Build/Conversion
1978 Cygnus GM21 conversion to all electric and solar power. It makes more sense to concentrate on conversions over new builds as there are so many existing boats and hulls that lend themselves to an electric conversion. The Cygnus 21 is a fairly substantial boat for its size but, in reality, not much bigger than an open dinghy. I compare it as being the Grey Fergie of the fishing industry. A small, reliable, manageable and solid workhorse. I run a one man company called Sandisland Workshop Ltd where I do boat refits and repairs.
This evolved throughout 40 years of Scallop diving, Lobster, crab and prawn fishing, a boat building apprenticeship and many yacht and fishing boat refits. The decision to convert a boat to all electric grew over a couple of years. For a long time I have been fascinated or drawn to the concept of generating energy with natural resources. 27 years ago my house was powered by a wind turbine and now 25% of all the power we use including 20,000 miles a year between the car and the van is all powered by our own solar.
Yes, there are flaws in this and yes, I am hypocritical with other parts of my life. My neighbour and ex fishing partner has been operating a 5m open boat on all electric for about 7 years now using wind and solar to keep it going. Observing the capability of his boat and the use he was getting was sinking in with me. We often discussed the possibility of scaling the idea up to a commercially viable scale.
When I say commercially viable, (because the initial investment is so high), I really mean commercially capable. The stumbling blocks for me were purely financial. The tech which was, and still is improving rapidly was edging towards financial reach. The possibility of applying for funding was something I had zero experience of but believed to be only worth the effort and time you put in to getting it. I always thought, for the masses, the phrase “net zero” would be better suited attached to funding applications rather than the green washing positive position it masquerades over. I was watching battery tech improving along with costs that were dropping for both the batteries and the motors. I was also watching no active attempt within the fishing industry to adopt, encourage or investigate the huge developments in no emission vessels that are happening throughout the leisure industry, throughout Europe and the rest of the world. (Even ridiculously poor African countries have fishing boats that don`t burn fuel.)
November 21 I was sitting waiting for things to develop armed with:-
- The facilities to build a capable all electric fishing boat
- The desire to build a capable all electric fishing boat
- The capability to build a capable all electric fishing boat
And worst of all with absolutely all of my life’s savings the money to build a capable all electric fishing boat, I was starting to think about committing to a financially stupid act.
The Lorna Jane has had a full back to hull refit.
At this stage the volume and weight of the batteries to be installed was unknown or at best, a guess along with a question mark over the stability and ballast required to safely put 140kg of pv panels 2.4m above the waterline. Over 40 years of working on various sizes of boats has given me what I think is a trustworthy inbuilt gyrocompass of how stable or well-balanced a boat is. It is an experienced judgement and feeling not a formula. I trust this over the generic protocol that is applied to all vessels under 15m. Throughout the whole refit everything has been done primarily with my gut feeling. With so many big unknowns and the fear and financial ruin of the boat not being compliant, the deck was raised by 70mm to ensure the scuppers had enough clearance to pass the coding and make a comfortable space for the batteries. This meant that my licence tonnage was changed which created yet another paperwork exercise and more expense. To raise the deck the wheelhouse had to be removed which ended up with it being replaced. This was mostly to design it to accommodate the Fischer panda control box and the inverter charger system as well as a generous amount of electronics for a small vessel.
As I was speculating and guessing the whole concept from the start I opted for the pod drive as I did not know what battery capacity or volume would be needed. There is plenty data and loads of sales advice on motor power required, battery capacity and potential range but I could not take the chance on being under powered or under ranged. This meant filling the engine room space (now battery room ) with batteries. The boat is only 21 ft so that did not leave much room for the drive motor and shaft or the hydraulics and below deck cabling, let alone access. I chose the Pod drive primarily for space but also the original propeller and rudder lay out was pretty rubbish. In most cases a conventional rudder and shaft would make installation straight forward and a lot cheaper. Given a boat with a suitable layout, that has enough space and deck height to fit batteries and a motor, any half decent boatyard could do the physical electric conversions in 2/3 weeks. The bureaucratic side and availability of parts might take a wee bit longer to establish. I am happy to talk through my experiences with any boatyard. The main Pod drive advantages are, better efficiency, no cooling of motor required, no hull penetrations so a completely dry and clean battery room, precise accurate astern manoeuvrability. The main disadvantages are vulnerability, as in weed, rope or twine could potentially damage the seals to the main motor. With no rudder, the boat only steers under power, similar to an outboard.
As it turns out the pod was probably the correct decision for this size of boat. It is arguably more efficient than a shaft drive with constant water cooling and there is no through hull shaft or skin fittings. The pod is connected to the steering ram it offers very good, powered, manoeuvrability. As there is no rudder it does not glide like a conventional vessel. All in though it is every bit or more controllable compared to what I have been used to. The next size up of boat say 24ft would allow room for a good battery capacity and the motor to be mounted more conventionally to the existing shaft, leaving the original stern gear intact. This would be a huge saving in time and costs. The cable routing and wiring is relatively straight forward but there is a lot of it.
Once the batteries, pod and control gear was all installed the rest was a standard fit out which is familiar ground.
The batteries are charged by a epropulsion chargers which come with a 13amp household plug. This will go most of the way to charging to full overnight. The 2 chargers have been hardwired to a 32Amp shore power socket on the boat. This gives the option with adaptor plugs to charge at 32 or 16 amp (both are standard shore power blue plugs)
Above a 48v system is regarded as lethal and must adhere to stricter fit out regulations. This is achievable but was not necessary for my application. 48v will allow up to a 20kw motor. I can confirm the sales chat that is this is easily equivalent to a 40hp diesel in useable power.
Hardware
Epropulsion E175 batteries 9kw 48v x 5. Individually 50cm × 51.5cm × 26 cm and weigh 87kg. Total 50 x 51.5 x 1030 and 430kg. Lithium Iron Phosphate is currently the safest battery chemistry available. The batteries are off the shelf supplied in a steel casing. They have multiple sensors for high/low temperature, over and under voltage and will shut themselves down to protect themselves. They also can be switched off on the battery so the terminals are not live which is really useful for working around them. 2 epropulsion mains chargers rated at 16amp each are used on a standard 16amp shore power plug or with a 32 amp adaptor if 32amps is available.
Electric powered hydraulics designed Josh Masters at Lightning Craft. Provided a 10kw Engiro air cooled motor de-rated to 4kw with control gear to provide variable 3 speed, on/off and emergency stop to the spencer carter CL2 slave hauler.
Fischer panda Aziprop 20kw 1200rpm pod drive. The pod comes with a control box to invert the voltage from 48vdc to 48vac 3 phase. This allows the 6 x 70mm2 cabling to carry the amps needed to power the motor. There is also dual steering controls and a performance read out to monitor revs, power used, time to go at current consumption and solar or charge input.
JA solar 460w bifacial PV x 4 from Bimble solar provide a potential 1.8kw of charging input. Bifacial panels will also charge from the under or backside so are ideally suited to boat applications where there is significant reflected light from the sea.
Standard electronics are powered by a 48DC/12DC converter charger to a 12v lead acid battery creating a familiar 12 volt domestic system on the vessel. Electronics and fittings powered from the 12v supply include Lowrance HDS side scan, Olex dual screen, Navitron 921 pilot, Furuno FCV 588, Furuno GP-32, Nasa electromagnetic speed log, DSC VHF with hailer as well as battery room, wheelhouse, deck, spot and spreader lights.
MCA
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency are responsible (and I believe, at times potentially liable) for ensuring commercial vessels go to sea safely. For some time now, within the fishing industry there has been what is undoubtably seen as a failed working relationship between the under 15 fishing fleet and the MCA. The surveyors and policy makers often command little trust or respect from the fishermen whose safety they are trying to manage. Equally, it would not be unusual or hard to hear of examples where surveyors or policy makers have little respect for the fishermen’s experience or judgement. Clearly both sides of this debate must be addressed with urgency. At a recent workshops in Glasgow and Campbeltown, arranged by CFT and FIS discussing the fishing industries route to net zero every single speaker flagged the MCA as being a major hurdle to any new technology. To proceed with converting a fishing vessel to all electric it would have to be MCA sanctioned and have full approval as well as complying with all relevant and standard coding. From the offset the enormity of single handily trying to present a new propulsion concept to the already hugely detailed MGN and MSN system was kind of off putting to say the least. Initially, the MCA felt like a huge obstacle or barrier to the whole project. The MCA system loves documents, handbooks and peer reviewed studies.
This picture is taken from an MCA exam booklet and caricatures the level of detail expected. I find this quite sinister.
I despise documents, handbooks and peer reviewed studies! This is not because they are not necessarily informative or relevant but because I physically cannot read them. My brain has some kind of attention disorder that will not process document or instruction style information. I can read the words, I just cannot turn them into anything understandable or that makes sense. This is not specifically my problem. Many fishermen, like me, are school or education system failures. Fishing allowed me in with no qualifications and let me develop a set of life and industrial skills that an education system could not do. Unfortunately those skills do not include reading and understanding document speak.
The project was presented to MCA head office in Southampton and a meeting with the heads of several different departments attended as well as Surveyors from our local branch in Glasgow. My first ever hosted teams meeting found me also hosting my first ever covid throat and headache. After nearly an hour of presentation and concept discussion I had managed to present some kind of format, though to me I felt very amateur. Two points I managed to emphasis were the timing deadline enforced by the funding and that the MCA should consider not charging for survey and inspection costs. I was given a list of required submissions including data sheets, commissioned drawings, structural modifications, survey plan with dates, etc. etc. Little assistance, guidance or encouragement was forthcoming early on. I was expected to piece together all the relevant documents, gap assessments and hazard logs and to understand or be familiar with the process and all MGN/MSNs. I cannot read a document of any form without glazing over somewhere between 3 and 5 seconds in. Again, my bloody mindedness came to the rescue. The main component suppliers were very helpful, Epropulsion, fischer panda and lightning craft went out their way to provide what was needed. The local MCA office made up a spread sheet to make the gap assessment process possible. Providing detailed drawings really irritated me, having to contract a Naval architect to do scale drawings of the vessel wasted more of everyone’s time. Along with the hundreds of other pages of documents supplied they will be sitting in a file somewhere never to be looked at again. I would even question how well they were looked at in the first place. I did the hatch and skeg drawings myself which took nearly as long to do as it took to make the hatches and the skeg themselves and then they ended up being made different to the drawings anyway. All this I felt was no real help to anyone and was using up time which I did not have if I was to reach the funding deadline. Whilst I was providing documents, researching and making up drawings nothing was progressing on the boat. The problem for me is the system does not really have a place for people like me or the many other people like me (capable, honest and defiant). I appreciate, understand and accept that the build should be monitored and inspected. In my mind the early part of this project would have been better for everyone as more of a guidance based process. Any government body that has written a protocol for making a cup of Tea that directs the tea maker to “place the cup on the counter open side up” really needs to re-evaluate big time!
As the project was progressing it became clear I was not going to go away. I think, myself and the surveyor tasked with dealing with this project through time, have developed a level of trust and respect for each other and therefore a positive and constructive working relationship. This was noticeable for me after an unofficial visit and more so after the out of water inspection. Each meeting in person gave us both a better understanding of what was required and was beneficial to the process. We started taking advice from each other and ultimately together, we have achieved a pretty remarkable end product. Towards the later stages the MCA Glasgow office made every effort to get the boat coded in time for the funding to be valid. As a summary I can thank the Local MCA office for their support in gaining certification and state that the electric conversion side of getting certification after a disjointed start was approached with in a positive and professional manner.
The blanket coding system for all under 15m vessels does raise many question marks and concerns that affect different boat owners in different ways. Prominent problems are inconsistency in surveyors, generic rules to all vessels regardless of size, weight, displacement and individual requirements. Every fisherman has their own examples of ludicrous, irrational or impractical codes that they have to comply with to pass the coding. I doubt that any fisherman has ever said “oh good the MCA are coming today, they will give me some good advice and make sure I`m safe”. Some of the suggestions put forward during my coding, things I hadn`t noticed were good improvements that have been happily adopted. Some were what I as the person at risk sees as impractical or even dangerous. The disrespect generates from the fishermen being stubborn and the surveyor having no practical fishing or even boating experience. Respect and cooperation gets lost when there is no leeway or discussion option over individual vessels quirks. Parts of the system must be changed to guidance based with the ability to appeal to a board of surveyors. For example, I am 5`5” to lift a full fish box over 1m high rails is a far greater risk to me than falling over board with 750mm rails. Another example: The scuppers on an Offshore 32 have been that size and height above the waterline for 30 years without the vessel coming to grief, why are they now deemed unfit for service?
Would this work? The surveyor issues the guidance, the boat owner acknowledges the guidance, the crew discuss the guidance with the skipper, the boat owner and the surveyor. The skipper accepts responsibility.
