How About No More Electric Boats?

Also, PhilSweet, what is the efficiency of the giant coal fired power plant, providing the electricity.

 

A Tesla has pitiful range considering the weight and cost of its power pack.

A boat's powerpack might connect to the grid, provided it is never used as a boat.

85% CO2 producing power supply in the table provided by Tiny Turnip. That of course is for the US. Worldwide it's slightly worse. Germany and the UK have gone HAM converting from older technologies to wind and solar, with no reduction in greenhouse gas production. And no ability whatsoever to shut down coal and natural gas plants. It actually looks like the UK increased their CO2 output with the vast investment in wind power. An outcome that was obvious to any engineer who wasn't being paid to work on it. Or hadn't taken a job with the government harvesting tax dollars to pay for work that was actually harmful to the environment.

 

My numbers for transmission line loss were way too high though.

 

there are special cases where battery operated boat/ship can make sense.

1) small enough leasure boat with 5-6mph top speed. glorified canoe. bad range might not matter and 1-2kWh battery provides benefits beyond the exhaust.

2) short range ferry, traffic ferrys with <10mile trips.

key for responsible battery power use is high utility cycle. if batteries use their capacity 1-5 times per day it is probably a good thing.
The worst is to have massive capacity that rarely gets used up.
leisure boats that sit on dock most days should certainly use diesel/gas.

I am not sure I agree on the lead acid. Recent LFP batteries last tremendous cycle counts even at high depth of discharge. 1kWh rated LiFePo4 will give more than 2x vs 1kWh lead acid. And keeps doing it way after the lead acid is toast. while weighing less which often on boats is a huge deal.

fully agree that the most relevant factor _udually_ is virtue signaling.

bit like folks who crap on plugin hybrids for not being "pure" while in most use scenarios they are more convenient and better for environment than battery only EVs.

 

The demand for electric power is accelerating, about the best that alternative energies can do is slow the combustion acceleration rate a little, as they get better, especially fuel cell Technologies. My opinion is the move away from 2-cycle engines has helped. The only hope appears to be controlled fusion power, but that is a long time from now, at least it is theoretically possible.

Ps, Kerosene, my EVs fit #1, bike, rider mower and lawn tools, inflatable boat used on shallow rivers, working on same interchangeable battery.

 

You will need oars then when it is dark or cloudy.

 

So the Earth's heath is questionable, but people get much needed exercise and become healthier.

I like the idea that if I ran out of electric battery capacity in the middle of the ocean, I have a chance of capturing more. Not so if I run out of petrol.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

I think a good mix of various types of vehicles is best. If the electric grid fails; all the Teslas gonna need gas generators. If the gas supplies are short, but a nuke plant still going; still got electrons. The toxic lake in China is a cultural problem.

 

Plan accordingly.

 

That's the plan.

 

While your solar panels stop working at night, your wind turbines should still provide.

 

What ever battery used is going to have to be recyclable.

This will be quite a change in how we do things in the US. Here, the goal is to keep the product price as low as possible, while keeping the profit in producing it as high as possible.

It is generally less expensive to make a single-use product than it is to make one that is more easy to recycle. Market forces alone will never lead to environmental friendly products. There is simply too many built in incentives to go the other way. Both the producer and the consumer experience these incentives.

The fossil fuel way of doing things is definitely cheaper, as long as the external costs of using such is ignored. Once these costs are taken into account, the price starts going up. I remember when we used leaded gasoline. Such protected exhaust valves from burning up. Once the cost of all that resulting lead pollution was taken into account, we went unleaded and had to accept more expensive sodium filled exhaust valves.

And now that there is a general scientific consensus that putting even CO2 in the air is causing climate harm, we are now being forced to accept smaller engines with expensive turbo-chargers in them in our cars, as well as more expensive transmissions which have more gear ratios.

Electric technology may be a way out, but I think it is fair to point out that it has problems of its own, and is no panacea.

Less energy use itself is likely to be a major requirement in the near future.

 

Some places
Most places don't have enough wind to make enough energy to make the wind turbines.

 

Fusion will probably never work. We should have gone nuclear 50 years ago.

 

Maybe we should have.

But a major failing of fission is not only the radioactive waste from the spent fuel, but that of all the reactor parts once the reactor is retired. And nuclear corrosion is a major reason such retirements would be common.

As far as I know, no one is volunteering to have this stuff stored in their backyard.

It is my understanding that the French fission industry is quasi-military and more or less forced down the throat of the French people. This may be the correct way to go. Get it out of the hands of the profit-is-king people, and put it into the hands of those who have less (let's hope) incentive to cut corners.
And tell the protesters that the decision has been made, so they can stuff it. I'm not sure that's the kind of society I'd want to live in. But it is something we may be forced to consider.