Electric motor and propeller selection for electric/hybrid boats

[magnetman]

Clockwork innit. 

 

 

I still think the amount of exposed shaft between prop and stern tube is liable to cause unexpected issues.

 

I don't want this to happen but I believe there is an elevated risk compared with having it closer in. 

 

Its great the boat is on the water! 

 

Nice job. 

 

 

[IanD]

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Clockwork innit. 

 

 

I still think the amount of exposed shaft between prop and stern tube is liable to cause unexpected issues.

 

I don't want this to happen but I believe there is an elevated risk compared with having it closer in. 

 

Its great the boat is on the water! 

 

Nice job. 

 

 

Like I said -- what "unexpected issues"? What knowledge is your belief based on?

 

The design wasn't just conjured out of thin air, it's a custom prop/shaft designed after discussion between Ricky and MM, in full knowledge of issues like rigidity and unsupported shaft length and stern gear configuration -- the bigger diameter shaft and relatively small diameter for a 4-blade meant there was no standard blank available. As usual, this meant it took longer and cost more... 😞

Edited September 22, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

Just a hunch. I'm thinking about the prop fouling situation. 

 

Good luck with the boat it looks pretty cool. As I spend most of my spare time going around on the Thames in a completely silent electric canoe I do know how nice electric boats can be. 

 

Hopefully this one works and don't let my uneducated comments worry you too much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Just a hunch. I'm thinking about the prop fouling situation. 

 

Good luck with the boat it looks pretty cool. As I spend most of my spare time going around on the Thames in a completely silent electric canoe I do know how nice electric boats can be. 

 

Hopefully this one works and don't let my uneducated comments worry you too much.

 

 

AFAIK prop fouling can be worse with a small gap between stern tube and propeller boss because rope or cloth can get twisted and wedged into the gap and be hard to get out, a bigger gap can make it easier to unwind and remove.

 

I certainly hope it works too -- it certainly seemed to do what I'd hoped for going by the shakedown. The generator installation changes to reduce noise and vibration seem to have worked as well... 🙂

 

It'll be interesting to see what it does flat out after the motor/controller remapping has been done... 😉

Edited September 22, 2023 by IanD

[peterboat]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

 

AFAIK prop fouling can be worse with a small gap between stern tube and propeller boss because rope or cloth can get twisted and wedged into the gap and be hard to get out, a bigger gap can make it easier to unwind and remove.

 

I certainly hope it works too -- it certainly seemed to do what I'd hoped for going by the shakedown. The generator installation changes to reduce noise and vibration seem to have worked as well... 🙂

 

It'll be interesting to see what it does flat out after the motor/controller remapping has been done... 😉

I am interested as well, in a good way I add.

As for the gap I have it and its caused no issues  in fact its easier to clear foul ups on the prop.

[Ronaldo47]

Does anyone have a link to an official document that explicitly mentions a proposed total prohibition in 2050 of the use of diesel engines on inland canal boats? The latest official government documents I am aware of are the 2019 "Maritime 2050"  and "Clean Marine Plan" ones. 

 

Note the references to  MARITIME and MARINE. 

 

Out of interest I downloaded and printed these documents for easier reading and reference. 

 

They appear to be only concerned with international and coastal shipping, and the 2050 date relates to an internationally agreed objective for international shipping, and shipping that goes from port to port, with refuelling facilities available at the ports of call.  Inland waterways, other than those used by coastal shipping, are, with a couple of exceptions,  not addressed. This perhaps not surprising because the list of respondants to the Maritime 2050 "Call for evidence" at the end of that document, does not inlude any obvious  representative of the canal system: Dorset Police and Network Rail are mentioned, but not  BWB / CRT.

 

A few quotes from the "Clean Maritime Plan" are noteworthy.

 

p.6. " These emissions shipping ambitions are intended to provide aspirational goals for the sector, not mandatory targets." (my emphasis added) 

 

p.12.  37

 

"On a smaller scale than sector-wide targets, there are certain domestic policies which encourage the use of zero emission shipping, most notably the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO). As well as applying to the road sector (on a mandatory basis) and aviation sector (on a voluntary basis), the RTFO currently applies to fuel suppliers for the non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) sectors, the definition of which includes inland shipping and recreational craft that do not normally operate at sea. "  

 

[ note that the RTFO is only concerned with the obligation to supply a proportion of fuel from renewable  sources, and is not concerned with the type of engine per se. ]

 

 p.32. 98

 

" The Government has also commissioned a report on Coastal Shipping  and Inland Waterways Transport, to better understand the barriers, challenges and market opportunities of coastal shipping and inland waterways within the current freight landscape. ... "   ( Clearly not concerned with canals for leisure use)

 

p. 36.  109

 

" Research commissioned by the Government estimates that alternative fuels will play the most significant role in reducing emissions from UK shipping, with electric propulsion playing a smaller role relatively [77]. In particular, this research indicates that electric propulsion options may be focussed predominantly on smaller vessels that operate on shorter routes, such as ferry crossings. However, these conclusions are sensitive to several assumptions about, for instance, the capital cost of batteries."  (emphasis added).

 

Footnote [77].  "Frontier Economics, UMAS and C E Delft (2019) Reducing the UK Maritime Sector's Contribution to Climate Change and Air Pollution. Scenario Analysis: Take-up of Emissions Options and their Impacts on Emissions and Costs. A Report for thr Department of Transport. "

 

So taking the 2019 documents at face value, the 2050 date is only an objective, not a cast in tablets of stone target, and moreover is a date for achieving a green solution that, as far as international and coastal  maritime shipping is concerned, would be satisfied primarily by the use of green fuels rather than by electric battery power. 

 

So which published government document does explicitly refer to a proposed ban on the use of internal combustion (diesel)  engines in canal.boats in 2050,  as opposed to a ban on the supply of fuel for such engines from non-renewable sources? 

 

It's a purely acedemic question for me, I'm just curious.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Ronaldo47
typos

[magnetman]

People will still be running diesel engines on canal boats in 2050. 

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

People will still be running diesel engines on canal boats in 2050. 

What canals

 

[magnetman]

Grand Union. The best one. 

[IanD]

42 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

What canals

 

And that's the issue -- what the canals look like in 2050 is *far* more important than whether diesel engines are still allowed on them, bearing in mind that a brand new diesel boat today will be 27 years old by then...

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

hey appear to be only concerned with international and coastal shipping, and the 2050 date relates to an internationally agreed objective for international shipping, and shipping that goes from port to port, with refuelling facilities available at the ports of call.  Inland waterways, other than those used by coastal shipping, are, with a couple of exceptions,  not addressed.

 

If you read the document there are several references to the UK Inland Waterways. Some time ago (when this was last raised) I listed every page where the Inland Waterways were mentioned.

CBA to do it again.

 

Just a couple of examples :

 

"............there are certain domestic policies which encourage the uptake of zero emission shipping, most notably the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO). As well as applying to the road sector (on a mandatory basis) and aviation sector (on an optional basis), the RTFO currently applies to fuel suppliers for the non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) sectors, the definition of which includes inland shipping and recreational craft that do not normally operate at sea"

 

"...................... to explore the emissions from vessels operating domestically within the UK, including inland waterways.The aim of this work is to collect a body of evidence that will give a clearer picture of the extent of emissions from domestic and inland waterway vessels".

[MtB]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

Grand Union. The best one. 

 

Yer kidding! Its infested with mostly fatties these days! 

 

The Oxford is lovely as they can't get in. 

 

 

[Tacet]

On 03/03/2023 at 12:52, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Governemnt planned "Marine Zero Emissions"

 

By 2025 any boat built for use in UK waters (sea and inland) must be capable of being converted to zero emission propulsion

By 2035 NO boat can be built for use in UK waters (sea and inland) that does not have zero emission propulsion

By 2050 no boats that are not zero emission propulsion can be used on UK waters (sea and inland)

 

This is why (apparently) the majority of new narrowboats being built now are capable of being converted or are already zero emission (electric) propulsion.

 

Does this affect your long term plans ?
Were you aware of this ?

 

On 03/03/2023 at 21:29, Tacet said:

When do you expect the necessary legislation to be enacted? 2025 will soon be upon us and quite probably work has commenced on some boats that are not even expected to be completed before then.

 

No doubt rules will be tightened but these are currently plans, not law and it looks to me as even the first and mildest will not be introduced on time.

 

On 03/03/2023 at 22:55, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The plan is already coming to fruition with several 'milestones already being achieved'

Is it still planned to pass legislation taking force in 2025? 

 

Not much time remains and it's looking increasingly unlikely to me

 

[magnetman]

It looks suspiciously like nonsense hype designed for to allow some people to inflate their bank balances in a big way while the masses think something is being done to save their kids from dying in a terrible inferno.

 

Clue: Nothing is being done to save your kids dying in a terrible inferno. 

 

They don't care.

 

 

Nonsense capitalist rubbish. 

 

 

[Ronaldo47]

I did say

 

"Inland waterways, other than those used by coastal shipping, are, with a couple of exceptions,  not addressed. "

 

There seemed little point in explicitly mentioning them all as none explicitly address the impact on canals used only for leisure. The entire thrust of the document is about the impact on commercial operations,  and the envisaged unsuitability of electric propulsion for international and coastal shipping. The prima facie absence of any submissions to Maritime 2050  from organisations representing the interests of canal users, suggests that their interests might not have been taken into consideration.

 

From the posts upthread it seems that the use of diesel engines on canal boats, including existing ones, will be prohibited after 2050, that the only type of propulsion that will be permitted is electric, necessitating the provision of a huge amount of expensive charging infrastructure, and  I was just curious about the legal basis for these statements.

 

The 2019 documents seem to envisage that, for international and coastal shipping,  the (non-binding) targets can be met via mainly non-electric means such as environmentally-friendly alternative fuels, and prima facie do not envisage the  prohibition of existing engines.

 

Presumably there is a document that explicitly sets out the 2025, 2035 and 2050 deadlines that would seem to be impacting canal boats?  What is its title?

 

Total prohibition by 2050 would appear to  directly contradict the express statement in the "Clean Maritime Plan" that " These zero emission shipping ambitions are intended to provide aspirational goals for the sector, not mandatory targets".

 

Possibly the canals are considered to be a different sector from the international and coastal shipping sector? 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Ronaldo47
minor revision, typos

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It looks suspiciously like nonsense hype designed for to allow some people to inflate their bank balances in a big way while the masses think something is being done to save their kids from dying in a terrible inferno.

 

Clue: Nothing is being done to save your kids dying in a terrible inferno. 

 

They don't care.

 

 

Nonsense capitalist rubbish. 

 

 

 

I agree except it isn't capitalist rubbish, it's human nature. No-one will do much (or anything) to fix the problem of global warming because no-one else is.

 

Me 'n Dave have agreed there is no stopping global warming (unless some sort of new energy paradigm is invented) no matter how much windbagging our politicians barf up. The human race is doomed. 

 

I mean like, 'net zero' (meaning the UK produces or causes zero CO2 output) really does seem impossible given the UK output of CO2 is still rising every day/week/year regardless of all the windbagging going on. 

 

 

[magnetman]

 

 

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I agree except it isn't capitalist rubbish, it's human nature. No-one will do much (or anything) to fix the problem of global warming because no-one else is.

 

Me 'n Dave have agreed there is no stopping global warming (unless some sort of new energy paradigm is invented) no matter how much windbagging our politicians barf up. The human race is doomed. 

 

I mean like, 'net zero' (meaning the UK produces or causes zero CO2 output) really does seem impossible given the UK output of CO2 is still rising every day/week/year regardless of all the windbagging going on. 

 

 

 

It isn't human nature. 

 

Humans are capable of dealing with their greed problems because of the unusually large size of their brains. 

 

/wishful thinking mode OFF/

 

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

 

It isn't human nature. 

 

Humans are capable of dealing with their greed problems because of the unusually large size of their brains. 

 

/wishful thinking mode OFF/

 

 

 

Only when the chips are down, their backs are against the wall, or <insert your favourate cliché here> and doom right now is staring us in the face.

 

Only then do we actually do anything about a threat. 

 

 

Then, we can be astonishingly resourceful and inventive.

 

 

[magnetman]

There is that.

[peterboat]

27 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I agree except it isn't capitalist rubbish, it's human nature. No-one will do much (or anything) to fix the problem of global warming because no-one else is.

 

Me 'n Dave have agreed there is no stopping global warming (unless some sort of new energy paradigm is invented) no matter how much windbagging our politicians barf up. The human race is doomed. 

 

I mean like, 'net zero' (meaning the UK produces or causes zero CO2 output) really does seem impossible given the UK output of CO2 is still rising every day/week/year regardless of all the windbagging going on. 

 

 

Exactly this^^^^^^^^^^

[Guest]

The real problem with addressing climate change is that those in a position to actually do something about it are too old to be affected by the forthcoming worst effects, so dont really have any incentive. They will be dead when the worst happens.

 

Those that are young enough to be hit in the face with it are powerless apart from engaging in various protests which in reality have no lasting effect.

 

 

[magnetman]

3 minutes ago, M_JG said:

The real problem with addressing climate change is that those in a position to actually do something about it are too old to be affected by the forthcoming worst effects, so dont really have any incentive. They will be dead when the worst happens.

 

Those that are young enough to be hit in the face with it are powerless apart from engaging in various protests which in reality have no lasting effect.

 

 

 

 

The way to sort that is to allocate the voting age for the 'democracy' thing to be between 10 and 65 yars old. 

 

Nobody outside of these age groups should ever have any influence on what happens. 

 

OK so 10 may seem young but at the end if the day the kids are going to be running the place before you can say 'what happened there then' so respect is due. 

 

The US is a classic example. 

 

A couple of geriatrics running for president keeping their feet firmly on the heads of far better people. 

 

Its all [word removed]ed isn't it. 

 

 

 

 

[Ronaldo47]

The August 2022 issue of "National Geographic" has a lengthy article on "India's Energy Challenge".  India is indeed making great advances in green energy generation, turning uninhabitable desert regions into solar energy farms, manufacturing its own solar panels (although still needing to import some from China),  and developing hydrogen power technology for long-distance road transport.  However, such is the demand for power, partly from the growing middle classes for things like cars and air conditioning, that India not only still relies on its existing 285 coal fired power stations, it also plans to have built 48 more by the end of the decade. India, which is sitting on about 10% of the world's coal reserves, was mining 850 million tons a year. Even this was not sufficient to meet demands, so another 200 million tons a year were being imported. 

 

A professor of mining who is a member of an Indian government panel studying the future of coal in India, was interviewed. He said that India's coal consumption is expected to reach 1.4 billion tons by 2035, and that  "We cannot afford not to increase our production. Once we get to 1.4 billion tons, we may plateau for five to ten years, and then start declining. But that'll be by 2050 or so.".

 

Clearly the contribution to increasing global warming attributable to the opening of a coal mine in Cumbria, or decreasing by eliminating the emissions from diesel powered canal boats,  pale into insignificance by comparison.  

 

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Ronaldo47
typos

[magnetman]

India is a the place to watch going forwards. Big things are going to happen in India and one day they will have a man in charge in this country. 

 

Watch this space. 

[cuthound]

15 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Yer kidding! Its infested with mostly fatties these days! 

 

The Oxford is lovely as they can't get in. 

 

 

 

Sadly, they can and do get in at Braunston and clog up the section between Napton and Dunchurch Pools.