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

[reg]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

If you're not getting enough voltage to charge in winter, you need more panels in series going into the MPPT controller to make sure the panel voltage is always bigger than the battery voltage.

 

Don't forget that even with this, power yield in winter is a tiny fraction of that in summer, typically 6x lower in midwinter... 😞

Aware of that but I don't want you increase panel area which is why I might be interested anything that has the potential to give any gain for the same panel area.

 

Edit to add 

Research is getting near to the 30% mark. 

 

https://newatlas.com/energy/tandem-silicon-perovskite-solar-cells-record-efficiency/

 

Not sure if I will still be around when it becomes commercially available though. 

Also aware that in the exotic area of space research 30% has been achieved some time ago but these are slightly beyond a practical budget.

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by reg

[IanD]

43 minutes ago, reg said:

Aware of that but I don't want you increase panel area which is why I might be interested anything that has the potential to give any gain for the same panel area.

 

Edit to add 

Research is getting near to the 30% mark. 

 

https://newatlas.com/energy/tandem-silicon-perovskite-solar-cells-record-efficiency/

 

Not sure if I will still be around when it becomes commercially available though. 

Also aware that in the exotic area of space research 30% has been achieved some time ago but these are slightly beyond a practical budget.

 

Can you rewire the panels you have to put more in series and fewer in parallel?

 

Efficiencies in the lab have gone well above 45% using exotic materials and processes, meaning zero chance of ever hitting the mass market, because for 99.9% of applications cost per watt is all that matters. And lasting for at least 10 years, which is the other place a lot of new technologies fall down.

 

Newatlas is well-known for ""ooh look, exciting new tech!" stories which turn out to be many years away from real-life use, if they ever make it at all -- that's how they get clicks onto their website...

Edited November 8, 2021 by IanD

[system 4-50]

The next generation of shipping containers has solar panels on one side.  A 20,000 container ship can capture enough solar to power the ship without using its HVO diesels.  So I'm told.

[IanD]

37 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

The next generation of shipping containers has solar panels on one side.  A 20,000 container ship can capture enough solar to power the ship without using its HVO diesels.  So I'm told.

 

By who? The numbers don't get anywhere close to adding up...

 

(unless by "power" you just mean lights and other small stuff like container refrigeration, not propulsion -- in which case the elephant in the room is being completely ignored...)

 

The big container ships like the Ever Given use engines rated at 80MW. The best solar panels are about 200W/m2 peak output, so in full equatorial sunlight you'd need 400,000m2 of panels. The Ever Given is 1000m long by 60m wide, so let's cover the entire ship with panels to get about 50,000m2 (allowing for bow and stern), so we're 8x below what is needed. But since the sun doesn't shine like this all the time even in the tropics, so on average you'd be at least 30x out -- or at least 50x out in places like the UK. So you'd have to drop cruising speed from 23kts down to something like 6-8kts, more than trebling transit time which would be completely impractical.

 

(and you'd need about a 1GWh battery to keep it going during the night, otherwise journey time doubles again...)

Edited November 8, 2021 by IanD

[system 4-50]

31 minutes ago, IanD said:

By who? The numbers don't get anywhere close to adding up...

 

By Bizzard.  I have a direct mental link.

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

By Bizzard.  I have a direct mental link.

Aha, that explains a lot... 😉

 

When you established this link, had drink been taken?

[ditchcrawler]

37 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

By who? The numbers don't get anywhere close to adding up...

 

(unless by "power" you just mean lights and other small stuff like container refrigeration, not propulsion -- in which case the elephant in the room is being completely ignored...)

 

The big container ships like the Ever Given use engines rated at 80MW. The best solar panels are about 200W/m2 peak output, so in full equatorial sunlight you'd need 400,000m2 of panels. The Ever Given is 1000m long by 60m wide, so let's cover the entire ship with panels to get about 50,000m2 (allowing for bow and stern),  

Well 1000 mts long and 60 mts wide works out at 60,000m2 and then you have the sunny side as well, how tall are they and what percentage of that 80MW does the Given use for cruising

[Jen-in-Wellies]

38 minutes ago, IanD said:

The big container ships like the Ever Given use engines rated at 80MW. The best solar panels are about 200W/m2 peak output, so in full equatorial sunlight you'd need 400,000m2 of panels. The Ever Given is 1000m long by 60m wide, so let's cover the entire ship with panels to get about 50,000m2 (allowing for bow and stern), so we're 8x below what is needed. But since the sun doesn't shine like this all the time even in the tropics, so on average you'd be at least 30x out -- or at least 50x out in places like the UK. So you'd have to drop cruising speed from 23kts down to something like 6-8kts, more than trebling transit time which would be completely impractical.

The Evergiven is 20,124 20' container equivalent capacity. So each 20'x8' container has 14.4m^2 of roof area. If the containers are all on one level, that is 290,104m^2 of area that could be fitted with panels, provided they are not stacked. That would give 58MW at 200W/sqm. Starting to get closer to the Ever Given's 80MW. You could have a tug pulling a string of containers. It's been done before.

Some one is going to suggest a wind powered ship, but that would just be silly. Never going to work. 😀

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

The Evergiven is 20,124 20' container equivalent capacity. So each 20'x8' container has 14.4m^2 of roof area. If the containers are all on one level, that is 290,104m^2 of area that could be fitted with panels, provided they are not stacked. That would give 58MW at 200W/sqm. Starting to get closer to the Ever Given's 80MW. You could have a tug pulling a string of containers. It's been done before.

Some one is going to suggest a wind powered ship, but that would just be silly. Never going to work. 😀

You've forgotten that the containers are stacked ten deep -- your area figure is 6x bigger than mine which assumed covering the entire area of the ship with panels...

[Jen-in-Wellies]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

You've forgotten that the containers are stacked ten deep -- your area figure is 6x bigger than mine which assumed covering the entire area of the ship with panels...

No I didn't. That is the point. Don't stack them. String them out behind a tug to get maximum surface area. Cover the tug too while we're at it.

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Jen-in-Wellies

[IanD]

22 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Well 1000 mts long and 60 mts wide works out at 60,000m2 and then you have the sunny side as well, how tall are they and what percentage of that 80MW does the Given use for cruising

 

Almost all of it. The engines are sized to run at close to full power (at least 90%) at cruising speed, that gives the best efficiency. There's a lot of info on the Wartsila website if you want to go and look -- and some real juicy propeller porn... 😉

 

You can't have area on the top and on the sides and just add them together for solar panels, geometry doesn't work like that -- the sun can't be overhead (panels on top) and low down (panels on the sides) at the same time...

4 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

No I didn't. That is the point. Don't stack them. String them out behind a tug to get maximum surface area. Cover the tug too while we're at it.

 

So you want a tug pulling a 10km long string of containers on barges. Through the Suez canal. What can possibly go wrong? 😉

Edited November 8, 2021 by IanD

[Jen-in-Wellies]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

So you want a tug pulling a 10km long string of containers on barges. Through the Suez canal. What can possibly go wrong? 😉

Just imagine trying to stop the string when another ship appears through a bridge hole!

 

If the doors are waterproof and the load isn't too heavy, the container could be the barge

Edited November 8, 2021 by Jen-in-Wellies

[roland elsdon]

 

Some one is going to suggest a wind powered ship, but that would just be silly. Never going to work. 😀

 

Simple put  big wind turbines connected by belts to the ships propeller and a clutch . That’s a wind powered boat.
When the wind blows the prop turns. When the wind doesn’t blow you use the stored battery from the solar. If you were really flash you could have charging from the turbines too.

of course if the winds blowing the wrong way you might go backwards, but life’s a risk.

 

Might be a bit tender in a strong wind but it’s a big boat. 
 

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Just imagine trying to stop the string when another ship appears through a bridge hole!

 

If the doors are waterproof and the load isn't too heavy, the container could be the barge

 

And people complain about the un-hydrodynamic brick-like shape of modern fatboats...

7 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

 

Some one is going to suggest a wind powered ship, but that would just be silly. Never going to work. 😀

 

Simple put  big wind turbines connected by belts to the ships propeller and a clutch . That’s a wind powered boat.
When the wind blows the prop turns. When the wind doesn’t blow you use the stored battery from the solar. If you were really flash you could have charging from the turbines too.

of course if the winds blowing the wrong way you might go backwards, but life’s a risk.

 

Might be a bit tender in a strong wind but it’s a big boat. 
 

 

How about recruiting plenty more low-paid crew (helps with unemployment...) and sitting them all on cycle-powered generators? At a square metre or so each you could sit 50,000 of them on top of the containers -- or 300,000 if they're in a single layer like Jen proposed -- which is quite a bit of power.

 

Then you wouldn't even need them in one huge mass like the Ever Given -- do what they used to do with Tom Puddings, stick a pointy bow on the front with a string of a dozen containers behind (nice manageable length), thirty cyclists on top of each container, job done.

 

Wow, I think I've solved both the sea transport *and* employment problems *and* helped keep the planet green 😉

Edited November 8, 2021 by IanD

[Jen-in-Wellies]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

And people complain about the un-hydrodynamic brick-like shape of modern fatboats...

That's what the jebus is for.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

14 minutes ago, IanD said:

How about recruiting plenty more low-paid crew (helps with unemployment...) and sitting them all on cycle-powered generators? At a square metre or so each you could sit 50,000 of them on top of the containers -- or 300,000 if they're in a single layer like Jen proposed -- which is quite a bit of power.

 

You only get 200 to 300W out of a cyclist, so only a little more power than a square metre of solar panels. Plus you have to feed them and let them sleep sometime, or they won't be producing 200W for long. People on bike powered generators under solar panel sun shades could double the power.

[ditchcrawler]

 

[IanD]

46 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

You only get 200 to 300W out of a cyclist, so only a little more power than a square metre of solar panels. Plus you have to feed them and let them sleep sometime, or they won't be producing 200W for long. People on bike powered generators under solar panel sun shades could double the power.

Perfect combination then -- the cyclists provide power at night when it's cool and sleep under the shade of the solar panels in the day -- hey presto, pretty much constant power 24/7 🙂

[TheBiscuits]

6 hours ago, roland elsdon said:

Some one is going to suggest a wind powered ship, but that would just be silly. Never going to work. 😀

 

You may mock, but the UK used to get most of it's grain from Australia.  Once "progress" switched to steam rather than sail it was no longer commercially viable so stopped pretty much overnight.  There were trade crews that went back on the return leg to Australia and were laid off when they got home 

 

It's that whole "having to pay the peasants" thing that ruins it.  Flog 'em if they aren't working hard enough works better for capitalists than it does for low paid workers...

[IanD]

7 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

You may mock, but the UK used to get most of it's grain from Australia.  Once "progress" switched to steam rather than sail it was no longer commercially viable so stopped pretty much overnight.  There were trade crews that went back on the return leg to Australia and were laid off when they got home 

 

It's that whole "having to pay the peasants" thing that ruins it.  Flog 'em if they aren't working hard enough works better for capitalists than it does for low paid workers...

The problem with sailing ships is that they don't scale up well to large sizes, and per ton carried are a lot more expensive to build and run than the bulk carriers and container ships of today -- even with automation they need far more people, who won't  work for slave wages nowadays.

 

The volumes of goods being shipped cheaply  around the world today are also perhaps a thousand times bigger than in the days of sail. You can easily say that this is part of our problem, but the fact is that sail can't replace today's shipping.

[tree monkey]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

The problem with sailing ships is that they don't scale up well to large sizes, and per ton carried are a lot more expensive to build and run than the bulk carriers and container ships of today -- even with automation they need far more people, who won't  work for slave wages nowadays.

 

The volumes of goods being shipped cheaply  around the world today are also perhaps a thousand times bigger than in the days of sail. You can easily say that this is part of our problem, but the fact is that sail can't replace today's shipping.

But sailing ships are beautiful, container ships are just fugly 

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

But sailing ships are beautiful, container ships are just fugly 

 

 

There is something about a 'rag and stick' boat.

This one came up and picked up a buoy alongside us in Salcome.

 

 

 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, tree monkey said:

But sailing ships are beautiful, container ships are just fugly 

 

Agreed, but they move a lot of stuff around the world very cheaply and with very low energy costs -- it costs more (money and energy/CO2) to get goods from a UK port to the warehouse/shop/consumer than it does to ship them from China.

 

Before anyone says that this is a terrible idea, the ecological cost of doing this is actually pretty low, and it can be *better* for the environment overall to make the goods centrally in one place (e.g. China) close to where the raw materials and labour is and ship the finished goods than it is to ship the raw materials and people closer to where the markets are and fragment the manufacture.

 

It makes China and shipping look bad, but actually the real problem is the consumption of rich countries and the fact that they are externalising the manufacturing costs/emissions to China and pointing the finger of blame.

 

The solution is not to get rid of container ships (and manufacture in China) but to reduce the sheer amount of disposable crap that rich countries consume -- and reducing the manufacture/waste/disposal cost is a far bigger gain than reducing the shipping cost...

 

("cost" meaning not just money but energy/resources/emissions/waste)

 

As usual, you need to look at the big picture and take everything into account not just take a simplistic view, and when you do this container ships can have a positive ecological effect, not a negative one...

 

(not always, it depends on what is being shipped, but they're not always the emissions ogre they're often made out to be)

Edited November 9, 2021 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

On 07/11/2021 at 04:13, reg said:

.I recall that a reply has been given that you can't just occasionally  hang 4kw of solar  off the side of the boat without there bring significant ballasting problems. I would add to this that i think it would be totally  impractical anyway.

 

 

From Facebook today

 

[LadyG]

I live aboard, off grid, top up batteries in winter by running the engine. 

 I use only two bottles of gas per year, this is due to not using the oven very often (I can wrap food in foil and put it under the solid fuel stove to cook.) I make toast on my stove, I sometimes even stick the frying pan on the coals to fry bacon. It's all a bit primitive. 

I use top of gas stove for making tea, but could use an electric kettle in high summer as that is the only time I have excess electricity. I'd need a big Invertor, the bigger they are the more amps they use when idle. 

Solar panels can get caught on the centre line, so you can't cover the roof unless you want to stay in one place, just like a house. 

If taking electricity off the grid you are buying a supply which includes green and fossil fuels. That is fact. Those green suppliers just pay a premium to subsidise the green energy, but the grid is a composite from all sources. 

I find I tailor my food to suit my lifestyle, avoid buying things like whole raw chicken or joints of meat, and I turn off the (ancient 12v) fridge most of the time as it has not been designed or installed to avoid overactivity, so in summer it circulates heat in to the cabin! 

A small log fired stove needs fed every two or three hours, so I use smokeless ovals with a few kiln dried logs, note that the kiln dried logs are more expensive than the ovals, and need to be stored under cover. They have been cut with petrol chainsaws, transported by diesel engined lorries, so again, not greener than green. Folks kid themselves that they are 100 energy efficient driving electric cars, no, they are just moving the goalposts, inch by inch, which is no bad thing. 

If shove comes to push, I look back sixty five years to my childhood in post war austerity, electric trams, the  revolutionary diesel trains, Foden buses and a real public transport service.

The most significant environmental improvement was the Clean Air Act 1956 (coal fired domestic fumes, steam trains, and huge factories cause massive winter smogs) . There was nothing much to buy in the way of plastic based consumables or anything else, we re-cycled because of shortages, eg paper bags, string, jam jars. Each household had one medium sized metal dustbin which was mainly filled with ash, plus tin cans. Even vegetables were in short supply, so we had a compost heap, supplemented with droppings from the horse which delivered the milk in glass bottles, washed and returned every day. We grew our own winter veg. We were not poor, just a bit better off than the masses, lived in a semi detached, had a fridge, and a mid range car, no washing machine! In 1953 we got a  Bush TUG 34A TV, and the neighbours came in to watch the Coronation. 

Back on topic: when I bought the boat, I was determined not to be camping, it had a lot of the basics, central heating, shore power, washing machine. Off grid in winter I am definately having to adapt my lifestyle to fit with my resources, it's not the end of the world, and I could change a few things to improve efficiency, but I still have to use fossil fuels, and plastic, everything is packaged, there is no way to avoid it. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by LadyG