Diesel Hybrid yacht ... brilliant explanation.

[AngusMcDoon]

Wow! You are certainly passionately against this guy's decision!

From your comments it would seem that you haven't watched the video where he explains the boat's engine history and the rationale for his decision. Someone has also helpfully posted further explanatory text from Leo Sampson on the subject elsewhere in this thread ( Diesel Hybrid yacht ... brilliant explanation. ).

Definitely worth viewing/reading to understand the thinking that has gone into choosing the hybrid solution.

If you have the time, it is also worth checking out his Youtube channel where he runs an impressive project rebuilding a classic yacht. You might find that this Leo guy, (despite his youth), is not some random Youtuber and actually might know a bit more than most of us.

I have watched the videos thanks. I very much appreciate his woodworking skills, the project he is undertaking, and the way he is funding it. However, I don't think the hybrid decision is a good one in looking at economic/engineering/environmental benefits because:

1) It doesn't make economic sense. It will be hugely expensive. That's why almost zero new boats are sold with a hybrid system.

2) It doesn't make engineering sense. A heavy boat like that will get a very small range from battery power. That's one of the reasons why take-up of electric cars is low, same low battery energy density problem. Also a fixed pitch prop makes a very poor turbine, so better to have a dedicated turbine.

3) It doesn't make environmental sense because firstly there will be a large carbon cost of producing this overly complex system and secondly a much greater environmental benefit could be obtained by spending the money elsewhere. Here's an interesting quote from the Wall Street Journal...

The main Tesla problem—and subject of a long-running debate—concerns the CO2 emitted to manufacture the battery. The IFO report pegs this at between 73 and 98 grams per kilometer, assuming a 10-year battery life at 15,000 kilometers of driving per year.

Lithium batteries are hugely energy intensive to produce. If you are only using them to pootle into and out of a harbour for a few minutes at the end of an ocean crossing then your carbon footprint compared to having a plain diesel system will also be huge.


However, it probably makes sense to his project because it will attract a lot of views and supporters, and it's that which funds his project.

 

[halcyon]

The Tally Ho project is a tour de force of both wooden boat building to the very highest standards by a talented and incredibly hard working young guy and of the way that modern social media can be used to achieve something that would have been virtually impossible

Leo, if you watch the early stages of the project, was working entirely alone. Not only was he working long hours on the boat, he was then burning the midnight oil to produce the videos. And his savings were fast running out necessitating breaks to go off and earn enough to keep it going

As the popularity of the videos, and therefore the income, grew, he gradually built a team of people around him and generated a huge amount of interest in traditional craftsmanship

And he generated and continues to generate the finance for the project without recourse to grants, tacky sponsorship or begging.

It's a positive good news story where nobody gets hurt*, nobody gets ripped off**, no harm is done***, so why do some people feel the need to denigrate it?

* Apart from Leo who removed the tip of one of his fingers! Ouch

** Patreon supporters etc choose to support the project. There's nothing sneaky or underhand about it

*** The original Tally Ho was beyond salvation. The new Tally Ho will be a modern rendition of the original. Opinions differ on whether it's a rebuild, a replica or whatever but frankly who cares?

I find the response of some saddening, we should be publicizing it, marketing British skill on the world market.

Leo introduced the building of The Pellew 68 foot Falmouth Pilot cutter 10 mile from us, never saw a mention in the local media though. He covered Pen Pol boatyard, Gweek boatyard again great skill, but little local, National media cover.

It is a industry with a skill you do not need a degree for, perhaps that is our trouble ?

Brian

 

[halcyon]

I have watched the videos thanks. I very much appreciate his woodworking skills, the project he is undertaking, and the way he is funding it. However, I don't think the hybrid decision is a good one in looking at economic/engineering/environmental benefits because:

1) It doesn't make economic sense. It will be hugely expensive. That's why almost zero new boats are sold with a hybrid system.

2) It doesn't make engineering sense. A heavy boat like that will get a very small range from battery power, and a fixed pitch prop makes a very poor turbine, so better to have a dedicated turbine. That's one of the reasons why take-up of electric cars is low, same low battery energy density problem.

3) It doesn't make environmental sense because firstly there will be a large carbon cost of producing this overly complex system and secondly a much greater environmental benefit could be obtained by spending the money elsewhere. Here's an interesting quote from the Wall Street Journal...



However, it probably makes sense to his project because youtube wokery will attract a lot of views and supporters, and it's that which funds his project.

I think the Hybrid wording is the problem with people, it is a charging system for Blue Water cruising that has the option of charging from the prop and providing short term emergency power. Like a bow thruster for anchoring, or clearing a lee shore with diesel engine problems.

The one reason behind the engine is that it is low tech, basic engine driving the prop that has spares globally, or can be repaired with only local knowledge. The hybrid is a side issue that may be useful, but is seen as the major issue.

Brian

 

[AngusMcDoon]

I think the Hybrid wording is the problem with people, it is a charging system for Blue Water cruising that has the option of charging from the prop and providing short term emergency power. Like a bow thruster for anchoring, or clearing a lee shore with diesel engine problems.

The one reason behind the engine is that it is low tech, basic engine driving the prop that has spares globally, or can be repaired with only local knowledge. The hybrid is a side issue that may be useful, but is seen as the major issue.

Brian

But it has a huge carbon footprint to manufacture the system because of the large energy requirement of the manufacture of the propulsion capable lithium battery bank because even short term electric propulsion will require a large battery installation. It will rarely get used to its full potential, so what is it achieving? To recoup the carbon cost of lithium battery manufacturer they need to be heavily used throughout their life, and the use case you describe doesn't do that if sufficient capacity is installed for even 30 minutes of propulsion, so the system will be worse environmentally, not better.

To achieve an environmental benefit, I would do this...

1) Install the smallest plain diesel engine that will still propel the boat adequately. Engines have a high carbon cost of manufacture, so the smaller the better.

2) Install a variety of battery charging methods - solar, turbine, wind. If a voyage across an ocean could be achieved without running an engine at all for battery charging, that's a win. (It would be interesting to know the setup if you have you ever managed to achieve that on your voyages.)

3) Use a lithium battery (if funds allow) for house batteries. These will be used constantly on a long trip compensating for their carbon cost of manufacture. A bank of batteries for house purposes rather than even limited duration propulsion will be smaller.

And I think all that would be easier to maintain in a remote location than the proposed system. Plain diesels can be fixed anywhere, and there'd be redundancy in battery charging.

 

[Gary Fox]

But it has a huge carbon footprint to manufacture the system because of the large energy requirement of the manufacture of a the propulsion capable lithium battery bank because even short term electric propulsion will require a large battery installation. It will rarely get used to its full potential, so what is it achieving? To recoup the carbon cost of lithium battery manufacturer they need to be heavily used throughout their life, and the use case you describe doesn't do that if sufficient capacity is installed for even 30 minutes of propulsion, so the system will be worse environmentally, not better.

To achieve an environmental benefit, I would do this...

1) Install the smallest plain diesel engine that will still propel the boat adequately. Engines have a high carbon cost of manufacture, so the smaller the better.

2) Install a variety of battery charging methods - solar, turbine, wind. If a voyage across an ocean could be achieved without running an engine at all for battery charging, that's a win. (It would be interesting to know the setup if you have you ever managed to achieve that on your voyages.)

3) Use a lithium battery (if funds allow) for house batteries. These will be used constantly on a long trip compensating for their carbon cost of manufacture. A bank of batteries for house purposes rather than even limited duration propulsion will be smaller.

And I think all that would be easier to maintain in a remote location than the proposed system. Plain diesels can be fixed anywhere, and there'd be redundancy in battery charging.

Spot on, and a little Onan type 240AC gennie possibly.

 

[halcyon]

But it has a huge carbon footprint to manufacture the system because of the large energy requirement of the manufacture of a the propulsion capable lithium battery bank because even short term electric propulsion will require a large battery installation. It will rarely get used to its full potential, so what is it achieving? To recoup the carbon cost of lithium battery manufacturer they need to be heavily used throughout their life, and the use case you describe doesn't do that if sufficient capacity is installed for even 30 minutes of propulsion, so the system will be worse environmentally, not better.

To achieve an environmental benefit, I would do this...

1) Install the smallest plain diesel engine that will still propel the boat adequately. Engines have a high carbon cost of manufacture, so the smaller the better.

2) Install a variety of battery charging methods - solar, turbine, wind. If a voyage across an ocean could be achieved without running an engine at all for battery charging, that's a win. (It would be interesting to know the setup if you have you ever managed to achieve that on your voyages.)

3) Use a lithium battery (if funds allow) for house batteries. These will be used constantly on a long trip compensating for their carbon cost of manufacture. A bank of batteries for house purposes rather than even limited duration propulsion will be smaller.

And I think all that would be easier to maintain in a remote location than the proposed system. Plain diesels can be fixed anywhere, and there'd be redundancy in battery charging.

The diesel engine is the size to suit the boat, the engine is a direct drive to the prop, it has two alternators driven of the prop shaft for battery charging, old system been used for years. It just has two possible options, turning the prop or charging from the prop, both basically a free no extra carbon benefit

My yacht when I bought it had just completed a 3 year Atlantic cruise, the engine has a Dynostart and an alternator running off the flywheel to charge the service battery.

Brian

 

[Stemar]

Did we ever find out how he did that ?

There was a rumour at the time that it was the parrot ?

He did explain at the time. IIRC, it was one of those stupid moments we all have, but that can be costly working with sharp stuff, but I can't remember the details and am far too lazy to look for them

 

[halcyon]

He did explain at the time. IIRC, it was one of those stupid moments we all have, but that can be costly working with sharp stuff, but I can't remember the details and am far too lazy to look for them

Seem to remember the band saw, something very simple and very stupid.

Brian

 

[AngusMcDoon]

...both basically a free no extra carbon benefit

There is no such thing. The equipment to capture, store and use renewable energy all has its own energy cost. In the case of lithium batteries, that cost is very high, and therefore any system using them needs to be looked at carefully to see if their use really is a benefit. In many cases, it isn't. I suspect the proposed solution for Tally Ho is one such case.

 

[Buck Turgidson]

But it has a huge carbon footprint to manufacture the system because of the large energy requirement of the manufacture of the propulsion capable lithium battery bank because even short term electric propulsion will require a large battery installation. It will rarely get used to its full potential, so what is it achieving? To recoup the carbon cost of lithium battery manufacturer they need to be heavily used throughout their life, and the use case you describe doesn't do that if sufficient capacity is installed for even 30 minutes of propulsion, so the system will be worse environmentally, not better.

To achieve an environmental benefit, I would do this...

1) Install the smallest plain diesel engine that will still propel the boat adequately. Engines have a high carbon cost of manufacture, so the smaller the better.

2) Install a variety of battery charging methods - solar, turbine, wind. If a voyage across an ocean could be achieved without running an engine at all for battery charging, that's a win. (It would be interesting to know the setup if you have you ever managed to achieve that on your voyages.)

3) Use a lithium battery (if funds allow) for house batteries. These will be used constantly on a long trip compensating for their carbon cost of manufacture. A bank of batteries for house purposes rather than even limited duration propulsion will be smaller.

And I think all that would be easier to maintain in a remote location than the proposed system. Plain diesels can be fixed anywhere, and there'd be redundancy in battery charging.

You've made some massive assumptions here to push your agenda.

Leo hasn't said which batteries he will use and the literature from Hybrid doesn't specify lithium. In fact it shows AGM in an example system.
Where has Leo said this is an ECO project, ever? That's your game not his. He is being mindful of the ecological impact but he's driven by the classic boat theme not the environmental theme.

Solar on a classic yacht?

Do your own project if you want to build an Eco cruising yacht, but I suggest you don't start with a 100 year old wreck.

 

[doug748]

But it has a huge carbon footprint to manufacture the system because of the large energy requirement of the manufacture of the propulsion capable lithium battery bank because even short term electric propulsion will require a large battery installation. It will rarely get used to its full potential, so what is it achieving? To recoup the carbon cost of lithium battery manufacturer they need to be heavily used throughout their life, and the use case you describe doesn't do that if sufficient capacity is installed for even 30 minutes of propulsion, so the system will be worse environmentally, not better.

To achieve an environmental benefit, I would do this...

1) Install the smallest plain diesel engine that will still propel the boat adequately. Engines have a high carbon cost of manufacture, so the smaller the better.

2) Install a variety of battery charging methods - solar, turbine, wind. If a voyage across an ocean could be achieved without running an engine at all for battery charging, that's a win. (It would be interesting to know the setup if you have you ever managed to achieve that on your voyages.)

3) Use a lithium battery (if funds allow) for house batteries. These will be used constantly on a long trip compensating for their carbon cost of manufacture. A bank of batteries for house purposes rather than even limited duration propulsion will be smaller.

And I think all that would be easier to maintain in a remote location than the proposed system. Plain diesels can be fixed anywhere, and there'd be redundancy in battery charging.

Angus, have you upset some people here, in the past? There have been some very rum things aimed your way; though he belittling responses, trying to pitch you against the whole project, may be just the usual background static.

I have no idea if you are right or not but do carry on. I have no doubt you understand the issues, have followed the videos and your contribution looks like being better than most.



.

 

[halcyon]

There is no such thing. The equipment to capture, store and use renewable energy all has its own energy cost. In the case if lithium batteries, that cost is very high, and therefore any system using them needs to be looked at carefully to see if its use really is a benefit. In many cases, it isn't. I suspect the proposed solution for Tally Ho is one such case.

It is not a Hybrid propulsion system, diesel engine runs the prop direct, it is the main propulsion system.

Forget Tesla and cars, think boat battery charge with options that employ the alternators that normally charge the service batteries. But in addition you have the ability to propel the boat via the alternators, or charge the batteries under sail via the prop and alternators. Both of which are there under a different primary usage, so for little additional carbon footprint or cost provide useful options.

Brian

 

[AngusMcDoon]

...to push your agenda.

I have no agenda, I just have engineering realities, which can be simply summarised as:

1) Electric propulsion of sea going leisure boats is a waste of money and resources with current technology, both of which could be used better elsewhere
2) Fixed pitch propellers make truly awful turbines
3) Everything has an carbon cost

 

[AngusMcDoon]

It is not a Hybrid propulsion system, diesel engine runs the prop direct, it is the main propulsion system.

Forget Tesla and cars, think boat battery charge with options that employ the alternators that normally charge the service batteries. But in addition you have the ability to propel the boat via the alternators, or charge the batteries under sail via the prop and alternators. Both of which are there under a different primary usage, so for little additional carbon footprint or cost provide useful options.

Brian

Ok, fair enough if he thinks he needs an auxiliary to his auxiliary, but most of us manage without. However, a fixed pitch prop won't generate much, and a standard battery installation won't propel much. Maybe better to have a standard engine installation and an independent moving water generating system. And probably cheaper.

I'll leave it at that as some engineering realities seem to be provoking hostility.

 

[Buck Turgidson]

I have no agenda, I just have engineering realities, which can be simply summarised as:

1) Electric propulsion of sea going leisure boats is a waste of money and resources with current technology, both of which could be used better elsewhere
2) Fixed pitch propellers make truly awful turbines
3) Everything has an carbon cost

It's not an electric propulsion system
The prop pitch is not the same in propulsion and turbine mode
Yes

 

[AngusMcDoon]

Angus, have you upset some people here, in the past?

Only Seajet and other fully paid up members of the rabid anti-trimaran society.

 

[Gary Fox]

It's not an electric propulsion system
The prop pitch is not the same in propulsion and turbine mode
Yes

1) Yes it is an electric propulsion system, which needs huge batteries and complex electronics, ( all needing rare and costly shore-based high tech repairs and maintenance) just to be able to motor a few miles before it all goes flat. It is in addition to the seamanlike Jap diesel.
2) The prop pitch cannot be incrementally altered by crew while sailing or motoring, which defeats the purpose. Yacht props are useless turbines anyway.
3) All this fancy eco-stuff manufacturing demands huge energy, not to mention 3rd world child slaves mining rare elements at gunpoint, but hey, it generates lashings of clickbait and copious donations from Leo's swooning acolytes.

For the avoidance of doubt: I'm a fan and have watched all the videos. However, I think the hybrid choice is either a cynical donation trawl or Leo has been mis-sold the system. I wouldn't want my bilges full of batteries as a free gift, let alone for untold $1000's.

 

[Blueboatman]

The game changer will surely be battery technology beyond the now- the carbon intense current stuff...
So much research . Going on.

We now have working hybrid and ev tech..

If history says anything , what human ingenuity is brilliant at is the refining, developing , bringing down unit manufacturing costs...of any new idea(s)

I have zilch chemistry learning but glass batteries are being looked at pretty hard I think ??

Once the energy density and weight per unit and a simplified low carbon manufacture come on line, then it’s just a matter of bunging more ( and more!) batteries into the boat.
How many do you want ?

I can quite see Leo’s hybrid system morphing into something where the diesel side becomes more or less redundant -just as I and others carry a suitcase Honda generator for “ emergencies” and power tool work basically . And Leo loves his power tools and knows how to use ‘ em??
The diesel would shove Tally Ho off a lee shore with damaged rig etc

I asked the very question about “ any chance of a better marine energy source than lead/acid” some 12 years ago on this very forum .
And look how far the ongoing research has brought us in this short time!?

 

[halcyon]

Ok then. However, a fixed pitch prop won't generate much, and a standard battery installation won't propel much. Maybe better to have a standard engine installation and an independent moving water generating system. And probably cheaper.

I'll leave it at that as some engineering realities seem to be provoking hostility.

I am only saying it's not a Hybrid propulsion system, it will provide 5 kn's in calm water to help docking, charging under sail will drop speed from 7.5 to 7 kn's, may work may not depending on prop design, is speed critical?, we will only learn if it is fitted.

Brian

 

[Buck Turgidson]

1) Yes it is an electric propulsion system, which needs huge batteries and complex electronics, ( all needing rare and costly shore-based high tech repairs and maintenance) just to be able to motor a few miles before it all goes flat. It is in addition to the seamanlike Jap diesel.
2) The prop pitch cannot be incrementally altered by crew while sailing or motoring, which defeats the purpose. Yacht props are useless turbines anyway.
3) All this fancy eco-stuff manufacturing demands huge energy, not to mention 3rd world child slaves mining rare elements at gunpoint, but hey, it generates lashings of clickbait and copious donations from Leo's swooning acolytes.

For the avoidance of doubt: I'm a fan and have watched all the videos. However, I think the hybrid choice is either a cynical donation trawl or Leo has been mis-sold the system. I wouldn't want my bilges full of batteries as a free gift, let alone for untold $1000's.

1) No it's a Hybrid system. Hence the name hybrid system. It doesn't need huge batteries. The size is optional depending on requirements. The electronics are not complex they are in the handle of every battery operated power tool and are cheap as chips. The range from entering a harbour to docking is rarely more than a few miles.

2)The prop pitch doesn't need to be incremental altered to have a useful system. Ask anyone using a watt&sea. Useless implies of no use. It only takes a milliamp to disprove this statement.

3)It's not fancy eco-stuff. It's all simple off the shelf equipment. 3rd world child slaves made the underwear you are wetting over this.

So anyone who approves of the choice is a swooning acolyte but you are not because having watched all the episodes(though not by the influence of clickbait) you disagree with this choice. OK I bow to your obvious superiority oh great one.