Editor

stormy petrel

Recommended Posts

Reader Rant

stormy-petrel.jpg

As a result of all severe storms or hurricanes, such as the recent devastating Hurricane Irma, how many petrochemical based non-essential luxury sail boats are now littered about in our oceans? Who is responsible for the destruction of our environment which has been now littered with thousands of chunks of petroleum based carbon, plastics and glass? Is it environmentally ok for us as "yacht" owners to lose our boat (basically a hunk of glass and petroleum) to the bottom of an ocean due to a storm? Are we modern day yachtsman exonerated by being subject to an act of god such as a storm? Or, perhaps, is there equally an environmental responsibility for us yachtsmen who knowingly put that chunk of petrochemical in the ocean to use for pleasure boating? Every given year there is a reasonable probability of a severe boat breaking storm of fury from mother nature. Does this anticipated potential outcome of losing our boat to the ocean not make us yachtsman potentially equal to "big oil" in being labeled as environmental terrorists if that is how we chose to throw the label around? After all this is a luxury sport and we as owners of sailboats and yachts are responsible for buying that petroleum based luxury product and putting it at risk to become another chunk of waste in our oceans and the environment.

How many yachtsmen deliberately scuttle old, and unwanted fiberglass boats into the ocean rather than properly reclaim and recycle them? Is this not equally environmental terrorism by the yachting consumer of petroleum products?

Do you know that most sail boats, including the full spectrum of dinghies to luxury yachts, are made of petroleum based chemicals (which come from offshore drilling, drilling in environmentally sensitive areas etc.) such as the following:

"Styrene monomer is one of the key aromatic hydrocarbons derived from benzene and ethylene and used in the production of polymers such as polystyrene, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene, styrene butadiene latex and styrene-butadiene-rubber. It is also used to make unsaturated polyester resins. It is a colourless, oil, toxic and flammable compound produced in industrial quantities from petroleum."

I'm all for a clean healthy environment. It's currently trendy to hate the petroleum industry and everyone is quick to heap on criticism of the producers of petroleum products without understanding their own direct and indirect consumer participation in supporting the industry. Respectfully, this is flawed logic and hypocritical behavior. None of us want the petroleum industry in our own back yard but we all want to use petroleum products for our fancy luxury hi-tech toys at the best and cheapest cost possible.

Restricting offshore and onshore access to drilling might be a solution society has to live with for us all to have a more sustainable, cleaner environment but please understand if we are to be fair perhaps we equally need to be open to a ban on placing our petrochemical based yachts that we all love into the ocean due to the reasonable risk of loss of the craft to the ocean and the resulting environmental damage. Similarly, we need to acknowledge that our luxury yacht toys should likely cost a lot more due to higher petroleum supply costs once we restrict petroleum supply itself by restricting drilling access, pipeline development and general ability for the petroleum industry to operate. Perhaps consumers of luxury sailing yachts should be taxed and environmental reclamation tax to be fair if we choose to put that petrochemical boat at risk to being lost to the sea?

Coincidentally, as I write this note I can't help but notice that more than one of the advertisers on this website is advertising a petroleum based product for use in sailboat construction, repair parts or clothing. I'm not pointing this out to simply be rude or cheeky but only to create self-awareness that our use of and addiction to these products as consumers is literally everywhere. We all share responsibility for our consumer choices. Environmental ethics of production and consumption of petroleum products cannot be severed from each other - the environmental responsibility is shared by both consumer and producer.

My point is that if we are all going to have an honest conversation about the future of petroleum products in our environment, then we need to take an honest look at, and have an honest conversation about, our own personal consumption habits and uses of petroleum based products.

Are we prepared to stop using petroleum products in fabrication of our boats (as well as pretty much everything else on the boat these days - from our hand-held radio, GPS to our hi-tech personal sailing clothing)? Are we prepared to pay three, four or ten times more for all the products we use which are made from petroleum as a base by limiting access to the petroleum supply chain (which is sure to occur if we significantly restrict drilling access - on shore and offshore)?

As well, not everyone in the petroleum industry is employed by "Big Oil". There are literally hundreds of thousands of small businesses operating directly in, or ancillary to, the petroleum industry. Most of the people working in the business are genuinely decent, hardworking, environmentally conscious people - they are not environmental terrorists - they share the same goals and objectives as you do - clean healthy air and water while having access to a good lifestyle; access to air travel, trains, busses, ship transportation as well as a job to support their families. Are we prepared to forego those jobs and abandon all the products these petroleum companies sell and distribute, such as resins, polystyrenes, rubber and epoxies? We can expand our honest look at our use and addiction to petroleum products to pretty much every aspect of our everyday life, not to mention the luxury pastime of the sport of sailing.

Are we prepared to go back solely to wooden boats and canvas sails, and leather? If not then how much of a premium are we all prepared to pay to have all our petroleum based sailing products sourced from a limited, restricted producing field of petroleum feedstock?

This would be a great conversation for all of us to undertake as we do take a genuine, honest look in the mirror while considering our own personal consumption habits and corresponding indirect support for offshore drilling, any environmentally sensitive drilling areas etc., etc. which is pretty much everywhere in which drilling occurs if you ask the locally affected parties involved.

Don't be fooled by my comments above. My thoughts are more in line with your published thoughts on this issue than you might expect from reading my note (and my other note of last week). I'm just not sensing that we (collectively as critics) have a sense of self awareness in our complicity of the industry when we become aggressive critics of it; without this self-awareness of our own contribution our credibility to debate these matters comes into question.

I would love to see some content on your website that explores a conversation on all aspects of this tricky issue and our shared sport of passion - production and consumption of petroleum products in our sport of sailing and its impact on the future of our oceans and the environment.

I truly mean for this note to be constructive and provoke thought and debate on what is surely to become one of the most important topics facing this and the next generation.

I have no doubt that if you open this discussion in a broader format that we will all learn something. In turn perhaps, that might help us move forward in a meaningful way to find practice doable solutions that we can all live with, that result in a better more sustainable environment for all.

Thanks for your open mind to careful thought on this topic of discussion.

Respectfully,
Anarchist Robert 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HUH, WTF am i supposed to do.??

If we have a tidal Wave on the west coast are we suppose to worry about our boats??

Are you saying people who owned boats purposely flew to the Carib and scuttled their boats??
or those who lived their did so.

Yes there are unscrupulous people but how many would go into the face of danger and do what you mentioned in your first paragraph?

I doubt many would. NO, I think the world loves to vacation in the Carib.

Scot you are a tool for even posting this. We are a petrol people. until you figure out how to get from Ensenada to SD for a few bucks let me know.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People won't change till it's in their own backyard.  It will take drilling off California before we realize what we've done to the rest of the world for our petro society.

Think Nigeria and Shell Oil!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"How many yachtsmen deliberately scuttle old, and unwanted fiberglass boats into the ocean rather than properly reclaim and recycle them?"

Are there practical options for recycling a derelict fiberglass sailboat?  We have someone in the Seattle area who wants to behave responsibly but doesn't know what to do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like it or not, the human race is addicted to oil and it's many byproducts.

The day the oil stops flowing is the beginning of the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Raked Aft\\ said:

Like it or not, the human race is addicted to oil and it's many byproducts.

The day the oil stops flowing is the beginning of the end.

Or the end of the beginning, followed by the beginning of the next beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so the OP raises a valid question. Does anybody here have any experience of Entropy Resins? And is there anybody with the chemical knowledge who can comment on the merit of their environment friendly claims? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, petroleum-based boats last a very long time, which means they have a very long useful life. Buying a used boat helps mitigate this problem vs. creating demand for more new material that will inevitably ends up in landfill or the bottom of the ocean. It seems to me that if people want to do something about this today, you focus on buying used vs. buying new so you don't grow the overall problem. Keeping a used boat in good shape to pass along to another person to enjoy is a great way to make some kind of difference - even if it doesn't reverse the course.

Maybe we can focus on what exists today plus trying somehow to prevent people from letting any boat go derelict to the point that it's not feasible to save. I don't know how you do that. I live in Sausalito and during a 40 kt day this winter a derelict, unoccupied anchor-out cabin cruiser came dragging into a marina that then had to be hauled away - most likely to a dump. Wouldn't it be cool to have a non-profit that raised money from wealthy yachties to identify boats on the cusp of dereliction and restore them back to some basic shape so someone else could enjoy them. Kind of a carbon credit for owning a boat. Manufacturers could even participate so this doesn't become an industry issue and maybe it even helps grow the sailing community. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, the OP I think is asking a reasonable question...it may be uncomfortable but is something that we all will face in the coming decades. Do something...? nahhh fuck,  it lets just keep kicking the can down the road...not my problem.

OK, if you really want a wake up call about consuming....listen..http://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pe8QbmzJo3

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a fiberglass boat and I'm currently slathering epoxy far and wide on a rudder project.

However, I'm well aware that the fun quotient of the boat has little to do with how high-tech it is.  In fact it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if we all went back to wood, cotton and leather.  And hemp rope, too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Meat Wad said:

Scot you are a tool for even posting this. We are a petrol people. until you figure out how to get from Ensenada to SD for a few bucks let me know.

There are none so blind as those who will not see

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main environmental problem with oil is burning it producing CO2.  Don't blame the oil companies for this. If you stop putting gasoline in your car and stop flying in planes, I guarantee the oil companies will stop producing the stuff. Petrohemicals is only about 3% of oil production. The polution problem here is how waste gets into the environment. Ironically, sinking a boat as a basis for a reef might be one of the more responsible things you could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is alternatives being developed.

Here they build 'green' boats (unfortunately text in german only):

http://www.green-boats.de/

In short: They replace the fibreglas with flax fibres, that deliver linseed oil to replace large parts of the petro-parts in epoxid resin at the same time. For core layers they use paper or cardboard honeycombs. They achieve basically the same stregth as the normal fiberglas/epoxid sandwich constructions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boat construction IS carbon sequestration. The petrochemicals in a boat are basically inert (except for the oil in the engine and the diesel in the tacks).

 

For me, it's more a visual problem than an environmental one, and I'm generally quite sympathetic to environmental concerns. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP has some valid points since the idea of sailing is to not introduce more oil into the environment (via an engine) and when you look at all these old plastic boats I see two problems to solve.

One is getting rid of the waste.  There could be much better processes in recycling old boats instead of letting them sink or 1000 year rot their way down in a boatyard taking up space.  Stripped of all other parts, why have the hulls shredded down and perhaps reused in making roads (they do it with tires) or building materials.  I would be okay if government even subsidized initial studies and processes with the intent of allowing commercial use without a high COE.  

Another is in construction and I found this article to be quite interesting.  In summary, we can make Carbon fiber out of plants, not oil and if the price can be mitigated to that of a plastic boat, there is much greater advantage in making CF boats, lightness strength at the least and if it can be done from an environmentally better place this should be promoted.

Humans have been poisoning this planet for some time now in the name of greed.  Now that we see other avenues in how to make things that have less negative impact on the planet, it is disingenuous to dismiss new ideas simply because "Well, oil rules, suck it up snowflake".  Instead industry coupled with government can open new industries, news ways to feed the greed that helps rather than hurts our world.

I applaud the OP for starting a conversation for it certainly got me thinking. 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, bucc5062 said:

... the idea of sailing is to not introduce more oil into the environment (via an engine) ....
 

No, actually I sail because I like to sail, not due to some environmental guilt. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diesel in the tank and lead in the keel are the most straightforward problems.  I wish that registration fees or sales taxes included a component that supported clean up of derelict boats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Raked Aft\\ said:

Like it or not, the human race is addicted to oil and it's many byproducts.

The day the oil stops flowing is the beginning of the end.

Their are some products that indeed will always need petroleum, but a large number of items don't that do. It is no where near as dire as you portray... well it may be for those that depend on the industry but in the long run weaning ourselves off the cycle of being beholden to a few for far to much is changing.  

"If we can’t burn oil, it’s not worth very much. If we can’t defend coastal real estate from rising seas (or even insure it, for that matter), it’s not worth very much. If the industrial process a company owns exposes them to future climate litigation, it’s not worth very much. The value of those assets is going to plummet, inevitably… and likely, soon." https://thenearlynow.com/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 12345 said:

Their are some products that indeed will always need petroleum, but a large number of items don't that do. It is no where near as dire as you portray... well it may be for those that depend on the industry but in the long run weaning ourselves off the cycle of being beholden to a few for far to much is changing.  

"If we can’t burn oil, it’s not worth very much. If we can’t defend coastal real estate from rising seas (or even insure it, for that matter), it’s not worth very much. If the industrial process a company owns exposes them to future climate litigation, it’s not worth very much. The value of those assets is going to plummet, inevitably… and likely, soon." https://thenearlynow.com/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd

take it to PA...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

take it to PA...

No.  Just because you want to keep your head in the sand doesn't mean everyone does.

Re the OP's post, I suspect our boats are orders of magnitude less significant a source of plastics to the oceans than say water bottles.  And  they present far less important a problem globally than warming.

While we all still drive cars and heat our homes largely using fossil fuels, there is still a very great deal we can do to mitigate those effects:

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/

Political action on a global scale needs to happen sooner than later or our grandkids are likely to be living in a very different world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, monsoon said:

No.  Just because you want to keep your head in the sand doesn't mean everyone does.

Re the OP's post, I suspect our boats are orders of magnitude less significant a source of plastics to the oceans than say water bottles.  And  they present far less important a problem globally than warming.

While we all still drive cars and heat our homes largely using fossil fuels, there is still a very great deal we can do to mitigate those effects:

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/

Political action on a global scale needs to happen sooner than later or our grandkids are likely to be living in a very different world. 

How many wind turbines equal the output of 1 nuclear reactor ?

A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour.

At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that's, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles.

At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solar panels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.

We aren't going to put them anywhere. They are way too expensive and they don't provide a stable enough power supply to rely on. Anyplace with enough open spaces, enough wind or sun shine to be a good candidate is too far away from the east and west coasts where that power is needed most.

By comparison, the Fermi nuclear power plant near Monroe, Michigan sits on a site of about 2 square miles and produces 1,150 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day for 18 months straight. Then it needs to be shut down for a month for maintenance and refueling and it can go right back to making power 24 hours a day, rain or shine. They are even thinking about adding another reactor that will double the output of the plant on the same amount of land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

How many wind turbines equal the output of 1 nuclear reactor ?

A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour.

At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that's, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles.

At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solar panels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.

We aren't going to put them anywhere. They are way too expensive and they don't provide a stable enough power supply to rely on. Anyplace with enough open spaces, enough wind or sun shine to be a good candidate is too far away from the east and west coasts where that power is needed most.

By comparison, the Fermi nuclear power plant near Monroe, Michigan sits on a site of about 2 square miles and produces 1,150 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day for 18 months straight. Then it needs to be shut down for a month for maintenance and refueling and it can go right back to making power 24 hours a day, rain or shine. They are even thinking about adding another reactor that will double the output of the plant on the same amount of land.

Agree, I think nuclear should be part of the solution to GHGs. We also have 5 kW of solar on our house and I wonder why we aren't providing more incentives for everyone to do likewise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Unitarian church in our town has solar panels on their roof... it's a big roof. Their solar panel array, which admittedly cost a lot, powers the entire electrical needs of the church, which has 6 staff on-site during the week, nightly meetings almost every night and a congregation of about 800 if I remember rightly.  Their parking lot is covered in solar panels.  That was paid for by the City, which runs its own electrical utility.  The electricity from the parking lot goes back to the City for 15 years

Now, this is in California, so...

I'm seriously looking into putting a 4 Kw array onto the walkway between our Fellowship Hall and Sanctuary at church. I might be able to get 5Kw. I have to double-check, but I think that a 5 Kw setup will cover, on average, all the churches electrical needs, which includes a preschool 5 hours a day and a lot of evening meetings.

Heating in the church is gas, which we can't replace any time soon. I wish we could.  All of this has nothing to do with sailing, so...

If I retire to Washington, which I very well might, I would happily trade in my S2 7.9 for an Ostkust, which is a 24-foot, Al Mason full-keeled boat, sometimes called the "American Folkboat". It's a wood 4ksb, and beautiful and lots of fun and seriously pretty.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Swamp Fox said:

People won't change till it's in their own backyard.  It will take drilling off California before we realize what we've done to the rest of the world for our petro society.

Think Nigeria and Shell Oil!

Duh.  You do realize that we have been drilling and producing oil from the coast of California for well over 100 years!  For many years CA was the #1 oil producing state in the Union and it is still a major producer.  Try going for a sail off the coast at Long Beach.

Think California and Standard Oil.......we were sucking oil out of the beaches of LA way before the first drop was discovered in Nigeria. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Solar and wind are simply ineffective on any scale other than the feel good scale....

absolutely incorrect 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope all the "stop" oil proponents don't ride their wooden bicycles on oil derived tar-sealed roads.  Back to the dirt roads for you and your horse drawn wooden cart without steel rims.  Steel needing fossil fuel to be manufactured and a fossil fueled forge to be made into wagon rims.

Luddites

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 12345 said:

absolutely incorrect 

You under stand wind and solar is a scam...neither are cost effective on any scale ....the scam is the same model as ethanol....mandated use that piggy backs on established petro/nuclear grids....the grid is REQUIRED to pay/credit energy inputted into the grid....a grid neither wind or solar built or maintains...they are nothing more than meters collecting fees.....that and the wind farms are a visual blight on the landscapes...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SailBlueH2O said:

You under stand wind and solar is a scam...neither are cost effective on any scale ....the scam is the same model as ethanol....mandated use that piggy backs on established petro/nuclear grids....the grid is REQUIRED to pay/credit energy inputted into the grid....a grid neither wind or solar built or maintains...they are nothing more than meters collecting fees.....that and the wind farms are a visual blight on the landscapes...

Lol - Oil cost is not calculated correctly. 1) We don't make it, the manufacturing cost of oil is not in our financial model. We're throwing it out the backend of our cars at the cost of future plastics because it's a finite resource and the future is a long time. 2) We don't factor in potential cost due to the expected warming effect either. Personally I love the sight of windmills old and new but don't care for the two power stations I can see while I sail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ThomasShepherd said:

Lol - Oil cost is not calculated correctly. 1) We don't make it, the manufacturing cost of oil is not in our financial model. We're throwing it out the backend of our cars at the cost of future plastics because it's a finite resource and the future is a long time. 2) We don't factor in potential cost due to the expected warming effect either. Personally I love the sight of windmills old and new but don't care for the two power stations I can see while I sail.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding more recyclable materials I was happy to see the world sailing forum address this a bit. Around the non recyclable nature of sailboats is actually stifling the sport. The Harbors are clogged with heavy outdated designs that aren't fun to sail and get passed from one unhappy owner to another while slowly rotting and become less and less fun.

I have a plastic fantastic and aren't really happy about. Next boat will have more consideration for this issue meanwhile I hope to keep this one alive as well as possible so it slightly mitigates it's impact. There's some irony in that statement when compared with my first paragraph.

At the moment I'm building a small wood boat at the moment but will still use significant amount of epoxy. There seems to be some good scope here for future recyclability here - for instance.

Sails are a whole other ballgame. As a competitive racer I got through them at an alarming rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, vanaheim said:

I hope all the "stop" oil proponents don't ride their wooden bicycles on oil derived tar-sealed roads.  Back to the dirt roads for you and your horse drawn wooden cart without steel rims.  Steel needing fossil fuel to be manufactured and a fossil fueled forge to be made into wagon rims.

Luddites

And camp in canvas tents with wooden poles and manila line...no lite weight nylon tents with fiberglass rods

And ski on wooden skies with leather straps and leather boots...

And go back to wearing all wool outerwear when its cold and wet...no gore tex insulation for you

And then we can go back to worrying about too much logging, as we now need a lot more wood then we used to...

And no farmer pollutes at all, so the increase in farming (to grow cotton) and ranching (to raise more sheep) should have zero impact on the environment either...

etc, etc.

 

While caring about the environment is indeed critical and important, single issue/cause discussion are a great waste of time...and many of the solutions we think of today will likely have unintended consequences in the future.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another interesting development: https://www.rssailing.com/sustainability/

The Tera hull for instance can be minced up and reused downstream (I asked them about this last year and RS is working towards a proper cycle of old hulls -> new hulls). Here in Socal there are places to send your Tera to mince and recycle.

Its funny how people dismiss these efforts ("oh you're sooo touchy feely for not wanting to live on a plastic dump, you should be a real knuckle dragger like me") which are in fact requirements for even vaguely sustainable living in a world of 11bn (projected) people who all want the same options we have in the west. This stuff is cool and will be supported by the cutting edge of material science. The idea of a rigid high performance epoxy like material that can be re-liquefied and molded into a new better/different shape? Why wouldn't you want that tech?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 12345 said:

Their are some products that indeed will always need petroleum,

Petroleum being finite this could be problematic ;)

We've maintained a 50ish year lead time of reserves through new field discoveries and extraction methods but eventually this will stop as we will for sure run out if we don't stop using it faster than it's being made.

You don't need to be an oil naysayer to see that 50 years is nothing and using a finite material has a time restriction proportional to the product of rate of use and volume of material.

Just how many trees did compress down into this form? We're going to find out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, 5kW of electricity is 5kW of electricity, whether I feel good about it, or not.  If I can invest some money, get some loans or State grants to make my church mostly self-sufficient power-wise, then that's not just feel-good.  Is it cost effective?  No. But only if you measure "cost" in dollars.  There are other ways to measure cost.

For those who constantly point out that if you want to reduce your power consumption bigtime, and seriously reduce your oil consumption that means that you have to ride your wooden bicycle on dirt roads,  otherwise you're a  hypocrite, I have news for you. I don't buy your all-or-nothing, black-or-white approach.  It's possible to reduce oil consumption by 60%. It doesn't HAVE to be 100%.  You don't HAVE to go live in a cave.   Tell me how reducing oil consumption by 60% is a bad thing?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ThomasShepherd said:

Petroleum being finite this could be problematic ;)

We've maintained a 50ish year lead time of reserves through new field discoveries and extraction methods but eventually this will stop as we will for sure run out if we don't stop using it faster than it's being made.

You don't need to be an oil naysayer to see that 50 years is nothing and using a finite material has a time restriction proportional to the product of rate of use and volume of material.

Just how many trees did compress down into this form? We're going to find out...

Oil....the original renewable natural resource...is being naturally replenished faster than we can pump it out of the ground.... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

You under stand wind and solar is a scam...neither are cost effective on any scale ....the scam is the same model as ethanol....mandated use that piggy backs on established petro/nuclear grids....the grid is REQUIRED to pay/credit energy inputted into the grid....a grid neither wind or solar built or maintains...they are nothing more than meters collecting fees.....that and the wind farms are a visual blight on the landscapes...

you are a good little consumer 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

How many wind turbines equal the output of 1 nuclear reactor ?

A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour.

At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that's, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles.

At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solar panels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.

We aren't going to put them anywhere. They are way too expensive and they don't provide a stable enough power supply to rely on. Anyplace with enough open spaces, enough wind or sun shine to be a good candidate is too far away from the east and west coasts where that power is needed most.

By comparison, the Fermi nuclear power plant near Monroe, Michigan sits on a site of about 2 square miles and produces 1,150 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day for 18 months straight. Then it needs to be shut down for a month for maintenance and refueling and it can go right back to making power 24 hours a day, rain or shine. They are even thinking about adding another reactor that will double the output of the plant on the same amount of land.

Before spending time posting such claptrap, spend a little time getting up to date on solar and wind.  And check out the bids to the Colorado request for proposals for energy production, where bids came in for long term production of solar and wind generation, including battery storage was lower priced than coal or petro-chemical generated power.  

Its a new day and technology is very rapidly evolving.  A majority of new power capacity in the US in 2017 was from renewables.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do some reading - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_California
 

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-solar/

Now, that's California, which is different from, say, Michigan in terms of insolation. Truth is that during significant parts of the summer, Southern California generates so much electricity from solar that the local energy brokers have to....I'm not making this up.....PAY other states to take it. They can't even give it away.  When the arcane art and science of brokering power on the grid catches up to current production, things will change.  Also, generating power is not the same thing as storing power, and that's a significant issue.

Also a big issue is..... what's going to happen to those old solar panels, 20 years from now when they're obsolete.  I sure hope they don't get shipped to China, where orphans get paid two cents a day to bathe the panels in acid to retrieve five cents worth of metal, then dump the acid in the local river.  It's a problem and it will have to be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, 12345 said:

you are a good little consumer 

nah...I just look around and think for myself...second guess and look behind the media curtain of whatever they are selling....it is complex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We must also spend time understanding physics. Photo Voltaics/solar are currently a relatively low density power source so not viable on large scale I think the largest in the world in india is only 600 mw or so. and that is 10 km2 ! All told I think Solar/PV represents about 0.64% of total capacity. Ok on small scale domestic/sma;ll consumer level but not viable to run an industrial plant.

It is horribly inefficient to transmit AC any more than 300-450 miles due to line losses. Our National distribution system is mostly AC. Most of the Large scale wind projects are located where the wind is, ie some distance from population centers, Wyoming, Dakotas, Oklahoma etc.

Where the Wind farms are close to population Centers (eg LA basin California, Europe etc) they are viable. The rest are just there for "carbon credits" from the government for the utilities to trade and really do not contribute to the consumer as much as some claim. I'm with BlueH20 nuclear is the way to go if we are worried about the effects of CO2 (peronally I am not but thats a whole other debate).

Interesting thought from SOMA up thread that boat building is a form of carbon sequestration. They are pretty inert once completed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Editor said:

Reader Rant

Blah blah blah, bullshit.

Perhaps you should buy a dictionary and look up the word "terrorist."  Why must "journalists" continue to erode all meaning from the language?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan H said:

Do some reading - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_California
 

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-solar/

Now, that's California, which is different from, say, Michigan in terms of insolation. Truth is that during significant parts of the summer, Southern California generates so much electricity from solar that the local energy brokers have to....I'm not making this up.....PAY other states to take it. They can't even give it away.  When the arcane art and science of brokering power on the grid catches up to current production, things will change.  Also, generating power is not the same thing as storing power, and that's a significant issue.

Also a big issue is..... what's going to happen to those old solar panels, 20 years from now when they're obsolete.  I sure hope they don't get shipped to China, where orphans get paid two cents a day to bathe the panels in acid to retrieve five cents worth of metal, then dump the acid in the local river.  It's a problem and it will have to be addressed.

Then how come every time there is a heat wave, their telling me (in SOCAL) to turn my thermostat to 78 or 80 degrees?  And to not turn lights on in the middle of the day, and not run appliances during peak hours, etc, etc?  So we are making so much energy, we have to give it away, but we haven't left enough to cover our surge times???  Somewhere, somethings not adding up! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SailBlueH2O said:

If wind and solar were financially viable...the evil greedy  private sector would have been all over it years ago....

take a look behind the curtain and do not doubt the power of the FF industry, just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 12345 said:

take a look behind the curtain and do not doubt the power of the FF industry, just sayin'

I'd be first in line when it works....cart before the horse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Energy is a political  & economic commodity. 

At any scale there will simultaneously never be enough and excess supply will exist, as locales that are poor in coal, gas, oil, wind and sun send money to those who are flush with it. 

After decades of subsidy, solar and wind installations are still struggling to break even in any broad usage. (Remove the tax credits and see how many are built.) 

Whether you ship solar power around the globe by wire, or store it in batteries/pump storage/phase change it's only practical for offsetting solar heating, i.e. running Air Conditioning & refrigeration loads.

Can't use it for industrial processes or evening lighting, as the conversion costs are too high compared to alternatives. 

If you limit the alternatives, you can drive people to the use of solar/wind and batteries, (think cruising sailboat) but at a reduced standard of living. 

Clamoring for boat owners to feel guilt about their boat's use of petroleum for construction is about as stupidly political as advocating they should feel guilt because of their skin color. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, XTR said:

No, actually I sail because I like to sail, not due to some environmental guilt. 

 

Well good for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Solar and wind are simply ineffective on any scale other than the feel good scale....

Tell that to Dennmark.  

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/06/44-wind-denmark-smashed-already-huge-wind-energy-records-2017/

Denmark powered the country 43.6% with wind energy in 2017

Quote

 

A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour.

At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. 

 

The biggest wind turbine is currently 8 MW (soon to be uprated to 9 MW). So you would need 111-125 turbines not 2400 to 2800 turbines. Wind turbines are getting bigger because big ones are more cost effective.  Wind energy is getting cheaper too:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/renewable-energy-program-electricity-alberta-bidders-contracts-1.4446746

"Bids in an auction to pick renewable energy projects were so attractive that the Alberta government decided to back proposals to build 600 megawatts of new generation, 50 per cent higher than its goal of 400 MW."

"Premier Rachel Notley said the average 3.7 cents per kilowatt-hour bid by the three companies is the lowest electricity price in Canada and bodes well for future similar auctions."  This is for a 20 year supplier contract...

Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build, so much so that paying off loans costs a huge amount of their costs. Then there is the long term disposal of the spent fuel rods...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Doh said:

FWIW, petroleum-based boats last a very long time, which means they have a very long useful life. Buying a used boat helps mitigate this problem vs. creating demand for more new material that will inevitably ends up in landfill or the bottom of the ocean. It seems to me that if people want to do something about this today, you focus on buying used vs. buying new so you don't grow the overall problem. Keeping a used boat in good shape to pass along to another person to enjoy is a great way to make some kind of difference - even if it doesn't reverse the course.

Maybe we can focus on what exists today plus trying somehow to prevent people from letting any boat go derelict to the point that it's not feasible to save. I don't know how you do that. I live in Sausalito and during a 40 kt day this winter a derelict, unoccupied anchor-out cabin cruiser came dragging into a marina that then had to be hauled away - most likely to a dump. Wouldn't it be cool to have a non-profit that raised money from wealthy yachties to identify boats on the cusp of dereliction and restore them back to some basic shape so someone else could enjoy them. Kind of a carbon credit for owning a boat. Manufacturers could even participate so this doesn't become an industry issue and maybe it even helps grow the sailing community. 

So, you advocate throwing more petroleum products at end-of-life boats to prevent petroleum products from affecting the environment.  And we should all pay for that?

I should have known not to respond when I saw the “carbon credit” reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bucc5062 said:

The OP has some valid points since the idea of sailing is to not introduce more oil into the environment (via an engine) and when you look at all these old plastic boats I see two problems to solve.

One is getting rid of the waste.  There could be much better processes in recycling old boats instead of letting them sink or 1000 year rot their way down in a boatyard taking up space.  Stripped of all other parts, why have the hulls shredded down and perhaps reused in making roads (they do it with tires) or building materials.  I would be okay if government even subsidized initial studies and processes with the intent of allowing commercial use without a high COE.  

Another is in construction and I found this article to be quite interesting.  In summary, we can make Carbon fiber out of plants, not oil and if the price can be mitigated to that of a plastic boat, there is much greater advantage in making CF boats, lightness strength at the least and if it can be done from an environmentally better place this should be promoted.

Humans have been poisoning this planet for some time now in the name of greed.  Now that we see other avenues in how to make things that have less negative impact on the planet, it is disingenuous to dismiss new ideas simply because "Well, oil rules, suck it up snowflake".  Instead industry coupled with government can open new industries, news ways to feed the greed that helps rather than hurts our world.

I applaud the OP for starting a conversation for it certainly got me thinking. 

“Greed” twice in one post.

A buzz word for, “stop reading this bullshit now.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Tell that to Dennmark.  

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/06/44-wind-denmark-smashed-already-huge-wind-energy-records-2017/

Denmark powered the country 43.6% with wind energy in 2017

The biggest wind turbine is currently 8 MW (soon to be uprated to 9 MW). So you would need 111-125 turbines not 2400 to 2800 turbines. Wind turbines are getting bigger because big ones are more cost effective.  Wind energy is getting cheaper too:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/renewable-energy-program-electricity-alberta-bidders-contracts-1.4446746

"Bids in an auction to pick renewable energy projects were so attractive that the Alberta government decided to back proposals to build 600 megawatts of new generation, 50 per cent higher than its goal of 400 MW."

"Premier Rachel Notley said the average 3.7 cents per kilowatt-hour bid by the three companies is the lowest electricity price in Canada and bodes well for future similar auctions."  This is for a 20 year supplier contract...

Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build, so much so that paying off loans costs a huge amount of their costs. Then there is the long term disposal of the spent fuel rods...

True that Nuclear Plants are very expensive.  But it's not like solar isn't.  School district here just spend 7 mil putting in solar arrays.  On track in first 6 months to projected $300,000 a year in saved electric power costs.  23 years to recover cost of install.  Assuming cost of Electricity doesn't go up, and that capability of arrays to generate power doesn't go down....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zonker said:

Tell that to Dennmark.  

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/06/44-wind-denmark-smashed-already-huge-wind-energy-records-2017/

Denmark powered the country 43.6% with wind energy in 2017

The biggest wind turbine is currently 8 MW (soon to be uprated to

you can tell it to Denmark. https://www.thelocal.dk/20160301/pull-the-plug-danes-pay-eus-highest-electricity-prices 

 

''The two thirds of Danes’ electricity bills that goes to taxes covers such things as VAT, energy policy levies and a nine percent PSO (Public Service Obligation) tariff, which goes to support renewable energy development. ''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should all just kill ourselves, and our children, and any others that are close by.  Each and every one of us exhales CO2, uses carbon based products, and essentially drive the problem.  Only then can mother Gaea heal herself.  Hey- if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vibroman said:

We must also spend time understanding physics. Photo Voltaics/solar are currently a relatively low density power source so not viable on large scale I think the largest in the world in india is only 600 mw or so. and that is 10 km2 ! All told I think Solar/PV represents about 0.64% of total capacity. Ok on small scale domestic/sma;ll consumer level but not viable to run an industrial plant.

It is horribly inefficient to transmit AC any more than 300-450 miles due to line losses. Our National distribution system is mostly AC. Most of the Large scale wind projects are located where the wind is, ie some distance from population centers, Wyoming, Dakotas, Oklahoma etc.

Where the Wind farms are close to population Centers (eg LA basin California, Europe etc) they are viable. The rest are just there for "carbon credits" from the government for the utilities to trade and really do not contribute to the consumer as much as some claim. I'm with BlueH20 nuclear is the way to go if we are worried about the effects of CO2 (peronally I am not but thats a whole other debate).

Interesting thought from SOMA up thread that boat building is a form of carbon sequestration. They are pretty inert once completed.

Maybe all the totalled boats from Irma can form land based carbon sequestration post hurricane shelter and rebuild...enough structure cut in half for a start, and while they're at it re-build Puerto Rico with no grid and only localized, wind and solar based DC power per household. Each rebuilt house off the grid. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crash said:

True that Nuclear Plants are very expensive.  But it's not like solar isn't.  School district here just spend 7 mil putting in solar arrays.  On track in first 6 months to projected $300,000 a year in saved electric power costs.  23 years to recover cost of install.  Assuming cost of Electricity doesn't go up, and that capability of arrays to generate power doesn't go down....

23 years to cover cost of install isn't too bad when compared with a [significantly more] finite resource we're throwing away because we like acceleration and big trucks. Nuclear plants have two extra costs - cleanup when they go wrong (see recent incident) and the cost of getting rid of them which doesn't seem to be solved - see this ongoing saga up the road from some of us. I'd love to see further investment in solving these problems but Nuclear goes way beyond base installation and operation costs.

Edit: From the San Onofre website: "The fuel will remain on site until the federal government puts in place a program to dispose of these materials. By law, the U.S. Department of Energy is responsible for developing a disposal facility for the long-term management of used uranium fuel from San Onofre and other U.S. nuclear power plants. However, the federal government does not have a viable program for the management of used nuclear fuel"

Edited by ThomasShepherd
More food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

you can tell it to Denmark. https://www.thelocal.dk/20160301/pull-the-plug-danes-pay-eus-highest-electricity-prices 

 

''The two thirds of Danes’ electricity bills that goes to taxes covers such things as VAT, energy policy levies and a nine percent PSO (Public Service Obligation) tariff, which goes to support renewable energy development. ''

Yes....another creative stream of tax revenue going through governments hands .....before it is spread out among those implementing whatever 's...Lottery for "education"

 Marijuana for " Medicine "....Wind and Solar for "Clean"...see how it works...Big Goverment

 

Nuclear Power in China

(Updated January 2018)

  • Mainland China has 38 nuclear power reactors in operation, about 20 under construction, and more about to start construction.
  • The reactors under construction include some of the world's most advanced, to give a 70% increase of nuclear capacity to 58 GWe by 2020-21. Plans are for up to 150 GWe by 2030, and much more by 2050.
  • The impetus for nuclear power in China is increasingly due to air pollution from coal-fired plants.
  • China’s policy is to have a closed nuclear fuel cycle.
  • China has become largely self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle, but is making full use of western technology while adapting and improving it.
  • Relative to the rest of the world, a major strength is the nuclear supply chain.
  • China’s policy is to ‘go global’ with exporting nuclear technology including heavy components in the supply chain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Saudi's have 79 BILLION barrels of the cheapest oil on earth, all of which we cannot burn without cooking the planet.  It's about $9USD a barrel to put it in a tanker and ship it to any port on the planet.

Consider that the market cap for ALL of the big oil multinationals still engaged in exploration is largely tied to proven reserves (and growth is tied to expansion of those reserves, regardless of extraction cost) and you begin to see how and why the game is being played like it is.

 

It's simple for anyone with a couple of functioning brain cells to do the math.  This ends badly for a lot of big oil companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ThomasShepherd said:

23 years to cover cost of install isn't too bad when compared with a [significantly more] finite resource we're throwing away because we like acceleration and big trucks. Nuclear plants have two extra costs - cleanup when they go wrong (see recent incident) and the cost of getting rid of them which doesn't seem to be solved - see this ongoing saga up the road from some of us. I'd love to see further investment in solving these problems but Nuclear goes way beyond base installation and operation costs.

Edit: From the San Onofre website: "The fuel will remain on site until the federal government puts in place a program to dispose of these materials. By law, the U.S. Department of Energy is responsible for developing a disposal facility for the long-term management of used uranium fuel from San Onofre and other U.S. nuclear power plants. However, the federal government does not have a viable program for the management of used nuclear fuel"

I agree that Nuclear has added costs and issue.  Disposal of spent fuel and decommissioning are indeed viable costs/concerns.  Lots of things needed clean up in Japan after the earthquake and Tsunami, just like lots of things needed clean up after the 2 hurricanes in Caribbean this past summer.  Yes cleaning up from a containment breech is on an order of magnitude greater then cleaning up a bunch of banged up fiberglass sailboats...

So converting to a serious solar and wind powered electric power generation scheme, and all electric cars doesn't stress some other finite resources?  Copper is a finite resource as well, as are many of the rare metal components of high-tech batteries.  Not to mention if every car were to become electric powered, how/what do we do with all the used batteries?  They'll need a disposal/recycling scheme too, and they are a challenge to recycle/dispose of.  Not as bad as spent nuclear fuel, but a lot more challenging than say, used motor oil...

All methods of power generation have pluses and minuses.  There is still no free lunch.  The trick is to apply them to their best advantages, and to minimize their negative impacts.  What is best for LA, may not be best for Chicago, or NYC.  And what is best for the crowded Northeast, may be different then what is best for West Virginia, or North Dakota.  I'm only pushing back on the method A is universally bad, and method B is the answer for everyone approach, which I believe to be fundamentally flawed and unworkable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

You under stand wind and solar is a scam...neither are cost effective on any scale ....the scam is the same model as ethanol....mandated use that piggy backs on established petro/nuclear grids....the grid is REQUIRED to pay/credit energy inputted into the grid....a grid neither wind or solar built or maintains...they are nothing more than meters collecting fees.....that and the wind farms are a visual blight on the landscapes...

What you don't seem to get is that the cost of global warming is NOT built in to the price of fossil fuels. Are the energy companies going to pay for the ever increasing costs of sea level rise and increased intensity of tropical cyclones? No? I didn't think so.  The only way to ameliorate those impacts will be to keep CO2 at about 2x preindustrial levels.  Right now we're headed for far, far above that. Every kW of solar or wind or nuclear power is that much fossil fuel not burned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not accept the notion that "global warming/climate change" is man made nor that there is anything man can do to change the naturally occurring cycle....if the hand writing green weenies want to do something about the factors they claim are causing climate change....look no further than the emerging economies that pollute air water and ground on a massive scale....start there....our air and water is cleaner today that 50 years ago with many more people,vehicles etc....

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/100-reasons-why-climate-change-natural-and-not-manmade

 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have become used to energy on tap and un-restricted energy at that. To truly solve the problem humans would have to accept green energies obvious limitations and either accept there is no power at certain times or ration what battery storage they have to last. For example you could have a battery bank in your house and your car. If it is not windy or sunny then you make a choice. Drive to work or keep the fridge on but not both.

In terms of industry then this is where the problems start. Do we all not turn up at the car plant on Tuesday because there is no power or do we pay for the spare capacity in the grid for plants that only run when required. As ever it is not easy in a commercial model to get all this working together. I certainly would not build a gas fired power plant if the customer was only going to use if for a low percentage of the year to cover all the renewables not outputting as expected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bdu98252 said:

We have become used to energy on tap and un-restricted energy at that. To truly solve the problem humans would have to accept green energies obvious limitations and either accept there is no power at certain times or ration what battery storage they have to last. For example you could have a battery bank in your house and your car. If it is not windy or sunny then you make a choice. Drive to work or keep the fridge on but not both.

In terms of industry then this is where the problems start. Do we all not turn up at the car plant on Tuesday because there is no power or do we pay for the spare capacity in the grid for plants that only run when required. As ever it is not easy in a commercial model to get all this working together. I certainly would not build a gas fired power plant if the customer was only going to use if for a low percentage of the year to cover all the renewables not outputting as expected. 

There is plenty of power source  available much more than the greenweenies acknowledge in their suppositions....which are deeply flawed

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Itis happening ...slowly .

the composite industry already recycles waste.

the marine industry is following slowly 

locally they strip the boat, de contaminate , crush then landfill

landfill dumping is very expensive.

Dealing with adandoned boats is a tax payer burden 

i suspect in future ..disposal will be built into the cost of registering a boat 

https://linset.it/it/news/scheda.php?id=71&st=1&k=End-of-life-Boat-Disposal-Looming-Issue

https://www.proboat.com/2016/09/recycling-dead-boats/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

Itis happening ...slowly .

the composite industry already recycles waste.

the marine industry is following slowly 

locally they strip the boat, de contaminate , crush then landfill

landfill dumping is very expensive.

Dealing with adandoned boats is a tax payer burden 

i suspect in future ..disposal will be built into the cost of registering a boat 

https://linset.it/it/news/scheda.php?id=71&st=1&k=End-of-life-Boat-Disposal-Looming-Issue

https://www.proboat.com/2016/09/recycling-dead-boats/

 

 

more tax abuse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

you can tell it to Denmark. https://www.thelocal.dk/20160301/pull-the-plug-danes-pay-eus-highest-electricity-prices 

 

''The two thirds of Danes’ electricity bills that goes to taxes covers such things as VAT, energy policy levies and a nine percent PSO (Public Service Obligation) tariff, which goes to support renewable energy development. ''

Europe does not waste as much energy as we do in the US so comparing their Per KwH is pointless. We should become far more efficient. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SailBlueH2O said:

I do not accept the notion that "global warming/climate change" is man made nor that there is anything man can do to change the naturally occurring cycle....if the hand writing green weenies want to do something about the factors they claim are causing climate change....look no further than the emerging economies that pollute air water and ground on a massive scale....start there....our air and water is cleaner today that 50 years ago with many more people,vehicles etc....

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/100-reasons-why-climate-change-natural-and-not-manmade

 

Look at you you found a internet list from 2009 that was posted on the Tesla site recently as you think it adds gravitas to your point. What a failure as you can see below...  Also stolen from the Tesla site. 

1) There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man's activity.

Technically, proof exists only in mathematics, not in science. Whatever terminology you choose to use, however, there is overwhelming evidence that the current warming is caused by the rise in greenhouse gases due to human activities.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 per cent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the Earth during geological history.

Misleading comparison. Since the industrial age began human emissions are far higher than volcanic emissions.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

In the past 3 million years changing levels of sunshine triggered and ended the ice ages. Carbon dioxide was a feedback that increased warming, rather than the initial cause. In the more distant past, several warming episodes were directly triggered by CO2.

4) After world war 2, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

In fact, temperatures fell during the 1940s and then remained roughly level until the late 1970s. The fall was partly due to high levels of pollutants such as sulphur dioxide counteracting the warming effect.

5) Throughout the Earth's history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than 10 times as high.

Which shows that higher CO2 means higher temperatures, taking into account the fact that the sun was cooler in the past. The crucial point is that civilisation is adapted to 20th century temperatures.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

Yes. And sea level has been up to 70 metres higher during warm periods. If that happens again, there'll be no more London or New York.

7) The 0.7 °C increase in the average global temperature over the past hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

Wrong. The rapid warming since the late 1970s has occurred even though other factors that can warm the planet, such as the sun's intensity, have remained constant.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers, not the 4000 usually cited.

Untrue, as even the briefest look at the scientific literature can establish.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal known as "climategate" - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

Nothing in the emails undermines any of the key scientific conclusions. Independent groups have come to the same conclusions.

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

The sun may have contributed to the warming in the first part of the 20th century but it has not caused the rapid warming since the late 1970s.

11) Politicians and activists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming, but sea levels have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

Wrong. Sea level rose very rapidly as the North American ice sheet melted after the last ice age but levelled off and has been nearly stable for the past 2000 years or so. Now it is starting to rise rapidly again.

12) Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

He is right. All sorts of factors affect climate, even the lead in petrol. However, the recent warming is mostly due to rising greenhouse gases, and if we pump out more CO2 it will get even hotter.

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that "fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our government and our political class - predominantly - are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world".

Irrelevant and incorrect on all counts.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

There are arguments over how much wind power can contribute, but there is no doubt they are already helping reduce emissions in many countries.

15) Professor Plimer, professor of geology and earth sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an "absurdity".

See (1). And note that Plimer is a geologist, not a climatologist.

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is "embarrassed and puzzled" by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the Earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

Many scientists think Soon should be embarrassed by some of the papers he has published.

17) The science of what determines the Earth's temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

There are still lots of details to fill in but the big picture is increasingly clear. The uncertainties that do exist swing both ways: there could be more warming than predicted.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour, which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can't even pretend to control.

Water vapour is a feedback, not a cause of warming. The amount of water in the atmosphere depends on temperature; any excess rains out within days.

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4000 signatories, including 72 Nobel prizewinners, from 106 countries have signed it.

That's not what the Heidelberg Appeal really said, and 1992 was a long time ago.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 °C per century - within natural rates.

Incorrect. Over the past 1000 years temperature has never changed nearly as fast.

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the scientific council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland, says the Earth's temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapour than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

See (18). And why believe someone whose work was rejected by the scientific community?

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

The Earth is still warming and even if the sun's intensity does fall, it will not outweigh the effect of rising greenhouse gases.

23) It is a myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries.

Incorrect. The current retreat is unprecendented.

24) It is a falsehood that the Earth's poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder.

Illogical and incorrect. Warming is warming whatever causes it. And all parts of the Arctic are warmer compared with the average from 1951 to 1980. The extent of the warming is contributing to the rapidly shrinking in the extent of sea ice cover during summer.

25) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims climate-driven "impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance", but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research.

There is already clear evidence that the distributions of many species are changing as the planet warms (PDF). If it gets much warmer, some will have nowhere to go.

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world's species does not make sense as wild species are at least 1 million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles.

Many species are less than 1 million years old. In any case, during the past 3 million years, the Earth has got a lot colder than it is now during ice ages but never much hotter.

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

Depends on what timescale you are talking about. Scientists differ on how quickly they think the ice sheets will melt, but studies of warm periods leave no doubt that if the temperature gets much higher and stays higher, all the ice sheets will melt completely after several centuries or millennia, causing sea level to rise by 70 metres.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population.

Higher CO2 levels do boost growth of some plants, but only if there's enough water throughout the growing season and the temperature is appropriate for particular plants. Overall, climate change is expected to reduce yields once the temperature rise exceeds 3 °C.

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on Earth took place around 700 million years ago.

So what?

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles.

Repetitive and incorrect. See (10).

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called "greenhouse gases" may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming.

Burning fossil fuels produces CO2 and consumes oxygen, and thus lowers oxygen levels, though the decrease is too tiny to matter.

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain-top observations made over the past three decades have not shown any significant change in the long-term rate of increase in global temperatures.

The rate of increase is in line with predictions.

33) Today's CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared with most of the Earth's history - we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere.

And when CO2 levels were higher there were no ice sheets and sea levels were 70 metres higher. Plus, the sun was cooler in the past.

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3 per cent of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037 per cent of the atmosphere.

You can only get close to the 3 per cent figure by counting water vapour, which as we have already said is a feedback not a cause.

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to "verify" anything.

No, they can't, because climate models are based on the physical laws that apply in the real world. In any case, the crucial evidence that CO2 warms the planet comes from physics and chemistry, not from general climate models.

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

Incorrect. For instance, while there is much uncertainty in this area, there is growing evidence that hurricanes will get stronger, though there may not be more of them.

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases".

Meaningless taken out of context, without knowing what studies the statement was referring to.

38) The world "warmed" by 0.07 +/- 0.07 °C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 °C expected by the IPCC.

Actually temperature rose 0.19 ºC, but global warming does not mean natural variation goes away. Periods of cooling are still to be expected.

39) The IPCC says "it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense" but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally.

Incorrect. Some studies have found an increase.

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth's many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms.

Incorrect and contradictory. Either the effect is negligible or helpful: it can't be both. In fact, rising CO2 will lead to big temperature increases, which will have a dramatic effect on Earth's ecosystems. Some species will benefit as their range expands, others will run out of suitable space. The speed of the change - far faster than natural climate change in the past - will make it very difficult for plants and animals to move fast enough.

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate-change impact on civilisations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful.

Which researchers? Where were their findings published? In any case, over the past two millennia, warm periods have generally involved tiny changes compared with the changes we can expect over the next century.

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical.

Er, why?

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.

Yet more repetition. See (28).

44) The historical increase in the air's CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years.

According to who? This statement is impossible to prove or disprove. What we can say is that the bulk of the increase in yields over this time are due to improved plant varieties and techniques, many of which are heavily reliant on the use of fossil fuels. If we don't start planning for the end of cheap oil, food prices could soar.

45) The increase of the air's CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

How exactly, and according to who?

46) The IPCC alleges that "climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths", but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations.

Incorrect. Excessive heat during summers is already killing more people than are being saved by milder winters.

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

See here for the political background. Russia signed up to the Kyoto protocol later that year.

48) The "climategate" scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change.

Or it points to a relatively cheap public education campaign and efforts by responsible scientists to ensure political decisions are based on sound science rather than on papers that have been shown to be flawed.

49) The head of Britain's climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

Even if he has - no source is given - no one can be forced to spend money they don't have and such spending is an investment that will save householders thousands of pounds in the long term. If energy prices rise sharply as demand for oil and gas exceeds supply, we may all be wishing we had invested more in energy efficiency.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are "no direct subsidies", but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh, which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

Repetitive and incorrect. See (14). No, wind power is not the answer to our energy needs but it is one of the answers, and it would be very short-sighted not to invest in alternative energy sources as peak oil nears, even if there was no issue with global warming.

There are another 50 "reasons" listed but they are even less credible than the ones we've already dealt with...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2018 at 10:16 PM, Swamp Fox said:

People won't change till it's in their own backyard.  It will take drilling off California before we realize what we've done to the rest of the world for our petro society.

Think Nigeria and Shell Oil!

i have drilling all over my back yard and it doesnt bother me, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites