Why not electric engine powered boats

[Cap Erict3]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

.....
First of all, you can always sail at least one direction along the ICW correct? Half the time you can sail both directions without tacking. The ICW is wide enough to tack. Using tidal currents etc you can probably get around fine, I will find out when I get there. In the unlikely case it's a problem you go outside in the sea.
........

.

I have traveled the ICW from South Texas to Rabbit Island at the Rigolets and sailed whenever I had wind and course that would allow sailing for an hour or so. It's kinda tough. I prefer outside.

Good luck in ur travels.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

If you were to have more batteries and a more powerful motor with more solar panels you would also be able to motor. The physics favors larger vessels, so for example, if you cover the deck with solar and drive the motor directly without batteries, the larger boat will go faster.
First of all, you can always sail at least one direction along the ICW correct? Half the time you can sail both directions without tacking. The ICW is wide enough to tack. Using tidal currents etc you can probably get around fine, I will find out when I get there. In the unlikely case it's a problem you go outside in the sea.

For bridges it is not much of an issue because I have a sculling oar.
they were 200 a/h 6 volt, so 800ah total 12 volts. The motor draws 22 amps and pushes the boat 2 knots. I had also a 2-3 knot tidal current for 6 hours, then slipped out of the current for the last 4 hours, so I was able to cover more than 30 miles, this is in the queen charlotte sound in the south island of new zealand at night time.

I did not have any wind to use this whole night.

I had 350 mounted, and another 200 that were stored below and deployed with weather permitting.. but I think they were "overrated" as I never got more than 35 amps total.

A larger boat isn't different, you have more panels, but the same area relative to the boat size.


Ok, so I can row my way in, this isn't a problem. I don't understand this "it's their harbor" attitude because it is already everyone's harbor.

I have done that. Longest I waited is 7 days, and it wasn't a problem.
Why don't you take a plane and save a lot more time?



It isn't reduced, but different capabilities. So there are some things impossible with each system that the other one can achieve.


Lead is recycle able.
I can see you are making the argument that if I make any amount of pollution then it is ok for you to make as much as you want.
Just about, but sometimes people give me food that isn't in this category. I am planting vegetables in bush gardens in various places.
I don't own a house or car, and I climb trees all the time for food, today a coconut tomorrow it's a mango etc...
Insignificant is some kind of excuse. Again you are using the argument that if someone else has some impact then you might as well have as much impact as you can.

It appears your choices include a 'lifestyle'. Some, or perhaps most, don't desire the accompanying 'lifestyle' that you enjoy.

- Turning my boat into a solar farm is not high on my list. I want to use the deck space on my boat for me.
- I cherish the time on my boat, but equally enjoy other things in life rather than waiting weeks on wind to move the boat from one place to another. It's a balance.
- Report back on how many boats you piss off get in the way of by sailing/tacking the ICW.

[tkeithlu]

Forget batteries for a moment. Simple diesel electric propulsion has been around a long time - as in submarines. It has a bunch of disadvantages, but a few advantages, and that lack of a clutch/gearbox is one. Navy minesweepers of the 1950s could stop from flank speed in one and one half lengths. They were diesel-electric, and you simply threw the switch reversing the field on the electric motor. A friend who served on one told me that their fantails went under water when you did it....

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

If you were to have more batteries and a more powerful motor with more solar panels you would also be able to motor. The physics favors larger vessels, so for example, if you cover the deck with solar and drive the motor directly without batteries, the larger boat will go faster.

A larger boat will have a higher theoretical hull speed but physics also says a larger boat has a larger mass, a much larger mass, to push through the water and weight increase of a boat is not linear with length. And as I mentioned before, especially with a monohull, covering the deck with panels is not practical. Possible yes but not practical. Most monohulls the only really solid places will be aft on an arch over the stern and over the cockpit like a bimini top. I see boats with panels hanging on the sides, usually at the aft quarter but I consider that a potential risk at sea.

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

First of all, you can always sail at least one direction along the ICW correct? Half the time you can sail both directions without tacking. The ICW is wide enough to tack. Using tidal currents etc you can probably get around fine, I will find out when I get there. In the unlikely case it's a problem you go outside in the sea.

It has nothing to do with direction. Many parts of the ICW are far inland or block by land, forests, buildings and such and just doesn't get much wind. For 1000 nm I traveled from New England to Florida I only had wind to sail for about a third of that. Yes I went outside for several legs of the trip but there are times when weather, logistics, whatever make going outside undesirable.

In a number of places on the ICW it can be 5-10 nm or more from the inside to the outside. That means you could spend 20-30 nm just going in and out before making any headway on your course.

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

For bridges it is not much of an issue because I have a sculling oar.

I don't know specifically about sculling or other human powered options but many of the bridges have strong currents that you could not scull against and I think it would be restricted. If you wait for the tide you could be stuck in a short stretch of narrow canal between two bridges for six hours waiting for the tide. The restrictions at these bridges is because a non powered vessel can lose way and damage or block the bridge. I've seen it happen. In that case traffic on a major road or highway could be blocked for hours or days.

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

Lead is recycle able.

Yes in theory and in developed countries it often is. In third world countries batteries are usually thrown in a land fill or just dumped on the side of the road. Besides, recycling a battery in Australia doesn't fix a lead mine polluting miles of countryside in Africa.

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

I can see you are making the argument that if I make any amount of pollution then it is ok for you to make as much as you want.
Just about, but sometimes people give me food that isn't in this category. I am planting vegetables in bush gardens in various places.
I don't own a house or car, and I climb trees all the time for food, today a coconut tomorrow it's a mango etc...
Insignificant is some kind of excuse. Again you are using the argument that if someone else has some impact then you might as well have as much impact as you can.

Here you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say in any way that I support polluting the environment or recklessly consuming nonrenewable resources. You have made a lifestyle choice that is much lower impact on the planet and I applaud that but that choice doesn't work for most of us. I am just pointing out that we all consume resources and no lifestyle choice is free from that. We drive a Prius. We recycle the majority of our waste, placing maybe a grocery bag size every 1-2 weeks in the trash.

Without people living in houses and driving cars to work and consuming resources and adding to pollution there would be no fiberglass, no resin and you would be chopping down trees with a wood ax to build a boat with pegs to hold the planks on, twisting hemp to make rope and weaving cotton into sails.

The Pardeys sailed around the world with no engine at all. It can be done but it requires major sacrifice and compromise. For all the rest of the more typical boaters that choice is not practical for financial and technical reasons. For you in a small boat that can cruise at 2 kts when the sun shines, with no schedule it can work. But there will be places you cannot go and things you cannot do.

In the days of big sailing ships they named the windless zone north of the trade winds belt the horse latitudes. This was because ships would sometimes be becalmed there for weeks, run out of water and food and have to throw the horses in their cargo overboard. Rather than wait a couple of weeks for wind I would prefer burning 30-40 gallons of diesel to reach winds on the other side and I would not feel in the least guilty for that small a quantity of fossil fuel.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Your Honor, I rest my case....

Well that's just brilliant! The premise of your argument seems to be "if you don't have electric propulsion, you have no right to an opinion on the subject." So how about you regale us with the first-hand experience you've had with your electric propulsion?
-No?
Didn't think so. You'd make a crap trial lawyer.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

For bridges it is not much of an issue because I have a sculling oar.
they were 200 a/h 6 volt, so 800ah total 12 volts. The motor draws 22 amps and pushes the boat 2 knots. I had also a 2-3 knot tidal current for 6 hours, then slipped out of the current for the last 4 hours, so I was able to cover more than 30 miles, this is in the queen charlotte sound in the south island of new zealand at night time.
That's around 600lbs of batteries in a 27' boat. That's a lot of weight for such a small boat and in a few years, you have a $1000 bill when the batteries need replacement. The myth of unlimited free fuel that comes in expensive tanks that need replacement.

Ok, so I can row my way in, this isn't a problem. I don't understand this "it's their harbor" attitude because it is already everyone's harbor.
Lots of places that won't work.

It isn't reduced, but different capabilities. So there are some things impossible with each system that the other one can achieve.
No sane person will claim a 2kt cruise speed isn't a major reduction I capability but you've convinced yourself, so there will be no changing your mind.

If you are willing to live with drastically reduced capability have at it, but stay the #%$ out of channels when I'm coming thru.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The propulsion engine is 25hp and about 50% throttle gets us 80% of hull speed in calm conditions. If there are adverse conditions (say a strong headwind) we need to use most of that 25hp to make headway.

We could switch out for a 25hp generator, so it can provide full propulsion capabilities but then it would be very inefficient when just running house loads at anchor. The air/con is the heaviest load we have but it only takes about 1.5hp.

As you said, you get about 80% of hull speed with 50% of power, so you go with a generator capable of providing that, and using the batteries to give the other 50% for short-term peak output, when you need it. Sure you can't go flat out indefinitely, but how often do you need to do that? I don't think I've ever needed to run my engine at full throttle.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

As you said, you get about 80% of hull speed with 50% of power, so you go with a generator capable of providing that, and using the batteries to give the other 50% for short-term peak output, when you need it. Sure you can't go flat out indefinitely, but how often do you need to do that? I don't think I've ever needed to run my engine at full throttle.

Probably couple times a year I need to push up around 80-90% of full throttle. Well worth it if you need it.

Then again, 2.5hp isn't going to get even 50% of hull speed.

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

As you said, you get about 80% of hull speed with 50% of power, so you go with a generator capable of providing that, and using the batteries to give the other 50% for short-term peak output, when you need it. Sure you can't go flat out indefinitely, but how often do you need to do that? I don't think I've ever needed to run my engine at full throttle.

It still leaves you with a generator that is larger than the propulsion motor you took out, that is far too big for normal house loads.


50% power on my boat (38' sailboat) is 21hp or 16kw. Go take a look at the size of a 16kw continuious generator and compare that to a 32kw propulsion motor. What you will find is that the generator is actually larger, and heavier. So why would I want to install it again?

[seandepagnier]

skipmac,

First of all, thank you for continuing the discussion with intelligence rather than insults I'm finding this rare.

Originally Posted by skipmac

A larger boat will have a higher theoretical hull speed but physics also says a larger boat has a larger mass, a much larger mass, to push through the water and weight increase of a boat is not linear with length.

The larger boat takes much longer to accelerate, but the power needed is related to wetted surface area (because we are never more than 80% hull speed wave drag is minimal)

I can tell you from my study of this topic and experience that the larger boat will go faster with the same relative surface area of panels.

And as I mentioned before, especially with a monohull, covering the deck with panels is not practical. Possible yes but not practical. Most monohulls the only really solid places will be aft on an arch over the stern and over the cockpit like a bimini top. I see boats with panels hanging on the sides, usually at the aft quarter but I consider that a potential risk at sea.

Maybe it is practical. As I mentioned I stored half the panels below and deployed them as needed weather permitting.

I don't have a bimini, I don't have an arch over the stern. My panels are mounted in the middle of the boat, forward of the cockpit and behind the mast covering the area on top of the boat as well as the sides and act as storm shutters to the windows. A breaking wave shattered a panel once saving my windows from blowing out.

It has nothing to do with direction. Many parts of the ICW are far inland or block by land, forests, buildings and such and just doesn't get much wind. For 1000 nm I traveled from New England to Florida I only had wind to sail for about a third of that.
Yes I went outside for several legs of the trip but there are times when weather, logistics, whatever make going outside undesirable.
In a number of places on the ICW it can be 5-10 nm or more from the inside to the outside. That means you could spend 20-30 nm just going in and out before making any headway on your course.

I'm going to go ahead and retract my ICW comments for now when I sail there I will let you know how it goes.

I don't know specifically about sculling or other human powered options but many of the bridges have strong currents that you could not scull against and I think it would be restricted. If you wait for the tide you could be stuck in a short stretch of narrow canal between two bridges for six hours waiting for the tide. The restrictions at these

Why would I get stuck between 2 bridges? I would wait for the favorable tide then go far, and anchor and repeat etc. I have navigated the sacremento river using sculling oar and 4kn current, the oar allowed me to avoid obsticles and navigate under bridges with many supports.

bridges is because a non powered vessel can lose way and damage or block the bridge. I've seen it happen. In that case traffic on a major road or highway could be blocked for hours or days.

It could also make it just fine. I would consider blocking a major highway for days a worthwhile achievement.

Yes in theory and in developed countries it often is. In third world countries batteries are usually thrown in a land fill or just dumped on the side of the road. Besides, recycling a battery in Australia doesn't fix a lead mine polluting miles of countryside in Africa.

I am not dumping my batteries like this. Also, I wanted to note that solar panels last about 50 years to reach 80% of their initial power, at this point they can be recycled into new panels using only 3% of the energy and resources compared to creating them from mining new materials.

Here you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say in any way that I support polluting the environment or recklessly consuming nonrenewable resources.

I disagree if you use an internal combustion engine.

You have made a lifestyle choice that is much lower impact on the planet and I applaud that but that choice doesn't work for most of us. I am just pointing out that we all consume resources and no lifestyle choice is free from that. We drive a Prius. We recycle the majority of our waste, placing maybe a grocery bag size every 1-2 weeks in the trash.

Without people living in houses and driving cars to work and consuming resources and adding to pollution there would be no fiberglass, no resin and you would be chopping down trees with a wood ax to build a boat with pegs to hold the planks on, twisting hemp to make rope and weaving cotton into sails.

That would be fantastic. Then I could actually really make a lot of profit transporting goods across oceans. As it is I am already making small profits, but imagine a world without planes and ships where the only means to get things from the other side is by wooden boats with cotton sails, the profit margin would be far higher for me.

My boat is 43 years old and was going to be destroyed if I didn't take it. So while it is fibreglass, I am dealing with the world as it exists in the present, and it's actually lower impact than cutting a tree in this particular case.

The Pardeys sailed around the world with no engine at all. It can be done but it requires major sacrifice and compromise. For all the rest of the more typical boaters that choice is not practical for financial and technical reasons. For you in a small

It is definitely cheaper to not have an engine. I cannot think of a sacrifice or compromise from not having one, it is the other way around. Having an engine is a major sacrifice as I see so many people spending money and time dealing with them, and it takes a huge amount of space in the boat and smells horrible. I personally cannot stand the noise of an internal combustion engine and find it offensive even from hundreds of meters away.

boat that can cruise at 2 kts when the sun shines, with no schedule it can work. But there will be places you cannot go and things you cannot do.

Where can I not go? What things can I not do? I have heard so many people say "you can't go there without an engine" and then I did it.

In the days of big sailing ships they named the windless zone north of the trade winds belt the horse latitudes. This was because ships would sometimes be becalmed there for weeks, run out of water and food and have to throw the horses in their cargo overboard. Rather than wait a couple of weeks for wind I would prefer burning 30-40 gallons of diesel to reach winds on the other side and I would not feel in the least guilty for that small a quantity of fossil fuel.

This is not a realistic comparison for a few reasons. First of all, I have a clean bottom, and can sail _faster_ than the wind against the wind in 3 knots of wind. The ships couldn't do this at all.

I have sailed about 30,000 miles so I know something about getting becalmed. Often if you can just move a little bit you can reach more and more wind and break free. If you have the ability to sail 4 knots in 3 knots of wind, then you won't get becalmed much. Further more, I have a method of being able to move 1-2 knots just using the swell from 1-2 meter waves.

The big slow ships couldn't do this so maybe they could get stuck for weeks, but in my type of boat it would only be a few days at most in an identical situation.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If you are willing to live with drastically reduced capability have at it, but stay the #%$ out of channels when I'm coming thru.

If I am sailing or rowing and you are motoring I have right of way, you better stay out of my way.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Probably couple times a year I need to push up around 80-90% of full throttle. Well worth it if you need it.

Same here. Once in a while stuff happens and having full power can make the difference between smacking a dock or another boat or getting out of the way of another boat or not.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

As you said, you get about 80% of hull speed with 50% of power, so you go with a generator capable of providing that, and using the batteries to give the other 50% for short-term peak output, when you need it. Sure you can't go flat out indefinitely, but how often do you need to do that? I don't think I've ever needed to run my engine at full throttle.

No, he didn't say 80% of hull speed with 50% of power. He said 80% of hull speed with 50% of throttle.

I suggest you learn a little about diesel engine power curves before opining on how to replace them.

[tkeithlu]

Wow! talk about getting caught in cross currents. It's hard to know which point is being argued; they're all on top of each other. OK, you can get a little propulsion from solar while the sun is shining, but not enough for more demanding tasks involving currents, the ICW, and the like. Solar cells have improved, but not that much. Battery technology is the limiting property when you need to store energy (the sun isn't shining) or you need more propulsion than the shining sun can supply right now. Attaching a genset overcomes that, but is expensive, not very efficient, and contradicts a major reason for wanting to do it with solar in the first place. Yes there is an experimental solar airplane at present, and it has all the same problems - minimal propulsion, needs the sun, and minimal storage of energy. And lastly, Mr. Vancouver had lots of labor (oars), lots of time, and no lift bridges or condos to hit.

[skipmac]

First of all, thank you for continuing the discussion with intelligence rather than insults I'm finding this rare.

I do try to be nice, especially when someone is sincerely presenting their side of an issue, even if that person is wrong

The larger boat takes much longer to accelerate, but the power needed is related to wetted surface area (because we are never more than 80% hull speed wave drag is minimal)

In theory is correct but it is extremely rare that any boat will be motoring in completely dead calm, waveless, currentless conditions. With just a slight chop, wakes from other boats, etc a boat will constantly be accelerating and overcoming the inertia of the mass of that boat. In theory you say a larger boat would be as efficient. I don't necessarily concede that but in practice real world conditions will not work that way.


I can tell you from my study of this topic and experience that the larger boat will go faster with the same relative surface area of panels.
Maybe it is practical. As I mentioned I stored half the panels below and deployed them as needed weather permitting.

I don't have a bimini, I don't have an arch over the stern. My panels are mounted in the middle of the boat, forward of the cockpit and behind the mast covering the area on top of the boat as well as the sides and act as storm shutters to the windows. A breaking wave shattered a panel once saving my windows from blowing out.
Laying panels all over the deck do not seem practical or safe to me. Several issues. First under almost all conditions a lot of the panels will be getting at least some shade. From my research that can dramatically reduce the output of the panel. Also it is going to limit movement on the boat, add significant risk of tripping or slipping on panels, impact access to rigging, walkways forward. I have thought long and hard about where to install more panels on my boat and options are limited and laying panels on the deck and cabin top is not for me a safe option. I won't even get into the inconvenience of moving panels around every day plus finding a place below to store them when not in use.


I'm going to go ahead and retract my ICW comments for now when I sail there I will let you know how it goes.
Why would I get stuck between 2 bridges? I would wait for the favorable tide then go far, and anchor and repeat etc. I have navigated the sacremento river using sculling oar and 4kn current, the oar allowed me to avoid obsticles and navigate under bridges with many supports.
It could also make it just fine.

On the ICW lots of bridges have limits on when they open. Some only on the hour, some on the hour and half hour, many are closed 2-3 hours twice a day for morning and evening rush hour. Even under power I have been stuck between two bridges a few miles apart when I couldn't make it to the next bridge on the hour. Once I was ONE MINUTE late and the bridge would not open. Bridge tenders are generally very strict about following the rules and I imagine they will be pretty pissy about a boat trying to skull through the span. They are all in communication with each other so you slow down one bridges opening/closing due to low speed, low power or skulling and you will be marked and possibly blocked from further transit unless you can comply with their rules.

I would consider blocking a major highway for days a worthwhile achievement.

I will continue my be nice policy and just assume this was said in jest but I wouldn't see much humor if for example an ambulance was blocked and had to make a 20 mile detour to the hospital with a critically injured patient.

I am not dumping my batteries like this.

Didn't say you do or would. I'm pointing out that it's a problem even in the US where many people are not as responsible about recycling and much, much worse in third world countries where they cannot. Lead is extremely toxic and is in no way green or environmentally friendly. Like it or not, lead batteries are not good for the environment.

Also, I wanted to note that solar panels last about 50 years to reach 80% of their initial power, at this point they can be recycled into new panels

Another issue of theory vs reality. In theory solar panels can be recycled. In practice from my reading on the issue, there is insufficient quantity of used panels yet to appear on the market (due greatly to their long lifespan) for anyone to be doing it on a commercial basis.

using only 3% of the energy and resources compared to creating them from mining new materials.

I disagree if you use an internal combustion engine.

Here I have to say you're getting a bit sanctimonious. By cruising on a boat, buying the electric motor that drives it, the batteries that power it, the solar panels that charge the batteries, the sails made of synthetic fibers, buy a computer, use the internet, buying a VHF radio, every thing you buy and use consumes energy to produce and ship it to you and produces pollution to make the raw materials to make the goods. If you want to throw the first stone in this battle then you need to give up all consumer goods and anything produced from non renewable resources. For example, you have made the choice to use synthetic sails and synthetic fiber lines. If you want to criticize people for using diesel fuel then you need to switch to cotton sails and hemp and manila line.

That would be fantastic. Then I could actually really make a lot of profit transporting goods across oceans. As it is I am already making small profits, but imagine a world without planes and ships where the only means to get things from the other side is by wooden boats with cotton sails, the profit margin would be far higher for me.

My boat is 43 years old and was going to be destroyed if I didn't take it. So while it is fibreglass, I am dealing with the world as it exists in the present, and it's actually lower impact than cutting a tree in this particular case.

Trees are renewable resources. As long as you aren't cutting redwoods or wasting the rain forest cutting a tree or two is not harming the environment.

It is definitely cheaper to not have an engine. I cannot think of a sacrifice or compromise from not having one, it is the other way around.

Then you have ignored a lot of responses in this thread. Traveling at 2 kts for 99% of the boaters in teh world is a compromise. So is limiting where and when you can travel.

Having an engine is a major sacrifice as I see so many people spending money and time dealing with them, and it takes a huge amount of space in the boat and smells horrible. I personally cannot stand the noise of an internal combustion engine and find it offensive even from hundreds of meters away.
Where can I not go? What things can I not do? I have heard so many people say "you can't go there without an engine" and then I did it.
This is not a realistic comparison for a few reasons. First of all, I have a clean bottom, and can sail _faster_ than the wind against the wind in 3 knots of wind. The ships couldn't do this at all.

I have sailed about 30,000 miles so I know something about getting becalmed. Often if you can just move a little bit you can reach more and more wind and break free. If you have the ability to sail 4 knots in 3 knots of wind, then you won't get becalmed much. Further more, I have a method of being able to move 1-2 knots just using the swell from 1-2 meter waves.

The big slow ships couldn't do this so maybe they could get stuck for weeks, but in my type of boat it would only be a few days at most in an identical situation.



If I am sailing or rowing and you are motoring I have right of way, you better stay out of my way.

There are exceptions. Study the Colregs. For example, larger boats constrained by draft you have to give them room. You are also not supposed to impeded navigation in a narrow channel

[landlockedsquid]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Sure, it's a 2400w unit. Which means peak output is around 3hp but continuous is more like 2.5hp.

The propulsion engine is 25hp and about 50% throttle gets us 80% of hull speed in calm conditions. If there are adverse conditions (say a strong headwind) we need to use most of that 25hp to make headway.

While the exact HP will vary, the relationship between generator size and propulsion engine size will follow a similar pattern for most cruising boats.

One thing to remember in terms of efficiency, is charging batteries up to around 80-90% of capacity, they can take a fairly large charge. After than it doesn't matter how big the generator is, the charge they can accept drops off drastically meaning that last 10% takes a lot of generator run time for very little actual stored energy. Lithium Ion batteries are better but at a drastically higher initial cost.

We could switch out for a 25hp generator, so it can provide full propulsion capabilities but then it would be very inefficient when just running house loads at anchor. The air/con is the heaviest load we have but it only takes about 1.5hp.

Thanks for answering.
So a 2400 watt generator is kinda small. Heck I have a 4000 watt peak 3000 watt continues sitting in my garage I used to use for powering the travel trailer.
And I had no solar or wind.
So how many watts do you think it would take to power a 25hp electric motor? What about a 50 hp electric motor?
I wonder if you could power that with a 9KW Onan Marine Genny?