Outboards are incredibly polluting - WOW

[GreenWave]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

"Ew gross" is not a scientific way to look at it at all.

Yes, they pollute, but the quantum is very small.

I'm all in favor of electric outboards, but they are not a solution for many of us who need more range and/or power than they can practically provide. Many of us don't have the onboard charging capability either. And as Chotu said, depending on how your power grid is powered, you might just be transferring the pollution from here to there, not reducing it at all.

So let's not go crazy with this.

Anyone who wants to have a positive impact on the planet will have the greatest effect with two things:

1. Give up meat and dairy. Single biggest thing you can do not only for climate change, but also fresh water and land use. Eating meat is worse than any other thing we do to the planet.

2. Support carbon-free nuclear power against irrational superstitious radiophobes, and other forms of renewable energy, especially wind and solar. Agitate against coal power which is incredibly destructive and deadly.

Switching from a petrol to an electric outboard will have an extremely small effect, some orders of magnitude less, compared to those two.

Well sorry I can’t agree with all of this. The entire planet not eating meat? Wow. People buying things packaged in single use plastic like you yoghurt, water, etc is the worst. Just stop!

The rest of your points are very good

[Simi 60]

The petrol driven ones are blowing bubbles so the water is aerated and could be mistaken for being dirtier than it actually is

[thinwater]

"... I don't get these threads...a Boeing 747 or similar burns around 3,500 gallons of fuel per hour. At any one time, there are 100's of aircraft flying around...24/7...."


a. 500 people. So that is 7 gallons/person-hour or 0.7 gallons/hour converted to 55 mph, which would be 78 MPG for a single person in a car. That is about THREE TIMES better than the average car. Also, you are saving a few hotel nights and a bunch of meals, if we compare it to driving. Never mind the value of your time.

b. The number of planes is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the travel is required. In my case, it is business, and the company certainly thinks so.
c. My work involves troubleshooting industrial wastewater plants and other pollution abatement systems. I'm pretty sure these trips are massively positive for the environment. If you are flying to Vegas... well, that is the problem, not the plane.
d. They could all drive. An extra 500 cars on the road for 3-5 days. Congestion and more road construction.

You've got to do the math.


If you want to cut down on my travel, buy less stuff so the factories will use less water. Live smaller. There is no magic bullet. Buy less.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

"Ew gross" is not a scientific way to look at it at all.

Yes, they pollute, but the quantum is very small.

I'm all in favor of electric outboards, but they are not a solution for many of us who need more range and/or power than they can practically provide. Many of us don't have the onboard charging capability either. And as Chotu said, depending on how your power grid is powered, you might just be transferring the pollution from here to there, not reducing it at all.

So let's not go crazy with this.

Anyone who wants to have a positive impact on the planet will have the greatest effect with two things:

1. Give up meat and dairy. Single biggest thing you can do not only for climate change, but also fresh water and land use. Eating meat is worse than any other thing we do to the planet.

2. Support carbon-free nuclear power against irrational superstitious radiophobes, and other forms of renewable energy, especially wind and solar. Agitate against coal power which is incredibly destructive and deadly.

Switching from a petrol to an electric outboard will have an extremely small effect, some orders of magnitude less, compared to those two.

In ACS' Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, researchers report that proteins in a model plant-based substitute were not as accessible to cells as those from meat.

The team says this knowledge could eventually be used to develop more healthful products.
Plant-Based Meat: Is it Healthy?
Consumers can now buy almost any type of alternative meat, from ground beef to fish sticks. To mimic the look and texture of the real thing, plants are dehydrated into powder and mixed with seasonings. Then, the mixtures are typically heated, moistened and processed through an extruder.

These products are often thought of as being more healthful than animal meats because the plants used to make them are high in protein and low in undesirable fats. However, lab tests have shown that proteins in substitutes don't break down into peptides as well as those from meats.

These products are often thought of as being more healthful than animal meats because the plants used to make them are high in protein and low in undesirable fats. However, lab tests have shown that proteins in substitutes don't break down into peptides as well as those from meats.

Osvaldo Campanella, Da Chen and colleagues wanted to go a step further and see if human cells can absorb similar amounts of peptides from a model meat alternative as they can from a piece of chicken.

The researchers created a model meat alternative made of soy and wheat gluten with the extrusion process. When cut open, the material had long fibrous pieces inside, just like chicken. Cooked pieces of the substitute and chicken meat were then ground up and broken down with an enzyme that humans use to digest food.

In vitro tests showed that meat-substitute peptides were less water-soluble than those from chicken and they also were not absorbed as well by human cells.

With this new understanding, researchers say the next step is to identify other ingredients that could help boost the peptide uptake of plant-based meat substitutes.

The authors acknowledge funding from the College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at The Ohio State University, USA.

Roll on Solyent Green..

[MicHughV]

These threads intrigue me. One hurricane coming ashore can cause more pollution problems than than anything I know. 1,000's of boats sunk at their moorings or washed ashore, etc. Untold damage to cars, buildings, waste water systems, etc, ad infinitum. Pollution everywhere on a grand scale.

Yet, nature is a marvelous thing. Most all hurricane ravaged areas bounce back in a relatively short time.

Tornadoes, volcanoes, tidal floods, etc, do their share of mass pollution on a grand scale.

Let's add untold nuclear bombs being set off in many places.

Fertilizers is another bugaboo.
Oil spills, etc.

I'm not sure where a small outboard that might run a few hours a year adds to this mix.

To be sure, the world needs to clean up it's act, which seems more and more unlikely these days. Sad to say, but at the end of the day, the dollar will rule. If another buck can be made by bending the rules slightly, you can rest assured it will happen.

[CarlF]

The claim that eating meat is the biggest CO2 contributor is simply not true. A heavy meat eater who spends $2000/yr on food will contribute .15 tons of CO2 per year (eating chicken cuts that in half). A vegan .04 tons per year. A SINGLE economy seat on one flight from Boston to London emits five times more than a year of meat eating - .78 tons.

Here's the calculator - https://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

If you have a better calculator that shows meat is much worse - please share a link.

Perhaps the worst villain are ocean going ships that still burn incredibly dirty bunker oil - far, far worse than 2 cycle outboards. Four Panamax container ships when steaming release as much SOx and NOx as all of the world's automobiles.

There are almost 1000 Panamax size ships. Do the math!

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Not correct information. You are talking about "proven reserves" -- the same methodology according to which oil would have run out in 1968. In other words, not what exists in the earth but what is in just those mines we are digging now. And even according to "proven reserves", we've got 30,000 years using breeder reactors. See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...deposits-last/ If you besides that take uranium out of sea water, you've got about a million years worth.

breeder reactors are not commercially viable. They do not exist.

It is even less viable to extract it from sea water. Your link says that and also indicates 230 years at current rate. If we replaced all current fossil fuels with nuclear this would only last 30 years.

Uranium is practically inexhaustible. It's vastly superior to other technologies we have today, but it's vastly inferior to fusion power, so nuclear fission is a critical now but transitory technology. We will never scratch the surface of the earth's uranium reserves; in a few decades uranium as a power source will be as quaint as whale oil for lighting.

fusion power, if it ever is viable, will create more problems than it solves as each new form of energy unfortunately.

Nonsense. Factories can't start and stop according to windiness of the weather, nor are households ok with that

I plan according to the weather for when I run my 3d printer solder etc. factories absolutely can use weather forecast to decide when to start and stop.

. How about the Internet and data centers? Just shut them down when the wind doesn't blow?

yes in a lot of cases the factory can stop if there is prolonged period with limited energy.

For internet, the data speed can be reduced etc, but the energy to maintain this is small enough to work off battery systems.

Just because you live without power on your boat doesn't mean the modern world can work that way. Base load is key. Storage helps with intermittent sources like wind, but you still must have base load to support a modern industrial society.

A lot of people claim they need engines in their boat, but its simply not true. modern industrial society is a disgrace to humanity, so it is unreasonable to maintain something to prolong this destruction and that is the whole point.

base load is not key, or essential. It is a made up concept that it is required, unfortunately a result of burning fossil fuels. Before that there was no need for base load.

https://www.powermag.com/fusion-ener...han-you-think/

End of the century is a pretty conservative estimate of when we will have large scale fusion power on the grid.

It is unlikely to have fusion power by the end of century. They said that last century.

When that happens, we will stop worrying about energy altogether. Meanwhile wind and Small Modular Reactors will get us weaned off fossil fuels, and save the earth from the climate change disaster.

maybe, but we will just have much much bigger problems. Like someone paying $1 for 10 megawatts of power, and using the energy to 3d print a drone army. fusion power would enable all kinds of abuse of the environment that is infeasible today. It is already too late "save the earth" really ourselves from run away climate change disaster. At this stage we can only try to minimize the damage.

[Tetepare]

I have a two stroke because I can lift it.


The environmental damage done by two strokes in the Great Lakes is nothing compared to the effluence dumped into the lakes by urbanites.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Not correct information. You are talking about "proven reserves" -- the same methodology according to which oil would have run out in 1968. In other words, not what exists in the earth but what is in just those mines we are digging now. And even according to "proven reserves", we've got 30,000 years using breeder reactors. See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...deposits-last/ If you besides that take uranium out of sea water, you've got about a million years worth.

breeder reactors are not commercially viable. If you speak of existing nuclear power, it is not this.

It is even less viable to extract it from sea water. Your link says that and also indicates 230 years at current rate. If we replaced all current fossil fuels with nuclear this would only last 30 years.

Uranium is practically inexhaustible. It's vastly superior to other technologies we have today, but it's vastly inferior to fusion power, so nuclear fission is a critical now but transitory technology. We will never scratch the surface of the earth's uranium reserves; in a few decades uranium as a power source will be as quaint as whale oil for lighting.

fusion power, if it ever is viable, will create more problems than it solves as each new form of energy unfortunately.

Nonsense. Factories can't start and stop according to windiness of the weather, nor are households ok with that

They can and always did. Wind mills powered saws, grind grain etc, and did not run without the wind. Factories can be made to work this way if it is a hard requirement.

Just because causing pollution can avoid this inconvenience doesnt justify it in any way. Maybe someone isn't used to this, they arent used to running factories this way, it does not mean it cannot be done.

The same is true of power blackouts. With 800% solar capacity, and 800% wind capacity, blackouts are very rare indeed. Until such capacity is in place, blackouts may be common. It is not a big deal, most people in the world experience regularly.

With this amount of solar, it becomes a dependable source even in complete overcast. This is what I use and do not run out of power. There are many industries that can be turned on and off as the power is available. For example, producing green hydrogen and many (most others)

I plan according to the weather for when I run my 3d printer solder etc. factories absolutely can use weather forecast to decide when to start and stop in advance and so forth. the argument of maintaining a "base load" is nonsense. Much lower emissions, cheaper and better not to maintain one, and let people adapt.

. How about the Internet and data centers? Just shut them down when the wind doesn't blow?

yes in a lot of cases the factory can stop if there is prolonged period with limited energy.

For internet, the data speed can be reduced etc, but the energy to maintain this is small enough to work off battery systems.

Just because you live without power on your boat doesn't mean the modern world can work that way. Base load is key. Storage helps with intermittent sources like wind, but you still must have base load to support a modern industrial society.

Boats are powered by the intermittent wind, and that is not a problem. modern industrial society is a disgrace to humanity, so it is unreasonable to maintain something to prolong this destruction and that is the whole point. We should not be allowing modern industrial society to continue much less supporting it.

https://www.powermag.com/fusion-ener...han-you-think/

End of the century is a pretty conservative estimate of when we will have large scale fusion power on the grid.

It is unlikely to have fusion power by the end of century. They said that last century.

When that happens, we will stop worrying about energy altogether. Meanwhile wind and Small Modular Reactors will get us weaned off fossil fuels, and save the earth from the climate change disaster.

maybe, but we will just have much much bigger problems. Like someone paying $1 for 10 megawatts of power, and using the energy to 3d print a drone army. fusion power would enable all kinds of abuse of the environment that is infeasible today. It is already too late "save the earth" really ourselves from run away climate change disaster. At this stage we can only try to minimize the damage.

[RaymondR]

Not only do the big freighters burn tons of poor quality fuel oil they are also powered by 2 strokes which have 2 lubricating systems one of which recirculates and the other sacrificial like your 2 stroke outboard.

[sailingunity]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

The petrol driven ones are blowing bubbles so the water is aerated and could be mistaken for being dirtier than it actually is

I was thinking this same thing. Put 15 seconds of video online to prove your point - seems a little biased. I'd like to see those tanks after sitting for 15 minutes, would probably have much more clarity.

[Chotu]

I have always found this to be rather ridiculous. If you’re not going to eat meat, just don’t eat meat. I don’t see why people have to try to approximate meat. They do a lousy job at it and it’s not healthy, exactly as you point out. It’s also LOADED with sodium. It’s a processed food. AKA: not good for you

All they need to do is eat beans, chickpeas, lentils, whole grains, and you have yourself complete proteins. This “near meat” thing is ridiculous

Originally Posted by boatman61

In ACS' Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, researchers report that proteins in a model plant-based substitute were not as accessible to cells as those from meat.

The team says this knowledge could eventually be used to develop more healthful products.
Plant-Based Meat: Is it Healthy?
Consumers can now buy almost any type of alternative meat, from ground beef to fish sticks. To mimic the look and texture of the real thing, plants are dehydrated into powder and mixed with seasonings. Then, the mixtures are typically heated, moistened and processed through an extruder.

These products are often thought of as being more healthful than animal meats because the plants used to make them are high in protein and low in undesirable fats. However, lab tests have shown that proteins in substitutes don't break down into peptides as well as those from meats.

These products are often thought of as being more healthful than animal meats because the plants used to make them are high in protein and low in undesirable fats. However, lab tests have shown that proteins in substitutes don't break down into peptides as well as those from meats.

Osvaldo Campanella, Da Chen and colleagues wanted to go a step further and see if human cells can absorb similar amounts of peptides from a model meat alternative as they can from a piece of chicken.

The researchers created a model meat alternative made of soy and wheat gluten with the extrusion process. When cut open, the material had long fibrous pieces inside, just like chicken. Cooked pieces of the substitute and chicken meat were then ground up and broken down with an enzyme that humans use to digest food.

In vitro tests showed that meat-substitute peptides were less water-soluble than those from chicken and they also were not absorbed as well by human cells.

With this new understanding, researchers say the next step is to identify other ingredients that could help boost the peptide uptake of plant-based meat substitutes.

The authors acknowledge funding from the College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at The Ohio State University, USA.

Roll on Solyent Green..

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by Chotu

I don’t see why people have to try to approximate meat. They do a lousy job at it and it’s not healthy, exactly as you point out.

It's the new paradigm, it's not the meat, it's the cows who spend their whole lives farting, that's unacceptable if we want to save the planet.
Over the last year or so we've heard this phrase repeated: "You will own nothing and be happy".
So now their will be a new one: "You will eat s**t and like it".

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by CarlF

The claim that eating meat is the biggest CO2 contributor is simply not true. A heavy meat eater who spends $2000/yr on food will contribute .15 tons of CO2 per year (eating chicken cuts that in half). A vegan .04 tons per year. A SINGLE economy seat on one flight from Boston to London emits five times more than a year of meat eating - .78 tons.

Here's the calculator - https://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

If you have a better calculator that shows meat is much worse - please share a link.

Perhaps the worst villain are ocean going ships that still burn incredibly dirty bunker oil - far, far worse than 2 cycle outboards. Four Panamax container ships when steaming release as much SOx and NOx as all of the world's automobiles.

There are almost 1000 Panamax size ships. Do the math!

Interesting math. It would help if you explained your work.



Your own 747 math puts the flight at 0.16 tons. 7 gallons per person-hour for a 747 (3500 gal/hour, 500 passengers).



The average of the studies I read on beef production put it at about 50 pounds per pound equivalent, if we include methane. Figuring 1-pound per day, that's 18,250 pounds (9 tons). Gasoline is about 19 pounds/gallon, or about 3.6 tons per year if you drive 10,000 miles.


So yeah, beef is a heavy hitter.


Check the math using numbers you can find through many sources. I'm not sayin' people do not pollute, far from it. But credibility depends on transparency.

[NevilleCat]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Not only do the big freighters burn tons of poor quality fuel oil they are also powered by 2 strokes which have 2 lubricating systems one of which recirculates and the other sacrificial like your 2 stroke outboard.

Yes, but they do incredibly important work, like enabling you to buy $3 T-shirts and enabling countries to shift their pollution load onto someone else.
*gasp* How would our all-important economies survive if the true environmental cost was included in the shipping quote?