How do you heat your water with an electric engine?

[Russ]

FYI at marinas in the Turks and Caicos the showers were cold water
Solar deck shower black bag if you must.

[jack4566]

I would just like to post a PSA about legionnaires disease. You REALLY don't want to contract it.

You must be real careful with some of the solar heating options. Ensure it can reach 60+ degrees. Anything less than 50 will encourage bacterial growth making you real sick.

Stuff like the solar bag are nice because you can dry it out between uses.

On my own dream EV boat would include an on demand electric hot water heater. Since I've done the math you need a system capable of at least 10kW for decent hot water shower. Easy for a full EV boat.

[MartinR]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

How they DO do it, I don't know, as I don't have an electrical boat.

How I WOULD do it, however, I can tell you -- I would have a hydronic furnace and I would have a tank for kerosene/jet fuel/light heating oil/diesel fuel. Get your space heating the same way.

If you're going to burn something, which is about the only way you're going to do space heating on an electric boat, and will be about the only way to heat water, too, unless you're in a very hot and sunny location, then much better to burn some kind of oil, than propane -- it's far safer, far easier to store, far easier to obtain and get onto the boat, cheaper, lighter (because the tanks are lighter and larger).

Can only agree, that is how I heat my hot water normally. The hydronic is on a timer and starts up every morning. No need to run the engine. Also it provides heating for the boat.

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

Aren’t some electric motors water cooled? You could heat the water using a heat exchanger just like we do with a diesel?

Electric motors are efficient and the exhaust water temp is very low. I mean you could harvest some energy but not sure it would be worth the effort.

[RiverRat37]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, that's the extreme and purist point of view. But I would suggest that you can do more good for the environment or against climate change with one well-written blog post in favor of nuclear power which contributes even one iota to dispelling ignorance about that, than a lifetime of not heating water on a boat with kerosene. This is a microscopic footprint.

EXUUUUSE ME!! Did I hear you suggesting Nuclear power? You mean like that which powered Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, not to mention the Enrico Fermi plant almost-catastrophe near Detroit <look it up>? That nuclear power? And then there's the little issue of the storage of the radioactive waste (predicted to be toxic to humans for all time). That nuclear power? You mean the one where the US Govt has to provide the insurance for a nuclear disaster (see: Price-Anderson Act) because no commercial insurer would touch it with a 100-foot pole. That nuclear power? You mean the nuclear power that, practically speaking, no power company can afford (they're really, really, really pricey; repeating really, really really, really pricey)?

And this from the US Govt Nuclear Regulatory Agency in 2019:
On July 31, 2017 So Carolina Electric & Gas announced its decision to cease construction on V.C. Summer Units 2 & 3. As of Oct. 2017 Duke Energy announced plans to cancel reactors at Levy County FL, and William States Lee SC. Applications were withdrawn for Calvert Cliffs, Grand Gulf, Nine Mile Point, Victoria County and Callaway. In June 2018 Nuclear Innovation No. America submitted a letter requesting So Texas Units 2 & 3 be withdrawn.
Seems the power companies are getting a handle on just how effective nuclear power is, eh?

Perhaps you'd best rethink your comment and this time consider the downsides of your calculus, eh? Solar just looks better and better and better and with a fuel source that is guaranteed to never fail. Ever. (Because if it does we won't care any more).

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by RiverRat37

EXUUUUSE ME!! Did I hear you suggesting Nuclear power? You mean like that which powered Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, not to mention the Enrico Fermi plant almost-catastrophe near Detroit <look it up>? That nuclear power? And then there's the little issue of the storage of the radioactive waste (predicted to be toxic to humans for all time). That nuclear power? You mean the one where the US Govt has to provide the insurance for a nuclear disaster (see: Price-Anderson Act) because no commercial insurer would touch it with a 100-foot pole. That nuclear power? You mean the nuclear power that, practically speaking, no power company can afford (they're really, really, really pricey; repeating really, really really, really pricey)?

And this from the US Govt Nuclear Regulatory Agency in 2019:
On July 31, 2017 So Carolina Electric & Gas announced its decision to cease construction on V.C. Summer Units 2 & 3. As of Oct. 2017 Duke Energy announced plans to cancel reactors at Levy County FL, and William States Lee SC. Applications were withdrawn for Calvert Cliffs, Grand Gulf, Nine Mile Point, Victoria County and Callaway. In June 2018 Nuclear Innovation No. America submitted a letter requesting So Texas Units 2 & 3 be withdrawn.
Seems the power companies are getting a handle on just how effective nuclear power is, eh?

Perhaps you'd best rethink your comment and this time consider the downsides of your calculus, eh? Solar just looks better and better and better and with a fuel source that is guaranteed to never fail. Ever. (Because if it does we won't care any more).

Solar is great, wind is great (and recently became the officially cheapest power source -- when the wind blows), but you need base load generation, and of carbon free power sources, nuclear is the only one.


It's safe (even safer than solar according to statistics), clean, and carbon-free.



People have a completely irrational and uninformed "ick" reaction to it -- just as expressed in your post. This syndrome is perpetuating coal burning, killing thousands of people, exacerbating climate change. We need to apply a little more rational brainpower to the question. And any influence we can have which leads to more nuclear and less coal will save the planet a whole lot more efficiently than heating water with solar.

[RiverRat37]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Solar is great, wind is great (and recently became the officially cheapest power source -- when the wind blows), but you need base load generation, and of carbon free power sources, nuclear is the only one.

It's safe (even safer than solar according to statistics), clean, and carbon-free.

People have a completely irrational and uninformed "ick" reaction to it -- just as expressed in your post.

Ahhh, but my post is rational and informed (see included quote from the NRC and reference to Price-Anderson Act), no "ick" included, just the facts man, just the facts. However, you chose to ignore the facts and stuck with your simplistic story.
Nuclear Power: upside is nice; downsides are existential -- that is they can end life as we know it on the planet. That seems a whole lot more rational than your "ick" reaction to the facts.
Are you even aware that they have not yet found the extent of the damage of the reactor at Fukushima that melted down? They don't even know what the damage is down there -- heck, they don't even know where "down there" is yet. Best not to charge ahead where the facts at Fukushima are not yet even determined.

I'm dropping this now as this is off topic to heating water on a watercraft.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by RiverRat37

Perhaps you'd best rethink your comment and this time consider the downsides of your calculus, eh? Solar just looks better and better and better and with a fuel source that is guaranteed to never fail. Ever. (Because if it does we won't care any more).

I have to agree with Dockhead if you don't want the lights to go out.

Thankfully the UK is commissioning new nuclear power stations:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54703204

Plus a couple of big stations:

https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuc...f%2060%20years.

Why? well because the UK is decommissioning the coal powered stations left right and centre plus the heavy oil stations like this one:

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/188...station-blown/

Why, well to protect our future with a cleaner environment, but the UK can't do it with solar, wind or tidal generation despite being a rather windy island surrounded with big tides.

Could we use this? sure big battery full of power and top up as and when by popping into a marina for a charge.

Pete

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by RiverRat37

I'm dropping this now as this is off topic to heating water on a watercraft.

Agreed, a discussion for another time.

Now back to showering in 2 litres of water warmed with a couple of pine cones.

Wifey is going to be impressed with that when I tell her.

Pete

[GRIT]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Agreed, a discussion for another time.

Now back to showering in 2 litres of water warmed with a couple of pine cones.

Wifey is going to be impressed with that when I tell her.

Pete

I'll bet she's so impressed, she's willing to try it for half the showers taken on the boat.... Yours!

I know my wife would have that exact reaction, if I suggested such.

Cheers.
Paul.

[foufou]

The best way to heat water is with the sun if there is a sufficient amount where you are. And the one way to do this going a step further than the currently available solar showers would be to glue copper or aluminum tubes on the back of photovoltaic panels. These get quite hot and extracting the heat would not only be free energy from the sun but would also improve the efficiency of the photovoltaic panels. Photovoltaic panels are at best a bit over 20% efficient. That means that they are producing close to four times as much heat as the electricity they are manufactured for. Something to think about.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pete7

I have to agree with Dockhead if you don't want the lights to go out.

Thankfully the UK is commissioning new nuclear power stations:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54703204

Plus a couple of big stations:

https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuc...f%2060%20years.

Why? well because the UK is decommissioning the coal powered stations left right and centre plus the heavy oil stations like this one:

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/188...station-blown/

Why, well to protect our future with a cleaner environment, but the UK can't do it with solar, wind or tidal generation despite being a rather windy island surrounded with big tides.

Could we use this? sure big battery full of power and top up as and when by popping into a marina for a charge.

Pete

Intelligent policy. And Finland is building out nuclear with the aim to reach 60% nuclear power in the next 10 years. Finland is already 90% carbon free.


Sweden is at 40% nuclear.


France is at 70%.


It is not a coincidence that Finland and France have the smallest carbon footprints in Europe, and several times less than the U.S. AND, the cheapest electrical power in Europe. Finland the cheapest absolutely but for former communist states.

[AndyEss]

The world’s economies need carbon-free baseload power, especially at night when the vast majority of future electric car fleets will be re-charged while their owners sleep.
I run nearly 100% solar or wind on my boat, only using ICE for propulsion. As I get more proficient with my sailing skills, my engine use is dropping.

Dry cask storage works just fine for storing fuel rods. I believe the French just recycle their fuel rods.

The Fukushima disaster was entirely due to TEPCO, their engineers, and Japanese regulators ignoring historic tsunami heights on that coast.

Multiple heads should have rolled on that entirely preventable disaster.

All it took to save the Fukushima reactor from melting down was designing and building sea water flooding protection for the back up diesel cooling generators. Mere fractions of a fraction of a penny of the cost of the disaster.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by AndyEss

The world’s economies need carbon-free baseload power, especially at night when the vast majority of future electric car fleets will be re-charged while their owners sleep.
I run nearly 100% solar or wind on my boat, only using ICE for propulsion. As I get more proficient with my sailing skills, my engine use is dropping.

Dry cask storage works just fine for storing fuel rods. I believe the French just recycle their fuel rods.

The Fukushima disaster was entirely due to TEPCO, their engineers, and Japanese regulators ignoring historic tsunami heights on that coast.

Multiple heads should have rolled on that entirely preventable disaster.

All it took to save the Fukushima reactor from melting down was designing and building sea water flooding protection for the back up diesel cooling generators. Mere fractions of a fraction of a penny of the cost of the disaster.

Indeed.

But not only that, but the damage and deaths from Fukushima are less than an ordinary month of the damage and death from a coal power plant. A coal power plant IN NORMAL OPERATION is worse than a melting down nuclear plant.


And these meltdowns occur - how often? Two in 75 years of nuclear power?

[Volkeno]

I’m sure those of you with nuclear sailboats have big budgets for hot water, but how many islands turn you away?
I’ve never had hot water on any of my boats and sometimes my hands get a little numb in winter. I mostly shower in marina’s and who knows what they heat with. I have an electric motor on the dinghy I use to get there