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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mako said:
Interesting to read. Nice to see people pushing the boundaries.
Click to expand...

How much pollution and what was the size of the carbon foot print was necessary to build this project?
 
Probably the same carbon footprint as any comparable trawler. However his footprint ongoing should be a fraction.
 
Here are the people to really look at for advancements with solar and electric powered boats.

https://www.silent-yachts.com/

The founders started research in 2004. Started building a boat in 2009. Used it over 120 weeks until 2015. They launched the Silent 64 in 2016. It crossed the Atlantic and covered a total of 5500 NM in 2018. They now have a partnership with VW.

We happened to see the 60 and 55 as they were leaving the Cannes Yachting Festival about a week ago. We did not attend the festival but arrived in Cannes the afternoon after it was over and saw many boats that had shown as we approached and they all departed.
 
19 days to Ketchikan from WA. without going ashore. No mention SOG.

A direct route 627NM. 627/7=89.5 hrs
Using trawler speed of 7kts that is 89.5 hours
Taking 19 days for same trip or 456 hours. 627/456= 1.4KTS average.

OK then. What is the whole story. 2-3 days to recharge and travel at 7KTS for 8 hours?
 
Soo-Valley said:
19 days to Ketchikan from WA. without going ashore. No mention SOG.

A direct route 627NM. 627/7=89.5 hrs
Using trawler speed of 7kts that is 89.5 hours
Taking 19 days for same trip or 456 hours. 627/456= 1.4KTS average.

OK then. What is the whole story. 2-3 days to recharge and travel at 7KTS for 8 hours?
Click to expand...


Well, they also stopped twice a day to hug trees ..
 
There is a dearth of performance data in the websites mentioned here. I am guessing the power to overcome adverse conditions approaches the vulnerability of a glider in a thunderstorm.
 
BandB said:
Here are the people to really look at for advancements with solar and electric powered boats.

https://www.silent-yachts.com/
Click to expand...


Bit of a reality check here

Our boat has two 250kW (the equivalent of 335hp each) electric motors, an array of 30 solar panels on the roof with a maximum output of 10kW and a 210kWh battery bank.


Our 10nm mile journey on electric power took around two hours and during that trip the charge diminished from 65% to 48% (giving a theoretical range of 59 miles on a full charge)

There is some internal combustion going on, though, because there is a 100kW generator on board,

https://www.mby.com/reviews/flybridges/silent-yachts-55-liveaboard-test-electric-catamaran
Click to expand...

And WTF!!!!

and a Hybrid, which mates two 14kW electric motors to a pair of 220hp diesel engines.
Click to expand...
2 X 220hp diesel running to make electricity for electric motors?
 
Last edited:
I noticed this was a Devlin built boat. There is some info on the build on his website.
 
I love to see the advances of electric power, but don't believe it's "prime time".....


Too many downsides and will take a long time to get there. Sure, there's some real benefits... solar panels, small boats for short runs (with big batteries).



I'll argue to just keep your good old diesel engine.... hard to beat overall. Same with cars and planes. Will be a LONG time before electric surpasses gas and diesel power.


Drill baby drill.
 
Seevee said:
I love to see the advances of electric power, but don't believe it's "prime time".....


Too many downsides and will take a long time to get there. Sure, there's some real benefits... solar panels, small boats for short runs (with big batteries).



I'll argue to just keep your good old diesel engine.... hard to beat overall. Same with cars and planes. Will be a LONG time before electric surpasses gas and diesel power.


Drill baby drill.
Click to expand...

Don't agree with the last sentiment at all, but do agree with the previous. I'm a huge fan of propulsion for automotive (just got a Model 3 last week. Wow.)

If you want zero carbon boating, you need a sailboat and either consistent wind or lots of patience. Physics means it's just really hard to collect enough energy from the sun to push a boat through the water for any length of time.

I think electric boat propulsion is great for an aux engine for a daysailer, or a dinghy motor to replace a 2-3hp outboard, but that should be done for reasons other than reducing carbon footprint, since either application generates a trivial amount of emissions.
 
From Britannica.com

....In 1819 the Savannah became the first ship to cross the Atlantic Ocean employing steam power. Its small steam engine and pinewood fuel supply were good for only a part of the 24-day crossing. For most of the voyage the Savannah relied on a full spread of sail, but the voyage demonstrated the practicability of steam navigation on the ocean.....
 
OldDan1943 said:
How much pollution and what was the size of the carbon foot print was necessary to build this project?
Click to expand...

I would guess about the same as your boat but unlike yours, which continues to pollute, this one does not.
 
friz said:
I would guess about the same as your boat but unlike yours, which continues to pollute, this one does not.
Click to expand...

And when the batteries are done and need replacing?

Pollution to dispose of and manufacture new ones?
 
socalrider said:
Don't agree with the last sentiment at all, but do agree with the previous. I'm a huge fan of propulsion for automotive (just got a Model 3 last week. Wow.)



If you want zero carbon boating, you need a sailboat and either consistent wind or lots of patience. Physics means it's just really hard to collect enough energy from the sun to push a boat through the water for any length of time.



I think electric boat propulsion is great for an aux engine for a daysailer, or a dinghy motor to replace a 2-3hp outboard, but that should be done for reasons other than reducing carbon footprint, since either application generates a trivial amount of emissions.
Click to expand...
Your argument applies to your new tax payer subsidized Tesla. Green energy, be it solar or wind is animic. The majority of the public has no clue how much power is needed for day to day life. Green energy will not progress fast enough to supply the millions of batteries headed our way. Natural gas will have to supplement the upcoming demand. NG is in no way green. One full Tesla charge is 3 days of power consumption for the average home assuming house uses 30kwhrs/day. A 100 mile charge ( 29Kwhr) will double the person's energy consumption. This is all new energy consumption.
 
Simi 60 said:
And when the batteries are done and need replacing? Pollution to dispose of and manufacture new ones?
Click to expand...

I believe you are being disingenuous. Lithium batteries are 95% recyclable. After their 10 years of their service life your smoke bomb will have spewed unGodly amounts pollution into the environment. I always thought you guys were standing on your heads down there.
 
We have had diesel/electric locomotives for decades. Simple technology using a relatively small diesel motor to power a generator which supplies power to run the electric motors that drive the locomotive.

I've often wondered why nobody builds a boat in the 50' length range that uses similar technology. Electric motors to provide propulsion and the power for those electric motors coming from a relatively small diesel engine(s).

You guys who are a lot smarter than I am, what say you?
 
Simi 60 said:
And when the batteries are done and need replacing?

Pollution to dispose of and manufacture new ones?
Click to expand...

Yeah this has been studied to death. The goal is to replace the problems we have now with lesser, more easily solvable problems. There is no perfect energy source. Batteries fit that description. For decades we heard people yelling about the embedded energy in solar panels. It's a trivial issue, but one that's still dredged up every now and again.

fryedaze said:
Your argument applies to your new tax payer subsidized Tesla. Green energy, be it solar or wind is animic. The majority of the public has no clue how much power is needed for day to day life. Green energy will not progress fast enough to supply the millions of batteries headed our way. Natural gas will have to supplement the upcoming demand. NG is in no way green. One full Tesla charge is 3 days of power consumption for the average home assuming house uses 30kwhrs/day. A 100 mile charge ( 29Kwhr) will double the person's energy consumption. This is all new energy consumption.
Click to expand...

My Tesla is not eligible for the fed tax credit.

Again, this stuff has been studied to death. Yes, EVs just about double household energy consumption, but the demand is "dispatchable" - unlike most electrical loads, there's a lot options for exactly when to charge. I'm working on several projects right now where we attempt to match EV charging to electricity supply, absorbing excess wind or PV production.

All of these challenges are solvable technically, the biggest issues are in the regulatory sphere. And we have to solve them, we can't keep burning fossil fuels, no matter how easy and convenient (not to mention fun!) it would be.

As above, I do think recreational boating will be among the last sectors to de-carbonize. It's pretty inconsequential in the scheme of things.
 
GFC said:
We have had diesel/electric locomotives for decades. Simple technology using a relatively small diesel motor to power a generator which supplies power to run the electric motors that drive the locomotive.

I've often wondered why nobody builds a boat in the 50' length range that uses similar technology. Electric motors to provide propulsion and the power for those electric motors coming from a relatively small diesel engine(s).

You guys who are a lot smarter than I am, what say you?
Click to expand...

My first job out of college as a MechE was with [major defense contractor] who produced the control systems for diesel-electric locomotives, which are as you say serial hybrid electric drives. We adapted the control system to a novel drivetrain for urban busses and straight trucks and added battery storage modules, technology which is still in use today.

The real reason for diesel locomotives to be hybridized was the immense torque requirements for starting a stopped locomotive - there are no torque converters or clutches which can practically handle this load. Electric motors on the other hand can generally put out 100% of rated torque at zero RPM, a good match.

Once up to speed, it's less efficient to convert rotational energy to electricity, then back to rotational energy again - but we had no real choice for locomotives.

For a boat, torque requirements at low RPM (getting your prop spinning) are trivial, so there's no benefit to extremely high torque at zero RPM - and you're still stuck with less efficiency when up at cruising speed. So it's not really a good match.
 
fryedaze said:
Your argument applies to your new tax payer subsidized Tesla. Green energy, be it solar or wind is animic. The majority of the public has no clue how much power is needed for day to day life. Green energy will not progress fast enough to supply the millions of batteries headed our way. Natural gas will have to supplement the upcoming demand. NG is in no way green. One full Tesla charge is 3 days of power consumption for the average home assuming house uses 30kwhrs/day. A 100 mile charge ( 29Kwhr) will double the person's energy consumption. This is all new energy consumption.
Click to expand...
Corrections to the above:
1) All petroleum-based energy is also taxpayer subsidized.
2) Renewable energy is by far the faster generation method to build and update.
3) This is not new energy consumption but will require new power generation (see above).
 
Take a look at what’s going on with marine hybrids. Now pretty commonplace in high end sail. Even some in power like the Arksen line of boats. Green line maybe an early adapter but there’s now multiple vendors. Several threads here have discussed the dramatic increase in efficiency with ultra narrow, very light Al boats so even in “traditional” power the move is away from high displacement traditional trawlers for recreation. A easy transpacific range driven by one or two very small Betas.
Solar fields, offshore wind, hydro and even a revisit to nuclear are going to be the major electric energy sources. Of course if the magnetic containers to make fusion commercially feasible comes through that will be the 24/7/365 source. We are dinosaurs. Just like naturally aspirated mechanical engines. Sure with those old school engines you had a chance of fixing it yourself mid ocean and would be my choice if still available. But they’re not so enjoy them while you can.
Pragmatically pure electric works for many coastal recreational boats. Plug in at the end of the day. No solar just enough kw to get through a days work before next plug in. Expect to see pure electric PWCs, skiffs, and day boats. It’s the long haul crowd that you need the backup of the energy density of diesel and either go super efficient hulls or hybrid.
Even in long term live aboard cruising boats once you get to your next cruising grounds it’s pretty common to only need <100m and not uncommonly <30nm to your next port of call. You could cut down hydrocarbon burning by greater than half even if crossing oceans on occasion using only electric in the coastal setting for those short hops.
Would note the energy costs off building a sailboat are ridiculous. And it doesn’t stop as all current sails, lines, blocks etc. are synthetics and either hydrocarbon derived or energy dense in manufacturing them. Difference is fuel burn. I had a 200g tank. Could get two 1500-1800nm passages and a fair bit of island hopping in with 200g. Of course always left full before passage but still it’s only there that there’s a difference between bad and worse.
 
Last edited:
Interesting discussion. No easy answers, and we are still living in a HC based world, but its great to see the progress made in the battery/electrical areas. The usual suspects are providing cute sound bites, while people with a technical/engineering background are providing facts.
 
If you look at electric boats you’ll see there’s not much boat. And thus their capabilities are quite limited.

Sure Seattle to Ketchikan in 19 days. Took us on Willy 22 days. But we had a real boat. All 8 tons of her. And she is capable of more supporting infrastructure (like a fridge and a generator). I think the future is with FD boats. But 2 40yrs ago I thought slower propeller driven aircraft would triumph over jets. And with enough power faster electric boats may become the norm.

But for now I don’t see it. Higher tech diesel engines and battery boats that carry little and aren’t all that seaworthy will prevail … for awhile. When I was 10 we thought ordinary flights from an airport would go to the moon (at least) but it’s still very much fiction. Sometimes visions of the future come true shockingly fast. And some never come true. But because we are 1/3 of the way there does not mean we’ll get there.
 
Last edited:
GFC said:
We have had diesel/electric locomotives for decades. Simple technology using a relatively small diesel motor to power a generator which supplies power to run the electric motors that drive the locomotive.

I've often wondered why nobody builds a boat in the 50' length range that uses similar technology. Electric motors to provide propulsion and the power for those electric motors coming from a relatively small diesel engine(s).

You guys who are a lot smarter than I am, what say you?
Click to expand...



We’ve also had diesel electric boats for many decades, just larger ones. I think the first came online as the first diesel-powered ship in the first few years of the previous century. The efficiency is probably not the same reasoning as a locomotive or maybe it is, I’m not sure.

Likewise I’m not sure why any efficiency that exists doesn’t seem to scale to smaller yachts instead of warships and large utility vessels, other than having to fit two power units inside instead of one? Some “get home” systems utilize an electric motor able to be coupled to the main shaft, powered by a onboard generator; just as some are powered by a hydraulic motor able to be coupled to the main shaft powered by a PTO hydraulic pump on an auxiliary diesel engine.
 
Last edited:
Its great to see progress being made, it's disappointing to see the negativity directed at ingenuity, risk taking and people trying to make a difference. EVERY new technology has early adopters and laggards. Remember, steam engines were just supplemental to sail power at first....and then low and behold, power boats of all sizes were common place. Some cities banned automobiles and a city in Illinois even stretched steel cable across the roads to stop the "devil wagons". Mechanical farm equipment was too dangerous. People feared margarine and passed laws to inhibit its development. VCR's were going to decimate the movie industry. Plato told a fable that when a god gave a king the gift of letters he was afraid it would make people's memory weaker, When a telegraph line was proposed from Maine to Texas Henry David Thoreau said "We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas, but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.”

Here's a quote from a book called: "Innovation and its enemies, Why people resist new technologies"

People do not oppose technologies simply because they are new or because they are ignorant. They resist loss. The loss can be in the form of income, identity, worldview or power.

The key point here is that resistance to new technologies is driven by perceptions, not actual evidence. The perception of loss can be amplified by factors such as social inequity. For example, resistance to new technologies is intensified by the perception that its benefits are likely to accrue to a small section of society while the risks could affect a wider section of society.
 
Benthic and others,
I am not against innovation nor new technology. At this stage in my life, I'll admit it, I am too old to learn new ways of doing things.
Sort of like the old farmer driving a tractor, each has their place and I doubt the old farmer is interested in pulling his plow with an Indy style race car.
I leave it to the next generation, with my blessings. :)
 
KnotYet said:
Corrections to the above:

1) All petroleum-based energy is also taxpayer subsidized.

2) Renewable energy is by far the faster generation method to build and update.

3) This is not new energy consumption but will require new power generation (see above).
Click to expand...
With all due respect, nothing I wrote was incorrect. Each statement is true. Your points may add thought to the discussion.
This is a great example of why I stopped engaging in TF.
Back to my cave [emoji8]
 
friz said:
I believe you are being disingenuous. Lithium batteries are 95% recyclable. After their 10 years of their service life your smoke bomb will have spewed unGodly amounts pollution into the environment. I always thought you guys were standing on your heads down there.
Click to expand...

Not being disingenuos at all
I was simply not aware
Now I am.

I'll continue with the smoke bomb, as yet I have not seen a viable electric alternative for pushing 70 tonne through the water @ 8 knots day in, day out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O C Diver
2002 Cherubini Independence 45, Fort Myers, FL $350K
Replies
15
Views
3K
rslifkin
R
M
Electric Pilot Boat
Replies
0
Views
344
Mako
M

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom