Replace Diesel with electric engine

[Chris_bramley]

Originally Posted by stormalong

Ken,

I keep my boat at anchor outside of Langley Marina in the summer when I am not making short trips to BC or AK. The meaning of short is three weeks to two months. In the winter I keep it in a marina, this year in Anacortes.

Your two examples of electric boats define the problem with electrics.

Echo Voyager weighs 50 tons and is limited to 2.5 knots and 150NM range.

Duffy boats largest offering is a 22 foot launch with a top speed of 6 knots, at top speed it can run for 6.5 hours, it weighs 4300 lbs.

It would be interesting to know how much of these weights are for the batteries and the volume of the batteries vs useful payload of the Echo Voyager.

It is also interesting to note that the only electric boats that General Dynamics makes today are nuclear powered and are built with nearly unlimited budgets.

My "truth" is obviously not your truth. I have circumnavigated and have put over 135,000 nm on my Nordic over the last 29 years. On a few occasions I have motored at near idle speed in dead calm for days on end. From Honolulu to Ucuelet, Vancouver Island we motored so long that we burned 80 gallons of diesel (at a quart an hour!). A 21 day voyage - the longest time of any voyage I have ever made. I have sailed longer distances in shorter times and burnt no fuel. My "truth" is that going up the inside passage to AK requires schedules. These schedules are dictated by tidal currents and rapids. Sometimes requiring the passage of multiple rapids on one leg. Miss the schedule and one day's passage turns into two with poor choices for places to anchor in between.

I made the comment that before engines many sailing ships ended up on the rocks. Some commenters disagreed. Whole flotillas of square riggers foundered because they could not point like modern sailboats and were driven onto the rocks. Read your history. Read the opening of the book or watch the movie Longitude.

So, in conclusion I stand by my opinion that the only time a battery electric drive is viable is if you are day sailing near your harbor. And even then the economics don't make sense. Try to sell a battery electric drive sailboat and see what happens. Maybe someday but not now and not in the near future.

Have you seen the silent catamaran yacht series? They are fully electric with kite sails, are rated as transoceanic, and have been tested as such.

The 60 footer is about 29t, cruises at 8kn and maxes around 20, which the sail also hits. Has a 100mn range a day.

It has panels and regen, and tech has come on some way even in the last year or so. Full liveaboard, sadly a touch outside my price range.

They're not the only ones, either - although in this instance it's designed more as a power yacht with sailing addition than the other way around.

But with windturbine, hydroelectric turbine and panel regen I don't see it as totally unfeasible to replace diesel motors - energy density is much better now and iirc much malsmaller lighter electric motors deliver the same as larger heavier diesels.

[GordMay]

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, altruistica, and Chris.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Chris_bramley

Have you seen the silent catamaran yacht series? They are fully electric with kite sails, are rated as transoceanic, and have been tested as such.

The 60 footer is about 29t, cruises at 8kn and maxes around 20, which the sail also hits. Has a 100mn range a day.

It has panels and regen, and tech has come on some way even in the last year or so. Full liveaboard, sadly a touch outside my price range.

They're not the only ones, either - although in this instance it's designed more as a power yacht with sailing addition than the other way around.

But with windturbine, hydroelectric turbine and panel regen I don't see it as totally unfeasible to replace diesel motors - energy density is much better now and iirc much malsmaller lighter electric motors deliver the same as larger heavier diesels.

Welcome.

I would suggest updating your profile with your general location and your boat make & model or “Looking” in the "Boat" category. This info shows up under your UserName in every post in the web view. Many questions are boat and/or location dependent and having these tidbits under your UserName saves answering those questions repeatedly. If you need help setting up your profile then click on this link: https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3308797

I would happily help more if the link above is not enough.

[Brewgyver]

Originally Posted by Chris_bramley

Have you seen the silent catamaran yacht series? They are fully electric with kite sails, are rated as transoceanic, and have been tested as such.

The 60 footer is about 29t, cruises at 8kn and maxes around 20, which the sail also hits. Has a 100mn range a day.

It has panels and regen, and tech has come on some way even in the last year or so. Full liveaboard, sadly a touch outside my price range.

They're not the only ones, either - although in this instance it's designed more as a power yacht with sailing addition than the other way around.

But with windturbine, hydroelectric turbine and panel regen I don't see it as totally unfeasible to replace diesel motors - energy density is much better now and iirc much malsmaller lighter electric motors deliver the same as larger heavier diesels.

You seem to have missed the fact that the Silent 60 comes in three versions, none of which are all electric. The choices are 100 or 145 kw generators, fed by 1,000 to 1,900 liter diesel fuel tanks. When the factory team did their Atlantic crossing, they put something over 200 hours on the generator, burning just about every drop of diesel on board.

[mcarthur]

Originally Posted by Brewgyver

You seem to have missed the fact that the Silent 60 comes in three versions, none of which are all electric. The choices are 100 or 145 kw generators, fed by 1,000 to 1,900 liter diesel fuel tanks. When the factory team did their Atlantic crossing, they put something over 200 hours on the generator, burning just about every drop of diesel on board.

I think you are right, although I'm sure you could ask Silent to simply not install the gensets !

While the "transoceanic" is true (they crossed the Atlantic), any claim to "transoceanic on electric only" is unproven. However, gravity is not proven either - it's a scientific theory.
Clearly the boat has the capability to cross oceans under electric power alone (as distinct to, say, boats that have no generating capability or batteries ). You may need a combination of conditions: decent sun, no time pressures, slow speed, etc. But that's ok.

Now, could you say Silent 60 is "transoceanic in the polar winter"? How about "transoceanic in the middle of hurricane/cyclone season"? Possibly, but I'd like a leetle more evidence . How about "transoceanic with a family/crew of 6 being comfortable on 80% of the trip, when they can pick their weather window and speed using modern forecasting"? That one I'd support any day ... like gravity

[Adelie]

Azure marine has/had 40’ all electric cats that can maintain 4.5kt indefinitely.

https://plugboats.com/aquanima-solar...24-7-autonomy/

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by mcarthur

... While the "transoceanic" is true (they crossed the Atlantic), any claim to "transoceanic on electric only" is unproven. However, gravity is not proven either - it's a scientific theory...
... That one I'd support any day ... like gravity

All physics textbook should include this warning label:
“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

There are numerous alternative theories, that should be taught on an equal basis.
For example, the observed behavior of the earth's revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained, if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract, and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as proposed by the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity.
Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer reviewed journals, and scientists, who propose anti-gravity, quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.

The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position, for all airplanes, is on the ground.
While this seems true for Northwest Airlines, it appears that JetBlue and Southwest have a superior theory, that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.

Finally, the mere name‚ "Universal Theory of Gravity", or "Theory of Universal Gravity" (secularists like to use confusing language), has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass" is communistic. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such "universalism." If we have Universal Gravity now, then universal health care will be sure to follow.

It is this kind of universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber. It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity: there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic Founding Fathers never referred to it.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by GordMay

All physics textbook should include this warning label:
“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

There are numerous alternative theories, that should be taught on an equal basis.
For example, the observed behavior of the earth's revolving around the sun can be perfectly explained, if the sun has a net positive charge and the planets have a net negative charge, since opposite charges attract, and the force is an inverse-square law, exactly as proposed by the increasingly discredited Theory of Gravity.
Physics and chemistry texts emphasize that this is the explanation for electrons going around the nucleus, so if it works for atoms, why not for the solar system? The answer is simple: scientific orthodoxy. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer reviewed journals, and scientists, who propose anti-gravity, quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.

The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity is rejected by the scientific establishment, they resort to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position, for all airplanes, is on the ground.
While this seems true for Northwest Airlines, it appears that JetBlue and Southwest have a superior theory, that effectively harnesses forces that overcome so-called gravity.

Finally, the mere name‚ "Universal Theory of Gravity", or "Theory of Universal Gravity" (secularists like to use confusing language), has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass" is communistic. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such "universalism." If we have Universal Gravity now, then universal health care will be sure to follow.

It is this kind of universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber. It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity: there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic Founding Fathers never referred to it.

Very true , gravity is dubious anyway especially at the edges of our flat earth.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Very true , gravity is dubious anyway especially at the edges of our flat earth.

Indeed!

Gravity belongs right up there, along with other subversive communist conspiracies, like:

• water fluoridation [saps and impurifies all of our precious bodily fluids],

• the round earth [the surface of the earth is approx 70% water. None of it is carbonated, thus proving the earth is flat],

• climate change [what’s the problem with climate change, ice bergs melting and the sea level rising? I mean, the excess water just flows down the edge of the Earth],

• evolution [clearly broken, since black people haven't developed immunity against bullets],

• and enzymes [things invented by biologists, that explain things which, otherwise, require harder thinking],

and etc...

[altruistica]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Azure marine has/had 40’ all electric cats that can maintain 4.5kt indefinitely.

https://plugboats.com/aquanima-solar...24-7-autonomy/

Thanks for that link. I have just watched the back catalogue of videos as I am now completing a 40ft solar powered catamaran myself. I hope to be on the water in Sept 2024 all being well.