Are boaties polluting waterways as much as the Pacific Adventurer

[mowerman]

ABC radio this morning.


What a bunch of dirty nogoods we are.


http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2009/11/are-boaties-polluting-waterways-as-much-as-the-pacific-adventurer.html?program=612_breakfast


Rod

[charlie09]

It takes me 7 mins at WOT to reach my usual fishing spot. I have a 9.9 hp Merc (admittedly an older model) and therefore it would take me four trips to run up one hour of use. I'm not aware how much pollution my 9.9 would put into the river but not as much as Mr Fooks 50 hp thats for sure.

My point to Mr Fooks therefore would be to Fook off>:(

[FNQCairns]

Typical zealot drum beating, interchanging the word emission for pollution is political expedient and bank balance increasing but many can see through it shame these people have no mechanism to have the same level of say...ie funding.

cheers fnq

[wayno60]

I hear what ya saying but isnt that why 2 strokes are going to be slowly phased out??
i heard that there was some agreement between all the big outboard makers to phase them out. also there was one major player that didnt sign the concord.

[charlie09]

Yea wayno60 phasing them out (ie not making anymore new 2 strokes) is fine, however Mr Fooks actually used the word "ban". I don't think that is the way to go.
My 9.9 is a fairly older model and because of the size relatively cheap to replace. But what about the guys with bigger and newer 2 strokes? What happens to them if theyre band?

Cheers

[Lucky_Phill]

many points were made.

the old 2 stroke ( carby ) is not the same as modern HPDI etc.

Pollution / runoff is the major concern for moreton bay.

I would like to see the ' data ' gary used for his ' facts '.... ?

cheers
.
.
.
.
.

[FNQCairns]

Charlie, I understand but forget fully now.....Yamaha didn't want to adhere to a time frame advanced upon them and/or choose the high road to dispute the junk science offered up around outboard "pollution" in Australia, so they opted out, this left the remaining manufacturers with profit margin problem, if consumers have a 'choice' and buy the cheaper engines and only Yamaha had these for sale......many of these poker players only have a new tech lineup so are working hard to distort the playing field to their advantage.

So it was then off to the government who now is their only profit margin saviour, with paid industry lobbyists. With the same Zealot ploys we as anglers have faced and still face and will continue to into the future.

Every Australian will find themselves screwed yet again as now the 'system' is well in play.

All engines in use will be allowed to die a natural death but may be 'banned' from some extra freshwater areas.

cheers fnq

[oldboot]

Yeh every time it rains more oil runs off the road than could ever come out of outboards that once running and warmed up burn most of the oil that goes into them.

cheers

[PADDLES]

agreed on the runoff oldboot, but can't agree on the warm 2s theory.

a conventional 2s has an overlap in it's cycles which allows unburnt fuel/oil go straight out the exhaust, if the flame burns slower (ie. high octane fuel) then even more goes out. they shouldn't be banned, because that'd be a bit rude to the people that still own them, but they should certainly be phased out and most certainly not produced or made for sale new any more. don't get me wrong, conventional 2s engines are a wonderful thing (especially in a motorbike) but efficient they are not.

[oldboot]

Remember I said most.

I flush in a tank.....and if I am flushing a warm motor....I get very few floaties.

I can see that people get all concerned when they see a 2 stroke start up that has sat arround for a while.
My 60Hp everrude.......gives my rosco 1600 ( smoke machine) a run for its money if it hasn't been started and left tilted up.... the carbies get full of oil.

either way there is no comparison between the 200mL per hour of refined oil most of which is burned that my outboard consumes and the huge amount of filth that was dropped by the pacific adventurer.... n o comparison at all.

cheers

[oldboot]

As the Gary Fooks issue has been raised elswhere,
I have had a bit of a google on the name and come up with some notes and the origin of this issue.

This comparison comes from one of his addresses.
Google the name and you will find it easy.


In one of his " bench mark" addresses he claims that an 29.9 tonnes per year of polution per boat can be saved by changing from an old style outboard to a modern one.... one boat.

and compares that to 250 tonnes of the "moreton bay oil spill"

now this has to be a crock... because there is no way that any of us put 29.9 tonnes of fuel and oil into our boats a year...........that would be about 30 000 litres ( and that is assuming we dump it all straight in the bay.,,,,,, the immissions would be far less portion than that.

Now this has been profiled off a twin 225Hp reef tour boat doing 1000 hours a year......now it may be true for that boat.......but any tour boat will be running new technology motors.

Anybody got twin 225's and can say how much they consume an hour?

to then take this information and make a comparison extrapolated out to ALL boats...as someone will try to................is greatly misleading.

this comparison between the profiled emmissions of one boat and compare it with an oil spill is just ludicrus.

sorry ..... by his own admission he is not a mechanical expert........this is the sort of science that sinks our ship.

Now it is these over simplistic comparisons are realy not helpfull and the taking thess comparisons and applying them out of context as people will, is exactly what causes enviromental panic and rediculous government reactions.

There is no comparison between what a boat burns and disperses in a high usage commercial operation and a ship dumping raw heavy fuel oil straight into the water.



There is even less comparison to a low usage recreational boat.

No comparison to what 1 large ship contributes in a year..... no mention of the contribution of run off from our roads..... no comparison with other poluters.

Sure almost all of us would like a new new technology outboard.......... but this is blowing the issue out of proportion.

One thing that NEVER gets discussed in these "New Clean Technology" drives is the environmental impact and carbon footprint of the manufacture and delivery of the new item.
What is the carbon foot print and polution impact of that new 60Hp 4 stroke that I am suposed to change to.......I am sure that it would be much higher that the impact of keeping the current motor and running the small number of hours that I do.



cheers

[charlie09]

Hey oldboot, dont mention the carbon foot print for manufacture and delivery of new tech outboards.... just gonna give these idiots more ideas.

Here are some statistics (hope my calculations are right)

One litre of fuel (without oil mix) weighs 800 grams. Therefore 29.9 tones of fuel weighs 29 900 000 grams. If my calcs are correct then this means that my 9.9 hp merc uses 37 375 litres of fuel per year.

What a load of sh*t!! Do u wanna calculate how much in $$ this is, cause i dont.

Just goes to show the lack of science used in this Mr Fooks report. >:(>:(

Cheers

[PADDLES]

i haven't read the article so am relying on data in oldboot's post above, but i'd expect that a twin 225 conventional 2s setup at load would use around 50-60 litres an hour, this times 1000 hours gives 50-60 thousand litres plus maybe 1000 litres of oil per year. i don't know how efficient a conventional 2s is so can't multiply this by some factor to give a figure on the pollution.

whilst the numbers seem reasonable to me personally, i believe that the example is a little extreme given that most of us do not do anywhere near those hours and probably don't have a power requirement of 450hp either. this makes it a bit mis-leading to the general public as to the emissions made by "normal" recreational boaties like us that maybe have a 135hp motor and only do 50-100 hours a year.

as a bit of a side issue, is there any government requirement for commercial vessels to use new technology, low emission motors?

[PinHead]

"Pacific Adventurer leaked around 270,000 litres of oil."

and we are supposed to do the same EACH MONTH.

certainly a good comedy skit.

[bennyboy]

Now don't get me wrong, Garry is pretty keen on this subject and I certainly don't agree with everything he has to say.

The reason the figures are so high is when you burn somthing or change it from a liquid to a gas you end up with alot more than you started with, a hell of alot more. That's why your motor actually runs.

Outboards can't use catalytic converters which makes the figures of harmfull emissions huge.

[oldboot]

ya cant get more mass out that than you put in....

there in lies another disproportonate measure........we know waht we are maasuring going in.....and you bet they are not countig air......exactly what are they measuing going out....and how do they measure the effect on the environment.


This is another one of thise systematic BULL$H!&, things................if we quote the quantity of something is must be real........politicians do it by saying how much money they have spent or how many jobs they have created or whatever.
they are all trying to quantify something that can not be measured.....in many cases not even estimated.
Take the clasic example of the figures thet fisheries plucked out of the air on the smapper fishery.
Figures and quantities where there are none to be had.

YOU CANT MEASURE EVERYTHING>:(......get used to the idea.

We have seen quite a number of times various estimates of the "Cost of the oil spill".....there are no quantities of figures to measure the effects....all they can do is flash fugures out, money that they have suposedly spent.

cheers

[bennyboy]

Old Boot, how do you think your motor works
You get a tiny amount of petrol, give it spark, it changes to a gas and because there is a huge amount more gas than there was liquid your piston gets driven up and your motor works.
You get alot more out than what you put in

[oldboot]

Mate you can not get more mass out than you put in.

I think they call it the "first law of thermodynamics"

Mass and energy are preserved........the only way you can convert mass to energy and energy to mass is via a neucular process.............If you have a neucular process in your boat, I am sure the greenies want to know about that.

So we mostly burn things, which is a chemical process between two largley unstable items (items that have excess energy in their atomic structure) fuel and oxygen and we harness the byproduct, heat.

When we burn something the volume occupied by the output is many times greater input volume but no greater in mass than the inputs.... largely because we input fuel as solids and liquids
This expansion goes hand in hand with the heat and that is how most fuel engines work.

the only reliable way to measure "stuff" is by mass.

The energy content of fuel is proportional to its mass.

If you burn something......the two largest volume products are carbon dioxide and water.
Because we burn mostly hydrocarbons........the hydrogen combines with oxygen to produce water and the carbon combines with oxygen to create carbon dioxide.

The vast majority of the mass exiting the exhaust pipe will be carbon dioxide and water.......the remaining products will be products of inefficient combustion and introduced additives such as lubricants....most of which also burn.

now if you are going to count carbon dioxide as a pollutant........which is questionable... you may get more mass out than you put in in fuel..... even that is questionable.

but the actual "polutants" much of which will be ash (rude term) and unburnt hydrocarbons.

So explain to me how you get more polutants out than you put fuel in, measured by mass.

cheers

[oldboot]

Now if you are going to call carbon dioxide a polutant.....I sugest you shut up and stop breathing :P because one human would probably produce more carbon doixide in a year than most of our low hours outboard motors.


Now seriously.......all this trying to quantify stuff.....its BS.

We need to get back to the basics of being responsible with the environment.
Not wasting stuff, having a care what happens to our rubbish, planting trees, preventing errosion........and so on....OHOH and not having everybody expecting to live the lifestyle of a rich basta###.

We don't need to know about the hole in the O zone layer or the carbon economy or any number of acedemicaly designed enviromental disasters............we need to stop being vandalistic, careless, pricks.......especilay the very rich and the multinationals.

cheers

[Horse]

As far I know mass is a constant. To suggest that I have put tons of pollution through my boat is a joke. Garry Fooks has lost a lot of credibility with me over his wild statements

[FNQCairns]

From memory everyone except gary kept saying "oil" he let it ride to keep the con going through deliberate misconception and not correcting that he actually means only the gaseous portions of emission... his "pollution".

OIL: TCW3 is biodegradable, at the appropriate organism level they eat it up...literally, grossly low levels (like these in magnitude) are so low they simply do not even adversely alter the holding capacity for the environment they have been placed in they can actually increase it...a better term but tongue in cheek could be outboard organism fodder, believe it or not.

cheers fnq

[Black_Rat]

:o Fark me :o

I'll walk backwards from Brisbane to Burke nude if the deposits from 2 strokes outweighes the run-off that enters the bay and surrounding foreshores each year !

Damo

[Black_Rat]

Point is this is a media beat-up ::)

Time and time again it's the crap that runs off the main land that is the issue 8-)

IMHO just another stab at regulating our recreational fishing lifestyle. :(

Damo

[PinHead]

:o Fark me :o

I'll walk backwards from Brisbane to Burke nude if the deposits from 2 strokes outweighes the run-off that enters the bay and surrounding foreshores each year !

Damo


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

Not that Damo...too scary a thought to even consider.

[PADDLES]

it's way worse than that black rat, it's not a beat up, it's a distraction for the general public.

hot on the heels of our bay and it's tributaries getting another poor water quality report card (yes it just keeps going frikkin backwards) we have someone (gary fooks) coming forward and saying that 2s outboards are polluting like the pacific adventurer. now joe average public are going to add 2 and 2 together and blame the 2s outboards for the krappy water quality. this has effectively thrown a dummy to the people of queensland letting the government slip down the blind side to avoid a tackle on the real reasons behind the declining water quality.

personally i think that gary could not have timed his chats to the media any worse than this, it's effectively taken all focus off the real issue, which is runoff.

[TimiBoy]

I'm amazed Gary has done this. I thought he was better than that. If you took every recreational boat off the Bay little would change, because the pollution is mostly caused by other, larger and more difficult sources to control.

Gary, you have given our Government yet another opportunity to procrastinate on doing anything meaningful to fix the Bay. Your credibility among Recreational Anglers has taken a major hit, too.

Tim

[PinHead]

Gary says that State Govt figures give him his information..how the hell would ANYBODY know how much fuel is purchased and used in old technology outboards??????

270,000 l per month ????

that equates to 9000 litre/day??

at 50l/hr that is then 180 hours of solid boating of old technology 2 strokes each and every day of the month...I find that a bit hard to believe.

[charlie09]

Just a thought. We all saw the mess that the Pacific Adventurer made with the spill. If outboards are doing the same or worse, where the hell is it? I havent seen anything at all. Have you guys? :-/

[oldboot]

:o Fark me :o

I'll walk backwards from Brisbane to Burke nude if the deposits from 2 strokes outweighes the run-off that enters the bay and surrounding foreshores each year !

Damo

Now we are talking Damo,...........the sensible environment walk..........thousands uggly middle aged of fishers, 4WDers, and shooters walk nude Brisbane to Bourke over envirtonmental doshonesty and foolishness.....How's that effect your visual amenity;D;D



AND yes it is a beat up......................it fails to mention the key issue which is EFFECT.

Dumping thousands of litres of largely unrefined black sticky oil at once......compared to very small ammounts of largly biodegradable products very well dispersed and might I say well oxygenated.

There is another serously understated fact that (so called mineral) oil is organic in origin and given the right conditions there are agreat many little grreeblies that munch it up.....particularly if it is presented in well dispersed small quantities.

Again..........the vast majority of people have no grasp on what happens to the waste we produce.......there is an over obsession with oil as a polutant.........there are a great many other polutants that are considerably more persistent and intractable in the environment.........chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals.....and one of the worst......plastics.

I dare say that the houshold kitchen tidy has more and greater long term environmental impact than any outboard motor.

I have been taking note of how much plastic comes and goes from my house on a daily basis.

When I was young, a great majority of things were packed and wrapped in paper or cardboard.....an entirely renewable and biodegradable product.....plastic bags were a special and precious thing.....my mother used to was them and hang then on the line to dry.

Bit everything ( nearly) that comes home from the supermarket is wrapped inplastic.

And unless burned....most plastic remains persistent in the environment.

Oh and don't start about industrial packaging.....anybody who installs product for a living will know how much packaging has to be got rid of at the end of the day.

One of the most difficult to handle is styrofoam.

So lay off my poor old 2 stroke.

cheers

[FNQCairns]

The speedo tog and fishing rod walk for the environment...Can Not wait to see that on the state news!:)
cheers fnq

[TheRealAndy]

For your referecnce, typical chemicals found in petrol:

Toluene
Xylene
Pentane
Trimethylbenzenes
Benzene
Butane
Ethylbenzene
Heptane
Cyclohexane
n-Hexane
n-Octane
Ethanol
Naphthalene
Trimethylbenzene
Isopentane
Styrene
Methyl tert - butyl ether
Ethyl tert - butyl ether
Tertiary - Amyl methyl ether
Alkanes, Cycloalkanes, Alkenes, Aromatic hydrocarbons

Many of these are carconegens. Thats what you are putting through your boat. How much of this ends up in the water is anyones guess. I could not find any references to it. Perhaps a study has never been done. In any case, I would suggest that any by product from burning petrol and oil would be so greatly diluted in the water that it would be immeasurable. Run off from roads alone would create more pollution.

[bluefin59]

How is it that fools like this get to make statements that effect peoples recreational activities without any true scientific evidence it really is a shame we all may have to suffer because some goose gets some air time on the radio , i am starting to get really annoyed by these sudo experts ...matt

[PinHead]

ditto Matt..and he has published quite a lot of info on this matter..and some basic maths and logic will soon see the flaws in it.
He also uses the name of
"Eco Friendly Fishing Association (EFFA"

Anyone know anything about this group or is it a one man band ???

[FNQCairns]

For your referecnce, typical chemicals found in petrol:

Toluene
Xylene
Pentane
Trimethylbenzenes
Benzene
Butane
Ethylbenzene
Heptane
Cyclohexane
n-Hexane
n-Octane
Ethanol
Naphthalene
Trimethylbenzene
Isopentane
Styrene
Methyl tert - butyl ether
Ethyl tert - butyl ether
Tertiary - Amyl methyl ether
Alkanes, Cycloalkanes, Alkenes, Aromatic hydrocarbons

Many of these are carconegens. Thats what you are putting through your boat. How much of this ends up in the water is anyones guess. I could not find any references to it. Perhaps a study has never been done. In any case, I would suggest that any by product from burning petrol and oil would be so greatly diluted in the water that it would be immeasurable. Run off from roads alone would create more pollution.

Yeah like you say it goes through the engine and then is converted to what is typical emission components.

BTW I own a ULP camp stove and toast on that tastes pretty close to toast on a gas camp stove..it's the heavy metals in our emission's that can cause problems and one reason we have twc3 as our boating industry oil, it is not possible for TCW3 to contain heavy metals within it's additive pack...another typical example of modern real science that yet again is way ahead of the Zealots.

cheers fnq

[PinHead]

Yeah like you say it goes through the engine and then is converted to what is typical emission components.

BTW I own a ULP camp stove and toast on that tastes pretty close to toast on a gas camp stove..it's the heavy metals in our emission's that can cause problems and one reason we have twc3 as our boating industry oil, it is not possible for TCW3 to contain heavy metals within it's additive pack...another typical example of modern real science that yet again is way ahead of the Zealots.

cheers fnq

please explain

[FNQCairns]

For the oil to be certified as a marine 2 stroke oil (tcw3) one portion of the absolute requirements is it must not contain heavy metals.

This requirement is not expected on any other internal combustion oil, sump, gear etc that I am aware of.

cheers fnq

[PinHead]

thanks for that

[bluefin59]

I hear that channel 9 will be running a story about this very think on tonights news ,oh i hope i am wrong just what we need is more ilinformed garbage for the greenie tree hugging losers to throw up to prove how we are supposedly destroying the bay . ...matt

[reidy_g]

I'm still waiting for Garry Fooks to answer some simple questions from a debate on this very forum over two years ago. He was unable to answer these questions then, and I doubt he can now.

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?p=658149#post658149

What proportion of environmental damage is directly attributed to the usage of 2 stroke outboards? What specifically is the damage? What is the evidence to support the claim? Has the evidence stood up to statistical validation?

Without any such evidence to support this move, one can only conclude this sustained move to ban 2 stroke engines has no basis in science but rather is based on nothing more than politics and symbolism. I doubt there are any surprises about that.

Garry, still waiting for an answer to these simple questions.

[mudrunner]

I'm still waiting for Garry Fooks to answer some simple questions from a debate on this very forum over two years ago. He was unable to answer these questions then, and I doubt he can now.

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?p=658149#post658149

What proportion of environmental damage is directly attributed to the usage of 2 stroke outboards? What specifically is the damage? What is the evidence to support the claim? Has the evidence stood up to statistical validation?

Without any such evidence to support this move, one can only conclude this sustained move to ban 2 stroke engines has no basis in science is based on nothing more politics and symbolism. I doubt there are any surprises about that.

Garry, still waiting for an answer to these simple questions.


the only ones asked for the science are fishermen......and we arent government funded.

[charlie09]

Hey Reidy can u supply Mr Fooks email address and we can all bombard him with the same email as you.

Cheers

[mudrunner]

For your referecnce, typical chemicals found in petrol:

Toluene
Xylene
Pentane
Trimethylbenzenes
Benzene
Butane
Ethylbenzene
Heptane
Cyclohexane
n-Hexane
n-Octane
Ethanol
Naphthalene
Trimethylbenzene
Isopentane
Styrene
Methyl tert - butyl ether
Ethyl tert - butyl ether
Tertiary - Amyl methyl ether
Alkanes, Cycloalkanes, Alkenes, Aromatic hydrocarbons

Many of these are carconegens. Thats what you are putting through your boat. How much of this ends up in the water is anyones guess. I could not find any references to it. Perhaps a study has never been done. In any case, I would suggest that any by product from burning petrol and oil would be so greatly diluted in the water that it would be immeasurable. Run off from roads alone would create more pollution.

also, im not sure what you are trying to achieve with this post?

[reidy_g]

Hey Reidy can u supply Mr Fooks email address and we can all bombard him with the same email as you.

Cheers


g.fooks@uq.net.au (g.fooks@uq.net.au)

[Captain_Zero]

I heard part of the story on tonight's Nine News. I was helping my two year old daughter with her spaghetti bolognese at the time so did not hear all of the story but they did talk about a proposal to phase out two stroke motors to stop selling them but if you have one you can keep using it.

Any one else see it?

[oldboot]

If you look at most of the substances in the real andy's list.
You will not that almost all of them are some for of flamable fuel substance that occur as part of the product as refined or as additives to manipulate the burning properties.....

A great many things are carcoagens that isn't too much of a worry, most mineral oil products and hydrocarbons are carcenogens under some circumstances......hell overheated olive oil is carcenogenic ( the circumstances under which they are carconegenic is another matter).

Like most things we take for granted fuel is a chemical complex, that while it's performance may be specified and reasonably consistent it actual chemical make up varies.


All of those chemicals will be some sort of hydrocarbon, alcahol or similar related chemical.
all of them will burn entirely under the right circumstances, resulting in majority water and carbon dioxide emmission product.........I do not know sufficient to say what other products result.....but those products are small in comparison to the results of incomplete combustion.


Now it is those incomplete products that are the real polutants from all our engines.......unburnt fuel eliments that come out, as they went in, is an issue with two stroke, oxides of nitrogen is a major whipping boy and reasonably blamed for smog issues, and carbon monoxide also is a major component.

Now all of these things come out of every internal combustion engine on earth....all of them break down, react into something else or are dispersed, given half an opportunity

The ammount of the poluting output of all our recreational boating engines will be very minor in comparison to other sources.

When you consider that the average ocean going ship counts its fuel consumption in tonnes an hour......one ship passing thru the port of brisbane will consume more fuel and produce more emmissions that the entire moreton bay recreational fleet.

Now one of the biggest improvements we have made in the last century is removing lead from domestic fuel.....leaded fuel lasts better and arguably works better but it was the major source of lead in air and water.......removing lead from fuel IS a major step with a clear impact and benifit......banning old tech two stroke motors is not.

Othe heavy metals such as lead ( among other things), are used in oils as friction modifiers, viscosity modifiers, colourants and other stuff......All these additives drip onto our roads and wash into the sea.

As for the commercial sector and old technology 2 stroke.........most of the commercial operators will replace their engines with either new technology 2 stroke or 4 stroke motors on an economic basis.....simply the the cost of fuel.

I costed a 60 HP yamaha recently.....it would cost me only a few hundred more to buy a 4 stroke than a relativly moder old tech 2 stroke......I would easily save that in fuel in a reasonable time.....in a high usage motor the fuel saving alone would be a reason to replace a motor.

So its all a beat up for nothing.

Now the message her too is if you want to do something about your existing two stroke motor.....Upgrade the oil you use.... go to the best quality oil you can, compatable with your motor.

I can say first hand it can make an immediate improvement.....over a year ago, I cut my young brother inlaws 30 HP mercury over from the standard mercury 2 stroke oil to the premium 2 stroke oil...( less that a $2 a litre more) an immediate reduction in smoke and smell and the motor sounds and runs better........I only mention mercury to to show consistencey within a brand.

enough for now.

cheers

[shrunken pojie]

I just listened to the interview from ABC radio. 1 thing struck me as very odd. Gary Fooks said that his 50hp old technology 2 stroke emitted 4.7L of oil per hour. Now, based on the oil usage of my old technology 2 stroke 40hp I think he has this figure a little wrong. I have only had it for a short time have put through about 80L of fuel and at a ratio of 50:1 oil that is only 1.6L of oil for about 8 hours of travel time. I too would like to know where he is getting his figures from cause this stinks of scare mongering to me. Shame on you Gary Fooks for your misinformation!

[charlie09]

I watched the story on 9 news last night and they said that a 15 hp uses 3 litres of oil per hour. Something must be wrong with the 15 hp because its 3 times smaller than than Mr Fooks 50 hp which he claims uses 4 litres p/h. :-X

Also if the old tech outboards are so "bad" for the environment why does he still use one?>:(

Cause its all a load of bs thats why. !!

[Gary Fooks]

HOW MUCH POLLUTION?
My data / calculations goes on for pages – and took me weeks. But just so the numbers make more sense pull out your calculator and go through these rough, very rough estimates.

Lets assume for this simple example that the average outboard is 15hp. (that is the most popular size) Well a 15hp 3 star rated outboard puts out 200g of emissions per hour and a carby 2 stroke 3.6kg. difference 3.4 kg. But lets be conservative and call it 3kg per hour. These numbers are published on the web, the testing is done by the outboard manufacturer, and audited by the USA EPA. Repeat – these are the numbers that Mercury Yamaha , Tohatsu Evinrude etc admit to in writing.

They inlcude all hyrdrocarbons - thats fuel and oil as well as a mush smaller amount of NOx.

Now industry says the typical outboard does 100hrs per annum. Some less, some more. So lets be conservative and call that only 50 hours.

There are over 200,000 Registered boats in Qld. (source Qld Transport) And that doesn’t count the small unregistered ones. Now we know in 2005 that 55% of sales were 0 or 1 star. (Source OEDA/ DEWHA Report)

So lets be real conservative and say that just 100,000 boats do only 50 hours p.a and an extra 3kg of emissions – mostly Hydrocarbons
That’s 100,000 x 50 x 3 = 15,000,000 kg per annum that we wouldn’t have if only 3 star outboards were allowed. That’s 15,000 tonnes.

The Pacific Adventurer oil spill was 250 tonnes. So based on the above that’s 60 oil spills a year that comes from outboards - or more than one a week.

NOW my estimates were far more conservative, and detailed. So when I conclude ONE oil spill a month in Qld (not one a week) then I am being conservative.

By the way, my estimates were audited by business people and public servants when I entered the Healthy Waterways Awards in 2007


POLITICS
For those of you who think I am some closet greenie, consider this question.

Think for a minute – why do you think the Green Party has zero interest in outboard emissions regulations? None at all?

Also – when I was on Channel nine especially - they cut out a lot of my explanation – making it more sensational and less accurate.

[royslaven]

All I can say is Mr Fooks will be on my xmas card list next to Mr Simon Ballsout,NOT
cheers, Royslaven.

[Gary Fooks]

Mr Royslaven,
Thank you for your considered opinion of the analysis and facts presented. And of course your deeply considered advice.

Gary

[oldboot]

The comparison between a large scale oil spill and the emissions of any motor remain totaly unrelated and irrelivent to each other.

This is not meaningfull reasearch...this is simply gathering a few partly related statistics and banging them together.

This sort of comparison will lead to incorrect and erronoious conclusions being drawn.

It is this sort of "popular science" that has resulted in the large amounts of hokus pokus environment polocy we see today.

Now you talk about 200g compared to 3.6Kg.. of emmissions.....even that comparison is not valid because the types and content of those emmissions are not specified......as soon as we start including gasseous products, we get further and further seperated in validity.
Now these figures at what state of throttle and load are they taken.

Now lets talk a real example.....my young brotherinlaws boat powered by an old technology 2 stroke 30 HP mercury motor, consumes about 5 litres of fuel an hour ( the way I drive it, we don't all go everywhere heavily loaded at WOT)......at worst it runs about 20:1 fuel oil muxture.
This is a motor twice the 15Hp example.....total fuel and oil input would be under 5KG.
So even if we say the two stroke only burns 66% of its fuel and oil....there is no way we can get 3Kg of hydrocarbons out the spout.........and even then if only 50% of the two stroke oil burned that would work out to less than 100g of oily content.

Now all of this "output" is warmed in the exhaust and vigourlusly agitated and combined with air and water in the boats wake that would accelerate its breakdown and dispersal.

Sorry mate no matter how you look at your figures they do not stack up in reality.

Ok we say the word "hydrocarbons", even a comparison of that alone is questionalble.....A very high portion of hydrocarbons emmited from 2 stroke outboard motors would be highly volitile and would evaporate, be absorbed or reacted.....an incredibly small amount would be oily product which as we have seen can easily be biodegradable TCW3 spec two stroke oil.

To try and compare that with black, sticky fuel oil is rediculous to say the least

Now we all know that the governments figures on boat usage can not be trusted.....from experience we know that it is reasonable to say a great many registered boats get used less than 4 times a year for less than 2 hours run time per outing....we all know someone who hasnt had their boat in the water for several months or over a year.

My mate Tony.. 18 foot cruse craft 115 johnson..owned 7 years.....had it in the water less than 10 times.
My mate Neil....16 fott alloy woth a 60hp evenrude went fishing with him the easter before last......boat hasn't moved since.
My mate George plywood boat his father built don't know the motor, still registered hasn't been started in 5 years.
My young brotherinlaws boat....hadn't been started for 3 years till I took it in hand..registered all, that time.
My mate steve 12 foot tinny, 15Hp evenrude..still registered.. not started in 5 years.

It would entirely reasonable to find that a very large portion ( probaly the majority) of the boats in use do less than 20 hours a year

Any estimate on recreational boat usage is an poorly informed estimate at best at worst it is a guess.... sorry at worst it is a figure selected to achieve an outcome.

The government has absolutly no means of assertaining the level of boat usage with any sort of meaningfull accuracy.

Sorry having your figures audited by business people or public servents is no recomendation of credibility........unless these prople have the time and understanding to varify the source information all they are doing is checking you have added up the figures you provide.

As for winning an award......sorry mate..... I have a pretty heavy exposure to the operation of business and entertainment awards.......In my view having one of those awards is no reliable reference for anything............The best having one of these awards means is that you managed to convince the majority judges your presentation was better ( in their view) than someone else who entered....mostly a limited field.....At worst you mates with the judges or your view is favoured by the orginisation sponsoring the awards..

Mate having you story edited by a media outlet means nothing.....they are not interested in the facts either way, they want a story of a specific length usulay in multiples of 3.5 minutes and to appeal to a viewer profile..

Sorry mate but you model does not stand up.....you argument is greatly flawed in its proportion and relivency..... and one inaccuracy, compounds upon another to create a mathematcal model that is so inaccurate to be unusable.

Now don't get me wrong.......I am all for replacing old technology two strokes with newer cleaner motors...... but the argument as presented is unhelpfull and poorly concieved.

Oh by the way......what is the environmental impact of the manufacturing, transport and fitting of a new engine.

If two strokes are banned..who is going to compensate me for replacing my existing motor......That would cost me $10 000.

OH by the way have you reeplaced yours and baught that new ETEC that was on your shopping list?

cheers

[trueblue]

Also – when I was on Channel nine especially - they cut out a lot of my explanation – making it more sensational and less accurate.


and you thought they wouldn't do that......... very foolish assumption

[PinHead]

so the exhaust emissions are identical in chemical compostion to the oil spilt by the Pacific Adventurer?

If they are not identical then any comparisons are merely farcical and sensationalist.

[royslaven]

Mr Royslaven,
Thank you for your considered opinion of the analysis and facts presented. And of course your deeply considered advice.

Gary
your welcomehttp://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/images/icons/icon7.gif

[PinHead]

Mr Royslaven,
Thank you for your considered opinion of the analysis and facts presented. And of course your deeply considered advice.

Gary

facts? there is a lot of assuming and estimating in there..just seems like a lot of guesswork to me.

[mudrunner]

why hasnt anyone asked.....'gary....' about the mud churn, tubidity, and pollution of the big ships, ferries and barges of stradbroke ferries in moreton bay...?

why do you let these......'green people' avoid it?

go on. ask him. gary, tell us. whats your opinion on shorter barge routes???????????????

he wont answer. because he wants to attack. what im suggesting, he must defend!!!!!!

come on gary. call my bluff!!!!

.

[castlemaine]

Think for a minute – why do you think the Green Party has zero interest in outboard emissions regulations? None at all?



Unfortunately Gary, the Green Party and their fringe groups will have an interest now.:-/ As fishos we always seem to be on the defensive side ... defending extrapolated figures that put us in bad light.:-[

[mudrunner]

FFS!!!!!!!. FOOKS AND BALTAIS ARE TERRORFIED OF THE STRADEBROKE FERRY ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!!! SHOVE IT DOWN THEIR THROATS!!!!!!!!!!


HERE...LOOK!!!!!


simon baltais supports an investigation into straddie ferry mud churn in moreton bay!
In an environmental coup for redland bay fishos. High profile green, simon baltais supports an investigation into stradbroke ferries and barges mud churn in moreton bay!

it has been widely observed that because of the shallow water level of moreton bay, the big ships of stradbroke ferries are creating an environmental nightmare, due to the ammount of mud, pollution, and terbidity they are infecting the bay with.

in an email i have from simon, he admits that there is a problem and tests need to be done. What amazes me is that with all the resources he has at hand, the political influence, and the friendly media at his disposal, he has never taken steps to see tests implimented himself, nor has he suggested that these tests be carried out by official sources.

it seems simon would prefer to slow the process of protecting moreton bay, by leaving it to private interests to do the testing. How many animals will die, waiting for simon to say? How much of the environment will suffer, waiting for simon to act?

simon says,.. In the testing....."I’m glad someone is doing water quality testing, should helpful if done correctly..."

which, as i have said, he admits there is a problem and the water needs to be tested.

wow!!! Sea grass is dying, turtles, dugongs, fish 'road kill', the water is getting more turbid, and all these things are happening....;

*turbid water reflects light... (sea grass)
*turbid water heats up more readily ....(the bay is shallow, and arent the oceans already warming)
*silt enters crevices where creatures wouldusually live. ...(destrys habitat)
*suspended particles can clog fish gills and introduce disease....

*possibly 10,000km of barge and ferry kms per week in the smb.
*10,000 km of fuel pollution.
*10,000 km of mud churn
*10,000 km of heavy metal spread
*habitat destruction due to turbidity
*warming of the bay due to turbidity
*'road kill' of marine life. Including turtles, dugongs, fish etc.
*increased small boat traffic for transport to mainland. (cheaper alternative to ferry charges)
*10,000 km of wave damage per week of big ships in shallow bay.


and simon is "glad someone is doing water quality testing..."


how can the environment survive when people like simon are in charge?

[PADDLES]

this is just getting ridiculous.

firstly gary puts out some real numbers (as provided by the manufacturers) and gets crucified. admitedly, the timing was dreadful with the water quality report card issue. but this is a real issue guys and boat engine emissions will shape the future of boating in our bay, it is NOT going to go away. and as for him not knowing that channel 9 would edit his interview, what does the poor guy do? do you flatly refuse an interview and let them completely make stuff up and think you've got something to hide?

and now mudrunner, someone is at least launching an investigation into your claims with the churned up water, and so they should if what you are saying is the case. but they're doing what you wanted and you're still attacking them, what gives, brother????

[TimiBoy]

Paddles, you're kinda right. Kinda.

The really huge issue here that has got everyone's back up is that Gary has connected two just about unrelated issues in order to emotionalise the debate.

The oil spill is not particularly relevant to outboard usage.

The numbers are from the Government, and we've been going nuts for ages about how much crap Government numbers are.

Gary has used a tactic which I for one have foresworn. It has always been the province of the WWF, Greenpeace, PEW, Al Gore and the like to emotionalise. It has always been something we (well a lot of us anyway) have railed against. So it is not OK for someone supposedly on our side to start using it.

On the other issue, congrats to Mudrunner for getting Dear old Simon to say something positive. I would caution this way. What Simon does and says is always on Simon's behalf. Not anyone elses. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could comfortably spit out a rat.

Cheers,

Tim

[PADDLES]

good points timi, the boating pollution comparison is definitely sensationalised somewhat, but it's there nonetheless and isn't going away.

i at least think we should give simon baltais a go with this. agreed, what politicians say and then do are usually two totally different things (and i generally agree on the spitting rat theory), but when they say and don't do, that's when the media usually have a field day on them. we should save the ammo for when he doesn't deliver.

[Damned67]

While it's a large undertaking, could the use of 2 strokes in SEQ be better estimated by the sales of 'marine' 2 stroke oil?
How many different oil distributors are there? A few.
We don't need individual point-of-sales numbers, just how much the distributors are moving. That'll give a much better estimate (but no where near perfect).

I appreciate Mr Fook's concern, and the fact, with the numbers that he's used for his calculations, that he was 'conservative'.... but it seems that we could quite easily remove a lot of the 'guesstimations'.

[oldboot]

Sorry but the figures that Mr Fooks produced can not be considered conservative at all......the string of figures and the whole premiss behind his discussion simply does not stand up.

The errors inherant in much of the "data" make those figures so unreliable as to be useless for anything but passing amusement.

There is no relationship between two stroke use and major oil spills they are two completely different issues that can not be compared...

You may as well compre fat content in the parliment house chips and and an oil spill.

There is no practical way of measuing or even reliably estimating recreational power boat usage.
Recreational powerboats require no log books or reporting on usage, and generaly have no hour meter or odometer.

If boat ramp surveys were taken, the figures would grossly be weighted to the regular and high hours usage and larger boat end of the spectrum in a way that could not be reliably predicted or estimated.

The emmission figures quoted by the manufacturers are measured in a laboratory and designed to give an indication of the motors performance under specified conditions in an effort to quantify something that is very variable for the purpose of regulation and sale.

These figures can not be used as a reliable indication of environmental impact because we can not reliably predict how motors are used in reality.

Yes doing some sort of audit on two stroke fuel consumption, at point of purchase is about as close as you would get.
But even then you will find a great number of variable factors.....different types of two stroke oil, different types of motors, the variability of performance, consumption and emmission of different oils used in a given motor .....

and especilay different levels of consumption of two stroke oil, an old "Seagull" motor mixes at 10 to 1....most reasonably recent motors ( last 20 years) mix at less than 20 to 1.....almost all of the non pre mix motors change their mix rate with RPM and may be as low as 60 to 1.
As for premix.....manufacturers recommendations vary and people argue about the mix ratio all the time.

The leaner the mix the lower proportion of oil input that will be emitted.

So there may be as much as a 6 to 1 ratio of error in the emmission figures derived from oil sold.
And that does not account for wastage or use of marine two stroke outside the marine market.

Again there is no question most of us would prefeer to use a new technology, cleaner and more economical motor.

But trying to justify anything espeilay some sort of ban on the basis of a pile of figures with a very high error rate... amd comparing that to a completly unrelated event, is both ludicris and intelectulay dishonest.

Then we have to look at evidence...........we do not see any evidence that Two stroke motors are having any sort of similar effect to a major oil spill.

It simply is not reasonable or sensible.

Thare are on the other hand, plainly visable and obvious impacts of ither things such as mud churn, siltation and turbidity, chemical run off from the land, hard rubbish such as plastic bags and such running off from the land and being thrown overboard.

If you want to ban something.....ban the plastic bait bag.

cheers

[Damned67]

Oldboot,
I agree completely, ban plastic bags... and for that matter, all the excess packaging that comes with EVERYTHING!

I do need to clarify what I meant by 'conservative'....basically, I meant 'conservative' in Fooks eyes when relating to his given calculations:

"Now industry says the typical outboard does 100hrs per annum. Some less, some more. So lets be conservative and call that only 50 hours.

There are over 200,000 Registered boats in Qld. (source Qld Transport) And that doesn’t count the small unregistered ones. Now we know in 2005 that 55% of sales were 0 or 1 star. (Source OEDA/ DEWHA Report)

So lets be real conservative and say that just 100,000 boats do only 50 hours p.a and an extra 3kg of emissions – mostly Hydrocarbons
That’s 100,000 x 50 x 3 = 15,000,000 kg per annum that we wouldn’t have if only 3 star outboards were allowed. That’s 15,000 tonnes.

The Pacific Adventurer oil spill was 250 tonnes. So based on the above that’s 60 oil spills a year that comes from outboards - or more than one a week.

NOW my estimates were far more conservative, and detailed. So when I conclude ONE oil spill a month in Qld (not one a week) then I am being conservative."

I certainly don't think any of his numbers are 'conservative' in my own eyes.
For example, no one that I know (personally) uses their boats as much as I use mine. I average at least once a week, and according to my GPS log, I'd be lucky to make 100hrs a year of actual running time. My actual running time is typically much less than 1hr per trip.
I merely meant that he could have sensationalised his figures much more.

[FNQCairns]

Years ago but not that long ago! the average was an estimated 30h per year, 50 was for the high users and 100 was way way up there for recreational use...I don't expect too much to have changed...the hulls are no better, the hp effectively the same for each hull. It could have even gotten even less....considering the hurdles all governess has put on the common bloke just to make the time, ends meet or fullfill all expected requirements, in comparison anyway.

He does though choose a 15hp engine and the smaller engines are known to be hour hungry for age in comparison to the bigger ones for the obvious reason it can easily take twice as long to travel the same distance.

cheers fnq

[Sandman]

It amazes me how much focus is placed on boaties fisho's as being the polluters as for the figures what a crock of sh*t !!! Oldboot is on the money about oil run off etc even my klandrover wouldnt leak that much oil in a year :) But it leaks on the occassion as Landies do and of course that would hit the roads i drive etc, i have owned a number of clasic cars most have had oil leaks - no talk of outlawing them is there . There is more pollution caused to watrerways from machinary and plants away from the water than on the water!!
Yep 2 strokes etc may push out oil etc but not what Fooks has quoted , think he has been sniffing the fuel!!!

[JIMBO99]

JIMBO99 I have never seen a black floating oil mass behind my 40hp two stroke Yamaha such as was spilled from the Pacific Adventurer. and I have never heard such rubbish as these greenies spout regarding two stroke motors. To start with what happens to the oil from an oil change in a four stroke outboard ? put in a plastic bottle and dumped somewhere?? Oils is oils mate unfortunately we live in an oil powered world. Most of us use our outboards about once every two to three weeks take a fair while to use 270,000 tons of heavy black oil at that rate mate. Love Jimbo.

[Hornblower]

Hi fellow Ausfish lovers,

I heard Gary Fooks interviewed and I have some questions about this issue, the answers to which, I think, would put all this in perspective:

1) Who paid/funded Mr Fooks to do this research?

2) What agenda was there with the conducting of this research by the facilitaors of it?

3) What benchmark figures did he use for working out his figures and where did he get the stats from (We all know that a large percentage of recreational boats of only get used half a dozen times/year or less).

Call me suspicious, but I see an emerging pattern here:

1) The Federal Govt's emerging ETS debacle which is going to rape this nation of its wealth and trading rights;
2) The fact that both federal and state govts have huge debts to pay which are probably going to be a legacy for our grandchildren - )could there be more taxes as well as regulatory restrictions for us fishos??)
3) The state Govt wanting downplay its bungling of the Pacific Adventurer incident (what better way than having some pencild!ck saying us fishos are doing things on the same scale every month)

Unfortunately I think it boils down to money - I can see another tax/levy placed on us to pay for our wayward ways with more regulation for us on the immediate horizon. Its a wonder we aren't being blamed for the low rainfall as well.

Cheers,

Horny

[oldboot]

Just raising an old thread from the dead.

this comparison of modern biodegradable two stroke with any other oil is just a crock.

I yanked the motor off the back of the boat a while ago.....and what with the two stroke oil and hydraulic steering pipes and such...some oil got spilled... bothe two stroke and hydraulic

I soaked up most of it with my spill kit........bucket of sand & diatomite.

but some was still on the cement apron of my shed.......so it starts raining and water comes spilling out of the bungs of the boat onto the remaining oil spill..

well it was obviouis which was which...two stroke green and hydraulic normal oil colour.

the two stroke started to break up in front of my eyes where the light hydraulic oil maintained its firm grip on the concrete.

When I get some time I'll do a test with tcw3 two stroke in a bottle of water and see what happens compared to conventional oil.

cheers

[Daisy Burnett]

Really this guy should stop dramatising the matter. Yes a boat with a motor any motor is going to put some waste into the sea. But really 270,000 lt of straight fuel oil get a grip. You want to see real pollution go to the countries that still dump their garbage out to sea by the 100 tonne load. Really boaties are small potatoes compared to some countries out there. But wait of course..... Boaties dont have a real voice to complain so lets pick on them they cant fight back. Pick on a major country @#$! no they might complain and I could get in trouble. This guy cam bite me.

Love
Daisy>:(