Outboards are incredibly polluting - WOW

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

This thread is getting interesting. All from a stupid staged video. Nice!

I've heard the theory about eating meat contributing to our development as a species. Likewise, the domestication of grain crops and the advent of cooking. All of those things made us what we are today.

And yet we have some people wanting us to give up meas, give up grains (carbs) and some even want us to give up cooking. Seems to me that would be giving up what made us human in the first place. It's bad enough saying we should go back to the cave, but who wants to go back to being an ape?

Then, taking a broad view, we have to ask what it means to "ruin" a planet. For who? Is there anyone out there to care about the average temperature or sea level of this insignificant little planet during our brief existence as a species?

How about stick to the topic, I don't think anyones choice, is the subject.
Some people?
Choice isn't dead, maybe villianizing healthy choices has become an issue for some, that's really about denial.
No one is changing the world so much as to restrict your choices.
How about them outboards? You think that it's true?
What's "staged" about this?
Looks to be what people are running out there, so it's valid.
Yes, older engines is what most want, pricy those new ones are.
Boatyarddog

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Yes, I think about this every time I consider a new motor. I can hardly manage to muscle around my existing 2-stroke. I can't image doing it with a motor which weighs 50 bs more.

Indeed, plus the risk of dropping it. We sold our little 2st after 15 years and bought a Honda 2.3hp. Perfect for our needs of nipping across a estuary or harbour.

I can now continue to lift the little engine with one hand and clime back on board on my own.

Pete

[Kd9truck]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Here’s a facile alternative viewpoint:
“The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race” ~ by Jared Diamond* [1999]
The advent of agriculture was a watershed moment for the human race. It may also have been our greatest blunder.
Forced to choose between limiting population, or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter, and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny.
More ➥ https://www.discovermagazine.com/pla...e#.UpIvTtIvWq8

* However, in “Guns, Germs and Steel”, Jared Diamond's basic theory is that some countries developed more rapidly than others and were able to expand and conquer much of the world because of geographic luck.
The natural resources available to them, coupled with the native species, and climate, provided by their geography, led them to become more agricultural, and less reliant on hunting and gathering for sustenance.
This agrarian lifestyle, in turn, allowed for the development of “specialists”, within the civilization, who could work on developing and perfecting the technologies necessary to make these civilizations more profitable, stronger, and more powerful than others around them. Diamond asserts that those living in temperate climates, with indigenous animals, that could be domesticated, were more likely to develop advanced civilizations.


*


When we discuss ruining the planet, we are discussing it from our point of view. We care.

Great book, in my top ten of most insightful content I have ever read, some read it and are looking for answers to there own beliefs, some absorb its content and grow intellectually.

Thank you for referencing
Cheers mate

[oleman]

In the grand scheme of things POT SMOKERS do far more damage to the universe that a handful or outboard motors on the usable waterways of the world. Everything is relative to size and scope.

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by Tupaia

So let me get this straight. I go to the grocery store and buy a lb of sliced ham (fake meat protein if you like) wrapped in plastic, a loaf of bread in a plastic bag, a gallon of milk (or prcessed fruit juice) in a plastic jug, a pack of napkins wrapped in plastic, a Greek salad in a plastic container, a plastic bottle of mustard and a plastic bottle of ketchup and they won't give me a plastic bag to carry it home because the plastic bag is bad for the environment.

Shamelessly plagiarised.

There are far more pressing ecological beneficial adjustments we could make than worrying about a few outboard powered dinghies.

Super yachts, mega yachts, log burners, the school run . . . .

Try to realize the Mega yacht emissions compared to 1 outboard, it's the volume of outboards to Mega yachts, sheer volume of less than efficient engines.
Mega yachts aren't to bad on the emissions.
Boatyarddog

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by oleman

In the grand scheme of things POT SMOKERS do far more damage to the universe that a handful or outboard motors on the usable waterways of the world. Everything is relative to size and scope.

POT SMOKERS don't exhale Unburned fuel and Hydrocarbons, and oil.
What the heck is this about?
A Handful of Outboards? MILLIONS OF OUTBOARDS.
Outboards!
BYD

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by oleman

In the grand scheme of things POT SMOKERS do far more damage to the universe that a handful or outboard motors on the usable waterways of the world. Everything is relative to size and scope.

Sorry, whut? I was, um, zoned out. Yeah that's it.

(Alcohol is orders of magnitude worse than pot, but I won't give that up either. Except in my boat gas)

[zstine]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

Disagree!
You cannot say a 2 stroke is cleaner in any sense.
Non factual comment. Those "bubbles" harbor hydrocarbons, like you can't believe.
Care to test the emissions?
Raw unburned fuel, and oil.
That's what your seeing as cloudiness, not bubbles.
Boatyarddog

Did I ever say 2-stroke was cleaner? No
I actually said "electric is much cleaner, if you ...have solar to recharge them."
I AGREE "those bubbles harbor hydrocarbons" and CO,2 NOx, etc. but since hydrocarbons, et al, are clear/colorless. What you see is bubbles of various 'gaseous vapors'. And if the engines were stopped, the water would not be cloudy after a short time.

Reading comprehension is a PITA! haha

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Please post for modern 4-stroke. The new Mercs are Carb 3 star, meaning only 1/3 the limit passed in 2006. The 2-stroke was not even being made then, and who knows what the other motor is (probably old). So yeah, Torquedo is telling a type of lie when demonstrating old motors that are out of production. They could have demonstrated a modern motor.
I like the idea of electric. But we need transparency, not intentional, knowing exaggeration, in order to have a productive discussion.

What we have in the tank though is a 5 hp merc.
2006 old, a polluter for sure, even if a 4 stroke it's loose and bypasses hydrocarbons.

There is no standard for emissions dating to those days... For a reason.
BYD

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by zstine

The engines are running, so this is sorta false advertising. The cloudiness from the ICE engines is bubbles from exhaust in the water. If the engines were stopped after 15min, I doubt you would be able to see any difference. That said, electric is much cleaner, if you can deal with the limits in range and have solar to recharge them.

What you said was that if the engines were stopped after 15 minutes the water would be virtually the same in all tanks!
That would not be true, as carbon is black and gasses contain this element, and oil is present as sheen on the water surface, you cannot see that but it's there.
Present on the surface, especially run in a tank for any length of time.
BYD

[foufou]

We already have a fusion power source. It is 93 million miles/150 million kilometers from earth and it is not run by humans. Perfect!

[Baby tug]

Originally Posted by SailFastTri

Thanks for posting this. The impact of livestock is the single greatest factor for climate change, and fresh water consumption/pollution. The numbers are staggering.
We could also solve human hunger overnight and reduce deforestation if humans ate plants instead of animal products.

I’ve been saying this for years as far as I’m concerned it’s not even debatable , do you wanna reduce pollution oil consumption or should I say fossil fuels reduce the number of people on the planet , that’s kind of like the gun debate the gun isn’t the problem the people are the problem , fossil fuels are not the problem people consuming them are , I’ll get a bunch of haters nobody wants to look in the mirror and take responsibility it’s not the oil companies it’s you having babies let the haters begin

[jordanbigel]

Originally Posted by Baby tug

I’ve been saying this for years as far as I’m concerned it’s not even debatable , do you wanna reduce pollution oil consumption or should I say fossil fuels reduce the number of people on the planet , that’s kind of like the gun debate the gun isn’t the problem the people are the problem , fossil fuels are not the problem people consuming them are , I’ll get a bunch of haters nobody wants to look in the mirror and take responsibility it’s not the oil companies it’s you having babies let the haters begin

You make a solid point about higher population densities leading to higher rates of pollution. But, actually, it's really nothing like the issue of gun violence (in the USA). All you need do is look at how people exist in different countries compared to the USA and you will see "people" are not the problem, unless your mean specifically American people are the problem, in which case, why would you want to allow them to have guns?

But I agree with you that reducing the population of Earth would reduce pressure on resources and the environment. So, what's your plan Thanos?

[foufou]

I thought I posted this but somehow it disappeared to a different thread.


We already have fusion power. It is 93 million miles/150 million kilometers from earth and not run by humans: Sun Power. Perfect!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jordanbigel

...
But I agree with you that reducing the population of Earth would reduce pressure on resources and the environment. So, what's your plan Thanos?

When I carp on about anything ecological, a common retort is "so what are YOU doing, personally?" So when the Malthusians start telling us that the only problem is overpopulation... if they're genuinely serious about this, I wonder why we still keep hearing from them?