Conference vicki::boats

    
      Sounds like a really unbiased book.
    
    
    					Kenny

re                <<< Note 1102.0 by MASTR::BERENS "Alan Berens" >>>
>                            -< powerboat pollution >-

	Somehow these numbers just seem  "off"

	....."orders of magnitude.."  stuff, etc.    Somehow I doubt 
that the 4 cycle engines derived from car/truck/bus engines are 50 or 
more times "dirtier" than their catalyst equipped counterparts.  The 
EPA just doesn't seem to have had that much effect ( 50 - 70 times) 
since the late 60's.   Then there are the sheer QUANTITIES of cars, 
trucks and busses (buses ?) and the fact that almost all of them are 
run EVERY DAY vs the few hours of recreational use on one or two days 
by power boat owners.

	Two strokes ?   Dunno, though subjectively they seem "cleaner" 
than they used to - I KNOW, can't go by the smoke (-:

	Bahh !  The whole pleasure industry pollutes, production of 
goods for pleasurable consumption pollutes  { mostly (-: }  

	What to do ??   Lets just tax it some more ?  right ?


	Reg

    What to do?
    
    Ban powerboats on one in twenty lakes for a dozen years, and then monitor
    the health of the lake. This assumes a ban on all additional
    development around the lake, the replacement of all septic systems
    with sewer systems running terciary treatment, the removal of all
    lakeside lawns (replaced by native shrubbery and trees), and similar
    treatment of all lake tributaries.
    
    Just an idea....
    
    Tell the truth, the point made in the base note is not new. The excuse
    the industry has been making in the main for the last few years, as
    nearly as I can tell, is that it is "surface water rather than ground
    water," so it's there for the boater's pleasure rather than for any
    other reason, and the fuel evaporates pretty quickly from the surface
    anyway.
    
    Of course, the *kind* of petroleum products being spilled are much more
    highly refined than what the Valdez dumped, so a real comparison is
    really not much more than alarmist. It is comparing *volumes* of spill,
    which may be accurate, but the image the Valdez invokes is more than a
    specific volume of petroleum.
    
    John H-C

re .0:

I have a friend who has a fairly large powerboat. He easily uses 60
gallons of gasoline per weekend of cruising. The emission controls on
automobile engines reduces emissions by about 90%. Thus, 60 gallons of
gasoline burned in a no-emissions-controls engine would be the
equivalent of burning about 600 gallons in an emission-controlled
engine. The car I drive daily averages 30 miles per gallon, so 600 
gallons would let me drive about 18000 miles. I drive about 12000 miles 
per year. Thus, in one weekend of boating, my friend dumps as much 
pollution into the environment as I do in a year and a half of driving.

Maybe it is time for emission controls on marine engines.

    Lets ration gas. You get 10 gallons of fuel a week, use it for your 
    boat, car, heat your house, lights ECT.  you take the pick. That will 
    work.

    Sewer systems are a joke. A good septic with a leaching field is
    more environmental safe. Why? Because I said so! Any questions,
    go visit Deer Island.

    Rich

    re: .5
    
    There is no comparison between a septic system and a sewer system
    running tertiary treatment. A septic system near a lake, unless it is
    properly designed and maintained (and most aren't) ends up using the
    lake as the leach field.
    
    Deer Island doesn't even do complete secondary treatment of the sewage,
    so it's a poor example of the effectiveness of a sewer system.
    
    John H-C

Interesting book. Did the EPA sponsor it :-)

My concern with pollution is with natures ability to digest it. Certainly
the Valdez is an example of what nature cannot cope with. 

My observation is that powerboats, esspecially 2 cycle engines, have gotten
significantly more fuel efficient over the last 20-30 years. Also,
there are bacteria in the waters that eat what little petroleum product
ends up in the water.

I can't speak much for exaust fumes eccept to say that if there has
been significant improvement in fuel economy I would think that would translate
into less pollution per gallon.

At any rate, with the only exception being the docking and fueling areas
I never see any accumulation of pollution on that lakes which tells me
that nature is copping just fine with the situation.

I recall reading, several years ago, that the benifits of the airation of the 
water outweighed any damage done by the petroleum residues left by the 
engines. This was particularly true in smaller lakes with many cottages
and septic systems leaking the sewage into the lake. The airation provided
the bacteria with the catalyst they needed to digest the sewage at a faster rate.

Doug.

    Not that I want to rat hole this into septic vs sewer, but....

    John,, are you saying that a properly maintained and designed (what I
    meant by "good") is more harmful than sewer systems such as the Upper
    Blackstone ect.? I find this hard to believe. From the simple logic of
    dumping treated sewerage into streams is worse than not dumping
    ANYTHING??? What part of the big equation am I missing?

    Now back to the rationing, it was a joke. I am sure MOST people
    conserve as best they can as a matter of economics. People with money
    are going to get what they want when they want it. Thats how it works.

    Back to powerboat pollution. I have a 1980 GMC pickup with a totally
    non-emission controlled engine in it. Yes, the factory engine was
    replaced. It is a 454 with a 850CFM Holly carb, exhaust headers, etc.
    Not even a PCV valve. I would hope you agree that this should be at
    least as bad as a boat engine. It burns regular leaded gas as well.
    
    It passes the emission comtrol test here in Washington just fine. They
    actually measure the pollutants coming out your exhaust pipes and print
    out all the data. My truck is way below allowable limits. So, where is
    the need for emission controls on boat engines???????
    

    
      I believe a ordinary *private* septic system AWAY from any body of
    water, is far more friendly to the environment than municipal sewage
    treatment.
    				Kenny

re .9:

If all engines burned as cleanly as your truck engine, there would be no 
need for pollution controls on automobile engines, either, right? I'm 
sure the automobile manufacturers have spent billions on pollution 
controls even though they really didn't have to.

:-)

    
    First off, i think the book referenced here is plain BUNK.
    
    As referenced here in this notesfile it contains no hard data.
    
    Alan, your comment about your friend.  You have no hard data,
    
    nor do you mention it.    
    
    Pollution controls on a marine engine could prove fatal.
    
    Imagine coming home in sea conditions and the 02 sensor 
    
    dies.  Boats need to be as reliable as possible.
    
    The other underlying issue seems to be here, its the power vs.
    
    sail argument.
    
    If this is true Alan take it elsewhere.
    
    There is no insult taken or given.
    
    JIm

    
      The emissions controls testing done in gas station is a joke. What
    counts is pollutants per mile. I'm sure boats pollute just as much as
    car did 15 or more years ago. 
    
      Of course Alan, 60 gallons in one weekend is much higher than
    average on a per boat basis. And so is 30 MPG higher than US average 
    on a per car (ALL cars) basis.
    
    				Kenny

    I think you're all wrong.  The book prolly makes some valid points, and
    prolly overstates some of the statistics.  It is theoretically possible
    to make a car engine that can REDUCE air pollution (when run in heavily 
    polluted areas).  There is no reason why good fuel injection can't be
    engineered for marine use that would be reliable, safe and economical.
    
    The 2 stroke/4 stroke issue has been dealt with in the motorcycle world
    already.  Yamaha sold (for a short time) a 2 stroke that met the
    emissions standards.  It can be done; the current o/b manufacturers
    don't do it.  There is no reason (gov't regs) to.  
    
    Jim, an O2 sensor should not totally disable an engine; the EFI should
    have a "limp home" mode.  Or you could carry a spare; after all, with
    EFI you won't need spare spark plugs.
    
    Well designed, maintained, and located sewer and septic systems will 
    both process sewage correctly; what's the issue?  
    
    What's with you guys and these Holy Wars?
    
    Carl

    You guys are way off base on rejecting any modernization of marine
    engines (EFI, pollution controls, electronic ignition) on the basis 
    that it makes them less reliable.   I believe it is a statistically
    provable fact that current automobile engines are in fact more reliable
    than 20 years ago.  It is true that when they started increasing gas
    mileage and decreasing pollution that there was a redesign period to
    get through (anybody remember air injection pumps & other kludges?),
    but that period is behind us.   Why is this not a win-win situation?
    You put modern auto engines into boats - less pollution, better
    economy, same or better reliability.
    
    If American marine engine mfgrs don't get their act together, likely
    the government will get involved, which we don't need.  The head of the
    Yamaha outboard division in Japan supposedly has a complete contingency
    plan together to re-engineer the entire line as 4-strokes at such time
    as someone makes 2-cycle engines illegal.
    
    All the American marine engine manafacturers are going to do is hand
    their business over to the Japanese just as the auto industry did in
    the 1960's.
    
    The non-polluting 454 truck engine story sounds like the same camp that
    insisted in 1967 that dropping the speed limit to 55 decreased their
    gas mileage - maybe true in isolated cases, but hardly statistically
    supportable. 
    
    And finally, Alan's presense in this file is much appeciated as his
    marine knowledge extends far beyond sailing; however, I also take it as
    an implicit acknowledgement that sailing craft of any import are in
    fact powerboats (in particular when they want to actually go somewhere
    :-)
    

    
    re: .14
    
    Carl, i dont' think you understand what i was pointing out.
    
    First off i have electronic ignition in a pair of chryslers
    blocks. so far so good.
    
    Secondly when you have sea conditions, its no time to go into
    an engine room to change a part. i used the 02 sensor as an
    example.
    
    I dont object to a cleaner enviornment, but so far what i have
    seen in automobiles is not good. You can stop your car and walk
    on dry stable land.  You don't have that luxury in a boat,
    especilly when you have sea conditions..
    
    
    Sorry if anyone disagrees, (and you will) but predictable reliability
    is the key in any boat.
    
    So far i ain;t impressed with auto type pollution controls.
    
    Got any better ideas..
    
    JIm 
    
    
    

    Well, you probably won't be convinced but it would appear that the
    potential decreased reliability from the complexity (number of parts &
    failure modes) of modern pollution controls have been more than offset
    by increased reliability in carburation and ignition systems, coupled
    with generally higher QA & better manufactuing methodology (thank the
    Japanese for forcing the latter).
    
    It has in fact become highly unusual for a well-maintained modern auto
    engine to "just quit".  Fuel supply, battery, cooling and non-engine
    components (transmission, steering, wheel bearings, etc) account for
    the vast majority of dead-in-the-water cars).
    
    I didn't like the early 70s either when the engines I knew and loved 
    had all kinds of crap put on them that forced me to take them to other
    people to fix, but those days are past.  The whole engine has been
    designed as a system instead of add-on kludges, and while I still can't
    fix it, it breaks less and requires less maintenance so I'll take the
    tradeoff.
    

    
    OK, i'll be the bad guy,
    
    today you can pretty much fix whats needs to and get home.
    
    with the high rel. auto you can't even figure out whats wrong.
    
    so now what, your out there in 5 to 6 ft. seas and the 
    
    giggle to the electornic ignition is intermittent,
    
    now what,  call AAA.
    
    getting the message.
    
    I agree for the most part that todays autos are more reliable,
    
    however, you can't fix them, and good chance if your somewhere
    
    other than at the authorized dealer, no one else will be able
    
    to.  so go ahead, keep pushing the button, you'll only detonate
    
    yourself.
    
    
    
Mothehood and apple pie sound great, but when your stuck out there
    
JIm
    

    I agree you can't fix 'em yourself.   But this is a game of
    probabilities we are all playing.  We would not go to sea if we
    required the probability of a disaster to be zero.  And my point
    is the probability of a modern engine failing is lower, and I don't buy
    your assertion that you can compensate for that by being more likely
    to fix what's broken in the case of a truck engine.   You aren't going
    to be able to diagnose and fix an ignition system problem in 6' seas
    even if you carry all the spare parts.   Try replacing and adjusting
    points in a pitching boat.

re .15:

Thank you for the compliment. Yes, of course most sailboats larger than
perhaps 15' or so have auxiliary engines. I will admit to owning a 25 hp
diesel (which would no doubt be happier if I ran it longer and more
often). But one minor point: When serious passage making, real sailors
sail. Our most economical passage was about 180 miles using less than
0.1 gallon of diesel, and we made the 700 mile passage from Bermuda to
Boston using only about 10 gallons. We use about 0.5 gallon per hour at
normal cruising speed. 

re engine reliability:

Gee, I can't resist. When you have a totally independent alternative to 
engine power, you don't have to worry particularly about whether or not 
your engine runs. Heck, 6' seas and 25 knot winds is quite delightful
summer sailing weather. 

:-)

Are we worried about water pollution, air pollution, or both?

If water, is there any evidence that PB's have any significant impact on it?

If air, are there any published numbers for average PPM?

A more detailed analysis would be helpful ...

Doug.

    You lit off a holy war here Alan. Its interesting though.
    
    I don't know how typical that boat is that burns 60 gals of fuel per
    weekend... but I couldn't afford it.
    
    I burn about 25 to 30 gallons of fuel per boating SEASON with my 25
    HP 2 STROKE Johnson. Yes, a 4 stroke would pollute less.
    
    Alan there is 'something' wrong with that example you used comparing
    your driving miles vs the 60 gal per weekend boater.  Your assuming
    that ALL boaters burn 60 gals per weekend for one thing.  I think you
    would have too look at the Nationwide average for ALL boaters to get a
    meaningful idea of the impact boaters have vs. automobiles. 
    
    Statististics can be tricky.... one can 'prove' anything if you juggle
    the numbers right and take biased samples.
    
    IF the example about the tanker full of fuel every two days being
    required to fullfill the selfish boaters fuel needs is true then I
    think one needs to put it in perspective:  How much fuel does the
    motoring public waste on unneeded auto trips? How about the private
    aviation industry?
    
    We can go down a rathole here quickly by singling out individual 
    polluter/waster groups.
    
    Jeff

re .22:

Sure, statistics are more or less valid depending on how they're used.
Even without statistics and specific numbers, I think it is clear,
beyond dispute, that marine engines with no pollution emission controls
burn rather a lot of hydrocarbon fuel every year. This is undoubtedly
causing air and water pollution. Whether or not this or that other
activity is or is not causing pollution is irrelevant. 

Whatever one thinks of our government in general and the EPA in 
particular, the government does attempt to control pollution. Sometimes 
it is effective, sometimes not. Sometimes it goes after rather minor
sources of pollution, sometimes it goes after major sources. Eventually,
it will get around to boat engines, either directly through emission 
controls or indirectly through taxes and higher fuel prices. 

    This is a series of comments on all the replies here.
    
    You guys are wimps.   If you're all so concerned with the reliability
    of your marine engines, then they should all be diesels.   Today's
    engines are not difficult to diagnose either, but no one wants to take the
    time to learn how they work to be able to fix a problem.  I'd take
    an electronic ignition over points any day and it's much easier
    replacing the ignition module then it is points in rough seas.  A
    properly designed system with some redundant features will surely be
    as reliable.
    
    The truck that passes emissions without any pollution controls doesn't
    mean a thing.  Most emissions tests are looking for big problems.  Every
    car will pass local emissions without a catalyst as catalysts reach
    there maximum efficiency at high flow rates.  Any engine pollutes,
    period!   It's just a matter of how much.
    
    
    As far as being able to get out of a stranded car and being on safe 
    cause you are on land, try doing this in Harlem or LA.
    
    All septic systems eventually leach some sort of contaminant into the
    ground water.  If it's near a lake it will probably end up in the lake.
    A properly designed and maintained waste sewage treatment facility in
    combination with natures ability to consume these nutrients is the best
    way to treat sewage.
    
    Yes,it is true that the aeration affects of modern boats helps most
    lakes deal with pollution.
    
    4 stroke outboards or a modern approach to 2-cycle engines will be
    the norm in 5 years.
    
    Fuel injection is the best way to control the fuel going into the 
    engine for maximum efficiency.
    
    Dale

    Alan, if we are discussing boat engine pollution then we are discussing
    boat engine pollution whether there are other sources or not.  I
    understand that point.  The IMPLICATION was that since boat engines
    pollute that anyone who runs a powerboat is a 'polluter'.  You are
    seeing in part an emotional reaction to that from those in this string:
    "Hey were not the ONLY ones polluting".
    
    I agree that a properly maintained modern engine with fuel injection
    and electronic ignition is as reliable as an older marine engine.  The
    point about replaceing a module on a heaving boat rather than ignition
    points is well taken, I agree with that point.
    
    The diesel/gas engine debate is an on-going endless debate with people
    on both sides citing examples of why their preferred power source is
    more reliable.
    
    I have owned both gasoline and diesel powered automobiles.  My limited
    sample has shown to me that beyond a doubt that my diesel engine was
    more reliable than any of the gasoline engines I have owned.  In a wet
    environment it is 'common sense' that an engine which will run WITHOUT
    requiring a high voltage ignition source is likely to be more reliable
    with everything else being equal.
    
    Back to the basenote.  I think that the author of that article is as
    biased as any of us defending our use of powerboats.
    
    So we should all get sailboats.  Fine.  But then we have to pollute to
    maintain/haul/drive to the sailboat etc.  
    
    Jeff
    
    

rep .14

<    Jim, an O2 sensor should not totally disable an engine; the EFI should
<    have a "limp home" mode.  Or you could carry a spare; after all, with
<    EFI you won't need spare spark plugs.
    
Carl,

    Just out of curiosity (although I know this is off the topic),

    Why wouldn't I need spare spark plugs?  

    My understanding is that all the EFI does is inject a measured amount of
fuel into the intake manifold just prior to the intake valves instead of
sucking it in with the air via the carburator.  The mechanics of the cylinder
itself is basically the same, i.e. air and fuel in during intake stroke,
compress fuel/air mixture in the compression stroke, sparkplug ignites on power
stroke and exhaust gases are released on the exhaust stroke. 

????

Al

    EFI engines burn much more cleanly and are less subject to detonation
    and other plug-eating phenomenon.   The plugs in my 4.0L Ford EFI V6
    look like new after 36K miles.   And mechanical failure of plugs is
    pretty rare.
    

    RE the last two;
    
    That's right, the recommended mileage to change plugs is often 40, 50
    or 60 thousand miles; I believe we'll see 100k intervals within the
    next ten years.  
    
    All of this is moot since I'll wager (I have absolutely no proof,
    except horror stories) that most (or the largest percentage of) at sea 
    power failures are due to contaminated fuel.
    
    Jim, if ignition failure were a big concern of boaters, they'd be using
    dual ignition setups, as some fire engines and airplanes do.
    
    Now, anybody want to talk about dumping raw sewage at sea from the
    toilets on board?  I thought not.   ;-)   ;-)
    
    Carl

    re: .-1   Your wager is true from what I've read.  In fact it's
    one of the reasons that the "security" of twin engines is not what
    some people think.  (Some *very* high percentage of tow-ins are
    fuel supply related (with out-of-gas heading the list!)
    

    Auto engines with 100K life before a tune-up are already a reality. The
    new Caddy with the Northstar V-8 is advertised as no service required
    for 100K.  Hopefully the technology of that engine (and the new Ford
    modular engine used in the Lincoln MK VIII) will find it's way into the
    marine industry where an engine failure can have life or death
    implications.  These new engines are light weight, very powerfull, and
    reliable.  An ideal combination for the marine world.  Why it took so
    long for EFI to show up on marine engines is beyond me.
    Wayne
    

    
    Along the same lines, why has it taken so long for Crusader to
    
    put electronic ignition in their marine engines.
    
    Chrysler has had it for years.
    
    Beats me, maybe it has all to do with inventory, or simply they
    
    can buy the conventional engine for a lot less.  Dunno.......
    
    JIm

    
      Sorry you guys, the longevity of sparkplugs these days is almost
    exclusively the result of no lead and more detergents in fuels and oils. 
    EFI *helps* an engine run cleaner, and is able to adapt to changing
    conditions far better than carbs ever could. That helps fuel
    consumption and thus emissions. Electronic ignition was necessitated by
    the leaning of the mixture and also to some extent by the use of
    catalytic converters. (A lean mix is harder to ignite, higher
    voltage and wider plug gaps make up for it. And a catalytic converter
    is literally melted internally if it gets too much raw fuel into it, so
    a badly misfiring plug(s) has to be avoided.)
    
    				Kenny

    If fuel contamination is a very common cause of engine failures at sea
    (even with twin engines) then the obvious thing to do is have each
    engine have its OWN fuel tank completely isolated from its twin tank.
    
    Obviously if contaminated fuel is pumped into both tanks on filling it
    won't fix a thing... but non common fuel supplies would eliminate some
    of the problems.
    
    One problem marine engines don't share with auto engines (big pollution
    contributor in autos) is idling in traffic.
    
    Jeff

    I know this is straying a little but...
     
    Doesn't anybody market an electronic water sensing device that could be
    mounted in one's fuel tank to forwarn the operator that the fuel in the
    tank was contaminated before the boat gets out to sea?  It seems like it
    would be a small incremental expense which would pay for itself the
    first time one's megabucks boat didn't have to me towed back to port.
    Of course this is something that I will never have to worry about :-)
    
    Wayne

<    One problem marine engines don't share with auto engines (big pollution
<    contributor in autos) is idling in traffic.
    
  No we have NO WAKE ZONE instead....:-):-)

Al

    
    .33, some but not all have 2 tanks. the plumbing is set up so that
    
    one tank can feed one engine, or a crossfeed valve can be opened,
    
    so that the engines can draw from both tanks.
    
    A wise operator would close the crossfeed valve, and only allow
    
    the engines to draw from separate tanks.
    
    the thought here is that if there is contamination in the fuel,
    
    only (hopefully) one tank would be contanimated.
    
    However, when fueling, and if water was present in the fuel be
    
    pumped, chances are that both tanks would get filled and therefore
    
    contanimated.
    
    I can't agree out of fuel is one of the major causes of failure
    
    at sea.  i'm sure there are a variety of reasons.
    
    JIm

    
      There are fuel filters/water seperators for boats which have water
    sensors in them. I put one in my father's boat.
    
      In all the years and over 5000 hours of fishing within 15 miles of
    shore I cannot think of a single failure that was fuel related.
    
     Let me see....  I/O powered	
    			water pump (more than once)
    			timing chain
    			alternator
    			starter
    			blown internal gasket which allowed water into the
    				oil (Due to water jacket corrosion on
    				non-FWC	engine)
    			outdrive failure (worn gears - probably just worn
    					  out) :^)
    		
    		    Outboard powered
    			Blown powerhead (New engine, defective)
    			stripped driveshaft spline (Corrosion and lots of
    							use)
    			Wiped out rod bearings due to internal water leak
    
      Note I did not include problems which did not cause the engine to
    fail entirely, but were failures that required repair. eg (Intermittent
    operation of one powerpack (out of two), bad coil which caused one
    cylinder to misfire, tilt motor failures, dead battery, etc)
    
    				Kenny

re .34:

Racor fuel filters/water separators can be fitted with a water sensor, 
or at least the diesel versions can be. 

It is a good idea (though expensive) to use two filter/separators in 
parallel with appropriate valves so that fuel can go through one 
filter (allowing the engine(s) to continue running) while the other is
being serviced (ie, draining water, changing the element).