What is the carbon footprint for the US MSD program?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

. . .

And just scribbling on the back of my proverbial envelope, I'd say the additional fuel burned for vessels likely to have any sort of tank would be smaller than the error bars. We're talking about a few kg on vessels that weigh in at the thousands of kg.

Few kg? A full 120 liter tank on a 10 tonne vessel is 1% of mass. I think that's well beyond the rounding error range. Half full it's over half a % -- still beyond rounding error range. Those who care about carbon emissions definitely care about 1% improvements in whole sectors, even if our sector is a relatively small one.

We are talking about the CONTENTS, not the TANK, correct?

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

So your point is that it would be better for the environment if boaters could just pump overboard and not have to lug around holding tanks with waste in them?

The solution is everybody hold it till docking. It sounds like another useless study funded by tax dollars.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Few kg? A full 120 liter tank on a 10 tonne vessel is 1% of mass. I think that's well beyond the rounding error range. Half full it's over half a % -- still beyond rounding error range. Those who care about carbon emissions definitely care about 1% improvements in whole sectors, even if our sector is a relatively small one.

We are talking about the CONTENTS, not the TANK, correct?

But, but, but.....what about the case where a full MSD tank improves weight/balance and improves fuel economy??

[Jdege]

What everyone seems to miss, when talking about carbon footprints, is that it's a carbon cycle.

Yes, there's carbon in your holding tank, but it came from the food you ate. And if you didn't eat it, something would.

The carbon that moves into you them moves out, and the net balance is zero.

This is true of all organic processes, with a few exceptions.

When we dig up coal or drill oil, and burn it, we are putting into the ecosystem carbon that had not been there, previously.

And when a ocean plankton and algae dies and sinks to the ocean floor, it removes carbon from the ecosystem.

But as for the carbon footprint of the waste in your holding tank? There is none. The carbon that is there came from the carbon in the ecosystem and will return to the ecosystem, no matter what you do with it. Unless you encapsulate it and drop it to the depths.

If you compost it, or use it as fertilizer, or burn it in a landfill, or bury it, or whatever. Whatever you do with it will return to the ecosystem precisely the same amount of carbon that the processes of creating it took out.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Jdege

What everyone seems to miss, when talking about carbon footprints, is that it's a carbon cycle.

Yes, there's carbon in your holding tank, but it came from the food you ate. And if you didn't eat it, something would.

The carbon that moves into you them moves out, and the net balance is zero.

This is true of all organic processes, with a few exceptions.

When we dig up coal or drill oil, and burn it, we are putting into the ecosystem carbon that had not been there, previously.

And when a ocean plankton and algae dies and sinks to the ocean floor, it removes carbon from the ecosystem.

But as for the carbon footprint of the waste in your holding tank? There is none. The carbon that is there came from the carbon in the ecosystem and will return to the ecosystem, no matter what you do with it. Unless you encapsulate it and drop it to the depths.

If you compost it, or use it as fertilizer, or burn it in a landfill, or bury it, or whatever. Whatever you do with it will return to the ecosystem precisely the same amount of carbon that the processes of creating it took out.

I don't think you read the OP. It was about fuel used hauling around 5 gals. of ****.

[buzzstar]

Is this a sign of a brain disease caused by indiscriminate dumping?

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

So my guess would be that your looking at something more like 5 million pounds, versus the 160 million that you came up with.

Then, like Peggy mentioned, you have to consider that a whole lot of those boats (and I would guess a majority of those that are actually carrying a meaningful amount of waste) are sailboats. That means that they aren't always burning fuel to move that waste. .

In the end, I think that your initial figures are off by many orders of magnitude. Moreover, like others have mentioned, I don't think it is possible to get any numbers that are realistic enough to make the argument that you seem to be trying to make.

Let's put this into perspective. Five million pounds is 2,500 tons (US). Let's assume that the ratio of weight carried to carbon produced is one to one. I am sure it is far less, but we'll start with that.

Nature produces some 210 GIGATONS per year, and man produces some 6 to 8 GIGATONS per year. A gigaton is one billion tons. At the most, the carrying of the waste is creating 1/3,200,000 of man made carbon (and likely a lot less) and 1/87,200,000 of all carbon. Again, it's certainly a lot less than these numbers because I assumed one pound of waste carried created one pound of carbon. This is less than the carbon produced when Al Gore flies around the world.

[K_V_B]

What everybody misses here is...

Discharge of human waste from watercraft (pleasure or otherwhise) is not an environmental problem. Human excrement is not damaging to the environment. It's even permitted as fertiliser in organic farming.
It's not more damaging than other mammalian excrement (where do Dolphins "go" do you thing?)

What it really is, is a public health problem (human waste is a disease vector) and an estethic problem (we don't like smelly harbors).
That is why we have holding tanks. And that is why I absolutely see no problem emptying the tank once at sea.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The wealthy may not care (at least, in the minds of the non-wealthy ), but the PLANET cares. That's the OP's point.
.

Actually the planet doesnt give a $&!~ with minor additions annually ( cosmic dust) the amount of carbon contained between the ionosphere and the planets core doesnt change. Its the humans that care and or think it really makes any difference to the planet.

[Tetepare]

Don't forget, in some areas holding tanks are unused for up to seven months of the year. In other words, my boat uses 80% less holding tank waste than an equivalent boat in southern climes.

I disagree that human wastes does not harm the environment (caveat- depends on volume, location and other factors.) In the Great Lakes human effluence from overflowing city waste treatment pipes increases algae and aquatic plant growth, changing the balance of naturally occurring forms- aside from poisoning fishes, etc. Truly, this waste dumping by cities is a health hazard, but it also impacts the health of plants and animals.

I'd like to see a comparison of the waste dumped by pleasure boats vs. cities. And I'd not trust government sources because, being what they are, they will over-estimate boats and under-report city sewage. Of course, nothing happens when a city dumps millions of gallons of waste, heck, I never see a sign in a city restroom or waste treatment plant about overboard discharge. But I'm willing to bet cash that pound for pound Toronto, Rochester, and Detroit dump ten times more raw sewage than the boats kept in those cities.

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

Don't forget, in some areas holding tanks are unused for up to seven months of the year. In other words, my boat uses 80% less holding tank waste than an equivalent boat in southern areas.

Thanks Tetepare. I agree that seasonal usage should be factored into the model.

[newhaul]

Big question for me is whats the purpose except to spend tax dollars needlessly.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Tetepare

Don't forget, in some areas holding tanks are unused for up to seven months of the year. In other words, my boat uses 80% less holding tank waste than an equivalent boat in southern climes.

I disagree that human wastes does not harm the environment (caveat- depends on volume, location and other factors.) In the Great Lakes human effluence from overflowing city waste treatment pipes increases algae and aquatic plant growth, changing the balance of naturally occurring forms- aside from poisoning fishes, etc. Truly, this waste dumping by cities is a health hazard, but it also impacts the health of plants and animals.

I'd like to see a comparison of the waste dumped by pleasure boats vs. cities. And I'd not trust government sources because, being what they are, they will over-estimate boats and under-report city sewage. Of course, nothing happens when a city dumps millions of gallons of waste, heck, I never see a sign in a city restroom or waste treatment plant about overboard discharge. But I'm willing to bet cash that pound for pound Toronto, Rochester, and Detroit dump ten times more raw sewage than the boats kept in those cities.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Big question for me is whats the purpose except to spend tax dollars needlessly.

That's what I said. It is a stupid thing. How much fuel hauling around a small holding tank consumes. It seems grants could be spent on something worthwhile. Maybe how many lightening bugs does it take to light NYC.

[a64pilot]

I don't think if you add say 5% of weight to a displacement hull, it increases fuel burn by 5%. I don't know what it increases fuel burn by, displacement is a 1 to 1 of course but I don't think fuel burn is.
Be careful stirring the pot on carbon foot print and carbon emissions and whatever crap as that is a good way to end up with mandatory engines we don't want to have to buy etc.

I'll go so far as to say I believe the whole carbon thing to be a politically played thing and it's way beyond what is logical, I mean I can burn all the fuel I want so long as I buy carbon credits, right? Then I'm blame free?

Dole as in Dole foods contacted me several years ago wanting to burn ethanol in their aircraft, company wanted to be "Carbon Neutral"
Now Dole is a big customer of ours, we manufactured all of their Ag aircraft. I told them we could get the airframe there no problem, but they would have to contact Pratt & Whitney to get them to get the engine there.
Long story short, for whatever reason they lost interest, I guess the carbon neutral thing had run its course.

Bottom line, I'll bet the amount of fuel burned by pleasure craft that are MSD equipped is way less than .001 percent of fuel burned, wanna do something about fuel burned? Reinstitute the CAFE standards for automobile manufacturers and let's get some of the SUV's off the road.
I don't know how, but I'm sure the CAFE standards have been gutted.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

What everybody misses here is...

Discharge of human waste from watercraft (pleasure or otherwhise) is not an environmental problem. Human excrement is not damaging to the environment. It's even permitted as fertiliser in organic farming.
It's not more damaging than other mammalian excrement (where do Dolphins "go" do you thing?)

What it really is, is a public health problem (human waste is a disease vector) and an estethic problem (we don't like smelly harbors).
That is why we have holding tanks. And that is why I absolutely see no problem emptying the tank once at sea.

While I do not totally disagree, it seems to me that human waste from watercraft is an environmental problem. On land we have hyperion plants. So is other mammalian waste an environmental problem. Ever driven by a cattle feed lot or a pig farm? Environment is not just health and odor related. I do not much like bureaucracies or bureaucratic laws, but I have encountered seal poop (not dolphin poop so far as I know) and, several times, human poop while underwater. The latter, now, in the somewhat distant past. Believe me it is environmental and I am glad it is now kept in containers when near shore.

One short tale may summarize my view. Long ago, before holding tanks, while anchored in a small fairly pristine inlet I decided to dive using SCUBA gear. There were several other vessels similarly anchored, and effectively the place was full. As we (a dive buddy and I) passed a nearby vessel, at a depth of about 10 -15 feet, suddenly a stream of somewhat murky water came out of the vessel below the waterline, and it was quickly followed by toilet paper and dark chunks and brownish water. Fortunately, we were not in range of the initial flow, but we both kicked out of the area quickly, and took a circuitous route on our return, which we thought and hoped was away from the residue of the initial flow. Yuck.

Carbon footprints are an excuse for BS, which is also an environmental pollutant.