A Sailor's Carbon Offset

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Mike,

I think you missed my point.

Even with 100% efficiency there is not enough sunlight.

If there was it would burn us to a crisp.

There is no “yet” because it is an unreachable goal.

Provided my maths are correct.

Ah, I see... You're probably correct.

[newhaul]

They have sails for a reason people

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Folks elsewhere on CF have posted that they expect diesel sailboat engines to be phased out of England within 10 years, and are making plans for trying to go electric power. My point being that even the threat of the upcoming rise in fuel prices WILL be affecting many people's fossil fuels usages. And there doesn't seems to be much overall understanding of which compromises will work best for individual cruisers.

Ann

I imagine that will be for new build boats
Hopefully the technology will be well proven and afordable for retrofits as I would love to do that on my boat, but not be forced to switch to a shallow lightweight boat .

I enjoy following UMA for this reason

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Mike,

I think you missed my point.

Even with 100% efficiency there is not enough sunlight.

If there was it would burn us to a crisp.

There is no “yet” because it is an unreachable goal.

Provided my maths are correct.

I am guessing when sails can be made of solar power generating materials and tidal current hydrogeneration is charging at anchor, we will be there[emoji1303]

Just like the early submarines that could store 48hrs of required electric power, after charging on surface for 6-10hrs, that is what i would be comfortable with

[hpeer]

Submarines are very large—the hull of the USS Balao (image at left, SS-324 Balao[1]), one of the most successful U.S. submarines and a good example for the basic idea of a submarine, was 312 feet long and displaced 2,415 tons; but also very cumbersome—USS Balao carried 10 officers and 70 enlisted men. High surface velocities and long ranges were attained with strong diesel engines, but these rates were severely reduced underwater, where they relied on electric motors powered by relatively short-lived storage batteries. The USS Balao was powered on the surface by four diesel engines and had a top speed of just over 20 knots (37 km/hr); cruising at 10 knots (18 km/hr) her range was 11,000 nautical miles (20,000 km). Two 126-cell battery groups gave her a submerged top speed of 8.75 knots (16.2 km/hr); holding her speed to 2 knots (4 km/hr), she could remain submerged for 48 hours. Before sonar became dependable, most submarine combat took place during the day, for the advantage of sunlight (depending on depths). Recharging the batteries usually occurred when combat was more difficult—at night, when the submarine would surface and run the air-breathing diesels.

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/erobe...ines-intro.htm

Look at the difference in performance between surface operation and submerged operation. I did not realize just how limited the submerged performance was, 2 knots. Think about that. Basically they were surface ships that could sink for limited periods. 2 knots barely gives steerage. At 8 knots her submerged time would be very roughly 1/4 of 48 or 12 hours.

I can find nothing about the recharge rate except a reference to a line in “Run Silent Run Deep” which said 10 minutes of charging for 1 hour submerged. But that says nothing about what submerged means, laying still or running full tilt.

The power in sunlight is about 1,360 watts per square meter. Very roughly 2HP/m2. At 100% efficiency it requires 15m2 of panels to achieve 30hp. A square meter is about 10ft2. So that is 150ft2 of panel. With perfect sunshine directly overhead. Forgetting all the losses.

My GC2 batteries give me 200 amp-hours (100 usable) at 6 volts so say 1,000 watts extracted over 20 hours or 50 amps/hour. 10hp is 7,000 watts @ 6 volts thats 1,200 amps/hour. So I need 24 GC2 batteries to get 1 hour of 10hp propulsion. At 60 pounds each that is 1,440 pounds of battery. For 10 hours of running that is 14,400 pounds of battery. For 30 hp 45,000 pounds.

In every calculation I have ignored losses and rounded in the batteries favor.

So lets say there is a HUGE improvement, a whole order of magnitude. That gets you to 4,500 pounds of battery for 30hp for 10 hours. 150 pounds per hour runtime @ 30 hp.

I carry 200 gallons of diesel at about 1,400 pounds or 1/3 that weight and use about a gallon an hour or 200 hours of run time at low ROM approximately 30hp. 7 pounds per hour runtime @ 30 hp.

150 vs 7.

OK, did that all in my head. I think it is correct in so far as I dod a lot of rounding and ignored efficiencies etc. The point was to give a rough idea of the value of diesel as a propulsive source and just how far solar needs to go to catch up.

We hit hard limits right away because if the limited amount of power in sunlight. Eve at 100% efficiency the panel size becomes a problem.

Then there is the weight of storage. Batteries will never cut it. You need some form of storage with MUCH higher power densities.

Or you need to drastically change sailing styles so that we all become occasional day sailors or effectively engineless sailors and reserve our meager electricity resources for cooking and lights.

We live in a blessed time, enjoy it. It will go away. And we have no more virgin forests to build tall ships or slaves and water to grow cotton for sails. We exist on a very high precipice.

[newhaul]

Here's an idea I just got . How about instead of tearing down the coal power plants . Just replace the coal component of thermal generation with mmr's or Smr's
( mmr up to 15 mw thermal and SMRs are more in the 200 mw thermal range .)

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here's an idea I just got . How about instead of tearing down the coal power plants . Just replace the coal component of thermal generation with mmr's or Smr's
( mmr up to 15 mw thermal and SMRs are more in the 200 mw thermal range .)

Dr. Lovelocke would agree.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01969-y

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Sean;
Hospitals, airports, schools, office buildings, military, post office, government facilities, etc. To account for this “community load” they distribute it across the population. It n short just being an American citizen you have a huge carbon footprint ascribed to you no matter your life style

Well, if you do not fly on airplanes or use most of those facilities, this calculation becomes incorrect, but yes, the american culture is mostly the wrong way to minimize carbon emissions.

And not everything is as it seems. Take flying for example. A fully loaded passenger jet moves people at about 90mpg. So that 4,500 mile round trip is about 50 gallons of usage. Thats about equivalent to 1,000 miles driven.

An average 2,000 sq foot home on Long Island uses about 800 gallons per year.

This is just an absurd amount of heating fuel. It's possible to build houses completely passively solar heated or at least to the extent they reduce energy to a fraction of this.

Your plane is also emitting at high altitude which has a more pronounced effect not to mention the clouds the plane seeds which jet aircraft cause which is contributing to global diming.

So if you live aboard in a warm climate, requiring no hear, but visit your family, once a hear then you are pretty far ahead.

85% of the world population has never flown, and out of the 15% that has, half do only once or twice in their lifetime.


So, taking just one flight puts you above average carbon emissions per capita on a world basis right there for that year you are not "low carbon" or "far ahead" except perhaps compared to people with huge inefficient houses, which is like saying you are far ahead of the slowest runner

Will likely bite us in the posterior sooner rather than later.

already is

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Dr. Lovelocke would agree.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01969-y

I just see it as a good use of existing infrastructure.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

Well, if you do not fly on airplanes or use most of those facilities, this calculation becomes incorrect, but yes, the american culture is mostly the wrong way to minimize carbon emissions.

This is just an absurd amount of heating fuel. It's possible to build houses completely passively solar heated or at least to the extent they reduce energy to a fraction of this.

Your plane is also emitting at high altitude which has a more pronounced effect not to mention the clouds the plane seeds which jet aircraft cause which is contributing to global diming.
85% of the world population has never flown, and out of the 15% that has, half do only once or twice in their lifetime.


So, taking just one flight puts you above average carbon emissions per capita on a world basis right there for that year you are not "low carbon" or "far ahead" except perhaps compared to people with huge inefficient houses, which is like saying you are far ahead of the slowest runner
already is

Sean,

Not disagreeing with your points. I was describing how a common calculation is made.

But to add a bit to your comments.

Re: heating
Absurd or not it is just a report of a fact. I am sure the bill for Chicago or Toronto would he much higher.

Now consider this; while it is possible build vastly more energy efficient houses it is NOT possible to replace the current housing stock for some 340 millions of people. 370 million if you include Canada. We simply do not have the natural resources to do it. And if we did we would create an unacceptable spike in CO2 in the process. This is not a very reassuring thought.

Re: world averages

Very roughly speaking Guatemalans have about average wealth. While they are poor compared to NA they are rich compared to much of Africa and parts of Asia. Wealth is roughly equivalent to energy use. So by extrapolation Guatemalans use roughly the world average amount of fuel and produce about average CO2.

So imagine if you told the average NA they had to live with a Guatemalans budget. And that within that budget they have to also pay for heating and AC which the average Guatemalan does not have as an expense. The NAian would then become poor compared to a Guatemalan because so much of their budget has to go to climate control.

As a thought experiment lets say a magic wand is waved and everyone in the world has the same amount of wealth. What does that mean for climate change and resource depletion? Nothing. The total consumption would remain about even.

The Global Footprint Network calculates we are consuming Earths primary products about 3 times faster than they can regenerate. So to get back within that sustainable budget we would need to cut everyones wealth to 1/3 of a Guatemalans current wealth.

These are pretty broad concepts, there is some wiggle room, but that wiggle goes both ways. And it paints a pretty bleak picture of our future. I see no reason to doubt that general prediction.

What to do about it? I do not have a clue. I find the enormity of the problem over whelming. I often do not talk about it in these blunt terms because folks can not hear it. I have found it a useless exercise. I share my thoughts with you because I know you. I hope this is not too upsetting. You take your personal responsibility very seriously, and I appreciate that.

BTW: Where are you docked these days? Still in the same place?

[SailOar]

Tûranor PlanetSolar

MS Tûranor PlanetSolar, known under the project name PlanetSolar, founded by the Swiss explorer Raphaël Domjan, is the largest solar-powered boat in the world[2] and launched on 31 March 2010.

In May 2012, it became the first solar electric vehicle ever to circumnavigate the globe.[3]

The 31-metre boat is covered by 537 m2[4] of solar panels rated at 93 kW,[5] which in turn connect to two electric motors, one in each hull.[2] There are 8.5 tons of lithium-ion batteries in the ship's two hulls.[6] The boat's shape allows it to reach speeds of up to 10 knots (19 km/h).[1] The hull was model tested in wind tunnels and was tank tested to determine its hydrodynamics and aerodynamics. The boat was designed to be used as a luxury yacht after the record attempt was finished.[7]

During the expedition, Tûranor PlanetSolar broke two records: the fastest crossing of the Atlantic Ocean by solar boat and the longest distance ever covered by a solar electric vehicle. Tûranor PlanetSolar returned to Monaco on 4 May 2012 after 584 days sailing around the globe.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by newhaul

( mmr up to 15 mw thermal and SMRs are more in the 200 mw thermal range .)

15 to 200 milliwatts isn't much

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by StuM

15 to 200 milliwatts isn't much

My bad MW not mw

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by GordMay

There are no "ready to go" LFTR designs, so you'd have to begin research & design, not building.
Only a few molten salt reactors (MSR), typically a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) have actually been built. Those experimental reactors were constructed more than 40 years ago.
Although an experimental 10MW LFTR did run, for five years, during the 1960s, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory,( though using uranium and plutonium as fuel) it is still a next generation nuclear technology – theoretical. India's Kakrapar-1 is actually a converted PWR.

One of the tragedies of the nuclear age is that Alvin Weinburg, as director of ORNL, was unable to gain support for the next step in the development of the LFTR since he was one of the most knowledgeable scientists in the field of reactor design extant in addition to being one of the most concerned regarding PWR reactor safety and waste generation and disposal.

It appears that Weinburg became an enthusiastic proponent in response to the findings of the molten salt experiment carried out by ORNL and believed that the adoption of the LFTR technology would alleviate many of the concerns regarding reactor safety and nuclear waste disposal found to be inherent in the uranium fueled PWR designs.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

There are no "ready to go" LFTR designs, so you'd have to begin research & design, not building.
Only a few molten salt reactors (MSR), typically a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) have actually been built. Those experimental reactors were constructed more than 40 years ago.
Although an experimental 10MW LFTR did run, for five years, during the 1960s, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory,( though using uranium and plutonium as fuel) it is still a next generation nuclear technology – theoretical. India's Kakrapar-1 is actually a converted PWR.

Chalk river .