There is no Planet B

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I know there is just a few of you that love debating your views on the environment, but what on earth ( ) has this got to do with sailing? or 'cruising' ?

there was a debate?
i thought half the posts on this thread were trolling and the other half feeding the trolls

[woodenboats]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

The last time I checked, we weren't living inside a sealed globe with a few plants.

Check again but widen your view, take look from space if necessary. We are living not in, but on a globe with limited resources, even if Donald Trump and others do not believe (or admit) it.


Sent from my Lenovo B8080-H using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

On your boat, go look at your on-board genset. Now compare that to your renewable system of solar panels and wind gen and controllers and batteries and inverter. Especially the batteries. Now go look at your local power station and imagine upscaling the renewable system to the same output level as the power station vs your genset. Especially the batteries.

Now ask yourself why you have a genset at all. I'm guessing you'll probably answer convenience, power output, reliability, stand by, compactness etc, etc. While some will go Ha! - I don't have a genset so there!; the cold hard fact is that many do. And heck, even if you don't have a genset you more than likely have a fossil fuelled engine to move your vessel.

This is what makes the idea of creating a fossil fuel free utopian society a mute point at this juncture.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by alctel

It's not so much that electric engines aren't there, it's the problem of battery and energy storage that is the issue

Yes it is, but it's also cost of the motor and gearbox. The battery bank issues aside, the cost at the moment of the motor and gearbox seems to currently put them out of practical use.

[Don C L]

OK given that most folks have moved on from this thread I would still like to pose this: Why is it the world could come together on the science and solution for the ozone depletion, but not climate change? Before you answer remember scientists were responsible for the data that led to the conclusions...
From NASA:

"On Sept. 16, 1987, representatives from nations around the world drafted a landmark treaty known as the Montreal Protocol. This step marked the beginning of the international agreement to phase out substances that deplete Earth's protective ozone layer. Now, 25 years later, NASA satellites continue to provide clear snapshots of a generally stabilized Antarctic ozone hole as it cycles toward its annual maximum depth by late September or early October.

The protocol is hailed as an international policy success story. That success, however, rests on the ingenuity of numerous scientists involved with the initial discovery and analysis of the then-mysterious atmospheric phenomenon."

[alctel]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Yes it is, but it's also cost of the motor and gearbox. The battery bank issues aside, the cost at the moment of the motor and gearbox seems to currently put them out of practical use.

I thought (sailboat sized) electric engines were actually very reasonably priced?

At least compared to the battery component.

[Lizzy Belle]

We can debate this until we're blue in the face, but what's the point?

Those of us who believe we're in trouble will only change what works for them and ignore what's not convenient or easy to give up.
Those of us who believe there is no problem will change nothing at all.

Our whole way of life is based on growth: more people making more money to buy more stuff. We have chosen to base everything on that, while stuck on a rock that doesn't grow and at some point can no longer support the sheer number of human beings (and all that comes with them, to keep producing and producing more stuff).

We're saying us sailors are very 'eco', which just proves we only look at what we like. More and more boats, bigger boats, more bells and whistles ... and don't you dare tell us to maybe eat less meat and dairy products. We'll swim with captive dolphins just as happily as we'll watch wild ones, and not even think twice while munching on a burger at SW to see what some call an orca.

So long story short: a real problem or not, nothing will change. Whatever happens, happens. As I posted earlier, the planet has rebooted before and will do so again. All we're doing is fast forward the timeline. The planet will be fine - it was fine before mankind came along, and it'll be fine when we're gone. Only we think we matter. To the planet, we're not even a blip on the radar.

[Juho]

I'll try to answer also to the original question.

Originally Posted by ZipTie

So where do cruisers go from here? No, diesel or gas motors or generators.

Sail ?
Solar ?
Electric ?
Fuel Cell ?
Wind Turbine ?

I think we will still have many diesel and gas motors but we should not use fossil fuel in them. Biodiesel, methanol, ethanol and others are ok. Fuel is probably more expensive than now, but that is not a big deal to sailing cruisers. You just avoid motoring a bit more than now. Installing some other kind of engines is possible too.

Sail: Yes
Solar: Yes
Electric: Yes
Fuel Cell: Yes
Wind Turbine: Yes

In addition one could use hydrogen, methane, even compressed air, or whatever is best.

We have used the fossil resources few hundred years now, continuously increasing our consumption. Energy has been extremely cheap. I don't see any reason why humans could not live happily ever after even if there was not such an abundant source of cheap energy available. We have just used to that cheap source of energy and we use it very wastefully. Naturally giving up our current level of consumption is not painless, but we do have all the technology needed to fulfil all our basic needs and something extra too.

Cruisers know very well that during passages you can be quite independent of fossil fuels if you want to. That is, without sacrificing your living standards too much. Cruisers do that voluntarily all the time. For them cutting down use of fossil fuels should not be a major problem.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

there was a debate?
i thought half the posts on this thread were trolling and the other half feeding the trolls

That's exactly what it is, on both sides

I am generally interested in not debating whether global warming is a problem, because as far as I am concerned it is, what I'm interested in the following questions. (the trolls could really go and start there own thread to debate).

a - what impact can I expect on where I can sail to and the conditions of sailing due to the change. e.g opening of the North West passage.

b - what impact on my boat the future holds. e.g electric engines.

and maybe,

c - the social impacts that will affect sailing. e.g will it affect things like visa's and passports.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by alctel

I thought (sailboat sized) electric engines were actually very reasonably priced?

At least compared to the battery component.

On one of the other threads on electric motors a price was muted at $17k ? Well, if that's true, then it's $7k beyond the price of a replacment 38hp diesel for me. That's beyond what I'd be willing to pay.

Now if I can get a complete 'set up' for either a comparable price to a new diesel engine, or even a little more, I'd jump at it on my next re-build.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

That's exactly what it is, on both sides

I am generally interested in not debating whether global warming is a problem, because as far as I am concerned it is, what I'm interested in the following questions. (the trolls could really go and start there own thread to debate).

a - what impact can I expect on where I can sail to and the conditions of sailing due to the change. e.g opening of the North West passage.

b - what impact on my boat the future holds. e.g electric engines.

and maybe,

c - the social impacts that will affect sailing. e.g will it affect things like visa's and passports.

a - I hope not. That would be cool, but I prefer the traditional cooler climate. The new climate could be much stormier than the current one. Not good.

b - Yes, electric engines would make sense. Electric engines would be a natural way to consume all the (extra) energy generated by the solar panels, without any unnecessary and wasteful energy storages and transformations in between. There are already now sailboats whose sails are panels and that have electric engines. I might use also some more traditional engines to give me reliable continuous power when I need it, if my batteries are not large enough, or when there is not enough sunshine. It is possible that the traditional motor would be just a generator that would drive the electric motor (in addition to loading the batteries).

c - I don't see any major impact there. If flying would become too expensive, we might have much more boats sailing around. Entering a country via waterways could even become the norm in some countries.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Not the population bomb fraud again...kinda like peak oil...these theories of doom forget aa little thing called technological advancement.

??? The population of the world has more than doubled again in my lifetime, nearly trebled actually. The projections were accurate. Nearly a billion of those people live close to starving in awful conditions, the rest increase consumption constantly. Technology contrives to keep more and more alive, and some more wealthy, but NOT ALL can be wealthy, and fewer and fewer can even live, as this trend continues. There are finite resources in the world, and we have been exploiting more and more of them. Far more land is under cultivation than was the case, and far less biomass remains in the Oceans. It is you who is comitting a fraud, on yourself, by making such a foolish mistake. Technology can make more people live on the planet… at a great expense. And that relationship cannot continue indefiintely. There just aren't going to be any more forests to cut down etc etc. We are exhuating planetary resources in an ever increasing frenzy. There is less and less wild world left, and if you can't see that you are blind. Population size is obviously a major part of the problem.

Continue to live with your head in the sand if you like. It is more comfortable that way, for sure.

[Southern Star]

IMO this thread was done as soon as it started - it is a topic as divisve as firearms, politics and religion. No answers will be found here and while rising seas and melting polar caps (as well as carbon taxes/caps) will affect all of us, both on land and on the sea, it should be abundantly clear that society - even in a microcosm such as this site where members start with some significant commonality, is incapable of coming together to recognize serious emerging issues, let alone to deal with them in a rational way (and these are serious issues, no matter what your views may be on causation).

Past experience has taught many of us that no one here is going to make a 'convert' from one side to another. In the result, some of us have chosen to have some fun, recognizing the absurdity of it all.

Brad

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

IMO this thread was done as soon as it started - it is a topic as divisve as firearms, politics and religion. No answers will be found here and while rising seas and melting polar caps (as well as carbon taxes/caps) will affect all of us, both on land and on the sea, it should be abundantly clear that society - even in a microcosm such as this site where members start with some significant commonality, is incapable of coming together to recognize serious emerging issues, let alone to deal with them in a rational way (and these are serious issues, no matter what your views may be on causation).

Past experience has taught many of us that no one here is going to make a 'convert' from one side to another. In the result, some of us have chosen to have some fun, recognizing the absurdity of it all.

Brad

The problem is that the thread is 'permitted' to disintergrate into a debate about global warming. Which was not the question. There are a number of people that act like TROLL's, to get a rise, on both sides. This thread was not opened in order to debate the science and yet it's permitted to turn into such a debate with all the name calling etc.

Can't the moderators insist on just discussing the 'impact' of global warming on our sport/lifestyles and tell everyone else who wants to debate whether GW is happening to go and open their own thread.

[Don C L]

Actually I don't see this as a debate about global warming as much as it is "do we trust scientists?" Unfortunately I think many folks pick and choose when they will rely on scientific analysis for solutions. As for me, pertinent to the thread, I am happy to go engineless if I have to.