BRP Evinrude calls for industry unity for a cleaner environment

[Gary Fooks]

BRP Evinrude calls for industry unity for a cleaner environment

Adopting US emissions limits for non-road engines sold in Australia will bring significant benefits to the community, according to BRP Evinrude, following the OEDA meeting yesterday during the Sydney International Boat Show.

Major outboard motor manufacturer BRP Evinrude®, is calling on the Australian government to implement regulation urgently to ban importation of old high-emission outboard engines. The introduction of emission regulation will bring considerable benefits to the Australian public in terms of cleaner air, cleaner water and substantial savings in greenhouse gasses.

Following lengthy debate on emission standards for outboard engines, the Australian marine industry is divided on when stricter regulation should be introduced to complement the Rudd Government Carbon Footprint Reforms.

David Heyes, Executive Director, BRP Evinrude® commented: “Evinrude®, is ready and willing to proceed with the Department of Heritage and Environment to implement regulation as early as 2010 to cease importation of old high emission technology engines. BRP Evinrude invites all other manufacturers to join them in their quest to support their contribution towards a cleaner environment for the community.

“The introduction of regulations will substantially reduce fuel consumption and emissions. These old engines are highly polluting for two main reasons one is that oil is added to fuel and secondly because of the design which allows unburnt fuel and oil to escape with the exhaust. Using these engines is like pouring fuel mixed with oil directly into Australia’s waterways. These engines basically create a mini oil spill.”

“BRP is calling on the Federal Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett and State Environment Ministers to speed up the process of implementing regulation for a better environment for all Australians and our marine environment.

“Most marine engine manufacturers have a full range of 3 star clean technology engines that are available in other markets like Europe and the USA. The sale of old high-polluting engines is now banned in most developed countries but these continue to be sold in Australia and New Zealand.' Heyes said.

Interesting facts:

• Call for Regulation to copy the USA EPA 2009 emissions limits and testing procedures

• The clean technology faction seeks a level playing field where environmental standards for outboards and the marine environment are fair and environmentally responsible

• Non compliant two strokes outboard engines are highly polluting

• Total Industry size: $ 13.4B – about triple the size of the Australian Snow Industry

•Continued use of these high polluting engines have an estimated $3.5bn cost to health

Source: Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts: Cost Benefit Analysis of options to manage emissions from selected non-road engines, August 2008

http://www.ephc.gov.au/sites/default/files/McLennan%20Magasinik%20Associates%20Preliminary%20 Report__CBA%20of%20Options%20to%20Manage%20Emissio ns%20from%20Selected%20Non-Road%20Engines.pdf (http://www.sail-world.com/go_link.cfm?srcid=15&nid=59635&link=http://www.ephc.gov.au/sites/default/files/McLennan%20Magasinik%20Associates%20Preliminary%20 Report__CBA%20of%20Options%20to%20Manage%20Emissio ns%20from%20Selected%20Non-Road%20Engines.pdf)

• Clean engines use 30-50% less fuel, less oil and last longer.

• Outboard engines are significant contributors to urban air pollution. They are significant because they are utilized in large numbers and are not subject to the degree of pollution control that exits for engines used in on-road vehicles.

• These high polluting outboard engines do not comply with international standards e.g. older style outboard engines that do not comply with US EPA 2006 emission limits are likely to emit around 10 times the amount of pollution compared to conforming engines.

• Key markets are USA / Europe where regulation is essentially identical in terms of the limits imposed on hydrocarbon, nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide emissions.

• The net benefits to Australia far outweigh the ineptitude of some industry players to not adopt these proposed changes.

• One single operator in the Great Barrier Reef reduced pollutants going into the water by 22 tonnes per annum by replacing the high polluting outboard engines

• The recent Moreton Bay oil spill was 270 Tonnes

• Australia urgently needs to ban these high polluting engines to secure the quality of our water and air for future generations



by Evinrude 10:53 PM Thu 30 Jul 2009 GMT

[Gary Fooks]

Marine Business News Saturday 1 August by Jeni Bone

'The introduction of legislation limiting emissions is only a matter of time away - now’s the time for industry to embrace clean technology.' .

The federal government’s preference for emissions legislation for boat engines is imminent, and could be as close as a year away. But a division in the ranks of the major brands – split 3:3 on the subject – is one barrier to its introduction.

As at every boat show, the six members of Outboard Engine Distributors Association (OEDA) met on the first day of SIBS to discuss industry matters, figures and sales reporting, as well as issues like marine parks and emissions.

This year, emissions was top of the agenda. The voluntary label scheme, VELS has been in place since January 2007, a star-rating system manufacturers voluntarily place labels on engines so customers can be aware of engines’ status in terms of emissions.

In most developed countries, there are emission standards embodied in legislation, and in Australia, they have been in force in the automotive industry for 20 years, but have never included off road engines including lawn mowers and outboards. That puts us 10 years behind the US, Europe, Canada, Brazil and from early this year, even China.

The benefits to consumers and to the community at large would be well-worth the logistical challenges of introducing regulations. According to the government studies and reports from the US EPA, “Older style outboard engines that do not comply with US EPA 2006 limits are likely to emit around ten times the amount of pollution compared to conforming engines”.

As David Heyes, Executive Director, BRP Evinrude, explains: “The government carried out a study on the value to human health – the cost benefit analysis done on outboards, garden appliances and tools like lawn mowers. Using the US EPA 2006 and 2009 regulations as guidelines, they found there would be around $3.5bn in human health savings to be gained. That’s a considerable benefit for consumers and the planet.”

Heyes continues: “BRP believes that the advantages would prove an enormous benefit to the public and that we should be moving to cleaner technology – no smell, no smoke, no noise, low fuel consumption, good for people to share with their families and friends – as soon as possible.”

As for the manufacturers still dealing in what Heyes refers to as “old-style technology”, (Yamaha, Tohatsu and Mercury), Heyes says they need to recognise that regulation is imminent, “but they just want to sell theirs for as long as possible”.

In Japan, Honda has been environmentally conscious since the 1960s, stating that “for the sake of the rice in the paddy fields and the fish in the oceans” they would be committed to (3 star, ultra low emission) four strokes and work out how to make them better.

BRP has dropped the Johnson range, focussing exclusively on E-TEC, which has some of the lowest emission levels of any outboard with the second generation direct injection two stroke.

Haines Suzuki originally committed to importing (3 star) 4 strokes, but following dealer feedback, began importing some of the high emission 2-strokes.

With the cheaper, high emission engines commanding close to 60% of the unregulated sales in Australia, these three companies have sacrificed business opportunities, by limiting their sales to the 40% of Australians who take the environmentally responsible choice.

Mercury, Yamaha and Tohatsu make 60% to 95% of their sales in the “old-style technology” engines. While these products are no longer sold in their home markets, they are happy to sell them to “developing economies”, (Pat Mackey CEO Mercury 2008), among them, Australia.

“Of course, those manufacturers would prefer it to remain a voluntary system, but we believe all of industry will need to embrace the new legislation. BRP has embraced it from the beginning. The government is eager to introduce measures as quickly as possible. They have said they want ‘world’s best practice as soon as practicable’. There is no reason in our minds we shouldn’t adopt clean-technology as soon as possible.”

Heyes is not advocating banning 2-stroke, “they just would no be bringing them in from a particular time”, says Heyes, indicating it could be passed government in as few as six months and introduced as soon as mid-next year.
“It’s imperative that the industry band together on this. After all, there are engines available here that can’t be sold in the US or Europe, only third world countries. Is Australia a third world country?”

More information at
http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/marine-outboard-engine.html (http://www.sail-world.com/go_link.cfm?srcid=15&nid=59703&link=http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/marine-outboard-engine.html)

In parallel, the Garden Power equipment industry, OPEA has called for emissions regulations to commence in 2010. For information visit http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/outdoor-garden-equipment.html (http://www.sail-world.com/go_link.cfm?srcid=15&nid=59703&link=http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/outdoor-garden-equipment.html)



by Jeni Bone 8:03 AM Sat 1 Aug 2009 GMT

[Scott nthQld]

BRP Evinrude calls for industry unity for a cleaner environment



“The introduction of regulations will substantially reduce fuel consumption and emissions. These old engines are highly polluting for two main reasons one is that oil is added to fuel and secondly because of the design which allows unburnt fuel and oil to escape with the exhaust. Using these engines is like pouring fuel mixed with oil directly into Australia’s waterways. These engines basically create a mini oil spill.”



Gotta Love that don't you? Especially coming from envinrude. They're just jealous that the difference in fuel usage in their smaller outboard range is SFA between an etec and a proper 2 stroke, and any savings are quickly eaten up by their stupidly expensive 2 stroke oil, and they don't get the following in the larger hp either, because again, they are more thirsty, PLUS they use the oil......how did they put it...oh yeah "oil is added to fuel". All they want to do is knock out the competition, and they'll use the 'green movement' to do it......hypocrites.

[Scott nthQld]

As David Heyes, Executive Director, BRP Evinrude, explains: “The government carried out a study on the value to human health – the cost benefit analysis done on outboards, garden appliances and tools like lawn mowers. Using the US EPA 2006 and 2009 regulations as guidelines, they found there would be around $3.5bn in human health savings to be gained. That’s a considerable benefit for consumers and the planet.”



Heyes is not advocating banning 2-stroke, “they just would no be bringing them in from a particular time”, says Heyes, indicating it could be passed government in as few as six months and introduced as soon as mid-next year.
“It’s imperative that the industry band together on this. After all, there are engines available here that can’t be sold in the US or Europe, only third world countries. Is Australia a third world country?”




Of Course Heyes doen't want 2 strokes banned, that would rule out etec, afterall, which ever way you want to describe them, that all they are and ever will be.

Just another example that this is purely based on the business motive to eliminate the competition and scaremongering the public into supporting them to do it.

Never, in all my time will an etec ever sit on the back of my boat, unless its to creat my own arti somewhere.

[PADDLES]

what do you think will be the basis of their legislation gary? some form of standard emmissions test for all small engines available in australia? this will be a pretty good method of restricting chinese imported junk, i bet the more established companies (yamaha, honda, suzuki) will be rubbing their hands together.

[FNQCairns]

Another load of fundamentalist driven zealot hogwash, technical ticks everywhere, we should be so very scared of even 2 minutes a year worth of sunlight to hold that report any higher than flushing it.

The health concerns are just ludicrous, do these people see 5 cents on the ground and call it for a million dollars??

BRP weighing in is fully explained in a horizontal bar graph, in the year of the graph 6% of all outboards sold where DI, obviously that's simply not enough.

Garden equipment, fair dinkum we live in a land of gullable fools, if anyone thinks their health has suffered in any measurable way from emission (notice I said emission's, not the emotive 'pollution') then they should go back to living in a cave, better for all concerned I suspect.

The dust containing spores/bacterial etc and cut green fibres kicked up from garden equipment is many of times more potentially damaging than anything emission related in real world scenarios.

At least they left fantasy lands water pollution 'problem' alone, even they who need that paycheck couldn't come at it in this report...which is strange considering there would have been more work in it......

Closet Zealots will always assume that we are where we are with pollution because of advances in green movements and the unnecessary decrease in the quality of life associated but they are wrong, very wrong!, no advance movement has been made that was not identified in science first....the Zealots involvement so far has done nothing superior than do it badly and decrease the quality of life of all people.

cheers fnq

[TheRealAndy]

Garden equipment, fair dinkum we live in a land of gullable fools, if anyone thinks their health has suffered in any measurable way from emission (notice I said emission's, not the emotive 'pollution') then they should go back to living in a cave, better for all concerned I suspect.

cheers fnq

I am fairly sure I read a CSIRO study a few years back that said cut grass actully expells more gasses into the atmosphere than your mower.

[FNQCairns]

I am fairly sure I read a CSIRO study a few years back that said cut grass actually expells more gasses into the atmosphere than your mower.

Yeah sort of, the broad understanding is that urban lawns are environmentally unfriendly, the process of owning a broad expanse of unnatural weed, the inputs needed (both natural and man made)to keep it aesthetic, the env cost of production/use of equipment needed. This is of coarse all compared against an equivalent area of purely natural/native growth.

Hence most before they beat a zealot's drum or become backup singers need to look in their own backyard first, actually we are so sophisticated these days people get fined if their yard edges toward environmentally responsible area.

cheers fnq

[Dicko]

The health concerns are just ludicrous, do these people see 5 cents on the ground and call it for a million dollars??




Exactly. From the figures above. 13.4 billion is the size of the industry, and it supposedly causes 3.5 billion in health costs.

So that means approximately 1/4 of the money you spend/have spent on an outboard is what it will cost you in health costs if we don't drop regular 2 strokes ???? lol

So in round figures if you bought a $20 000 "polluting" type outboard you will cost society $5 000 in medical bills ??. Simply bullsh*t.

Where the hell do they get off ???. Sure, BRP are using the EPA figures to spread scare tactics and promote their own interests, both organisations should be more accountable for the drivel they come out with. I've read the EPA release, but would love to see the actual criteria used in arriving at those numbers. I'll email them for clarification. :)

This is a perfect example of why this whole global warming fiasco has forgotten about sound scientific reasoning and accountability and simply turned into the largest, and most expensive self fulfilling industry the world has ever seen.

[Gary Fooks]

what do you think will be the basis of their legislation gary? some form of standard emmissions test for all small engines available in australia? this will be a pretty good method of restricting chinese imported junk, i bet the more established companies (yamaha, honda, suzuki) will be rubbing their hands together.

The basis for the regulations will copy the standard practices from around the world – a combined Limit on HC + NOx per hp and another limit on Carbon monoxide.

It looks like we are going to pick the USA EPA 2009 standard … which makes sense as that’s the leading market. . (FYI we copy the EURO 3 standard for cars)

Australia with our small market is a technology “taker” = If we had a unique standard for Australia, manufactures would simply pull out - they wouldn’t make a special model range for us.

So, what will survive USA EPA 2009? It’s basically 3 star plus a CO limit so:

- Most 4 strokes ( not the 2 hp Yamaha , and a handful of others that have too much CO)
- All of E-Tec except the 300hp
- About half the Optimax ( the 3 star models)

And that’s it. No Carby or EFI 2 strokes. No Tohatsu TLDI or Yamaha HPDI. There have been rumours - well more than rumours and from credible sources that Tohatsu will redevelop the TLDI range to meet the new USA regulations. Yamaha is also rumoured to be coming up with a new DI 2 stroke range – but that rumour has been around for a few years now and we haven’t seen any models yet.

FYI – in parallel we are getting regulations on emissions for other small off road engines - eg lawn mowers. So its not just outboards they are “picking on”. It also includes PWC’s and petrol stern drive and inboards. And there will be an evaporative standard for built in fuel tanks (just like cars) - meaning an expansion tank, special hoses and a carbon filter on the breather hose.

NB some people have this weird idea that 2 strokes will be "banned." I have no idea why they think this.

First – regulations will target the amount of emissions (per hp, per hour), 5 phase ICOMIA test cycle - used throughout the world) - manufacturers have to get under the limit to pass. No regulation cares how you achieve the pass standard.

Second – when ANY new standard comes in the old models are never “banned”. Sure, you can’t buy (import) them any more after a certain date, but that doesn’t stop you using the one you own now.

Think about it:
- car emissions standards 20 years ago
- Car emission standards ( Euro) in 2008
- Dual flush toilets
- Air conditioner efficiency standards
- Wood fired heater standards
- Etc etc etc

When all the above came in, did they “ban” what you already owned? Did they ban cars older than 2008 models when we introduced new standards?

What you own now won’t be banned. Lake Lenthalls in Wide Bay is the only authority ( I know of) that has included an emissions standard on what is allowed on the lake- but that’s good – we got them to go from a 10hp limit to 60hp ( from memory )


As for ”rubbing their hands together” that comment seems to make sense but ends up being a bit unfair when you look at it a lot deeper.

For example - Honda decided, in the 1960s, that “for the sake of the paddy fields and the fish in the ocean we will make 4 strokes and learn how to make them better” (I hope it sounded better in Japanese)

That means that Honda, for example, has done the “right thing” for fifty years before the Australian government caught on.

That’s good - we want companies to “do the right thing” without being forced. Now with dirty outboards being about 55% of the market (higher in Qld) Honda has locked themselves out of 55% of the market for 50 years.

If after 50 years of being a responsible company, they finally get a “level playing field” I say FAIR ENOUGH!.

There are other outboard companies who are fighting regulations. Companies who manufacture dirty outboards and can’t sell them in their own countries but are happy to sell them to “Developing economies” (quote from the CEO of one company)

If that’s what they think of Australians and Australia – then I don’t care if they lose some sales. ( USA has had regulations for 10 years - Canada Europe Japan Chile Brazil all have emissions standards - even China started emissions standards earlier this year Australia is way behind)


Finally – regulations won’t “keep out the Chinese” - Parsun already have 3 star (USA EPA 2009) rating on some of their 4 strokes and sell them in the USA.

Those who know me know how I have fought against regulations from ramp closures to marine parks. And had a hand in getting 200+ criminal records for fishing in a green zone quashed. So why the heck am I so “greenie“when it comes to outboard emissions?

It’s about being a responsible angler. An 8hp 2 carby stroke puts out more emissions per hour of HC + NOx than a 150hp 3 star.

What would YOU say to someone you saw dumping 2 tonnes (2,000 kg) of used oil, fuel and nitric acid into the water between your favourite fishing spot and the nearest boat ramp? Seriously – what would you say or do?

Choose a 50hp carby 2 stroke over a 3 star (E-TEC or 4 stroke) and run it 100hrs pa, keep it 5 years and your decision to buy the carby 2 stroke means you are putting an extra 2,348 kg of HC + NOx into the water. (This is calculated using the numbers from manufacturers own testing, and audited by the USA EPA).

So – what would you say to the “dumper”?

We all argue we have a right to go fishing. That right includes responsible use of a shared resource. If I use a park to have a picnic I don’t leave my rubbish behind. And I dont throw my rubbish out the car window. If we use the waterways and fishing grounds we shouldn’t leave behind toxins we can avoid. Simple responsibility.

Besides - the clean engines may cost a bit more, but we save on fuel and have a quieter, less smelly ride. They last longer too.

Gary

PS - I am happy to provide the hard facts and details - and suggest that some people need to do research before making ill informed comment.

[Scott nthQld]

Gary, its not the new regs that annoy me, I run a 4 stroke and won't run anything alese in the future. What I have a problem with is the fact that it is BRP pushing the regulation, if it were an independant environment lobby group, I'd be annoyed (because I just plain hate greenie's), but would be in support. But when we have a company who is quite frankly, struggling to compete in the outboard market (generally speaking), who obviously have a vested interest trying to get new legislation introduced to stop other companies selling a particular product, no matter how you look at it, they are trying to eliminate competition, which is illegal in Australia. BRP do not care about the environment, they care about sales and profits, and thats all they are thinking of with the trash they have presented.

[Noelm]

so then Scott, you are saying that the 2 strokes have "oil mixed with the fuel" that is true, but what exactly do you reckon happens to your 4 stroke oil after an oil change? it does not magicaly dissappear, it will not be recycled,most don't, they just dump it, and it will end up in landfil, and pollute years down the track, it is your choice and so be it, but the option, burn a little bit at a time and pollute as you go, or change it and pollute the same amount in one go, either way you try to sell it, the outcome is the same.

[Scott nthQld]

I know all engine use oil in some way or another, I was merely pointing out that the Exec Director of BRP said s2 strokes are bad because they have oil mixed with the fuel, so new sales should be banned. Well guess what, E-tec, being a 2 stroke does the exact same thing, does this mean that e-tec's are bad for the environment? Using their director's logic, then yes, they are.

I was pointing out the error in judgement that BRP are using to push this onto our authorities, and how hypocritical that comment was.

I still and forever will maintain that this stunt from BRP is NOT about 'saving the environment', it about getting rid of some competition so they can have a bigger slice of the pie, worst thing about it is they are using the highly publicised green movement to get their way by pushing new legislation through govt. When they should be looking for reasons why they aren't performing how they should be, parhaps it has something to do with all their marketing hype, that for some reason couldn't be duplicated, unfounded fuel saving claims, same goes for noise levels, and just downright irresponsible servicing schedules and recomendations to the consumer. Maybe, just maybe, that had something to do with it.

But Noel, now I have a question for you:

Burning a little oil at a time might be better for the environment, but what about all the extra fuel that gets burnt along with it? And over the 100hrs the etec is running and burning a little oil at a time, depending on what size, disposing of 5ltrs of engine oil from a 4 stroke has to be better than burning the 15-20L+ an etec would use in the same time.

[PADDLES]

i agree with you somewhat noel, at some point the oil is used and then maybe discarded. i think though the issue is that for a 4 stroke this discarding is done in a controlled manner ie it is dropped out of the engine and hopefully recycled, with a 2 stroke it's discarded into the water/air. and for a injected new technology 2s the oil is measured out so well that it's emmisions are miniscule.

i think that the main point gary is trying to get across is that this isn't a 2 stroke vs 4 stroke thing, it's actually a benchmark emmision level and it doesn't matter what type of engine you have (2s or 4s), it must meet the specification or it cannot be imported/sold here.

we've gotta remember gary that even though honda made a 4 stroke commitment in the 60's they still made plenty of 2 stroke equipment between then and now in the name of making a dollar or two. to say that they have been environmental crusaders for 50 years whilst all other manufacturers have been irresponsible is simply not true, they have made their fair share of money over the years out of being just as irresponsible as everybody else.

gary, as an addition to noel's comments regarding emmisions, has anyone studied the emmisions made by different types outboard engines that includes their manufacture, operation, servicing/maintenance and final disposal/recycling? i'd be very interested to see some results.

i come from a bit of a bike background and to run a 2s dirt bike is pretty simple, you use a little oil in the fuel and replace the rings/pistons/bearings as they wear, there's very few moving parts. we then "progressed??????" to 4s dirt bikes. to get similar performance levels to a 2s the components were lightened and the tolerances decreased, you had to replace the engine oil every ride, oil filters every few rides, the pistons/rings didn't last as long because they had been lightened so much. the valve springs, cam chains and all the gaskets were disposable items that were replaced regularly. the manufacture/packaging/transport/distribution of all these extra components has an emmision value too, nobody ever quantifies it and now honda tells us we are saving the world by using their 4s engined bikes because the emmisions are so low, they've never sold so many spare parts though.

i'm actually on your team here gary, i'm all for the banning from sale of old generation polluting motors and new rules here are an awesome step towards stopping australia being the dumping ground for old technology krap. but i never kid myself that we can only measure the emmisions of operation alone to compare engines, and i especially never kid myself into thinking that a multinational motor corporation ever has the environment as it's priority and not sales/money.

[Noelm]

I am also NOT against your team as such, and agree it is all about money and perceptions, but all sides of the equation need to be aired to make a truely educated answer to where all this is going to leave us.

[bennyboy]

Dumping of engine oil?
In a workshop the oil is collected by the recycellers for reuse into different products. They do not even charge to come around and pick up the waste oil so they must certainly turn it onto somthing profitable

[Gary Fooks]

so then Scott, you are saying that the 2 strokes have "oil mixed with the fuel" that is true, but what exactly do you reckon happens to your 4 stroke oil after an oil change? it does not magicaly dissappear, it will not be recycled,most don't, they just dump it, and it will end up in landfil, and pollute years down the track, it is your choice and so be it, but the option, burn a little bit at a time and pollute as you go, or change it and pollute the same amount in one go, either way you try to sell it, the outcome is the same.



The “Used 4 stroke oil” argument is another specious argument – it seems to make sense until you do the numbers.

First – it is compulsory to recycle all engine oil. Its law. And the only numbers I could find was a 2002 Federal Govt report that showed we recycled over 90%. I’ll look this all up if you need, but let’s assume someone is an idiot and dumps the oil.

In fact let’s go a step further and let’s not worry about it seeping into the water. Let’s just assume that the same idiot just dumps it into the water. So she doesn’t get caught, she puts it into an oil container. Hangs it over the side of the boat on atrip and punches a hole in the bottom, so it drips out along the way.

Let’s look at a 50hp just as an example. Now a 4 stroke would have an oil change at 10 hours and then at 100hrs, then every 100 hours. (typically)

So again lest take the worst case scenario - the first year, with two oil changes of 4 to 5 litres. Oil weighs about .8 kg/ litre. But lest be conservative and say 5 litres x 2 changes x 0.9 = 9kg of used engine oil being purred into the water by our 4 stroke owning “idiot”

Now let’s add the total emissions from the 4 stroke - HC+ NOx, Using the database published each month in F&B (takes from the numbers submitted by manufacturers to the USA EPA, based on est procedures developed by the outboard industry - the ICOMIA test cycle, inlcuding set minutes at full power .. 80% ... 60 % 40% and idle ) (clarification added)

The 4 strokes range from 12.6 to 15.1 g/kW/hr (HC+NOx) (The E-TEC is 13.4, with the lowest CO across the range). So let’s take the very worst 4 stroke at 15.1.

50 hp = 37.29 kW x 15.1 x 100hrs = 56.3 kg per annum (per 100hrs)
Add to they foolishly dumped engine oil and we get an annual (100hr) total of

56.3+9 = 65.3 kg


Now lets compare that to a 50hp 2 stroke. They range from 140.1 to 167.8. So let’s be generous and assume you buy the very best 2 stroke. The total HC+ NOx emissions into the water are

50 hp = 37.29 kW x 140.1 x 100hrs = 522.4 kg per annum (per 100hrs)


CONCLUSION

- The very best 2 stroke will put 522kg of emissions into the water in 100hrs.

- The very worst 4 stroke plus the engine oil illegally dumped into the water would add to no more than 65.3 kg.

In this worst case scenario the 2 stroke adds and extra 457kg or eight times the pollution.

The argument about 4 strokes and their used engine oil sounds right, until you do the numbers and then it turns out to be BS.


I hope you found this of interest.


Gary

[Gary Fooks]

PS

I trust NoelM and others and others will find the above post , as Noel puts it, a "truely (sic) educated answer ". I know reading the numbers is dull - but as I keep saying, unless you get the facts ... you're talking trash.


BTW, just to be fair to E_TEC , on the same calculation basis, the E-TEC 50hp puts our 49.96 kg, (with no used engine oil) And as mentioned it has the lowest CO in the range.

Gary

[Gary Fooks]

Paddles Writes:
gary, as an addition to noel's comments regarding emmisions, has anyone studied the emmisions made by different types outboard engines that includes their manufacture, operation, servicing/maintenance and final disposal/recycling? I'd be very interested to see some results.



Thanks for the question.

Such a study would be interesting but in the end these “whole of life“studies worry the heck out of me. They are so flakey. EG when I use a power drill to make an outboard – did the electricity for the drill come from a coal or a hydro power station?

Then how do you compare a kg of HC to NOx or CO2? I mean, what’s worse for the environment and how much worse? What’s worse – acid rain? An oil spill or global warming?

Its like asking what’s worse for your health? Too much fat, too much salt or too much sugar? And how do you compare them?

All such comparisons and composite studies are so flakey - that I refuse to do them if at all possible.



As to the Honda 2 stroke vs 4 stroke question Yes that did make plenty of 2 stroke bikes, none or very few now I hear.

But please read again the quote from Mr S Honda “ for the sake of … water and fish” we will only make only 4 stroke outboards” . It seems clear to me that he was concerned about water pollution.

As you know all outboard exhausts make their way through the water first. Divers tell me they can taste a difference in the water when there is a 2 stroke boat above.

cheers
Gary

[PinHead]

Gary..we all need to be aware of pollution however..comparisons are always flaky. Using 100 hours..were they all running at the same revs? Was an adjustment made for the 2 stroke getting on the plane quicker thereby backing on the revs sooner than a 4?

PLUS...the capital expenditure will turn a lot away from 4 strokes..perhaps the manufacturers ought to do something about that.

[Gary Fooks]

Gary..we all need to be aware of pollution however..comparisons are always flaky. Using 100 hours..were they all running at the same revs? Was an adjustment made for the 2 stroke getting on the plane quicker thereby backing on the revs sooner than a 4?

PLUS...the capital expenditure will turn a lot away from 4 strokes..perhaps the manufacturers ought to do something about that.


Good question but the emissions numbers are solid.

They are tested using a precise testing methodology. To answer your question about ‘same revs” YES

They are tested using the ICOMIA international standard test cycle. From memory it’s a 5 mode test - set minutes at full power, 80% 60% 40% and idle. (I can email you the 80 page document of you want to read more.)

I guess a two stoke may get on the plane 2 or 3 seconds sooner - over an hour I doubt that will make much difference ... usually. Certainly not enough to shake of the enormous difference betwen 2 and 4 stroek emisisons.

The number of minutes at each speed were decided after extensive research of actual hours. I have seen the study replicated on Australian boats and the results were near identical.

All the emissions testing is done by the manufacturers. So if they had a lemon they would do over.

The results are then submitted to the USA EPA, who then conduct audits as they see fit.

I don’t believe the numbers could be more rock solid.


I’m note sure I get your point about the cost of four strokes. There is lots of competition out there – so if they could sell then cheaper they would.

Carby 2 strokes have fewer parts, so they are faster / cheaper to make. As they are going out around the world there is no R&D and the manufacturing equipment capital is written off. So they are cheaper to make…

DFI 2 stokes have a more parts and a heap more technology than a traditional 2 stroke, so their price wont be easy to cut either.

cheers

Gary

[PinHead]

the cost of 4 strokes? a purchaser is looking at buying a new boat. the 4 stroke will be more expensive than buying a 2 stroke..I know which way I would og..the 2 stroke.

If they are keen on reducing emissions then why don;t the manufacturers a) reduce the price of 4 strokes or b) increase the price of 2 strokes?

[Gary Fooks]

the cost of 4 strokes? a purchaser is looking at buying a new boat. the 4 stroke will be more expensive than buying a 2 stroke..I know which way I would og..the 2 stroke.

If they are keen on reducing emissions then why don;t the manufacturers a) reduce the price of 4 strokes or b) increase the price of 2 strokes?


Why?

well first, half the market agree with you and buy 2 strokes and half don't. So don't presume you are correct - its really 50:50.

but why not change prices as you suggest ?

It’s called competition. Prices are already as low as possible while maintaining a profit. So are you talking about subsidising 4 stroke losses with higher 2 stroke profits?

First – if they were the same price who would still buy a 2 stroke? Fewer people at least so there goes your subsidy.

If brand Y decreased the price of 2 stroke by 15% and increased 2 strokes by 15 % ( but the competitors didn’t) then they would sell no 2 strokes and lots of 4 strokes. And soon go broke because they would be selling the 4 strokes below cost, and not be selling any two strokes at higher margins to make up for the losses on 4 strokes.

If you suggest all manufacturers agree to do the same - then that’s collusion / price fixing and illegal under the Trade Practices Act.


And what would Honda and Evinrude do? They only sell clean engines - so how can they cut the selling price without some subsidy from higher priced 2 strokes? if they could cut the price they would already do so.


Do the mathematics ….

[PinHead]

Why?

well first, half the market agree with you and buy 2 strokes and half don't. So don't presume you are correct - its really 50:50.

but why not change prices as you suggest ?

It’s called competition. Prices are already as low as possible while maintaining a profit. So are you talking about subsidising 4 stroke losses with higher 2 stroke profits?

First – if they were the same price who would still buy a 2 stroke? Fewer people at least so there goes your subsidy. I know I would still buy 2 stroke

If brand Y decreased the price of 2 stroke by 15% and increased 2 strokes by 15 % ( but the competitors didn’t) then they would sell no 2 strokes and lots of 4 strokes. And soon go broke because they would be selling the 4 strokes below cost, and not be selling any two strokes at higher margins to make up for the losses on 4 strokes.

If you suggest all manufacturers agree to do the same - then that’s collusion / price fixing and illegal under the Trade Practices Act.


And what would Honda and Evinrude do? They only sell clean engines - so how can they cut the selling price without some subsidy from higher priced 2 strokes? if they could cut the price they would already do so.


Do the mathematics ….

Govt subsidies..if the Govt is so keen on the so called environmental issues they carry on about then subsidies..they subsidise that many other items it is almost beyond a joke.

[Gary Fooks]

If you saw me pouring a pack of used engine oil into the water - what would you say or do?

I'm interested to hear how you justify the extra tonnes of pollution that your decision to buy a 2 stroke would put into the water? I mean at the same time say we have a right to go fishing because we are responsible?

I can understand people saying “I didn’t know the 2 stroke has so much more emissions" I can understand people who say” I could only afford the 2 stroke"

I can’t understand why, if 2/4 strokes were the same price why buy a 2? Slightly faster acceleration vs. 4.6 tonnes of pollution? Hardly responsible angling and the type of attitude that greenies use to justify closing down fishing.

I get the feeling that you just like to argue for the heck of it, and hang the facts ... so I'll call it quits here.

Gary

[PinHead]

deleted the post..when thought about it is not representative of the marine industry anyway

[PADDLES]

fair call on the relevance of the numbers gary, actual measurable figures are cold hard facts and as long as comparison tests are done equally, they don't lie.

one of my good mates (since grade 8) used to co-own a decent sized boat shop that sold jet skis as well, he was telling me years ago that if it ever got out (in the public arena) how much pollution a 2 stroke jetski pushed out they would be banned instantly, he reckoned that the 2s outboards were the same. your figures are alarming gary.

by the sounds of it pinhead, pretty soon there will not be a choice to make, it'll be 4s or di 2s and that's it if you want a new motor.

[Gary Fooks]

Cheers Paddles,

Yes – PWC’s cop a lot of flack. They look “naughty” just standing still.

Noosa residents want them banned – for no logical reasons. Probably the same in many parts of the world.

My theory is that PWC manufacturers have all changed over to the cleanest engines well ahead of legislation … to be proactive and avoid handing their opposition a stick to hit them with. (If that makes sense?)

That’s sort of my attitude too. Why hand the greenies something to complain about?

(Aside: the winner of the Healthy Waterways Award 2008, a vegetarian who works for the Qld Conservation Council, and assisted AMCS in their Moreton Bay anti fishing campaign, had a photo taken in a tinnie for the awards publicity. The tinnie had a very high emission two stoke on the back. LOL)

Yes PWC and Outboard 2 stroke are identical in emissions. Some of the engines are/ were identical.

If you ever see the emissions numbers for lawn mowers etc they will seem much cleaner. They aren’t. It’s just that the test cycle (methodology) is different.

I have to say that many outboard dealers don’t know these 2 stroke emissions numbers. At one conference when I presented the data, one wanted to punch me in the nose.

So if you look at these numbers and feel you need to defend the two stroke you have now. I say: don’t worry about it. I mean I didn’t know how high the emissions were 3 years ago. Most dealers still don’t know. So how the heck were most of us supposed to find out?

I put the numbers up 2 years ago in a post on Ausfish , and a friend of mine, a state manager for an outboard company (who sells only clean technology) called me up to say the numbers must be wrong and I should remove the post. I got him to call his tech manager to check my numbers … I didn’t hear any more. In other words even outboard company managers weren’t fully aware of the numbers.

So, again, how the heck were we to know?

All I ask is that you think twice about your next purchase.

For me, the fuel savings/ longer range and lack of noise and especially smell was enough to make the extra price of a 3 star worth it. Actually it wasn’t that much - I bought a 50hp clean instead of a 60hp dirty and now I arrive at the fish 2 minutes later … so what?

Gary

[FNQCairns]

If you saw me pouring a pack of used engine oil into the water - what would you say or do?

I'm interested to hear how you justify the extra tonnes of pollution that your decision to buy a 2 stroke would put into the water? I mean at the same time say we have a right to go fishing because we are responsible?

I can understand people saying “I didn’t know the 2 stroke has so much more emissions" I can understand people who say” I could only afford the 2 stroke"

I can’t understand why, if 2/4 strokes were the same price why buy a 2? Slightly faster acceleration vs. 4.6 tonnes of pollution? Hardly responsible angling and the type of attitude that greenies use to justify closing down fishing.

I get the feeling that you just like to argue for the heck of it, and hang the facts ... so I'll call it quits here.

Gary

Seriously no one can discredit the numbers because they are are what they are, although using word pollution is entirely incredible, it seriously paints a ideological slant.

Who would also consider Australian milk a poison? if not why not?? Some within ideology using numbers will argue it is.

It's easy to see through the rhetoric all the way to the driver behind.

i was taught just as in milk that pollution needs to be used in context and within definition, using it out of context labels the user and the personal aim.

I understand that the word emission used in context doesn't have the zealot-ish appeal needed.

As I recounted above even the authors of that report couldn't come at outboards and water pollution here in fantasy land...too far out for even them, why does anyone consider it OK?

Please choose words that are within their respective context/definition as doing anything other is patronising in the extreme and far from responsible accounting.

cheers fnq

[Gary Fooks]

Yes - I should have used "emissions" fair point

[PinHead]

If you saw me pouring a pack of used engine oil into the water - what would you say or do?

I'm interested to hear how you justify the extra tonnes of pollution that your decision to buy a 2 stroke would put into the water? I mean at the same time say we have a right to go fishing because we are responsible?

I can understand people saying “I didn’t know the 2 stroke has so much more emissions" I can understand people who say” I could only afford the 2 stroke"

I can’t understand why, if 2/4 strokes were the same price why buy a 2? Slightly faster acceleration vs. 4.6 tonnes of pollution? Hardly responsible angling and the type of attitude that greenies use to justify closing down fishing.

I get the feeling that you just like to argue for the heck of it, and hang the facts ... so I'll call it quits here.

Gary

quite ironic Gary that this thread was started:

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?t=153553

and what are the recommendations...purchase price + performance = 2 stroke.

But i am just argumentative and must be the only one to have my opinion but it appears not.

I have more questions...
1. those emission figures..are they above water or below water emissions.
2. If a combination then what % is what.
3. For underwater emissions, what chemical reactions take place between the water and the emissions and what are the resulting chemicals or compunds.
4. In what % solution will these chemicals be held in suspension in the water.
5. What rates of dilution, if any, are there for any resualtant chemicals.

More arguments i guess but if these are emmissions you talk about then what happens to them in the phase after reacting with the sea water.

It is all good to recite emmissions and obviously they cannot be disputed but the ongoing questions obviously are where do they end up and in what form ?

You stated ratings on air conditioners previously..I can tell you that controls over the domestic air cond industry are not worth a star nor anything else..might as well be using R12 still.

Without proper regualtion I cannot see any controls over the OB industry being any different.

[TimiBoy]

A query because I don't know - what is the life of CO in the atmosphere? I know BRP make a big deal of the low CO emission bit, but my understanding is that CO oxidises fairly quickly into CO2. How quickly? In other words, how relevant is it really?

Cheers,

Tim

[FNQCairns]

A query because I don't know - what is the life of CO in the atmosphere? I know BRP make a big deal of the low CO emission bit, but my understanding is that CO oxidises fairly quickly into CO2. How quickly? In other words, how relevant is it really?

Cheers,

Tim

Tim, CO is soluble and reactive although I do not think it converts to CO2 at any stage, it simply no longer exists as CO in quick time, not a greenhouse gas or a factor in GW but certainly it is a poison.

I simply cannot remember it ever being an issue environmentally (natural environment) only in close range high concentration (for that molecule) it becomes an environmental human health consideration.

Chemistry was a battle for me at Uni so happy to stand corrected.

cheers fnq

[deepfried]

If we follow what is happening in other countries it wont be too many years and the old 2 strokes will be banned anyway. Mowers, outboards etc. Dont know if it is right or wrong but it is going to happen.

[PinHead]

If we follow what is happening in other countries it wont be too many years and the old 2 strokes will be banned anyway. Mowers, outboards etc. Dont know if it is right or wrong but it is going to happen.


it is unfortunate that we follow along blindly in a lot of instances

[Charlie]

You're a hundred percent right there PinHead, reducing the snog cars produce on hot DRY days is a good thing however all those particulates and nitrox compound won't last five minutes near water,as for the oil slick I'll beleive it when I see it.
FWIW I run a Suzuki 4 stroke BTW.


quite ironic Gary that this thread was started:

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?t=153553

and what are the recommendations...purchase price + performance = 2 stroke.

But i am just argumentative and must be the only one to have my opinion but it appears not.

I have more questions...
1. those emission figures..are they above water or below water emissions.
2. If a combination then what % is what.
3. For underwater emissions, what chemical reactions take place between the water and the emissions and what are the resulting chemicals or compunds.
4. In what % solution will these chemicals be held in suspension in the water.
5. What rates of dilution, if any, are there for any resualtant chemicals.

More arguments i guess but if these are emmissions you talk about then what happens to them in the phase after reacting with the sea water.

It is all good to recite emmissions and obviously they cannot be disputed but the ongoing questions obviously are where do they end up and in what form ?

You stated ratings on air conditioners previously..I can tell you that controls over the domestic air cond industry are not worth a star nor anything else..might as well be using R12 still.

Without proper regualtion I cannot see any controls over the OB industry being any different.

[Gary Fooks]

CO - I gather CO is less or not water soluble. For boaties I was more concerned about Carbon Monoxide as a safety issue.

I see the occasional government brochure about engine fumes getting into cabins … .

I recall reading that “teak surfing” = holding onto a teak deck at he back of a boat , after some kids passed out and drowned.

The US regulations at first covered only HC+ NOX - later adding a separate CO limit. EU started with all 3 + noise limits.

The emission numbers are out of the exhaust pipe – how much end up in the water and how much in the air hasn’t been defined.

I mean studies have shown some end up in both. I can imagine that what goes where depends on the chemical itself, its solubility, water salinity, depth, temperature speed … many variables.


This is all amusing and the research and debate can rage on. But for me here is the bottom line:

Do we throw rubbish out the car window and over the side of the boat? How about oil / fuel and acid? Then, knowing what I now know about 2 strokes, and how much junk they put into the water, how can I justify buying one next time?

Gary

[Gary Fooks]

From Boating Safety
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) can harm and even kill you inside or outside your boat!
Did you also know:

CO symptoms are similar to seasickness or alcohol intoxication?
CO can affect you whether you're underway, moored, or anchored?
You cannot see, smell, or taste CO?
CO can make you sick in seconds. In high enough concentrations, even a few breaths can be fatal? Most important of all, did you know carbon monoxide poisonings are preventable? Every boater should be aware of the risks associated with carbon monoxide - what it is; where it may accumulate; and the symptoms of CO poisoning. To protect yourself, your passengers, and those around you, learn all you can about CO.
Dangers of Carbon Monoxide (http://www.uscgboating.org/command/co/dangers.htm)
The must-know facts about carbon monoxide. If you don't recognize the symptoms of CO poisoning, you may not receive the medical attention you need.
Where CO May Accumulate (http://www.uscgboating.org/command/co/accumulate.htm)
You're not just at risk inside a boat. Knowing all the possible places where CO may accumulate could save your life.
How to Protect Others & Yourself (http://www.uscgboating.org/command/co/protect.htm)
CO poisoning is preventable. Here are specific steps you can take to help prevent carbon monoxide from harming you, your passengers, or fellow boaters.
Helpful Checklists and Maintenance Tips (http://www.uscgboating.org/command/co/checklists.htm)
A checklist for every trip, plus a monthly and annual checklist. They're easy for you to print and use.
Reports/ News Articles /Testimonials (http://www.uscgboating.org/command/co/reports.htm)
The latest reports and studies on carbon monoxide. Also, hear from those who lost loved ones to CO poisoning and those who survived close calls with CO.
Downloadable Educational Tools (http://www.uscgboating.org/command/co/tools.htm)
Brochures, photos, posters, and other tools to help increase awareness about carbon monoxide and recreational boating

[TimiBoy]

It's hard to argue the numbers and say 2 stroke = good from an emissions standpoint. Affordability has to be addressed however to get folks to "cross the line".

I know all the oil from my services is recycled.

I take issue with CO being argued as an issue for pollution. I know it's dangerous, for all the above reasons. But an environmental hazard? Not on your nelly. They (BRP) should be specifying that, but they will use anything to carry on the low carbon emissions bandwagon. Hmph. Marketeers. Shoot them all.

If BRP are industry leaders in calling for low carbon emissions, then I trust them even less, because they know (as do most with half a brain, sorry if I offend - well, not really) that it's a bunk.

Tim

[PADDLES]

timi, there will be no line to cross. if you want to buy a new motor you will only be able to buy one that is compliant with the new regulations. affordability will not be an issue either, the range of new outboards will be all new technology types and will be a certain price (the price will come down somewhat with volume of sales/manufacture) there will not be a choice to make on affordability. basically you will only be able to buy one that complies, unless you wish to buy something second hand of course.

[Gary Fooks]

Boat motor fumes fatal for 8-year-old
Carbon monoxide cited in death; girl fainted, fell in water
By Holly Abrams
http://www.########.com/images-gallery/News/jessy_gustin.jpg
Jesslynn Gustin
An 8-year-old Garrett girl pulled from a Huntington County lake Monday died after breathing in exhaust from the boat she was a passenger on, the Allen County Coroner’s Office said.
Jesslynn “Jessy” Gustin had been sitting on a swim platform on a boat at J. Edward Roush Lake in Huntington County. She apparently passed out and fell into the water, according to Indiana conservation officers.
Officers were called to the lake in response to a possible drowning about 4:30 p.m. Monday and found Jesslynn. She was flown to Fort Wayne’s Parkview Hospital, where she died shortly thereafter.
She died as a result of a lack of oxygen to her brain caused by carbon monoxide poisoning, an autopsy Tuesday revealed. The coroner’s office ruled her death accidental.
“We’re going to miss her,” said her grandfather, Robert Gustin of Woodburn. He said his granddaughter enjoyed the lake, boating and tubing. She attended J.E. Ober Elementary School in Garrett.
Jesslynn Gustin is survived by her parents, Fredrick John Gustin of Garrett and Jessica Middleton of Portland. She is also survived by four siblings.
The funeral service will be at 3 p.m. Thursday at E. Harper & Son Funeral Home, 740 Indiana 930 E., New Haven, with visitation from 1 to 3 p.m. Thursday.

[PinHead]

"Jesslynn was riding on the swim platform of her family's inboard-engine ski boat "

CO is dangerous..we all know that...so what was the point of that Gary..you onto the inboards now????

[Gary Fooks]

The purpose was to make more “real” the dangers of marine engines and CO. My earlier point was that I (personally) see CO as more of safety matter than a pollution issue.

As explained in my earlier post (4 Aug above ) the current proposed regulations already include SI (petrol) stern drives and inboards. As well as PWC’s, lawn mowers, brush cutters, petrol garden blowers etc etc .

Diesel standards, including CI (diesel) inboards have been started by government, and lag SI (petrol) regulations by about two or three years.


So, if anyone wants my guess its petrol standards in 2012 and diesel 2015. But my crystal ball is very cloudy ...

[finga]

"Jesslynn was riding on the swim platform of her family's inboard-engine ski boat "

CO is dangerous..we all know that...so what was the point of that Gary..you onto the inboards now????
Usually 4 strokes or diesel and all.
As mentioned previously about 'teak surfing' I think it was called would, more then likely, be an inboard motor which are usually diesel or 4 stroke as you don't see too many swim platforms or what-ever you'd like to call them with outboard motors.
No point in mentioning that point if trying to justify the banning or not of 2 strokes.
You should be trying to ban the dopes who allow their kids to 'teak surf'.

In Australia the amount of pollution 2 stroke outboard motors contribute to the overall pollution problems in our waterways would be insignificant to say...the level of oils and crap (literally crap. Dog poo is a large problem in waterways) washing off our roads etc into the waterways.
Maybe the better thing to improve our waterways is to have yearly rego checks like other states to get rid of all the oil leaking cars about in QLD instead of mandating the use of 4 stroke outboards.
Oops..better shut up now as mine would be off the road in the first round I suppose :-[

We should be looking at the full picture...not a slice of some-ones fantasy or marketing ploy.

[Gary Fooks]

Finga writes:

In Australia the amount of pollution 2 stroke outboard motors contribute to the overall pollution problems in our waterways would be insignificant to say...the level of oils and crap (literally crap. Dog poo is a large problem in waterways) washing off our roads etc into the waterways.

I'd be interested to read your research– or is this just a personal guess?

I think Finga is probably correct – that the biggest water problem is probably run off from cities and drains (and farm run off of chemicals ) ( Based on Healthy Waterways research)

But I suspect that thsi chat board has too many made up facts - and not enough hard data.

Unlike others, I don’t say the run off of so bad that I am justified in dumping what I like.

And I still disagree with the overall sentiment. I am saying “I don’t throw rubbish out the car window or over the side of the boat". For the same reasons I wont buy a 2 stroke and put 10 times the emissions into the water and air”

What you are saying is the opposite to some degree. What you are saying is “They are putting more stuff in the water than me, so what the heck if I do?

I can’t condone or understand such an attitude. Just because there is rubbish on the side of the road I don’t make it worse by adding my own rubbish. Do you?


I also understand there are people here who already have two strokes, and have had for years – and find the hard facts confronting and will grab at anything to justify what they bought years ago. Its called equity theory ... we all do it, but that’s not my field.

I suggest that we all take a breath, say “I didn’t know” and then buy what your conscience allows you to buy next time. There is no “guilt” about what you bought before you knew as far as I am concerned.

Regulations are coming anyway, because 55% of Australians (60% of Qlders) wont “do the right thing”.


“FACTS”

I don’t have the facts on two strokes vs. dog poo, and I suspect neither does Finga. In fact as they are different chemicals the comparison is meaningless.

So let’s do some analysis and see what the numbers MAY look like.

Were you unhappy about the Moreton Bay Oil spill? Did you think P&O should pay the bill for the clean up? That oil spill was 270 tonnes – as reported in the Courier Mail.

HYPOTHETICAL Estimate

This is just a “back of envelope“ calculation. Re do it with your own numbers if you disagree with my estimates. Vis:

In Qld there are over 200,000 boats registered. (commercial and recreational, source Qld Transport)
Based on 60% buying 2 strokes in 2005 guess that 60% are two strokes (Source DEWHA)
Take a guess as the average size as 30hp

Avg 30hp 2 stroke = 200.9 (HC+ NOx g/kW/hr)
Avg 30hp 4 stroke = 14.5 (HC+ NOx g/kW/hr) (Source F&B)

Guess average 50 hours per annum

So that’s 60% of 200,000 boats = 120,000 boats have two strokes

Their extra annual emissions from each two stroke is (200.9 -14.5) x (30hp x .749) kW x 50 hrs = 209.4kg each

So for 120,000 boats that’s 25,130,448 kg of additional stuff in the water due to 2 strokes. Mostly Hydrocarbons - oil and fuel

Compare that to the Moreton Bay oil spill 270,000 kg.

In other words - in this very rough estimate, two strokes in Qld alone account for the same emissions as 93 oil spills.

If you don’t agree with my estimate, then do your own numbers - but just don’t have a tantrum and argue off topic. I won’t.

[Dicko]

Gary, I normally think you're on the money with factual info, but really, lately you've got yourself so wrapped up in this issue you're becoming another brainwashed mouthpiece as most others are. This habit of ignoring facts and science and using scare tactics and bullsh*t instead to achieve your outcomes is typical of the whole global warming propoganda machine.

As said by others what engine was it ?, I bet my left nut, that engine in question would have been a 4 stroke...(as most ski boats are) the same engine you're promoting, and the same engines that are in around in 90% of vehicles out there on the road.

If you're going to do the equivalant of sticking your head up an exhaust pipe to gas yourself, it won't matter whether it's a 4 stroke in a car or boat. You're stuffed.,,, but hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a good story now, lets push this story as another reason for reducing emmissons and hope most out there won't read between the lines looking for facts. (The sad thing is, most of the public aren't questioning any of this).

I've questioned the $3.5 billion overall medical costs attributed to 'non complying engines' (at something like 25% of the whole marine industry claimed by BRP in their press release) to both brp and the EPA. I haven't recieved a reply yet.

Do you believe those figures as well ? or has off tangent cases like your last article been used to pad them up... ?


p.s. for the record, I currently have a DFI 2 stroke on my fishing rig & a 4 stroke inboard in my ski boat, but I still like facts, not padded up propoganda.

[Gary Fooks]

I haven’t changed from factual info. Even if some people don’t like it.


As I said "don’t have a tantrum" do your own numbers, or show me which number you disagree with.

And you are mixing up CO and HC , and jumping between them with abandon.


I’ve only shown hard numbers and conservative estimates ( and indicated such)

Just throwing mud and opinion without fact or research is a waste of space. Can we please hold a rational, fact based debate?

Gary

PS

- Its not a 4 stroke vs 2 stroke issue - its a limit on emissions. the CO limit will knock out some 4 strokes.

- The 3.5 billion comes from an independent Cost Benefit Analysis.( Conducted by MMA consultants for DEWHA) I love the way you say its nonsense without having even read the report. Send me your email address if you want a copy. read it carefully, do your own analysis and then criticise as much as you like. Until then its just hollow opinion.

[PinHead]

have more questions...
1. Those emission figures..are they above water or below water emissions.
2. If a combination then what % is what.
3. For underwater emissions, what chemical reactions take place between the water and the emissions and what are the resulting chemicals or compunds.
4. In what % solution will these chemicals be held in suspension in the water.
5. What rates of dilution, if any, are there for any resualtant chemicals.


still no answers on my previous questions ??

How about a holistic approach on this and any other "green" issue.

No point saying this amount of x, y and z are emitted without finding out where they end up.

I am not against regulation where regulation is required..I am 100% against regulation just for the sake of feel good warm and fuzzys...green zones are a perfect example.

Another queston please Gary..who or what is "Eco Friendly Fishing Association" ?

[Gary Fooks]

Pinhead - yes no answers because I avoided playing your game – as soon as I show you data you find somewhere else to pick on. That’s not a mature debate or discussion.

Clearly all of the emissions go into the water – because they all come out of the exhaust pipe, under the water and around the prop … depending on the model.

(I think one or two tiny (2hp) models exhaust straight to the air – but let’s leave them for the moment)

What comes out of the exhaust and stays in the water depends on so many variables including which chemical, water temperature, water salinity, boat speed.

For example – just thinking about hydrocarbons – I have seen oil slicks on the water around an idling 2 stroke, divers say they can taste it and we have all seen blue smoke in the air. So some goes into the water, some on to and some into the air.

As for other chemicals - eg NOx, we can’t taste or see them. One study showed the water behind a boat had a lower pH. (acidic)

The rest of your questions need answers that will not fit in this space. As for the rest, PM me your email address and I will send you lots of studies that can likely answer your questions.

However I don’t believe you are actually interested in studying the issue. It seems clear that you just want to have an argument. I’m not sure what’s in it for you – why you enjoy having an argument but it’s not a game I’m going to play.

I’m interested in rational, mature, fact based debates and discussion.


You too have not answered my questions. Do you dump rubbish out the car window? Overboard? And what would you think of someone intentionally pouring used oil overboard?


Sometimes the answer is simple. In the end I don’t need lots of academic studies to believe that I shouldn’t pour used oil overboard.

I understand that people have different standards to me. That’s why, in the end, we have laws and regulations to set minimum acceptable standards.


We have had car emission standards for twenty years or so. It’s about time marine had something similar.

BTW the outboard standards as predicted wont be anywhere near as tough as current Australian car emission standards, let alone the current standards in Europe, for example.



Gary

[Dicko]

I haven’t changed from factual info. Even if some people don’t like it.


As I said "don’t have a tantrum" do your own numbers, or show me which number you disagree with.

And you are mixing up CO and HC , and jumping between them with abandon.


I’ve only shown hard numbers and conservative estimates ( and indicated such)

Just throwing mud and opinion without fact or research is a waste of space. Can we please hold a rational, fact based debate?

Gary

PS

- Its not a 4 stroke vs 2 stroke issue - its a limit on emissions. the CO limit will knock out some 4 strokes.

- The 3.5 billion comes from an independent Cost Benefit Analysis.( Conducted by MMA consultants for DEWHA) I love the way you say its nonsense without having even read the report. Send me your email address if you want a copy. read it carefully, do your own analysis and then criticise as much as you like. Until then its just hollow opinion.


Gary, you are becoming sensationalist. Why else did you throw in an article of a girl dying from carbon monoxide poisoning in a thread related to low emmsion outboards ? Would that have not happened with an etec ?

As for the report, yes, I have read it. and yes, I think the health cost figures attributed to high emission outboards are nonsense.

If you want fact, than lets look at a real case scenario.

My family (& extended family) are all boatie orientated. I'm thinking back over 40yrs and looking at say a group of 30 people, and potentially 20 different boats amongst us over the years. The majority of them being conventional 2 strokes.

I'm racking my brain, and for the life of me can't come up with one cent that's been spent on health costs attributed to those outboards. (I can think of a few 'sickies' along the way so we could get a bit more enjoyment out of them though) ;D

There's been a couple of water skiing injuries, a couple of cuts & hooks in the wrong places when fishing, but absolutely nothing in the way of health costs that I can attribute to having a conventional 2 stroke outboard.

Yet BRP in their press release (from the attached data) are claiming the health costs of these outboards are $3.5billion !!,( or approx 25% of the whole outboard industries value).

Now, say our 20 odd outboards over the years are/were worth in round figures $200 000, by that report we've cost/going to cost society $50 000 in additional health costs. It hasn't happened.

So yes, it's padded up nonsense.

Or can you show me which other families are absorbing our share of these health costs for the figures to work out as they say ?

[Gary Fooks]

I give in

You've not read the posts above where we talk about CO being a safety issue - thus the story

You've not read the CBA either, especially section 3.5.

fin

Gary



The main studies relied on in this paper are the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI
2005), the European Commission’s air pollution damage estimates (EC 2005) and estimates
imputed from the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics health costs of motor
vehicle emissions estimates (BTRE 2005 and 2003).
As described in the modelling sections, the data we used reports hydrocarbon (HC)
emissions and not volatile organic compounds (VOC), but the studies reported here use
VOC. To convert from HCs to VOCs we used a conversion factor of 1, in other words we

use HCs and VOCs interchangeably. According to the US EPA, the conversion factor for
non-road engines is 1.034 for two strokes and 0.933 for four strokes, but this is based on
very sparse data. Using VOCs and HCs interchangeably therefore provides a conservative
estimate.
The Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE) quantified the health impacts of
transport emissions in Australia. Following Kunzli et al (2000) and Fisher et al (2002), they

used PM

10 emissions as a surrogate for all air pollution related health impacts. Using their


estimate of health damages from motor vehicle related air pollution for Australian capital

cities (BTRE 2005, p100) and the BTREs estimate of PM




10 emissions in Australian capital


cities (BTRE 2003, p125), the implied health cost per ton of PM




10 emissions as a surrogate


for air pollution from motor vehicle emissions in today’s dollars is between $136,000 and

$324,000, with a best estimate of $230,000 per ton of combustion-related PM




10.26 The large


range reflects uncertainty about motor vehicle related particle emissions, and the value of

life years lost, and the median value of a statistical life. This analysis only considers health
related damages from a subset of combustion emissions in motor vehicles, and omits some
harmful gases as well as environmental harm, including to crops and equipment. The
BTRE’s estimates are therefore likely to be conservative.
The European Commission funded a major study to provide estimates of the damages per
tonne emission of PM




2.5, NH3, SO2, NOx and VOCs from each EU25 member state


(excluding Cyprus) and surrounding seas to update previous estimates and to inform its

Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) program (EC 2005). The range provided takes account of
variation in the method used to value mortality, reflecting the use of the median and mean
estimates of the value of a life year (VOLY) from NewExt (2004) (€50,000 and €120,000
respectively in 2000 €), and the use of the median and mean estimates of the value of
statistical life (VSL), also from NewExt (€980,000 and €2,000,000 respectively). The range is
shown in Table 3-11 and also includes sensitivity to the effects quantified and to the use of
a zero cut-point for assessment of ozone impacts. Again, the study omits a number of
gases emitted from combustion engines and, aside from some agricultural impacts from
the emissions of sulphur oxides (not used in our study), quantifies mainly health effects
and produces figures that are therefore conservative.
We added a composite medium case to the estimates provided by the EC, averaging across
the low sea case and the high land case for our central estimate. This is reasonable for
Australia because the population density is lower than in most of Europe and this
provides a conservative estimate of emissions on land and in estuaries. We used this
composite medium case for our best estimate of the net benefits from the policy options.

[Dicko]

You've not read the CBA either, especially section 3.5.





Yes I have. ;D


and the question still stands, if I can't put my finger on an example of these exorbitant costs to society from my family group using 2 stroke outboards for a significant number of years, which users are affected ?

[PinHead]

Pinhead - yes no answers because I avoided playing your game – as soon as I show you data you find somewhere else to pick on. That’s not a mature debate or discussion. my game...so that is what you call it when you cannot answer the questions

Clearly all of the emissions go into the water – because they all come out of the exhaust pipe, under the water and around the prop … depending on the model.

(I think one or two tiny (2hp) models exhaust straight to the air – but let’s leave them for the moment)

What comes out of the exhaust and stays in the water depends on so many variables including which chemical, water temperature, water salinity, boat speed.

For example – just thinking about hydrocarbons – I have seen oil slicks on the water around an idling 2 stroke, divers say they can taste it and we have all seen blue smoke in the air. So some goes into the water, some on to and some into the air.

As for other chemicals - eg NOx, we can’t taste or see them. One study showed the water behind a boat had a lower pH. (acidic)

The rest of your questions need answers that will not fit in this space. As for the rest, PM me your email address and I will send you lots of studies that can likely answer your questions.

However I don’t believe you are actually interested in studying the issue. It seems clear that you just want to have an argument. I’m not sure what’s in it for you – why you enjoy having an argument but it’s not a game I’m going to play.

here we go again..I ask questions that you don't answer and I am labelled argumentative. There is nothing in it for me..I am not the one running around the country ear bashing anyone that will listen about the star ratings. What is in it for you Gary? Money ? Personal Glory? Thegame getting a bit tough for you...the answers are not there.

I’m interested in rational, mature, fact based debates and discussion. I may be immature but that does not bother me...see all green people when stumped just start insinuating that others that are asking the questions aren;t real bright..so be it..seems you fit in that category also...why not just toss your hands in the air and say whatevah.


You too have not answered my questions. Do you dump rubbish out the car window? Overboard? And what would you think of someone intentionally pouring used oil overboard? what the hell has rubbish got to do with your exhaust emissions..absolutely none..and no..I do not dispose of rubbish like that.
Do you drive a car? if so you leave rubbish everywhere when you drive. That could be an interesting study for someone..amount of crap that comes from a car over its lifetime.


Sometimes the answer is simple. In the end I don’t need lots of academic studies to believe that I shouldn’t pour used oil overboard. and what does pouring oil overbaord have to do with emissions..just more attempts to not answer my questions

I understand that people have different standards to me. That’s why, in the end, we have laws and regulations to set minimum acceptable standards.

acceptable by whose standards..try having a look at refrigerants and see how ridiculous the standards and regualtions are.


We have had car emission standards for twenty years or so. It’s about time marine had something similar.

BTW the outboard standards as predicted wont be anywhere near as tough as current Australian car emission standards, let alone the current standards in Europe, for example.



Gary

I have no problem with anyone standing by what they believe in..I do have problems when only part of the story is told. I would suggest Gary that emsissions that go into the water are dissipated in the water in chemical reactions and due to the vastness of the water then very little damage is done.

So what is your aim Gary? reduction of Nox, HCO, CO, C, or CO2 ???

I will debate any green attitude until all the FACTS are known..I will not base anything on assumptions and to date..that is all we are being fed in most aspects of the green debate..GW is a perfect example...same as the ozone layer.

Gary..what amount of gases are emitted into the ocean from the many active underwater volcanoes ? What gases are these?

My email address is gregh1@bigpond .net.au...no need for me to pm it..I have nothing to hide..you want my address also..always a cold beer in the fridge .

I will not discuss this any further Gary..it is obvious you have not carried this through in its entirety..you have just taken some manufacturers figues..you ever checked them yourself by doing the tests and want everyone else to comply to some air fairy standards..get the complete picture or get out of it.

[finga]

You've not read the posts above where we talk about CO being a safety issue - thus the story




The main studies relied on in this paper are the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI
2005), the European Commission’s air pollution damage estimates (EC 2005) and estimates
imputed from the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics health costs of motor
vehicle emissions estimates (BTRE 2005 and 2003).
As described in the modelling sections, the data we used reports hydrocarbon (HC)
emissions and not volatile organic compounds (VOC), but the studies reported here use

VOC. To convert from HCs to VOCs we used a conversion factor of 1, in other words we

use HCs and VOCs interchangeably. According to the US EPA, the conversion factor for
non-road engines is 1.034 for two strokes and 0.933 for four strokes, but this is based on
very sparse data. Using VOCs and HCs interchangeably therefore provides a conservative
estimate.
The Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE) quantified the health impacts of
transport emissions in Australia. Following Kunzli et al (2000) and Fisher et al (2002), they


used PM

10 emissions as a surrogate for all air pollution related health impacts. Using their


estimate of health damages from motor vehicle related air pollution for Australian capital

cities (BTRE 2005, p100) and the BTREs estimate of PM






10 emissions in Australian capital


cities (BTRE 2003, p125), the implied health cost per ton of PM






10 emissions as a surrogate


for air pollution from motor vehicle emissions in today’s dollars is between $136,000 and

$324,000, with a best estimate of $230,000 per ton of combustion-related PM






10.26 The large


range reflects uncertainty about motor vehicle related particle emissions, and the value of

life years lost, and the median value of a statistical life. This analysis only considers health
related damages from a subset of combustion emissions in motor vehicles, and omits some
harmful gases as well as environmental harm, including to crops and equipment. The
BTRE’s estimates are therefore likely to be conservative.
The European Commission funded a major study to provide estimates of the damages per
tonne emission of PM






2.5, NH3, SO2, NOx and VOCs from each EU25 member state


(excluding Cyprus) and surrounding seas to update previous estimates and to inform its

Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) program (EC 2005). The range provided takes account of
variation in the method used to value mortality, reflecting the use of the median and mean
estimates of the value of a life year (VOLY) from NewExt (2004) (€50,000 and €120,000
respectively in 2000 €), and the use of the median and mean estimates of the value of
statistical life (VSL), also from NewExt (€980,000 and €2,000,000 respectively). The range is
shown in Table 3-11 and also includes sensitivity to the effects quantified and to the use of
a zero cut-point for assessment of ozone impacts. Again, the study omits a number of
gases emitted from combustion engines and, aside from some agricultural impacts from
the emissions of sulphur oxides (not used in our study), quantifies mainly health effects
and produces figures that are therefore conservative.
We added a composite medium case to the estimates provided by the EC, averaging across
the low sea case and the high land case for our central estimate. This is reasonable for
Australia because the population density is lower than in most of Europe and this
provides a conservative estimate of emissions on land and in estuaries. We used this
composite medium case for our best estimate of the net benefits from the policy options.


Gary, we're not saying to pollute just because of anything.
I, for one, am trying to say don't just pick on one item (ie 2 stroke outboards) to try and resolve all pollution problems in our marine environments...a broad spectrum analysis of all of the damaging inputs of the marine environment need to be considered.

So a couple of questions Gary...oh, before I forget. I usually respect your writings but in this instance I find them one eyed.
Anyways I did read your post about the safety concerns for CO.
The question was raised...were the offending boats 2 stroke or 4 stroke as the makeup/style of the vessels in question tend to make them 4 stroke inboard motors.

Now...
The first paragraph in the introduction of the report (http://www.ephc.gov.au/sites/default/files/McLennan%20Magasinik%20Associates%20Preliminary%20 Report__CBA%20of%20Options%20to%20Manage%20Emissio ns%20from%20Selected%20Non-Road%20Engines.pdf) concerns me.
Here's a quote from it.
Non-road engines such as those used in gardening equipment, lawn mowers and
outboard motors, have been shown to be significant contributors to urban air pollution.
They are significant because they are utilised in large numbers and are not subject to the
degree of pollution control regulation that exists for engines used in on-road vehicles.
Many continue to be powered by high-polluting two stroke carburettor engines that do
not comply with international standards. For example, older style outboard engines that
do not comply with US EPA 2006 emission limits are likely to emit around 10 times the
amount of pollution compared to conforming engines.
Now...Where has it been shown that gardening equipement, lawn mowers and outboard motors are significant contributors to urban air pollution??
There are no references...only hearsay
Or...They are significant because they are utilised in large numbers...but how significant is the number, or better still, their output of pollutants, if you consider ALL motors in our society.
I reckon it'll take a lot of Victa's the match the volume of pollutants pumped out the bum of a 747 in a trip from Brisbane to Sydney.

There is not one reference to backup anything in this opening statement...all hearsay.

According to the original report used by BRP exactly what are the pollutants from a 2 stroke outboard and what exactly do they do to the marine ecosysytem??
What oil did they do the figures on as there are a lot of oils now-a-days which have differing levels and types of chemicals as by-products.
I'm a bit over whelmed by all the information at the moment.... and who actually wrote the report?
Second...who conducted all the studies?? ie who designed the study and all of it's facets, who gathered the information, who worked out the results and most importantly...who paid for the study?
Third...What journals were the results published in?? (because if the results are not published they pretty well mean nothing to a scientist)
Fourthly...what is the point of all the figures in your last post??
They are all concerned with road vehicles and a lot are estimations and guess work. Surrogates, more guessimations and who exactly are Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics??
What figures are available for outboards...both 2 and 4 stroke??
Why were diesels missed out?
Looks like I could have written that report when I was in Uni studying Environmental Sciences seeing my name is on the bottom
What other studies have been conducted to give strength to the theory that there is a problem with pollutants from 2 stroke outboards?
To me those studies are written to baffle people with figures...just like the old saying...if you can't win them with facts you can try and baffle them with bull$hite.
When you weed out the unnecessary stuff there is not much real body in the studies

When your reply with some concrete answers I start on trying to give an argument (with figures) on why the studies are not so relevant, or not so important, to the overall protection of marine ecosystems as there are other more important pollutants/polluters to worry about.

[Gary Fooks]

Finga writes

Gary, we're not saying to pollute just because of anything.
I, for one, am trying to say don't just pick on one item (ie 2 stroke outboards) to try and resolve all pollution problems in our marine environments...a broad spectrum analysis of all of the damaging inputs of the marine environment need to be considered.

I never said for one minute that setting emission standards (not anti 2 stroke regulations) would “solve all the problems”

I have consistently tried to explain in the form of an analogy, that I can’t justify buying a high emissions outboard for the same reason I can’t justify throwing rubbish overboard or out the car window. I just don’t think its right to throw more stuff into the water or countryside than is necessary. Full stop

…. Can someone please explain why this simple analogy doesn’t make sense to some?


So a couple of questions Gary...oh, before I forget. I usually respect your writings but in this instance I find them one eyed.

I am trying to get a point across that has taken me years to accept and understand, to people who are one eyed the other way … Good point, thus I wont play their game anymore. You’re right – I am thus coming over as one eyed – thanks for pointing that out.

Anyways I did read your post about the safety concerns for CO.
The question was raised...were the offending boats 2 stroke or 4 stroke as the makeup/style of the vessels in question tend to make them 4 stroke inboard motors.

I don’t understand what you mean by “offending boats” . Again don’t get stuck on the 2/4 stroke issue. The issue is that we are getting limits on outboard emissions including CO. This CO limit will knock out some 2 strokes and some 4 strokes from what we can buy today

CO poisoning can happen with a 2 or 4 stroke, inboard or outboard … and probably has. So again I am not sure what you are really asking?

As for the other points, I agree the CBA is poorly referenced.

In the first instance have a look at

http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/marine-outboard-engine.html (http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/marine-outboard-engine.html)

http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/outdoor-garden-equipment.html (http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/outdoor-garden-equipment.html)


After that, send me an email address and I’ll send you some of the studies I have.

The Australian push is being driven by the Air pollution “departments” and the CBA is being driven by Health costs. So damage to the water environment is less well documented in the Australian govt documents.

What are the pollutants? Mostly Hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. (Plus CO … plus PM)

What oil did they do the figures? The tests are all conducted by the manufacturers, in their own or contract labs. They use the manufacturers own / recommended oil, and the recommended dilution ration. The fuel used is a reference fuel to exact standards. If you need more ask me to email you the testing procedures.


I guess if the test blows out or the engine is s lemon they re-do the test. Then they submit the results in great detail ( down to test engine serial number) to the USA EPA, and CARB for certification.

Who wrote the studies? Who did the report? I’m not sure what you’re asking here (which report?). There are lots of studies, looking at different aspects. Some Australian, many US when they were leading up the regulations 10 years ago.

Numbers ? again see the reports with the URL above


Diesel? Long story but he very start is the excedences in the Sydney air basin. Diesel are much lower numbers … but it is in the pipeline , its running 2 to 3 years behind.


There is a lot more research than the CBA - so yes I understand your questions/ position.

Gary

[finga]

Gary...I see what your saying.
Your saying emission standards need to be given and met for small engines.
I'm saying the problems of emissions should be met with a holistic approach not an approach targeting a small portion of polluters.
Every body chucks waste away...they may know it, they may not.
Even the most discerning 'greeny' would have waste.
If they eat an apple there are pollutants...from poisons, from transport, from packaging etc etc even down to the rubber worn off the push bikes tyres going to buy said apple.
What we all need to try and do is limit these wastes.
You are concentrating on and describing one segment of the waste problem...pollutants from small motors.
I'm saying the emissions given off by small engines (not just 2 stroke or old technology 4's) are but a very small portion of the total emissions of the same type been spewed out in our Australian environment.
If a holistic. or even pick on the largest polluters first, approach is considered diesels would have to be on the top of the hit list.
You stated that Diesel? Long story but he very start is the excedences in the Sydney air basin. Diesel are much lower numbers … but it is in the pipeline , its running 2 to 3 years behind.
Why?? The emissions from diesels would out weigh emissions from small motors many times over.
Diesels have been on the European hit list for donkey's years and they have Euro 5 emission standards for diesels and, slowly, Australia is accepting these standards and adopting them, not from legislation or governing, but by seeing the increasing economies by utilising these Euro 5 compliant trucks in their fleets.
Seeing we're adopting others emissions targets why don't we also adopt the Californian Clean Air Act 1988 (hope that right. It's been a few years)...

The report that BRP have sited for industry unity for a cleaner environment is not a very productive venture by BRP in my books.
If I had have submitted that report whilst attending Uni my lecturers would have laughed at me.
Lack of references is a reflection of the integrity of the entire report.
A lack of established procedures to report writing such as aims, methodology, statistical significance etc also lend to the idea that the report should not carry much scientific weight.
In fact I found the report whimsickle to say the least.
I am also not going to read the other reports you mentioned because, frankly, I have got better things to do and reports bore me to tears. And if they were more pertinent then the original report they would have sighted them as well.

What are the pollutants? Mostly Hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. (Plus CO … plus PM)
Why did they use these pollutants??
According to established researchers like the CSIRo and University of Queensland those particular pollutants are not considered a major threat to our water born eco-systems.
This (and also the established method of report writing) can be seen in many studies done around our country specifically aimed at water born environments.
Just one example of this type of report is mentioned just recently in the news section of this website...http://www.tweed.nsw.gov.au/Waterways/WaterwaysHealth.aspx
If reports of damage to the water environment is less well documented in the Australian govt documents. Look elsewhere. There has been lot of research done of the water environment. There is lots of research been done on the water environment and there will be a lot more research done on the water environment...just don't look for government references. Look outside the box
Here's a good start to show the depth of research available which has been accomplished by a simple google search http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=7C4&ei=xJiESsTRF4egswPwurmZBw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=research+in+water+environments+in+Australia&spell=1

I for one, do agree that emission targets need to be set.
But, I for one, think a broad spectrum holistic approach is needed with recognised research.
Not the crap BRP are trying to pass in the original report sited by them.
To me, siting that report has lowered that particular report to a mere marketing ploy designed to try and baffle the general populous.

I actually wrote this 4 times and kept losing it for some reason.
A lot of points missed but I think I got a few of the more pertinent ones.
In the end I just got sick of it. I might write more later...might not too.

[Gary Fooks]

Hi Finga

Holistic Approach? I agree , but ot will never happen . I mean we had car emission standards 20 years ago, … that wasn’t holistic either

Its all piece meal , not holistic because its being run by departments and bureaucrats. As I said the current push is run by the Air pollution departments within EPA. “Water is a different department mate!”

I Hate bureaucrats and their non holistic approach - but I also realise I cant change that.

Finga writes The emissions from diesels would out weigh emissions from small motors many times over.

Professor Finga – you want to give me the data on that? Please don’t tell me you made that up? 78% of statistics are just made up on the spot ( I just made that up LOL)

On Road diesel already have regulations - so we are only talking off road …

As it turns out, for marine at least , all the diesels sold come into Australia meeting EURO or US standards - whereas 55% of outboards sold meet no standards. So I’m comfortable that diesels – as sold today are not the worst. ( legislation can only control what is sold new. And 98%+ of diesels sold today are very clean)

Why not diesel?
Prior to “picking on” outboards and lawn mowers their was a study that looked at many sources or Sydney’s air problem and that included panel beaters spray painting, locomotives, those tow vehicles at airports that move jumbos, etc etc etc I sat in a two hour briefing on the study, and the methodology seemed OK

In any case, regulations for off road diesel is in the pipeline 2/3 years behind. Given marine and garden regulations is 23 years behind cars by the time it arrives , what’s another 2?

Pollutants / studies? I certainly looked beyond Government documents. My point was that the (govt) documents I fed you so far don’t look broadly.


BUT in the end this has gone beyond science . Its now a bureaucratic / political issue.

Despite what some may think I am still defending fishing eg:

keeping the inevitable regulations on track – so we don’t get a unique Australian standards which would add huge costs to every outboard and maybe kill off some brands in Australia.
Getting regulations to accept US testing - so we don’t have the cost of re testing in Australia
Getting waterways opened, and fewer closed . My personal target is to open Wivenhoe dam to (clean) outboards. I can claim that getting Lethalls opened , from 6hp to 60hp as my work. It took me 3 years - from complaints to the department, Councill, Ministers .. to eventually writing the Ranger Manual and the guidelines for them and “training “ the Rangers. I’ll move on now - much to do

Gary

[PinHead]

Hi Finga

Holistic Approach? I agree , but ot will never happen . I mean we had car emission standards 20 years ago, … that wasn’t holistic either

Its all piece meal , not holistic because its being run by departments and bureaucrats. As I said the current push is run by the Air pollution departments within EPA. “Water is a different department mate!”

I Hate bureaucrats and their non holistic approach - but I also realise I cant change that.

Finga writes The emissions from diesels would out weigh emissions from small motors many times over.

Professor Finga – you want to give me the data on that? Please don’t tell me you made that up? 78% of statistics are just made up on the spot ( I just made that up LOL)

On Road diesel already have regulations - so we are only talking off road …

As it turns out, for marine at least , all the diesels sold come into Australia meeting EURO or US standards - whereas 55% of outboards sold meet no standards. So I’m comfortable that diesels – as sold today are not the worst. ( legislation can only control what is sold new. And 98%+ of diesels sold today are very clean)

Why not diesel?
Prior to “picking on” outboards and lawn mowers their was a study that looked at many sources or Sydney’s air problem and that included panel beaters spray painting, locomotives, those tow vehicles at airports that move jumbos, etc etc etc I sat in a two hour briefing on the study, and the methodology seemed OK

In any case, regulations for off road diesel is in the pipeline 2/3 years behind. Given marine and garden regulations is 23 years behind cars by the time it arrives , what’s another 2?

Pollutants / studies? I certainly looked beyond Government documents. My point was that the (govt) documents I fed you so far don’t look broadly.


BUT in the end this has gone beyond science . Its now a bureaucratic / political issue.

Despite what some may think I am still defending fishing eg:

keeping the inevitable regulations on track – so we don’t get a unique Australian standards which would add huge costs to every outboard and maybe kill off some brands in Australia.
Getting regulations to accept US testing - so we don’t have the cost of re testing in Australia
Getting waterways opened, and fewer closed . My personal target is to open Wivenhoe dam to (clean) outboards. I can claim that getting Lethalls opened , from 6hp to 60hp as my work. It took me 3 years - from complaints to the department, Councill, Ministers .. to eventually writing the Ranger Manual and the guidelines for them and “training “ the Rangers. I’ll move on now - much to do

Gary

I will oppose that one vehemently..leave it alone..no power boats on there at all.

[finga]

Hi Finga

Holistic Approach? I agree , but ot will never happen . I mean we had car emission standards 20 years ago, … that wasn’t holistic either

Its all piece meal , not holistic because its being run by departments and bureaucrats. As I said the current push is run by the Air pollution departments within EPA. “Water is a different department mate!”

I Hate bureaucrats and their non holistic approach - but I also realise I cant change that. Why not...you want us to all change outboards so we're all not chucking rubbish into the water willy nilly??
Getting 2 departments to combined tactics would seem simple as compared to that
Finga writes The emissions from diesels would out weigh emissions from small motors many times over.

Professor Finga – you want to give me the data on that? Please don’t tell me you made that up? 78% of statistics are just made up on the spot ( I just made that up LOL)
Mate, look out the window...simple math there. No need for studies or a Doctorate.
How many trucks go past just one spot on the gateway arterial as compared to all the (undiesel powered) boats used in the Bay on any given day. I'm looking at the big picture...not into the fish tank

Or if you want to talk about diesels just on the water here are some statistics just for one type of diesel boat.
Just in the Port of Brisbane there are 2484 large ships per year that utilise their facilities not counting any other large diesel burning ships like warships. http://www.portbris.com.au/Secure/TradeWeeklyReports/MonthlyTradeReport.pdf

Now consider the pollutants pumped out of a container type ship.
Some say one container ship can pollute as much as 50,000 cars http://gas2.org/2009/06/03/one-container-ship-pollutes-as-much-as-50-million-cars/....but you cannot believe everything you read so say we average it out at 30,000 cars. That would get a combined polluting output of a bucket load of NOx's I reckon (sorry for the non-specific quantified data)
So if you average the size of just the main drive engine (there are lots of other engines in there as well) in a container ship at about 5,000kW http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/100392749/Container_Ship_And_Multipurpose_Ship.html and http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/emma-maersk-engine/ then your looking at a combine total of pollutants which would greatly out weigh the total amount of pollutants spewed out by the average Joe Blow, all his mates, and their Quintrex's with Mercury's on the bum I reckon

On Road diesel already have regulations (where?? what are they?? What internationally accepted standard are they meeting??) - so we are only talking off road …
Why?? My argument is that we should be trying to change the big fish in the pollution pond...not pick on the small fry.

As it turns out, for marine at least , all the diesels sold come into Australia meeting EURO or US standards (since when and what standard??) - whereas 55% of outboards sold meet no standards (since when?? The data you showed was 10 years old). So I’m comfortable that diesels – as sold today are not the worst. ( legislation can only control what is sold new. And 98%+ of diesels sold today are very clean) Where's the data or is this hearsay Professor Gary??

Why not diesel?
Prior to “picking on” outboards and lawn mowers their was a study (references please) that looked at many sources or Sydney’s air problem and that included panel beaters spray painting, locomotives, those tow vehicles at airports that move jumbos, etc etc etc I sat in a two hour briefing on the study, and the methodology seemed OK
Ah, Professor Gary is in action...what qualifications do you process to justify that statement seeing we need raw data

In any case, regulations for off road diesel is in the pipeline 2/3 years behind. Given marine and garden regulations is 23 years behind cars by the time it arrives , what’s another 2?
Why bother if 98% of diesels are clean??

Pollutants / studies? I certainly looked beyond Government documents. My point was that the (govt) documents I fed you so far don’t look broadly.
NO COMMENT JUSTIFIED


BUT in the end this has gone beyond science . Its now a bureaucratic / political issue.
A political issue with alter motifs. If politicians were fairdinkum they would be targeting the larger polluters by volume first....Diesel engines (in general) would be a better item to start with as they would be a bigger contributor to the pollutants you've mentioned as compared to all the Victa's and Tohatsu's in Australia....but alas they don't. Why?? What's the agenda?? In this case BRP want to sell outboards.
Speaking of pollutants how come recognised researchers do not deem it necessary to monitor the pollutants you've mentioned in recognised studies??

Despite what some may think I am still defending fishing eg:
keeping the inevitable regulations on track – so we don’t get a unique Australian standards which would add huge costs to every outboard and maybe kill off some brands in Australia.
Getting regulations to accept US testing - so we don’t have the cost of re testing in Australia
Getting waterways opened, and fewer closed . My personal target is to open Wivenhoe dam to (clean) outboards. I can claim that getting Lethalls opened , from 6hp to 60hp as my work. It took me 3 years - from complaints to the department, Councill, Ministers .. to eventually writing the Ranger Manual and the guidelines for them and “training “ the Rangers. I’ll move on now - much to do

Gary
If BRP was fairdinkum in reducing emissions from outboards why haven't they developed motors to run on LPG?? Why haven't they developed catalytic converters for them??
My argument is that BRP used this report....which is dodgy as best....to promote their marketing plans.
To me this report is nothing but marketing hype.

Oh, as for opening dams up for outboards....well they might be clean but what about the noise pollution and the occasional ###### at the controls of the said motors??
Leave the closed dams closed.
People need some open spaces to escape to where they are not 'annoyed' by motors and the associated wankers.
A lot of people use Wivenhoe just because there are very few other areas where they would feel safe to go for a decent paddle with the kids.

[Gary Fooks]

I Hate bureaucrats and their non holistic approach - but I also realise I cant change that. Why not...you want us to all change outboards so we're all not chucking rubbish into the water willy nilly??
Getting 2 departments to combined tactics would seem simple as compared to that

I dint agree - getting 2 Departments to work together is near impossible. You have obviously never tried.

Equally even if it was my aim to get fishers to think about their purchases, clearly some people would rather argue nonsense than think.

So I should spend my energy elsewhere.


Finga writes The emissions from diesels would out weigh emissions from small motors many times over.

Professor Finga – you want to give me the data on that? Please don’t tell me you made that up? 78% of statistics are just made up on the spot ( I just made that up LOL)
Mate, look out the window...simple math there.

“’”look out the window is neither data nor realistic research. I thought you were more rational and educated than that statement indicates.

For example , before I showed that two strokes had 10 to 20 times more emissions per hour did you realise that? Sure we knew it was more, but most people ( I am talking marine dealers at conferences ) think a 2 stroke is maybe double – not 10 times more )

You demand data from me - but when I ask the same you say “look out the window?


On Road diesel already have regulations (where?? What are they?? What internationally accepted standard are they meeting??) - so we are only talking off road …

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/PicExportError ADR 79/00 (Emissions Control for Light Vehicles) introduced Euro 2 emission standards for new light vehicles operating on diesel from 1 January 2002, and for new light vehicles operating on petrol, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and Natural Gas (NG) vehicles from 1 January 2003.
http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/PicExportError ADR 80/00 (Emission Control for Heavy Vehicles) introduced Euro 3 emission standards for new heavy vehicles operating on diesel, LPG and CNG from 1 January 2002; for new heavy vehicles operating on petrol from 1 January 2003.
http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/PicExportError ADR 79/01 introduced Euro 3 emission standards for light vehicles operating on petrol, LPG or NG from 2005 and for light vehicles operating on diesel fuel from 2006.
http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/PicExportError ADR 80/01 introduced Euro 4 emissions standards for heavy vehicles operating on petrol from 2005 and for heavy vehicles operating on diesel, LPG and NG from 2006.
http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/PicExportError ADR 80/02 (Euro 4) was implemented for heavy vehicles which run on diesel, liquefied petroleum gas or natural gas from January 2007 for new model vehicles and from 29 February 2008 for existing models of vehicle.
http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/PicExportError ADR 79/02 (Euro 4) was implemented for new model light petrol, LPG and NG vehicles from July 2008 and from July 2010 for all light vehicles.
http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/PicExportError ADR 80/03 (Euro 5) will be implemented for new model heavy vehicles with a GVM greater than 3.5 tonnes, which run on diesel, liquefied petroleum gas, petrol or natural gas from 2010 and from 2011 for all heavy vehicles.



Why?? My argument is that we should be trying to change the big fish in the pollution pond...not pick on the small fry.


The 2006 Inventory (see below) DID look at who was worse and who needed to be targeted.

What you seem to be suggesting is a mega Act of Parliament that will fix everything once and for all? Sorry but the real world does not work that way. Its always going to be piecemeal.

I can’t change that and its naïve to expect otherwise.


As it turns out, for marine at least , all the diesels sold come into Australia meeting EURO or US standards (since when and what standard??) –

Volvo Penta and Yanmar lead the market and all their products meet EU Standards ( they dont make special non conforming engines for Australia). You can look up the other brands - and see what standards they meet on their web sites.

Starting in 1996, the Directives include

Non-Road Mobile Machinery Directive 97/68/EC
• 2004/26/EC3 Amendment to the Non-Road Mobile
Machinery directive
• 2003/44/EC Amendment to the Recreational Craft
Directive
• CCNR4 River Rhein Regulation
• BSO5 Bodensee Regulation
• IMO2 – MARPOL Regulation

Mercury / Mariner products meet US standards vis
EPA Commercial CI Marine Rule (FR1/Vol.64/No.249)
• EPA Recreational CI Marine Rule (FR/Vol.67/No.217)
• EPA Non-Road (FR/Vol.63/No.205)
• IMO2


whereas 55% of outboards sold meet no standards (since when?? The data you showed was 10 years old).
That number is 2005 data.(reference DEWHA 2007 report) I don’t know what you mean by :10 years old”

So I’m comfortable that diesels – as sold today are not the worst. ( legislation can only control what is sold new. And 98%+ of diesels sold today are very clean) Where's the data or is this hearsay Professor Gary??


From Volvo Penta – submission to government. 2009


Why not diesel?
Prior to “picking on” outboards and lawn mowers their was a study (references please) that looked at many sources or Sydney’s air problem and that included panel beaters spray painting, locomotives, those tow vehicles at airports that move jumbos, etc etc etc I sat in a two hour briefing on the study, and the methodology seemed OK
Ah, Professor Gary is in action...what qualifications do you process to justify that statement seeing we need raw data


Do you mean what qualifications to I “posess” B Bus MBA CMC IMP …


Reference? National Emissions Inventory for Small Engines Pacific Air & Environment Pty Ltd DEH February 2006:

The inventory covered the following classes of engines:



Ø Lawn and Garden Equipment

Ø Agricultural Equipment

Ø Airport Service Equipment

Ø Logging Equipment

Ø Recreational Equipment

Ø Recreational Marine

Ø Light Commercial Equipment

Ø Commercial Marine

Ø Industrial Equipment

Ø Rail Service Equipment

Ø Construction Equipment




The inventory covered the following pollutants:


Ø Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)

Ø Formaldehyde

Ø Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Ø Toluene

Ø Sulphur Dioxide (SO2)

Ø Xylene

Ø Particulate Matter (PM)

Ø Benzene

Ø Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Ø 1,3-Butadiene





In any case, regulations for off road diesel is in the pipeline 2/3 years behind. Given marine and garden regulations is 23 years behind cars by the time it arrives , what’s another 2?
Why bother if 98% of diesels are clean??

Good point – so its equitable , and controls future engines from … India or wherever. But the 98% does explain the apparent non urgency

Pollutants / studies? I certainly looked beyond Government documents. My point was that the (govt) documents I fed you so far don’t look broadly.
NO COMMENT JUSTIFIED


BUT in the end this has gone beyond science . Its now a bureaucratic / political issue.
A political issue with alter motifs. If politicians were fairdinkum they would be targeting the larger polluters by volume first....Diesel engines (in general) would be a better item to start with as they would be a bigger contributor to the pollutants you've mentioned as compared to all the Victa's and Tohatsu's in Australia....but alas they don't. Why?? What's the agenda?? In this case BRP want to sell outboards.
Speaking of pollutants how come recognised researchers do not deem it necessary to monitor the pollutants you've mentioned in recognised studies??



Do you mean Ulterior Motives? It’s not politicians but Bureaucrats BTW

As I showed above we already have diesel (on road ) standards and marine diesel standards are on the way, but non urgent because most engines we can buy are EU/ US compliant anyway.

You are saying they are worse than Victa and Tohatsu without any numbers - just your guess. You based this in ignorance that we had emission standards for diesel trucks, so perhaps you now have a different view?.



I’ll move on now - much to do
If BRP was fairdinkum in reducing emissions from outboards why haven't they developed motors to run on LPG?? Why haven't they developed catalytic converters for them??


I’m not here to defend or otherwise BRP

I worked in the LPG Division of an Oil company. You could convert an outboard to work on LPG now. It doesn’t need BRP to do that. Ford and GMH didn’t initiate LPG for taxis in Australia. But with heavy fuel tanks, that have less range be litre, no one wants to convert a boat/outboard.

The costs of LPG pay for themselves with taxis and cars doing lots of KLM - I did hundreds of these calculations in my time, and though it was a while ago , I’ll make an educated guess that LPG would only be viable for commercial boats doing many hours.

Catalytic converters don’t work in a marine environment – apparently as soon as they get any salt water on them they stop working - so it would last about 6 minutes.

As I said, I’m not here to defend or otherwise BRP but No one has done it better than BRP and Honda.

Hondas 75 hp is also the Jazz car engine. But the outboard isn’t as clean because of the issues in making it water ready – including not being able to use a catalytic converter.

It costs money to develop cleaner engines -and already I hear whinges that clean engine cost more than dirty two strokes. You cant have everything.



Oh, as for opening dams up for outboards....well they might be clean but what about the noise pollution and the occasional ###### at the controls of the said motors??
Leave the closed dams closed.
People need some open spaces to escape to where they are not 'annoyed' by motors and the associated wankers.
A lot of people use Wivenhoe just because there are very few other areas where they would feel safe to go for a decent paddle with the kids.

Wivenhoe is huge – all the rowers want or need is one arm, which they have now.

I’m pro - fishing. And you ?

I will close off my responses here.

Gary

[finga]

what...no response about my example of diesel boats out polluting anything on the water??

[Gary Fooks]

And no comments from you about all the references etc I sent ?

No "ok I get your point" ? no concessions, just more argument?

You say diesel "boats" then you change topic to "ships" which push all their emissions into the air, not the water like an outboard.

You also shift topic from potential pollutants to greenhouse gasses ... another moving target...And of course ships are registered and controlled in their home port - and are, in the main, not under Australian legislation.


Over and out.
Gary

[PinHead]

don't worry aboit it finga..if it doesn't suit Gray's agenda then it doesn't fit. Just another tree hugger trying to ram his views down everyones else throat.

[finga]

I give up.

BRP's motives are the try and convince us that we need to get rid of our 2 strokes because they're killing the environment ....and us when large ships are pumping a kazillions times the amount of crap into various eco-systems they transverse threough. All because of a report that should have as much influence as my Footrot Flats comics.

Gary's motives are to convince us outboards that comply to whatever standard he wants to mention should be allowed on every waterway in the state because they don't pollute...(what about noise pollution etc??) and he wants to fish there.

But don't worry about the the crap the container ships and trucks and jumbo jets etc etc...are pumping into the environment. They don't really matter because we couldn't be bothered to consider them.
I'd better look out for the whipper snipper and blower vac eh. They'll be next on the hit list...and then my fuel powered R/C car and then the metho stove....

[PinHead]

LOL finga..be careful..the whipper snipper police will get ya.

I am still waiting to find out who the Ec friendly fishing mob are? ..i asked that but no answer

[PADDLES]

i'm a bit "behind the eight ball" here, are you guys saying that there's some sort of chemical reaction that makes the emissions from a 2 stroke engine disappear when they go into sea water?

[PinHead]

i'm a bit "behind the eight ball" here, are you guys saying that there's some sort of chemical reaction that makes the emissions from a 2 stroke engine disappear when they go into sea water?

I am asking IF there are any reactions..and also what rate of dilution if any occurs. No point spruiking figures taken from the exhaust in air...if we have to have controls then that is fne but let's make sure all the avenues have been researched first.

[finga]

I am asking IF there are any reactions..and also what rate of dilution if any occurs. No point spruiking figures taken from the exhaust in air...if we have to have controls then that is fne but let's make sure all the avenues have been researched first.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=eqA7_t3VDb4C&pg=PA230&lpg=PA230&dq=breakdown+of+oil+in+seawater&source=bl&ots=cQIPIXfChI&sig=Wou-iVnDuTtj59jHdd3pp2EPduE&hl=en&ei=oMOJSonhEoWqtgOd7qHVAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112477944/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

with this one just scroll up a tad to the beginning of the chapter.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ug0vpM0iJOMC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=breakdown+of+oil+in+seawater&source=bl&ots=XJqelRz9KZ&sig=IiSeB8cM9RKYBgVLLDYEBc55Poc&hl=en&ei=oMOJSonhEoWqtgOd7qHVAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false

But by looking at the problem from another angle would be to develop a good biodegradable oil.
Oh bugger. I'm about 25 zillions years behind, it'salready been done
http://www.motorexoil.com.au/html/products/fun_hobby/watercraft.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5263/is_200101/ai_n20411634/

http://www.getg.com/products/products.php?CategoryID=3&ProductID=11

All found with simple googling.

[FNQCairns]

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=eqA7_t3VDb4C&pg=PA230&lpg=PA230&dq=breakdown+of+oil+in+seawater&source=bl&ots=cQIPIXfChI&sig=Wou-iVnDuTtj59jHdd3pp2EPduE&hl=en&ei=oMOJSonhEoWqtgOd7qHVAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112477944/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

with this one just scroll up a tad to the beginning of the chapter.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ug0vpM0iJOMC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=breakdown+of+oil+in+seawater&source=bl&ots=XJqelRz9KZ&sig=IiSeB8cM9RKYBgVLLDYEBc55Poc&hl=en&ei=oMOJSonhEoWqtgOd7qHVAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false

But by looking at the problem from another angle would be to develop a good biodegradable oil.
Oh bugger. I'm about 25 zillions years behind, it'salready been done
http://www.motorexoil.com.au/html/products/fun_hobby/watercraft.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5263/is_200101/ai_n20411634/

http://www.getg.com/products/products.php?CategoryID=3&ProductID=11

All found with simple googling.

True and it's called the tcw3 specification of oil (all tcw3 oils), reason behind it not being as fully robust a 2 stroke engine oil as it could easily be otherwise...we are already taking one for the team and have been for lot's of years.

Another example of science first doing what was needed before Zealot enacted regulation did badly what wasn't actually needed.

cheers fnq

[PADDLES]

agreed fnq. even though i do support tighter emissions regulations for engines, a lot could also be achieved with the regulation of the oil used for people who wish to keep a conventional 2s. the tcw3 standard doesn't make the oil completely biodegradeable though does it, if you want this you have to buy a special oil, is this the case? how much pollution is there if renewable bio type oils are used are premixed with 2s engines, is there such an oil?

[FNQCairns]

agreed fnq. even though i do support tighter emissions regulations for engines, a lot could also be achieved with the regulation of the oil used for people who wish to keep a conventional 2s. the tcw3 standard doesn't make the oil completely biodegradeable though does it, if you want this you have to buy a special oil, is this the case? how much pollution is there if renewable bio type oils are used are premixed with 2s engines, is there such an oil?

Yeah pretty much completely biodegradable....well it depends on the technical ticks applied. As biodegradable as the same volume of body parts or leaf matter or ..........., biodegrading takes time and populations of flora to achieve amongst other things.

The media pretty much at the hands of their zealot masters has brainwashed the general population as to what biodegradable actually is.

To my knowledge apart from the tcw3 spec of oil there is no higher 2 stoke biodegradable outboard oil outside of a home made linseed oil mix.

That's not to say a company will not use the biodegradable portion of the specification to market their product as somehow superior to all the other tcw3 oils sold (cash in on the hysteria).

cheers fnq

[Gary Fooks]

I think it was Evinrude who had a biodegradable 2 stroke oil on the market some years ago. Apparently it didn’t sell well and was pulled.

The high level Hydrocarbons coming out of two strokes isn’t just oil – it oil and petrol, and some part burnt.

Two strokes, because of their very design, push out some “fresh” fuel before it even gets burned. This is because there is not a separate exhaust cycle and compression cycle.

Even with scavenging systems, fuel (petrol + oil) is wasted out the exhaust pipe. I guess this is one main reason why two strokes also use more fuel.

Direct Injection two strokes (Tohatsu TLDI, Mercury Optimax, E-TEC and Yamaha HPDI) use electronics to be more precise about when (and where ) fuel is injected, meaning far less is wasted our the exhaust pipe.


So - while biodegradable 2 stroke oil would be good ….


how do you make it compulsory?
given the high HC levels is both fuel and oil coming out the exhaust, we would ALSO need biodegradable petrol.
I’ve read that most fuel and oil is eventually biodegradable - biodegradable oils are just much, much quicker. ( plastics, I read, are another issue)

Large oil spills cause their own problems ( eg seabirds with fouled feathers)

Smaller disperse amounts of HC are linked to other problems. Close to home, and as an example, one study* showed that mangroves in Moreton Bay were dropping albino seeds which sprouted and died. That’s bad – no mangroves, no little fish. No little fish no big fish.

The cause was listed as hydrocarbons in the water - but no source of HC was nominated.

Gary



P Chlorophyll-deficient propagules of Avicennia marina and apparent longer term deterioration of mangrove fitness in oil-polluted sediments, Norman C. Duke, and Andrew J. Watkinson Marine Botany Group, Mangrove Ecosystem Research, Centre for Marine Studies, The University of Queensland, Brisbane

[Crunchy]

Oh how I love thy 2-stroke (Carby), let thee count the ways...

* Your a man's motor, the resounding call of a WWII Spitfire rather than a Singer sewing machine....

* Your there when I need you, I ask you for more power and I don't have to wait, while you waste a stroke...

* When your a little unhappy I can attend to you myself...

* You can take everything I throw at you, no having a hissy fit just because something's not quite right...

* I can change & clean you myself when you need it....

* I don't have to come on Ausfish and say "My X-Tec is playing up, what can be wrong"?

* You leave pretty rainbow colours in the water when I lower you in....



OK perhaps not the last one.....any others to add?

[PADDLES]

good one crunchy lol

you start up with a james bond style smoke screen on a cold morning ................ those pesky bad guys won't know which way you went for about ten minutes ............... unless they follow the pretty rainbow colours you leave ..........

yeah gary, i was sure that there was an oil marketed specifically as being fully biodegradeable, but like you say, most stuff can be biodegradeable it's just a matter of time and how much stuff it poisons along the way.

personally, no matter which way i look at it though, i can't see a down side of legislation for "cleaner" marine power plants other than basic economics. ie. it's cheaper to produce a conventional 2s engine than an injected one or a 4s.

whether you like it or not, and if we push boats to one side, conventional 2s engines have been pretty much dead and buried as automotive power for decades, they have also been slowly removed from competition motorcycles as well (albeit by having to use an engine of double the capacity to get the same power output) and are now being phased out of small power equipment and scooters. all development by most automotive manufacturers is going into 4s technology to get gains in efficiency and therefore drops in emissions. with the exception of a few applications (boat racing and some small bore bike racing and scooters), the conventional 2s is dead guys. it's being flogged to us by manufacturers so they can make their last dollar out of it whilst not having to develop the technology any further because it's at the end of the road.

i'm spewing because i'm a 2s bike man (and i acknowledge that they pollute more than a 4s), nothing beats that rip of a properly jetted 2s between ya knees, you just don't get that with a 4s, but who am i to stand in the way of progress.

[Gary Fooks]

I wonder why DI 2 stroke technology has never made it outside of outboards ie to bikes?

I can see it would too expensive for lawn mowers ...

[TimiBoy]

* Your a man's motor, the resounding call of a WWII Spitfire rather than a Singer sewing machine....


You wouldn't be suggesting the venerable Spitfire ever ran a two stroke, are you? The Merlin, and later the Griffon, powered Spits (and Lancasters, Mustangs - albeit Packard built) and a host of other aircraft. They were both four strokes, fitted with superchargers.

Cheers,

Tim

[PADDLES]

i think the physical size of the injection equipment might be a limiting factor gary. there is certainly fuel injection on 4s motors in bikes. another factor too is that the categories/classes of racing are now tailored towards 4s machines and so that's basically where all the development budget goes.

i think crunchy was merely comparing the exhaust note timi, i'm now thinking back to that movie "the castle" and enjoying "the serenity" with the howl of the boat motor.

[Chris Ryan]

I love that line in the movie....

"The only thing dad loved more than serenity, was the sound of his 2-stroke going flat out"

Doesn't help the debate at all, just bringing back a fun memory.

[Crunchy]

i think crunchy was merely comparing the exhaust note timi

Yep correct, actually to be honest B&F inspectors came up to me the other day..when they left I couldn't beleive that their 150Hp Zuk was actually running the whole time! They sure are quiet...maybe I'll get a 4 stroke when I'm old...

But back to the topic of the thread....one smoke stack, in one factory, in one city, in China would spew more pollut...I mean emissions, in one minute then I could ever hope to do in a life time of running a two-stroke outboard (Nope, no figures to back that up...)..lets keep it in perspective

[PinHead]

ironic that you should mention mangroves Gary..there was the bit in the paper where their is a big hue and cry about someone has cut some out Graceville way.

Drive down Bowen Bridge Road..just as you are about to cross Breakfast Creek look to your left (outbound)..they have cut the mangroves for the Northern Busway...where are Baltais and other bloke now...not a murmur from them.

The biggest environmental vandals are Governments...they do things like that..they approve foreshore develpoment..they approve so many things that are not EF...yet they try and portray themselves as green..who are they trying to kid ?

[Gary Fooks]

Crunchy

I agree with the sentiment - in that greenhouse gasses from Australia are nothing compared to China. But comparing an outboard to ANY factory is a bit of an unfair comparison - comparing an ant to an elephant?

FYI China started emisisons regulations on small off road engines (inlc mowers to outboards) earlier this year.

[Jabba_]

Gary, its not the new regs that annoy me, I run a 4 stroke and won't run anything alese in the future. What I have a problem with is the fact that it is BRP pushing the regulation, if it were an independant environment lobby group, I'd be annoyed (because I just plain hate greenie's), but would be in support. But when we have a company who is quite frankly, struggling to compete in the outboard market (generally speaking), who obviously have a vested interest trying to get new legislation introduced to stop other companies selling a particular product, no matter how you look at it, they are trying to eliminate competition, which is illegal in Australia. BRP do not care about the environment, they care about sales and profits, and thats all they are thinking of with the trash they have presented.

So BRP are the big bad wolfs.... Mate Honda were at in 2007... Same sort off thing, but they were trying to ban 2st... http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?t=117202&highlight=Honda%2C+Malcolm+Turnbull

I wouldn't be suprised if you searched back far enough you would see Yamaha and Suzuki also trying the same stunt....

Get over it..

[finga]

Here's a study that concluded that PAH's (better indicator of fuels etc then NOX's) were more concentrated around urban/industrial areas then in the middle of the Bay.
Flushing from land is suggested.
I would be more concerned with run-off from land then from outboards using biodegradable oils (or any oils for that matter) when asking the question why are the mangroves dying and why are the levels of NOX's or PAH's or any pollutant for that matter are harming things (ie mangroves and sea grass beds for a couple) in the Bay ?.
http://www.marine.uq.edu.au/publications/tibbetts/PAHs%20in%20the%20Brisbane%20River.pdf
That study is backed up by other studies as well and are referenced in the report.
When you read that report and others like them makes you believe the report referenced by BRP is nothing but a marketing ploy....just like some of the other manufacturers have done as suggested above....

[Crunchy]

Crunchy


..FYI China started emisisons regulations on small off road engines (inlc mowers to outboards) earlier this year.

Unbelievable (No I beleive you Gary) but its unbelievable that they would focus on such a small source of the problem (Pollution) when there are much larger issues like coal fired electricity plants going up all over the show...taking the easy steps for apperances I guess....

[Crunchy]

change of mind

[PADDLES]

hey crunchy, we may actually find that small power and automotive power will not be the small part of pollution in china in the coming years. remember that china at the present has quite a small ownership of vehicles and motorised equipment, labour and transport are predominantly manual (ie people power). now as they become developed, the predictions are that car and machinery ownership for example will skyrocket over there and the pollution from all the extra engines will be a massive problem in future years. there's 100's of millions of them, imagine the added pollution if over the next few years half of them go and buy a car. so whilst at face value a comparison between a chinese smokestack and the combined pollution of australia's outboards looks like we are being inconvenienced somewhat, it's not really comparing apples for apples when you consider the population.

i'd personally like to think that we can keep our own backyard as pristine as we can because over there in SE asia it's already pretty well ruined.

by the way, for the power that they require and even what we need here, there is no real substitute for coal fired electricity at the moment.

[Crunchy]

All good points Paddles...