Outboards are incredibly polluting - WOW

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

Since when was 5 miles a "damn long row"? It isnt very far to row, and certainly not very far for electric motor.

Sean, you're crazy if you think 5 miles is not so far to row. Right now I'm thinking about if I could row out of La Paz Mexico to the open ocean. It's something over 4 miles. It takes us an hour to motor with our boat. Rowing, I dunno, would we do 3 knots? We have to be talking about a boat with some carrying capacity, like a Whitehall, not a shell. So it would take me well over an hour if I could keep up the 20 strokes per minute and find another rower to man the other oars.

When we go exploring it is not a fitness exercise, it is for relaxing enjoyment. I could row to the dingy dock, it's about 500mts.

OR... are you suggesting I should have a sailing dingy, and an electric motor, toss out the IC Mercury and trash my big boat's sailing capability by adding acres of solar to recharge that electric, and carry the whole thing on deck?

Not

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Besides the categories you mentioned, you have some starry-eyed fanboys of EP with a lot of enthusiasm but little engineering knowledge, who believe in magic horsepower, solar powered EP replacing a diesel engine for long distance motoring, hybrid perpetual motion machines, and such things. These people come and go.

On another forum, (not related to boating,) there was a fellow who was convinced that the giant container ships should cover the containers with flexible solar panels to power the ship.
I'm not sure he had any realization of the energy requirements of a 60,000HP diesel engine.
My observations, (perhaps more limited than many here on this forum,) is that sailors/cruisers as a whole, are already pretty much at the bottom of the curve in regard to energy consumption, atmospheric emissions, and trash generation.
Much of the "Save Everything" is shoveling sand against the tide in which outboard motors are but a few grains of sand on the beach.
If there was truly a real effort to reduce Co2 the 1st world would be doing all can to "drill baby drill" in order to provide cheap fuel to replace the charcoal that 2/3rds of the world's population are using for heat and cooking.
Germany and France are going to be firing-up the coal plants for this winter, and China and India are on track to vastly increase coal usage.
The need for energy isn't going away or even lessening, no matter how many people wring their hands and clutch their pearls, or rant about "We only have X years left to save humanity and the planet'.
I do find it disturbing that 100s of "so called leaders", in the West who are "supposedly" educated, erudite, knowledgeable, and informed, (It's evident we can leave out the word "wisdom",) about reality, fuss and fawn over a naive and idealistic 19-year-old who hasn't a clue of the reality of how the world operates.
In the name of "Saving the Planet", the West is on a path that leads to political and economic suicide.
The ever-increasing BRICS countries are on a path towards independence of food/energy, and manufacturing.
As Bob Dylan sang: "The times they are a changing", and in the grand scheme of things a sailors' usage of outboard motors isn't enough energy to run a piss-ants motorcycle.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bowdrie

If there was truly a real effort to reduce Co2 the 1st world would be doing all can to "drill baby drill" in order to provide cheap fuel to replace the charcoal that 2/3rds of the world's population are using for heat and cooking.

Clearly the efforts to educate people about the real issue of AGW aren't reaching all corners.

Some facts on charcoal. Charcoal comes from wood. Wood captures carbon from the atmosphere. Net effect on atmospheric carbon levels - about zero. Of course there are other issues with the production and use of charcoal, deforestation being the worst.

Fossil fuels release carbon that was sequestered and stored over millions of years.

So replacing charcoal with fossil fuels would increase the global CO2 levels.

Homework.

[ParL]

Originally Posted by Chotu

As long as you are charging off solar, that’s a valid point.

If you are charging that electric outboard off a generator, or the grid, you’re just putting the same exact pollution into the air instead of the water.

That depends on the local power systems. Sweden for example is almost all hydro and nuclear, with an increasing proportion of wind, and almost no fossil fuel. Other places have different systems, and there the main advantage of the grid power may be price.

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Charcoal comes from wood. Wood captures carbon from the atmosphere. Net effect on atmospheric carbon levels - about zero. Of course there are other issues with the production and use of charcoal, deforestation being the worst.

It's a false equivalency, you mention "other issues", and that's the crux, look at a satellite image of Haiti.
And oil sure doesn't come from fossils, oil is one of those resources that the more they look the more they find, they keep finding more of it in places that hitherto no one would imagine.
An EV?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/...oline-driving/

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Bowdrie

It's a false equivalency, you mention "other issues", and that's the crux, look at a satellite image of Haiti.
And oil sure doesn't come from fossils, oil is one of those resources that the more they look the more they find, they keep finding more of it in places that hitherto no one would imagine.
An EV?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/...oline-driving/

To date hydrocarbons ie. oil and natural gas are generally only found in sedimentary basins pretty well all of which have already been explored to some degree and most, extensively. The ones that have not been are generally difficult to access, deep water or extreme climates such as Antarctica or the polar regions. All the existing fields are fairly rapidly depleting and we are not discovering new resources at the rate we are using them up.

We really should be preserving it for long term use in two strike outboards.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Tupaia

I don't think anyone on here has sneered at attempts to utilise alternative energy. I for one certainly do not decry any means available.


I do however object to the evangelical stance of eco warriors who have no understanding or empathy for the circumstances of others and have a narrow self centred and totally unrealistic view of the real world.



in my experience cruisers in general are a very ecologically minded bunch with a minimal carbon footprint compared to the general population.



If electric outboards were $30 each it would still not meet the real needs of the majority of live aboard cruisers.

Change only occurs because evangelical believers get involved. The “ complacent” never change anything as Henry Ford says “ they just ask for faster horses “

Hence thankfully we have evangelicals , sone we like and sone we don’t.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

Since when was 5 miles a "damn long row"? It isnt very far to row, and certainly not very far for electric motor.



I dont think anyone ever said it was or wasnt. None of us are wise enough to know what an issue for the "planet" is



Your pollution is however an issue for other humans. If you look at what pollution the average person in 8 billion has and use that, your allowance is far exceeded before you even start using an outboard.



So by having one, you are essentially taking advantage of the world's poorest with an act of entitlement. People suffer because of the effects of war caused by and paid for with oil.



The change, is no fossil fuel. This change is wide reaching and is not limited to outboard motors, but certainly includes them. It is essentially a requirement for the global change needed to consist of lots of little changes like this if you break it down that way.





You said there is "so much we could do" but "we don't". This is a good way to summarize your replies regarding EP.





This is assuming your industrial meat consumption is high to begin with. Once meat consumption is reduced to a few percent of total diet, and meat produced without emissions, it is no longer as significant as other choices.



Even if everyone were 100% vegan, we would still face issues of co2 emissions. Simply not eating meat is not enough to solve the problem.

Yes but lack of overall progress is not a reason to do nothing. Everything helps but more importantly it changes peoples attitude and that builds to effect greater change. People who are complacent change nothing

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Change only occurs because evangelical believers get involved. The “ complacent” never change anything as Henry Ford says “ they just ask for faster horses “

Hence thankfully we have evangelicals , sone we like and sone we don’t.

I entirely agree. But evangelism is more effective without magical thinking.

[nuku34]

Want to "save the planet?
#1 Don't add more humans. Don't make babies. Men can get a vasectomy; I did and never jhad a regret about not passing on my genes. Human are THE problem, not fossil fuel, eating meat or any other of the miracle fixes to the predicament we have created through over population.
#2 Same as above
#3 Samd as above

[Tupaia]

The problem with over zealous or evangelical approach is that unless the reference is 100% accurate and applies in all possible scenarios it allows deniers to trash the argument.


Jimmy Carter pronounced during the 1970's oil crisis that the world would run out of oil in 2011. Despite increased consumption that didn't happen.


Another activist pronounced that 350 parts per million would be the tipping point for CO2, Brilliant the world will come to an end. Until it was pointed out that the current levels were 400.


Wood burning stoves may be net carbon neutral but do they pollute, hell yes.



The result a lack of credibility to the bigger picture.


The likes of Greta are are great at doom mongering but are unable to come up with practical, meaningful and economic solutions.

One of the worlds biggest cons and a massive contributor to pollution is the fashion industry. I personally do not buy new clothes until the ones I have are worn out. The worn out ones are repurposed as work clothes and subsequently as rags. My lifestyle allows me to get away with this. Less so if I worked in an bank. Necessary to be an "influencer" I think not.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by nuku34

Want to "save the planet?
#1 Don't add more humans. Don't make babies. Men can get a vasectomy; I did and never jhad a regret about not passing on my genes. Human are THE problem, not fossil fuel, eating meat or any other of the miracle fixes to the predicament we have created through over population.
#2 Same as above
#3 Samd as above

Population will peak by 2050 anyways as countries get richer the replacement rate falls.

The key is waste and it’s elimination

[SailFastTri]

Originally Posted by purplesunrise

We needed to replace our old Honda 20 HP outboard on our dinghy. I looked at the LEAST expensive electric outboard and even with non lithium batteries it would cost $7816 plus shipping so add another $300. The outboard weighs 85 pounds and the batteries weigh 103 pounds for a grand total of 188 pounds. That much weight plus the dinghy on our 45 foot catamaran would clearly strain the davits. There is another 20 HP electric on the market but the cost is $15,000 for the motor and lithium batteries.
So we opted for a new clean running Yamaha 20 HP four stroke with electronic fuel injection, electric start and weighing about 120 pounds. The cost was $4000 including shipping.
My conclusion is that like EVs, the electric outboard cost benefit ratio is way out of whack. Paying double the cost of a gas outboard for an electric that cannot go as far and would still need charging either from our solar array or generator, is not optimal. At some point as electrics enter the mainstream where economies of scale and size apply, it will be cost effective to have an electric outboard but we clearly are not there yet.

...and you need 20 hp? If you could give up planing in your dinghy you'd be able to get by with a 3HP equivalent electric. That would change the equation dramatically. Just a thought, not an argument.

[clockwork orange]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Anyone got any recent studies?

• Everything I could find was 2-stroke vs. 4-stroke and was >20 years old. In the US 2-strokes are no longer part of the debate, so even showing one is sort of ignorant.
• Those motor are old, more than 20 years. Of course they pollute, because they are old designs, but more so because they are worn out. Old cars stink. And how many electric motors can claim that sort of longevity? I know quite a few people that had very early failures of Torquedo etc.

So we are comparing apples to hand grenades.


But it is a good topic and I do feel that electric motors have a very strong future. Please post a relevant, quantitative (mg/hour etc.) study from the past 5 years, using motors no more than 5 years old, 4-stroke only obviously. Today's technology only.

While i mostly agree with this post i feel the need to point out a few flaws.
A/ this is an international forum and 2 strokes are still available in other parts of the world, We are not the world.
B/ Lots of American cruisers covert the Yamaha Enduro 2 strokes for their lighter weight and reliability and purchase one when they get to a country that sells them, as near as the Bahamas i'm told. We had a customer who did just that.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by nuku34

Want to "save the planet?
#1 Don't add more humans. Don't make babies. Men can get a vasectomy; I did and never jhad a regret about not passing on my genes. Human are THE problem, not fossil fuel, eating meat or any other of the miracle fixes to the predicament we have created through over population.
#2 Same as above
#3 Samd as above

This is not strictly true.

The problem is: everyone on the planet aspiring to live as ostentatiously and wastefully as the top 1% of the planet.