Jump to content

Can I turn my theory into reality? Fossil fuel free, 100% off grid, but modcons


TitaniumSquirrel

Featured Posts

19 hours ago, David Mack said:

Plenty of people heat a boat with a solid fuel stove with a backboiler feeding radiators. Or just a stove and no radiators. But coal and smokeless fuels are fossil fuels, and we are now told that wood (even dry wood) puts far more particulates into the atmosphere than fossil fuels.

Solar is good in summer, but all but useless in winter.

Ignore the naysayers by all means, but you will come back to a need for fossil fuels or a shore line.

 

Exactly. Wood may not be a fossil fuel and be carbon neutral, but it still produces harmful pollutants when you burn it in a metal box at relatively low temperatures. And as for using gas, how is it possible to have a fossil fuel free boat which burns gas? Gas is a fossil fuel.

 

I'm afraid unrealistic ideas are bound to attract naysayers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blackrose said:

 

Exactly. Wood may not be a fossil fuel and be carbon neutral, but it still produces harmful pollutants when you burn it in a metal box at relatively low temperatures. And as for using gas, how is it possible to have a fossil fuel free boat which burns gas? Gas is a fossil fuel.

 

I'm afraid unrealistic ideas are bound to attract naysayers.

Well firstly, wood particulates and smoke are short lived, and don’t contribute to global warming. It’s only a problem when a lot of wood burning stoves are in a small area.

 

Gas …well plenty of gas is made by cows arses, landfill and me after lentil soup. So it doesn’t have to be a fossil fuel although for the time being yes it probably is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Loddon said:

Rads here are designed for 70 and run comfortably at 63-65 to keep the return temp well below 55 to increase condensing and heat pumps run at 45 not 55😎

There is another reason why without major surgery a Heat pump won't work here and that all the Pipe work from the manifolds onwards is  microbore so it just won't work with the lower flow temperatures.

House is a 1985 detached and has cavity wall insulation and 200mm+ insulation in the loft but that just isn't good enough apparently. It's all down to the lower flow temperatures.

Trust me I would love to take money from the government to make it work but without major reconstruction it isn't going to.

 

So as I said the problem is not that there is anything inherently wrong with heat pumps, it's just that your setup isn't suitable without major reworking...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, IanD said:

So as I said the problem is not that there is anything inherently wrong with heat pumps, it's just that your setup isn't suitable without major reworking...

I never said there was anything inherently wrong with the theory of heat pumps, just they wont work for me and many others without ridiculous expense.

As you have said its unlikely they could be made to work practically on a boat. 

I still think using HVO although not 0% is probably the most practical way forward to reduce ones carbon footprint on a boat ;)

 

Even with a lot of cash thrown at it and all things done correctly heat pumps  don't always work well

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-10147319/We-claimed-70-000-grants-heat-pump-saved-NOTHING.html

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Loddon said:

I never said there was anything inherently wrong with the theory of heat pumps, just they wont work for me and many others without ridiculous expense.

As you have said its unlikely they could be made to work practically on a boat. 

I still think using HVO although not 0% is probably the most practical way forward to reduce ones carbon footprint on a boat ;)

 

Even with a lot of cash thrown at it and all things done correctly heat pumps  don't always work well

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-10147319/We-claimed-70-000-grants-heat-pump-saved-NOTHING.html

 

Agreed about HVO on boats. No solid fuel stove though, bad for either CO2 or particulates so better have a diesel (HVO) heater. And no gas, that's bad for CO2 too... 😞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, IanD said:

Agreed about HVO on boats. No solid fuel stove though, bad for either CO2 or particulates so better have a diesel (HVO) heater. And no gas, that's bad for CO2 too... 😞

As I said😉

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

12 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Well firstly, wood particulates and smoke are short lived, and don’t contribute to global warming. It’s only a problem when a lot of wood burning stoves are in a small area.

 

Gas …well plenty of gas is made by cows arses, landfill and me after lentil soup. So it doesn’t have to be a fossil fuel although for the time being yes it probably is.

 

Well firstly I don't think I ever said that wood burning contributes to global warming so I'm not sure where that came from? I'm well aware that burning wood is carbon neutral when the carbon absorption of the tree over its lifetime is taken into account. However wood burning does contribute to low level air pollution which can impact on human health. So it can/does have an environmental impact.

 

Gas... Well I've yet to hear about a boat burning methane to cook or heat water. So I think we all knew the OP was talking about LPG when he mentioned using gas and a fossil fuel free boat in the same post and that's what I was referring to. Let's try to stay on topic.

Edited by blackrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, IanD said:

Agreed about HVO on boats. No solid fuel stove though, bad for either CO2 or particulates so better have a diesel (HVO) heater. And no gas, that's bad for CO2 too... 😞

Which is where I will be if and  when HVO is the norm. It might never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

Which is where I will be if and  when HVO is the norm. It might never happen.

I thought there were already several suppliers on the canals? HVO makes a lot of sense for canals, unlike cars there's no problem with supplying enough, and it actually seems to have advantages over diesel (lower pollution, less smell, less water absorption).

 

Of course the others suppliers probably won't change unless there's enough demand from it by either boaters or hire companies (or CART...) -- maybe some kind of co-ordinated campaign is needed? Climate change has become quite high profile recently, in case anyone hadn't noticed...

 

If very few boaters ask for HVO because they mostly prefer carrying on saving a few pence per litre by ignoring the CO2 issue and sticking with red diesel -- which I'm 100% sure some will do, given their views on this forum -- they can't then really complain that nobody sells it, because they'll be partly the reason, it's "I'm all right Jack" yet again.

 

Don't think it will stop some of the dinosaurs doing exactly that though... 😞

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

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

If very few boaters ask for HVO because they prefer carrying on saving a few pence per litre by ignoring the CO2 issue and sticking with red diesel -- which I'm 100% sure some will do, given their views on this forum -- they can't then really complain that nobody sells it, because they'll be partly the reason, it's "I'm all right Jack" yet again.

 

I wonder if it is still more expensive, since the few pence a litre was mentioned diesel has gone up about 20 pence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

I wonder if it is still more expensive, since the few pence a litre was mentioned diesel has gone up about 20 pence.

Would be good to know. If it's now cheaper then there's absolutely no reason that all boats and suppliers on the UK canals (and marinas) shouldn't switch to HVO as soon as possible, AFAIK every single test has shown no disadvantages, only advantages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Would be good to know. If it's now cheaper then there's absolutely no reason that all boats and suppliers on the UK canals (and marinas) shouldn't switch to HVO as soon as possible, AFAIK every single test has shown no disadvantages, only advantages.

The commercial suppliers of HVO won't generally deliver less than 500 litres, which is too much in one go for most boaters, and if you collect it yourself private transport is limited to 60 litre containers (maximum 240 l), so no drums or IBCs. So for most boaters the only way to get HVO is if a waterside boatyard/marina or a fuel boat sells it. And since only a proportion of customers will pay the extra price, most waterside suppliers would need to continue to offer conventional diesel as well. So that means two tanks and two pumps, and I can't see many forking out the extra cost.

Where there is perhaps an opportunity is a hire boat base where most of the fuel they dispense goes into their own hire boats, with only a small proportion being sold to third party customers. Which hire boat company will be the first to change to HVO, advertising the green benefits to their hire customers, and at the same time making HVO available to passing boaters at a commercially viable price? HVO is fully compatible with fossil diesel, so no issues for boaters who may wish to use HVO whenever possible, but may also sometimes have to top up their tanks with conventional diesel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

The commercial suppliers of HVO won't generally deliver less than 500 litres, which is too much in one go for most boaters, and if you collect it yourself private transport is limited to 60 litre containers (maximum 240 l), so no drums or IBCs. So for most boaters the only way to get HVO is if a waterside boatyard/marina or a fuel boat sells it. And since only a proportion of customers will pay the extra price, most waterside suppliers would need to continue to offer conventional diesel as well. So that means two tanks and two pumps, and I can't see many forking out the extra cost.

Where there is perhaps an opportunity is a hire boat base where most of the fuel they dispense goes into their own hire boats, with only a small proportion being sold to third party customers. Which hire boat company will be the first to change to HVO, advertising the green benefits to their hire customers, and at the same time making HVO available to passing boaters at a commercially viable price? HVO is fully compatible with fossil diesel, so no issues for boaters who may wish to use HVO whenever possible, but may also sometimes have to top up their tanks with conventional diesel.

Agreed, if HVO stays more expensive or too many boaters refuse to switch over. Which would be a shame...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just get any ordinary boat, add some solar and a bigish diesel genny.

Have Diesel heating and electric cooking.

Run the whole show on HVO = Non fossil fuel

 

Job done.

 

PS  Dont tell anyone you use gas for making your cocoa after 8 pm cos you cant run the genny.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, IanD said:

Agreed, if HVO stays more expensive or too many boaters refuse to switch over. Which would be a shame...

 

If we want to save the planet then there will be a cost, even for tight boaters. Switching to HVO now slightly increases the chances that we won't be forced to go 100% electric.

HVO is not quite as green as its claimed but it looks much greener than the dino stuff.

 

My big concern is that it is never likely to be available in the same quantities as fossil diesel and if all HGV's and construction plant go in that direction (assuming electric won't work for them) then us boaters will be bottom of the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dmr said:

if all HGV's and construction plant go in that direction (assuming electric won't work for them) then us boaters will be bottom of the list.

 

JCB have just ordered a billion quids worth of green hydrogen, so it's a fair bet they are going that route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dmr said:

 

If we want to save the planet then there will be a cost, even for tight boaters. Switching to HVO now slightly increases the chances that we won't be forced to go 100% electric.

HVO is not quite as green as its claimed but it looks much greener than the dino stuff.

 

My big concern is that it is never likely to be available in the same quantities as fossil diesel and if all HGV's and construction plant go in that direction (assuming electric won't work for them) then us boaters will be bottom of the list.

 

If you put all the boaters together they're less than 1% of the heavy plant/HGV use, so it would be very easy to meet boaters requirements without having a significant impact on the big users.

 

You can also look at it the other way -- CART could say "Hey, we've managed to make 100% of the boats on our canals green, please give us some brownie points/government funding". Much better news and PR than the HGV/plant sector saying "Hey, we've managed to cut our emissions by 1% using HVO", to which the response would be "So what?" even though the actual CO2 reduction would be the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

Well firstly I don't think I ever said that wood burning contributes to global warming so I'm not sure where that came from? I'm well aware that burning wood is carbon neutral when the carbon absorption of the tree over its lifetime is taken into account. However wood burning does contribute to low level air pollution which can impact on human health. So it can/does have an environmental impact.

 

Gas... Well I've yet to hear about a boat burning methane to cook or heat water. So I think we all knew the OP was talking about LPG when he mentioned using gas and a fossil fuel free boat in the same post and that's what I was referring to. Let's try to stay on topic.

Wood is carbon neutralish the extraction, converting and drying needs to be taken into account 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Wood is carbon neutralish the extraction, converting and drying needs to be taken into account 

 

True, but the big problem with burning wood is particulate pollution; woodburning stoves are responsible for a significant part of total UK PM2.5 pollution which is turning out to be very damaging (see the VW Dieselgate scandal), so there are -- with good reasons -- moves to ban them, in spite of screams of protest from people who love them.

 

It's true that there are probably 100x more in houses than on boats, but if a ban does come along it will be difficult to justify why boats should be made a "special case" and allowed to continue using them, no matter how cheap and convenient for many boaters this is (and nice-smelling) -- because as soon as you give an exemption to one "special case" group, everyone else clamours for the same ("I live in a remote farmhouse in a forest, I grow/season/burn my own wood, my smoke doesn't affect anyone else"...).

 

Emitting lots of CO2 and PM2.5 particulates into the atmosphere used to be acceptable, but nowadays it isn't; people can't keep on doing what they used to, no matter how much they'd like to... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

True, but the big problem with burning wood is particulate pollution; woodburning stoves are responsible for a significant part of total UK PM2.5 pollution which is turning out to be very damaging (see the VW Dieselgate scandal), so there are -- with good reasons -- moves to ban them, in spite of screams of protest from people who love them.

 

It's true that there are probably 100x more in houses than on boats, but if a ban does come along it will be difficult to justify why boats should be made a "special case" and allowed to continue using them, no matter how cheap and convenient for many boaters this is (and nice-smelling) -- because as soon as you give an exemption to one "special case" group, everyone else clamours for the same ("I live in a remote farmhouse in a forest, I grow/season/burn my own wood, my smoke doesn't affect anyone else"...).

 

Emitting lots of CO2 and PM2.5 particulates into the atmosphere used to be acceptable, but nowadays it isn't; people can't keep on doing what they used to, no matter how much they'd like to... 😞

There are plenty of justification for exceptions to a possible ban despite the particulate issue, mainly the rural burners using home produced timber and waste recovery, I see little justification for urban burner use, so maybe something like the old smoke control areas

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tree monkey said:

There are plenty of justification for exceptions to a possible ban despite the particulate issue, mainly the rural burners using home produced timber and waste recovery, I see little justification for urban burner use, so maybe something like the old smoke control areas

 

The problem with exceptions -- like ones in the tax system -- is that they often proliferate to the point where the system barely works, as more and more "special cases" are found, demanded and granted.

 

If the reason for banning wood burning is PM2.5 particulates, it;s difficult to see why there should be exceptions -- just because your house is rural, does this mean you should be allowed to introduce PM2.5 into the lungs of your own children, or those of neighbours if you have any?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

The problem with exceptions -- like ones in the tax system -- is that they often proliferate to the point where the system barely works, as more and more "special cases" are found, demanded and granted.

 

If the reason for banning wood burning is PM2.5 particulates, it;s difficult to see why there should be exceptions -- just because your house is rural, does this mean you should be allowed to introduce PM2.5 into the lungs of your own children, or those of neighbours if you have any?

Well funnily enough the human race has survived for millennia with PM2.5 particulates in the lungs. It is marginally better than losing limbs due to frostbite.
 

And I don’t have any children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Well funnily enough the human race has survived for millennia with PM2.5 particulates in the lungs. It is marginally better than losing limbs due to frostbite.
 

And I don’t have any children.

 

Yes, the race has survived. But the latest analysis shows that they kill over 4 million people a year across the globe, compared to the total Covid-19 death toll of 5 million:

 

https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/air-pollution-silent-killer-called-pm25-329428

 

And the best estimate for the UK is the equivalent of 29000 deaths a year, compared to 22000 for alcohol and 80000 for smoking:

 

https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/does-air-pollution-kill-40000-people-each-year-uk/

 

So is it OK to allow this to continue because we didn't use to know about it, but now we do?

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.