- Thread starter
The word is "accusing" not "screaming" and not for disagreeing, but for causing excessive pollution.
Actually it is a huge portion of the 8 billion people on this planet would agree with me. They have no interest in people motoring private yachts and if posed the question in the right way, most humans would agree it is wrong to cause pollution just for personal convenience in the way people typically use engines on boats
Again invoking the 'Royal We'.
If I proposed the question the 'right way' I could probably get most of them to admit that you're an arse.
Most of those same 8 billion people will use resources in some way that is not essential for their survival.
Have you ever taken a flight in your life? (Actually that question is rhetorical because you certainly have)
In that one flight you consumed more fuel (even when divided between the passengers) than my boat will probably in its lifetime.
This is a commonly repeated flawed argument. Essentially you could say also that wind turbines are the same as oil power because they used oil to make the wind turbine. So therefore there is no point in using wind turbines. This is what your argument is the same as: It doesn't make any sense
No its not, we've already established that you want to draw a line between 'essential' use and 'leisure' use.
Your boat and all the systems on it are for your own personal gratification, to use your own argument from above, wouldn't those same 8 billion people agree that its wrong to cause pollution for your own personal use?
As we established, you have drawn an arbitrary line that just happens to mean that your use is OK but everyone else is in the wrong.
By "most" you mean a few percent of the world's population that live in the richest countries.
No I mean most.
I've worked in Mozambique, a poor country by any metric, plenty of kids still wheelying scooters and doing burnout to impress the girls.
Outside of a few outliers, every country is using FF for leisure as well as work.
Yes, superyachts in the value of hundreds of millions or even billions. That use more fuel in a day than I will in a lifetime. Those people. Not me.50l is more fuel than many humans burn in a year. Most people do not own a car. Most people do not eat meat every day. 85% of humans have never flown. 1% of people cause 95% of all aviation emissions etc. The richest most entitled people in the world tend to own yachts.
Its funny because you're trying to take the moral high ground, but you're just as guilty of everything you've listed as the rest of us.
No shit. What's your point?As such they can afford to cause the least emissions yet, the statistics show the opposite, and those with more money tend to cause more emissions.
It depends. I suggest 10 pounds of lithium battery which in production causes the emissions same as 30 liters of diesel not even including emissions in refining and transporting etc. My battery lasts several years. If you take into account battery recycling in the future, the emissions are much less.
10 pounds of lithium batteries is 5kg.
That's, what 50ah? A 100ah Winston cell is 3.3kg so maybe even less.
And you think I'm going to run an electric motor off that? I'd struggle to run the autohelm and instruments for more than 12 hours on that.
I'm not convinced on your figures either.
So this 50-100 liters is already 5-10 times more emissions and significantly more diesel than is used to transport the food I buy in a year etc. But the thing is.. you already have a battery too, so this 50-100 liters is just excess.
Lets be real, neither of us have any idea how much diesel is used to transport your food. But I'll bet its more than you estimate.
I was being petty.
Hey maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're cruising full time. Good for you. I hope to do the same myself one day. It doesn't sound like you're on a deadline to be anywhere, or have work to get back to. Sounds idyllic.
But for you to do that, the rest of have to work, food needs farming, electricity needs generating, the products on your boat which are all at the end of a laborious and polluting supply chain all need creating. My point is its easy for you to pass judgement, but your lifestyle isn't possible without that which you criticise in everyone else.
I did not claim to have no impact. I am claiming people burning diesel engines in boats generally have unnecessary and excessive impact.
Do you produce all your own food and equipment? If not then you are a "bum" also. I am criticizing people who motor against the tide, who use the engine to get through doldrums not this.
No you're choosing a point from which it goes from acceptable to not acceptable. And like most hypocrites that line conveniently absolves you.
It is a bit absurd to build windfarms offshore when they could be inshore. There is enough wind resources in protected waters like lakes, rivers, sounds, and even just on land. I read the offshore wind cost a lot more too. It seems a bit absurd to put them where it is so expensive to service and the emissions are also several times more to install wind farms offshore. Regardless, it is nice you do this work and try to make a change, but I dont see it as a reason or excuse to do something else.
Dude seriously. Stop talking.
Maybe I'll pass your comment along to the engineers so they can have a good laugh, I mean years of feasability studies, seabed surveys, wind and power generation forecasts etc, but you know better? Come on be serious.
You either read wrong or probably just read some misinformed article.
Offshore Wind has been cheaper than oil & gas for some time, but its now the cheapest form of renewable in the UK at least.
The new turbines are really quite impressive & need far less maintenance than the stuff that went up even 10 years ago.
Comparing what some ship uses to service a windfarm to your personal consumption does not really make much sense without division. That ship probably serves to provide the needs of thousands of people making 2000 liters a fractional amount per person.
And those people use the energy to what? Watch TV, play the PlayStation, run their laptops, charge their hair straighteners.
It is an entitled mentality that the richest people in the world think they have the right to cause vastly more emissions than most people. At 50 liters of diesel per person per year to burn in excess (for no real need) serves to make most carbon targets impossible to reach and is therefore an unreasonable amount of consumption. A realistic amount is 1-2 liters per year, or make your own coconut oil if you need a few more liters.
I don't live on a desert island so coconut oil is a no go. And you definitely consume more than 1-2 litres even if not directly.
I dont think they will be illegal everywhere anytime soon. Maybe in nordic countries or more and more in certain areas like rivers and lakes etc.
I dont even have an issue with them if they are not running on fossil fuels, and that is what may be illegal soon. This simply means the fuel cost will be orders of magnitude higher in the future but not illegal.
Man I started this thread for useful discussion, not a witch hunt.
I'm not attached to Diesel in any way and will happily switch to either battery or hydrogen powered propulsion when its:
b. Feasible for my needs
It's neither yet. But hey I'm glad it works for you.
@a8b I'm done after this one. Some people can't be argued with.
Brandolini's law is in full effect.
The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.