The future of diesel inboards in an all electric future

[seandepagnier]

I am so glad that I now understand that Australians = Putin.

BTW, fuck you AJ

No, but Australians today have the same low level of moral values as the original colonists who immediately committed genocide hunting down every last aboriginal in tasmania and today there are no full blooded ones remaining (extinct as I mentioned earlier) They also hunted the tasmanian tiger to extinction soon after it was discovered. What a bunch of miserable people and a shame what they did.

Today australia has extremely high levels of emissions (more than usa per person) and excessive energy consumption. They have the biggest houses, the most wasteful practices (helicopters to round cattle??) and the richest people making the most emissions come on and post here about how somehow they (excluding 99% of humanity) have the right to cause even more excessive emissions than ever with a diesel inboard in a boat that should just sail: disgusting. You know it is immoral, otherwise this thread (and part of all electric future) would not even exist. We know it will not be legal at some point in the future because it is immoral.

If you continue to use a diesel engine in your boat, you are like the slave owners of the past who knew it was wrong but continued to do so anyway because it was still legal at the time. Some of these people include "george washington" "thomas jefferson" as well as many other criminals who founded the "united snakes" which is also an illigitimate country that is bad like australia and in some ways much worse.

 

[Zonker]

I honestly doubt earthworms care about wind turbine noise/vibrations. I've stood at the base of a land tower and couldn't feel any vibration. They're turning at say 120 RPM or so? Pretty low frequencies which will penetrate the ground but I doubt they propagate that far.

And the amount of diesel a typical sailor consumes is probably a very small fraction of their energy consumption versus driving cars. Never mind heating/cooling their home.

Sean, I am glad you are able to go without heating or cooling your home, never use fossil fuels for cooking and use a wooden oar to propel your small boat. But it's the wrong windmill you are tilting at.

 

[Israel Hands]

No, but Australians today have the same low level of moral values as the original colonists who immediately committed genocide hunting down every last aboriginal in tasmania and today there are no full blooded ones remaining (extinct as I mentioned earlier) They also hunted the tasmanian tiger to extinction soon after it was discovered. What a bunch of miserable people and a shame what they did.

Today australia has extremely high levels of emissions (more than usa per person) and excessive energy consumption. They have the biggest houses, the most wasteful practices (helicopters to round cattle??) and the richest people making the most emissions come on and post here about how somehow they (excluding 99% of humanity) have the right to cause even more excessive emissions than ever with a diesel inboard in a boat that should just sail: disgusting. You know it is immoral, otherwise this thread (and part of all electric future) would not even exist. We know it will not be legal at some point in the future because it is immoral.

If you continue to use a diesel engine in your boat, you are like the slave owners of the past who knew it was wrong but continued to do so anyway because it was still legal at the time. Some of these people include "george washington" "thomas jefferson" as well as many other criminals who founded the "united snakes" which is also an illigitimate country that is bad like australia and in some ways much worse.

Study guide for this fella-​

Developing Humility

1. Spend time listening to others.
2. Practice mindfulness, and focus on the present.
3. Be grateful for what you have.
4. Recognize that others may have more knowledge and experience than you.
5. Seek feedback from others on a regular basis.
6. Review your actions against the language of pride.

 

[giegs]

Study guide for this fella-​

Developing Humility

1. Spend time listening to others.
2. Practice mindfulness, and focus on the present.
3. Be grateful for what you have.
4. Recognize that others may have more knowledge and experience than you.
5. Seek feedback from others on a regular basis.
6. Review your actions against the language of pride.

A good reminder for anyone. It's the maintenance bit that's tricky. Sometimes being a bit of a cunt is a good time.

I've spent a lot of time doing environmental surveys for different species around wind and solar projects. Tortoises and bighorn usually, rarely owls. Never worms. There are usually plenty of worms in the right kind of soils along railroad tracks. It's hard to imagine they'd be bothered by wind turbines. Bigger concern would be soils compaction and runoff from all the disturbance, but that can be effectively designed around.

Searching for perfect solutions and perfect accountabilities is going to be a bad time.

 

[Fah Kiew Tu]

This seandepagnier sock is a pretty poor troll really.

If it actually *is* Sean dePagnier, the author of PyPilot, then he's a liar and a hypocrite. A simple google search pops up heaps of evidence of use of electronics, software running on elecgtronics, motoring, use of electricity and manufactured products etc etc. No simple and minimal ecological footprint there.

If it's someone pretending to be him by using his name, that's pretty poor form, but considering the quality of the posts, not surprising.

Whatever. I'm going to keep right on using my computer, running my machine shop, driving my vehicles and sailing (motoring) my boat. His take on what I do - less importance than a fart in a hurricane. Let him whine.

FKT

 

[bgytr]

The fallacy of "zero emissions"...



Some awful stuff happens to make those batteries. Don't get me wrong, I like the notion of clean, but there's a lot of dirty going on up front to produce clean"er" at the very end of the process. And you still need to charge those batteries by burning some fuel. Wind energy and solar ain't gonna do it.

Petrol cars in the US produce less than 1 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. For recreational boats, it must be even a tiny fraction of that. You wanna make a real difference, it ain't gonna be with electric cars or boats- in fact electric might even be worse than petrol.

I have an epropulsion outboard for my dinghy, but it's mainly because I don't want to carry gasoline on my sailboat. Smell and fire risk are my main reasons for electric outboard.

 

[Talchotali]

The fallacy of "zero emissions"...

A concise presentation, and she kindly cited her referenced sources.

Two points, slightly expanded:

"...The EU definition of a zero emission car ignores the carbon cost of producing them or the CO2 energy used to power them creating a convenient legal loophole that misdirects people from the true environmental cost of electric cars..."

"...Depending on which study you consult, an electric car needs to drive more than 60,000 kilometres before its lifetime emissions make it cleaner than a car that runs on fossil fuels..."


from exBerlin magazine (exberlin.com)

Red Flag: Electric cars are a scam​

Electric vehicles won’t save us.​

​

German companies have a solution to the climate crisis: E-Autos. But what if electric cars are a scam that will make the planet even hotter?​

​

At the COP26 summit in Glasgow, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called for nothing less than a “comprehensive transformation of the economy.”​

​

But at home business as usual. At the federal level, the new “traffic light” coalition of SPD, Greens, and FDP has rejected demands to introduce a speed limit on the Autobahn. This would not only save numerous lives, but reduce CO2 emissions by 1,9 million tons per year at the stroke of a pen.​

​

In Berlin, meanwhile, the “red-red-green” coalition plans to keep building the A100 motorway through Neukölln and Treptow. Last Saturday, several hundred people occupied the construction site. The city is spending €700 million for 3.2 kilometers of road — each meter costs over €200,000. Numerous homes were expropriated to make way for it, while the same coalition argues that there is no money to make public transport free.​

​

The German government, however, claims to have a magic bullet to solve the climate crisis: E-Autos or electric cars. There are currently 48.25 million vehicles in Germany and in the coming years and decades they are all supposed to be replaced with electric models. The government is paying billions of euros in subsidies both to manufacturers and consumers — a wealthy person can get up to €9,000 to purchase a new car. We are supposed to believe that so long as these cars run on renewable energy, everyone can keep driving and emissions will sink to zero.​

​

However, building these cars require an enormous amount of resources. The production of each E-Auto releases 10-12 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — about twice as much as a traditional car. This is mostly to make the batteries, which require lithium and other minerals which are mined and then transported around the world. Elon Musk is building his so-called Gigafactory near Berlin, which will churn out 500,000 electric cars per year. Its plans include a gas-fired power plant.​

​

Depending on which study you consult, an electric car needs to drive more than 60,000 kilometres before its lifetime emissions make it cleaner than a car that runs on fossil fuels. And – as we know from our phones – batteries decline over time.​

​

There is an incredibly easy way to reduce carbon emissions — even though not a single politician at COP26 would dare to mention it. Are you ready? We could produce fewer cars.​

​

E-Autos are never going to be efficient. When you think about it, it is not very sensible to move 2,000 kilograms of metal to transport a single person weighing 75 kilograms. These cars are then left standing around about 98% of the time, and are replaced fairly quickly.​

​

Despite appearances, a smoky coal-burning train from the 19th century has a much smaller CO2 footprint than an electric vehicle per person and kilometre traveled. It isn’t complicated: the solution is mass transit. But can we afford to invest in busses, trams, and trains?​

​

The German state subsidises the automobile industry to a staggering degree. The deduction for commuters costs over €5 billion per year. Subsidies for company cars are over €3 billion. Private companies like Tesla are getting €10 billion. That doesn’t even include the money to maintain roads and Autobahns.​

​

In contrast, the Berlin public transport company BVG only got €765 million in the year before the pandemic from selling tickets. So making public transport completely free would cost essentially nothing. It could be completely financed by getting Elon Musk to pay his taxes.​

​

This measure would require nothing more than moving around a few numbers in a spreadsheet — and it would reduce emissions drastically from Day 1. The problem is that a program like this would not generate much in terms of profits for billionaires. E-Autos are not being pushed because they will help the environment — they are designed to generate profits as the planet burns.​

​

I always hear that people love their cars. But when I interact with drivers as a pedestrian or a cyclist, I must say they never seem particularly happy. The average Berliner spends at least 105 hours a year in traffic jams, and even more looking for parking. New freeways are supposed to bring relief — but they just lead to more cars, and thus more traffic.​

​

Billionaires promise that some day, self-driving will reduce the stress of individual transportation. Then you will be able to simply lie back and read the newspaper while an on-board computer drives. But I already read the newspaper when I am traveling through Berlin! “Self-driving” vehicles have existed for over a century, and they’re called subways.​

​

Making public transport free would only be the beginning. We could invest in new buses, trains, and trams. No one in Berlin would ever dream of wanting to take a car. We would stop producing cars entirely, and then begin culling out the least efficient models bit by bit. What about the millions of jobs in the German car industry? To start, we could cut working hours in half, with no loss of pay. And then we could use all those resources to start work on a network of high-speed trains spanning the world. It’s not as if the car manufacturers lack money.​

​

It’s somewhat amazing that no one at COP26 thought of such a simple solution, right? But as the West German singer-songwriter Franz-Josef Degenhardt put it: “We are supposed to forget about the real solution for this problem. Because the real solution for this problem would make some, but really only a very few, uncomfortable.”​

​

Yes, giving up on cars might be unpleasant for Elon Musk and a handful of car oligarchs. They might lose a fraction of their wealth. But are they making good use of it anyway? Instead of saving the planet, they’re leaving it. Musk has famously set his sights on Mars.​

​

Imagine you are on a ship, and the captain is steering it right towards an iceberg. He keeps saying everything will be fine — but you notice he is spending all his time working on a luxury lifeboat with capacity for one. E-Autos are nothing more than a scam. The people who set our planet on fire want to make a few more bucks before they escape.​

​

What we need is a “comprehensive transformation of the economy” — and that means expropriating the automobile industry and putting it under democratic control.​

​

​

From studyfinds.org

by: Chris Melore, StudyFinds.org via Nexstar Media Wire

Updated: Sep 28, 2021 / 08:28 PM EDT​

​

(StudyFinds) – Old cars have a poor reputation for being “gas guzzlers” which just make global warming worse. However, a surprising new study reveals trading in your old car for a brand new electric vehicle may actually be doing more harm than good. Researchers in Japan say choosing to keep and drive your older gasoline-powered car longer leads to fewer emissions entering the environment.​

​

A team from Kyushu University says most of the debate over gasoline and electric cars focuses on fuel efficiency and the CO2 emissions they produce. While electricity and hydrogen are cleaner energy sources, the study finds it still takes a lot of energy to build these vehicles. Specifically, researchers find keeping older fuel-efficient cars on the road longer reduces CO2 emissions significantly more than speeding up the global transition to green technology.​

​

“The faster you replace a car, the more CO2 it emits. It’s no different with electric cars, because when the demand for new cars increases, it shoots up manufacturing emissions,” says Shigemi Kagawa, a professor in Kyushu University’s Faculty of Economics, in a university release.​

​

A car’s life is way too short​

​

In Japan, car production and replacement is a staggeringly rapid process. Researchers find the average life of a car, from the production plant to the scrapyard, is just 13 years. Moreover, brand new cars only stay with their first owner for seven years.​

​

This rapid turnover means factories are constantly pumping out more harmful emissions as more and more cars (even electric ones) roll off the assembly line. The team adds that, in Japan, the nation’s mass-consumption economy and costly vehicle inspection system also contribute to this environmental dilemma.​

​

“The carbon footprint of a car goes far beyond just the fuel it uses. To produce alternative fuel cars intended to reduce emissions from driving, you need iron, nuts, and bolts for construction, factories for assembly, and mega-containerships for transport. All these points in the supply chain produce CO2.”​

​

When looking at Japan’s greenhouse gas production, cars contribute to about nine percent of total emissions — with 40 percent of this amount due to gasoline combustion from driving new cars and 24 percent coming from the manufacturing process of these vehicles.​

​

“Our hypothesis is that driving current internal combustion engine vehicles a little longer during the transition to green vehicles is a viable strategy to help the environment,” Kagawa explains.​

​

How long should you keep your car?​

The team used economic statistics to examine Japan’s population of both newly registered and used cars between 1990 and 2016. The data allowed them to model how “replacement behavior” impacts the nation’s carbon footprint.​

​

The results reveal that if car owners keep their vehicles on the road 10 percent longer before sending them to the scrapyard, the overall carbon footprint of cars would decrease by 30.7 million tons. That’s the equivalent of a one-percent decrease in CO2 emissions. Researchers say the reason of this is manufacturing new vehicles actually produces more greenhouse gases than continuing to drive existing cars — even if they use gasoline.​

​

The environment would also see a benefit if owners of brand new cars kept their vehicles longer before trading them in. Study authors say there would be a one-percent drop in carbon footprint if new car owners hold on to their rides 10 percent longer.​

​

“What this means is that we can reduce CO2 emissions just by keeping and driving cars longer,” Kagawa concludes. “Moreover, if the car we keep is relatively new and fuel-efficient, the effect is greater. So the next time you are thinking of getting a new car, perhaps consider if your current car has a few more kilometers left in it.”​

​

Quoted study here:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jiec.13190

Abstract​

This study proposes a new framework for estimating the effects of changes in the physical lifespan (PHL) of cars and the possession lifespan (POL) of new and used cars on stock, flow, and carbon footprint (CF). Applying this framework to all new and used cars registered in Japan from 1990 to 2016 showed that a 10% extension of the PHL of cars reduced the CF of cars by 30.7 Mt, while a 10% extension of the POL of new cars reduced the CF of cars by 26.4 Mt, and a 10% extension of the POL of used cars produced a 5.2 Mt CF reduction. On the other hand, a 10% lifetime reduction in the three cases increased CF by 42.2, 29.4, and 6.0 Mt, respectively. These results indicate that increasing the lifetime of new and used cars could contribute significantly to the mitigation of global warming. To achieve a large reduction in life cycle emissions, car designers should focus on ways to extend vehicle lifetimes.

 

[Monkey]

The fallacy of "zero emissions"...



Some awful stuff happens to make those batteries. Don't get me wrong, I like the notion of clean, but there's a lot of dirty going on up front to produce clean"er" at the very end of the process. And you still need to charge those batteries by burning some fuel. Wind energy and solar ain't gonna do it.

Petrol cars in the US produce less than 1 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. For recreational boats, it must be even a tiny fraction of that. You wanna make a real difference, it ain't gonna be with electric cars or boats- in fact electric might even be worse than petrol.

I have an epropulsion outboard for my dinghy, but it's mainly because I don't want to carry gasoline on my sailboat. Smell and fire risk are my main reasons for electric outboard.

I hate when they’re referred to as zero emission. That’s politicians talking. Anyone with a brain knows that isn’t true. I also hate the morons who scream about coal power plants charging them. These are two idiots arguing against each other when they’re both wrong. The only question that matters is who is the lesser of two evils.

 

[mikewof]

How is it a problem for climate change?
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Discharge rates of 1-5C are common. Recharge rates of 1C+ will shorten the life of the battery. Lithium is the problem. Again, you can build a big enough pack .
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

You say 'ultimate efficiency' and we are talking about helicopters...
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

66 gallons.
And it is less than half the energy needed to boil a gallon of water.
And plenty of energy to blow up an ama.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Lies! We both know you cannot get it back because even you admitted...

So fuck off!
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Oh fuck right the fuck off. Oil from the appropriate crops in a diesel is far more efficient/less deadly than alcohol in a otto cycle. Now I know you are a Fossil fuel apologist/agent.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Oh fuck right off. You have no idea what that 20% number means. Pretty sure you are innumerate.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Oh, was I wrong? Did they use hydrogen fuel cells to do it?
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

We agree. hydrogen does not make much sense.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

No. They literally could not.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Ah, so how many sailors would that kill?
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

So your safety plan is, how can it spark? Fuck Right the Fuck Off!
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

But would it not be "worse than slavery"? Strange change of tune...
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Bullshit! You innumerate fuck. You have no IDEA of the relative magnitudes of the shit you are vomiting out your obscene mouth.
Until you have an actual fact based set of arguments you can assemble into a cogent thought, you should well constrain your fingers, IMHO.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Except the damage done by cars is many orders of magnitudes worse than boats. You are suggesting the staining out the gnat, and swallowing the whole pig.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Odd you do not mention the far worse Otto cycle, that is unsaveable, you agent of the Fossil Fuel Companies.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

Ha. You ignorant fuck. Yes they exist.
Far more useful than hydrogen.
Remember, hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

I didn't get all of this, and I'm not sure that Hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax, but I agree that it will likely be way to expensive to distribute. We'll likely see ammonia distribution long before hydrogen, and even ammonia will be really expensive to distribute. The big problem with hydrogen is that it makes seawater seem like a highly compatible operating environment for steel. That hydrogen gets into the steel pipelines, the couplings, compressors, fittings, nozzles, valves and it just outright poisons them, embrittles them, turns that high-strength steel into something resembling a Christmas Candy Cane.

The problem is that even with the best of intentions, the H2 molecule is just not stable enough to avoid a good fraction of dissociated hydrogen atoms, and those are reactive as fuck. They literally pass through outer layers of steel (where all the Laser Shock Peened Hardening is) and start to swap out crystalline matrices. Hydrogen truly fucks up steel. And you can coat with some exotic shit, but then the tribology becomes a whole separate thing. I think if we dumped a few hundred billion bucks into finding a way to functionalize and stabilize materials against atomic hydrogen, we might make some headway, but that we will never truly solve the problem the point that we can use an affordable infrastructure to move hydrogen much further away than maybe a few mies.

Lithium and REEs are a problem because we don't have the infrastructure to source them without fucking the countries that supply them up the ass. China owns most of both of those industries and they are interested in market control, not protection of indigenous resources.

The future of diesel inboards in an all-electric future is a question that probably won't be answered until long after we are dead, because there is no future of electric drives for long-distance cruising and heavy transport without liquid fuels. Batteries just don't have the storage density to manage the opportunity. We will use our diesel engines to power our electric drives, and maybe have enough deep-discharge for the electric drive to get us in and out of the docks. But for long-distance cruising and heavy transport? No way. There is no all-electric future for that, with currently existing technology, and hydrogen is a fossil fuel hoax.

 

[mikewof]

No, but Australians today have the same low level of moral values as the original colonists who immediately committed genocide hunting down every last aboriginal in tasmania and today there are no full blooded ones remaining (extinct as I mentioned earlier) They also hunted the tasmanian tiger to extinction soon after it was discovered. What a bunch of miserable people and a shame what they did.

Today australia has extremely high levels of emissions (more than usa per person) and excessive energy consumption. They have the biggest houses, the most wasteful practices (helicopters to round cattle??) and the richest people making the most emissions come on and post here about how somehow they (excluding 99% of humanity) have the right to cause even more excessive emissions than ever with a diesel inboard in a boat that should just sail: disgusting. You know it is immoral, otherwise this thread (and part of all electric future) would not even exist. We know it will not be legal at some point in the future because it is immoral.

If you continue to use a diesel engine in your boat, you are like the slave owners of the past who knew it was wrong but continued to do so anyway because it was still legal at the time. Some of these people include "george washington" "thomas jefferson" as well as many other criminals who founded the "united snakes" which is also an illigitimate country that is bad like australia and in some ways much worse.

It always impresses me how Australia's CO2 emission per capita and per GDP ranks up there with the Saudi Oil Nations. They even make us Yanks look like a raging pack of environmentalists.

Diesels are going to stay in boats for a while because they offer a very high energy storage efficiency with the diesel, a couple thousand miles with one of these new Yanmars and a not-so-big tank of fuel. And they are going to be around because gasoline is the wrong fuel for long-distance cruising and heavy transport; yes, it has a higher efficiency than diesel, but it's volatile and it's the wrong fuel for a watertight hull. It's still good for cars and bikes though.

Regardless what you write about slave owners, I think it is just as critical to pay attention to whom your technology exploits. And right now, West Africans and South Americans are not able to commoditize their own REEs for their own companies, they are being exploited by the Chinese companies. We can gradually transition to REEs and Lithium after these countries can commoditize their own REE and lithium resources in a way that protects their cultural and natural heritage. Promoting the use of the current REE and Lithium economy is profoundly selfish in my opinion, and whatever marginal benefits it has for the environment, are more than drowned out by the damage to indigenous cultures.

 

[Zonker]

One more thought on offshore vs onshore - lots more people live near the coasts. So shorter transmission lines

 

[bgytr]

It puzzles me why from a policy standpoint we seem to ignore a very recent covid by-product: how quickly many facets of the environment became significantly cleaner when we locked down.
I am definitely not in favor of lockdowns. But encouraging as many aspects of human activity to preclude travel seems obvious- remote work! The bulk of companies still require going to an office when many jobs can be just as effectively done from home. Why not give credits to companies for the number of employees that work from home or some such? And just from an overall societal efficiency standpoint, unnecessarily requiring the workforce to waste 2 hours in travel every friggin day to do a job seems so wasteful.

Getting too far afield from the boating aspect, I'll shut up now...

 

[floater]

Getting too far afield from the boating aspect

I sometimes ride my bike down to the marina?