Envirowhat???

[DoftheMattysort]

"The California Air Resources Board has reported that a two-hour ride on a 100-horsepower jet ski emits the same amount of pollution as driving 139,000 miles in a 1998 passenger car! The City's recently amended MND states "... the proposed 2,576 hours of jet ski operations would equate to a total of 36,800,000 vehicle miles over eight days (54% of a single day's existing miles [this is for the whole County by the way]). The percent increase during the eight days of racing seems substantial in relation to the daily baseline condition but, due to the temporary nature of the event, the increase is not significant over a longer term." Duh. Any effect is insignificant if averaged over a long enough term. That sentence actually makes me want to scream. Can anyone offer any outrage advice?"

I was reading this article and thought of this forum, do any of us Massholes care about the NH enviroment, its not like we deal with it during business hours. Some one tell this screaming liberal to hop in her Geo Metro (or should I say sailboat?) and drive off a cliff.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by DoftheMattysort

"The California Air Resources Board has reported that a two-hour ride on a 100-horsepower jet ski emits the same amount of pollution as driving 139,000 miles in a 1998 passenger car! {snip}

Is this a 1998 article or something more recent (a URL would help). Back in '98 CARB decided the EPA wasn't being strict enough re: PWC and 2 strokes in general. The numbers you mention above were cited back then. It might be interesting to see, now that the hype has died, how much was truth and how much was hype from both sides on the issue.

[ApS]

The article is at least as old as this one from 1999.

http://www.sddt.com/Commentary/artic...ode=19990702tz

If you've ever resided in California (as I have) you'll know that water and air quality are no laughing matter.

The effect on Winnipesaukee's environment of fossil fuels, oils, lubricants, deck-, and dock-coatings, and other petroleum-derived products can be seen and sensed.

[Tired of Waiting]

[QUOTE]do any of us Massholes [\QUOTE]


[Vent on]

Why do you have to use names like that. Are you trying to excite those of us who just happen to live south of the NH border? And yes, from your post it seems as though you live there also. So use the name for yourself and keep me and the others out of the group.
[Vent off]

ToW

[Cal]

Seems as though two cycle sleds could be just as bad as skis. Be glad for spring and fall...you get a break from both .

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Cal

Seems as though two cycle sleds could be just as bad as skis. Be glad for spring and fall...you get a break from both .

... leaf blowers, weed-wackers and then chainsaws. Is there no end to the 2 cycle tyranny ... ?

[ITD]

What about boat motors? No catalytic convertor = high HC and NOx emmissions compared to a car........

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ITD

What about boat motors? No catalytic convertor = high HC and NOx emmissions compared to a car........

Only of not properly tuned. A properly tune engine will run its best , run its most economically , and run its cleanest.
Fuel injection is an improvement over carburation since it analyzes and adjusts itself constantly while running. This goes for both 2 and 4 cycle FI

[ITD]

Actually Cal thats not quite true, yes maintaining the engine a tuned condition does keep emissions down but not to the level of a newer car with a catalytic convertor. Boats could be much better, and as always the bigger the boat and engine, the more pollution. See the link and table below:



http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...emission&hl=en


From the site:

Table D-4

Engine Emissions, New Engines

------------------------------HC (g/kW-hr) --------NOx (g/kW-hr)

Carbureted ---------------------- 7.8-------------------6.2

Electronically fuel-injected---------4.7 ------------------9.9

Three-way Catalyst, Feedback A/F -1.9 ----------------- 2.0



Fuel injection decreases hydrocarbons but actually increases NOx emissions (smog) without a catalytic converter.

From another site (in Australia no less) written in 2000

http://www.bia.org.au/Press/151100.html


"Industry Claims Pollution Figures on Jet Skis "Ludicrous" The Boating Industry Association of NSW has come out fighting against claims that jet skis and personal watercraft cause as much pollution as driving the average automobile 223,000 kilometres - or Sydney to Perth and back 27 times!

Roy Privett, General Manager of the Association, labelled the claims as "ridiculous" and "bordering on ludicrous".

"I've read some nonsense in my time", Privett said, "but this takes the cake". The claims that personal watercraft and the similar Jet Ski are "pollution machines" came from the Federal Government's Coastcare organization.

A spokesman for the NSW Environmental Protection Association also weighed in with a share of nonsense, claiming, "Jet Skis, along with outboard engines, are responsible for 10 percent of Sydney's air pollution on summer weekends". "No accurate figures suggest such a situation exists", Privett added, "and to suggest that personal watercraft are "remarkably inefficient", as one report claimed, is errant nonsense, as today's two stroke engines with their direct fuel injection systems have reduced submissions substantially".

"In fact, today's two-stroke engines conform to EPA standards through to 2002, and in some cases beyond", he added.

According to Heytrack Australia, distributor of the popular Sea Doo range of personal watercraft, the statistics unveiled by Coastcare cited data from tests done on old technology personal watercraft of eight and ten years ago" ..

From the same article:

Surprisingly, well-known environmentalist and NSW EPA officer, John Dengate, said the authority was "more concerned with pollution form wood fires, diesel engines, and vehicles than it was with boats".

So these people criticizing the PWCs are comparing 15 year old technology to newer car technology ignoring the improvements made over the last 5 years. For me this blows their argument right out of the water, so to speak. Just like the people who claimed to have scientific proof that snowmobiles scare bambi, they think with emotion rather than using their brain trying to find the real story.

[ITD]

And another link:

http://www.ozpwc.com/ozpwc/thefacts.htm

[Will]

Itd you are actually incorrect about what you have stated. Bigger Boats and bigger motors do not always mean more pollution.

I ask you to look towards a new motor out on the market today, The evinrude ETEC. The etec is a two stroke direct injection outboard, from 100-275 horsepower. Its CO parts per million content is lower than many 4 strokes off considerable size and even less. So ya see with these bigger boat doesnt always come more polllution. It just happens to be the motor. Also you have skipped over the fact that Volvo Marine, is in the process of creating a catalytic converter for marine engines and mercruiser is in the process of testing their 496 MAG HO with a catalytic converter system. Boating industry reports show that these motors with cats in them will actually pollute less than most 4 banger out boards on the lake these days. Also in retrospect to the 2 stroke vs big boat idea, A two stroke motor usually is the highest polluter since 2 stroke motors do not usually burn all their fuel, sometimes only half and the other is put out as exhaust. As for diesel, well with the diesel yes you are promoting more PPM per a burn, however you are burning less since the diesel is much more economical and smarter to run, which not many people gather since all they see is the black smoke which is just the abscence of air in a turbocharged diesel, or blow by which happens to be just an afterproduct of diesel burn. However Common rail diesel injection is working to fix this. My point being that lets not turn this into another "MAN WITH BIG BOAT MAKE BIG POLLUTION" thread.

As for the Masshole comment, its been around forever. NH people on a majority usually complain about mass people, they call us "Yuppies" cause we flock to our vacation homes in their areas. Hasn't anyone seen what about bob and how much the nh family hates the doctor for buying that house? Its still the same in most parts. Now while i'm from mass, I look at it this way towards NH people, you can hate me all you want, but when me and my friends leave your lakes and stop boating in our stupid , big, smelly, gas guzzling boats and stop buying gas at your docks, You will have nothing.....


Will

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Will

Now while i'm from mass, I look at it this way towards NH people, you can hate me all you want, but when me and my friends leave your lakes and stop boating in our stupid , big, smelly, gas guzzling boats and stop buying gas at your docks, You will have nothing.....


Will

Will, sometimes its better to keep thoughts like this to yourself.They are not very attractive. SS

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Will, sometimes its better to keep thoughts like this to yourself.They are not very attractive. SS

Otherwise, it is an effort to have to find comments like this one -- on pollution:

"We were at a dockside restaurant on a Sunday around lunch time. A supercharged boat pulls up and is trying to figure out where to park. After 10 minutes or so of idling right in front of the restaurant he backs in and kills the motor.

"Nearly everyone there is fresh from church and looks a little uptight. They all start clapping and saying "finally, thank god, and thanks for a great lunch." The driver is just standing there in his boat. He turns the engine back on and just sits there looking at everyone. Must have sat there for 10 minutes all the while gunning the motor. That was a priceless lunch."

[Boater]

Originally Posted by Will

but when me and my friends leave your lakes and stop boating in our stupid , big, smelly, gas guzzling boats and stop buying gas at your docks, You will have nothing.....

Except a clean, quiet, safe, and non-smelly lake. Sounds good to me!

[Will]

Isnt it funny how much the real truth hurts? Also as far as keeping my thoughts to myself on a public board, isnt that what this place is all about? Look at the facts everyone, no big smelly boats and you have no economy in the lakes region. HOW MANY PEOPLE in the lakes region have a job that depends on boating? Just look at all the marinas in the area, each of those marinas employs at a minimum, about 10 people. now multiply that by the ten marinas just on the south side of the lake, all of a sudden 100 people have no jobs......interesting isnt it? I mean come on everyone, this is plain and simple economics, loose the customer or the "demand" and you have no income, plain and simple.

Will

[ITD]

Will,

I sense a little anger. This thread was on its way to becoming PWCs are the source of all the worlds pollution problems, I just simply pointed out that TODAY'S production boats are not as clean as everyone thinks they are. While there are always exceptions to the rule, a 3 liter EFI four stroke boat motor is going to produce less pollution than an 8.1 liter EFI four stroke boat motor when run the same distance. Notice the chart I posted listed the pollutants as grams per kilowatt hr. This could easily be converted to grams per horsepower hour (sorry about mixing measurement systems). The point is that generally the more horsepower, the more pollution is produced for a particular engine type.

Diesel engines are the king of pollution producers as far as I'm concerned, considering HC, NOx, and CO. New injection schemes are an improvement but there is still a long way to go and changes are coming. One of the things that makes diesel more effecient also causes more pollution (high compression).

I suspect that one of the technical challenges with catalytic converters is the extreme heat they generate and high temperatures they run at. Not a problem hanging below your car, but an issue in a closed engine compartment. I think catalytic convertors in boats are long overdue, in both gas and diesel applications.

Finally I don't agree with your comments on "NH people" except for a small, usually vocal minority, most of "NH people" are neighborly, nice people who have no problem with there MA and other area neighbors.

[Boater]

Originally Posted by Will

no big smelly boats and you have no economy in the lakes region

You can't be serious Will. Taking a few stink-pots off the Lake is going to cause the Lakes Region economy to collapse? I'm not buying it!

[SIKSUKR]

Ok,Ok,I'll butt out of this one.Just didn't think those were very nice comments that's all. SS

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Will

Look at the facts everyone, no big smelly boats and you have no economy in the lakes region. Will

Just for the record, we have legal professionals, medical professionals, educational professionals, police, fire fighters, restaurant owners, trades people, high tech, real estate, etc......... a whole lot of other careers that do not involve boats or the lake and we manage to maintain our economy pretty well thank you. We do have a short, but decent tourism season that adds to the economy - no doubt there. Everybody's (US) money is the same color, but what they bring with them is what matters and let's just hope and pray that you are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to what our tourism contributes to our environment and economy. Enjoy your day.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

Acres, why not post the replies to that post where we all said that guy was a jerk for doing that?

Because only one spoke up of 90 GFBL posts. We?

The site to which you refer has been "alternatively-described" below, but you know the drill:
http//www.theusualGFBL.often-obscene.site.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99009.
.

Originally Posted by Audiofn

"...Just because we drive what is available to us in todays technology does not mean that we do not like the environment. We are all looking for the better mouse trap."

Sorry, Audiofn and DoftheMattysort, "we're" not.

The technology is already here.

Toyota makes a car that has sold over 100,000 cars in the US, gets 60+MPG, and reduces carcinogens by 95%! (See Wired.com) Honda makes a 255HP V-6 low-emission car that gets 30+MPG -- average overall.

But the technology to make excess power and excess noise on Winnipesaukee requires an over-rich mixture. (For stoichiometrics, to meet programmed chip performance parameters, cooling and other reasons). Also, the use of aviation fuel, the supplemental addition of lead to the gasoline -- and even oil products from endangered whales!

Over-rich mixtures are over-rich in PAHs, particulates, hydrocarbons, NOX, CO2, CO... (ITD has already covered this here -- and he's absolutely right).

Especially bad for asthmatics, but shouldn't be inhaled in any case -- by anybody.

The "better mousetrap" is already here. But it is ignored -- for Thrills.

Here's Lake Winnipesaukee eight inches below summer's low lake level.

Explain it:

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

{snip}
The technology is already here.

Toyota makes a car that has sold over 100,000 cars in the US, gets 60+MPG, and reduces carcinogens by 95%! (See Wired.com) Honda makes a 255HP V-6 low-emission car that gets 30+MPG -- average overall.

But the technology to make excess power and excess noise on Winnipesaukee requires an over-rich mixture. (For stoichiometrics, to meet programmed chip performance parameters, cooling and other reasons). Also, the use of aviation fuel, the supplemental addition of lead to the gasoline -- and even oil products from endangered whales!

Over-rich mixtures are over-rich in PAHs, particulates, hydrocarbons, NOX, CO2, CO... (ITD has already covered this here -- and he's absolutely right).

Especially bad for asthmatics, but shouldn't be inhaled in any case -- by anybody.

The "better mousetrap" is already here. But it is ignored -- for Thrills.

Here's Lake Winnipesaukee eight inches below summer's low lake level.

Explain it:

OK folks this is a long and somewhat technical one so you're forewarned

The technology may be here for auto's but for boats it's a different question giving you a different answer. First let me presume you're talking about hybrids, in particular the Prius (which, though good, doesn't really get 60 mpg). To understand how a hybrid achieves it's better efficiency you need to understand (a little) of how they work and how the electric motor (EM) and internal combustion engine (ICE) trade on each other's strengths and weaknesses. Hybrid cars use both EMs and ICEs, varying their contribution to motion depending on the task at hand. ICEs work best at, or near, wide open throttle and when the load is constant. EMs work well at low rpm tasks and wouldn't be a bad choice overall if, and it's THE BIG IF, their "fuel" (electricity) could be stored efficiently (wrt to size, weight, capacity). So a hybrid combines the 2 sources and uses each where and when it makes sense. The article below does a better job of explaining hybrids than I can do here so read this http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-car.htm and I'll summarize the main ways hybrids cars save and why these don't work so well for boats (except for 1 already existing case !).

Hybrid cars can be more efficient (only under the right conditions though !) because they use the ICE in it's most efficient mode (constant load, at or near WOT) and shut it down otherwise. The EM can also be used as a generator to recover energy during stopping that otherwise would be thrown away as heat. Thus in stop and go (city) traffic the EM fills in for the ICEs weaknesses and the ICE only runs (and then near WOT) to recharge the batteries when they get low. The only other advantage a hybrid has come from our normal usage of a car. Cruising along, even at highway speed, only requires a small amount of HP (a small fraction of the ICEs potential in your car), perhaps 15 - 20 HP. The reason your ICE has more HP is to provide acceptable acceleration. A hybrid can use the EM as an "electric supercharger" to aid a smaller, more efficiently used, ICE to achieve acceptable acceleration. This is Honda's IMA approach (really more like a quasi-hybrid).

So could you make a hybrid boat and realize the same benefits. In a word, no. The difficulty come in 2 main areas. First we tend to use boats (less so PWCs) in an already "ICE efficient" manner. Generally you're up on plane and running at constant throttle so the advantages a hybrid has in stop'n'go traffic don't apply as much in boating. There just isn't as much stop and go such that shutting off the ICE and/or regenerative braking make a practical difference. Second a boat has to push a much thicker fluid (water vs air) than does a car. It's using more of it's ICE's power potential just cruising along than does a car. You could make a IMA type hybrid boat with a slighly smaller ICE that would run at WOT (more efficient) for cruising at the same speed you presently do (the EMs role would be to get you on plane in a reasonable time) but the difference would not be as big as in a car and you'd be limited to a slower top speed (also true in a hybrid car). Remember that a hybrid has the penalty of added weight (due to EM and batteries) which reduces efficiency. The only time hybrids "win" is when they reduce inefficiency more than they lose in a weight penalty. I'd suggest you'd get a bigger boost in mileage (reduce GPH) by using variable displacement ICEs (ala Chryslers 300C Hemi, and others) than using a Honda-like IMA approach in a boat. I'd bet $$ this will happen as the technology filters down from auto to boat. Turbocharging a smaller boat engine would be another semi-good alternative though I'm less sure given today's optimized ICEs.

Other things to read re: hybrids and other fuel saving approaches are listed below;

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question262.htm

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell4.htm (Note how similar the effciencies are)

Personally I've always like the hybrid concept, it has good geek appeal to me being the enginerd I am (though only R. Goldberg would prefer the added complexity). I was amused by the stupidity of California's CARB reg's that (used to) all but barred hybrids in a forlorn quest for a totally electric car. They've now "seen the light" and changed. I've often considered using a really efficient engine, such as a Stirling cycle, in a Stirling-electric hybrid. Big size negated use in cars but I thought, "Hmmm, maybe in a boat ...?" Alas "Andrew" in the following forum posts (scroll 60% down) has made me rethink that whole concept. Thus we're left with trying to improve hull form/efficiency, more so than powerplant efficiency, to make any real difference. Hence my prior noted interest in hydrofoils, and to a lesser extent, hovercraft.

http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000094.html


ps - Oh yeah, the one place where hybrids are used in boats. Look at that bassboat trolling along some morning. It's using an electric motor. It's an electric-ICE hybrid boat ! In a car such a coupling between the 2 propulsion systems would be called "hybrid through the road". In a boat I guess we'd call it hybrid coupling through the water


pps - For homework, figure out why hybrids aren't used in race cars.


APS - Two things to ponder ....

1) If the "better mousetrap" was being ignored just for thrills (by the GFBL group I infer) wouldn't we have seen hybrid boats for the rest of us by now ? Since we don't, I think there's more involved than "just thrills". Cost and some of the reasons above perhaps ?

2) As to your black ring being some residue of gasoline usage, why don't you follow up and have it analyzed and prove it. Until then it's just another speculation, like alien visitation, rather than fact, like Apollo moon landings. Who knows you may even be right this time

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Will

... I look at it this way towards NH people, you can hate me all you want, but when me and my friends leave your lakes and stop boating in our stupid , big, smelly, gas guzzling boats and stop buying gas at your docks, You will have nothing.....

Hey, your remark isn't very neighborly! I'm a New Hampshire native and I don't hate people from Massachusetts. I look at people as individuals. Jerks can come from any state, including NH. You don't really think that our economy depends on people like you, do you? Because we're not just a bunch of poor uneducated, unskilled hicks up here. This might be a shock to you, but we really could survive just fine without you and your friends. If you don't believe me ... just stay home.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

2) As to your black ring being some residue of gasoline usage, why don't you follow up and have it analyzed and prove it. Until then it's just another speculation, like alien visitation, rather than fact, like Apollo moon landings. Who knows you may even be right this time

I think the black ring is organic in nature, mold or mildew or something like that........

Nice explaination of hybrid.

[PROPELLER]

Mee-n-Mac, I seem to recall maybe 2 years ago Motorboating had a feature article in their engine/power section about experimenting with a hybrid for a boat. I recall that it was a somewhat large fishing boat like a Viking, Cabo, not sure. The fuel tank was reduced in size by 50% but did not lose any range & it only lost 2-3 mph hour. Thats all I can remember.

I wish now I kept the article. I tried a search on their website but did not have any success. Do you know anything about this? You seem very well informed about the subject. Maybe someone else remembers or still has the issue, I do not save them.

On another note, more in line with what APS was saying. It seems that there is alternative technology that could be refined & developed but is not. Maybe because its not in big oil companies & oil producing countries interest. One example is hydrogen fuel cell technology. I know other technologies have their own problems but to just ignore it & wait for oil to run out(it will happen eventually) seems irresponsible. If something doesn't change in the near future we'll be walking to work or riding horses again.

[Wizard of Oz]

Acres Per Second,
How about including acid rain in your theories on polution at Lake Winnie? Winnie is down wind (read: East) from some of the largest cities in the eastern US and Canada. Detroit, Buffalo, TORONTO, and even Montreal. Detroit and Toronto are THE two largest auto manufaturing cities in North America. All the polution these industrial cities put into the air eventually fall as rain... and unfortuanatly the lakes, rivers, and streams of the American northeast are where this normally happens. We are experiencing the same issues with lakes in the Upper Penninsula of Michigan. Polution from the Twin Cities and Duluth are tainting the lakes there. Fish are dying, water clarity is down, and rings just as you provided a photograph of are present (though much of what you show is probably due more to vegitation such as leaves decomposing on the lake bottom).

Also, as Audiofn has already said, performance boats tend to run on the lean side for more power. I've actually blown up a motor looking for that last couple of hp running it a little too lean. I know many other GRBL boaters who have done the same thing....So I guess that blows your performance boat running rich theory right out of the water (pun intended). If you want to point a finger at some kind of motor contributing to the polution more than any other, try all the 2 stroke outboards and PWC's running around Winnie. I'll bet they outnumber the performance boats 50-1 (or more!). You want to talk running rich?? Oily?? Start there and leave the small % of performance boats out of it. There are many lakes here in Michigan that do not allow 2 strokes anymore.... maybe someone should start that crusade at Winnie?????

Wizard of Oz

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

Mee-n-Mac, I seem to recall maybe 2 years ago Motorboating had a feature article in their engine/power section about experimenting with a hybrid for a boat. I recall that it was a somewhat large fishing boat like a Viking, Cabo, not sure. The fuel tank was reduced in size by 50% but did not lose any range & it only lost 2-3 mph hour. Thats all I can remember.

I wish now I kept the article. I tried a search on their website but did not have any success. Do you know anything about this? You seem very well informed about the subject. Maybe someone else remembers or still has the issue, I do not save them.

On another note, more in line with what APS was saying. It seems that there is alternative technology that could be refined & developed but is not. Maybe because its not in big oil companies & oil producing countries interest. One example is hydrogen fuel cell technology. I know other technologies have their own problems but to just ignore it & wait for oil to run out(it will happen eventually) seems irresponsible. If something doesn't change in the near future we'll be walking to work or riding horses again.

Don't know about the boat, it would be interesting to find out what they did. Especially because I'd expect diesels in a boat of that type. I wonder if the savings didn't come about as a result of some other efficiency enhancing techniques. I was surprised to see Volvo claiming as big an increase in MPG for their new IPS vs traditional inboard drives. I guess shaft angle makes a big difference. I'll take a big SWAG re:the "Cabo" and postulate that perhaps they had the engines turn generators which in turn sent juice to electric motors mounted and driving props in a more advantageous manner than the conventional means. Not so much a hybrid but rather an electric transmission whose inefficiencies were less than the standard inefficiencies. I've wondered about the above as a means of getting the advantages of twin screws in a "small" boat w/o having to go to twin ICE's. Then I had more Glenfiddich and dropped the whole line of thought

In regard to fuel cells and hydrogen, they another interesting technology though not quite ready for prime time yet. Two big things and a raft of other, probably solvable, issues are stumbling blocks. First you have to store the hydrogen and this is not so easy to do (when compared to gasoline). I like the idea of metallic hydride storage (ala Ovonic's approach) but the weight of the new "gas tank" is an issue for cars, perhaps less so for boats. Perhaps someday we'll see the fabled carbon nano-tube storage but I'm not holding my breath. Because boats are driven in a more "highway miles" type of usage the increase in efficiency is small (see link in above post) though not to be dismissed out of hand. Fuel cell cars, which are being developed intensively now, may happen in the next 10 - 20 years and if so then I suspect boats will follow. Neither is a panacea but could, depending on #2 below, help.

Second, and for me this is the big one, you can't get hydrogen in a usable format from anywhere local to this planet. Sure it's plentiful in the universe but precious little can be found floating free here on Earth. You need to separate the H from H2O or get it from some other source, ie hydrocarbon fuels (oil, natural gas = methane, ??). This means hydrogen is NOT an energy source (like oil is) but rather a means of storing energy that comes from somewhere else. Depending on where you get this energy you may be doing good or bad things to the global ecology. City dwellers may like hydrogen powered cars (less pollution in town) but those people living near the power plants now working extra, extra OT to make the power to separate hydrogen aren't going to be too pleased In the near term, if we procede with a hydrogen economy, we'll be getting our H from the same (oil) companies were presently getting our present energy from. They only stand to benefit from the whole deal. What's really needed is a lightweight, high density way of storing electricity for long periods of time. Then we're free to gather energy over long periods of time, as it comes and goes, transport it to where it's needed/used and use it at the peak rates required. Well that and global population control Here's an article by Mr Romm, an energy czar during the Clinton era. Read what he says with the understanding that you can't say he's some Republican big business, who cares about the environment, naysayer and dismiss his opinion.

http://www.issues.org/issues/20.3/romm.html


For more on hydrogen storage try these

http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/hydr...002/22903.html

http://www.ovonic.com/PDFs/fuel_cell...04_toronto.pdf

I'm not to worried about running out of oil in the near term. Someday perhaps but in the near term it'll just rise in price and as it does other sources, which at present are too expensive to tap, will become viable. Also as the price rises other alternatives, also presenty too costly, become viable and will be developed. Necessity is the mother of invention and she can be a cruel taskmaster.

[Lakegeezer]

The question of priorities became so clear to me as I saw the news this week about the space shuttle being rolled out, and the associated talk about "now we can start our mission of putting people on Mars". It seemed so 20'th century. Without a new source of energy in 30 years, there is a significant chance that there will be a severe and lengthy depression of the economy and quality of life. This would be good for the lake ecology, but bad for the lakes region. The mission to Mars seems like mis-set priorities, and should only be considered after research on hydrogen fuel, fusion, solar and wind power have resolved our energy future. I can't wait for that fusion powered bass boat. Hopefully those afraid of speed won't have the limit set to 45 by then.

[Cal]

Agreed Lakegeezer , sometimes "charity should begin at home". Our goverment should worry about thinks at hand. I feel the higher cost of energy , particularly if it keeps rising , could set off a recession like we haven't seem in MANY years .

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Wizard of Uhs

"...If you want to point a finger at some kind of motor contributing to the pollution more than any other, try all the 2 stroke outboards and PWC's running around Winnie. I'll bet they outnumber the performance boats 50-1 (or more!). You want to talk running rich?? Oily?? Start there and leave the small % of performance [GFBL] boats out of it. There are many lakes here in Michigan that do not allow 2 strokes anymore.... maybe someone should start that crusade at Winnie?????

The outboards and PWCs are getting their pollution-act together (finally!).

The GFBLs can't seem to get away from fouling the air by burning a gallon a minute of gasoline. And who knows how much heavy gear lube gets discharged from those 500-to-1000+HP beasts into the lakewater? (Lakewater, which some -- like the islanders and me -- consume).

Wouldn't it be better to improve the subject of the argument, rather than to try to change it?

Originally Posted by ITD

I think the black ring is organic in nature, mold or mildew or something like that........

Petroleum waste IS organic.

Originally Posted by Mee'n'Mac

"...As to your black ring being some residue of gasoline usage, why don't you follow up and have it analyzed and prove it. Until then it's just another speculation, like alien visitation, rather than fact, like Apollo moon landings. Who knows you may even be right this time."

I opined at an earlier thread that it is the "heavy ends" of petroleum products (oil and gearlube] was involved -- not so much the "lighter ends" of gasoline. (That "bath-tub ring" doesn't appear in early family photos of Winnipesaukee).

I suspect that analyses have already been done on Winnipesaukee -- maybe elsewhere. There are analytical folks everywhere.

We'll just have to wait for shore things to chime in here.

Originally Posted by Audiofn

A overly rich mixture in a engine not only reduces your HP but also washes down your cylinder walls and blows up your motor.

Yes, but in some popular custom applications, over-rich mixtures are used to keep the engine from frying.

A carburated automobile engine -- or, in your case, a truck engine -- with a hugely defective over-rich mixture will run only 75K miles, rather than 100K miles before it wears out. Follow an old pickup up a hill sometime (and some newer, carburated, ones).

While you can't see what's stinking up the air, your nose will let you know.

Originally Posted by Audiofn

The goal of any high performance boater is to have a perfect burn to maximize hp, so that is not to rich and not to lean."

A perfect burn is called "stoichiometric", and it's different for different fuels; but it's always best to err on the side of over-rich, as Wizard of Ahs found out too late. You don't see many beige tailpipe interiors (indicating a lean condition), as opposed to pitch-black (indicating a too-rich mixture) on GFBLs. Take a look.

GFBL boats need to maximize horsepower to go 82MPH (rather than to go only 81MPH). How they do that throws the "perfect mixture" off the charts -- whether carburated or modified-fuel injection. (To our shared, Winnipesaukee, detriment).

Originally Posted by Mee'n'Mac

"...First let me presume you're talking about hybrids, in particular the Prius (which, though good, doesn't really get 60 mpg)...".

If you read the "wired.com" article, you'd read that:

For true masters, 50 miles per gallon is a piker's score; they shoot for a consistent 60. When it comes to gas mileage, Prius owners can make TiVo users and Mac addicts seem blasé.

See? The "True Masters" -- which would be technoids like me and Mee'n'Mac -- well, I mean, me and NOT Mee'n'Mac -- well, me and Mac'n'Mee [but not Mee].

Technoids like Mac and me.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Petroleum waste IS organic.


I opined at an earlier thread that it is the "heavy ends" of petroleum products (oil and gearlube] was involved -- not so much the "lighter ends" of gasoline. (That "bath-tub ring" doesn't appear in early family photos of Winnipesaukee).

I suspect that analyses have already been done on Winnipesaukee -- maybe elsewhere. There are analytical folks everywhere.

We'll just have to wait for shore things to chime in here.

Sorry, I don't believe that "ring" in your photo is petroleum based. See the attachment from http://www.buzzardsbay.org/oilpics/algaefactsheet.pdf . Looks very familiar to me. Common mistake, don't feel too bad.....

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by ITD

Sorry, I don't believe that "ring" in your photo is petroleum based. See the attachment from http://www.buzzardsbay.org/oilpics/algaefactsheet.pdf . Looks very familiar to me. Common mistake, don't feel too bad.....

The stuff that appears on my concrete stairs leading into the lake certainly has the qualities described in the link. It's not as dark as shown in the photo but is slippery when wet and not slippery when dry. Hosing it down does not remove it (though power washing does) but it doesn't leave a sheen in the water (like I'd expect some oil based gunk to). You can scrape it off somewhat when dry but it's a bear to do. Interestingly while my stairs have the stuff, it's only above the water line and within the splash zone, it doesn't accumulate on the dock pilings or dock which also get splashed. I wouldn't expect oil residue gunk to be so picky but I guess the algae critters are.

[Mee-n-Mac]

I'm kidding with the title of course but we're up against a hard one. Presently we all are living off a legacy of stored energy, accumulated over long periods of time. I don't know if the 30 yr number is correct but eventually we will run out of the stored* energy (well at least the stuff that's easy and cheap to get to) and will have to make do which energy that is more "continual". Nuclear fusion is often considered the holy grail but research into that has been ongoing by really smart people for 40+ years. Perhaps someday something practically useful will result but I don't expect it anytime soon no matter what funds are poured into it. We can relatively easily resurrect the nuclear fission programs, and given the advancements over the last 30 yrs, this may be the least of all evils (perhaps just for the transition time until we find the holy grail in whatever form it takes). Solar and wind just aren't "energy dense" (or constant in our locale) enough to be THE answer but as oil costs rise I'll predict these will begin to become cost comparable enough to supplement the conventional sources. Then the oil stocks can be used for what they are really suited for, use in mobile applications like cars and boats and planes. Fusion power for your home, leaving gasoline for your bassboat ! Hydrogen fuel cells for you boat perhaps, if we can find an energy efficient means of making the hydrogen. Electric motors for your boat if we can find a means of storing electricity in a dense form (mebbe so called "super capacitors" will become a reality).

In regards to solar and more specifically photo-voltaic (converting solar light to electricity) NASA has been in the forefront due to necessity (solar panels for power) and if we don't find an earth bound holy grail then perhaps a space bound one will become viable. Science fiction writers years ago imagined orbiting solar power collectors beaming energy back to Earth. Some more practical thought has gone into it and who knows, may turn out to be useful. IMHO if the option of solar power satellites is ever going to be possible we'll need to get the raw materials from the Moon, as lifting that much stuff into orbit from Earth is just too costly in numerous ways. The 1'st part of NASA's "Mission to Mars" is finding out just how much, indeed if at all, the Moon can be used for space endevours. Frankly I don't see people going to Mars in my lifetime for just the reasons LG and Cal cite. The president's vision statement is like all these type of things, good PR and some vague direction but please don't come asking for the $$'s to do it. Still the work being done to explore how (if) we can use the Moon is not only good research but has practical implications as well. I say "Strip mine to Moon", but just the backside so you don't ruin the view

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/s...has_come.shtml

On a more immediate time scale I wonder if geothermal, and I mean drilling deep "wells" to tap into the Earth's residual heat, couldn't be used. I've read such things are pretty inefficient (see Stirling cycle in prior post and/or google OTEC) but still if it's cheap and can be done on a large scale, why not. Hmm, now I've got another thing added to my "figure it out" list. Overall I don't think the sky is falling, but keep looking up just in case ....

On another note people have been looking to harness tidal power and wave power. One interesting concept was generators that floated on the surface while being tethered to the bottom. As waves pass the float goes up and down and the relative motion (float vs tethered part) is used to make electricity which would be sent back to shore via the bottom cables/lines. Imagine if you can, a feild or doubled/tripled/?-up line of these things stretching from 1 point on shore to another. If en-masse they extracted all the energy from passing waves the water surface behind them would be calm. APS, perhaps you should look into this ! Then you could profit from the large cruisers and GFBLs passing your way and keep your shoreline to boot


ps - The national labs (the old nuke people) have been working of a variety of "energy issues" including the much balleyhoed (?) super battery powered car (of the early 90's). No breakthroughs yet, that I'm aware of, but who knows.


*stored - OK, OK I realize that all the energy is in a sense stored energy. Geothermal & fission are stored from the super-novie that made the radioactive materials and solar & fusion are stored from the materials leftover from the big bang and wind, biomass and most other stuff is derived from solar. We don't ever create energy, we just liberate from it's present form. So please no lectures from the physics buffs.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

Saab made what they called a zero emissions car a number of years ago. The thing was sick looking with a hose that came from the exhaust and went back up to the intake of the engine. There was some deal in the middle that made it so that the engine could reburn the air. They claimed that the byproduct of the process was air that was actually cleaner then most of the air in 8 major citys in the US.

How is this a bad thing?

I remember the article too. It was an experimental one-off SAAB. (SAAB always appears as all caps).

Perhaps if they'd put graphics on the hose and polished the car...people would have liked it?

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...Interestingly while my stairs have the stuff, it's only above the water line and within the splash zone, it doesn't accumulate on the dock pilings or dock which also get splashed. I wouldn't expect oil residue gunk to be so picky but I guess the algae critters are."

The article posted by ITD referencing the awful 2003 oil spill in Buzzards Bay (was it bunker oil? The worst kind of oil spill?) indicates a green color will appear when algae is scraped. I doubt that saltwater algae would present the same characteristics as freshwater algae, but the "green" is something you should have noticed immediately upon removing it. The rocks are granite-colored below the black area in the photograph -- perhaps the question should have read: "Explain the granite-colored area at winter's draw-down level."

Note that the photo is preceded by the phrase ""Explain this:".

I'm not positing an explanation, although shore things could -- when he/she gets back on the Forum.

The black color does suggest petroleum products -- particularly since the boating season had ended about ummmm, 8-inches above...which puts the black ring above "late-summer tide" on Winnipesaukee.

Hmm...those early postcards of Lake Winnipesaukee might shed some light on this darkness . McDude? shore things?

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...OK, OK I realize that all the energy is in a sense stored energy...."

You beat me to it.

Wind is solar energy -- clean energy. (And why sailing is a pollution-free use of our recreational waters and spares the release of carcinogens into the air). It is otherwise free energy -- going to waste.

As for our domestic needs: The US has enough coal energy for 100 years. Unfortunately, the cleanest-burning coal (Utah) is now out of reach -- due to political considerations made ten years ago.

Hydrogen can be made from our coal reserves, but our present domestic consumption is already controversial due to mercury, acid rain, and other pollutants, as Wizard of Oz pointed out. Wizard of Oz also wanted to change PWCs.

Bombardier makes ATVs, Ski-Doo and Sea-Doo products and, due to overwhelming US sales, is poised to overtake America's Boeing as the largest manufacturer of commercial aircraft. Bombardier is a Canadian company -- with all THAT implies. Follow your money.

The good news is that the solar promoters have stated that a solar grid measuring 10 miles by 10 miles would provide the US with all of its domestic -- non-transportation -- energy needs. ('Course, that's an immense area to cover with silicon panels).

I was surprised to read that the US has over 1100 operating modern windmill-generators today. EDITED #1: Make that 5000.

EDITED #2: The individual living in San Francisco's Presidio district -- and driving a $50 Billion California solar initiative -- is none other than...Mikael Gorbachev!

One hundred years ago, there were 77 US manufacturers of windmills -- and the US was a windmill exporter! (We import our windmill technology today -- from Denmark).

Oil is converted to manufacture plastics and fertilizer to feed the masses: Too bad we've been wedded to oil for transportation -- it just goes up in smokey pollutants, whose long-term effects on health are sometimes immediate (asthma) sometimes delayed (emphazema, cancer), but nearly always dire.

The money we pay for oil goes to fund madrasahs, which are:

...schools that are the breeding ground of anti-western sentiment and future al-Qaeda foot soldiers"

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/m...odload&sid=516

Follow your petroleum dollars.

The technology is already here.

We pay too great a price for:
1) Image
2) Convenience

IMHO.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The article posted by ITD referencing the terrible 2003 oil spill (was it bunker oil? The worst kind of oil spill?) in Buzzards Bay indicates a green color will appear when algae is scraped. I doubt that saltwater algae would present the same characteristics as freshwater algae, but the "green" is something you should have noticed immediately upon removing it. The rocks are granite-colored below the black area in the photograph -- perhaps the question should have read: "Explain the granite-colored area"?

Note that the photo is preceded by the phrase ""Explain this:". I'm not positing an explanation, although shore things could -- when he/she gets back on the Forum.

The black color does suggest petroleum products -- particularly since the boating season had ended about ummmm, 8-inches above (earlier) which puts the black ring above "late-summer tide" on Winnipesaukee. Hmm...those early postcards of Lake Winnipesaukee might shed some light on this darkness . McDude? shore things?

Actually I did notice the vagueness of "Explain this" in your first post and waited until MEE suggested you think it's of a petroleum origin before I commented. Your post above shows that we were correct in your supposition. Actually the location of the "Black Line" corresponds with what the article says: "The black zone generally occurs on stable boulders and other hard surfaces near the high tide line. This zone is hardly ever submerged by water, but may get wet from spray of crashing waves.". I get mildew on my house, its usually on the side that doesn't see much sun. Rocks that don't see much sun aren't very good subjects for old postcards....

Now the question is shifted to the "clean" area of the rock. Let me be a little vague here, does the wake action from boats cause stones to become rounded and smooth? Why I don't know, I "suppose" it could. But the clean area could easily be explained by the article I posted also. If you know something we don't, please elaborate, you've peaked my curiosity.

The discussion on alternative sources for energy is interesting also. One statement intrigues me:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The good news is that the solar promoters have stated that a solar grid measuring 10 miles by 10 miles would provide the US with all of its domestic -- non-transportation -- energy needs. ('Course, that's a huge area to cover with silicon panels).

This just doesn't sound right, if it is true someone should be all over it, conspiracy theories aside.

Sources such as windmills also have down sides, noise, lethal to migratory birds. http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/studies/renew/renew2d.html

Hydro electric requires massive dams and disruption of ecosystems, look at what happened to the wild salmon population in NE after all the rivers were dammed up.

Problem is dollar for dollar, pound for pound, petroleum is the best, easiest, most cost effective source of energy we have right now and the technologies out now and near commercialization still rely on gasoline.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by ITD

Problem is dollar for dollar, pound for pound, petroleum is the best, easiest, most cost effective source of energy we have right now and the technologies out now and near commercialization still rely on gasoline.

You are right, sort of - Oil is the easiest and we still rely on it - but we tend to not look at the big picture. First, there are strong signs that the price part of this equation won't last. Second, US taxpayers are spending $10's of billions and thousands of lives in the middle-east to secure the flow of oil - on top of the per barrel cost. How should the cost of lives factor into "best, easiest" true cost of oil? There is a lot of money being spent on the military that could be eventually redirected to research for new energy sources.



A century from now, it is very likely a new energy source will be well on its way to being adopted. The main question is, will the new source be phased in gradually, without economic disruption, or will it be adopted as a response to a crisis? This is the same question asked 30 years ago, in the 70's, and the answer was "let's just wait a while". What will we be saying 30 yeras from now, in 2035? Economics will drive the answer, but if "we the people" make the right choices, future Government leaders could redirect funds to soften the blow.

[ITD]

lg,

I hear you and agree.....


ITD

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by ITD

Actually I did notice the vagueness of "Explain this" in your first post and waited until MEE suggested you think it's of a petroleum origin before I commented. {snip}

In regards to the vagueness of the black ring, you probably weren't around when APS (different name, same person) posted in response to this http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ght=black+ring (scroll to "Questions sharpened" post)

Originally Posted by madrasahs

OK. My boating tour today disclosed a satin black (scratch dull) "bathtub-ring" for miles and miles, including Rattlesnake Island. I was looking for a scientific explanation. (My "working theory" is petroleum-based deposits. I know...DUH)

I guess I should have said APS theorizes not posited.

Originally Posted by ITD

The discussion on alternative sources for energy is interesting also. One statement intrigues me:

Originally Posted by APS

The good news is that the solar promoters have stated that a solar grid measuring 10 miles by 10 miles would provide the US with all of its domestic -- non-transportation -- energy needs. ('Course, that's an immense area to cover with silicon panels).

Originally Posted by ITD

This just doesn't sound right, if it is true someone should be all over it, conspiracy theories aside. {snip}

It doesn't sound right because it isn't right, at least w/o a lot of caveats (like major conservation efforts) applied. Here's a quickie analysis to put some perspective on the number. First lets arrive at a figure for domestic energy use. Last year the US used about 100 Quads (that's 100 quadrillion BTUs) of energy. Of this somewhere between 20 and 30 % is mobile useage so let's be kind and estimate 70 Quads for domestic energy use. Averaging (and this is dangerous as I'll point out later) this use to arrive at an average power production number gives you 3.345 x 10^12 watts (3.345 million million watts). In space where the sun shines 100 % of the time and w/o atmosperic loss you have ~1400 watts per sq meter of energy available and so the minimum area needed to collect the prior power would be ~ 1.69 x 10^9 sq meters or 1670 sq km or 645 sq miles which is an square of 25.4 miles on a side. So we're already exceeding the 10 by 10 mile size but let's continue. You might say OK that's not so bad (25.4 x 25.4) but now bring this number down to Earth. First the Sun doesn't shine as brightly here as in space so at best you get 1000 w/m^2, thus increase the area needed by 1.4 to get the same power production. Second this only happens around noon time with the power falling off to less than 50% at the + and - 4 hr points. Averaged over the course of the day I'll be generous and give you 35% of the max so multiply the area needed again by 2.86 so that the peak production can be increased, stored and later released to meet the average number we're trying to achieve. Now you need to figure in that no PV cell is 100% efficient at converting the energy that falls on it into electricity. Here's where it can get vague as people like to quote all sorts of theoretical and lab vs real world numbers. I'll be generous again and allow a 15% efficiency (7-9 % is more likely for affordable PVs) so multiply yet again by 6.66. Let's forget about how may days of the year the sun shines w/o clouds and how many days the whole array is working w/o downtime and whether dust and dirt further reduce the energy and a raft of other things (like storing and releasing the energy when the Sun isn't shining). You still have to get this hypothetical station on the grid so the DC voltage coming out of the array needs to go through and inverter (like the batteries on a boat) to make AC like you have in your house. Let's give this an 85% efficiency number (multiply again by 1.176) and forgoe considering transmission line and switching losses to distribute our newly found source. What we end up with is an area > 20000 sq miles or > 140 miles on a side. Still not really outrageous but the reason this isn't here now is cost. The cost of such a structure is way off the map and I'm not sure you could make that many PV cells in any reasonable amount of time. Secondly the number above represents an average number and a real issue for the power plants is the peak vs the average demand. Plants are sized with our peak needs in mind more so than our "on average" usage. To handle our peak power demands the array would need to increase yet again in size. Still it makes you wonder if there shouldn't be a big R&D effort for more efficient PV cells (I'd bet there is) and perhaps even more importantly an effort to streamline and reduce the manufacturing costs of such devices. Perhaps the "Quantum dot" research may pay off ??? The technology isn't here yet, not in a form we can pay for (let alone finding the political will to pay for it if the $$s were available). The only way I see to arrive at the aforementioned answer is a major (reduction of >50%), successful conservation effort by the population as a whole (who haven't shown much interest in conservation).

Lastly I'd bet beaucoup $$ there would arise various conservation groups claiming that blocking the sunlight was adversly affecting the flora and fauna underneath the array (probably with some degree of factfulness too). Even in the desert there would be SOS (Save Our Scorpians). I guess they never read Heinlein .... TANSTAAFL.


Lastly I also agree with lg, especially about the "phasing in gradually". I find it's the "jerk" of rapid change that causes so many problems. Give people time to find strategies to adapt and it doesn't hurt so bad. The problem is that this issue doesn't have any really easy, clear, practical answer. Neither party this last election had any real energy policy rather than the usual platitudes. We the people don't know the answer and aren't really asking for one. I think the present "high" prices for gas and oil have a silver lining. If the prices stay "high" for longer than the usual peak, if people begin to believe this is the way of the future, here to stay, perhaps they'll begin to think more about such things.

[KonaChick]

I'm just curioius Will..what do you think those people who work for the marina's do during the other six or seven months of the year? Marina's are employed by a "few" full timers..the others are seasonal help.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

<<Big snip>>"...What will we be saying 30 years from now, in 2035? Economics will drive the answer, but if "we the people" make the right choices, future government leaders could redirect funds to soften the blow."

Here ApS is, tip-toeing around the answer, and Lakegeezer just hammers it.

Originally Posted by Mee'n'Mac

I guess I should have said APS theorizes not posited.

This appears to be an apology, but I can't find your having ever stated "that ApS posited".

Math and spatial relationships are my weakest suit, and I admire those who can engineer our future through Physics.

Don't the "auto-tracking" capabilities of solar arrays need to enter this equation (hopeless as it would appear from your figures)?

The photovoltaic obstacles are being overcome. Lately, panels are being produced as ribbons, which should increase production speed of photovoltaics -- and their applicability.

Nor is Earth-based solar energy the limit. There are energy-transmitting devices that can be put into Space with their output transmitted and distributed on Earth.

Originally Posted by ITD

This just doesn't sound right, if it is true someone should be all over it, conspiracy theories aside. Sources such as windmills also have down sides, noise, lethal to migratory birds.

True, but housecats have a far worse lethality-factor against birds. Cellphone towers are nearly as bad as cats. Skyscrapers kill millions -- like cats and cell towers. I'm astonished at the number of environmentalists who keep outdoor cats.

California environmentalists prepared a study on bird-kills at windmills and found an embarrassingly-low (to them) rate of bird-kills.

Originally Posted by ITD

Hydro electric requires massive dams and disruption of ecosystems, look at what happened to the wild salmon population in NE after all the rivers were dammed up

True, but how many of those NE dams were hydroelectric?

Originally Posted by Audiofn

"...I would guess that it is not a good thing to cover 100sq miles of the earth. As for wind, have you ever driven through the valley in California where they have all those windmills? Man it is amazing but not nice to look at..."

I have personally photographed them in 1983. It is truly amazing what they've put out there in the desert. Who's going to object? Mee'n'Mac's scorpions? Here's what another has to say on the subject:

“Altamont Pass provides one third of California’s wind power and enough electricity to power 200,000 households….Scientists estimate, however, that the 5,000 windmills spread over 50 square miles kill 4,700 birds every year.”

That’s it? Less than one bird per windmill per year! I could hardly believe my eyes. I mean, I’m used to the eccentricities and irrationalities of environmentalists, especially the young ones in college who have not yet had to deal with the real world. http://www.alcaidecafe.com/archives/000130.html

Every day domestic and feral cats kill three to five million birds. People think the feral cats do all the damage, but cat owners letting their cute pet outdoors to run harms birds as well. http://www.spacecoastaudubon.org/lim...n/mywatch.html

Originally Posted by Audiofn

"...You said that we do not see many beige [clean-non-polluting]tailpipes [the interiors of] on our boats. Well, take a look at every boat on the lake including outboards and you will find black. Now go take a look at your car's tail pipe. What color is it? BLACK. So I hope that when you walked back in your house you tossed the keys to that polluting monstrosity right in the trash...."

No-o-o-o-o-o, my truck (even though it is exempt from high-emission standards), has a brown tailpipe interior.

Who wouldn't fully expect a 2-cycle outboard exhaust port to be black? They are the world's worst polluters. Carbureted performance-tuned GFBLs shouldn't expect to have beige (clean) exhaust ports.

F.I., if stock, and tuned for the street vehicle from which they were derived, should NOT be black. If it's black -- it's not meeting America's better pollution standards. (And wasting gas -- if that matters).

Originally Posted by Audiofn

"...Do you really think that people that own $500+K boats do not keep them running at their optimum level? Ever take a look inside one? The bilges are cleaner then most peoples Kitchen counter tops...."

1) The bilges may be clean, but how else would you conduct a "Mutual Admiration Society" atmosphere -- otherwise?
"Wanna see my bilges? Huh? Huh? Wanna see?"

2) If you're so "clean", why are Federal-emission standards being proposed for GFBL boats? I'd prefer that the air I breathe at Winnipesaukee is clean.

Remember, all this domestic energy saving (wind, solar) would assist in more fossil fuel for recreation. It's not just "fun".

Being a news-junkie often pays off with revelations such as below. This is a solar-collector array in Bavaria. The panels turn to face the sun automatically. "Small" as it is, it produces 10MW.

With some irony, I note that it is American-made!

[ITD]

.... that's over the white ring.

"Three to five million birds" equals 1 to 2 billion birds per year, I don't know, someone took the time to write it, so it must be true..... one way to put a crimp into Tabby's hunting habits is to put a bell on its collar.

MnM gives a good dissertation on solar power, I have nothing to add there.

Powerboat emissions, they all pollute, pwcs are getting in line with pontoon boats and runabouts, they can get better.

Economy, I'm not sure present hybrid technologies are capable of keeping up with the high power demand of pushing a boat, and if it is will it be more efficient?

But that black ring over the white ring (BR/WR), I'm still curious.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by ITD

{snip}Economy, I'm not sure present hybrid technologies are capable of keeping up with the high power demand of pushing a boat, and if it is will it be more efficient? ... {snip}

To clarify my prior post .... I suspect you could make a hybrid boat along the lines of Honda's Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) quasi-hybrid technology. Take a given boat the has a top speed of say 50 mph but is used 90% of the time at cruising speeds of 35-40 mph. Replace the "big" engine with a smaller one that runs near WOT at 40 mph and you'd realize some fuel savings in normal cruising usage whilst giving up the ability to run faster than 40 mph. The rub is such a beast might not have enough umph to plane in a reasonable time so you'd add an electric motor, running off batteries right now, to help for the 3 - 10 secs it takes to plane. You drain the batteries to get on-plane. They get recharged at a later time when cruising. If the total weight of the EM plus batteries plus "small" engine is less than or equals the weight of the "big" engine you'll save some fuel for the top end trade off. I suspect it won't be a large savings for the reasons I listed previously. If the hybrid weight exceeds the conventional weight (as it does in autos) then the added drag caused by sitting lower in the water (at the same cruising speeds) will reduce and possibly eliminate the fuel savings. I don't know where a real boat would ends up on this slope.

Originally Posted by APS

Don't the "auto-tracking" capabilities of solar arrays need to enter this equation (hopeless as it would appear from your figures)?

My quickie analysis was for a static array but if you want a tracking array I'd say it helps .... but not enough to make the 10 x 10 anything but a dream from a special pipe. Consider that if you lay 2 sheets of PV cells flat and next to each other and then rotate them to follow the sun, at some point the 1 behind will fall into the shadow created by the 1 in front. At 45 degrees the blockage is ~ 30%, though the 70% unblocked is now producing near 100% (for it's reduced area). So if at noon you got 1 watt for this sheet, when the Sun settles to 45 deg you get 0.7W vs my earlier case of 0.5W. You could reduce the array size to something like 127 mi on a side. You could separate the tilting PV panels so they don't shadow their neighbors and get near 100% of peak production while the Sun is up but then you're taking up more area than before. Gets you the same 127 mi. Only ways to believe 10 x 10 number here on Earth is .... a) reduce the 70 Quads to a much lower number (have fun) or b) some really powerful psychotropic drugs Now in space (ala the URL posted way before) you can free yourself from some of these limitations. Just have to get that Moon mining (again please only on the far side ) operation in full swing.

Last topic from me - How about residential cogeneration plants ? Natural gas is available on a lot of streets so why not have "every" home make it's own electricity from NG ? The waste heat could be used to heat water and/or the house and/or cool the house ? It's done on larger scales but why not small, household scales ? I think we have a power plant person who visits this forum, maybe he/she can comment ?

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Being a news-junkie often pays off with revelations such as below. This is a solar-collector array in Bavaria. The panels turn to face the sun automatically. "Small" as it is, it produces 10MW.

Great to see this - but it may not as efficient as quoted. Check out http://www.photon-magazine.com/news/...light_big2.htm

The same picture as posted is shown, with the caption: Bavaria Solar Park: The 1.9 MW system in Günching is one of three PV systems with a total of 10.1 MW.

http://www.pvresources.com/ is also interesting, including a shot of a photovoltaic plant built in Tucon, AZ.


Flying over the desert in the Western US, there sure seems to be hundreds (thousands?) of square miles of sun drenched land that could be used for solar collectoring. Transmission loss over long distances may be a problem, but a professor in a class, taken over 30 years ago, predicted this would come, and the power would be transmitted as direct current (DC) to reduce losses. His theory was that only one wire would be required, and the earth would be used as "ground". We'll see...

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

The reason that we went with AC is because of the fact that it can be driven much farther then DC as I recall from school.....
{snip}

Yes kinda but with a twist. In an effort to induce 1 more retire... , err ... tuition check from SKip I'll take a cue from mcdude and offer the following history. Back around 1890 or so you could find both AC and DC distribution systems for electrical power. G. Westinghouse (utilizing the genius of wildman Nikola Tesla) was pushing AC and T. Edison (Mr Lightbulb) was promoting DC (at 110 to 240 volts ). Then, as now, nobody wanted a power plant in their backyard and so ideally the plant would be located some distance from the end users. The problem is that wire to carry the electricity impedes it's flow though it (aka resistance) and so you drop voltage, lose power when pushing electrons through the transmission lines from the plant to the house. The power lost in the lines is turned into heat and wasted, unless you're a bird with cold feet. The smaller and/or the longer the wire, the more loss you get. The more current/amperage you flow, the more loss you get. The way around using big fat heavy expensive wires from your remote plant is to use a higher voltage. Power (watts, W) is voltage (volts, V) times current (amps, I) and so for a given power to be transmitted you get less current flow at higher voltages (Wconstant = Vsmall x Ibig = Vhigh x Ismall). Less current flow means less loss through the cables which means more power gets delivered to the customer which is what a power plant operator who gets paid by the watts delivered wants. The advantage was that then, as is true now, you could (can) easily transform 1 AC voltage into another higher or lower AC voltage, with small losses, by using, you got it, a transformer. Thus you can make low to medium voltage at the generator, transform it to a high voltage to send through the transmission lines and then transform it back down to low voltage (like 120 v AC) for the house. This was basically impossible for DC voltage back then and so AC won the day and we have AC now as a result of that competition (which was known as the "War of the Currents"). Of course today we can do DC/DC conversion (just look at any car amp > 50W/channel) but even so it's lossy and "hard" to do compared to AC. So electrical power can be driven further better at high voltages (DC same as AC) but it's AC thats easier, cheaper to make into high and low voltages as needed.

For more than you care to know
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

ps - Aaah yes all those 10's of thousands of $$ and years of graduate and undergradute electrical engineering schoolin are really paying off now. Yup I can spout off useless boring 'lectrical trivia to no end. Hoo boy can someone please refill my scotch glass ...

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

. So electrical power can be driven further better at high voltages (DC same as AC) but it's AC thats easier, cheaper to make into high and low voltages as needed.

Nice analysis, actually from what I understand the power purchased in New England supplied by Hydro Quebec is supplied via 450kv DC lines. The reason can be obtained from the following paragraph from the Hydro Quebec website:

http://www.hydroquebec.com/transener...ristiques.html

"Another specialty of Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie is direct-current (DC) power transmission, used to facilitate the transmission of large quantities of power over long distances at high voltages (e.g. 450 kV). This technique enables interchanges with neighboring grids; power can be transferred between two asynchronous alternating-current (AC) systems.

"This is notably the case with its multiterminal DC system (MDCS). Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie's MDCS link includes the first converter substation of its kind in the world. This link begins by transmitting direct current along some 1,200 km between James Bay and Nicolet substation, in the heart of the inhabited part of Québec. Nicolet substation also receives alternating current from the Manic-Outardes complex and Churchill Falls generating station in Labrador. An energy hub, Nicolet substation plays an important role in securing the power supply. In addition to helping meet the demand of several large urban centres, the substation is used to export and import electricity due to its ability to transform AC into DC and then back to AC."

*** Color and bold added for emphasis..

Asyncronous AC power plants connected via a wire without compensation must be quite a (short lived) sight.

[ApS]

A retired British oil expert (with no ax to grind) should give us pause:

"Moreover, oil supply is increasingly limited to a few giant fields, with 10% of all production coming from just four fields and 80% from fields discovered before 1970. Even finding a field the size of Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, by far the world's largest and said to have another 125bn barrels, would only meet world demand for about 10 years." http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,38...111414,00.html

Originally Posted by Audiofn

Still there is a huge concern about what cooling off the earth under these huge panels would do.

The 10X10 square mile solar array (that I recalled from NewScientist) doesn't have to be tightly constrained to a 10X10 space. It could be spaced over a much larger area, with areas set aside for "shade-grown" crops. While the Earth may receive a deficit of sun as a result, the arrays will still heat up. I suspect there would be no/little loss (or gain) to Planet Earth.

OTOH, hydroelectrics take up huge amounts of land, and the effect on Earth's stability can be calculated. (Due to most hydroelectrics being north of the Equator).

Originally Posted by Audifn

Flying over the desert in the Western US, there sure seems to be hundreds (thousands?) of square miles of sun drenched land that could be used for solar collectoring. Transmission loss over long distances may be a problem, but a professor in a class, taken over 30 years ago, predicted this would come, and the power would be transmitted as direct current (DC) to reduce losses. His theory was that only one wire would be required, and the earth would be used as "ground". We'll see...

While I'm concerned that desert ATVs will make "jumps" out of the solar arrays, vacant desert stretches certainly seem like ideal sunny locations.

Even AC transmitted over long distances loses "oomph". "Standing waves" emanating from those overhead wires are another question mark in health/cancer issues.

I recall that DC requires huge diameter copper wire to transmit over long distances. Maybe it's time to buy copper "futures" -- if there is such a thing? "Sudden wealth" in cattle-futures has resulted for some....

Originally Posted by Wizard of Oz

"...performance boats tend to run on the lean side for more power. I've actually blown up a motor looking for that last couple of hp running it a little too lean. I know many other GFBL boaters who have done the same thing....So I guess that blows your performance boat running rich theory right out of the water.

Sorry, no it doesn't.

"Running on the lean side" is a desirable trait of engines -- for economy. If you're running lean for performance AND economy, you reap what you sow. (If you failed to observe the obvious signs of your "lean side", then of course your motor will blow up). Did you try sodium-filled valves? Do you have past experience with a "Wheatstone bridge"?

I don't want lead added (post-fillup) to gasoline burned on a freshwater lake that the residents draw their household water from, either, so I won't address that "fix" for your blown performance engines. Or the wide burning of leaded "Av-Gas" -- another favorite of GFBLs.

And still another concern of those who suspect that GFBLs fill their tanks with Av-Gas before arriving at a freshwater lake.

Go to NHIS (or any auto racetrack) and check the long-term results of racecars' tuning by observing the interior-color of their exhausts. You won't find any that are beige -- or even dark brown. They will all be black: The cost of performance cars -- and performance boating.

OTOH, simply idle your boat and determine if there's unburned gasoline in the exhaust odor. (They don't call them "stinkpots" for nothin').

As I indicated in my earlier "Church crowd applauding the boater finally shutting off his engine" quote, the hydrocarbons (and everything else bad for Life) will announce themselves for you.

Multiply that times <10% of the boats on a Winnipesaukee weekend, and you MAY see our "Residents' Angst" regarding GFBLs.