Ok, I admit that jet skis don’t exactly represent a sizeable demographic within the larger vehicle sector. But they are pretty dirty. They run on inefficient, fossil fuel engines, and they spew things into the water – like unused fuel and toxic chemicals. Swimmers and boaters hate them. And they are pretty noisy.
All of these are excellent reasons to make a jet ski that runs on electricity, which is precisely what ECO Watercraft is doing. They are planning on selling two electric jet ski models by late next year – a luxury version for a little over $30,000 that can go up to 50 mph and a more basic version for a little over $10,000 with speeds up to 40 mph.
Like most electric vehicles, they run silently on lithium ion batteries. The luxury model is supposed to get an hour and a half of battery life when speeding along at full blast, and three hours when lightly cruising; the cheaper version has a shorter battery life. If the device is anything like a cell phone, however, we can’t expect it to really get more than half its rated life.
Nothing exceptional about the technology here, other than the fact that it’s a really solid application for electric power. The only thing I’d worry about if I were riding one would be high voltage electricity and water – two things that don’t get along too well when they mix. But I’m sure that I’d forget my worries once I started darting around the water like the guy in this video.
Via ABG
Hits: 8408
Comments (21)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Johnny Rollerfeet, May 28, 2009
I'm always curious to hear what people think about placeshifting pollution, particularly people who think about these things a lot (as you do), and this jet ski seems like a good jumping off point.
Jet skis are highly inefficient machines simply due to the amount of work they have to do in such a short timespan -- sort of like lawnmowers. To generate enough electricity to make this work probably requires more power than the gas motor that it replaces would use. So somewhere far away from the recreational lake is a power plant providing that power. The global emissions are shifted to another place that is (hopefully) not as sensitive or "needed" as the public waterway, but they still have to happen.
(Nuclear power has smaller emissions with a higher impact density, but we'll need a shift in mindset to see more of that type of power plant built.)
Since most of the country is powered by coal, a significant pollution generator: Does this placeshifting make a difference? and by how much?
A secondary concern is the placeshift location. Power plants attract workers who need housing and food, which requires builders and grocery stores, etc. etc. until eventually a lot of people live right next to the pollution machine. :(
Jet skis are highly inefficient machines simply due to the amount of work they have to do in such a short timespan -- sort of like lawnmowers. To generate enough electricity to make this work probably requires more power than the gas motor that it replaces would use. So somewhere far away from the recreational lake is a power plant providing that power. The global emissions are shifted to another place that is (hopefully) not as sensitive or "needed" as the public waterway, but they still have to happen.
(Nuclear power has smaller emissions with a higher impact density, but we'll need a shift in mindset to see more of that type of power plant built.)
Since most of the country is powered by coal, a significant pollution generator: Does this placeshifting make a difference? and by how much?
A secondary concern is the placeshift location. Power plants attract workers who need housing and food, which requires builders and grocery stores, etc. etc. until eventually a lot of people live right next to the pollution machine. :(
-
- +0
-
-
written by EV, May 28, 2009
o generate enough electricity to make this work probably requires more power than the gas motor that it replaces would use.
It may take more energy, in parts of the process. However, when you look at the overall system, it could still be less polluting. What matters is the overall efficiency of the system. It won't matter if charging the batteries takes 5% more energy if you could go 80 miles on the gasoline to charger the batteries, but only 40 miles if you were using that gasoline to directly run a jet ski.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sam, May 28, 2009
I bet the Navy Seals already have an order in for several units.
-
- +1
-
-
written by glenn, May 28, 2009
I quote my daughter, "Buying a jetski is the best thing Dad has ever done." My heart said yes, my head said NO, not a "stinkpot" as sailors call them. The day when we can enjoy powercraft on water without the smell and pollution will be a great day!
-
- +1
-
-
written by Julian, May 28, 2009
Johnny Rollerfeet, the entire argument for "placeshifting" is invalid. You're placing today's barriers to technological advancements that have a wide potential for growth and improvement in the future.
And the "today" part is arguable too... coal may be the primary source of electricity, but it's not the only one, and renewables keep growing and advancing.
What about locations where electricity comes from clean sources? What's the quarry there for electrical jet skis? There's no pollution in the process, nothing to "placeshift". What about the day when we can finally say 'fossil fuels are no longer our primary energy source'? Would that be the appropiate time to re-invent electrical jet skis?
And the "today" part is arguable too... coal may be the primary source of electricity, but it's not the only one, and renewables keep growing and advancing.
What about locations where electricity comes from clean sources? What's the quarry there for electrical jet skis? There's no pollution in the process, nothing to "placeshift". What about the day when we can finally say 'fossil fuels are no longer our primary energy source'? Would that be the appropiate time to re-invent electrical jet skis?
-
- +0
-
-
written by John Rowell, May 28, 2009
The video tells everything...so silent, just get on and go. You can hear the waves splashing. And you can breathe clean air! Way to go!
-
- +2
-
-
written by HeadTater, May 28, 2009
Let's see, a large battery on salt water. Why not? What could go wrong?
Really, not a bad idea. Small engines like that don't necessarily account for a large proportion of emissions, but they sure are dirty when compared to larger engines. Now if only they could make a decent electric riding lawn mower.
Really, not a bad idea. Small engines like that don't necessarily account for a large proportion of emissions, but they sure are dirty when compared to larger engines. Now if only they could make a decent electric riding lawn mower.
-
- +1
-
-
written by JohnB, May 28, 2009
I would disagree about their impact, but this electric would help take care of this:
Using a personal watercraft or small jet boat (PWC) for four hours is the same as driving a car to the moon! (or emissions from seven hours of operation is the same as driving a low emission vehicle (LEV) 100,000 miles!) So we are cleaning up PWC two-stroke engines. New regulations eliminate the 20% - 30% raw gas and oil emitted out the exhaust system. (Two hours of use produces the same emissions as a 1998 passenger car driven for 130,000 miles.)
Using a personal watercraft or small jet boat (PWC) for four hours is the same as driving a car to the moon! (or emissions from seven hours of operation is the same as driving a low emission vehicle (LEV) 100,000 miles!) So we are cleaning up PWC two-stroke engines. New regulations eliminate the 20% - 30% raw gas and oil emitted out the exhaust system. (Two hours of use produces the same emissions as a 1998 passenger car driven for 130,000 miles.)
-
- +0
-
-
written by T, May 28, 2009
I hate it when someone says EVs are "emission-free". The use phase of the vehicle may be low-emission due to pure electricity consumption, but there are certainly emissions when you look at the manufacturing processes. But overall it probably does have lover emissions than conventional jetskis.
-
- +1
-
-
written by EV, May 28, 2009
Using a personal watercraft or small jet boat (PWC) for four hours is the same as driving a car to the moon!
BS. The moon is about 180,000 thousand miles away. Even at 60MPG that is 3,000 gallons.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Curses, May 28, 2009
Jetskis now are huge problems for coastal sanctuaries and wildlife. Though the electrics would reduce the noise and pollution issues, I'd imagine they'd still pose a collision risk. It might even be worse, since creatures would have less warning that one is coming... Thoughts?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Julian, May 28, 2009
If jetskis are to be banned because their misuse can cause severe problems to coastal sanctuaries and wildlife, they should be banned for that - regardless of their propulsion method.
If jetskis will keep existing, I'd rather have them electric than fossil-burning... in the end, prevention of the harder impact they cause on wildlife would derive from user's education and .gov regulation, not source of energy.
If jetskis will keep existing, I'd rather have them electric than fossil-burning... in the end, prevention of the harder impact they cause on wildlife would derive from user's education and .gov regulation, not source of energy.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Seth, May 31, 2009
I was excited to see the ECO watercraft. And just as Sam mentioned, what a great tool for our Special Forces. Johnny mentioned about nuclear power and the mind set with it. Idk if America has every really recovered from 3 Mile Island. Coupled with Chernoybl, it's hard not to wonder why. The biggest problem that I see with nuclear energy is Terrorism. It would be hard to imagine a country powering vehicles via nuclear power when that could inevitably used by a terrorist.....just my thoughts on that. ECO has a great idea, but the price for use seems like a hard pill to swallow. Until battery technology advances to the point where it can meet basic needs with out seriously inconveniencing Joe Public's every day lifestyle, I doubt products like these will make a serious impact. Best wishes to all.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Roger Brown, June 01, 2009
This is one of the most brain-dead articles I have yet read on this website. If you want to recreate on the water swim, sail, row or paddle. The human race does not need jet skis.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Julian, June 02, 2009
"The human race does not need jet skis". But we do need paddle boats?
We use resources to satisfy needs and also desires, and that's not going to change - nor should it, really. As a species we're waay past the point of just satisfying needs. The point is, in my opinion, to do so (satisfying wants besides needs) in a sustainable way.
We use resources to satisfy needs and also desires, and that's not going to change - nor should it, really. As a species we're waay past the point of just satisfying needs. The point is, in my opinion, to do so (satisfying wants besides needs) in a sustainable way.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Roger Brown, June 02, 2009
"The point is, in my opinion, to do so (satisfying wants besides needs) in a sustainable way."
You are right of course. I was reacting to the statement that lithium ion powered jet skis is a "really solid application for electric power", which does not seem to recognize any limits on human wants. The general attitude of this web site seems to be that "green" technology will allow us to have all the toys we want, world without end amen.
You are right of course. I was reacting to the statement that lithium ion powered jet skis is a "really solid application for electric power", which does not seem to recognize any limits on human wants. The general attitude of this web site seems to be that "green" technology will allow us to have all the toys we want, world without end amen.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lisa G., June 09, 2009
My question would be, how long do they take to recharge, and/or is there a battery swap option and how much does that cost? Will people want them if they aren't going to be able to use them on a given day after 3-4 hours? Many people have a limited amount of time on the water (say, for a weekend trip, for example). Are people going to want to drop the $$$ on one of these to only be able to use it a few hours before having to wait for a recharge?
-
- +0
-
-
written by brian, March 02, 2010
if anyone knows anyone affiliated with this company, could you ask them to get in touch with me, as there website is not up and running yet. Very interested in this product, as we have a jetski business and if this runs as good and for as long as they say it does, we would love to give something like this to the public and help the enviroment as well. my e-mail address is
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
'>
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
thank-you
-
- +0
-
-
written by ｍ３, June 28, 2010
Since silent watercraft may pose a collision risk for sea life around coastal sanctuaries, perhaps some sort of device could be attached under silent electric watercraft in order to warn marine creatures- some sort of noise generator or sonic blaster. Of course if these are too loud and far-reaching, they would stress the animals. But I'm sure something could be thought up. When electric / hybrid cars came out, they actually had to work around the fact that the cars were so quiet- I think they are now built to make enought noise that pedestrians and cyclists can hear them coming from behind.
But overall nice idea especially for hard-hit areas like Florida and Thailand where jetski tourists wreak havoc on nature. Plus these babies into a dock with a solar array roof over it (maybe a mini windmill too), and you'll be in business.
And yes I'm sure the special ops guys will be taking a look at this or proposing specs for a hybrid model (they won't like the idea of being stuck with a dead battery but if there is a way to unfold an emergency solar film array to recharge, that might be very attractive).
But overall nice idea especially for hard-hit areas like Florida and Thailand where jetski tourists wreak havoc on nature. Plus these babies into a dock with a solar array roof over it (maybe a mini windmill too), and you'll be in business.
And yes I'm sure the special ops guys will be taking a look at this or proposing specs for a hybrid model (they won't like the idea of being stuck with a dead battery but if there is a way to unfold an emergency solar film array to recharge, that might be very attractive).
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
MAY 27
"Since silent watercraft may pose a collision risk for sea life around ..."
View all Comments