Your footprint

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

It would be interesting to compare the energy cost of a suit of sails and the running rigging of a sail boat against the cost of fuel for a similar sized powerboat. Unfortunately I don't think it can be done since gasoline is a commodity in a way that sails and rigging are not. To include the nonconsumable components, hull rigging, etc) of sail and powerboats in a measure of their relative impact on the environment would most likely be a wash. If I had to gamble on the suibject I would wager that sailboats are far more efficient methods of leasure travel than powerboats. Ultimately if one was planning to stay as green as possible he would choose a used boat over building new, choosing to dilute the impoact of the original build. But the original question, as poorly considered as it was, had to do with the pollution of gasoline engines vs diesel and included sailboats in the example.

There was some discussion on running cost comparison here.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ison-5152.html

But be sure to compare similar style of boat's eg a 50 ft performance sailing cat with a 50 ft light and low powered powercat,

or a 78 ft performance mono yacht with something like Dashew's FPB.

SetSail.com - the serious cruising sailor's website

Dave

[coot]

Originally Posted by Capct

"The real reason diesels pollute more soot is that EPA has not forced them to meet the stricter standards facing gasoline engines. The soot standard for diesel cars under EPA's Tier 1 regulation is at least ten times the average emission from a gasoline car.

My understanding is that a gasoline powered boat is not normally equipped with the same emission control equipment as a car. For example, there is no catalytic converter.

If that is correct, then it doesn't make sense to use the EPA standards for cars as a reasonable comparison for boats. You might, however, be able to use the pollution emissions of a gasoline powered car built in 1970 as a proxy for a gasoline powered boat.

Perhaps you could quantify your claims a little more concretely. Could you show us the emissions from both a gasoline and diesel boat engine, giving types and amounts of pollutants emitted?

[CSY Man]

My understanding is that a gasoline powered boat is not normally equipped with the same emission control equipment as a car. For example, there is no catalytic converter.

Yeah that is true:
The cheap powerboats have converted automotive V-8 and V-6 gasoline engines with carburators.
Not only do they burn gas like it was going out of style, but they also pump out "raw" emissions like cars did in the 70s.
Check the foot print of one of them gas-hogs compared to a sailboat with an auxilliary diesel...

Say the sailboat guy goes 500 miles on 50 gallons of diesel if he motors all the way.
If he sails most of the time he is using 10 gallons or less.

The powerboat guy with the carburated gas engines is burning 500 gallons on the same trip.

So, uh who is polluting 10 times more...?

[Thermal]

Every time I cross paths with a powerboat on the ocean here, I always smell diesel exhaust, so I wonder how do they get their "clean burning gas engines" to smell like that??? I know it's not my engine that I'm smelling: I shut it down as soon as I was out of the slip.

[CSY Man]

Every time I cross paths with a powerboat on the ocean here, I always smell diesel exhaust, so I wonder how do they get their "clean burning gas engines" to smell like that???

More than half of them powerboats are diesels, but still quite a few gas powered inboard Wellcrafts and other gas hogs are out there. (Including Outboards)
I have been on a few myself and have heard the sucking sound of the carburator turning gasoline into wake and bubbles.

[Pura Vida]

Some fday I'm goming to run speel chucker on my posts.

Dave, I agree completely and that is part of my point. There are too many styles of recreational boats to make a 'simple' comparison based on the type of fuel they use. I've got a buddy with a Cape Dory 25 with a very old 2 stroke that pollutes horribly when it runs, which is never. The guy sails it everywhere, literally. He beats me hands down. Another buddy owns a new Scarrab and he burns more fuel putting it on the trailer than I will in a year. It will be interesting to see how your boat turns out. It sounds like a good idea.

pv

[Capct]

Originally Posted by [URL="http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/../members/capct.html"

Capct[/URL]]Well if diesel overall puts out 10 times the overall pollution then your fifty gallons of diesel turns into 500 gallons of equatable emissions...
...So your answer is the diesel is putting out more crap....hands down

Unless you can substantiate the claim, that’s a pretty big “IF” ...

[Capct]

Originally Posted by Capct

Unless you can substantiate the claim, that’s a pretty big “IF” ...

I didnt post this...
I posted the quote
which has also been deleted


which one of you admin guys ....altered my post after breaking into my account

[ssullivan]

As others said, pollution is a factor of how *MUCH* fuel you burn as well as how "clean" the fuel is.

Twin 350's certainly burn more than 10x the fuel my little 4 cylinder Perkins 4-108 does in the same distance on my non-planing displacement hull. So... I'd have to say even IF (and that's still an if) the diesel is 10x more polluting, I'm using probably less than 25% of it, making the boat with the twin gas powered 350's more of a polluter.

Pretty simple stuff, really.

This honest assessment is coming from a current rag bagger who is trading it all in for a stinkpot. I'm graduating up to a 125hp or so diesel, which I think is a 6 cyl? Still less pollution than a planing powerboat with twin 350's.

[Capct]

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0233.html
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Sloan-School-of-Management/15-023JSpring-2004/1DB40A44-3256-4AB5-8EB4-C48C73859491/0/lec12.pdf
Both the above references cite the fact that diesel engines produce 25-400 times more soot per kilometer/mile
The diesel is still far outstripping a gas engine for PM and soot per mile. This explain why 50% of California’s smog is caused by less than 10% of the vehicles…
Again this isnt about your fuel efficiencies it is about the fuels deficiencies which is pollution on a big scale

I know its tough for some to swallow but diesels are dirty little buggers , and the powers that be are likely doing the right thing by phasing in new emission rules.

[Pura Vida]

It is still a matter of weight ratios. A one ounce bird can't carry a one pound coconut.

[cferger]

according to Why Biodiesel?

• Biodiesel used in a 20 percent blend with petroleum diesel and a catalytic converter will cut air pollution. Particulate matter is reduced 31 percent, carbon monoxide by 21 percent and total hydrocarbons by 47 percent. Biodiesel used in a blend will also reduce sulfur emissions and aromatics. Using 100% biodiesel further reduces emissions and carcinogenic compounds.

what i have not been able to find is data comparing biodiesel emissions vs gasoline emissions.

[Alan Wheeler]

Cptct, that link can also be argued against. Firstly, this paper is not scientific fact. It is a view, a consideration, a possibility. 25-400% is a very wide range. They are obviously considering a range of vehicles and their size and thier age etc etc. So just what are they comparing that figure too in the petrol versions. New cars ONLY???
The other issue is the type of pollution, being Co2 and Carbon particles and how they affect our climate. Carbon particles are heavy and eventually fall back to the ground. Especially in the first rain. They will not cause the same "greenhouse" effect that we get with a gas like Co2.
As I said earlier, it's all about the difference of 1ton of feathers and 1ton of lead. It's still the same in weight, just the quanitity is different. In otherwords, see what the total emission output is once you have done the same work. The outputs maybe made up of different components, but the outputs quantities will be similar and just as noxiouse.

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by Pura Vida

It is still a matter of weight ratios. A one ounce bird can't carry a one pound coconut.

African or European?

[senormechanico]

"Both the above references cite the fact that diesel engines produce 25-400 times more soot per kilometer/mile
The diesel is still far outstripping a gas engine for PM and soot per mile. This explain why 50% of California’s smog is caused by less than 10% of the vehicles…"

I don't agree with that. Soot being a particulate, falls to the ground very quickly. Ever watch what happens to the exhaust from a dump truck?