallon per hour per 20hp. 'My' 4.2 litres seems to agree with that.

 

A few years ago we had a Fairline with twin Turbo Volvo's 6 cylinder 200hp each.

On a trip of 510.3nm at various speeds from 25knts to 'normal cruise' at around 17knts, to pottering into harbours we used 325 gallons.

 

That worked out at an average of 1.57 nm per gallon (about 2.9 litres per mile)

[TheBiscuits]

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

That worked out at an average of 1.57 nm per gallon (about 2.9 litres per mile)

 

That's not bad.  My narrowboat has only done about 3 miles since October and has used well over 100 litres of diesel. 

 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The 'industry' quoted norm is 1 gallon per hour per 20hp. 'My' 4.2 litres seems to agree with that.

 

A few years ago we had a Fairline with twin Turbo Volvo's 6 cylinder 200hp each.

On a trip of 510.3nm at various speeds from 25knts to 'normal cruise' at around 17knts, to pottering into harbours we used 325 gallons.

 

That worked out at an average of 1.57 nm per gallon (about 2.9 litres per mile)

A 100% efficient engine would use almost exactly 0.3gal/hr per 20hp, so the 1gal/hr means 30% thermal efficiency, which makes perfect sense for a diesel under a reasonably heavy load -- in other words, not one doing 3mph on a canal where you'd expect closer to 20%... ?

 

The corresponding figure for an electric boat with a 25% efficient generator is 3.7l/hr per 10kW of 230Vac, which is a very good fit with generator data sheets so another useful rule-of-thumb.

 

In an electric boat you need to add losses for the AC-DC charger (4%), battery charge/discharge round-trip loss (8% according to Victron), motor controller (4%) and motor (4% best case) to see how much of this makes its way to the prop -- with the best components (e.g. Engiro PMAC motors -- which Finesse also use...) and these numbers the overall loss is just under 20%, giving an overall thermal efficiency from fuel to prop of about 20% -- which shows up all the added losses in a series hybrid, and coincidentally is pretty much identical to a diesel at typical canal boat power levels.

 

This means the fuel savings in an electric boat (series hybrid) are not because it's any more efficient than a diesel while cruising at (exactly the same!) normal speed of 3mph or so, they come from lower consumption when going slow and zero in locks, together with power from solar (or plugged-in, in future) instead of from the generator.

 

Of course if you go that bit more slowly that also helps, 0.5mph slower knocks about 40% off the energy/fuel use -- but of course the same is true for diesel ?

 

If going that bit slower and/or only travelling for a few days per week in summer means the generator isn't needed at all, then of course the saving is 100% ?

Edited January 24, 2021 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

This means the fuel savings in an electric boat (series hybrid) are not because it's any more efficient than a diesel while cruising at (exactly the same!) normal speed of 3mph or so, they come from lower consumption when going slow and zero in locks, together with power from solar (or plugged-in, in future) instead of from the generator.

 

 

Don't diesel engined boats switch off their engine in locks ?

If not, why not ?

If a lock takes (say) 15 minutes to cycle thats a big saving in diesel.

 

There are several canals that INSIST on engines being switched off in the locks - the Caledonian being a prime example and you even have to bow-haul on the 'staircase' flights.

[IanD]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Don't diesel engined boats switch off their engine in locks ?

If not, why not ?

If a lock takes (say) 15 minutes to cycle thats a big saving in diesel.

 

There are several canals that INSIST on engines being switched off in the locks - the Caledonian being a prime example and you even have to bow-haul on the 'staircase' flights.

In my experience most don't on the English canals -- maybe they want to use the engine to keep the boat central in the lock, maybe they don't want to wear out their starter motor/battery, maybe the alternator is charging the batteries, maybe they don't realise how much fuel it uses at idle (about 0.5l/hr) or just don't care.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

In my experience most don't on the English canals -- maybe they want to use the engine to keep the boat central in the lock, maybe they don't want to wear out their starter motor/battery, maybe the alternator is charging the batteries, maybe they don't realise how much fuel it uses at idle (about 0.5l/hr) or just don't care.

 

Apart from the odd lock with only a 'couple of inches' height difference, we'd always turn the engine off.

 

From memory the EA (Thames) locks are also 'engine off' (or used to be).

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Apart from the odd lock with only a 'couple of inches' height difference, we'd always turn the engine off.

 

From memory the EA (Thames) locks are also 'engine off' (or used to be).

I think you're a rare exception; based on the narrowboats I've either seen in English canal locks or shared locks with over the years, the vast majority don't turn their engine off, including me ?

 

In fact I'm struggling to remember *ever* seeing anyone do it...

Edited January 24, 2021 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

I think you're a rare exception;

 

 

I have been referred to as 'special' but I think they may be referring to 'special needs' !!

[TheBiscuits]

25 minutes ago, IanD said:

I think you're a rare exception; based on the narrowboats I've either seen in English canal locks or shared locks with over the years, the vast majority don't turn their engine off, including me ?

 

In fact many boaters rev harder in locks than they do cruising - it's amazing how many refuse to use lines and alternate between full ahead and full astern.

 

I'll admit I don't usually kill the engine in locks either, but I might think about doing it in future.  Between doing this and reducing normal cruising speed slightly it sounds like I can reduce emissions and fuels costs significantly.

 

The bottom of a lock is also where the boat emissions have the biggest negative effects on the steerer as the exhaust fumes are trapped in the chamber.

[Momac]

I don't usually switch the engine off in a lock but have been asked to do so on occasions such as when a large lock is full of boats . The reason being to minimise fumes in the lock.

 

However, in a lock,  the boat should be fully under control without using the engine.

 

I have on occasions had to wait in a lock for another boat. When the wait has been lengthy  I have  wished I had stopped the engine to save fuel.

 

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

The other problem with using lots of throttle in locks to hold the boat steady is it often doesn't work very well...

 

Say you're moving towards the back of the lock so you go full ahead to stop the rudder hitting the cill or gate. This sucks water out from under the stern which then bounces off the cill, travels along the bottom of the lock, and comes up under the bow.

 

Net result, stern drops and bow rises (you can see the boat tilt), you're trying to push the boat up a hill of water, and it doesn't go anywhere until the levels flatten out. When they do after a few seconds the boat takes off towards the gates like a rocket.

 

So you go hard astern, which pushes water under the stern and lifts it and drops the bows so the boat doesn't slow down in time <CRASH>

 

Lots of power in a narrow lock can sometimes be worse than useless... ?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Shell buys UK's biggest charging network.

 

 

 

 

Royal Dutch Shell is buying European electric vehicle (EV) charging network operator ubitricity for an undisclosed sum, the two companies said on Monday.

 

Ubitricity operates in a number of European countries, and is the largest public EV charging network in the UK with more than 2,700 charge points. It works with local authorities to integrate EV charging into existing street infrastructure such as lamp posts and bollards.

The deal is expected to be completed later this year. Shell is aiming to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050 or sooner.

Founded in Berlin, ubitricity has also established emerging public charging positions in Germany and France and has installed more than 1,500 private charge points for fleet customers within Europe.

“This acquisition marks Shell’s expansion into the fast-growing on-street EV charging market and will provide critical competencies, helping Shell to scale their overall EV charging offer,” ubitricity said in a statement.

 

[Mike Todd]

55 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Shell buys UK's biggest charging network.

 

 

 

 

Royal Dutch Shell is buying European electric vehicle (EV) charging network operator ubitricity for an undisclosed sum, the two companies said on Monday.

 

Ubitricity operates in a number of European countries, and is the largest public EV charging network in the UK with more than 2,700 charge points. It works with local authorities to integrate EV charging into existing street infrastructure such as lamp posts and bollards.

The deal is expected to be completed later this year. Shell is aiming to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050 or sooner.

Founded in Berlin, ubitricity has also established emerging public charging positions in Germany and France and has installed more than 1,500 private charge points for fleet customers within Europe.

“This acquisition marks Shell’s expansion into the fast-growing on-street EV charging market and will provide critical competencies, helping Shell to scale their overall EV charging offer,” ubitricity said in a statement.

 

The main hope must be that the connections become standardised otherwise the lamp posts will become monstrosities!

 

The SmartCable is not cheap at £299. However, ubitricity's web site says that they are out of stock! Hope that the money from Shell will help them buy in more supplies . . . 

 

Also have to hope that we will not end up with a boot full of different cables . . .

Edited January 25, 2021 by Mike Todd

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Shell buys UK's biggest charging network.

 

 

 

 

Royal Dutch Shell is buying European electric vehicle (EV) charging network operator ubitricity for an undisclosed sum, the two companies said on Monday.

 

Ubitricity operates in a number of European countries, and is the largest public EV charging network in the UK with more than 2,700 charge points. It works with local authorities to integrate EV charging into existing street infrastructure such as lamp posts and bollards.

The deal is expected to be completed later this year. Shell is aiming to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050 or sooner.

Founded in Berlin, ubitricity has also established emerging public charging positions in Germany and France and has installed more than 1,500 private charge points for fleet customers within Europe.

“This acquisition marks Shell’s expansion into the fast-growing on-street EV charging market and will provide critical competencies, helping Shell to scale their overall EV charging offer,” ubitricity said in a statement.

 

I wonder as a pensioner I will get a discount. Go well Go Shell

[peterboat]

Big ships seem to be going greener than us they are going the LNG, LPG, Hydrogen route along with the fuel from the link 

 

 

https://splash247.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d9cd6e3c7ddb7a9f609caa158&id=9202a44866&e=ac5ded7dc2

[jetzi]

On 24/01/2021 at 14:12, IanD said:

This means the fuel savings in an electric boat (series hybrid) are not because it's any more efficient than a diesel while cruising at (exactly the same!) normal speed of 3mph or so, they come from lower consumption when going slow and zero in locks, together with power from solar (or plugged-in, in future) instead of from the generator.

 

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.

 

On 24/01/2021 at 14:22, Alan de Enfield said:

Don't diesel engined boats switch off their engine in locks ?

If not, why not ?

If a lock takes (say) 15 minutes to cycle thats a big saving in diesel.

 

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.

[Mike Todd]

According to a report I saw today, the maximum reduction in particulates that a change in motive power in a contemporary design motor car is about 30%

27 minutes 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.

and whenever I turn our engine off the charging box resets its measurement of 'fully charged' (which takes at least 4 hours of continuous charging) so we would never get a really helpful read out. 

[bizzard]

And yet no one mentions how much cleaner the ar is snce there's not been many aircraft flying, only mainly big cargo planes. We are near Stansted airport and the air here is so much cleaner. When the planes are flying as normal there's always a whiteish deposit in the rain left on our cars, now the rain is clean as a whistle. BUT when the weathers fine hundreds of light aircraft come out like Locusts, just doodle about for an hour or so and land at the same place. Now they're not going out for essential shopping or for vaccinations., they're just up there having a jolly, it aint fair.

[bizzard]

And whatsmore those light aircraft fiends have almost certainly broken the present travel regulations by driving  possibly fair distances in many casesto the airports- fields to fly their planes.