Jimmy Cornell goes Electric, with a Cat

[harlem24]

Originally Posted by jmh2002

Here is a another article discussing synthetic fuel and why Porsche has an interest in developing it:

https://advrider.com/will-porsche-sa...ic-motorcycle/

(it's from a motorcycle website, but the points remain the same)

If you are willing to pay 5€ a liter, sure.
And if you are able to afford a 911you will be willing and able...
Every normal person will not.

[harlem24]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

OK, I see what you mean.

Well, just build more of it. One of several giant advantages of wind power is that it can be built out extremely rapidly -- less than 3 years for the average wind farm compared to 5-6 years for a gas power plant and 20 years for nuclear. Cheap and fast and ideal for this purpose.

Once you have a viable hydrogen/electrofuels distribution chain, the economic case for wind is even better, so you just build more of it.

A big nuclear plant wouldn't hurt, either. Get started now and you can build a Generation III European High Pressure Water plant benefitting from all the experience gained in building Olkiluouto.

There is no inherent limitation on your electrical power production capacity, so long as the economics stack up.

Also, you don't even have to necessarily build the capacity. Your neighbor Denmark has a gigantic wind power capacity, which has large excess capacity. Just buy the off hours from the Danes. In fact, most electrical power grids have excess capacity at different hours -- you could probably just buy it.

As to heating -- ground source heat pumps ought to work great where you live, which I believe is mostly under sea level . I installed a ground source heat pump at my lake house, 15 years ago. It is an absolutely fantastic system. If you build a big nuclear plant, you can also use waste heat from that for space heating. I'm not sure if you have district heating in your cities however.

I don't live as far west as you might think, far from below sealevel...
Nuclear power will be banned here by the end of 2022.
And if you look at Hinkley Point C or the one France tries to build for 12 years, you will see that those plants are not a solution for the problems we are facing in the coming years. It simple takes to long to build from scratch and is far too exspansive...
Germany just build a grid connection to Norway, it will go live sometime next month. But everybody else needs to step up when it comes to renewables...
Putting solar up in Spain, Italy and South France, wind in the northern parts of the continent should solve most of our energy problems.

[Sailmonkey]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

It's absurd that I cannot have a small nuclear reactor on my boat.



Looking at the energy density vs diesel it would take a technological breakthrough for diesel to ever be viable. It's just not a workable solution with the fumes and constant need to refuel.


With a nuke I can use a 5% efficiency thermocouple, but who cares it powers the boat for 30 years at hull speed.



Since most cruisers seem to have little consideration for anyone else or the environment why should I? Sure, sail power alone is already viable, but it requires effort and planning. Using electric requires limited planning and ensuring optimal efficiency which means radically different propulsion and generation systems from industry standard, and like most cruisers I don't want to read any papers on this subject or try to learn about it much less apply any of these theories.

It's too much hassle for me I want to push button and go full speed for years without having to visit fuel dock or re-engineer anything. I need to keep existing cruising boat and overload it with toys and also push it above hull speed all the time under power on long passages.

diesel isn't good enough give me nuke power. if you are against nuke you are against progress, you are against allowing rich like me to enjoy whatever is theoretically possible, and who cares if most people can't do it. who cares about environment i'm old and I want to have one last run, and the real problems start after i die anyway.

And again....you’ve got some good ideas, then you go off the rails.

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by harlem24

If you are willing to pay 5€ a liter, sure.
And if you are able to afford a 911you will be willing and able...
Every normal person will not.

Plenty of boats on this forum cost more than a 911 does.
But I think you misundertood the point of the article and focused on the wrong aspect.

Like most things, the eFuel price will come down if it's widely adopted.

Nobody is suggesting it's a like for like comparison at the moment.

But it may well be a stepping stone on the way to fully electric or other technology.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

( I read his book and other accounts , slocum was a terrible sailor )

First person to sail around the world alone is a terrible sailor... lol

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed.
The Pardeys were the most recent long range cruisers to try doing without an engine at all. They got towed into harbours.

This is incorrect. Lots of long range cruisers don't have engines. I've met at least 6 who had all crossed oceans without issues. I also refused many tows, even in canals and I have never been towed into a harbor from the sea.

A lot of people believe they have to at least ride in a car to survive, but I also refuse to do this, so I'm pretty sure you don't have to do anything that people in the past did not.

consider the engine to be mission-critical safety issue, myself, even if I am a pretty

If you knew what I do, you would know the engine is not actually ever needed it is only so that you don't have to wait for the tide to change when you enter a pass, or so that you don't need to lift sail before lifting anchor. Mostly so you don't have to bother removing the sail cover to move to a few miles, or so you don't have to consider the wind and tide before leaving a dock and maybe wait a day or two.



Maybe your boat is just too big for you to manage and you shouldn't be using such a large boat without sufficient crew. The limit is around 8 tons per crew member, prefer 4-5. If you have electric propulsion you can have much larger boats and still manage.


Larger boats consume more resources. Richer people dis-proportionally pollute more.



"
Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity"

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/c...-half-humanity


If your boat is so large you cannot manage without diesel power I would consider you to be selfish. If you have a boat this large you have enough money to be responsible and therefore cause _less_ emissions than the global average, not more. Somehow I have managed to have lower emissions than global average while also having income in the top 20% of global average.



Cruising is not an essential activity, so it should be done with respect. You can easily use electric power and keep your existing boat, or get a smaller boat and not use mechanized propulsion at all.

In olden days when sailing ships did not have mechanical propulsion, they often waited days or weeks for the wind to be right to leave or enter a harbour. And were often wrecked when they couldn't sail out of some difficulty (look up the term "embayed").

Those same ships had no where near the windward performance and could not maneuver like a much smaller boat. Despite this, many of them were successful and like the largest sailing vessel of all time, completing nearly 50 trips around the horn it was wrecked on the first passage with a new captain.


I think most of the cruisers are like this "new captain" and "compensate" for their refusal to learn the skills needed with excessive energy use and them deem it "essential" this is an embarrassment to real sailors and humanity as a whole.



You are comparing an old ship to a small sailing vessel so the potential of being "embayed" or "becalmed" is basically no longer a threat to survival, it is only a threat to convenience.



Now many boats are wrecked because they relied on the engine and it failed. They are wrecked because they rely on gps a narrow passage in the fog. Sailors without engine are less likely to be wrecked than those with them. I have not heard of a cruising boat without engine being wrecked recently except my friend who was rammed at anchor by a large power boat, but he repaired the boat and it's ok again.

[250224]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

It's absurd that I cannot have a small nuclear reactor on my boat.

Doesn't exist

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

Since most cruisers seem to have little consideration for anyone else or the environment why should I?

Not true. I bet most cruisers have a lot of consideration for both, people and environment. Why do you think it permissible to link an often modest diesel consumption with consideration for the environment? A zero (diesel) pollution demand is not necessary, if there weren't that many people and if people moderated their need, some (diesel) consumption is perfectly sustainable*

*well maybe not 100 % but perfection only leads to dogmatism

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by harlem24

If you are willing to pay 5€ a liter, sure.
And if you are able to afford a 911you will be willing and able...
Every normal person will not.

Once we give up fossil fuels -- and we need to, and you know why. Liquid fuels might be more expensive, at least for a while. The world changes. That will not necessarily make it less attractive than grid power stored in batteries. The numbers will tell.

[seandepagnier]

if you can afford a 50' cruising boat, then you can afford to run it on vegetable oil.



arguably better for the environment than 50kwh of lithium batteries in reasonable use cases.

[harlem24]

If I charge my car at my home I'll pay 25ct/kWh. So I pay 4,5€ per 100km.
If you think that PtF will when mass produced will go down in price to let's say 2€ per liter.
A comparable car to my EV will consume at least 5,5l/100km, so we'll end up at 11€ per 100km. Not sure if a normal consumer would be willing and able to do so.
Especially if there are much cheaper alternativs.
And as to grid battery storage, the Tesla 100MWh battery helped stabilize the grid in South Australia and reduce costs massivly.

[harlem24]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

if you can afford a 50' cruising boat, then you can afford to run it on vegetable oil.



arguably better for the environment than 50kwh of lithium batteries in reasonable use cases.

Depends on how you source both.

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

First person to sail around the world alone is a terrible sailor... lol


This is incorrect. Lots of long range cruisers don't have engines. I've met at least 6 who had all crossed oceans without issues. I also refused many tows, even in canals and I have never been towed into a harbor from the sea.

A lot of people believe they have to at least ride in a car to survive, but I also refuse to do this, so I'm pretty sure you don't have to do anything that people in the past did not.
If you knew what I do, you would know the engine is not actually ever needed it is only so that you don't have to wait for the tide to change when you enter a pass, or so that you don't need to lift sail before lifting anchor. Mostly so you don't have to bother removing the sail cover to move to a few miles, or so you don't have to consider the wind and tide before leaving a dock and maybe wait a day or two.



Maybe your boat is just too big for you to manage and you shouldn't be using such a large boat without sufficient crew. The limit is around 8 tons per crew member, prefer 4-5. If you have electric propulsion you can have much larger boats and still manage.


Larger boats consume more resources. Richer people dis-proportionally pollute more.



"
Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity"

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/c...-half-humanity


If your boat is so large you cannot manage without diesel power I would consider you to be selfish. If you have a boat this large you have enough money to be responsible and therefore cause _less_ emissions than the global average, not more. Somehow I have managed to have lower emissions than global average while also having income in the top 20% of global average.



Cruising is not an essential activity, so it should be done with respect. You can easily use electric power and keep your existing boat, or get a smaller boat and not use mechanized propulsion at all.


Those same ships had no where near the windward performance and could not maneuver like a much smaller boat. Despite this, many of them were successful and like the largest sailing vessel of all time, completing nearly 50 trips around the horn it was wrecked on the first passage with a new captain.


I think most of the cruisers are like this "new captain" and "compensate" for their refusal to learn the skills needed with excessive energy use and them deem it "essential" this is an embarrassment to real sailors and humanity as a whole.



You are comparing an old ship to a small sailing vessel so the potential of being "embayed" or "becalmed" is basically no longer a threat to survival, it is only a threat to convenience.



Now many boats are wrecked because they relied on the engine and it failed. They are wrecked because they rely on gps a narrow passage in the fog. Sailors without engine are less likely to be wrecked than those with them. I have not heard of a cruising boat without engine being wrecked recently except my friend who was rammed at anchor by a large power boat, but he repaired the boat and it's ok again.

You’re very dogmatic, but I expect it’s a bit like those of us who defend cats in the face of all the FUD and incorrect assertions that abound. So keep up the good fight.

But, there are still use cases for engines that you don’t consider or dismiss as more boat than necessary.
[LIST][*] there are several passes in the PNW that cannot be transited without non-sailing power, due to length and short times of navigability. Without an engine you become a menace to all other traffic because of either slow speed or tacking back and forth. I’m sure that isn’t the only location where such circumstances exist. Are you proposing that we don’t visit places with those features?[*] we usually hoist our main prior to raising anchor and can begin sailing as soon as the anchor is off the bottom. It’s exciting in crowded anchorages (more worrying to others than for us generally), but usually doable. But, we need to run our engines to power the windlass (excessive voltage drop otherwise) and to push the boat up to the anchor, rather than pulling the boat forward with the windlass. Does this mean our boat is too big? [*] many boats are kept in marinas. Many marina berths are in tight fairways. Does this mean no sailing if the wind is absent or in the wrong direction?[*] you’re entering a pass into an atoll in the trade wind belt. The pass is on the leeward side of the island, is narrow, has considerable current flowing out, and has scattered coral heads that must be avoided. Tacking is not possible. Does that mean no longer visiting such places?[*] there are many sail boats that don’t sail very well to windward, and cannot make ground to windward in a gale. Does that mean all such boats will be lost on lee shores?[*] higher latitude sailing is reportedly a combination of periods of storm and of no wind. Are cruisers not supposed to go to these regions?

Regarding less likely to be damaged/wrecked, that’s simply because there are so few cruising without engines. Not everyone should be expected to become an expert sailor and to require that is terribly elitist.

And I’m guessing that all power boaters are beyond help?

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Once we give up fossil fuels -- and we need to, and you know why. Liquid fuels might be more expensive, at least for a while. The world changes. That will not necessarily make it less attractive than grid power stored in batteries. The numbers will tell.

Liquid fuels like Hydrogen solve one other problem. We have seen power outages in the US and I dear say Europe isn't far behind. We can't support millions of cars, buses and trucks needing a daily electrical shot.

However, we do have an infrastructure than could support the distribution of liquid or gas fuels taking the load off the electrical grid.

I think we are looking at a future were there is no one solution, but multiple answers.

A small say 500cc (30cu) hydrogen fuelled piston engine as a inboard to drive a prop with an option to to disconnect the shaft and drive a large generator instead powering the house bank for cooking or heating would be tempting.

[Yihang]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Liquid fuel can be produced from hydrogen and captured CO2:

https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-re...er-in-airports

This fuel, called "electrofuel", can power aircraft, ships, and boats, and is carbon-free.

This looks to me like a much shorter development pathway than a breakthrough in battery storage of electrical power.

What is really cool about this is that, like hydrogen itself, production of this fuel from electrical power can use off peak generated power, enormously increasing the efficiency of use of the power grid. Battery storage of electrical power at the vehicle doesn't do this -- recharging time will be not that flexible.

I think we should be going as hard as we can to develop better batteries, but technologies like electrofuels seem more promising to me in the short to medium term. Won't it be cool to have airliners which are carbon neutral. According to this article, we are only 5 years away from that. In the future, our boats could also be powered by such electrofuel. I consider this much more likely than that we will be all electric with power stored in batteries. We are just too far away from a reasonable power density with present battery technology.

Unless I read it wrong the 5 year timeline is for ground support vehicles to use hydrogen. That seems quite doable. Airliners are another story, a lot of developments before that happens.

Highspeed rail makes a lot of sense for continental travel. Maglev is already 60% the speed of airliners. Some are saying suborbital is the future of long distance travel. Although im sure Elon will gladly bore you a hole under the atlantic....

Would be cool if hydrogen fuel cells become viable for marine. Haven't seen too much in this space. A lot of trash talk regarding hydrogen from the tesla crowd for obvious reasons, storage might be a thing.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by fxykty

[LIST][*] there are several passes in the PNW that cannot be transited without non-sailing power, due to length and short times of navigability. Without an engine you

How is the race to alaska possible?

n our engines to power the windlass (excessive voltage drop otherwise) and to push the boat up to the anchor, rather than pulling the boat forward with the windlass.

What about sailing over the anchor? There are several ways you could lift anchor I don't need to list them all, but perhaps you should consider higher voltages until voltage drop is no longer an issue, or a small lithium battery that has high current cells located near the windlass.

Does this mean our boat is too big? [*] many boats are kept in marinas. Many marina berths are in tight fairways. Does this mean no sailing if the wind is absent or in the wrong direction?[*]

If you cannot manage or afford to navigate in your boat and not cause carbon emissions from fossil fuels, then yes, I would say your boat is too big for you.



The "marina" argument is already debunked as electric can easily supply the limited time needed to navigate there. It's also possible to sail in much of the time or at least sail to within a few hundred meters, and a battery 1/20th the size of the one cornell had would suffice.



It is questionable however that we have marinas at all, considering how few of the boats in them are actually used. The fact that people who don't use their boats for years can afford to keep them there is a testament to the inequality and unfair distribution of wealth. It would be possible to have only docks easy to navigate to under sail, and tie all the boats along side each other instead.

you’re entering a pass into an atoll in the trade wind belt. The pass is on the leeward side of the island, is narrow, has considerable current flowing out, and has scattered coral heads that must be avoided. Tacking is not possible.

But it is... I have been to such atolls. Tacking is possible in the pass. Tacking is possible around the coral heads. I did tack in 2.5 boat lengths, or 50ft wide channels in lots of places. I know others who had no engine and also entered such atoll pass, their catamaran could not tack as narrow as my boat so he simply waited 2 days for the trade wind to shift to an angle which he could sail into the pass.


You can also just anchor in the lee of the atoll, you can use electric power or renewable fuel for the 0.25 miles needed to clear the pass.

You cannot just "diesel in" when you get there and also be any kind of decent responsible person at the same time.

Originally Posted by blu3534

Doesn't exist

Beta-M type RTGs put out 230 Watts of power. The weight of a standard RTG is 560 kilograms altogether, and the weight of the radioactive portion is around 5 kilograms. This active portion contains 35,000 to 40,000 Ci of activity. The radioactivity of an RTG at the distance of 0.02 to 0.5 meters is 800 to 1000 roentgens per hour. These radioactive sources can reach temperatures of up to 500 degrees Celsius.

Small reactors have existed for a long time, and woudl power a cruising boat at hull speed for 30 years without even needing steam, could use a thermocouple even though it's 1/6th the efficiency

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by Yihang

For sure it will never be competitive with diesel, but in 20 years the choice wont be there.

Companies like Torqueedo are using BMW batteries which are not Lifepo4. They are LiNMC I believe, which is between NCA and Lifepo4. So we are certainly not locked into Lifepo4, at least not in the long term. What chemistry does OV use? The propulsion guys will probably be the test beds for new batteries safe for marine use.

Tesla still haven't released their chemistry yet for the new tabless 4680 batteries but it won't be using cobalt. Certainly a lot of money will be poured into this space from now. Fingers crossed.

A typical 40 foot bene now has 45hp engine and 200l tank which is probably around a day worth motoring. The fellow with the ovean volt NEEL51 is getting 7 hours of motoring, so if we 2x the density and 2x the capacity we are almost there. Certainly within reason for 2030. For capacity you just need to shave another ton off the neel 51, the neel 51 sport is already 2 tons lighter by going to carbon mast and other doodads.

With a 40hp diesel and 200l tank you can easily motor 100+ hours, or more than 4 days. Current batteries are far away of this range.