HOW DO YOU SEE THE FUTURE OF leasure boating &fuel taxation due to climate change,from sailing

[westernman]

With pressure up to 700 bar, hydrogen would definitely give more bang per kg. Not sure I'd be comfortable in one of those.

I don't think it is any more dangerous than sitting on top of 100 tons of kerosene with naked flames and very high temperatures in the engines which are very close by.

 

[Seastoke]

Ammonia makes more sense for shipping - more bang per buck than hydrogen.
Hydrogen makes sense for planes - more bang per kg than ammonia or anything else.

Fuel consumption of a plane depends on its weight and that of the fat slobs sitting in it.

So f,in rude .

 

[flaming]

The simple reality for boats is that demand for fuel for leisure marine is simply nothing like enough to support a fuel industry on its own. It needs to piggyback on whatever else is using fuel. Obviously right now that's road fuel.

Accepting that road transportation is moving away from fossil fuels, then you have to look to what is going to replace it. At the moment battery electric is winning that race, and there will come a point where market saturation is such that any other solution will face a real uphill battle to get acceptance. And in any case, BEV has a number of user advantages over liquid fuels that once people get used to they will wonder why they would go back to a liquid fuel, even if the pollution issues were not there.
I think it seems very likely that by 2050 the fossil fuel industry will have shrunk dramatically, to the point where supplying marinas with diesel will be a tricky ask as the entire supply chain relies on volume. Without the road transport volume, the economics of the industry simply don't stack up. Certainly not to supply diesel to a marina pump at anything approaching an affordable cost.

So in that case if we say "yes, but battery EV tech isn't going to work on planing motor boats" then we have to look not only for something else that isn't fossil fuels to do the job, but also has a significant other use case to piggy back on. So what other industries do is going to be key.

 

[Clash]

The simple reality for boats is that demand for fuel for leisure marine is simply nothing like enough to support a fuel industry on its own. It needs to piggyback on whatever else is using fuel. Obviously right now that's road fuel.

Accepting that road transportation is moving away from fossil fuels, then you have to look to what is going to replace it. At the moment battery electric is winning that race, and there will come a point where market saturation is such that any other solution will face a real uphill battle to get acceptance. And in any case, BEV has a number of user advantages over liquid fuels that once people get used to they will wonder why they would go back to a liquid fuel, even if the pollution issues were not there.
I think it seems very likely that by 2050 the fossil fuel industry will have shrunk dramatically, to the point where supplying marinas with diesel will be a tricky ask as the entire supply chain relies on volume. Without the road transport volume, the economics of the industry simply don't stack up. Certainly not to supply diesel to a marina pump at anything approaching an affordable cost.

So in that case if we say "yes, but battery EV tech isn't going to work on planing motor boats" then we have to look not only for something else that isn't fossil fuels to do the job, but also has a significant other use case to piggy back on. So what other industries do is going to be key.

Very good points. The possible stopgap solution could be kerosene which will probably remain as an airline fuel for some time. It would need treatment for use in diesel engines, but will work.

After that, it's probably going to be a battery solution. Some of the advances in battery technology may well fit the bill. Higher energy densities and charging speeds are the gold standards that are currently being researched.

 

[bedouin]

Are these not manufactured from feedstocks and other waste products in order not to compete with food? Which by definition makes it a finite source. Never mind the production costs and emissions. How efficient is this process exactly?

No - artificial photosynthesis just requires (sun)light basically reproducing what plants do but in an industrial setting rather than a field.

 

[bedouin]

The simple reality for boats is that demand for fuel for leisure marine is simply nothing like enough to support a fuel industry on its own. It needs to piggyback on whatever else is using fuel. Obviously right now that's road fuel.

I think both airplanes and cargo ships will provide plenty of demand for a sustainable liquid fuel, and many other usages can use the same technology.

If there is an efficient way of creating the fuel from electricity then it would also work well as an energy store to even out supply and demand.

It is simply not feasible to convert all the world's road transport to battery power and the moment only about 2% of cars on the road are electric and just look at the damage to the environment and pollution that has caused

 

[Clash]

It is simply not feasible to convert all the world's road transport to battery power and the moment only about 2% of cars on the road are electric and just look at the damage to the environment and pollution that has caused

Yes, let's look at the damage to the environment and pollution. I'll wait.

 

[Clash]

No - artificial photosynthesis just requires (sun)light basically reproducing what plants do but in an industrial setting rather than a field.

Just light? No other medium is required? That's even better than plants which require water and CO2.

 

[ducked]

Don't disagree with any of that. Hydrogen could also work for shipping, although it's also very inefficient. But I would challenge what you said here.

I didn't make any assumption and certainly not that one. I quoted the numbers as an illustration of what the trade off was against bio-diesel production in the EU.
"The market" isn't one amorphous blob. The market for energy has many different needs and use cases. From the motor boat owner to the commuter. There isn't a one size fits all product. Some of it absolutely cares about efficiency.

You said non-fossil liquid (hydrocarbon) aviation fuel was a "non starter" and gave what seemed to be humanitarian and energetic efficiency reasons for this opinion, so we do disagree, fundamentally, on the nature of market forces, which IMO are neither globally humanitarian nor globally rational.

 

[flaming]

If there is an efficient way of creating the fuel from electricity then it would also work well as an energy store to even out supply and demand.

"If" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence...

When you look at the amount of power needed to make the e fuels, and then the fact that an ICE engine is a pretty inefficient thing anyway, unless we have an abundance of power from some as yet unachievable tech, then it would be extremely wasteful to use synthetic fuels for transportation that could be electrified.

Your contention that "It is simply not feasible to convert all the world's road transport to battery power" is contentious. There may be some outliers where it is extremely difficult, but solutions exist for every type of road transport. Even massive mining trucks. And even converting 90% of the world's fleet, which is more than achievable, would have an enormous effect on the fuel market.

The irony of course is that the faster we move with the easy wins, passenger cars, light trucks etc, combined with really accelerating the switch to renewable power. The less pressure there will be to end all fossil fuels.

 

[Clash]

You said non-fossil liquid (hydrocarbon) aviation fuel was a "non starter" and gave what seemed to be humanitarian and energetic efficiency reasons for this opinion, so we do disagree, fundamentally, on the nature of market forces, which IMO are neither globally humanitarian nor globally rational.

"Seemed". Maybe to you, but that wasn't what I either meant or said. You are making an assumption that isn't borne out by either what I said or later explained.

If you want to call me a liar, maybe just come straight out and say so.

 

[ducked]

You said it was a "non starter" and gave what seem to be humanitarian and energetic efficiency reasons for this opinion, so we do disagree, fundamentally, on the nature of market forces.

"Seemed". Maybe to you, but that wasn't what I either meant or said. You are making an assumption that isn't borne out by either what I said or later explained.

If you want to call me a liar, maybe just come straight out and say so.

"It's a non-runner. The land used for bio fuel in the EU could feed 120 million people daily and 2.5% of it is enough to provide the same energy through solar farms. Incredibly wasteful use of energy."

Its not necessary that you be a liar (and certainly not required of me to call you one) if you interpret these words differently.

Its quite sufficient that you are mistaken.

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

The simple reality for boats is that demand for fuel for leisure marine is simply nothing like enough to support a fuel industry on its own. It needs to piggyback on whatever else is using fuel. Obviously right now that's road fuel.

Accepting that road transportation is moving away from fossil fuels, then you have to look to what is going to replace it. At the moment battery electric is winning that race, and there will come a point where market saturation is such that any other solution will face a real uphill battle to get acceptance. And in any case, BEV has a number of user advantages over liquid fuels that once people get used to they will wonder why they would go back to a liquid fuel, even if the pollution issues were not there.
I think it seems very likely that by 2050 the fossil fuel industry will have shrunk dramatically, to the point where supplying marinas with diesel will be a tricky ask as the entire supply chain relies on volume. Without the road transport volume, the economics of the industry simply don't stack up. Certainly not to supply diesel to a marina pump at anything approaching an affordable cost.

So in that case if we say "yes, but battery EV tech isn't going to work on planing motor boats" then we have to look not only for something else that isn't fossil fuels to do the job, but also has a significant other use case to piggy back on. So what other industries do is going to be key.

It's all correct, but fossil fuels use at its best was always around 10% for road transport. Diesel is used in a lot of stuff. 2050 is 25 years away, a lot can change in a month.

BEV is winning only because politics are pushing for it to be the only choice. If we were more democratic, probably the numbers would be a tenth of what they are. (no incentives to buy etc).

Fifteen years ago many thought electric would have taken over, and hydrogen would be the next thing following.
Yet we are still talking about it taking over, and hydrogen seems to not exist anymore....

 

[flaming]

It's all correct, but fossil fuels use at its best was always around 10% for road transport. Diesel is used in a lot of stuff. 2050 is 25 years away, a lot can change in a month.

BEV is winning only because politics are pushing for it to be the only choice. If we were more democratic, probably the numbers would be a tenth of what they are. (no incentives to buy etc).

Fifteen years ago many thought electric would have taken over, and hydrogen would be the next thing following.
Yet we are still talking about it taking over, and hydrogen seems to not exist anymore....

That is a lot lower than the IEA suggest....

"Private cars and vans were responsible for more than 25% of global oil use"
Cars and Vans - Energy System - IEA

Add in commercial road use, and I think you get a lot higher. But the point is still that for leisure marine use to continue, it cannot be out on it's own. It needs something to piggyback on.

And I disagree on the uptake, BEV would be a lot higher if there wasn't so much scaremongering crap pushed about it in the media and online. I've been driving BEV for 4.5 years, and only BEV for 2.5. You wouldn't get me back in an ICE now, purely from a usability point of view. Purchase prices are coming down a lot, parity with petrol expected before 2030. Then we'll really see "democracy" in choice.

Simply from a supply chain practicality point of view, Hydrogen is a non starter. We did the maths several times over on the EV threads in the lounge, but the long and short of it is that as Hydrogen isn't naturally occurring in a way that can be extracted like oil or Gas, you have to make it. And the power required to generate the quantity of hydrogen needed to power the UK's car fleet is 7 times more than would be required to power a fully EV fleet doing the same mileage. The idea that you would choose to use the power to make that quantity of hydrogen instead of simply powering the cars directly using 1/7th of the power is just a total non starter. And that's before you consider the logistical issues surrounding the distribution of such an enormous quantity of Hydrogen.
Because of course electricity is already distributed everywhere. Sure upgrades are required, but it's not starting an entirely new supply chain from scratch.

Sure there will be some usages for it, but as a mass use fuel it does not stack up.

 

[Seastoke]

But if we get rid of diesel trucks ,they will be sold to Africa, Asia .

 

[westernman]

But if we get rid of diesel trucks ,they will be sold to Africa, Asia .

Less and less to Asia. Most of Asia is going electric for busses, taxis, trucks and private cars.

Trucks are taking a bit longer than the others because of the sky high initial purchase cost rather than anything else, but electric trucks for the last mile deliver, garbage collection, street cleaning are making in-roads.

The UK in particular, seems to be slow to electrify transport compared to Asia for everything except private cars.

 

[flaming]

But if we get rid of diesel trucks ,they will be sold to Africa, Asia .

Twas ever thus.... But what gets put in at the top eventually falls out at the bottom. Just takes a while, that's all.

There is this weird assumption by the anti EV lobby that the desire is to replace all the ICE cars/ lorrys/ trucks etc all at once. That's not it at all. The desire is to stop making new ones, so that eventually, over many years, they stop being used as they age out.

 

[Seastoke]

Twas ever thus.... But what gets put in at the top eventually falls out at the bottom. Just takes a while, that's all.

There is this weird assumption by the anti EV lobby that the desire is to replace all the ICE cars/ lorrys/ trucks etc all at once. That's not it at all. The desire is to stop making new ones, so that eventually, over many years, they stop being used as they age out.

But as we take lorries off our roads because emissions, they are sold to Africa.

 

[Clash]

"It's a non-runner. The land used for bio fuel in the EU could feed 120 million people daily and 2.5% of it is enough to provide the same energy through solar farms. Incredibly wasteful use of energy."

Its not necessary that you be a liar (and certainly not required of me to call you one) if you interpret these words differently.

Its quite sufficient that you are mistaken.

Ever hear of opportunity cost? That's the bottom line here. If you can generate more income (be it from food production or solar energy) from a piece of land, then that's what you'll do. And unless the value of bio-diesel sky-rockets for no apparent reason given the readily available alternatives, it's a non-runner. (not a "non-starter" btw)

Don't know why this seems so hard to understand. And it requires no emotions to do so.

And please come back and tell me that this isn't what I meant. I need to check telepathy coverage in my area.

 

[flaming]

But as we take lorries off our roads because emissions, they are sold to Africa.

Where they presumably replace older, more polluting, lorries...

Assuming the number of lorries stays roughly the same, then as you add new lorries to the top, the oldest / most overworked ones fall off the bottom. From a CO2 point of view it doesn't matter at all where the lorries go on their journey from new to scrap. As long as the newest lorries emit less CO2 than the oldest ones, the situation is always improving. And if the newest ones are EV, then all the better.

And if the new lorries are not replacing, but increasing the global fleet, then even better that they are adding less pollution to the world.

And of course if the lorries are driving past your house, or your kids' school, then you probably would like them to chuck less noxious crap out the back too....

I'm genuinely amazed that I've had to take the time to type something so completely obvious.