How About No More Electric Boats?

Some thoughts,
"NASA[ not part of the military industrial complex??,,funded by congress,.. US taxes at work.]] has developed a new technology that can convert the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (C02) into fuel by using solar-powered, thin-film devices. ... This is accomplished by using solar power to convert the C02 into a useable fuel in a very compact device."


Methane[natural gas] when burnt releases CO2.
Humans use electric impulse to send messages and use various fuels as energy, we absorb vitamin D from solar energy {as UV B radiation.. amazing err how to convert that growth factor with electronics or mechanically..?. } ... Sorry I got distracted..
Combustion engines heat loss/ waste, and using water to harvest the losses , manage the highs and lows has lots of possibilities. I wonder how the graphene technology is going?.. battery development, solar capture and many other attributes.
Fossil fuels are a stop gap, internal combustion engines will always be useful and not necessarily environmentally damaging. Electricity has amazing possibilities.
Taxes enable research, creating cheap energy impacts on ff profit margins[who potentially could be[are] funding research with incentives and protecting their viability as a business], they/we need seriously clear and well explained logic to see the light. Gaining that information requires media that in part educates and isn't accountable to "unenlightened" or blocking vested interests.

 

We can convert CO2 into fuel by planting trees.

 

The word "temporarily " ought to be in there somewhere. As I have posted earlier,there are uses for which electric boats are well suited but they aren't the answer for everything.Similarly it is a bit ridiculous for people to imagine that using a three ton pickup to tow a 200lb fishing boat is a good use of resources-even if they like to dream that the catch will be big enough to fill the truck.

There might need to be a bit of attitude adjustment in a number of places to the way we use resources.Having a resource available and having enough money to buy it can sometimes promote a feeling of entitlement.We need to strive for a world where all resources are used efficiently and in the boat world this equates to building structures that are strong enough and not massively over-built.It reduces the cost of materials and the amount of power needed to move the boat around.Which leaves more fuel and more building materials for the next boat.I have difficulty in visualising planing boats with electric power as the weight seriously erodes range.On the other hand might a catamaran with electric drive work?I think we may find ourselves having to leave some preconceptions behind when making design decisions and we might be pleasantly surprised by how good some of the alternatives are,if we have the willingness to stray from the familiar.

 

If you worked hard to earn the money for your stuff you are entitled to have it. A 200 lb. boat around here is inadequate. A 3 ton vehicle is necessary for pulling the vessels that can get to the fish, some of which could sink the 200# boat.

 

An article about an electric float plane,
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-electric-seaplane-test-flights-1.5884479

 

Who needs batteries? Make everybody pedal.
MacCready Gossamer Condor - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacCready_Gossamer_Condor

 

It isn't the over capacity of equipment that people are looking for to do small jobs with, it's the one machine that can do ALL jobs that people need. Most of us don't have a six car garage and a four boat marina slip. We can afford one oversize truck and a personal vehicle, of we are doing really well. If I want to get a bigger boat than my 1600 lb Mariner, I will need to also buy a bigger vehicle. If I can only afford one vehicle, I'll go for the one that offers me the most flexibility, even if it isn't always the most energy efficient. To many other considerations need to be accommodated.

However, I agree that there is a lack of cohesive planning and everyone could use a better level of education and understanding around all of this.

 

the only form of energy being built without subsidy systems these days in Finland is wind. This is quite recent development but has been true for past few years. Naturally wind cannot be a solution for all power and needs scaling partners like hydro or natural gas. But it can be an important part of the solution.

One thing that is good about renewables is the timescale of the plants. 25-30 years is actually a good thing I believe.

In Finland we are building a nuclear powerplant. a 1600MW reactor with a sad timeline. Planning started in 2000, construction in 2005 with original date of completion planned to be in 2009. Now it is 2021 and last August the company stated that they plan to start regular production in February 2022. In that time a lot has changed. In last decade over 1500MWp of wind power has been installed for one. Also several paper mills have closed down and manufacturing gone away etc. A system that you can have be up and running in a few years - including all bureaucratic processes - definitely has its positives. And being a plan for 30 years makes the system as a whole much more flexible for changes in the future. Also the wind power plants don't end up costing double of the original plans.

And people worry about the price changes with wind. Well the way I see it free market is for that. Nukes will get low prices when wind is up and high prices when wind is down.
These price shifts don't need to make the average go up nor down but certainly encourage smart solutions of timing loads that can be adjusted, buffer storages etc.

 

Fuel cells could be used to replace most of the batteries in EVs, assuming the turn out to be any better than fossil fuel combustion. They will have to test out under sharp eye scurtiny, if this blog is any measure, and that's a good thing...

 

The problem is that the lifespan of a wind turbine is 20 years. Besides the cost of rebuilding the system every 20 years, there is the problem of recycling the materials.

 

Naturally that is a negative but it is counted in in the plans. My point was that if (and it seems to) a plant makes sense with shorter cycle it allows for adjusting big picture planning much better as you go. Nuclear plant is 15 years to get up and then 50 years of use. World can change a lot in 65 years.

 

I have never heard a politician state that the "green plan" of wind turbines will only last 20 years. They sell it as the way to save the world instead of a very expensive and wasteful plan.

 

True enough.
It also seems that those who, (with a stroke of a pen,) will glibly and without thought, impose burdens upon the "masses" that they themselves never have to live under or abide by.
Those who are thrown out of work or have their job base destroyed,, well, they can just "learn to code".

 

holy crackers...what about all the guys who didn't 'work hard', but still have the money? Funny how fast this thing can offtrack!!!

I got into it a bit with wf over on another thread, but his attitude of the boat that suits, to hell with ideals, nails it..

 

do you understand my point though? not that you have to agree but I hope I was clear.
The point was of course not that wind (or solar) power would be used only for 20 years but that it is the unit lifecycle. If the turbines stop growing the foundation can be re-used which is massive part of the building in many locations. So far re-use hasn't been practical as the new generations are much larger than the previous ones. Recycling the tower or the "machine house" (not sure about the English term) is by no means exotic. The blades are more problematic naturally.