Should Large Power Boats be Banned?

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Polux

The FBP in question was not a 64 but a 83 (the one that crossed on the ARC). The boat has 2 X 150 hp engines and about 30L/hour is what the manufacturer says that the engine waste at cruising speed.

If you followed the writing of Steve Dashew however you would find out that they a) derate the engines and b) do not usually run them both at full throttle. They would sometimes even just run on one engine.

I find the figure the Dashews quote themselves more believable than theoretical figures form the manufacturer.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by thruska

Please tell me what advantages the signatories of said Paris treaty would ensnare by halting oil and coal production?

They would not have any advantage. Which is why they are not going to do it, and in stead just engage in virtue signalling.

But you are missing my point.

If you really want to limit the amount of CO2 that ends up in the atmosphere we must limit the production of fossil fuels.

The US has the biggest known Coal reserves. If the US would decide no longer to mine for coal that would result in a significant amount of CO2 never to be released. If other industrialised countries like Germany did the same that would really contribute a lot to reducing CO2 emissions.

However just deciding to reduce coal and oil consumption, without doing anything about production just means that there will be more coal and oil to burn for other people.

In Switzerland is not coal and oil used?
Does Switzerland money mongers not finance those worldwide endeavors?
Switzerland remains neutral in war but feels that financing wars is morally acceptable. Is the same reasoning thus used in financing of industrial endeavors
for the filling of coffers without any moral accountability?
What tribe do you belong ?

Given that I actually know a few things about Switzerland and do not base my opinions on stereotypes without any factual basis I would guess I am not part of your tribe at least...

[Robert Tilbury]

I think the internet should be banned ,,

[thruska]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

I suppose one could argue that trees will grow back and oil won't, unless you believe in the abiogenic petroleum origin theory. More likely the original poster was being facetious.

Interestingly, we really don't know how oil is formed although the weight of evidence currently favours biogenic formation. Despite the balance of evidence being in favour of biogenic origin, they can't conclusively prove this. It's also possible that oil can be formed both ways and a few years ago a chemist claims there's sufficient reliable evidence to show support for both.

Biogenics. Ok. How about the idea of growing mass amounts of hemp for industrial usage? That of course will require mass amounts of that co2 everyone hates ,( especially koolaide drinkers)Derive mass quantities of oil from the hemp. Oil for therapeutic, food , and a plethora of industrial uses. Fiber remains for building literally anything! All manner of clothing can be made from it. Harvest seeds for food and seed crop. No chemicals needed in husbandry of this plant.
There are reasons for the derailment of hemp and it’s saving grace. It could be raised by every able bodied human for little but the cost of seed and source of water, and bartered for every other need. If barter is not outlawed. So , do you believe the powers that be , would allow hemp to ruin their hold on world economics? Until those elite own the patent on the hemp seed.... That alone is a crime upon humanity. Patents on seed. Think about it. Gmo seeds ( poison laden) contaminate non gmo. Only gmo left with a patent on it. Food supply control. Pars accord , Paris treaty, Paris my bloody arse fools only believe global.
Think global and lose your sovereignty, lose freedom, gain the inability to access your rights to everything and anything.

[Lake-Effect]

Ok, here's a big reason why large power boats should never be banned: without them, there would be almost no recreational marine industry.

Power-boaters spend on boats, fuel, maintenance, upgrades, decorating, matching glass sets... Sailors (self included) are CHEAP! I have worked on both kinds of boats, and I know several folks with marine businesses (engines, electrical, etc), and if it wasn't for the power-boaters, they wouldn't be making a living.

So, long live big powerboats!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

Not nice to close a thread saying that I am inventing information without giving me the possibility to tell you that is not the case and that I am posting correct information.

The FBP in question was not a 64 but a 83 (the one that crossed on the ARC). The boat has 2 X 150 hp engines and about 30L/hour is what the manufacturer says that the engine waste at cruising speed.

2 engines give 60L an hour. The FPB did cross the Atlantic at a speed a bit over 10k and that is a very good performance since we are not talking about flat water and that implies that the boat was used not at an economic cruising speed but was sailed at a normal cruising speed.

This is not a invention but data published by the engine manufacturer and data published by the ARC regarding the number of engine hours.

The comparison with the average engine hours of 50 to 60ft modern sailboats (with about the same interior space) doing the same ARC and their consumption is what gives that difference. The FPB had a consumption 30 to 40 times superior.

And I did not consider those 50 to 60ft sail boats wasting 4 liters an hour but much more. A 50 to 60ft sailboat will not do a decent speed on a seaway wasting 4l an hour.

The FPB you refer, the 64 is the smallest of all FPB, they have one bigger than the 83, the FPB 97.

The other thread is not closed, but in any case this is the proper place for this discussion. Welcome.

It is meaningless to calculate something based on theory and moreover for an exceptional use case. If you want to judge what the Dashew's did on the basis of damage caused by their vessels, you need to look at the typical use case, and use real numbers. Typical use case is a few hundred hours a year and the by far most sold model of the FPB is the 64. The fuel burn is similar to sailboats of similar size, so going from something like an HR 64 to a FPB 64 would result in increased consumption of something like the difference in percentage of motoring. I'm pretty sure there is no HR 64 on the planet which motors less than 50%, so it means that going from that to the FPB will result in maximum a few hundred hours x 7 liters or something, so maybe a ton or two of diesel fuel at most.

If you think that's worth moral condemnation, then I don't really know what to say to you. Do you eat meat? Fly anywhere? And why the Dashews, whose power boats have been made in vanishingly small numbers compared to Nordhavns, Hatteras, Beneteaus (Fast Trawler etc.) and so forth. I doubt that their power boats make up even 0.1% of the market. Moreover, the Dashew power boats are far more efficient than normal trawlers, so to the extent that buyers switch to them from Nordhavns etc., fuel use and environmental damage will be reduced. So why pick on the Dashews, who have done so much for us? Just weird.

If you look here, for example:

https://www.nordhavn.com/rally/underway/shipslog.htm

You'll see that real life fuel consumption for Nordhavns in the 50-60 foot range is about 3 to 6 liters per mile, so 4 to 7 times (!) greater than the extremely efficient FPB 64. The Dashew power boats are a highly inappropriate target of selective outrage.

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by boatman61

And this leads to a demand for more economical and fuel efficient cars/engines in Europe.. the main reason your gas guzzlers don't sell oversea's.. whereas your manufacturers have no incentive to improve the 'All American Muscle Car' to quote Dom..

Actually, here in the US the muscle cars of today are vastly improved compared to what they were when conceived in the 1960's.

They have way more horsepower now but are more efficient and clean than when they started out.

They also handle much better and are safer to drive and operate due to advances in suspension, brakes and tires.

Not everyone likes to drive fast cars but that doesn't mean that no one should be able to.

Or does it?

[Dave_S]

I would be willing to bet that more fuel gets used every day by people going to lunch or playing golf or bowling or going to the pub or going to pick up a dole cheque .....

DELETED. I don't think the world is ready for my views yet :-)

[thruska]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

They would not have any advantage. Which is why they are not going to do it, and in stead just engage in virtue signalling.

But you are missing my point.

If you really want to limit the amount of CO2 that ends up in the atmosphere we must limit the production of fossil fuels.

The US has the biggest known Coal reserves. If the US would decide no longer to mine for coal that would result in a significant amount of CO2 never to be released. If other industrialised countries like Germany did the same that would really contribute a lot to reducing CO2 emissions.

However just deciding to reduce coal and oil consumption, without doing anything about production just means that there will be more coal and oil to burn for other people.




Given that I actually know a few things about Switzerland and do not base my opinions on stereotypes without any factual basis I would guess I am not part of your tribe at least...

Please enlighten us then on the tribal affairs of the Switzerland you know a few things about.
What Point am I missing about the Paris treaty signatories?
Please tell me how limited co2 can support sufficient plant growth for required food supply? Please give me credible scientific evidence to prove the harmful levels of it. Perhaps cry for the destruction of the rain forests instead and inform me of the perpetrators of it, the financiers ?

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

However just deciding to reduce coal and oil consumption, without doing anything about production just means that there will be more coal and oil to burn for other people.

Ah, controlling the means of production. Where have I heard that before?

No one will produce something if there is no consumption. People will not dig for more coal than they can generally sell. People will not produce more products than they can reasonably sell. Controlling production is not necessary since it will just skew markets, unless of course it is one's desire to drive up or down prices.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by sailpower

Actually, here in the US the muscle cars of today are vastly improved compared to what they were when conceived in the 1960's.

They have way more horsepower now but are more efficient and clean than when they started out.

They also handle much better and are safer to drive and operate due to advances in suspension, brakes and tires.

Not everyone likes to drive fast cars but that doesn't mean that no one should be able to.

Or does it?

Just staying within the frame of the thread.. mind my KLE 500 burns more fuel than our Skoda Fabia.. so I've changed me mind..
SAVE THE BIG POWER BOATS...

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by thruska

Biogenics. Ok. How about the idea of growing mass amounts of hemp for industrial usage? That of course will require mass amounts of that co2 everyone hates ,( especially koolaide drinkers)Derive mass quantities of oil from the hemp. Oil for therapeutic, food , and a plethora of industrial uses. Fiber remains for building literally anything! All manner of clothing can be made from it. Harvest seeds for food and seed crop. No chemicals needed in husbandry of this plant.
There are reasons for the derailment of hemp and it’s saving grace. It could be raised by every able bodied human for little but the cost of seed and source of water, and bartered for every other need. If barter is not outlawed. So , do you believe the powers that be , would allow hemp to ruin their hold on world economics? Until those elite own the patent on the hemp seed.... That alone is a crime upon humanity. Patents on seed. Think about it. Gmo seeds ( poison laden) contaminate non gmo. Only gmo left with a patent on it. Food supply control. Pars accord , Paris treaty, Paris my bloody arse fools only believe global.
Think global and lose your sovereignty, lose freedom, gain the inability to access your rights to everything and anything.

Spot on! I believe the only issue with hemp, and I am neither a user or an expert, is that it requires a decent amount of water, so it should be grown in areas with a good natural supply of water. It's sort of like cotton. When grown in areas with a limited supply it can be damaging to the area.

Your comment about CO2 helping plants has been proven and in many areas crop yields are up!

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by sailpower

Actually, here in the US the muscle cars of today are vastly improved compared to what they were when conceived in the 1960's.

They have way more horsepower now but are more efficient and clean than when they started out.

They also handle much better and are safer to drive and operate due to advances in suspension, brakes and tires.

Not everyone likes to drive fast cars but that doesn't mean that no one should be able to.

Or does it?

Your comment on improvements over the decades is absolutely correct. As technology improves, consumption of energy per item will naturally decrease since things will be more efficient. This efficiency will also result in less pollution. Examples are many and a few examples are miles per gallon have increased across the board, pollution has gone down, manufacturing is vastly more efficient today, aircraft carry more people with less fuel, horsepower is up while fuel usage per horsepower is down, etc. Worrying about man made carbon is really a waste of time since it will eventually sort itself out.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

Ah, controlling the means of production. Where have I heard that before?

I am not saying that we should "control the means of production". I am just saying that voluntarily limiting your oil consumption is just virtue signalling that does nothing to reduce total final CO2 emissions.

No one will produce something if there is no consumption. People will not dig for more coal than they can generally sell. People will not produce more products than they can reasonably sell. Controlling production is not necessary since it will just skew markets, unless of course it is one's desire to drive up or down prices.

Well, a third of the oil is consumed by the countries that produce it. If all the non oil producing countries would stop buying oil from the oil producing countries these countries would not stop producing. They would just be able to enjoy their oil longer. In the end it would still all get pumped up, and burned. Same for coal.

Which is the point I am making. If a part of the world decides to use less oil that means there will be more oil left over for the other part of the world that decides not to do so. Seeing the incentive problem here?

Basically my conclusion has been for some time that:
a) The climate is changing. But it always has.
b) We are with a very high probability influencing the climate. But we always have. We're just doing more of that now.
c) It is very well possible that the world has more unpleasant surprises for us in the future. It is more likely that we will produce the unpleasant surprises ourselves however. Climate change is peanuts compared to other ways we can do ourselves in.
d) It is impossible to know the future
e) When problems arrive we either deal with them, or cease to need a solution...

So in the mean time my motto is to just enjoy life.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Polux

The FBP in question was not a 64 but a 83 (the one that crossed on the ARC). The boat has 2 X 150 hp engines and about 30L/hour is what the manufacturer says that the engine waste at cruising speed.

2 engines give 60L an hour. The FPB did cross the Atlantic at a speed a bit over 10k and that is a very good performance since we are not talking about flat water and that implies that the boat was used not at an economic cruising speed but was sailed at a normal cruising speed.

This is not a invention but data published by the engine manufacturer and data published by the ARC regarding the number of engine hours.

Your lack of research and what happens in the real world stands out here

Firstly, they have published the real world numbers here so no need to guess or make them up.
https://www.setsail.com/wind-horse-a...ing-fuel-burn/

Secondly, it would be rare to run the engines at full noise, especially on passage.

My engine is is a 14.5 litre 315hp Cummins.
The brochure says at full noise 1800rpm that it supposedly has 65 litres/ hour running through it.
Sounds horrific but I have never run it there and I suspect a fair bit of that is returned to the tank.

Reality is we cruise at 1150 rpm at a hull speed of 7.5 knots
At that speed we use close enough to 15 litres/ hour or 2 litres/nm based on two years of observations.

That would be the reality for the majority of powered cruisers out there, we are after range, full noise is rarely an option.