JRO
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2011
- Messages
- 89
- Vessel Make
- 01 Carver 444, Four Forty Four CPMY
Most non-racing sail boats that leave their slips use their sails a small fraction of their travel time. They are motored and they motor very well.
Electric Boats
- Thread starter Larry M
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
JRO
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2011
- Messages
- 89
- Vessel Make
- 01 Carver 444, Four Forty Four CPMY
California is the seventh largest economy in the world. It was California’s emissions laws with goals that motivated the technology we benefit from today. Because of California, manufacturers created far more efficient and more powerful internal combustion engines that we love today. California lead the way by demanding manufactures to JUST DO IT or lose the California market… It transformed the entire world. Remember when you had to change spark plugs regularly?
twistedtree
Guru
OK, I took the bait too.
Using the best PEM (electric) hydrogen generators, it takes 55kwh of electric power to create hydrogen with 40kwh of energy content. Then put that through a fuel cell at 60% conversion efficiency to make electricity again. So 55 kwh put into the system yields 24kwh coming out. This has very little attraction.
Pretty much the only advantage of such a system is that you can probably pack more stored energy into a cubic meter using compressed hydrogen vs what you can store in an equivalent volume of batteries. This enhances a vehicles ability to carry "fuel", but at a significant conversion loss penalty. So I suppose you can look at it as a very high power density battery, but one that has a 50% round trip power loss.
But Hippocampus already explained all this many posts ago.
Physics is everywhere..... but maybe someone wants to defend the assertion that hydrogen fuel cells will become even a small thing, let along transform vehicular power plants?
Just as an associated anecdote, I recall when I was in middle school in the midst of the 1970s oil crisis, fuel cells where talked about as the next big thing. I though it sounded pretty promising at the time, but now 50 years later - nothing. Anyone remember Ballard Power? Huge hype, huge market run up, huge belly flop.
I think the only way hydrogen is interesting is if fusion can be controlled and harnessed. The energy stored in an atomic bond (released by fusion or fission) is way, way, way more than that stored in a molecular bond (released by burning or other chemical reaction). If you can extract and harness the atomic energy in hydrogen, it will be orders of magnitude more than the energy required to generate and package hydrogen.
Using the best PEM (electric) hydrogen generators, it takes 55kwh of electric power to create hydrogen with 40kwh of energy content. Then put that through a fuel cell at 60% conversion efficiency to make electricity again. So 55 kwh put into the system yields 24kwh coming out. This has very little attraction.
Pretty much the only advantage of such a system is that you can probably pack more stored energy into a cubic meter using compressed hydrogen vs what you can store in an equivalent volume of batteries. This enhances a vehicles ability to carry "fuel", but at a significant conversion loss penalty. So I suppose you can look at it as a very high power density battery, but one that has a 50% round trip power loss.
But Hippocampus already explained all this many posts ago.
Physics is everywhere..... but maybe someone wants to defend the assertion that hydrogen fuel cells will become even a small thing, let along transform vehicular power plants?
Just as an associated anecdote, I recall when I was in middle school in the midst of the 1970s oil crisis, fuel cells where talked about as the next big thing. I though it sounded pretty promising at the time, but now 50 years later - nothing. Anyone remember Ballard Power? Huge hype, huge market run up, huge belly flop.
I think the only way hydrogen is interesting is if fusion can be controlled and harnessed. The energy stored in an atomic bond (released by fusion or fission) is way, way, way more than that stored in a molecular bond (released by burning or other chemical reaction). If you can extract and harness the atomic energy in hydrogen, it will be orders of magnitude more than the energy required to generate and package hydrogen.
catalinajack
Guru
MOST people NEVER drive more than 100 miles at a time? Not even close. Many yes, maybe 50-50, but not most and not never.
catalinajack
Guru
And very few talk about the ability of the elecfric grid, already at or near capacity, to deliver all those additional electrons.
I'm posting to be sure to stay on this thread. Lots to add... but time not available right now. Still have 2.5 pages of posts to consume in order to get full gist of members' outlook, input, issues. Cheers! Art 
GoneFarrell
Guru
Half the fuel comes from water (deuterium).
The other half (tritium) has to come from fission reactors or refining of a neutron bombarded lithium blanket in a fusion reactor, and that is a problem. Doing deuterium deuterium reaction takes way more parasitic energy to make happen.
Nobody is pursuing D-D reaction path
Last edited:
backinblue
Guru
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Messages
- 3,937
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Blue Moon
- Vessel Make
- Mainship Pilot 355
OK I admit that my wording could have been better, but I stand by what I said. Only a small percentage of drivers drive more than 100 miles at a time (which could be supported, albeit poorly, by "most people never"). In fact, 60% of trips ar 6 miles or less.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/defaul...ticle_width/public/fotw1042.png?itok=n91e1p-w
backinblue
Guru
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Messages
- 3,937
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Blue Moon
- Vessel Make
- Mainship Pilot 355
When I sailed, I used my motor as little as possible. I'd sail on and off my mooring if possible and used a cruising spinnaker in light air. Some would rather just motor, I would usually only do that if I was in a hurry to get somewhere and the winds were against me. My point is, sailboats motor well and sail even better with very little fuel. It makes me wonder about the modern conveniences of electric sail handling etc as an alternative to trying to build an electric trawler.
Hippocampus
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2020
- Messages
- 3,908
- Location
- Plymouth
- Vessel Name
- Hippocampus
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 42
Been studying it more. Ignoring fuel cells but just thinking about H internal combustion there’s a feasible system if the h is solely generated from land based solar fields and mountain/ near shore wind.
Would note the large multi national oil companies are putting billions in to preposition for that paradigm. The engines already exist and are flying helicopters, moving trucks, running generators and such.
Would note the large multi national oil companies are putting billions in to preposition for that paradigm. The engines already exist and are flying helicopters, moving trucks, running generators and such.
twistedtree
Guru
Agreed, but then the question is whether that's the best way to utilize the electricity from those renewable sources?
1) Use it to produce hydrogen to run through an internal combustion engine to move a vehicle at a loss of about 80%, or
2) Use it to charge batteries to run a vehicle at a loss of 10%
Charging batteries is clearly much more efficient. The down side comes back to the total stored capacity and whether the vehicle can accomplish its goals given the limits.
For 100 mile per day cars followed by ample idle time to charge, the battery vehicle is a much better solution.
But for a tractor trailer or bus the batteries to run it all day are too big and you need a way to store more power. Enter compressed hydrogen, or CNG, or LPG, or Diesel, or Petrol.
So I think the value is hydrogen power vehicles is not improved efficiency. It's about increased energy storage density, at the EXPENSE of efficiency.
Hippocampus
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2020
- Messages
- 3,908
- Location
- Plymouth
- Vessel Name
- Hippocampus
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 42
Excellent post TT. Agree with your thinking. Factor in outliers like recreational boaters and mainstream activities like trucking one can envision parallel infrastructure to support pure EV and hybrid EV/H. Not yet discussed is public acceptance. My current old, low tech diesel jeep suv has a range of 720m, can rock crawl, deal with loose mud and snow and can be refilled in minutes throughout the country. Those aren’t the needs for 95% of personal vehicles. My SD trawler when in mixed use ( displacement and above hull speed) does terribly. I average ~2mpg. My range is 1200m if I’m willing to stay at 70-80% of hull speed. But most daily runs are ~25-100nm. Think this is around average for my subset.. So totally agree H is tremendously inefficient. But the energy initial generation is green. Even wasting 80% the remaining 20% is just as green and would allow truckers or recreational boaters to not change their programs provided filling stations were available. The experience would be the same as with carbon based fuels. Stop every 500-800 m (if on land) or 1000-3000nm (if on water). Fill up in minutes and carry on.
Agree H is inefficient (but so is gasoline/diesel). All internal combustion engines are inefficient. Fuel cells as well with the added burden of NO release if run at more efficient higher temperatures. H has the added inefficiency of generation. But the nearly one for one transfer to H as a human experience is compelling.
See urban and short haul -EV predominates
Long haul small to moderate size -hybrid parallel biodiesel or H and E.(trucks and most marine). Solar a supplement for low load house requirements.
Long haul and large- pure electric (trains) wind assisted H (ships) with primary fuel undetermined but it’s here H is in the running unless battery technology has a paradigm shifting breakthrough. Can we agree it’s here (15-20% of the problem) that’s quite problematic. H based propulsion has been actively developing for this application even before the current bill for a reason.
That would both address CO2, forms of oxidized N and particulates. Truly hope the current bill passes. Seems smart to not put all your eggs in one basket.
Agree H is inefficient (but so is gasoline/diesel). All internal combustion engines are inefficient. Fuel cells as well with the added burden of NO release if run at more efficient higher temperatures. H has the added inefficiency of generation. But the nearly one for one transfer to H as a human experience is compelling.
See urban and short haul -EV predominates
Long haul small to moderate size -hybrid parallel biodiesel or H and E.(trucks and most marine). Solar a supplement for low load house requirements.
Long haul and large- pure electric (trains) wind assisted H (ships) with primary fuel undetermined but it’s here H is in the running unless battery technology has a paradigm shifting breakthrough. Can we agree it’s here (15-20% of the problem) that’s quite problematic. H based propulsion has been actively developing for this application even before the current bill for a reason.
That would both address CO2, forms of oxidized N and particulates. Truly hope the current bill passes. Seems smart to not put all your eggs in one basket.
Last edited:
I'm posting to be sure to stay on this thread. Lots to add... but time not available right now. Still have 2.5 pages of posts to consume in order to get full gist of members' outlook, input, issues. Cheers! Art
OK - Regarding my post #126 above... 4AM Sat [7/30] I found time and cruised through this entire thread. Lots of good reasoning, plenty good suggestions. But O' My... what to do now??!!
Like it is:
Refill-Mobile-Energy Source = Any type of energy that can be separated and repeatedly placed into small containers to energize any form of work related equipment [motors/engines/heaters/lasers and the like] while a vehicle/machine/operation independently functions at standstill or while moving.
Example: For vehicles, equipment and operations - fuel tanks and batteries are both refill mobile-energy containers.
Stationary-Energy Source = i.e., The entire "Power Grid"... which in reality includes... all forms of large scale energy manufacturing to use at standstill sites and also used to fill-up millions of refill mobile-energy containers [e.g., mass wind power, ocean waves, nuclear/diesel/NG/waterflow electric generators, solar farms, and all liquid fuel manufacturers... etc].
Soooo - here we are... 8 +/- billion humans requiring multitudes of many energy forms to make "our" 21st Century lives function; in the way
FACT 1: Planet Earth's life-giving natural endeavors primarily work on a "Full-Cycle" basis.
FACT 2: Human endeavors primarily work on a use and discard "Non-Cycle" basis. [Consume: To do away with completely].
FACT 3: Humans have but a few years remaining to figure out how to get most if not all energy sources into a "Full-Cycle" basis that can coincide with Earth's very nature. Specifically for STOPPING global climate warming... and during the next portion of 20th Century even reducing the annual global climate temperature ever so slightly.
We can do this and we must do this... before all hell breaks loose once climate warming has increased to the level where [due to too much warming] Trade Winds, Jet Stream and Oceanic Currents alter their trajectories substantially enough so they become "confused" while all three "automatically" break out of their 12.000 year positions/patterns; and, then spend thousands of years to get back into some sort of annually regulated positions.
Absolute most predominant immediately required item to STOP global climate warming is to pull enough CO2 out of Atmosphere. My company, along with several associate organizations, are all working feverously to help accomplish this task.
During this endeavor and for many decades thereafter the [atmospherically retrieved] sequestered/stored CO2 will be utilized for production of a myriad of profit producing "green" products. Many of these products' contents will act a sort of CO2 sequestration vehicle.
In addition to that: There is a most wonderful Full-Cycle, Carbon Neutral liquid hydrocarbon fuel-source being developed for using the captured CO2 that will provide fungible, drop-in gasoline, diesel and jet fuels.
Full-Cycle is the name of Earth's Natural Game. For civilization to secure its future wellbeing of life on Earth... We must learn to play along with Earth's nature by making all we produce and use Full-Cycle!
Cheers! - Art
Last edited:
backinblue
Guru
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Messages
- 3,937
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Blue Moon
- Vessel Make
- Mainship Pilot 355
OK - Regarding my post #126 above... 4AM Sat [7/30] I found time and cruised through this entire thread. Lots of good reasoning, plenty good suggestions. But O' My... what to do now??!!
Like it is:
Refill-Mobile-Energy Source = Any type of energy that can be separated and repeatedly placed into small containers to energize any form of work related equipment [motors/engines/heaters/lasers and the like] while a vehicle/machine/operation independently functions at standstill or while moving.
Example: For vehicles, equipment and operations - fuel tanks and batteries are both refill mobile-energy containers.
Stationary-Energy Source = i.e., The entire "Power Grid"... which in reality includes... all forms of large scale energy manufacturing to use at standstill sites and also used to fill-up millions of refill mobile-energy containers [e.g., mass wind power, ocean waves, nuclear/diesel/NG/waterflow electric generators, solar farms, and all liquid fuel manufacturers... etc].
Soooo - here we are... 8 +/- billion humans requiring multitudes of many energy forms to make "our" 21st Century lives function; in the waywe "deem" necessary. And... here are Earth's natural conditions that require the previously [before humanity got into the mix] well tuned aptitude of expression for ongoing four season life enchasing/supporting climate conditions. BTW, as a side note... Earth's current four season climate effect had "naturally" stabilized itself some 12,000 years ago. Before that Earth's climate was not as hospitable to life in general. And, because of that life enchasing environmental stabilization effect we humans were provided opportunity to get where we are today. That Is: In dire need to perform a civilization-wide readjust to meet/coincide with Earth's natural needs apparent.
FACT 1: Planet Earth's life-giving natural endeavors primarily work on a "Full-Cycle" basis.
FACT 2: Human endeavors primarily work on a use and discard "Non-Cycle" basis. [Consume: To do away with completely].
FACT 3: Humans have but a few years remaining to figure out how to get most if not all energy sources into a "Full-Cycle" basis that can coincide with Earth's very nature. Specifically for STOPPING global climate warming... and during the next portion of 20th Century even reducing the annual global climate temperature ever so slightly.
We can do this and we must do this... before all hell breaks loose once climate warming has increased to the level where [due to too much warming] Trade Winds, Jet Stream and Oceanic Currents alter their trajectories substantially enough so they become "confused" while all three "automatically" break out of their 12.000 year positions/patterns; and, then spend thousands of years to get back into some sort of annually regulated positions.
Absolute most predominant immediately required item to STOP global climate warming is to pull enough CO2 out of Atmosphere. My company, along with several associate organizations, are all working feverously to help accomplish this task.
During this endeavor and for many decades thereafter the [atmospherically retrieved] sequestered/stored CO2 will be utilized for production of a myriad of profit producing "green" products. Many of these products' contents will act a sort of CO2 sequestration vehicle.
In addition to that: There is a most wonderful Full-Cycle, Carbon Neutral liquid hydrocarbon fuel-source being developed for using the captured CO2 that will provide fungible, drop-in gasoline, diesel and jet fuels.
Full-Cycle is the name of Earth's Natural Game. For civilization to secure its future wellbeing of life on Earth... We must learn to play along with Earth's nature by making all we produce and use Full-Cycle!
Cheers! - Art
All good Art, only problem is you are preaching to the choir. Try convincing China and India and Africa the same. Problem is that many nations are still underdeveloped. As clean as we are in the US, our carbon output PER CAPTIA is among the highest globally. That's not because we are not efficient, it's becaue we are the most developed country in the world. I don't hold out much hope that other developing contries are going to do so in a green and renewable fashion, which gets back to the point that this is a GLOBAL problem, not a US problem.
twistedtree
Guru
I'll just focus on this one point which is true if the initial generation is indeed green. But currently only a small percentage of generated electricity is green. If 100% were green, then wasting 80% of it to gain operational range where that's important makes sense. But reality is that we have mixed power sources, and will for a very long time. I think/hope the mix will continue to shift towards greener sources, but in the mean time I think we are all better off using the electricity we generate as efficiently as possible, and using fossil fuels where we really need the operating range and refuel time that is required.
mvweebles
Guru
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
- Messages
- 7,215
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Weebles
- Vessel Make
- 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
Not to derail too much, but obviously not reality in the American West. At my summer place in the mountains of Colorado, I am 40 miles from a Costco, nearest home depot is 30 miles. Last weekend we drove 300 miles into Wyoming to spend a few days helping a friend who's building a cabin on his family's 6000 acre/120 year old homestead/ranch. I was one fitting short of completing his propane installation. 120 miles round trip to Rawlins for a $10 part.
Anyone who thinks electric or anything else is going to displace energy density of dead dinosaurs anytime soon is myopic. Not just planes, trains, ships, heavy equipment, tracrors, and trucks. But there are a lot of people who live in rural places. That said, solar and wind power are very popular in rural locations. Virtually every water tank for stock has been powered by wind for 150 years, more recently solar.
I am a huge proponent of solar. But for powerboats? Great use-case for sailboats. Powerboats? Absent a tech breakthrough, won't happen to any appreciable degree. The Duffys are about it.
Peter
Peter
backinblue
Guru
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Messages
- 3,937
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Blue Moon
- Vessel Make
- Mainship Pilot 355
With respect Peter (sincerely), electric cars don't work for every single use case. For someone like you, it is likely much more convenient to use gas. I was just making a point that "most" people drive a few dozen miles a day and can easily top off at night at home and start every day with a full battery. They may never need to go to a charging station and obviously never buy gas. Agree it's not perfect for everybody and all situations, but I've come to accept that it is a good alternative to many, although the purchase price is still out of reach for the majority. Even if the price is not much higher than gas cars, and fuel is cheaper and there are incentives, many people cannot afford a cheap new gas car, let alone electric.
mvweebles
Guru
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2019
- Messages
- 7,215
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Weebles
- Vessel Make
- 1970 Willard 36 Trawler
I agree with you. Because many households are two car families, an EV for a second vehicle makes a lot of sense for the reasons you state. We are trying to get to a single vehicle just to declutter so an EV is not in our future, but a plug-in hybrid might be.
I have to say, the recent posts in the Greeline thread that showed drone footage of a Greenline blowing up was sobering. Yes, different battery chemistry, but between the explosion and the couple owners complaining that Greenline was unresponsive about batteries dying within a few years, plus the inherent challenges with energy density, I just don't know what there is to talk about re: electric boats on a trawler forum. Sure, there are concept boats out there. But nothing that's even remotely available for early adopters in our class of boats without significant compromise and expense and uncertainty.
Peter
kthoennes
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2013
- Messages
- 2,473
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Xanadu
- Vessel Make
- Mainship 37 Motor Yacht
We live in South Dakota so I'm pretty much of Peter's same mindset, but even if we lived in a high density area, here's what I always wonder in discussions like this when driving habit statistics start to fly: okay, say you live in a Chicago suburb and you drive low-mile trips 90% of the time. What to you do the other 10%? Drive to visit grandma in Des Moines, or a family weekend somewhere, so then what? Have a second, internal combustion car sitting in the garage in reserve for 10% of your trips? Rent one? Elaborate trip planning to map refilling or charging? Right now we get in our cars and go, 1 mile or 1000 miles, and never think twice. That's incredible freedom and versatility. The masses are not going to surrender that easily, even if they did want to spend two year's salary on a Tesla and have two cars in the garage.
We're not representative of the general population on this forum I know, but when these discussions pop up about innovative or green tech, I think to myself, right, stand in a Walmart parking lot and tell a single mother loading her old minivan with groceries that she needs to buy a hydrogen powered car.
We're not representative of the general population on this forum I know, but when these discussions pop up about innovative or green tech, I think to myself, right, stand in a Walmart parking lot and tell a single mother loading her old minivan with groceries that she needs to buy a hydrogen powered car.
twistedtree
Guru
I think the demographics for electric cars are interesting.
- Peter makes a great point. All you need to do is drive across the country and you will see how ridiculous the notion of an electric car or truck is for many people, and in many places. But on a unit volume basis, I expect it's actually a pretty small percentage of total vehicles.
- Most vehicles are in more urban areas with driving patterns that can increasingly be supported by electric vehicles. People will still have needs outside the capabilities of current EVs, but the problem will get solved a piece at a time. This reminds me of the discussions about people making long voyages in small boats, which leads to discussion about how you eat and elephant. Answer: one bite at a time. And that long voyage happens one day trip at a time. Energy and transportation will change the same way. One car, and one market segment at a time.
- Looking further than urban vs rural driving needs, to have an electric car in a non-rural setting still requires that you have your own home with your own parking, and the ability to install a charging station. That alone excludes a lot of people today. Many people park on the street, live in multi-family housing, etc. And this is unfortunately more true in more urban settings, where EVs are a better fit for driving patterns. Plus, electric cars are expensive. I wouldn't say it's a 1%er solution, but I doubt it's more than a 5% or 10% solution. To really make EVs practical to the majority of car owners, there will need to be charging stations at every parking space. "Refilling" is of course very different with EV's, and happens when the car is parked and not in use, vs being a minor detour when otherwise driving. That's a lot of infrastructure. It's happening, one bite at a time, but let's be realistic about where it needs to end up.
OK, those are today's random thoughts before I have to get going....
- Peter makes a great point. All you need to do is drive across the country and you will see how ridiculous the notion of an electric car or truck is for many people, and in many places. But on a unit volume basis, I expect it's actually a pretty small percentage of total vehicles.
- Most vehicles are in more urban areas with driving patterns that can increasingly be supported by electric vehicles. People will still have needs outside the capabilities of current EVs, but the problem will get solved a piece at a time. This reminds me of the discussions about people making long voyages in small boats, which leads to discussion about how you eat and elephant. Answer: one bite at a time. And that long voyage happens one day trip at a time. Energy and transportation will change the same way. One car, and one market segment at a time.
- Looking further than urban vs rural driving needs, to have an electric car in a non-rural setting still requires that you have your own home with your own parking, and the ability to install a charging station. That alone excludes a lot of people today. Many people park on the street, live in multi-family housing, etc. And this is unfortunately more true in more urban settings, where EVs are a better fit for driving patterns. Plus, electric cars are expensive. I wouldn't say it's a 1%er solution, but I doubt it's more than a 5% or 10% solution. To really make EVs practical to the majority of car owners, there will need to be charging stations at every parking space. "Refilling" is of course very different with EV's, and happens when the car is parked and not in use, vs being a minor detour when otherwise driving. That's a lot of infrastructure. It's happening, one bite at a time, but let's be realistic about where it needs to end up.
OK, those are today's random thoughts before I have to get going....
backinblue
Guru
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Messages
- 3,937
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Blue Moon
- Vessel Make
- Mainship Pilot 355
Believe me, I am very far from being an EV proponent, but I do look at the facts and try to take out the emotion. Even on the longest 1-way trip I've ever driven, I could likely do that on a single charge. I'm not the type (I know there are some) who have no trouble driving 12 straight hours. I tap out about 4, maybe 6 max. And if I did have to do a trip like that, I think it could be managed pretty easily using available and ever-increasing charging stations. It shouldn't be that difficult or complicated planning. Some people have driven coast to coast in an EV to prove that it's doable.
Per Peter's point however, we did recently have this sobering event in CT.
https://jalopnik.com/connecticut-parks-its-entire-electric-bus-fleet-after-f-1849344250
Hippocampus
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2020
- Messages
- 3,908
- Location
- Plymouth
- Vessel Name
- Hippocampus
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 42
Great conversation. Agree mixed use (90%urban/suburan 10% rural/off grid) isn’t that uncommon but90% is still 90%. Would add several things into the mix.
Car culture is dying out. We and our kids are one person equals one vehicle But none of my kids have the emotions I have towards car,trucks and bikes. If they could they’d joint own or rent
Like boats most vehicles sit more than they move. Even including charging times that remains true.
Even now for many cities there’s no reason to own a vehicle. Much cheaper to rent when needed. Get to choose pickup, straight frame, EV, hybrid or fossil fuel.
Believe vehicle ownership will evolve. Given that choosing which vehicle won’t be restricted to this one or that.several of current options are dramatically better as regards MMCC.
Geopolitics is a current additional significant force in moving away from fossil fuel whenever feasible. Similarly due to geopolitics domestic production of all elements needed for alternative energy has gained priority.
Urban needs are better served by public transport and shared vehicles.
Suburban needs a mix as well but expect public transport to increase.
Many of the points made here assume private ownership. Believe that will become less common regardless of income level.
Car culture is dying out. We and our kids are one person equals one vehicle But none of my kids have the emotions I have towards car,trucks and bikes. If they could they’d joint own or rent
Like boats most vehicles sit more than they move. Even including charging times that remains true.
Even now for many cities there’s no reason to own a vehicle. Much cheaper to rent when needed. Get to choose pickup, straight frame, EV, hybrid or fossil fuel.
Believe vehicle ownership will evolve. Given that choosing which vehicle won’t be restricted to this one or that.several of current options are dramatically better as regards MMCC.
Geopolitics is a current additional significant force in moving away from fossil fuel whenever feasible. Similarly due to geopolitics domestic production of all elements needed for alternative energy has gained priority.
Urban needs are better served by public transport and shared vehicles.
Suburban needs a mix as well but expect public transport to increase.
Many of the points made here assume private ownership. Believe that will become less common regardless of income level.
Last edited:
backinblue
Guru
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Messages
- 3,937
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Blue Moon
- Vessel Make
- Mainship Pilot 355
Agree Hippo, although some things are generational and don't change dramatically till one gereation dies off and the next one takes over. Mail and bill-paying is an example. (Again not 100% but in general) My parents received bills in the mail and sent in a check for payment. My generation still likes to receive a bill but mostly pays online. My son receives everything on his phone and pays electronically. I could change to that model, but don't want to. My son uses Uber extensively. I've had exactly 1 Uber ride in my life so far and it was great, but it's still not likely my first choice. Regarding car ownership, I think autonomous vehicles will make a huge difference. You can order a car (much like an Uber) and it will show up when you need it and you pay for it's use. Once that system is reliable, no need to own your own car. But again, I have a connection to my car and enjoy owning and using it and caring for it. For my son, it's just a tool to get somewhere and means little more than that.
So yes change can and will happen, but it's more than just the technical advances, it's the mindset. Some things just need to die with a generation before widespread change happens.
So yes change can and will happen, but it's more than just the technical advances, it's the mindset. Some things just need to die with a generation before widespread change happens.
True bnb...
However, we [our USA] MUST Lead The Way to successfully pull enough CO2 out of atmosphere to STOP global climate warming. And, WE Will Do So. Things are being developed.
There's only one lead dog breathing fresh air... the rest smell his rear end.
If the US can't do what's required - humanity's future looks bleak.. regarding Earth's eco-systemic livability conditions.
Watch as "things" develop! There is a bright light at the end of this tunnel.
backinblue
Guru
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Messages
- 3,937
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Blue Moon
- Vessel Make
- Mainship Pilot 355
I hope you are right and it's not the headlight of the oncoming train.
Simi 60
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,482
- Location
- Australia
- Vessel Make
- Milkraft 60 converted timber prawn trawler
A bit tough to try and tell developing nations not to use the cheap source of fuel that the west used to drag themselves up.
And its not just that some of these countries are under developed but more that they are the manufacturing centres of the world.
Pretty much EVERYTHING is made in China
Stands to reason that pollution is going to be bad there
Yet their carbon output PER CAPITA is still half what the US is.
To me that would indicate that China is well advanced in doing the right thing
But there are other things at play
Carbon output per capita figures Clearly add mining and fossil fuel production into the mix
If looking at oil rich countries they are 2x that of the US
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
Hippocampus
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2020
- Messages
- 3,908
- Location
- Plymouth
- Vessel Name
- Hippocampus
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 42
Simi did just fine on. 46’ Outbound. Looking at 6-8 hundred K. All the comforts of home and stood single watches. Easy to dock even by yourself. A Hylas, Passport, or any semi custom in the 45-50’ range would be the same numbers and comforts. No need to not be mono. Sleeps 7 and with two staterooms/heads good for 2 couples for weeks. . Everything powered. Winch handle stays in a draw. With two D400s and two panels no need to run the genset. Even full time with two 1500-1800nm passages per year <300g/year.
backinblue
Guru
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Messages
- 3,937
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Blue Moon
- Vessel Make
- Mainship Pilot 355
Just because China is half per capita than the US does not mean they are doing anything correctly. I have to disagree on that point. It just means their society is not as advanced as ours. As far as I know they are still building lots of coal-fired plants while we close ours. Also, China has a much larger population so their impact on the globe is much larger. What scares me is what happens when places like China and India match our per capita output???
The difference between the US and other countries is that not every person has a computer and cell phone and home theater system and multiple vehicles and boats and homes with A/C and heat, and on and on. I believe the US is probably cleaner and more effcient than most contries, just that we are also much bigger consumers of energy. That will only get worse as other countries evolve and catch up.
