2 Stroke Pollution

[madrasahs]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Like, think about it, if you are beating your lungs out, trying to get up some steep snowy trail on xc skis; does anyone want to share that w/ a noisey, stinky, speedy sno-mobile? Plus, most all sno-mos are still the two-stroke type so they leave behind their stinky oiley odor. Do walkers want share their sidewalk with a car or a truck? Do swimmers want to share their lake with a big fast boat?

Note: ieSpell (A "right-clicking" spell-checker for forum-contributors) returns "fatlazyless" as a mis-spelling for fatalisms! Hmmm.

A little "stinky odor" doesn't bother me. Sometimes, a little is even a bit invigorating. But there's too many really big 2-strokes on Winnipesaukee nowadays, like those who troll by with 150 HP. Add that to the carburated gas-guzzlers for some really bad air-days.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

I think that George Bush is really a closet tree-hugger so won't all you Snow-Mo Bush voters be in for a big surprise when W comes out of his closet, sees the light, and totally bans two-stroke engines from the world.

There is a three-year unlifting of the ban -- in Yellowstone at least -- with another lawsuit pending to ban the 2-strokes there once again.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

The next war will be US vs. Two-Stroke engines, just like in California.

Lots of trends start in California -- and work East. Their "Quiet Waters Act" is sending noisy boats 'way-offshore or East.

If you've spent any time in California, you'd know that the internal-combustion engine has ruined the air there -- particularly Los Angeles, where one's eyes can "tear-up" all day long from the unburned gasoline/hydrocarbons. Even charcoal-starter has been banned to make the air decent -- and weed-whackers and leaf-blowers may be next. (The immigrant lawn maintenance special interests were blocking it, last I saw).

California's 2-stroke outboards have been bought up -- cheap -- and are being sold in the East. How is this a good thing?

[Tyler]

Madrasahs Wrote: "But there's too many really big 2-strokes on Winnipesaukee nowadays, like those who troll by with 150 HP." and indicated they help cause some "really bad air days"

Just wondering madrasahs if you can tell us how many of these 150HP outboards are the so called "polluters" or are you just grouping all 2 stroke outboards together?

The majority of the 2 stroke outboards no matter the size on the lake for your information are direct injected (DI) or high pressure direct injected (HPDI) which exceed the strictest EPA levels for emissions, even surpass California standards.

I hope this clarifies your mistake regarding this issue.

[trfour]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Madrasahs Wrote: "But there's too many really big 2-strokes on Winnipesaukee nowadays, like those who troll by with 150 HP." and indicated they help cause some "really bad air days"

Just wondering madrasahs if you can tell us how many of these 150HP outboards are the so called "polluters" or are you just grouping all 2 stroke outboards together?

The majority of the 2 stroke outboards no matter the size on the lake for your information are direct injected (DI) or high pressure direct injected (HPDI) which exceed the strictest EPA levels for emissions, even surpass California standards.

I hope this clarifies your mistake regarding this issue.

Good point!..... Also, after breakin, I use a smokeless synthetic injecter oil that enhances lower emissions as well.

[madrasahs]

Originally Posted by Tyler

The majority of the 2 stroke outboards no matter the size on the lake for your information are direct injected (DI) or high pressure direct injected (HPDI) which exceed the strictest EPA levels for emissions, even surpass California standards. I hope this clarifies your mistake regarding this issue.

Does not exceed government standards is not the same thing as clean air.

Californians have to wait until 2008 before laws achieve significantly-reduced pollution levels from 2-stroke regulation, mechanical attrition and exports to states and other countries.

Originally Posted by Andre Mele

"The EPA had a chance to do the right thing," he says, "but they became too cozy with the engine manufacturers and got snookered into writing an environmental rule that is really just an instrument of economic protectionism for the industry. It blatantly ignores the basic tenants of the Clean Air Act, which require the EPA to establish the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology".

Here's how the industry "reached" the criteria:

Originally Posted by David Brower

"It is beyond comprehension how the EPA could have developed such weak regulations. Four-stroke marine motors are ten times cleaner than direct fuel-injection engines [those created to satisfy the EPA regulations], forty times cleaner than conventional two-strokes, and don't burn any oil, which is the most environmentally damaging part of the discharge. Refuting the claim that the production of 4-stroke engines would bankrupt the industry, Honda has been making four-stroke outboards since 1974."

Two-strokes have been banned from many California lakes and reservoirs. My latest outboard was a gift from my brother-in-law, who bought it from a Lake Tahoe dealer, as 2-strokes are banned at Lake Tahoe.

[HUH]

You do realize that restrictions on emissions and the cost of achieving these set goals is severely hurting the national economy .. Manufacturing is being outsourced abroad due to the high cost of doing business in the US ..
Two stroke engines are such a minute part of the equation its laughable..
If you really care about the environment then do your homework and stand up to the real culprits.. The clinton administration and al gore claim to be such advocates of cleaner air etc .. Yet while they were in office More full sized V8 powered SUV's were sold than any other type of vehicle ..
You mean to tell me that an outboard engine that operates maybe 3-4 months for a total of about 20 hours has a detrimental effect on the environment..
No one wants dirty water and air ..But extremist and alarmist tactics will not work .. How about these 41 homes that were burnt in MD bordering a state forest.. How much damage was done by the fires themselves, not to mention the senseless waste of timber and resources to build them ..

[Tyler]

HUH, you nailed it. THE SKY IS NOT FALLING with the use of 2 stroke outboards on any lake anywhere. As you pointed out so well the Clinton administration helped set what is in place. The Bush administration is making it right, takes some time but it will get done. ****

[madrasahs]

Originally Posted by HUH

You do realize that restrictions on emissions and the cost of achieving these set goals is severely hurting the national economy .. Manufacturing is being outsourced abroad due to the high cost of doing business in the US ..
Two stroke engines are such a minute part of the equation its laughable...You mean to tell me that an outboard engine that operates maybe 3-4 months for a total of about 20 hours has a detrimental effect on the environment..

Folks can ignore most "bad air" and noise issues if they stay indoors. My preference is to enjoy all of Winnipesaukee's wonders outdoors (except when it's rainy or dark). Stink up the highways all you want -- save jobs.

Originally Posted by HUH

If you really care about the environment then do your homework and stand up to the real culprits.. The clinton administration and al gore claim to be such advocates of cleaner air etc .. Yet while they were in office More full sized V8 powered SUV's were sold than any other type of vehicle ..

Say, what happened to your 2-stroke polluter photo that followed Tyler's response?...My neighbors (who read this Forum) wanted to know how you planned to "aim" its pollution.

(And how HUH can be a responsible representative for snowmobiler issues).

Anyway, the real culprits are 2-strokes and carbureted 4-strokes. This year, Winnipesaukee air wasn't too bad, as the weather didn't cooperate most weekends.

We still had a 2-stroke, dual-Mercury-powered, Sonic troll by almost daily for two weeks in late August. While birds didn't fall from the trees, the exhaust plume -- at every pass -- gagged everyone nearby.

It was suggested previously (by Tyler) that injection was the solution for bad air. Now it appears that bad air can be expected due to some cheapening/lessening of gasoline detergents from America's gasolines (excepting Shell/Mobil).

Here's an excerpt of what appeared in this morning's paper:

"As automakers, oil companies, mechanics and motorists continue seeking answers to what may be fouling fuel injectors, recent reports by the auto industry cite a startling nationwide decline in fuel quality.

"One study, to be published next month, shows rampant violations of the EPA's detergent requirement, said Pete Misangyi, a fuels expert with Ford Motor Co. who is familiar with the study.

"The Environmental Protection Agency began mandating in 1995 that all gasoline sold in the United States contain a minimum level of detergent to keep fuel injectors and intake valves free of deposits and to keep engines running smoothly.

"About half the gasoline sampled from pumps did not contain the minimum level of detergent, Misangyi said...

"The findings back a broad 2002 study by Ford that also showed half the gas sampled failed the detergency test, and ongoing nationwide testing by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers that shows detergency levels dropped 50% from the late 1990s to 2002, Misangyi said.

"Misangyi would not reveal the names of the companies that did or did not pass the test, but said the industry is considering naming them if the situation doesn't improve.

"Misangyi said automakers originally supported the EPA requirement because back in the 1980s when fuel injectors became popular, many became clogged, and the problem was traced to a lack of detergent.

"We thought 'Great, the problem will go away.' But the problem is they go with the cheapest version." It turned out that those already using detergents decreased amounts to simply meet the minimum requirement, he said.

"Even some in the petroleum industry say the standard needs tightening..."

Even the most optimistic among us can see that 2-stroke and 4-stroke injector problems will stymie the best intentions for cleaner air.

(AND it looks like it's not-just-me, either).

Originally Posted by HUH

No one wants dirty water and air ..But extremist and alarmist tactics will not work .. How about these 41 homes that were burnt in MD bordering a state forest.. How much damage was done by the fires themselves, not to mention the senseless waste of timber and resources to build them ..

What's extremist and alarmist about asking for clean air among those of us in New Hampshire -- the way it used to be?...and whose lungs are at work?

[HUH]

Originally Posted by madrasahs

Folks can ignore most "bad air" and noise issues if they stay indoors. My preference is to enjoy all of Winnipesaukee's wonders outdoors (except when it's rainy or dark). Stink up the highways all you want -- save jobs.

Stink Up the highways all you want ?? Now thats responsible..
As long as your little corner of the world is clean ..right ?




Say, what happened to your 2-stroke polluter photo that followed Tyler's response?...My neighbors (who read this Forum) wanted to know how you planned to "aim" its pollution.

Ill just come over for a swim ..

(And how HUH can be a responsible representative for snowmobiler issues).

Yes I am ..thanks

Anyway, the real culprits are 2-strokes and carbureted 4-strokes. This year, Winnipesaukee air wasn't too bad, as the weather didn't cooperate most weekends.

Where would I buy this hydrogen powered boat ?

We still had a 2-stroke, dual-Mercury-powered, Sonic troll by almost daily for two weeks in late August. While birds didn't fall from the trees, the exhaust plume -- at every pass -- gagged everyone nearby.

Can you image .. The Nerve !!

It was suggested previously (by Tyler) that injection was the solution for bad air. Now it appears that bad air can be expected due to some cheapening/lessening of gasoline detergents from America's gasolines (excepting Shell/Mobil).

Here's an excerpt of what appeared in this morning's paper:




Even the most optimistic among us can see that 2-stroke and 4-stroke injector problems will stymie the best intentions for cleaner air.

(AND it looks like it's not-just-me, either).




What's extremist and alarmist about asking for clean air among those of us in New Hampshire -- the way it used to be?...and whose lungs are at work?

Eliminating all 2 stroke and four stroke vehicles = extremist
Lake winni has bad air days ..thats alarmist , not to mention rediculous !!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by madrasahs

[I].My latest outboard was a gift from my brother-in-law, who bought it from a Lake Tahoe dealer, as 2-strokes are banned at Lake Tahoe.

Oh , so you admit you're guilty too

[madrasahs]

Three gallons a season tows in winter flotsam at ice-out...In summer, mooring searches and the occasional disabled boats of others.

Three gallons won't even bring oversized boats up to operating temperature on Winnipesaukee.

The other 99% of my boating hours is either wind- or electric- powered.

Back in July, I praised one part of the market for improving, though slowly (SIKSUKR, pls note): http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...=6349#post6349. (The article referenced at the bottom was a press release that appeared in several July magazines).

Originally Posted by HUH

Eliminating all 2 stroke and four stroke vehicles = extremist
Lake winni has bad air days ..thats alarmist , not to mention rediculous !!

1) Fighting pollution isn't extremist. Polluting the air, roadways, and waters shouldn't be an entitlement.

2) The Lake has bad-air days. This past season was notable for minimal bad-air days.

[SIKSUKR]

Hey Mad,I'm not sure why or what you want me to note.Please explain,especially since I have not chimed in on this thread. .SS

[Tyler]

three gallons there. Thanks for admitting you are also part of the problem.

[HUH]

1) Fighting pollution isn't extremist. Polluting the air, roadways, and waters shouldn't be an entitlement.

Nor should having to go slow or sail or use lead acid batteries to power an electric boat !!

2) The Lake has bad-air days. This past season was notable for minimal bad-air days.

Can you produce any results from local air tests ??

Curious what type of fuel you use to heat your home ?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Since it 'tis the season to be warm ... where do y'all stand on burning wood ? Do you favor CA style controls that outlaw open fireplaces and wood burning stoves ? Is the soot and smoke bellowing from your stove a sweet smell evocative of ye olde good country living or a toxic, potentially carcinogenic, waste byproduct indiscriminately blanketing the countryside and smothering me whenever I dare to venture outdoors ? Should I believe the EPA when it says ...

"Smoke from wood heaters is a major cause of air pollution. In fact, during winter, wood heaters can produce two to three times as much particle pollution as cars. Not only is a smoking fire wasting your money, but the air pollution it causes can also affect our health."

"Wood smoke contains a number of noxious gases (including carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and a range of organic compounds, some of which are toxic or carcinogenic) and fine particles, which go deep into the lungs."

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/woodsmoke/index.htm

And I've not even touched on the carbon cycle / global warming issues.

Is wood burning as big, or even a bigger issue, than 2 stoke pollution ?

I'm sure all the environmentally aware people supporting a ban on 2 strokes would never be caught burning wood, at least in it's non-pelletized form.

All fun aside, I'd suggest that people can't live in a non-polluting way. At a minimum we eat, digest and pollute (really). The real question is what are the local conditions, what are the significant contributors and what are the real alternatives (cost is an issue despite what the EPA mandate is). Just how big is the local problem ? Is this a debate about a molehill or a mountain for NH ?

[gtxrider]

Don't worry, the manufacturers are starting to make BIG 4 strokes.

I often wonder when the tree huggers start spouting off about electric cars, hybrids, etc., how is the electricity generated to charge the batteries? Nuclear, coal, gas all have draw back and pollute. What about the gases the batteries give off? What happens when all the batteries reach the end of their life where will they be dumped?

If you don't like the exhaust smell around the lake try driving the NJ Turnpike through NEWARK, LINDEN, RAHWAY and ELIZABETH. The smell of a 2 Cycle will not seem that bad.

HO! HO! HO! I want a white CHRISTMAS so I can use my snow blower.

[PROPELLER]

If the powers that be would take their head out of the sand & develope hydrogen fuel cell technology (its been around for 100 years now) the tree huggers would have no gripes about exhaust. The fuel is plentiful, the only by product is H2O & we would not be dependent on foreign oil. I guess there are too many lobbies in Washington to allow that to happen. I guess they will probably wait until oil runs out (estimates are anywhere from 25 to 50 years) & then there will be a crisis, a big scramble to get other technology on line.

[Tyler]

Hydrogen and fuel cell technology is in my opinion being supressed by big oil. Rather than point fingers on this site as to who or what is the biggest polluter we should put our efforts into making a difference, myself included. Since it is well documented that the average lawn mower, weed wacker, chain saw, wood burning stove, propane or natural gas heater, just to name a few modern devices that pollute the air more than the modern two stroke outboard, what could we do to make a difference rather than complain on this site about it?

[madrasahs]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Since it 'tis the season to be warm ... where do y'all stand on burning wood ?

New Hampshire has been burning wood to produce electricity -- even recently.

NH construction-debris burning to produce energy has been stopped -- or stymied. (In Spring, you can pass several new spec-built lakefront homes burning construction debris in the open anyway).

But funny you should mention "burning wood". I'm warmed by woodstove heat today -- burning the remains of a damaged red-oak pallet fallen -- or discarded -- in front of my gate last winter. However, I'm presently one-hour's drive south of Grobania, Florida.

This antique woodstove got installed after a 1989 ("The Christmas-") Freeze that caused our electrical utility to have "planned rolling-blackouts". Here, it was scheduled for 8AM to Noon. The temperature was 28° in the living room.

A long-stored kerosene heater saved that day. I may take it to Winnipesaukee this March. It's odorless, smokeless, extremely efficient -- 99.9% -- and a quick morning heat to supplement the usual quick morning electric heat for a cottage.

This morning's temperature was 35° outside, and hasn't warmed up much...so this is an Internet-day. (Note to self: It's too hot...Move computer station further away from woodstove).

The day did not start off well though, as "Mac's" question found me first exploring www.earthcrash.org. It's depressing -- don't go there.

Everything in this part of Florida gets burned. You're supposed to get a permit from the State of Florida, but only a few bother. Because of wildfires and development, we get a stinky haze most days. It helps that Florida is a peninsula, so the "bad-air" gets disbursed to the oceans. No locals complain because "It's progress -- you can't stop it".

This past Spring, about ¼ of this lake's shoreline was bulldozed of its orange groves and live-oaks for a new development. Everything got burned -- and the burning continues today. The State won't permit pressure-treated wood in their landfills, so four old docks joined the burn-piles, too. The bulldozers left a "fringe" of 60-foot-tall pines along the shoreline. Hurricane Charley blew nearly half of them into the lake, where they remain today. (The trees that would have blocked the wind had been bulldozed before the hurricane season).

Yesterday, too late for County pick-up/burning, a one-ton pile of hurricane debris was burned by me -- mostly my neighbor's non-native trees that fell/blew over the fence. My own live-oak "forest" stayed largely intact through all three hurricanes that hit here (Charley, Frances, Jeanne).

But it was a "new" family member who made me aware of "Energy":

He is a naturalized citizen from Holland, and was a youngster when Holland was overrun by the Nazis. He has actually burned the family's wood furniture to keep warm -- and disassembled Nazi barracks (stealthily, board-by-board) for more wood to keep his family warm. Some great stories, there.

He presently lives in bad-air California, and has installed a solar unit (by himself) on his new house. On their many sunny days, they can watch the electric meter run backwards. 1000Kw just today -- money in their pockets. Too cool!

When he visits Winnipesaukee, we set up a solar panel to charge the batteries that we use to peaceably cruise the shorelines. I think it's fun -- all of it.

NH's woodstove population spares the benzene, formaldehyde, toluene, dimethylbenzene, carbon monoxide, arsenic, vinyl chloride, formaldehyde, and chromium added by 2-stroke exhaust from snowmobiles. (Although those pollutants could be added to the woodstove fires just to fit in).

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Do you favor CA style controls that outlaw open fireplaces and wood burning stoves ? ? Is this a debate about a molehill or a mountain for NH ?

California has seen a population crush unmatched in other states -- including even in its own history.

The population crush has created a fossil-fuel problem which has made them acutely aware of "bad-air". They also have wildfires that we don't have. This one's of Seattle's air, though.



But at Winnipesaukee, there's not the pressing population -- yet -- to restrict woodstoves. Isn't it only California's Marin County that's affected by fireplace bans? But even far from Marin County, I stayed at California's Yosemite Park when campers were chopping down green redwood saplings for barbeques, creating an eye-burning, localized, smoggy bad-air environment. Similar local smoggy days occur on Winnipesaukee weekends.

At Winnipesaukee, an EPA-approved woodstove (a glass-fronted Waterford) burns local wood, including some I have cut myself. When wood decays in forests, it releases carbon dioxide, just as a woodstove does when wood is burned in it. I see it as a trade-off.

Open fireplaces are poor heaters -- something even Benjamin Franklin recognized. A cast iron "Franklin" woodstove built in 1870 heats my Florida home -- it even has isinglass windows to watch the fire! A good woodstove design will burn with minimal smoke once it reaches operating temperature -- and is burning well-seasoned wood.

All of Humanity affects their surroundings -- just by their very "being". Some just have a greater high-profile presence (the in-your-face presence) than others.

What's wrong with the low-profile approach of olde New Hampshire?

[fatlazyless]

Sure, in NH, some two-stroke outboards will still be in use for years & years, but the four-strokes are finding lots of happy users. I read somewhere that the outboard manufactorers have been surprised by how fast the four-strokes have become popular. The reasons are well known and easy to see and hear when a four-stroke boat put-puts past you. Easy starting, no stinky odor, no whiny high pitched noise, better fuel economy, more symmetrical power curve.

After using a four-stroke a few times people just get used to their quiet reliabilty. As time goes by two-stroke outboards will be sold off to third world areas or used by a few old Winnipesaukee fuddy-duddies. "Hey, would you look at that, there goes some old fuddy-duddy with his stinky old two-stroke!"

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

If the powers that be would take their head out of the sand & develope hydrogen fuel cell technology (its been around for 100 years now) the tree huggers would have no gripes about exhaust. The fuel is plentiful, the only by product is H2O & we would not be dependent on foreign oil. I guess there are too many lobbies in Washington to allow that to happen. I guess they will probably wait until oil runs out (estimates are anywhere from 25 to 50 years) & then there will be a crisis, a big scramble to get other technology on line.

While fuel cells are a good idea they aren't a panacea. The problem is that the hydrogen has to come from somewhere and while there's plenty of pure H around in the universe there's precious little of it here on Earth. If you split water (H2O) to get your H then it takes energy to do that and, per 2'nd law of thermodynamics, more energy than you'll get back when you oxidize it. Hydrogen is, in this case, an energy storage medium and not an energy source. Still fuel cells could help if the source of the energy used to split the H2O is "green" (a huge if, why wouldn't we use these sources today if they were viable). Then you'd help the pollution side of things if not the energy (source) side of things. Today we get our H from splitting it from various hydrocarbons (like natural gas) and so you're left with similar problems (re: pollution, specifically global warming gases), though perhaps more managable, as you are when you burn hydrocarbons directly. I recall reading (I can't attest to it's veracity) that the big problem with PEM type fuel cells (as might be used in cars or boats) is the degradation of the membrane due to impurites in the oxygen supply (raw air in these cases). More R&D might help but I think when gas, oil, etc prices rise enough (? 3-4x ?) to make hydrogen and fuel cells economically competitive, then you'll see them come into use.

Perhaps the most intriguing concept I've heard is that each house might generate it's own electricity using scaled down versions of already available commercial units. Reforming natural gas to make the H solves the infrastructure problem and would help some of the pollution issues (if not greenhouse gases). Adoption of this type of fuel cell might be speedier than trying to convert/replace existing power plants to some form of "green" fuel ... at least so goes some thinking.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by madrasahs

{snip} NH's woodstove population spares the benzene, formaldehyde, toluene, dimethylbenzene, carbon monoxide, arsenic, vinyl chloride, formaldehyde, and chromium added by 2-stroke exhaust from snowmobiles. (Although those pollutants could be added to the woodstove fires just to fit in).

I guess we could add these to 2 stroke exhaust; (at least if you believe the "Burning Issues" people, cough cough )

Wood smoke contains over 100 different chemicals and compounds, including dioxin, as well as lead, cadmium and arsenic. Below is a partial list:*+carbon monoxide, methane, VOCs (C2-C7), *aldehydes, +formaldehyde, *+acrolein, +pro-pionaldehyde, butyl aldehyde, +acetaldehyde, furfural, substituted furans, +benzene, +alkyl benzenes, +toluene, acetic acid, formic acid, *nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2), *sulfur dioxide, +methyl chloride, +naphthalene, +substituted naphthalenes, oxygenated monoaromatics, guaiacol (and derivatives), *+phenol (and derivatives), syringol (and derivatives), +cat-echol (and derivatives), *+particulate organic carbon, oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, +PAHs: fluorene, phenanthrene, +anthracene, methylanthracenes, +fluoran-thene, *+pyrene, +benzo(a)anthracene, +chry-sene, +benzofluoranthenes, *+benzo(e)pyrene, *+benzo(a)pyrene, *perylene, +ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, *benz(ghi)perylene, *coro-nene, +dibenzo(a,h)pyrene, retene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, trace elements: Na, Mg, Al, Si, S, Cl, K, Ca, Ti, V, +Cr, +Mn, Fe, +Ni, Cu, Zn, Br, +Pb; particulate elemental carbon, normal alkanes (C24-C30), cyclic di-and triter-penoids, dehydroabietic acid, isopimaric acid, lupenone, friedelin, +chlorinated dioxins
http://www.webcom.com/~bi/welcome.html

Yikes this stuff sure looks deadly

But frankly you've hit it on the head below ...

Originally Posted by madrasahs

California has seen a population crush unmatched in other states -- including even in its own history.
The population crush has created a fossil-fuel problem which has made them acutely aware of "bad-air". They also have wildfires that we don't have. {snip} But at Winnipesaukee, there's not the pressing population -- yet -- to restrict woodstoves. What's wrong with the low-profile approach of olde New Hampshire?

Depending on your viewpoint any internal combustion engine is a pollution menace. Is the 2 stoke, old or new, or 4 cycle extant in enough density for long enough times that the air circulation isn't able to reduce the pollutants ? In NH I'd say not. I'd also seriously question that it's so in parts of CA as well but I'll leave their science to them. Suffice it to say that just because an idea makes sense in CA doesn't mean it automatically applies to NH. I believe FLL is correct in that 4 cycles will displace 2 strokes in most engine applications (save the few small HP versions where light weight is most important) due to the inherent advantages of the technology. It'll happen on it's on accord w/o further intervention by gov't. The few remaining won't be worth worrying about.

[gtxrider]

Just think back 30, 40 or 50 years ago. What was powering the majority of boats on the lake? I would guess 2 cycle outboards. Was the air worse then? Perhaps.
Technoliogy advances and boat size increases have just about killed the BIG 2 cycles.

Jet skis are now using 4 cycles as are some snowmobiles.

How about going back to steam and burning woood!

I'm a lumber jack and....

[madrasahs]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I guess we could add these to 2 stroke exhaust; (at least if you believe the "Burning Issues" people, cough cough )

Hoo boy.

"Burning Issues" reads like an Enron "Clean-air" natural gas advertisement. (Except for Burning Issue's word "lung-rape", which puts the site into an altogether different league).

While they quote these (and Mac's) scary contents of wood smoke:

"...dioxin, as well as lead, cadmium and arsenic...*+carbon monoxide, methane, VOCs (C2-C7), *aldehydes, +formaldehyde, *+acrolein, +pro-pionaldehyde, butyl aldehyde, +acetaldehyde, furfural, substituted furans, +benzene, +alkyl benzenes, +toluene, acetic acid, formic acid, *nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2), *sulfur dioxide, +methyl chloride, +naphthalene, +substituted naphthalenes, oxygenated monoaromatics, guaiacol (and derivatives), *+phenol (and derivatives), syringol (and derivatives), +cat-echol (and derivatives), *+particulate organic carbon, oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, +PAHs: fluorene, phenanthrene, +anthracene, methylanthracenes, +fluoran-thene, *+pyrene, +benzo(a)anthracene, +chry-sene, +benzofluoranthenes, *+benzo(e)pyrene, *+benzo(a)pyrene, *perylene, +ideno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, *benz(ghi)perylene, *coro-nene, +dibenzo(a,h)pyrene, retene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, trace elements: Na, Mg, Al, Si, S, Cl, K, Ca, Ti, V, +Cr, +Mn, Fe, +Ni, Cu, Zn, Br, +Pb; particulate elemental carbon, normal alkanes (C24-C30), cyclic di-and triter-penoids, dehydroabietic acid, isopimaric acid, lupenone, friedelin, +chlorinated dioxins..."

They analyze another WOOD source and find:

"Chloromethane, bromomethane, vinyl chloride. chloroethane, methylene chloride, acetone, carbon disulfide; 1,1-dichloroethene; 1,1-dichloroethane; trans-1,2-dichloroethene; cis-1,2-dichloroethene; chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane; 2-butanone, 1,1,1-trichloroethane; carbon tetrachloride; bromodichloromethane; 1,2-dichloropropane; cis-1,3-dichloropropene; trichloroethene, dibromochloromethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane; benzene, trans-1,3-dichloropropene, bromoform, 4-methyl-2-pentanone; 2-hexanone; tetrachloroethene, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane; toluene, chlorobenzene, ethylbenzene, styrene, m,p-xylene; o-xylene. Phenol; bis(2-chloroethyl) ether; 2-chlorophenol; 1,3-dichlorobenzene; 1,4-dichlorobenzene; 1,2-dichlorobenzene; 2-methylphenol; 2,2-oxybis (1-chloropropane); 4-methylphenol; n-nitrosodinpropylamine; hexachloroethane; nitrobenzene; isophorone; 2-nitrophenol; 2,4-dimethylphenol; bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane; 2,4-dichlorophenol; 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene; napthalene; 4-chloroaniline; hexachlorobutadiene; 4-chloro-3-methylphenol; 2-methylnaphthalene; hexachlorocyclopentadiene; 2,4,6-trichlorophenol; 2,4,5-trichlorophenol; 2-chloronaphthalene; 2-nitroaniline; dimethylphthalate; acenaphthylene; 2,6-dinitrotoluene; 3-nitroaniline; acenaphthene; 2,4-dinitrophenol; 4-nitrophenol; dibenzofuran; 2,4-dinitrotoluene; diethylphthalate; 4-chlorophenylphenylether; fluorene; 4-nitroaniline; 2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol; n-nitrosodiphenylamine; 4-bromophenylphenylether; hexachlorobenzene; pentachlorophenol; phenanthrene; anthracene; carbazole; di-n-butylphthalate; fluoranthene; pyrene; butylbenzylphthalate; 3,3Õ-dichlorobenzidine; benzo (a) anthracene; chrysene; bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate; di-n-octylphthalate; benzo (b) fluoranthene; benzo (k) fluoranthene; benzo (a) pyrene; indeno (1,2,3-cd)pyrene; dibenzo (a,h) anthracene; benzo (ghi) perylene...."

You'll also note that the study -- or was it studies -- was qualitative in nature. (Which means anything found..."counts").

The problem with a qualitative analysis done today is that it is possible to measure into the ppb (parts per billion), so "everything" (contaminants in the iron stove, firebrick, chimney cleansers, chimney construction, even the air supplied for the test) gets "analyzed" too. I find it strange that mercury (Hg) is totally missing, unless it's cloaked as one of the "methylated" compounds listed.

They don't cite what "woods" they burned in the test, either. (Or newspaper -- which, on its own, would produce dioxins -- Or birchbark and pine cones -- which would produce many of the listed organic compounds in the ppb range).

And "your" elements? Salt is used to keep chimneys clean, so to "find" Na and Cl in smoke shouldn't be too surprising. Ni and Cr are the elemental components of stainless-steel chimneys -- again, a qualitiative search should make those appear, especially under heated conditions.

Fe? You mean rust? Pb -- lead -- is one of nature's most common trace elements. It's found on everything, particularly easy in a qualititative search. Lead is added to certain "performance boaters'" gasoline -- a concern in swimmable and drinkable lakewaters.

I'll grant that absolutely no form of smoke is healthy, but when an EPA woodstove is burning "hot", with properly seasoned fuel, all you'll see coming from the chimney is shimmering heat waves.

Wood burning is probably even more common in Canada, where the Quebec lawsuit against snowmobiles came from. (Come to think of it...I've never heard a snowmobiler complain of "bad-air").

Two-strokes (really, all motorized vessels and vehicles) release their toxins at road or water level. (In water, it lingers above the cool water's surface).

While wood-burning doesn't improve the air, it at least happens in Nature from time-to-time, and unavoidably. Fireplaces put the smoke well upwards, too, and not "in-your-face" like snowmobiles, Jet-Skis and boats. There's just no avoiding bad-air days lakeside.

In traffic, I can close my auto's vents before being "hit" by bad-air near town; however, if you've got $50,000+, you can buy one of the new automobiles which will filter your auto's interior air against bad-air intrusion! (They're equipped with replaceable activated-carbon-charcoal filters for the toxins that hug the roadways). What? Your car doesn't have one????

Here is a temporary solution:


http://www.forensi-tech.com/catalog/items/3-5150.html

Of course, even the manufacture of activated-carbon-charcoal filters involves coal.

There's just no winning this costly fossil-fuel addiction -- except as individuals, who "live" alternative-energy.

[madrasahs]

Originally Posted by Tyler

"Hydrogen and fuel cell technology is in my opinion being supressed by big oil. Rather than point fingers on this site as to who or what is the biggest polluter we should put our efforts into making a difference, myself included...."

The REAL "Offshores" are getting it.

Originally Posted by Popular Science magazine

Modern sailing yachts’ dirty little secret is that nearly all have diesel engines for windless days. Kind of spoils the romance of working with what the sea provides, doesn’t it? By late this year, though, a California company called HaveBlue will sell what is essentially a self-sufficient power system. A wind generator and two banks of solar panels provide electricity for cabin appliances (radar, fridge and so on), and any surplus juice goes to electrolysis. HaveBlue harvests hydrogen from water (salinated or fresh), stores it in solid-matrix tanks, and uses it to run a fuel cell that produces electricity for the motor. It gets 300-plus miles from the tanks at full capacity.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/whatsne...006848,00.html

[HUH]

Ill pose this question again ..What do you do with the lead acid batteries ??

HaveBlue’s system will run $300,000 to $550,000. (Boat sold separately.)

[fatlazyless]

Today's, Monday, www.ConcordMonitor.com has an article about the Appalachian Mountain Club's hotel-lodge in Crawford Notch and the new snowmobile trail that the State of NH wants to run close by on a railroad right of way. It's titled something like What a dopey plan, or Such a stupid plan or One hell of a moron plan, or something, I forget. The Concord Monitor is like a breath of clean mountain air after gasping on those Union Leader sno-mo fumes, arrrggggg!

[HUH]

Ya thats a real tear jerker .. Theres one reason the state wants a trail up there and thats because they know where the money comes from.. The tree hugging hippy types dont have any money..

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by madrasahs

The REAL "Offshores" are getting it.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/whatsne...006848,00.html

In a long distance sailboat the ability to make clean water from salt water has real advantages. Using the "waste" from the fuel cell might not be the most efficient way to get water but hey if you're getting electricity from the cell to run the boat as well, well then why not. The only things I see as the real detriments to the system (other than the $$) are the limited range (300 mi, how would a diesel powered vessel compare ?) and the "recharge time".

The 17kg of H storage theoretically has 2281400 Btu or 689 kwH of energy. With 900w (0.9kw) of power generation on board and assuming 85% efficiency in electrolysis (to get the H from H2O) and 95% in storing the H into the Ovonic's "battery", it'll take some 38+ days to recharge all the H. Better have shore power at the dock Still I am very enthused about the usage of the "H battery", aka Ni Hydride hydrogen storage. This technology is possibly 1 of the key elements to getting hydrogen fuel cells into auto usage (and solving the leakage problem).

[mxz man]

Stop complaining. New Hampshire has great air quality and the short snowmobile season has almost no effect on it. Snowmobiling is a great sport and it should never be frowned upon.