Electric Boat Completes 1,400 Mile Voyage to Alaska under 100% Solar Power

[JWellington]

Not in a power boat, but sail boats and in mine a motor sailor it is called -- heaving to. It is a tried and true storm tactic.[/QUOT

Yes, and any boat can get drogue, sea anchors, etc.

 

[backinblue]

It IS a big difference because planes cannot just have to in the middle of the ocean, boats can, and also can use motors to sail at night or in storms.

I apologize if I misunderstood something. I thought we were in theory talking about a fully electric power boat. If the batteries die, how does it heave to? What if there are no other motors? If you are going to assume there are backup motors, that's a different condition. My point was that a fully electric boat may not have the option to just sit quietly in the sun waiting to recharge. It could be almost as dangerous as a plane that runs out of power. In fact, a plane may be less dangerous depending on the location and conditions.

 

[rsn48]

I was an early in with hydrogen fuel (believer that is, not a user). In the gas "crises" in the eighties hydrogen was lauded as the next great solution. Needless to say, it wasn't.

Fast forward to 2010 and the Premier of British Columbia (American translation: the Governor of BC) worked up a deal with I think all the west coastal states (too lazy to type them all) to create a hydrogen highway, supposed to be up and running for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver.

In fact one of the hydrogen gas stations was relatively close to where I lived in North Vancouver. The results? No hydrogen highway, the gas station close to my home was torn out and turn into municipal equipment storage. And earlier, Vancouver had bought and used hydrogen city buses, they were transitioned to diesel buses.

Here's the opening line to the article linked below"

Hydrogen buses that were once lauded as the future of clean transportation in B.C.are being replaced by old-fashioned diesel power.

The 20 vehicles were part of a high profile, $90-million plan to showcase hydrogen power during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Whistler.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...-to-be-sold-off-converted-to-diesel-1.2861060

I wouldn't get too excited about the hydrogen pony show!

 

[JWellington]

I apologize if I misunderstood something. I thought we were in theory talking about a fully electric power boat. If the batteries die, how does it heave to? What if there are no other motors? If you are going to assume there are backup motors, that's a different condition. My point was that a fully electric boat may not have the option to just sit quietly in the sun waiting to recharge. It could be almost as dangerous as a plane that runs out of power. In fact, a plane may be less dangerous depending on the location and conditions.

The long distance ones still have a genset, just like most boats, and the same as long distance electric cars are hybrids.

 

[Art]

Electric-powered boat/ship "just floating around" means all required schedules are thrown out the port hole... so to say. And, if the weather stays bleak of solar light for too long then availability of sustenance goods may become impacted.

Boats do have much better capability to be electric than an airplane. In that, boats can easily support/carry the added weight of secondary power sources in several different configurations of different types.

Atmospheric CO2 based Full-Cycle, Carbon Neutral liquid hydrocarbon fuels are on the verge of appearing. That will mean... generators aboard boats that may be needed to assist solar charging of batteries will be able to run without putting fossil fuel Carbon Positive new exhaust fumes into atmosphere. But, rather using fuels that are actually recycled from atmosphere to engine to atmosphere to engine - etc. etc. etc. That is why it's called Full-Cycle, Carbon Neutral fuel.

These new-source fuels will include gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. They will be fungible with refined fossil fuels and drop-in ready to work in any engine that currently uses fossil fuels. These breakthrough, atmospherically situated Carbon Neutral fuels will continue useful actions and replenishment... over and again!

All that already exists , and keeps getting better, just as in cars. The Alva Yachts 65 already has 20 kW solar capacity, and 2 - 300 kWh battery capacity. Charge all day in the sun, run all nite on battery, and the genset is always there too for when no sun for a long time.

JW - You may have not realized what I was intending to relay. I was not meaning that assistant generators or other secondary power sources are new... it is the Full-Cycle Carbon Neutral fuels that are coming along... that will be very new!

 

[Scooby5959]

There are many significant problems to be solved finding a replacement for the internal combustion engine is one of the bigger ones .there is some promising battery technology on the horizon lithium iron , graphene, solid state, I don’t really know much about it , however if they come up with a good battery that is economically viable and can compete in the marketplace ,they can get a lot of houses and other commercial properties off the power grid that frees up a lot of energy ,Recharging cars and what not, however if I was having a boat Built or even better a Existing boat repurposed ,I would choose a small diesel engine if I were doing that today ,hopefully that will change soon

 

[FF]

For the carbon neutral folks the tech already exists.

A steam boiler with wood as fuel.

 

[Art]

For the carbon neutral folks the tech already exists.

A steam boiler with wood as fuel.

Burning wood immediately emits/releases new carbon into atmosphere via fire's exhaust smoke/fumes.

Separating carbon out of atmosphere. Using that carbon as base product for creating new carbon filled fuel. Then burning that fuel wherefrom carbon is again rereleased back into atmosphere. Then again separating carbon out of atmosphere; for, then again remaking liquid fuel... And, repeat ad infinitum.

That = Atmospheric Full-Cycle, Carbon Neutral liquid fuels for burning inside combustion engines.

There is a myriad of other uses needing to be employed for direct-air-capture [DAC] of the over amount of imbedded atmospheric CO2. Some of the other uses are also carbon neutral [e.g. dry ice] and some can be deemed carbon negative [e.g. concrete or dry-wall plaster board]. Sequestration is long term [yet some what temporally] carbon neutral. In that, sequestered CO2 can/will be utilized in the future for many items.

Need to ASAP pull copious amounts of CO2 out of atmosphere... is due to its position in atmosphere as leading cause of solar ray heat retention - thus exacerbating global climate warming.

There is much, much more to the global picture than what is simply stated here.

 

[Hippocampus]

Two outlooks
Global
Personal
At the global level there’s no question we need to be carbon negative not just carbon neutral. Other wise we can’t mitigate MMCC sufficiently to maintain a viable environment for human society.
Current major contributors - power for electric grid, transportation, food production. It’s here that alternative energy sources exist at an economically feasible form and are being implemented. Even at present aside from tax benefits sail assist ships and use of more fuel efficient vessels is being done with new builds. One of the drivers for the increased size of shipping is increased efficiency. Hybrid and pure electric trucking is evolving as well.
Personal transportation is shifting with increased in personal vehicles being hybrid or pure electric. Like many when it come time to replace one of our vehicles it will be hybrid or pure electric. So this trend will continue as we’re not early adaptors but rather closer to the mean. For both the major contributors and individuals you plan ahead. Even without governmental subsidies the economics favor the shift in gestalt. However, government must provide the seed money for the more rapid transformation as sums involved are beyond that of any single corporate player.
Although I’m not a Biden or Democrat fan the current proposed law before Congress is key. Otherwise it’s likely another decade will go by before the leadings contributors on a global level are adequately addressed. Even at this time where the US goes the world follows. I have no interest in furthering the increase in 100y events (fire, flood, storm and drought).
The ICCC is clear we’ve gotten to a point where with no change in trajectory mitigation won’t be sufficient.
Personal.
Here carbon neutral is probably the best we can hope for. Although your decisions are a drop in the ocean collectively they are meaningful. So I have a carbon neutral house (actually carbon negative) but a carbon positive boat. I avoid buying any factory farmed food. I support with contributions mechanisms to protect rain forests and ocean biodiversity. Collectively this has had no impact on my quality of life and no or negligible impact on my economic life. Always had a nice, fully optioned pickup. Like many it was a lifestyle statement more than a working vehicle. Switched to a car and a trailer. 12 mpg to 30. No real change in lifestyle except easier to find parking against the few times a pickup would have been more convenient than the trailer. I read this thread and wonder why people can’t accept “it is what it is” “deal with it” as best you can. Similarly I can’t afford a new Artnautica, Deep Water or Arksen. If I could I would have one. Yes narrow, light boats are dramatically more efficient. Yes, this can be done with 5-6000nm range. Don’t think the folks on those boats are suffering too much. Rather bought a used NT42. A lot less green than the prior Outbound but greener than an express boat or a sport fish. This site is about trawlers. Yes, I miss the mechanical NA engines but “it is what it is” deal with it. Yes, you will have your boats for the foreseeable future. Then, like you, they will time out as the fleet is replaced.

As an aside wood burning in any form (domestic heat, propulsion, farming) is very carbon positive. Releasing sequestered carbon while producing CO2 isn’t the answer. Fine using biofuels by capture of atmospheric CO2 is of some definite benefit but even this isn’t a total answer. Best outcome would be carbon neutral. That has to be supplemented with mechanisms to get to carbon negative. Current levels are sufficient to continue the ongoing reorganization of where fresh water resides and it’s behavior(i.e. drought, fire, storms etc.).

 

[backinblue]

Thanks Hippo. Though I don't disagree with much of your argument, I don't know why the US has to solve a global issue. I've heard it said that if the US was carbon zero there would still be a global climate issue with China continuing to grow its carbon footprint for the foreseeable future. Other countries like India for example are also a major contributor. If the world isn't collectively behind these "green" efforts, then how will global change happen? I also believe we are getting much greener w/o govt intervention. People naturally want more effcient homes and cars and boats, etc, so the market evolves that way. No matter how many trillions congress wants to spend, it's rather arrogant of us as a country to think we can save the world.

 

[OldDan1943]

Let us start out with the knowledge the air pollution created in "country A" does not remain in "country A's" geography boundaries.

Electric cars merely relocate the power generation/pollution and we cannot keep up with today's needs.
According to a recent article, China cant exists without coal. No one can dictate 'clean air standards' to another nation.
Then there are all the 3rd world, developing nations. The US cannot afford nor loan them money to bring these developing nations up to date.
I 'think' the US is right up there with the top 4 or 5 nations when it comes to reducing air pollution.
Consider for a moment, the cleaner the US and other upper tier nations the less is the incentive for other nation to reduce their air pollution. They may be encouraged (in their own mind) to increase their air pollution.

With all that was said above, we must do more to reduce out air pollution.
We have pretty much accomplished the 'inexpensive' part. Now, each percentage of reduction will cost many more dollars, percentage wise.

 

[Hippocampus]

Dan think differently about this. Mainland China is the worst kind of dictatorship and their actions to date are reprehensible. However they are now dependent upon the private sector they’ve created and continue to be dependent upon exports. They are responsive if either public opinion or the various world entities impose actions that would threaten their export industries and hence economy. People who know much more than me about this subject firmly believe if we sign worldwide climate agreements such as the prior Paris agreement China, India and second world countries will follow. If we do not they will not. Think your opinion had heavier weight back in the 1990s but time has come to fish or cut bait as direct, current effects of MMCC are killing people and destroying property now. Even if we decide to defer signing making the actions required by way of the bills before Congress is an overt demonstration we are taking remedial action and would strongly pressure other governments to do the same. Even England under very conservative and nationalist governments has acted on this issue. We are far behind the rest of the world on concrete governmental action. BTW China has been shifting to hydro and non coal for decades.
In short the better we do the more incentive for others to follow in our wake. No one wants to be the guy who doesn’t wipe well. We need to clean up our own house.

 

[psneeld]

Supposedly China has started blackouts throughout the country to reduce emissions.

Got this through gcaptain discussing how shippers are finding out numerous factories have shut down and shipments from them have stopped.

 

[FF]

It is my understanding that to grab CO2 out of the atmosphere simply grinding iron mine tailings and spreading them in the ocean will cause a bloom that gobbles CO2 and drops it to the ocean floor as the bloom dies.

Perhaps if we could add iron to slow departing plastic , we could solve 2 problems at once?

 

[Simi 60]

Mainland China is the worst kind of dictatorship and their actions to date are reprehensible. .

Compared to who?

 

[Benthic2]

... I don't know why the US has to solve a global issue......

1. For the same reason that we don't hunt whales, make kids work in mines, and want women have equal rights. Because doing the right thing doesn't depend on what other countries do.

2. Because someone has to, and we can.

3. Because the alternative will be disastererous.

 

[backinblue]

1. For the same reason that we don't hunt whales, make kids work in mines, and want women have equal rights. Because doing the right thing doesn't depend on what other countries do.

2. Because someone has to, and we can.

3. Because the alternative will be disastererous.

I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to reduce carbon emissions, but my point is that it's a global issue, not a US issue and we can't save to world if countries like China don't want to cooperate.

 

[OldDan1943]

I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to reduce carbon emissions, but my point is that it's a global issue, not a US issue and we can't save to world if countries like China don't want to cooperate.

and 3rd world countries such as many parts of Africa and South America.

The US gives these countries for the express purpose of reducing air pollution and it ends up in the dictator's bank account.

 

[SteveK]

I'm not saying we shouldn't strive to reduce carbon emissions, but my point is that it's a global issue, not a US issue and we can't save to world if countries like China don't want to cooperate.

Post 133. China seems to be participating now by shutting down all pollution with blackouts.

 

[Larry M]

I don't think there is a need to explain why this thread is now closed but just in case, remember the no politics rule?

Thanks for understanding.