The future of diesel inboards in an all electric future

[MiddayGun]

The word is "accusing" not "screaming" and not for disagreeing, but for causing excessive pollution.

Actually it is a huge portion of the 8 billion people on this planet would agree with me. They have no interest in people motoring private yachts and if posed the question in the right way, most humans would agree it is wrong to cause pollution just for personal convenience in the way people typically use engines on boats

Again invoking the 'Royal We'.
If I proposed the question the 'right way' I could probably get most of them to admit that you're an arse.
Most of those same 8 billion people will use resources in some way that is not essential for their survival.

Have you ever taken a flight in your life? (Actually that question is rhetorical because you certainly have)
In that one flight you consumed more fuel (even when divided between the passengers) than my boat will probably in its lifetime.

This is a commonly repeated flawed argument. Essentially you could say also that wind turbines are the same as oil power because they used oil to make the wind turbine. So therefore there is no point in using wind turbines. This is what your argument is the same as: It doesn't make any sense

No its not, we've already established that you want to draw a line between 'essential' use and 'leisure' use.
Your boat and all the systems on it are for your own personal gratification, to use your own argument from above, wouldn't those same 8 billion people agree that its wrong to cause pollution for your own personal use?

As we established, you have drawn an arbitrary line that just happens to mean that your use is OK but everyone else is in the wrong.

By "most" you mean a few percent of the world's population that live in the richest countries.

No I mean most.
I've worked in Mozambique, a poor country by any metric, plenty of kids still wheelying scooters and doing burnout to impress the girls.
Outside of a few outliers, every country is using FF for leisure as well as work.

50l is more fuel than many humans burn in a year. Most people do not own a car. Most people do not eat meat every day. 85% of humans have never flown. 1% of people cause 95% of all aviation emissions etc. The richest most entitled people in the world tend to own yachts.

Yes, superyachts in the value of hundreds of millions or even billions. That use more fuel in a day than I will in a lifetime. Those people. Not me.

Its funny because you're trying to take the moral high ground, but you're just as guilty of everything you've listed as the rest of us.

As such they can afford to cause the least emissions yet, the statistics show the opposite, and those with more money tend to cause more emissions.

No shit. What's your point?

It depends. I suggest 10 pounds of lithium battery which in production causes the emissions same as 30 liters of diesel not even including emissions in refining and transporting etc. My battery lasts several years. If you take into account battery recycling in the future, the emissions are much less.

10 pounds of lithium batteries is 5kg.
That's, what 50ah? A 100ah Winston cell is 3.3kg so maybe even less.

And you think I'm going to run an electric motor off that? I'd struggle to run the autohelm and instruments for more than 12 hours on that.
I'm not convinced on your figures either.

So this 50-100 liters is already 5-10 times more emissions and significantly more diesel than is used to transport the food I buy in a year etc. But the thing is.. you already have a battery too, so this 50-100 liters is just excess.

Lets be real, neither of us have any idea how much diesel is used to transport your food. But I'll bet its more than you estimate.

Define "bum"

I was being petty.
Hey maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're cruising full time. Good for you. I hope to do the same myself one day. It doesn't sound like you're on a deadline to be anywhere, or have work to get back to. Sounds idyllic.

But for you to do that, the rest of have to work, food needs farming, electricity needs generating, the products on your boat which are all at the end of a laborious and polluting supply chain all need creating. My point is its easy for you to pass judgement, but your lifestyle isn't possible without that which you criticise in everyone else.

I did not claim to have no impact. I am claiming people burning diesel engines in boats generally have unnecessary and excessive impact.

Do you produce all your own food and equipment? If not then you are a "bum" also. I am criticizing people who motor against the tide, who use the engine to get through doldrums not this.

No you're choosing a point from which it goes from acceptable to not acceptable. And like most hypocrites that line conveniently absolves you.

It is a bit absurd to build windfarms offshore when they could be inshore. There is enough wind resources in protected waters like lakes, rivers, sounds, and even just on land. I read the offshore wind cost a lot more too. It seems a bit absurd to put them where it is so expensive to service and the emissions are also several times more to install wind farms offshore. Regardless, it is nice you do this work and try to make a change, but I dont see it as a reason or excuse to do something else.

Dude seriously. Stop talking.
Maybe I'll pass your comment along to the engineers so they can have a good laugh, I mean years of feasability studies, seabed surveys, wind and power generation forecasts etc, but you know better? Come on be serious.

You either read wrong or probably just read some misinformed article.
Offshore Wind has been cheaper than oil & gas for some time, but its now the cheapest form of renewable in the UK at least.
The new turbines are really quite impressive & need far less maintenance than the stuff that went up even 10 years ago.

Comparing what some ship uses to service a windfarm to your personal consumption does not really make much sense without division. That ship probably serves to provide the needs of thousands of people making 2000 liters a fractional amount per person.

And those people use the energy to what? Watch TV, play the PlayStation, run their laptops, charge their hair straighteners.

It is an entitled mentality that the richest people in the world think they have the right to cause vastly more emissions than most people. At 50 liters of diesel per person per year to burn in excess (for no real need) serves to make most carbon targets impossible to reach and is therefore an unreasonable amount of consumption. A realistic amount is 1-2 liters per year, or make your own coconut oil if you need a few more liters.

I don't live on a desert island so coconut oil is a no go. And you definitely consume more than 1-2 litres even if not directly.

I dont think they will be illegal everywhere anytime soon. Maybe in nordic countries or more and more in certain areas like rivers and lakes etc.

I dont even have an issue with them if they are not running on fossil fuels, and that is what may be illegal soon. This simply means the fuel cost will be orders of magnitude higher in the future but not illegal.

Man I started this thread for useful discussion, not a witch hunt.
I'm not attached to Diesel in any way and will happily switch to either battery or hydrogen powered propulsion when its:

a. Affordable
b. Feasible for my needs

It's neither yet. But hey I'm glad it works for you.

@a8b I'm done after this one. Some people can't be argued with.

Brandolini's law is in full effect.

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

 

[Israel Hands]

So your ancestors literally killed every native on tasmania (genocide), stole the land, and now you illegitimately claim 600 acres of land that in a natural state is carbon neutral (trees emit co2 when they die and rot) as somehow being a "steward"


Its obvious that it is not. I dont even use any grid power. hydro power has a significant negative impact because of the anaerobic digestion that occurs in the reservoir releasing methane making it 10 times worse (average) than wind in warming effect per unit of energy generated.

its not worse.

I sailed down to new zealand and set some people straight last time. Maybe I can visit you instead next time and rectify your situation.

Not sure why trolls are allowed to change their account names. But I am bumping this to the new page in hopes that @Fah Kiew Tu will respond.

 

[Fah Kiew Tu]

So your ancestors literally killed every native on tasmania (genocide), stole the land, and now you illegitimately claim 600 acres of land that in a natural state is carbon neutral (trees emit co2 when they die and rot) as somehow being a "steward"


Its obvious that it is not. I dont even use any grid power. hydro power has a significant negative impact because of the anaerobic digestion that occurs in the reservoir releasing methane making it 10 times worse (average) than wind in warming effect per unit of energy generated.

its not worse.

I sailed down to new zealand and set some people straight last time. Maybe I can visit you instead next time and rectify your situation.

OK let's dissect that diatribe one at a time.

1. My ancestors did not literally kill every native on Tasmania, as the most cursory google search would show. So that right there demonstrates your ignorance.

2. How do you know that my ancestry doesn't include Australian indigenous genetics? You've just made a nasty racist assumption there. Not very PC of you.

3. Where did I claim that my 600 acres was in Tasmania anyway? Hint: I didn't.

4. Where did I claim that I was a steward of anything? Hint: I didn't.

So far you're zero for 4.

Now as for your claims that you don't use any grid power, if you're who I think you are, the author of PyPilot, then you most certainly do use grid power and the results of rare earth mining and a ton of other stuff I really can't be bothered digging into.

And it's a funny thing about power sources. Doesn't matter WHICH one you choose, there's always a 'green' reason why you can't do it because - environment. So I just ignore people like you and get on with life.

And burn all the diesel I want, to drive my boat, drive my light truck and drive my tractor etc etc.

You don't like that and threaten to sail to Tasmania and 'school' me in my wicked ways? Good luck with that - hope you're not going to burn any fossil fuel, use synthetic sails, have a hull made from highly processed materials like metal, fibreglass or the like. Because if you do, at best you're a scavenger off of the leavings of a 21C technological society, but most likely you're another taker who decries the sources of the stuff he uses, and wants to claim a 'green' mantle for the virtue-signalling.

Pity because some of what you've done in PyPilot is interesting and as a retired software designer I'd have enjoyed discussing that. But given your self-righteousness, probably pointless.

FKT

 

[Parma]

is hydrogen a fossil fuel hoax?

 

[Fah Kiew Tu]

is hydrogen a fossil fuel hoax?

Wouldn't go that far myself. But there are *significant* engineering issues for mass use in mobile devices like personal vehicles & boats. Maybe not so much in trucks, buses and the like.

Basically it needs a truly massive amount of electrical power at a very cheap price, then even more power to compress it, and more power to build all the stuff to make it useful.

Personally I think that *if* we had the abundant power to produce H2 cheaply, some form of conversion into methanol would be a lot better for transport etc.

But I'm not a chemical engineer so my opinion is as usual, worthless...

FKT

 

[a8b]

@a8b I'm done after this one. Some people can't be argued with.

Brandolini's law is in full effect.

Go in peace friend.

is hydrogen a fossil fuel hoax?

Wouldn't go that far myself.

I suggest if you look at the history, much of the development and marketing was literally oil companies.
A distraction from actual workable solutions.

But there are *significant* engineering issues for mass use in mobile devices like personal vehicles & boats.

Agreed.

We can agree to disagree, but oil companies are literally the best source for hydrogen. That is why they promote it.

Henry Ford had a diesel he wanted to sell to farmers. The idea was they would grow Hemp, as they always did, and crush seeds for oil to power the cars he sold them. Making them energy independent.

Shortly thereafter Hemp became Marijuana. And Marijuana got banned.

Instead of sacrificing corn to the boondoggle of ethanol, we could have farmers grow oil crops and have diesels burn it directly. No need for cost and energy(cost) to convert it to esters and calling it bio diesel.

We can also use said oils for a good chunk of our petrochemical needs. Which we will need to do it once oil dies.

No, it does not solve all the worlds problems, but it starts us down the path we need to go down.

It may be that someday hydrogen might be useful for something related to power, but I cannot see it. The energy cost for each and every step is just way too high to make the math work.

IMHO it is, has, and always will be, bullshit.

 

[Coastal_Fox]

Sorry for the delay in replying. Life got in the way hard core and I had to deal with some shitty people haha. Also sorry to bump, but idk how to sage reply on this forum.

welcome to Seattle

Thanks! Mighty neighborly of you. Can you show me to the nearest free speech zone : D

@Boathavn
I see you quoted me, but didnt say anything, which is very mysterious indeed and making it hard to reply to you since there is nothing to quote.
Im assuming you are in disagreement. You should have said something about the recent rise of Euro bikes like KTM that are producing 2 strokes that can indeed pass emissions testing in country/states that have them, but i think we both know im talking about dirty 2 strokes with a cloud of blue smog behind them. Also keep in mind that every country/state/locality has their own laws regarding the issue so yeah, some small village in Vietnam may allow any 2 stroke on the road, but maybe London wouldnt?
Point is, i think you missed my point. But i cant know, since you didnt use any words to express any ideas. But i feel pretty safe in my assumption of what you meant to express. If im wrong, please correct me.

 

[Boathavn]

@Boathavn
I see you quoted me, but didnt say anything, which is very mysterious indeed and making it hard to reply to you since there is nothing to quote.
Im assuming you are in disagreement. You should have said something about the recent rise of Euro bikes like KTM that are producing 2 strokes that can indeed pass emissions testing in country/states that have them, but i think we both know im talking about dirty 2 strokes with a cloud of blue smog behind them. Also keep in mind that every country/state/locality has their own laws regarding the issue so yeah, some small village in Vietnam may allow any 2 stroke on the road, but maybe London wouldnt?
Point is, i think you missed my point. But i cant know, since you didnt use any words to express any ideas. But i feel pretty safe in my assumption of what you meant to express. If im wrong, please correct me.

There are two types of people in SA: those who can make the multi-quoting feature work and those who can't
So I think I snagged a snippet from your post in error and then deleted it. Backing out of some features in the new hosting software seems to have challenges. So you got an empty response methinks.

So my published comment was about owning a 1967 2-Stroke SAAB 96 and the joys of making a spectacle of ones self on the streets of Seattle.

Clean emissions two-strokes are certainly possible and with a pressurized oil system, there is no reason to require lubricating oil in the fuel. With electronic-controlled variable-port valving, you would be hard pressed to find a more efficient power-to-weight ratio power plant.

Viva la ring-ding-ding-dingdingding--ding !

welcome to Seattle​

Two-stroke vehicles are not banned in Seattle. I own one of the four two-stroke SAABs still running in the State of Washington.​

​

However, any grasp on reality and common sense exhibited by Seattle elected officials was banned long ago...​

 

[seandepagnier]

OK let's dissect that diatribe one at a time.

1. My ancestors did not literally kill every native on Tasmania, as the most cursory google search would show. So that right there demonstrates your ignorance.

the island was stolen via genocide. I'm not really sure you have the legitimate right to be there. The original people were killed, so I am sure you are not one of them.

today australia surpasses the united states for emissions, waste and consumption per capita.

2. How do you know that my ancestry doesn't include Australian indigenous genetics? You've just made a nasty racist assumption there. Not very PC of you.

You are trying to reverse the actual history somehow? Lets hear more about your australian indigenous genetics. You can try to disguise the truth, but I already think it is safe to say as an indigenous person would not attack me for pointing out that tasmania is what it is because of genocide and exploitation which is probably the only reason you have all what you have.

3. Where did I claim that my 600 acres was in Tasmania anyway? Hint: I didn't.

It doesn't matter. You don't legitimately own 600 acres anywhere. In a world with 5 acres per person to go around it is utter nonsense. This would be an incredibly selfish claim to make: it is not legitimate. Owning land is not a legitimate claim anyway since no one worked to create the land.

4. Where did I claim that I was a steward of anything? Hint: I didn't.

You are claiming low emissions but I dont really think it is possible (to be below world average) if you burn diesel in various engines regularly.

So far you're zero for 4.

I am usually all or nothing.

Now as for your claims that you don't use any grid power, if you're who I think you are, the author of PyPilot, then you most certainly do use grid power and the results of rare earth mining and a ton of other stuff I really can't be bothered digging into.

I think you are referring to other people's consumption of this stuff mostly, but regardless it is fractional amount of diesel. Consider the emissions to produce a circuit board for an autopilot that enables you to sail more miles. It is on the same order as the sails/rigging etc. It is not of the order of burning liters just to go a few miles.

And it's a funny thing about power sources. Doesn't matter WHICH one you choose, there's always a 'green' reason why you can't do it because - environment. So I just ignore people like you and get on with life.

And burn all the diesel I want, to drive my boat, drive my light truck and drive my tractor etc etc.

This will collectively cause suicide of humanity if it is allowed to continue unfortunately.

You don't like that and threaten to sail to Tasmania and 'school' me in my wicked ways? Good luck with that - hope you're not going to burn any fossil fuel, use synthetic sails, have a hull made from highly processed materials like metal, fibreglass or the

You are repeating a flawed argument, and this is nothing about schooling you in the way you think.

As if a few synthetic sails is just as much consumption as burning diesel? It is all the same? It isn't even close? A sail gets tens of thousands of miles. Compare making something vs burning it one time.

like. Because if you do, at best you're a scavenger off of the leavings of a 21C technological society, but most likely you're another taker who decries the sources of the stuff he uses, and wants to claim a 'green' mantle for the virtue-signalling.

Pity because some of what you've done in PyPilot is interesting and as a retired software designer I'd have enjoyed discussing that. But given your self-righteousness, probably pointless.

FKT

If you seriously think burning diesel because you didn't want to wait for a tide is in any way acceptable: you simply are not taking the current emergency seriously. That is it. If you were, you would at bare minimum already be running on a bio fuel of some kind. There is not anything else to debate. Over time, more and more people will disagree with your use of fuel, or else, we all go over the deep end. What do you expect?

So what is the motivation for continuing to use diesel power for stuff we really dont need to, when everyone knows it is causing immense destruction around the world? I have never used any kind of engine, maybe if I had, I would think I needed one? Is that all it is?

It has nothing to do with "self-righteousness" which seems to be just a way to attack my view since it is different from yours? Maybe I think you are self-righteous? A lot of people in history were attacked this way because it threatens your way of life. Your way of life if it includes burning diesel derived from fossil fuels is incompatible with the future I want to live in, so obviously I would be against it, what is the surprise? You have had 50 years to adjust, I dont even know why anyone is powering their boat this way anymore. Why should I have to tolerate something that is only a burden to me? Your only answer is "because I want to"

I am tolerating any kind of views here, but I have a right to my own opinions too. I can even agree to disagree. Why are you guys so hostile I don't understand it. My arguments are perfectly logical, you just dont like it because it denies you from doing something you are used to doing and you realize your days of using diesel are probably numbered (point of the thread in first place) so it is a sore spot? I am trying to understand.

 

[Israel Hands]

What you need is a grandfather who tells you “son, you write like an arrogant jackass.” But maybe you are too old for that…past the age of understanding and perspective. ‘Tolerating’ other views my ass. You know it all.

 

[seandepagnier]

If I proposed the question the 'right way' I could probably get most of them to admit that you're an arse.
Most of those same 8 billion people will use resources in some way that is not essential for their survival.

Have you ever taken a flight in your life? (Actually that question is rhetorical because you certainly have)
In that one flight you consumed more fuel (even when divided between the passengers) than my boat will probably in its lifetime.

I didnt used to know any difference, but changed my way of thinking and stopped more than 15 years ago.

Regardless, at 50 liters a year this is not even true.

No its not, we've already established that you want to draw a line between 'essential' use and 'leisure' use.
Your boat and all the systems on it are for your own personal gratification, to use your own argument from above, wouldn't those same 8 billion people agree that its wrong to cause pollution for your own personal use?

Yes

As we established, you have drawn an arbitrary line that just happens to mean that your use is OK but everyone else is in the wrong.

Obviously

No I mean most.
I've worked in Mozambique, a poor country by any metric, plenty of kids still wheelying scooters and doing burnout to impress the girls.
Outside of a few outliers, every country is using FF for leisure as well as work.

Interesting point. So you claim there is no distinction between the two?

Yes, superyachts in the value of hundreds of millions or even billions. That use more fuel in a day than I will in a lifetime. Those people. Not me.

Do you think it is ok for them to do this?

Its funny because you're trying to take the moral high ground, but you're just as guilty of everything you've listed as the rest of us.

I am guilty of all kinds of things, but not sure how this absolves anyone else

10 pounds of lithium batteries is 5kg.
That's, what 50ah? A 100ah Winston cell is 3.3kg so maybe even less.

It is about 1kwh.

And you think I'm going to run an electric motor off that? I'd struggle to run the autohelm and instruments for more than 12 hours on that.

I dont know what autohelm you have but it sounds like it uses too much power.

I have an electric motor that runs off it.

I'm not convinced on your figures either.

Which figure?

Lets be real, neither of us have any idea how much diesel is used to transport your food. But I'll bet its more than you estimate.

It is between 10-20 gallons per year. It may be more but regardless it is not as simple to mitigate as sailing rather than motoring. I often see people motoring when they could be sailing at the same speed and course instead.

I was being petty.
Hey maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're cruising full time. Good for you. I hope to do the same myself one day. It doesn't sound like you're on a deadline to be anywhere, or have work to get back to. Sounds idyllic.

Yes, and those of us with sailboats are among the most privileged people in the world. The most able to afford not to cause emissions.

But for you to do that, the rest of have to work, food needs farming, electricity needs generating, the products on your boat which are all at the end of a laborious and polluting supply chain all need creating. My point is its easy for you to pass judgement, but your lifestyle isn't possible without that which you criticise in everyone else.

But I am not passing judgement on anyone except people who use engines powered from fossil fuels in their yachts. You are trying to bring everything else into this, but that is not my argument or point.

No you're choosing a point from which it goes from acceptable to not acceptable. And like most hypocrites that line conveniently absolves you.

if I am a hypocrite then I would get burned by my own line.

Dude seriously. Stop talking.

ok i waited 3 days

Maybe I'll pass your comment along to the engineers so they can have a good laugh, I mean years of feasability studies, seabed surveys, wind and power generation forecasts etc, but you know better? Come on be serious.

I am really only asking you about this. I am not being critical of you (sorry if you thought this) only curious since you claim to install these. I dont know better but a basic search (on google this time):
"On a kilowatt hour basis, offshore wind power is estimated to cost 22.15 cents per kilowatt hour, while onshore wind is estimated to cost 8.66 cents per kilowatt hour"

You either read wrong or probably just read some misinformed article.

ok. So is offshore wind cheaper than onshore wind? If not, why are we not building only onshore wind?

Offshore Wind has been cheaper than oil & gas for some time, but its now the cheapest form of renewable in the UK at least.
The new turbines are really quite impressive & need far less maintenance than the stuff that went up even 10 years ago.

I agree that either type of wind is better, but question considering the state of things why we dont use onshore wind? There are huge inshore/onshore wind reserves: vast areas of either land or shallow protected waters with not a single turbine. Instead they debate offshore ones which will cost almost 3 times as much and I dont understand this.

And those people use the energy to what? Watch TV, play the PlayStation, run their laptops, charge their hair straighteners.

You make a good point here.

I don't live on a desert island so coconut oil is a no go. And you definitely consume more than 1-2 litres even if not directly.

Yes, but not for something I can easily do without. They dont really offer me much choice in the type of fuel the truck uses to deliver food. How can I make the food truck (I need to survive) not run on diesel? In your boat you can simply sail (or wait for wind) it is really easy to avoid direct use like this.

Man I started this thread for useful discussion, not a witch hunt.
I'm not attached to Diesel in any way and will happily switch to either battery or hydrogen powered propulsion when its:

a. Affordable
b. Feasible for my wants

Since both a and b are arbitrary, it is impossible to say if an alternative will ever exist to satisfy these.

It's neither yet. But hey I'm glad it works for you.

Would be a more fruitful to discuss rather than insult me for disagreeing as I was legitimately offended that someone assumed "we all have used the engine" and so forth which is how all this got started.

What is affordable? What is "feasible"? I have put electric propulsion more than 10 years ago and recently in various forms. My cost is a few hundred dollars for the batteries and motor giving 2-3 knots of boat speed using a few hundred watts of power. Different setups widely vary in efficiency.


We could compare electric vs hydrogen solutions. How much does each cost? What makes hydrogen or electric un affordable? How can we work around the problems of high cost components that are made in low quantity (fuel cells etc) making them expensive.

 

[seandepagnier]

What you need is a grandfather who tells you “son, you write like an arrogant jackass.” But maybe you are too old for that…past the age of understanding and perspective. ‘Tolerating’ other views my ass. You know it all.

You are attacking me for disagreeing with your opinion correct? You feel threatened as you know that diesel will not be available/affordable in the future? So your basic instinct is to attack the "enemy" to prevent this from happening, but you should understand that nothing you do or say to me will change this future situation of you not being allowed to do things you do now. Rather than get frustrated, why not talk about your "electric future" so you will be ready for it.

 

[mcppat]

Q: The future of diesel compression ignition inboards in an all electric future?
A: In the near to mid term - Range extender for electric propulsion (think hybrid)
In the long term - Back in business burning carbon neutral fuels

The technology for hybrid electric propulsion (combination electric drive / hydrogenator coupled with a small diesel (or LPG/LNG) powered DC generator) is readily available and worth considering on a new build or a re-power. Yes, it costs more but the savings (in fuel consumption) will eventually surpass the initial investment. Is it a practical option for every boat on the water.......No.

Pure electric propulsion is not going to replace compression ignition engines any time soon, if ever. It's a matter of energy density.... The 34gal of diesel the J/122 I sail on contains the energy equivalent of 1,384 KWh. The typical 200 Ah (12.8v) Lithium battery weighs about 22kg (about 49lbs). Considering 80% DoD for Lithium batteries, you'd need 675 of them to store the same amount of energy. For those who are keeping count, that's nearly 15 Metric Tons of batteries (32,737lbs). The boat itself only displaces about 15,000lbs....

It's unlikely Hydrogen will be widely adopted. It's literally impossible to contain in a pressure vessel (if you need a chemistry lesson as to why...... look at a periodic table.... which element is the lightest). Ammonia's toxic, unlikely it'll play a part in anything other than commercial ships. Methanol may be viable, but the vast majority of Methanol produced now is not "green".

In any event, this is what the commercial shipping (as in those large self-propelled floating objects you occasionally cross paths with out there) industry is going to have to figure out over the next few years. 70% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050..... Now.... If you know how to propel a 25,000 ton ship without burning fuel please let me know (and please don't say sails). I mean it's only like 4,700 gal / day......unless we're moving the feedstock (various vegetable and animal fats and oils) used to produce "renewable" diesel. Then it's more like 5,500 gal/ day because you need to heat the shit...... and carry it 10k nm across the Pacific.... And then ship the finished product back across the Pacific......

Alas, I've digressed..... What were we talking about again??

Of course there's always Mr. Fusion..

 

[Boathavn]

The 34gal of diesel the J/122 I sail on contains the energy equivalent of 1,384 KWh. The typical 200 Ah (12.8v) Lithium battery weighs about 22kg (about 49lbs). Considering 80% DoD for Lithium batteries, you'd need 675 of them to store the same amount of energy. For those who are keeping count, that's nearly 15 Metric Tons of batteries (32,737lbs). The boat itself only displaces about 15,000lbs....

Yup.

 

[Parma]

I am so glad that I now understand that Australians = Putin.

BTW, fuck you AJ

 

[a8b]

Q: The future of diesel engines in an all electric future?

FTFY, But I agree.
Invented by Diesel. The fuel is also named after him.
As I said above, a static RPM diesel generator works great with electric motors. It is much like a diesel electric locomotive, in which you have huge weight propelled by very little power.

 

[Zonker]

offshore wind -> steadier / stronger winds. Also NIMBY for land installations. Easy in the US where the midwest plains are pretty empty and they can lease land from farmers. Not as simple in more crowded Europe.

 

[seandepagnier]

What you need is a grandfather who tells you “son, you write like an arrogant jackass.” But maybe you are too old for that…past the age of understanding and perspective. ‘Tolerating’ other views my ass. You know it all.

This is a perfect analogy. Thanks. This "grandfather" you speak of never once considered his own emissions or how his selfish personal choices affected climate change and future generations. This is why the older generation today no longer deserves any respect, as they have literally burned the world to make their own lives easier. This is in contrast to all of history.

offshore wind -> steadier / stronger winds. Also NIMBY for land installations. Easy in the US where the midwest plains are pretty empty and they can lease land from farmers. Not as simple in more crowded Europe.

The stronger winds are taken into account in the cost comparison. If it costs 3x more to use offshore wind, then it doesn't make much sense but somehow that is being promoted? It would reduce emissions much more to use onshore wind. For the same cost (and emissions to set up) you end up with 3 times the power. This means for the same cost, more wind power, less coal/gas etc.. Does this just mean that the people making decisions do not really care about minimizing emissions and this is just another example?

Or is it true that wind turbines on land negatively impact earth worms which makes them generally infeasible and a bad idea? This is something I am not sure of. No one knows for if offshore wind negatively impacts marine life that relies on acoustics like whales etc, or if it is more of a positive from artificial reefs.

 

[seandepagnier]

I am so glad that I now understand that Australians = Putin.

BTW, fuck you AJ

No, but Australians today have the same low level of moral values as the original colonists who immediately committed genocide hunting down every last aboriginal in tasmania and today there are no full blooded ones remaining (extinct as I mentioned earlier) They also hunted the tasmanian tiger to extinction soon after it was discovered. What a bunch of miserable people and a shame what they did.

Today australia has extremely high levels of emissions (more than usa per person) and excessive energy consumption. They have the biggest houses, the most wasteful practices (helicopters to round cattle??) and the richest people making the most emissions come on and post here about how somehow they (excluding 99% of humanity) have the right to cause even more excessive emissions than ever with a diesel inboard in a boat that should just sail: disgusting. You know it is immoral, otherwise this thread (and part of all electric future) would not even exist. We know it will not be legal at some point in the future because it is immoral.

If you continue to use a diesel engine in your boat, you are like the slave owners of the past who knew it was wrong but continued to do so anyway because it was still legal at the time. Some of these people include "george washington" "thomas jefferson" as well as many other criminals who founded the "united snakes" which is also an illigitimate country that is bad like australia and in some ways much worse.

 

[Zonker]

I honestly doubt earthworms care about wind turbine noise/vibrations. I've stood at the base of a land tower and couldn't feel any vibration. They're turning at say 120 RPM or so? Pretty low frequencies which will penetrate the ground but I doubt they propagate that far.

And the amount of diesel a typical sailor consumes is probably a very small fraction of their energy consumption versus driving cars. Never mind heating/cooling their home.

Sean, I am glad you are able to go without heating or cooling your home, never use fossil fuels for cooking and use a wooden oar to propel your small boat. But it's the wrong windmill you are tilting at.