Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 19-05-2007, 09:23   #1
Registered User
 
Capct's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 122
Your footprint

Dirty or clean

There seems to be a plethera of Eco-mongers on this board so I thought I would ask the big question.

what do you burn ?
gas or diesel?
If you burn gas your footprint is relatively clean ....if you burn diesel .....well thats really bad.Unlike global warming's greenhouse gases diesel soot,particulate , oxides of Nitrogen and oxides of sulpher are really NASTY pollutants

comments?

Diesel is around 10 times as dirty as gasoline.So even if you rag boaters use your motor 25% of the time...you are still putting 2.5 times the crap into the air that a gas engine does.
I used 25% to illustrate the point more.The actual percentage of time a sailboat spends under sail vs time under power is likely much higher probably closer to 50%
In the Pacific NW the number is closer to 75%

The real bad polluters are the twin turbo diesel motor yachts.....those babies put out 20 times the crap that comperable gassers do.New technology will allow diesels to become cleaner but in the meantime all those old ones that will run for years

We banned two strokes over 9.9 HP in most jurisdictions should we ban diesels in boats under 50 feet?

opinions?
__________________

__________________
Capct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2007, 11:27   #2
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,901
Diesel puts out about 10% of the CO of a gas engine. I'd rather breathe behind a diesel the die behind a gasser.

Oh, and I think your trolling for some self gratifying purpose.
__________________

__________________
never monday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2007, 14:35   #3
Senior Cruiser
 
Alan Wheeler's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Marlborough Sounds. New Zealand
Boat: Hartley Tahitian 45ft. Leisure Lady
Posts: 8,038
Images: 102
Capct, there a few discrepencies in your arguments. Yes Diesel produces "coarse" carbon particulates. Sorry, but so does Gasoline. They are much finer. However, older petrol engines or badly tuned ones, produce major amounts of carbon particles as well. Now add to that. Gasoline has a few very noxoiuse outputs that Diesel does not. One is carbon monoxide. Much more deadly than carbon dioxide. To get the same power, Diesel burns less fuel and therefore, has less noxoiuse output than petrol. Especially under large load activity, such as a hard working boat or a heavey truck.
Turbo engines are even better at getting rid of particulates, simply because the more air you get into the engine, the better the fuel is burn't. The better the burn, the less dirty carbon. The biggest issue diesel has, especially turbo'd engines, is the operator. Most operators know the boats hull speed as a "on paper No." and expect there boat to do that speed adn they will open the throttle till it does, not realise that paper speed is not actual. Son engines are overworked. Now add to that the dirty hull. Operators need to understand the difference of when there engine is working at it's best and at it's hardest. If they then reduce speed to "best" they will significantly reduce fuel usage and of course, emission. An operator then becomes a true "skipper".
__________________
Wheels

For God so loved the world..........He didn't send a committee.
Alan Wheeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2007, 16:07   #4
Registered User
 
NoTies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vanuatu
Boat: Whiting 29' extended "Nightcap"
Posts: 1,378
Images: 2
My diesel burns 220ml (about a cup) of diesel for every nautical mile at cruising revs. 30' long and 4.5 ton. How does that compare for economy with all those cylinders in your boat sitting on all that highly volatile gas?
__________________
Pete

Positively, socially deviant.
NoTies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2007, 18:07   #5
Senior Cruiser
 
Alan Wheeler's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Marlborough Sounds. New Zealand
Boat: Hartley Tahitian 45ft. Leisure Lady
Posts: 8,038
Images: 102
Hehe, Pete, he'd burn that much just starting it. :-)
__________________
Wheels

For God so loved the world..........He didn't send a committee.
Alan Wheeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2007, 18:16   #6
Registered User
 
Capct's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 122
Part of the myth is diesel is safer to breathe

read this :

Life of Soot: Diesel Pollution, Emissions, and Health Effects



A little diesel puts out TEN TIMES the pollution than that of a gas engine.We all know a diesel is a more economical choice ....better range etc ...the question is not how much money you can save versus me...or how far I can go versus you...or how volitile the fuel is between the two or who produces more green house gasses

It is how badly they pollute....

like a 2 stroke .....
If you ban 2 strokes over 9.9 HP because they do not fully combust the fuel in every stroke and then empty that unburned fuel directly into the water they are running in.
Wouldnt you consider banning diesels for doing the same thing to the atmosphere?
__________________
Capct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2007, 18:47   #7
Registered User
 
NoTies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vanuatu
Boat: Whiting 29' extended "Nightcap"
Posts: 1,378
Images: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capct
Dirty or clean


Diesel is around 10 times as dirty as gasoline.So even if you rag boaters use your motor 25% of the time...you are still putting 2.5 times the crap into the air that a gas engine does.
I used 25% to illustrate the point more.The actual percentage of time a sailboat spends under sail vs time under power is likely much higher probably closer to 50%
In the Pacific NW the number is closer to 75%

?
????? What tree of knowledge did you pull these spurious facts from?
Last year I sailed over 2500 miles and put 86 hours on my engine. I burnt around 27 gallons of diesel and consider this to be much higher than average motoring for a number of reasons. Next cruise is to Fiji, around 1100 miles and if weather conditions are good I would be unhappy if I used the engine for more than 5 hours. So, worst case scenario from last year is 8 teaspoonfuls of diesel per NM and best case for next year is one teaspoonful per NM. How do these facts grab you? Most stinkpotters would use my entire fuel consumption to Fiji just getting to the fuel dock from the marina.
__________________
Pete

Positively, socially deviant.
NoTies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2007, 19:49   #8
Senior Cruiser
 
maxingout's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Pierce, Phoenix
Boat: Privilege 39 Catamaran, Exit Only
Posts: 2,606
Interesting discussion of carbon footprint.

In my eleven year circumnavigation, I used 7.7 gallons of diesel fuel a week on average. I have two diesel engines, and generally use only one engine at a time. Most of that fuel was used in windless places like the western and central Mediterranean and in the doldrums. I also motored through high pressure areas around the world.

I also used fuel to charge my batteries and run my refrigeration until I got Aerogen wind generators.

One of my friends sailed from Capetown to New Zealand in a nine month voyage, and the fuel that he put in his tanks in Capetown kept him going all the way to New Zealand.

Small diesels are awesome. Sailors have a very small carbon footprint.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I talked to one of the large power yacts here in our marina, and he told me that when he fuels up, he puts $20,000 of fuel on board. Our marina has lots of sport fisherman and large cabin cruisers that have engines that use 20 -30 -40 plus gallons of fuel an hour.

If you are serious about having a small carbon footprint, you should sell your car, disconnect yourself from the power grid, raise your own food manually, and go vegetarian.

It's not impossible to have an infintessimally small carbon foot print. In the Arabian desert, I have seen lots of bedouins who live in camel hair tents, ride camels, and tend their flocks in the desert. Carbon foot print zero.

I don't believe people are really serious about their carbon foot print. They point at easy targets like gas guzzling vehicles, but their lifestyle is a carbon disaster area.

As far as I am concerned, you earn your right to talk about carbon footprint by the way you live. Those of you out there that aren't hooked up to the power grid, who don't drive a vehicle, and who raise their own food, they can give me a lecture any time about carbon footprints and pollution. Up to now, I have not met anyone in the developed world who is qualified to give a lecture. But I have met plenty of people in hundreds of places in the third world where they have a nearly zero carbon footprint.

So I salute you cruisers out there with your small diesels. You are making the world a better place with your ecofriendly lifestyle.

Cheers,
__________________
Dave -Sailing Vessel Exit Only

http://SailingUNI.com
http://maxingout.com
http://PositiveThinkingSailor.com
maxingout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2007, 21:52   #9
Senior Cruiser
 
Alan Wheeler's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Marlborough Sounds. New Zealand
Boat: Hartley Tahitian 45ft. Leisure Lady
Posts: 8,038
Images: 102
Quote:
A little diesel puts out TEN TIMES the pollution than that of a gas engine.
This is simply not true. It's like the old catch question, what's heavier, a ton of feathers or a ton of lead? Both are the same, it's just that they are different.

You need to look at it this way. Petrol and Diesel come from the same base product. Hydrocarbon. For every gallon of fuel (Gasoline and Diesel) you burn, you get X amount of noxouse emissions. That "X" is a result of the quanitity of energy (calorific quantity) that was in the Gallon of fuel. The main difference between Diesel and Gasoline is that Gasoline is more volatile than Diesel. But energy wise, there is very little difference. As I said earlier, the two fuels produce ruffly the same emission quantity, but slightly different types. As in feathers and lead. Different, but the same.
Two stroke was banned for a very different reason. It is not the incompleate fuel burn. Fuel does compleatly burn. It is the lubricatign oil that is the problem. It is the oil that ends up on the water, NOT the fuel.
Personaly, I feel the problem could have been solved by banning mineral based two stroke oils. Allowing full synthetics on the market only. These full synthetic oils can be run at 100:1 mixes, and do not produce smoke nor the oil on the water.
__________________
Wheels

For God so loved the world..........He didn't send a committee.
Alan Wheeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2007, 23:34   #10
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Whangaparaoa,NZ
Boat: 63 ft John Spencer Schooner
Posts: 956
Like you Pete,I filled my 20 gall tank in Ft lauderdale, got back to NZ with half a tank left.
__________________
dana-tenacity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2007, 00:04   #11
Registered User
 
Capct's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 122
"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. But under the new Tier 2 regulations, which will phase in between 2004 and 2009, diesels will finally have to meet the same strict standard as gasoline cars. Diesel cleanup technology has come a long way. From diesel particulate traps to oxidation catalysts, there are now various methods of catching or converting much of diesel pollution before it escapes the tailpipe.2 Starting in 2009, all diesel light trucks and cars will have to meet the same tailpipe standards as gasoline vehicles."

You should read the article that I linked to Allen [the above is an excerpt]
a quick google search will verify the nasty nature of diesel emissions.

"One of the reasons conventional diesel engines release more soot than their conventional gasoline counterparts has to do with the way fuel is injected and ignited: on gas engines, fuel is injected during the intake stroke and ignited with a spark; on diesels, fuel is injected during the compression stroke, and the fuel ignites spontaneously from the pressure. As a result, gas engines have two emissions advantages: The ignition process is more carefully controlled and the air and fuel are more thoroughly mixed before ignition occurs, thereby reducing the amount of unburned fuel.
In a conventional diesel, fuel is injected late in the cycle and the air is not as well mixed as in a gasoline engine. As a result of this less homogeneously mixed fuel and air, there are fuel-dense pockets in the combustion chamber. The consequence is that diesel engine exhaust contains incompletely burned fuel in the form of soot"





__________________
Capct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2007, 00:17   #12
Registered User
 
NoTies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vanuatu
Boat: Whiting 29' extended "Nightcap"
Posts: 1,378
Images: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capct
"One of the reasons conventional diesel engines release more soot than their conventional gasoline counterparts has to do with the way fuel is injected and ignited: on gas engines, fuel is injected during the intake stroke and ignited with a spark; on diesels, fuel is injected during the compression stroke, and the fuel ignites spontaneously from the pressure. As a result, gas engines have two emissions advantages: The ignition process is more carefully controlled and the air and fuel are more thoroughly mixed before ignition occurs, thereby reducing the amount of unburned fuel.
In a conventional diesel, fuel is injected late in the cycle and the air is not as well mixed as in a gasoline engine. As a result of this less homogeneously mixed fuel and air, there are fuel-dense pockets in the combustion chamber. The consequence is that diesel engine exhaust contains incompletely burned fuel in the form of soot"




If you had a little knowledge yourself (rather than relying on Google for your info) you would realise what a crock of s*^t this statement is. Certainly reduces the credibility of your source. You are comparing apples with oranges and nowhere does it address the fact that diesel engines are more efficient (and that's with a less refined fuel) than gas engines. I can't remember the thermal efficiency figures from my apprenticeship days but diesel is way ahead in thermal efficiency and you also have to take into account the extra refining (and consequently larger carbon footprint) that gas requires.
You have very big balls for a troll (which I admire) but to maintain your status you need to review your google searches a little more or expand your own knowledge of the subject otherwise your credibility will quickly reach zero.
__________________
Pete

Positively, socially deviant.
NoTies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2007, 03:14   #13
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,580
Images: 240
As has been implied, any useful comparison should compare the complete climate forcing potential, cost, & health footprints of the various available fuel sources. These comparisons should be based upon the best available technology, for producing & utilizing each fuel.

I think, such a “fair” comparison will prove quite complicated.

Diesel fuel creates energy more efficiently than gasoline, due to its higher energy density.
One gallon of diesel fuel contains approximately 147,000 BTU
One gallon of gasoline contains about 125,000 BTU.
(BTU = British Thermal Unit, a standard unit of energy, equivalent to 1055 Joules.)

The position that the Union of Concerned Scientists (see the link Capct provided), is not without merit, and has been supported, at least in part, by independent research.
I haven’t studied the subject, and have no opinion.

”Although diesel cars obtain 25 to 35 percent better mileage and emit less carbon dioxide than similar gasoline cars, they can emit 25 to 400 times more mass of particulate black carbon and associated organic matter ("soot") per kilometer [mile]. The warming due to soot may more than offset the cooling due to reduced carbon dioxide emissions over several decades, according to Mark Z. Jacobson, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University...”
See the:
American Geophysical Union/Stanford University/National Science Foundation Joint Release (2002)
Titled:
Despite Lower Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Diesel Cars May Promote More Global Warming than Gasoline Cars
Despite Lower Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Diesel Cars May Promote More Global Warming than Gasoline Cars

As CAPct’s previously linked article admits, Diesel emissions standards are improving.

Interestingly, Just4Engineers (Source and Placement of Professional Marine and Yacht Crew), will be addressing this topic. Just received the following note from Joe Hodgson

”Hi Gord, I hope all is well, i just have a quick update on the latest subject for the Engineers Forum.
The next issue focuses on Emission and Soot Reduction as well as Design, Style and Naval Architecture – If you have any comments, tips, advice or anything you would like to send in please do by e-mail and also indicate if its ok to print with your name!
The Deadline will be on the 6th of June...”

Goto: Just4Engineers
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2007, 06:47   #14
Registered User
 
Benny's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St Catharines ON, CAN
Boat: Irwin 37 CC ketch 'Ta-Keel-Ah'
Posts: 396
So Capct - looks like you've crossed into the realm of being a lefty and now have championed the cause to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere from diesel engines - that carbon of course contributing to atmospheric warming - or are you trying to justify the amount of fuel your boat consumes and the pollution it emits. Welcome to the the lefty's club of believers of human contribution to global warming.

There can be no comparison of the amount of carbon emissions you will produce in one season's boating with a sailboat of the same size as your boat with a diesel for total distance travelled. This is where I get to say 'The Sky is Falling, The sky is Falling' regarding the validity of your comments.

I do agree that we need to make engines of whatever fuel cleaner burning to help reduce harmfull emissions.
__________________
Randy Benoit
I37CC 'Ta-Keel-Ah'
Benny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2007, 06:59   #15
Registered User
 
cat man do's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brisbane Australia [until the boats launched]
Boat: 50ft powercat, light,long and low powered
Posts: 4,409
Images: 36
Of course not all of us stink boat boy's have gas guzzling monster's.

I should be doing 8 knot's on 1 engine using 8 LPH or less, so I feel I have made a reasonably "Green " choice as far as power boating is concerned.

I also thought diesel was way better than petrol on the environment.

Dave
__________________

__________________
"Money can't buy you happiness but it can buy you a yacht large enough to pull up right alongside it"...............David Lee Roth
Long Distance Motorboat Cruising It Is Possible on a Small Budget
cat man do is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ecological footprint of solar panels northerncat Electrical: Batteries, Generators & Solar 37 10-12-2006 14:06



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 14:08.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.