Is copper coating worth it?

S

samfortescue

New Member
Joined
2 Jan 2008
Messages
22
Location
London
Visit site
I'm looking at using one of the copper-based antifouling treatments for my 20-year old Sadler 34, in the hope that it'll eventually save money as well as time. However, my main motivation is the supposed environmental benefit of not using a standard antifouling product.

Does anybody know if the environmental case for copper really stacks up, or is it just another opportunistic claim?
 
Personally not sure it saves too much money as we've found a large components of annual cost is simply slippng the boat as opposed to applying more bottom paint.
Your environmental rationale makes sense tho', as I suspect it leaches less than paint.
We had it applied to a new boat in 2004 and it worked fine as an inhibitor for 3 years - but we still slipped each year to change anodes and wipe it clean.
Then for some reason year 4 saw a ton of growth - so we gave up on it - applied a barrier coat - and now use regular antifoul.
Good luck
JOHN
 
Copper is poisonous to wildlife, that's why it's used as antifoul. Check out the DEFRA website for a list of recommended environmentally friendly paints, although their antifoul properties are not a high priority. Regular scraping is probably the most envrionmentally friendly approach
 
I Copper-Botted (= Coppercoat) my keel, coincidentally also on a Sadler 34, 10 years ago. It has performed superbly, cruising from the Baltic to the Med. Some years wintered afloat, although the majority were in fresh water, two in salt. I have never done anything to it other than pressure washing when hauling out each year. It has now failed because the keel corrosion protection has had enough, but 10 years is about all I would expect anyway. The coating has saved me hours of difficult and unpleasant work on my knees beneath the boat.

My understanding of the environmental issue is as follows. When I applied the Copperbot I was living in Holland, just as the total ban on copper coatings was being imposed. The reason for the ban was that a river in the east of Holland had suffered a massive environmental problem, involving deaths of fish and other wildlife, coinciding with increased levels of copper in the water, due to another cause. The Dutch government put two and two together and, unsurprisingly, came up with four = ban the use of copper. I understand that subsequent inquiries revealed that the environmental issue had nothing to do with the copper but was due to another release altogether. International Paint sued the Dutch government over the ban but lost, probably because they acted too soon, before the subsequent research had been completed. In the many tests that were done later, no link to wildlife deaths and copper were found. However, I believe that the ban still applies in Holland.

It could be argued that normal antifoul paint is more harmful due to the presence of other substances. IMHO these are now so weak that they must surely be harmless by comparison with the vast volumes of pesticides and other substances that flow into the sea from agriculture and other industrial sources.
 
One of the brands is useless. A friend of a friend had his boat done and it was useless. He took the company to Court, won the case for £5k, but had to take them to court again to get payment.... They were based in Cornwall
 
I declare an interest as I am from Cuprotect. I hope my comments will be seen as setting the facts straight about copper. Several incorrect points in the answers already posted above which I would like to set straight.

Firstly, there is no perfect antifouling. Never was but since the demise of TBT and the gradual reduction in strength due to legislation around the world that becomes more true every year.
20 years ago none of us would have considered copper as the main part of our antifouling but now metallic copper is just as good as pretty much anything else and is a viable alternative to conventional antifoulings. It is still not perfect and, like all antifoulings, can be overwhelmed occasionally.
No antifouling works everywhere all the time. This is why we keep seeing comments about chilli, pepper, antibiotics etc as DIY additives. There is no evidence for chilli although a few people report it works for them. Adding antibiotics must be one of the most environmentally irresponsible things to do.

Copper works better in warm waters than in cold as demonstrated in many independent tests. We have a long term test panel in an independent research station in southern India that is giving superb results. Water is very warm and UV light intensive so the worst conditions for fouling. The control panel quickly grew a heavy layer of barnacles and each year they are covered in vast amounts of plant life.

We do not have a different version of Cuprotect for use in the tropics. It is all the same wherever applied in the world, depite a comment in one of the magazines a year or so ago.
We use a marine grade of copper nickel rather than pure copper as the nickel keeps the release rate of copper down to very low levels. Antifouling performance is the same as for pure copper.

All living organisms need copper to survive but it is poisonous in sufficient doses. Metallic copper is less harmful in the marine environment than the cocktail released by most conventional antifoulings. Also the wash off when boats are lifted is far less toxic. The amount of copper released by our product is about 10% of that released by most conventional antifoulings. Even products using pure copper should release less than a conventional paint.

There is a strong environmental case for using antifoulings rather than just scraping the hull periodically. Species transfer is becoming a major issue where fouling types move around the world on the bottom of hulls and damage local environments. Some countries are starting to take particular interest in the growth on ships when they arrive in port.

Copper is not banned in Holland. It was banned for a short period but the ban was overturned by the Dutch court a couple of years ago.

None of us know what the future for antifoulings will be. Perhaps there is something around the corner that is totally green and works well. At the moment copper is probably the best and greenest option for normal use.

Copper is expensive but it lasts for a long time. It has to be applied well if it is to last so preparation and application are also expensive. It's not for everyone and users are still a small minority but yacht owners are taking the plunge in increasing numbers. Everyone has to look at the pros and cons for their own situation.

Metallic copper is increasingly being used by other groups where longevity and environmental issues are important. We supply to fish farms, oil companies, shipping, power stations etc, all of whom do a great deal of testing before spending their money.
 
Thanks for your useful reply. Nice to hear from someone in the business.

I was living in Holland when the ban was operating and it was still in place when I left in 2003. I understood from conversation with others that it was still in place but I bow to your up-to-date knowledge.

I would be interested to know why your copper-nickel is better than pure copper. I understood that one of the main reasons why one of your competitors went out of business a few years ago was 'contamination of our copper by nickel'. Having looked at quite a few marine heat exchanger tubes made of CuNiFer, I recall finding plenty of fouling in there. Please understand I'm not knocking your product, just interested to know.
 
Copper nickel we use is not better or worse than pure copper for fouling. Heat exchanger tubes use higher levels of nickel (I believe) and the antifouling performance drops off when you get to about 30% nickel.
Nickel makes the alloy harder than pure copper and particularly controls its erosion rate. Pure copper erodes at variable rates with random changes. Copper nickel erodes at a very constant rate.
Higher erosion rates put higher concentrations of copper into the water and legislators start to look more closely.

I'm not sure who the competitor you refer to was and can't comment on their reason. Maybe they were ahead of their time? As I said in my earlier post I believe metallic copper has only been viable from antifouling performance in recent years although people have used it since earlier times for environmental and longevity reasons
 
It's good to hear the facts - we understand where you are coming from.

Confess, though - do you have Cuprotect on your boat? For how long? and what is your expereience of the fouling (in the Solent, from your profile)?
 
Pasarell, again thanks for the insight.
A question please if I may...
What is the best way to treat a prop, we find the hull growth not the issue but the weed gardens on the prop...
Your input would be greatly appreciated (standard bronze prop)
Joe.
 
I do have Cuprotect on my boat. I bought this boat mid 2006 so only applied it last winter. I'm on a trot mooring on Southampton Water and it came out clean apart from slight slime at the end of November.
My experience of fouling in the Solent is it's medium / heavy. Plant primarily but we get our share of shell fouling too. There are too many variables to categorise it absolutely with fresh and salt water mixes, enclosed harbours, strong currents etc.
In previous years I've seen boats moored next to each other with the same antifouling. 1 completely covered in barnacles and the other completely clean!
 
Hi Joe
Props are difficult to keep clean as you know. Normal antifoulings won't stick due to the erosion effect of water flow and the vortexes around the blade tips. Also a thick or rough coating can affect efficiency quite badly.

I think silicon elastomers are ideal for props even though they have no antifouling properties. With the use most yachts get fouling can't grip strongly enough to the surface to prevent being thrown off when the prop is spinning. Best product I've heard of is from New Zealand, called Propspeed. I think they claim 2 years from an application. Professional application only. I have no relationship with them and have not used it myself but some of our installers around the world are their agents. You can see their distributor list at
http://www.propspeed.com/links/pages/distributors.html
Peter
 
FWIW, I did a DIY application of Coppercoat last winter. Jissel lives on a drying mooring, and the bits that stay out of the mud were fine apart from a bit of slime, but the bits that sat in the mud were very badly fouled.

From this, I've concluded that it was effective where it stayed clean, but it couldn't cope with being in Portsmouth Harbour mud. To be fair, the destructions did say it wasn't suitable for such situations so I've no complaints. I didn't know I was going to change berths, but for what I'm saving, I could almost redo the coppercoat every year!

Incidentally, the previous year's AF didn't do noticably better than the muddy coppercoat!
 
How refreshing to have input from the industry (Pasarell) without a heavy product pitch, (by contrast anchor posts!)

We have Coppercoat on our boat, and as we approach our 4th season I can concur with others as to the performance. We get no marine growth, just slime and some weed. Yes we do need to scrub off twice a year (we like a smooth bottom!) but there is no scraping and painting to be done.

We were a little disappointed with the amount of growth on the rudder and the area of the hull at the bow, just under water. To overcome this we have used regular A/F paint. Result? No better.

A friend has Coppercoat which has been professionally applied in a heated shed, I believe the application was then heat cured. Some areas of the boat (keel) have had repairs done which required further application of CC, this done in less than ideal conditions, but it works better! Question is, do these coatings work less well when the epoxy is too hard??
 
Just to add my two penneth, we have International VC17M applied on top of VC Tar (which was applied by the previous owner). I was amazed that the VC17M is basically just a bag of metallic copper dust that you mix into the lovely smelling solvent stuff. It went on lovely and the boat looked gold plated before we launched it!

I had previously been under the impression that only the niche market specialists supplied copper antifoulings, so I was surprised that one of the big names were into it too. And there was no need for professsional application!

I have no news on its efficiency yet, the boat was only relaunched in May 07 and we're leaving it in until the end of this season so will know more then. We do know the boat was as clean as a Whistle when it came out last though, with the same stuff applied. The previous owner re-applied religiously every year, and I guess that's the difference with the professionally applied ones in that it's only supposed to last for a year rather than 5 or 10.
 
There is actually quite a lot of difference between VC17M and the other metallic copper based products.
VC17M is essentially a low strength conventional antifouling boosted with copper powder. It contains the same sort of biocides as in other antifoulings. It was originally developed as a thin film antifouling for use in the Baltic where fouling is quite mild. It was then boosted quite a lot for use elsewhere.
You are right in saying it needs re-applying every year as the biocides will leach out quite quickly leaving just a low concentration of copper. If you applied in May last year I would not expect it to work too well this year if you do not reapply.

In response to Galadriel I see no reason why the epoxies would be much harder, after a period of time, provided temperatures were adequate and mixing ratios correct. Perhaps you should speak to the makers? One of the biggest cause of problems with that type of product is keeping the copper in suspension during application so that it is distributed evenly across the surface
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top