Interesting to read. Nice to see people pushing the boundaries.
https://trends.nauticexpo.com/solbi...1&utm_content=photo&utm_term=TRENDS_highlight
https://trends.nauticexpo.com/solbi...1&utm_content=photo&utm_term=TRENDS_highlight
Interesting to read. Nice to see people pushing the boundaries.
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?
Here are the people to really look at for advancements with solar and electric powered boats.
https://www.silent-yachts.com/
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
2 X 220hp diesel running to make electricity for electric motors?and a Hybrid, which mates two 14kW electric motors to a pair of 220hp diesel engines.
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.
This one is a little bigger and more advanced. 30,000nm so far. They use a number of zero emissions systems.
https://www.yachtingworld.com/extraordinary-boats/energy-observer-from-ocean-racer-to-tech-wonder-132195
How much pollution and what was the size of the carbon foot print was necessary to build this project?
I would guess about the same as your boat but unlike yours, which continues to pollute, this one does not.
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.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.
And when the batteries are done and need replacing? Pollution to dispose of and manufacture new ones?
And when the batteries are done and need replacing?
Pollution to dispose of and manufacture new ones?
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.
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?
Corrections to the above: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.
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?
With all due respect, nothing I wrote was incorrect. Each statement is true. Your points may add thought to the discussion.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).
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.