Author Topic: Solar powered catamaran (Read 402 times)

Krusher · « **on:** September 22, 2006, 07:12:48 AM »

I don't have any boating/sailing experience and I wonder if the solar aspect might complicate it a little bit, but it sounds interesting.

Link

"SUN21" is a 14-meter-long catamaran powered exclusively by solar energy. In the fall of 2006, the ship will undertake the first motorized crossing of the Atlantic without using a drop of gasoline. This new world record will demonstrate the great potential of the solar technique for ocean navigation.

more

Rameusb5 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 22, 2006, 07:48:39 AM »

I am a sailor and that's got to be one of the ugliest boats I've ever seen.

The North Atlantic isn't known to be the sunniest place in the world. Hope they make it...

Nilsen · « **Reply #2 on:** September 22, 2006, 07:51:50 AM »

Im glad im not the one polishing that panel after a visit by a 1000 seagulls. ****ty job.

eagl · « **Reply #3 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:09:09 AM »

Without using a drop of gasoline is a marketing ploy... A few thousand gallons of gasoline (equivalent) were expended to create the solar panels it will use, to make the motors that will propel it, and on top of that the composites used in it's construction created environmentally hazardous by-products. Plus the hull cannot be scrapped without creating a hazard due to the persistant nature of glass and carbon fibers.

Ok, it won't burn any MORE gasoline to cross the ocean. But let's be honest about what it really costs in terms of energy resources.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:32:25 AM »

The boat isn't actually too bad. But if it comes across a storm, the solar panels are going to act like a wing and either flip the boat, or rip off.

Halo · « **Reply #5 on:** September 22, 2006, 08:59:14 AM »

Interesting invention, and excellent points by Eagl as to true overall environmental cost. Gee, I wonder if the crossing could be achieved by some other type of non-motor craft such as a ... sailboat?

eagl · « **Reply #6 on:** September 22, 2006, 09:46:12 AM »

Halo,

Better yet, a sailboat made from wood using organic glue and hand-sewn hemp sails and ropes. Oh yea, that went out with the 18th century. We're so much better now...

Krusher · « **Reply #7 on:** September 22, 2006, 10:26:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by eagl
Without using a drop of gasoline is a marketing ploy... A few thousand gallons of gasoline (equivalent) were expended to create the solar panels it will use, to make the motors that will propel it, and on top of that the composites used in it's construction created environmentally hazardous by-products. Plus the hull cannot be scrapped without creating a hazard due to the persistant nature of glass and carbon fibers.

Ok, it won't burn any MORE gasoline to cross the ocean. But let's be honest about what it really costs in terms of energy resources.

The average life of a PV is 20 years or so. Spreading the cost basis over 20 years would make the cost of production using gas or electricity efficient. considering there are thousands of PV's in use already I would imagine profit is their driving force. Theses guys are probably no different but yea it's a marketing ploy. As far as the ecological problems I am under the impression solar panels recycle easily but short of looking it up I could be mistaken.

I still think its an interesting use of PV, but I probably wouldn't want to clean it either

eagl · « **Reply #8 on:** September 22, 2006, 10:35:46 AM »

Why not just harpoon a whale and burn it's oil? There are so many renewable resources out there, but we're not managing them responsibly. Silicone is cheap, but turning silicone and copper into a solar cell takes energy. What we need is to ensure that the energy expended is renewable. Trees take CO2, trap and structure the carbon, and release Oxygen. So how about responsible management of forests as a renewable resource instead of slash/burn? How about not wasting time protesting govt efforts to HARVEST trees from a renewable resource point of view, and focusing efforts on ensuring that existing energy sources aren't wasted? Why waste effort protesting seal hunting when the industry is quite well regulated and insures that seal populations are self-sustaining, and focus protest energy on areas that are not self-sustaining?

Look at Tuna fishing... They used to catch predominantly mature, super-large fish. Now they're harvesting adolescent mid-weight fish. How about monitoring THAT cycle? Why are we wasting energy protesting pulling oil out of the ground in Alaskan territories that won't affect a single endagered or scarce resource, when other areas need our immediate attention?

Oh yea, it's too easy to just protest SOMETHING and get results. Whether it's some owl or 10 million square miles of generic terrain, there is always an easy protest opportunity when the tough environmental calls are being made by the real diplomats.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #9 on:** September 22, 2006, 10:42:55 AM »

Eagl..

I have to imagine the energy gained through the lifecycle of the PV cell is significantly great than the energy used in its construction.

eagl · « **Reply #10 on:** September 22, 2006, 10:55:28 AM »

Rabbit,

I've seen analysis numbers that say otherwise. The energy expended to create a solar cell is so high that a solar cell is "merely" a high capacity battery, mostly useful to transferring energy to hard to reach locations.

Yea if you're in the middle of nowhere a solar cell might be cheaper than running a powerline to your house, but it's really just a battery. You don't get out any more energy than you put in.

Krusher · « **Reply #11 on:** September 22, 2006, 11:07:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by eagl
Why not just harpoon a whale and burn it's oil? There are so many renewable resources out there, but we're not managing them responsibly. Silicone is cheap, but turning silicone and copper into a solar cell takes energy. What we need is to ensure that the energy expended is renewable. Trees take CO2, trap and structure the carbon, and release Oxygen. So how about responsible management of forests as a renewable resource instead of slash/burn? How about not wasting time protesting govt efforts to HARVEST trees from a renewable resource point of view, and focusing efforts on ensuring that existing energy sources aren't wasted? Why waste effort protesting seal hunting when the industry is quite well regulated and insures that seal populations are self-sustaining, and focus protest energy on areas that are not self-sustaining?

Look at Tuna fishing... They used to catch predominantly mature, super-large fish. Now they're harvesting adolescent mid-weight fish. How about monitoring THAT cycle? Why are we wasting energy protesting pulling oil out of the ground in Alaskan territories that won't affect a single endagered or scarce resource, when other areas need our immediate attention?

Oh yea, it's too easy to just protest SOMETHING and get results. Whether it's some owl or 10 million square miles of generic terrain, there is always an easy protest opportunity when the tough environmental calls are being made by the real diplomats.

I take it your not a fan of solar power?

If we're going to pick and chose from a laundry list of renewable energy sources solar has to be on the list. My goal as a home owner, is to eventually have a zero sum home possibly even one that produces surplus power during peak hours.

For the most part though, you're preaching to the choir.

ROC · « **Reply #12 on:** September 22, 2006, 11:11:12 AM »

Quote

We're so much better now...

Well, except for that whole "skurvy" thing....

Krusher · « **Reply #13 on:** September 22, 2006, 11:12:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by eagl
Rabbit,

I've seen analysis numbers that say otherwise. The energy expended to create a solar cell is so high that a solar cell is "merely" a high capacity battery, mostly useful to transferring energy to hard to reach locations.

Yea if you're in the middle of nowhere a solar cell might be cheaper than running a powerline to your house, but it's really just a battery. You don't get out any more energy than you put in.

The efficiency of solar panels is pretty weak, but they have been making progress. I read a recent article about that an increase to 30 percent efficiency is not that far off. Like any other technology it needs maturing.

eagl · « **Reply #14 on:** September 22, 2006, 11:16:07 AM »

Solar power is currently a fine way to transfer energy from one place to another, but the power spend in creating a solar panel is still more than you'll ever get out of that panel. That means that solar energy makes real sense only in situations where it is prohibitively expensive to run power or gas lines. Outer space and far outback locations are obvious examples of where solar energy makes sense. In the middle of a modern city though, solar energy makes no real economic or environmental sense at all.

As far as crossing an ocean on solar power alone, it just doesn't make sense. You can use less energy crossing the ocean using a diesel engine, and even less using wind power (sails). Solar power is still inefficient enough to make this little more than a marketing trick or political statement.

Not that I'm discouraging solar power research, but current solar panels are still little more than shiny batteries useful for transferring energy from one location (the factory) to another (the boat in the middle of the ocean).