Outboards are incredibly polluting - WOW

[paralog]

Originally Posted by myocean

See here how gasoline outboards pollute the pristine waters of your anchorage.

After 15 minutes of operation you see in these tanks the pollution from

a 2-stroke on the left,

a 4-stroke on the right and

an electric outboard in the middle.

I knew they are dirty but this is far worse than expected.
Don't buy these shitty things anymore if there is an alternative.
See a little video here.

Thanks for this useless information -Greta.

[Baby tug]

Here’s another one that’ll get you guys going , I’ve been advocating for dry exhaust on Boats for a long time , you mentioned dry exhaust and everybody will tell you how horrible it is the same environmentalists don’t mind mixing water with exhaust dumping it back into the river , hypocrites , keep it in your pants and quit having babies , there going after Cattle in Washington state For drinking the water and peeing causing pollution,I guess because you want a large family I can’t eat hamburgers anymore

[Adelie]

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.

1. I would concur that this would be a very good way to reduce various forms of pollution. While I am not going to become a vegan I have significantly reduced my meat consumption.

2. Additional nuclear is just kicking the can down the road in terms of dealing with ecological problems. Keeping the existing plants for baseload capacity would be reasonable. I started my college education with the thought of double majoring in nuclear engineering. Then I learned to sail and was content with just the civil engineering degree.

3. Doubling, tripling or even quadrupling the required insulation on new homes and requiring retrofits to existing building would do as much or more than item 1. above.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by MicHughV

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 Panamax freighter or similar burns about 60-80,000 gallons per day...and there are 100's of these floating around out there

Think about the gazillions of automobiles, around the world..motorcycles....trucks, etc, etc, etc..

The little engines above don't burn squat by comparison...

There are maybe 10,000 major commercial airliners operating in the world. There is probably somewhere in the vicinity of 20-50,000,000 small to medium sized power boats operating in the world.
The market for new outboards is 330,000 per year just in the US.

Lots of small sources can be as bad as a few big pollutions sources.

[seandepagnier]

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.

You did not find the least expensive option but more importantly you are wrong to think you "need" 20 HP. This is ridiculous and also very rude to anyone who is rowing.

Originally Posted by Kd9truck

Ahhh The quintessential righteous and the wicked debate

You definitely have presented a point, should we sell them? Then we can row, but still the ribs are also polluting in there manufacture, if we throw them out where do they go? Or who do they go to.

RIBS are an idiotic boat design. They simply require too much power to move through the water.

I can not feed an electric motor with green power,

Maybe the solar panels are not truely a green power, but they cause 1/40th the emissions. I have a hydro generator for use when sailing as well.

Originally Posted by Tupaia

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

That is for sure, but this is such an easy correction to make and we individually can decide. Those other things you mention like super rich with 400x the average footprint... most of us have no power to change their behavior.

[Lepke]

Buy some oars and be happy.

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by Baby tug

Here’s another one that’ll get you guys going , I’ve been advocating for dry exhaust on Boats for a long time , you mentioned dry exhaust and everybody will tell you how horrible it is the same environmentalists don’t mind mixing water with exhaust dumping it back into the river , hypocrites , keep it in your pants and quit having babies , there going after Cattle in Washington state For drinking the water and peeing causing pollution,I guess because you want a large family I can’t eat hamburgers anymore

FYI..
Your ignorance is sticking out!
BYD

[Baby tug]

I’ve been reading lately about rowing across oceans, the older i get the more i would like my boat to be as simple as possible because i simply don’t have the energy to maintain it and would prefer simplicity doesn’t get much more simple than ocean rowing boat , personally i like rowing although i doubt I’m going cross an ocean anytime soon , Drastically reduce population or drastically reduced consumption what world would you rather live in ask yourself that

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Quick quiz.


How many watts of solar panel are required to provide the equivalent of a gallon of gas per day?

If the gallon of gas is to be used in an outboard then I would say 1500W or less.

A gas inboard will produce about 10hp for an hour using 1 gal of gas. That’s 7.46kWhr.

Solar panels mounted flat will produce about 4hr equivalent max output per day. That is for a nameplate capacity of 100W you can expect to generate about 400Whr per day.

So 7460Whr / 4 hr = 1,865W of panels.
But LFP had about 90-93% RoI and FLAs have about 87-90%. Let’s assume 90%.

1865W / 0.90 = 2,072W. Let’s assume 95% motor efficiency which means you’d need about 2181W of panels.

But small to moderate sized outboards are significantly less efficient than inboards. .
4-stroke: 5-7hp-hr/gal. Assume 7: 1527W of panels
2-stroke: 3-5hp-hr/gal. Assume 5: 1090W of panels.

Theres an engine repair place that has the numbers for outboard efficiency. I’ll try to find and post the link

If you had tracking panels rather than flat mounted output would be radically higher, double or better. Will investigate and get back later.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Most hang gliders and such are 2 cycle engines

Hang Gliders by definition are unpowered.


Powered hang gliders are an oxymoron but most of those use 2-strokes.

[Adelie]

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..

Just because the proteins were less accessible doesn’t mean that would leave you malnourished.
In reality most members of developed nation eat more protein than they need.

And even if you need to eat more plant based fake meat to get the same amount of protein into your cells the fake meat still uses less resources and causes less pollution.

I’m not a vegetarian.

[captmikem]

Wow, at that rate I would have to run my two stroke outboard 24/7 for 4.28 years to equal one hour of the pollution of Al Gore's private jet.

How selfish of me.

M

[chasfgr]

I think it's generally accepted that 2-stroke outboards are polluting as their carburaition and pertroil fuel are dirty.
However they are virtually out of production, having been unable to reduce pollutants to meet most environtmental laws.



Any movement, including using oars are "polluting"; just think how polluting a human being is.


I am convinced that mostm indignation about "pollution" is mere virtue-signalling, common in the young and less likely to mar the behaviour of the more mature.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by Baby tug

Here’s another one that’ll get you guys going , I’ve been advocating for dry exhaust on Boats for a long time , you mentioned dry exhaust and everybody will tell you how horrible it is the same environmentalists don’t mind mixing water with exhaust dumping it back into the river , hypocrites , keep it in your pants and quit having babies , there going after Cattle in Washington state For drinking the water and peeing causing pollution,I guess because you want a large family I can’t eat hamburgers anymore

Another remarkably well researched absolutely pointless post. Your track record is magnificent.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by captmikem

Wow, at that rate I would have to run my two stroke outboard 24/7 for 4.28 years to equal one hour of the pollution of Al Gore's private jet.
How selfish of me.
M

There is no logical rule, saying that there has to be a correlation between understanding what happens to our climate, and living a carbon neutral lifestyle.

Charges of hypocrisy can be surprisingly irrelevant*, and often distract us from more important concerns. One surprising truth about hypocrisy, is its irrelevance.
The fact that someone is a hypocrite, does not mean that his

position [or the facts he cites] on an issue, is false.

* Eg: A smoker, who tells his child not to do so, because the practice is unhealthy & addictive may be hypocritical. He may also be right.
In this case, what Dad’s smoking suggests, is that Dad believes smoking is bad for him, yet he continues to smoke because, of course, he is addicted. Thus, Dad’s behavior [his hypocrisy] actually supports his point that smoking is addictive.

However, it seems, that shooting the messenger is, often, the easiest response to the message, for so many, who can’t accept it.
Allegations of hypocrisy are treacherous, because they can function as argumentative diversions, drawing our attention away from the task of assessing the strength of a position, and toward the character of the position’s advocate.
Such accusations trigger emotional reflexes, that dominate more rational
thought patterns. And it is precisely in the difficult and important cases, such as climate change, that our reflexes are, most often, inadequate.

I don’t see Gore as a green role model, despite his efforts to green his home and even his solar-powered houseboat.
I believe private jet travel should be targeted, as strongly as we target S.U.V.s, smaller families [Gore has 4 children], and meat-eating.

But, for the record: Al Gore DOES live a fairly carbon-neutral lifestyle.
The former vice president [Al Gore] does NOT own a private jet, and offsets travel, for himself and staff, through a program that cancels out your carbon footprint, by, ostensibly, preventing emissions elsewhere [like planting trees or supporting renewable energy].
A vegetarian for about nine years [as was A. Hitler], Gore touts the experiments his Tennessee farm is conducting, to try to make agriculture and livestock more climate-friendly.

Interesting research:
Recent peer-reviewed studies [1 & 2] found that people are more likely to listen to others, calling for action on climate change, if they [advocates] personally have lower carbon footprints.

The researchers prior work [2] indicated that communicators’ carbon footprints massively affect their credibility, and the likelihood that their audience will conserve energy.

Their newer research [1] showed that the carbon footprints, of those communicating the science, not only affects their credibility, but also affects audience support for the public policies, for which the communicators advocated.

In a survey of 300 participants, the study found that, regardless of gender, political orientation, and age of the participants, policy recommendations are better-supported when participants believe the messenger, in this case a climate researcher, who conserves energy at home. The research [1 & 2], led by Shahzeen Attari, former postdoctoral researcher in Columbia University’s Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, and now associate professor at the O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, Bloomington, found it is really important that scientists, or other messengers, who communicate with the public, model those behaviors that reduce carbon emissions, to drive their point home.

[1] “Climate change communicators’ carbon footprints affect their audience’s policy support” ~ by Shahzeen Z. Attari [2019]
➥ https://link.springer.com/article/10...84-019-02463-0

[2] “Statements about climate researchers’ carbon footprints affect their credibility and the impact of their advice” ~ by Shahzeen Z. Attari et al [2016]
➥ https://link.springer.com/article/10...584-016-1713-2