Outboards are incredibly polluting - WOW

[double u]

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.

....now who would have guessed...?
...the environmental crime is ALWAYS the one comitted by the OTHER guy! To the vegan it's the eating of meat, to the pedestrian it's the driving of cars, to the tree hugger it's the owning of plastic (!) boats, to the rower it's the outboard owner, to the flat dweller it's the single family home owners cluttering up the countryside with their homes...
take your pick!

[myocean]

For comparison with electricity from the grid or from the onboard diesel I we should look at two different aspects in order not to get this wrong



Regarding CO2 emissions,

the grid electricity is (nearly) always much better because there is quite a bit of renewable energy in the grid, also in countries like Germany, while at the same time very small combusion engines have a horrible efficiency.
The on board diesel genset is probably a bit better (including losses for electric conversion).
I assume a small outboard has an emission factor of about 800-1000 gCO2/kWh (or may be 2000?). At the same time energy from electric grid is typically at 400-500 gCO2/kWh (lower in countries like Finland of France, higher in Poland, see also here). Add 10-20% for the elecric energy reaching your prop.
A very good diesel genset generates about 700 gCO2/kWh.



Regarding other emissions like NOx, SOx and PM,

grid electricity is always a lot better because there is very efficient exhaust treatment in place for large power plants (plus the emission free share from renewables) while outboards have ZERO exhaust treatment.
The on board diesel has also no exhaust treatment but might be slightly better due to bigger size and higher efficiency.

[myocean]

Originally Posted by KayZee

To live is to leave a mark.



The origins and purpose of the original post are suspect. Something, something and tea in china.


Kurt

You really think if you tried the same setup the result would be different?

[myocean]

Originally Posted by sailingunity

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.

I would not look at the turbidity of the water but at the black residue at the surface.... That can't result from some more bubbles...

[myocean]

Originally Posted by double u

....now who would have guessed...?
...the environmental crime is ALWAYS the one comitted by the OTHER guy!

That was not the statement of the original post. It is more about having a choice. Not about finger pointing.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by thinwater

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.

You beat me too it. Your numbers are the correct ones.


But this is only carbon, which is not the only environmental problem the world has. The mass consumption of factory-farmed meat is also the leading consumer and spoiler of fresh water resources, and has a huge negative effect on land use and deforestation. Deforestation has very large knock-on effects.


My personal taste concerning fake meat corresponds to Chotu's, but I also think people should eat what tastes good to them, and if they miss juicy burgers, for example, why not? There is now lab-grown meat which is actual meat, just without the environmental damage. Probably not very healthy, but probably not worse than actual meat.



Also, fanaticism is not required in this. I've been on a vegan diet for six years and never enjoyed food as much as I do now; the greater variety of tastes, not to mention how you feel. But it might not be for everyone. Reducing meat just by half is already a huge benefit, also for your health. Human beings were not historically big meat eaters. Eating meat with every meal is a strange habit which arose only very recently in historical terms. Not just a strange habit -- unhealthy, and environmentally destructive.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...There is now lab-grown meat which is actual meat, just without the environmental damage. Probably not very healthy, but probably not worse than actual meat...

I've heard of this, and I'm hoping this technology matures.

I think lab-grown meat has a bright future. Apparently plant-based fake meat just doesn't sell. But if some entrepreneur could grow a "real" premium-quality steak in a factory, for less than the same cut from a live animal, people would most likely buy it.

There will always be those who insist on the real thing. Or just want to splurge on a night out. But if artificially-grown meat is just as good and cheaper, most people will be OK with that. Over time, we may come to see killing animals for their meat as a quaint old custom, even somewhat barbaric.

For the record, we're not there yet. I don't begrudge anyone eating "normal" food, including meat. I certainly do, and refuse to be made to feel guilty about it.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

... Human beings were not historically big meat eaters. Eating meat with every meal is a strange habit which arose only very recently in historical terms. Not just a strange habit -- unhealthy, and environmentally destructive.

Meat was clearly pivotal in the evolution of the human brain, but that doesn’t mean that meat is still an irreplaceable part of the modern human diet.

There’s ample archaeological evidence that, by 2 million years ago, the first hominins [Homo habilis] were actively eating meat, on a regular basis. They were, probably, scavengers, more than hunters.

The modern human brain is far larger, than that of other primates, and three times the size of the one possessed by our distant ancestor, Australopithecus, the predecessor of Homo. But those big brains come at a cost, in that they require tons of energy to operate. Our brains consume 20 percent of our body’s total energy. Compare that to cats and dogs, whose brains require only three to four percent of total energy.

Meat played a critical role in boosting energy intake, to feed the evolution of those big, hungry brains.

Some scientists argue that meat is what made us human.

When ancient hominins subsisted exclusively on fruits, plants and seeds, they expended a lot more energy on digestion. Millions of years ago, the human gut was longer and slower, requiring more effort to derive limited calories from forage foods. With all of that energy being spent on digestion, the human brain remained relatively small, similar to other primates today.

Compared to foraged fruits and plants, meat is a “high-quality” food — energy dense with lots of calories and protein. When humans began adding meat to their diet, there was less of a need for a long digestive tract equipped for processing lots of plant matter. Slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years, the human gut shrunk. This freed up energy to be spent on the brain, which grew explosively in size.

When humans began cooking meat, it became even easier to digest quickly and efficiently, and capture those calories to feed our growing brains. The earliest clear evidence of humans cooking food dates back roughly 800,000 years ago, although it could have begun sooner.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Eating meat with every meal is a strange habit which arose only very recently in historical terms. Not just a strange habit -- unhealthy, and environmentally destructive.

Actually, we are coming out of a comparatively short period where meat was a rare item.

In hunter gatherer societies, meat was fairly common place. It varied depending on the location and success but was pretty regular part of the diet. Of course, they didn't do a roast with potatoes, onions and carrots all as one meal but overall percentage had a decent amount of meat.

With the advent of farming and high population densities, it became difficult to provide meat in substantial quantities. Both the production and storage of large quantities was difficult. So it shifted to an item for the wealthy or more of a rare treat.

With modern processing and storage techniques, we have reached a point where meat can be returned to quantities more consistent with human development.

Of course, there are issues with modern production but the idea that humans did not evolve eating significant quantities of meat is incorrect.

[MicHughV]

I was watching one of these video's that depicts planet earth from space. The video would then zoom out until our solar system was shown. By this time, planet earth was a mere dot. The video would keep zooming out, until more of the universe (as we know it) appeared, by which time planet earth is not even visible....and arrow has to show the location of our entire solar system.

In the grand scheme of things, planet earth is pretty insignificant. Additionally, we do know that planet earth has been around for some time, how long?, hard to say, but does involve a lot of zero's, during which time, a variety of tumultuous events have taken place here.

Finally, add the human race to this drama. By comparison, the human race are but minuscule specks in the grand scheme of things.

At the end of the day, what mankind does to planet earth is pretty puny and insignificant. I think these debates about pollution, etc, while interesting, will not lead to any long lasting solution.

[Rumrace]

I guess we’ve all seen some ugly oil or fuel spills. I think corroding drives will enter a new experience with some brands.
I think there are more liars in lithium battery production than the industry really needs.
The nay sayers in electrical are blind on advancements.
The “ can’t get there from here” experts are a plenty.
I love electric vehicles. They boarder being boring as they don’t break.
I just put a LS3 in an 18’. It was a failed GM dealer auction and a couple months gathering bits to marinize it.
My car is electric and super fast but I can’t do that in a boat yet. I think engine blocks like the hawk, donavon, GM LS series will be missed. I don’t think anyone who knows engines will miss two stroke anything or cheap tractor motors pretending to be marine engines.
The Rand Picnic was written up as the marine version of a Tesla but in their earliest days were impaired by the BMW i3 battery packs. Delhi Yachts are rolling out electric yachts right now.
Toyota Yamaha Yanmar have ever internet expert insulting everyone who repeats this but they are producing liquid hydrogen afloat with passive energy sources. One method would only work in salt water.
That it’s a mandate in Japan all manufactures are working together to perfect hydrogen. The Yanmar 3 cylinder rally car recently got its ass kicked but finished the race.
The Yamaha V8 Hydrogen engine is downright sweet.
When Japan Canada and Europe got all cuddly with free trade during a pandemic Toyota doubled the Cami factory to build 3 new electrics. They also launch a 28’ 30LOA lovely Hydrogen Cruiser at the Olympics.
Honda expands Allison Factory to build electric cars
Ford Oakville 2 electric vehicles.
Canada lithium rich announces Battery factory in Windsor.
Sounds like change is a foot.
So yes Hydrogen and electric and the energy storage thing a hollow argument.
I don’t intend to replace my outboards. Yamahas are too well built and easy to maintain. The LS3 consumes 7$ of gas a minute at 60mph

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by thinwater

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.

Comparing to a poorly designed car? Why? The best car has " 27,482 MPGe" Not 27 but 27 thousand mile/gallon equivalent emissions. Seach for "duke student team car" as they have the world record.

Why dont you compare to an electric train? In this case the airplane causes more than
10 times the emissions and in many cases is not even significantly faster.

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

The number of planes is not irrelevant. Your business is not relevant though. It is wrong to have wastewater treatment plants which consume more energy and require infrastructure. It is the wrong system to implement. Instead localized concentrated solar should be used for this at smaller scales.

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

.
Yes it is a problem to have industrial plants like this

d. They could all drive. An extra 500 cars on the road for 3-5 days. Congestion and more road construction.

Again comparing to driving? Why? Why dont they all sail? Would there be congestion on the sea? no.

You've got to do the math.

Your math is wrong about aviation.

You claim it is 0.17 ton per flight when in fact it is about 2 tons per person to fly usa to europe. This is more emissions than many people produce in an entire year.

Aviation causes more emissions on the ground than in the air.
From the production of planes, airports, refining and transporting fuel, production of rubber and transporting it, and increase emissions traveling to and from airport. Also all the runways are added pavement which is a negative.

Finally, CO2 released in upper atmosphere has twice the short term warming effect. This is also extremely disruptive to weather. This makes the real emissions above 1 ton per person for international flight.

The air travel is something that 85% of the world has never done and 1% of the population do 95% of flying. Eliminating flying would not be a sacrifice for anyone except rich over privileged people. There is no reasonable excuse for why it should be allowed using jet engines.

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.

How would me buying less stuff cut down on your travel?

Who eats a pound of meat a day?? Drive 10,000 miles a year?? These are both absurd things to actually do. Please keep emissions below 1 ton per person per year (needed to reach climate goals) Eating half a pound of meat a month is within reason: eating meat every day is not reasonable.

A better way would be a supreme court decision banning flight. They can ban just about anything.

[mako]

Originally Posted by MicHughV

Finally, add the human race to this drama. By comparison, the human race are but minuscule specks in the grand scheme of things.

At the end of the day, what mankind does to planet earth is pretty puny and insignificant. I think these debates about pollution, etc, while interesting, will not lead to any long lasting solution.

Mic, while all these guys are arguing over little details, you're looking at the big picture. I think George Carlin was best at calling out people's arrogance and BS (followed second by Ricky Gervais )

George Carlin - Saving the Planet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

[Rumrace]

I live on one of Toronto’s great rivers. I can see the air traffic heading for Toronto Island Airport Billy Bishop and Toronto International. I also often watch the WWII Lancaster fly over us out of the Hamilton airport. Had two fighters following it one day.
Anyway Covid hit Yamaha wouldn’t answer the phone and we were told to stay indoors. So my wife and I snuck out down trails along the river. No aircraft flying the occasional military transport and fighters which we never see?
Down on the River on a 12,000 year old shared path with the Mississauga natives we spot an American mink moving 6 pups. The American Mink is extinct here!?
We spot a swan couple with 4! Babies.
A large group of blue herons are fighting for territory with a smaller more dangerous group of great herons. A rare Black Crested Night Heron having a nap on the rocks. A white heron single slips by.
The salmon run on the river sets a new record and so does the arrival of at least 400 huge turkey vultures to feast with bear wolf coyote heron etc... even the tress on the bank have salmon protein in them.
The speed nature was recovering from our pollution was dream like.

[Rumrace]

Oh I forgot. If you boat the Severn River Georgian Bay guess which extinct snake is back. The King Rattlesnake. The largest of the northern diamond back. My wife and I spotted one sunning in Little Lake near a popular anchorage. The Massasaguas big brother lives.