Inboard engines and a changing world

[GordMay]

If only 5 percent of the approximately 13 million registered boats in the U.S. today repowered with electric, 1 billion pounds of CO2 emissions would be eliminated. In addition, more than half of the oxygen we breathe comes from the ocean, and keeping our bodies of water free from emissions, oil, and other pollutants is key to ensuring the future of our fresh water and air.

“Alternative Power: Outboards that are Gasoline-Free”
➥ https://www.boats.com/reviews/altern.../#.Wr3FJC5zaM8

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

A couple of years ago I looked long and hard into repowering my good ol' boat with an electric inboard. I found a number of companies already marketing options to folks like us. So it is certainly possible right now.

The main reason I stuck with my old diesel is -- not surprisingly -- the whole range question. Second issue was cost; it was going to cost about twice as much as even a new diesel.

Electric is increasingly a good option for those who don't venture far from first-world infrastructure. But if you want to travel off the beaten path, electric is still not easily viable.

The technology keeps getting better though. Maybe someday...

I couldn’t agree more, I don’t prefer electric at all. Unfortunately, I think the tide is on its way out and we are going to be forced in that direction at some point.

The reason I had started thinking about all of this is what happened with my RV. I was planning to put it on a boat and send it to Europe. You know, to see the things that you can’t see from a boat. I found out that I actually can’t even use my RV in a lot of Europe. It’s Diesel. It is prohibited from all of the major areas that you want to see. Not only that, the regulations vary from country to country and from city to city. There are Enormous fees and fines on anything that puts out any emissions. There are places where emissions aren’t even allowed. I believe London is like that.

All of these laws were set up for cars. They gave absolutely no thought to the small market of RVs when creating them. The boat market is even smaller. I think we’re going to get crushed by new regulations and changes in the world that move away from internal combustion.

As the automotive market changes, I'm thinking we will have to adapt, repower or pay through the nose for diesel.

[NorthernMac]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Tell me about it. I purchased a spanking new diesel powered car in 2008 when it was the cool green thing to do. I still own that car (and it has low mileage for it's age) but now I'm a polluting pariah second only to kitten killer in the scheme of things that should be ashamed own it let alone drive it.


But back to EV's. We've all felt the frustration of being stuck in a fuel queue at peak times. Just imagine the angst when EV's become the fad and you have to wait 40 minutes for each vehicle in the front of the line to fill up!


And then there's the issue of depreciation....

Problem with the UK is it is VERY different compared to the US in his very small it is and how what industry it has operates, many things that work great in the UK just don’t/won’t work in a expansive industry heavy US.

The diesel thing just shows the laws and opinions are being formed by people who don’t understand the subject, for economy diesel is really the way to go.

Had a girlfriend who a old MBZ diesel wagon, thing had who knows how many miles on it, still got super good economy, didn’t really have any real issues and she ended up getting rid of it because she just wanted something else, she probably would still be driving it today if not for cosmetic/features reasons, PLUS the thing could have run on bio diesel if she wanted to.

Check this thing out, sexy design, 200mph, 0-60 in 3.7, and 57MPG!
https://www.greencarreports.com/news...iesel-supercar

Right now, good Engneering and diesel are the way to go.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Chotu

I couldn’t agree more, I don’t prefer electric at all. Unfortunately, I think the tide is on its way out and we are going to be forced in that direction at some point.

Personally I like the idea of going electric. I think it has a lot of advantages over dino-power. Not just the possible lower impact on the environment, but also because electric engines are simpler, quieter, and don't require all those volatile and stinky fluids to be pumped around.

If amp storage and solar generating technology was both say 100 or 1000 fold better, I'd definitely repower, even with the cost being twice as high. We're getting there, but right now I don't see magnitude leaps in battery storage or generating capacity. It keeps getting incrementally better, but my sense is we're going to need a fundamentally different technology for amp storage to really reach the energy densities I would want.

Originally Posted by GordMay

If only 5 percent of the approximately 13 million registered boats in the U.S. today repowered with electric, 1 billion pounds of CO2 emissions would be eliminated. In addition, more than half of the oxygen we breathe comes from the ocean, and keeping our bodies of water free from emissions, oil, and other pollutants is key to ensuring the future of our fresh water and air.

I'm all for going "green" but, as you know , the benefits gained from shifting to electric engines largely depend on how the electricity is generated and delivered.

If we just move the dino-juice out of the vehicles (and boats), but continue to produce most of our electricity via dino-powered generators, then the "green" benefits are modest at best. If we can also shift our bulk electricity production to renewables or nuclear (a more viable option), then it likely makes environmental sense.

For example, fossil fuels still accounts for 63.6% of the USA's electric generating needs. Nuclear is 19.4% with all renewables coming in at 16.9%. I bet Canadian numbers aren't far off. So buying an electric car, at least in North America, does little to improve the overall carbon footprint. It just shifts the source a bit.

BTW, I also looked long and hard at the various electric outboards for my dingy. I borrowed a Torqueedo (the leading retailer at the time). It worked great to move my little portabote as fast as I needed. But once again, the range, amp-storage (battery) and recharging challenges drove me back to dino-juice. It's just hard to beat fossil fuel's energy density.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Chotu

IThe reason I had started thinking about all of this is what happened with my RV. I was planning to put it on a boat and send it to Europe. You know, to see the things that you can’t see from a boat. I found out that I actually can’t even use my RV in a lot of Europe. It’s Diesel. It is prohibited from all of the major areas that you want to see. Not only that, the regulations vary from country to country and from city to city. There are Enormous fees and fines on anything that puts out any emissions. There are places where emissions aren’t even allowed. I believe London is like that.

All of these laws were set up for cars. They gave absolutely no thought to the small market of RVs when creating them.

Most of Europe is not really RV country. Honestly, the way to see Europe is to get a Eurail pass, book a bunch of neat little hotels, pensions, B&Bs, and travel light. Rent a car when you want to take a rural detour or drive one of the scenic routes.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by NorthernMac

PThe diesel thing just shows the laws and opinions are being formed by people who don’t understand the subject, for economy diesel is really the way to go.

Diesel is the most efficient, but no personal vehicle is efficient when it comes to dense, slow, stop'n'go urban traffic. Even EVs or self-driving cars are just band-aids. The solution to urban traffic congestion and accompanying pollution is less cars in the city core.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by NorthernMac

...Check this thing out, sexy design, 200mph, 0-60 in 3.7, and 57MPG!
https://www.greencarreports.com/news...iesel-supercar

Right now, good Engneering and diesel are the way to go.

There is no reason most of us (in North America anyway) drive around in stupid monster inefficient vehicles and brag about getting 25 or 30 mpg. My 2008 gas-powered Honda is rated at 50 mpg. The car is still running as efficiently as ever, and this on decades-old technology.

[Lake-Effect]

Just listening right now to a radio discussion (CBC) about Aramco's upcoming IPO. Long story short - if the Saudis are looking to diversify away from oil (for which their production cost is still like $2 a barrel), you really gotta consider the extent to which it's anticipated at the highest levels that the reign of oil will soon be over.

The IPO - how much shares sell for, how many sold, who buys - could tell us quite a bit about how the world is planning around oil, or for a post-oil future.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Diesel is the most efficient, but no personal vehicle is efficient when it comes to dense, slow, stop'n'go urban traffic. Even EVs or self-driving cars are just band-aids. The solution to urban traffic congestion and accompanying pollution is less cars in the city core.

So true. And not just fewer cars in the core. We need less over all. Less of almost everything. But choosing to have less is something we (as a society) will never do voluntarily.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Just listening right now to a radio discussion (CBC) about Aramco's upcoming IPO. Long story short - if the Saudis are looking to diversify away from oil (for which their production cost is still like $2 a barrel), you really gotta consider the extent to which it's anticipated at the highest levels that the reign of oil will soon be over.

The IPO - how much shares sell for, how many sold, who buys - could tell us quite a bit about how the world is planning around oil, or for a post-oil future.

I bet it will sell high, and go higher. The investor class seems mostly interested in short to medium term profits these days.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I bet [Aramco stock offering]will sell high, and go higher. The investor class seems mostly interested in short to medium term profits these days.

The article I linked suggests that the "stock" is already slipping in value. I dunno... it's such a huge offering, from the #1 oil company in the world. The fees alone are expected to shower over USD$ 1 billion on Wall St. There will undoubtedly be money made by some in the initial and subsequent transactions; it's where the stock price settles to that will be most interesting.

Canada (primarily Alberta) is already experiencing pain in the oil patch. If the Aramco results are disappointing, it could trigger a massive selloff of oil futures etc. Buckle up...

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Most of Europe is not really RV country. Honestly, the way to see Europe is to get a Eurail pass, book a bunch of neat little hotels, pensions, B&Bs, and travel light. Rent a car when you want to take a rural detour or drive one of the scenic routes.

Europe loves RVs. We've done it in rental and they are all over the place. It's just a bit different from the US version of RVing. As long as you go small (truck camper or small Class C), you can take your US RV over with no significant issues. Biggest one is getting insurance that covers you in Europe but that's not huge. Otherwise, it's no different from boats crossing the pond in terms of electricity and propane.

Eurail...unless you fit into a very specific niche...it's horribly expensive option. Much better to just buy tickets to your destination.

To the original question:
- I expect to be well into my 80's before petroleum based fuels become a niche product. If EVs ever do take off (1-2% isn't taking off), you will at least initially (probably at least a couple decades because your average car lasts that long) see fuel prices drop due to a drop in demand.
- Outside short distance weekend cruising and purist sailors, we are a long way from it being viable for cruising (at lest with normal speed/distance expectations). Unlike cars which greatly benefit from regenerative braking and limited need for full power, a displacement cruising boat's power requirement is closely tied to speed. A car once up to highway speeds might need 50hp to maintain speed but gets 250hp to get decent acceleration. A displacement cruising boat on the other hand, doesn't need acceleration and will often run at 50-75% or rated hp. Result it you don't benefit like a car in stop and go traffic.

Really until we see an order of magnitude improvement in battery storage costs/size/weight it's not going to happen.

[Island Time O25]

Can those with scientific background here explain why a lead keel has not yet been converted to a large capacity battery? Or the sails made from solar EV cloth?

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Personally I like the idea of going electric. I think it has a lot of advantages over dino-power. Not just the possible lower impact on the environment, but also because electric engines are simpler, quieter, and don't require all those volatile and stinky fluids to be pumped around.

If amp storage and solar generating technology was both say 100 or 1000 fold better, I'd definitely repower, even with the cost being twice as high. We're getting there, but right now I don't see magnitude leaps in battery storage or generating capacity. It keeps getting incrementally better, but my sense is we're going to need a fundamentally different technology for amp storage to really reach the energy densities I would want.



I'm all for going "green" but, as you know , the benefits gained from shifting to electric engines largely depend on how the electricity is generated and delivered.

If we just move the dino-juice out of the vehicles (and boats), but continue to produce most of our electricity via dino-powered generators, then the "green" benefits are modest at best. If we can also shift our bulk electricity production to renewables or nuclear (a more viable option), then it likely makes environmental sense.

For example, fossil fuels still accounts for 63.6% of the USA's electric generating needs. Nuclear is 19.4% with all renewables coming in at 16.9%. I bet Canadian numbers aren't far off. So buying an electric car, at least in North America, does little to improve the overall carbon footprint. It just shifts the source a bit.

BTW, I also looked long and hard at the various electric outboards for my dingy. I borrowed a Torqueedo (the leading retailer at the time). It worked great to move my little portabote as fast as I needed. But once again, the range, amp-storage (battery) and recharging challenges drove me back to dino-juice. It's just hard to beat fossil fuel's energy density.

It's hard to beat fossil fuels energy density, as you say ...that's the bottom line, no getting past it. The rest is just feel good stuff. From what I see we are along way off fulfilling our energy requirements any other way.

Energy,environment and the economy are incredibly intertwined, you cant talk about one seriously without addressing the other two, imo most are naive regarding this.

Nearly everything you come into contact with "is" due to at least in some part fossil fuels, the phone I'm typng on, the table my coffee cup is on, the coffee and cup ,my hat, my clothes ,everything.

The shift needed is gigantic, it's nothing less than restructuring society as a whole, redesigning our economy and complete way if living and interacting, until then electric motors etc are nothing more than a minuscule placebo that makes us feel good....yep they are quiet, I like that.....from an environmental aspect?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Can those with scientific background here explain why a lead keel has not yet been converted to a large capacity battery? Or the sails made from solar EV cloth?

Keel Batteries: Technologically viable. Economically not viable. Just not enough sold to bring down the price to where it would make sense.

Solar Sails: Flexible solar panels mounted to hard surfaces are already far less reliable (long term) compared to non-flexible solar panels. First time your solar sails flog in the wind expect the problems to start. Also, you have the economic issue as it would be a very niche product. More importantly, most cruisers don't have their sails out when they are anchored for a week...that means those very expensive solar sails are not producing most of the time.

If cost is no object, just skip the mast/sails and do a huge solar array on a multihull with very long very skinny hulls. It will cost a lot more and still will give up performance but it is viable with a number of concept boats already having done it.

One additional thought on the keel batteries. Some monohulls have lead ballast in the bilge, often with a retracting keel. These could probably be more viable as you could more easily retrofit batteries in place of lead bricks...still likely more expensive but wouldn't require the complication of custom shaped batteries.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The article I linked suggests that the "stock" is already slipping in value. I dunno... it's such a huge offering, from the #1 oil company in the world. The fees alone are expected to shower over USD$ 1 billion on Wall St. There will undoubtedly be money made by some in the initial and subsequent transactions; it's where the stock price settles to that will be most interesting.

Canada (primarily Alberta) is already experiencing pain in the oil patch. If the Aramco results are disappointing, it could trigger a massive selloff of oil futures etc. Buckle up...

It will be interesting to see where the share price settles in. And you're probably right; a bad showing could hit all oil stocks.

I really don't know much about oil industry economics, but I suspect Alberta and Saskatchewan are suffering because their production costs are much higher than the easily available alternatives these days, namely shale gas/oil. Add in the whole delivery (pipeline) problem, and you have a regional industry that is facing tough times.

Originally Posted by daletournier

It's hard to beat fossil fuels energy density, as you say ...that's the bottom line, no getting past it. The rest is just feel good stuff. From what I see we are along way off fulfilling our energy requirements any other way.

The linear development in amp storage and renewable energy production suggests you're right Dale, and I would agree. My hesitancy or uncertainty comes from the possibility of a non-linear change which flips things overnight. This is why I think it requires a whole new physical and technological approach to batteries and passive energy collection.

I have no idea if this is even possible, but we've seen this kind of rapid "disruption" in many other areas which have changed sectors overnight (figuratively speaking). It could happen in battery and renewable energy production -- or it might never happen. Pretty hard to predict.

Originally Posted by daletournier

Energy,environment and the economy are incredibly intertwined, you cant talk about one seriously without addressing the other two, imo most are naive regarding this.

I prefer the notion that the economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment, but I get your point .