At 08:31 AM 6/12/00 -0700, Jim Baumgart baumgart@starrstuff.com wrote:

I think that from the data I've seen posted here and elsewhere for
recreational boats, they typically burn about one gallon per hour for every
15 hp of actual load on the engine.  This one is running at about 24-25 hp
per gallon per hour when installed into a truck.  Several things are working
against the manufacturer who is thinking about putting one of these high
efficiency engines into a boat.  (Not only a Detroit.  All the manufactures
make high efficiency engines that do not end up in boats.)  The biggest
hurdle is that this adds a bunch of cost to the engine.  Figure that an old
technology engine will cost about two thirds the price of a new technology
engine.  Frankly, the typical recreational boat owner wants to put his money
into other things than fuel efficiency.

The second biggest factor working against you is that while the truck has
many gear ratios to take full advantage of this engine, the recreational
boat typically has only one.  That makes it very difficult to take full
advantage of the high efficiency engine.  A boat with a one or even a two
speed engine will never be as efficient as a truck with many gears in the
transmission.  That is why we are so seriously considering a multi speed
transmission in both the boats we are building.  The cost of that
transmission is not something the typical recreational boat buyer is willing
to pay.  (A controllable pitch propeller will have the same effect, but that
also adds significant cost.)

The third factor is that when a new engine comes out, the manufactures often
continue production of the old models for use where ever he can sell them.
He certainly cannot sell them to markets that demand highly efficient clean
burning engines, but he can sell them over seas and to certain US
applications that are exempt from these requirements.  The recreational boat
is one of the few applications that is still exempt from most these
requirements.

You can see a close parallel with a number of automobiles sold in Europe but
not in the USA.  I recently rented a large minivan in Spain that got
excellent fuel economy -- far greater than I would have expected in the
states.  It was no dog.  It probably had more power than I would have
expected from any US minivan.  That was a state of the art clean and
efficient diesel engine that is only sold in Europe.  The reason that it is
popular there and not here is because our fuel is still too cheap to justify
the additional cost of an efficient engine.  Estimates for putting these
engines into US cars seem to run between ten and fifteen thousand dollars
more than the cost of the engines that they are replacing.  Right now, the
only vehicles on the road for which the most efficient technology is cost
effective in the USA are the commercial over the road trucks, though I do
see bits and pieces of that technology being slowly introduced over here.

International is about to release an engine in the USA that will come close
to its European counterparts.  This is the 444 diesel that Ford uses in
their Power Stroke system for small trucks.  They have already introduced
some very wonderful innovations, and are about to introduce more.  They have
already done away with the injection pump.  The new engine will not even
have a cam shaft for the valves.  It will be as quiet as you mother's sewing
machine with no diesel knock.  It will run like a scalded cat and it will
get phenomenal fuel efficiency.  I may very well put one into a boat some
day, but will order the GCF filters at the same time.  This new technology
is based upon a lot of extremely precise machine work that will be far more
critical for keeping the fluids clean than any engine in the past.  This
precision machine work is the reason that the prices cannot come down much,
as one would expect if this efficiency were based upon electronics.

One more thought concerning these high tech engines in recreational
trawlers:  They are also optimized for a high power to weight ratio, which
is an expensive thing that is not necessary for this application.  I could
see them being put into light weight high speed boats, as you are already
seeing them in the larger ocean racing boats.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
::
Paul and Cindy Kruse      ::  KJV Joh 14:27 Peace I leave with you,
165 South Kenneth Court    ::  my peace I give unto you:
Merritt Island, FL  32952  ::  not as the world giveth, give I unto you.
E-mail:  plkruse@iu.net    ::  Let not your heart be troubled,
407-453-6206              ::  neither let it be afraid.
::
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Paul

I do not want to get to far off subject. But your comments about our fuel
cost being to cheap Vs the European market really bug the hell out of me.
Most of the high cost of European fuel is the higher tax rates imposed on
there fuel.  In the USA this is very evident in the difference in road
diesel Vs. marine diesel.

Also government rules and regulations are having a great effect on fuel
prices. The current problems in the Midwest with the high cost of gasoline
is greatly due to the EPA's mandate for reformulated gas in these areas. It
cost more to refine and there is not the volume demand for it.

More efficient diesels are coming because of the European emission standards
which are causing most all of the builders to go to turbo's in order to get
the engines to meet the new government standards.  This same trend is under
way in the USA. Besides the trend to all turbo engines most of the newer
engines, as you spoke of , are being built to much tighter tolerances and
going to electronic controls to more closely monitor load and fuel needs.

Bottom line I fail to see the need to pay more fuel taxes just to be like
the rest of the world.

David Keese
Houma, La

alabat

.

but

is

justify

At 12:14 AM 06/17/2000 -0500, David Keese  wrote:

    <<< snip>>>

Arild comments:

I suspect Dave speaks for many people with his remark.  Therefore I would
like to address  the whole list instead of sending a private rebuttal.
The  topic  pertains to  TWL because it is lifestyle related.  Most of us
aspire to  living aboard.  Our choice  of homes sets us apart for  the
majority and thus draws attention.  It also creates  an impression - good
or bad  which in turn  can result in regulatory  reaction.

In my present job I am constantly flying in and out of all the major port
areas as well as  mid continent airports.  I am seeing first hand  what
combustion engine exhaust does to  air quality.    On a parallel note;  in
the Great Lakes we have had  black water holding tanks ever since I bought
my first boat back in 1969.  It is no longer an issue of contention or
discussion.  In most places  outside urban areas no one thinks twice
about hopping over the side  for a quick swim.    That is not the case
where  I am now  or for that matter in many of the places I visit.  Water
quality is so poor it becomes a health risk to swim in the water.

So back to  marine engine exhausts.  Dry exhausts are becoming more popular
with less components to  rust our and  maintain.
But it does eject  the  exhaust directly  into the air same as as truck does.
Wet exhaust simply buries  the  particulate matter in the sediment while
the  gasses are cooled  and then come  to the surface where any residue
becomes a film on the  water.  It is still there  and gets into the food
chain.  Meanwhile the  carbon dioxaide enters the atmosphere and
contributes to the  global warming trend.    Marine life sicken and die,
the food chain  is interrupted;  fisheries decline etc.    That is not good!

A long time ago the popular approach to  pollution was DILUTION.    In time
it was seen that this solution simply wasn't acceptable since the
pollution still accumulated.
There is enough  statistical evidence collected to prove that  combustion
byproducts do have a detrimental effect on the environment and our health.

Until we develop  a new way of creating  motive power,  we must  strive to
clean up our collective act.
Regrettably, not all people  share this sentiment and some are so blatant
in their disregard and delibrate polluting that  regulations are created
and enforced. Sometimes with  draconian  effort.
Mandating cleaner  exhaust emissions everywhere  is the one way  to ensure
there will be a future for our  children and their children.
This is a global issue; not a  political one  which can be isolated by
political boundaries.  I would have thought  that TWL list members
belonged to  that group of people who would prefer to lead by example,
rather than  tag along with the crowd or  trail behind.

On the brighter side,  electronically controlled engines offers the option
of much  better automation and integration in shipboard  systems. Where
fuel economy  for long distance cruising  is paramount, this means extended
range.  It also  open up the possibility of  fully automated  yachts for
those people who  like technology and gadgets.
For the rest of  the people  it simply means they can breathe easier -
especially  those belonging to the increasing number of  asthma sufferers.
I was astounded to  read the statistics on how many deaths are attributed
to asthma and how those numbers have increased over the  past fifty years
while internal combustion engines have proliferated.    Food for thought.

Okay;  who wants the soap box next?

Cheers

arild

At 12:08 PM 06/17/2000 -0700, Delwin D Fandrich wrote:

    << snip>>

Arild responds:

This  may the  opportune point at which we start a new thread  -
environmental stewards -

Most if not all TWL  members  appear to value the natural  beauty of our
environment.
Some of us are blessed with  living in areas that  others only dream about
visiting.
The common denominator for TWL members seems to be an appreciation of the
natural environment as opposed to an artificial  urbanized and
industrialized  landscape.

Therefore it behooves us to  have  a regard for the  ecological impact our
lifestyle choices have on the environment.
In addition to  propulsion  engine emissions  there is the  issue of
generator emissions.  Until now this has largely escaped the attention of
the  EPA regulators.  From what I'm hearing in the industry news, this is
about  to change.
Some of you have no doubt heard of misguided attempts by legislators to ban
all two cycle  outboards and  marine engines.
This is the sort of  draconian measures we do not need.

Generators create noise and air pollution. Even the use  of  utility
electrical power indirectly contributes to  air pollution.  Somewhere
there is  a utility  genrating plant that  supplies the  elecrtical power
you use when  plugged in dockside. Many of these, especially in  southern
location are fossil  fuel burning.  Up north  and  out west  near the
mountains  you will find much more hydro-elecrtic power generation.

^From an efficiency  perspective  a small  on-board generator is  probably
the worst  possible option.  Much of the technology is  decades old.  Total
energy conversion from the  petroleum fuel to the final  point of use in
an electrical device  is around  the 40% efficiency  mark, sometimes worse.

The  boat owners on the east coast of North America seems focussed on using
AC generators full time for big boats while  the PNW boaters seem  more
inclined to use inverters and other  power alternatives.
Even when you do  use a generator there is  a range of choices , some of
which  are extremely  fuel efficient and also conversion efficient.
It puzzles me  why such  technology  is not being adopted more quickly; but
perhaps the  low cost of fuel combined with a  disinterest in  not
creating unnecessary pollution  is the  explanation.

Cruising  sailors have for a long time used wind generators and solar
panels while  opting for the most efficient appliances and energy
conserving life style that they can  find.

Seem to me  trawler boats, especially those  used by live aboards  can
benefit from  their experiences.

The southern states suffer from intense heat and consider air conditioning
an absolute  necessity.
However, there is a wide disparagy in  how efficient  the  different brands
of air conditioners are.  Some models refuse to start on  a given size of
inverter while others  not only start and run but  can  run on a smaller
size inverter than the other brands.
Obviously there is room for improvements in efficiency  in some of those
brands.

Refrigerators and freezers  are the same.  Front opening door designs are
the least efficent from a cold retention  perspective.
Insulation, heat loss, heat transfer and so on  all  needs  improvement.
I'm astounded to see that  there is about a two to one difference between
the worst and the best  models that have the same cooling/ storing capacity.

We truly are a consumer society.  Not only do we consume but do so
conspicuously and  with abandon.

Perhaps it is time to  change course and become a conserver society.  The
change may have to  be gradual to ease the transition  but we must begin to
act before it is too late.  Some would argue it is already too late.

Fuel cells are definitely an option that  is already  being used  in some
locations.  Near  term  developments will soon become available on the
market at  prices  competitive with  conventional  internal combustion
engines.

environmentally yours

Arild

----- Original Message -----
From: Arild Jensen elnav@uniserve.com
To: trawler-world-list@samurai.com
Cc: alabat alabat@msn.com
Sent: June 17, 2000 6:25 AM
Subject: TWL: Exhaust emissions was (: diesel engine fact )

to

Thanks for your comments.

I, too, am one who believes that we in the US pay far too little for our
fuel.  And, no, I don't want to see the petro-chemical mega-companies making
more profits than they already do.  Nor do I want to see our overgrown
government collecting more taxes to pour into their general fund.

But, someday -- whether we want to or not -- we must start paying the full
price for the energy we use.  And I do meant the full price.  This price
will include repairing the long term damage already done to our planet --
underground or underwater, on land and overhead in our atmosphere -- over
the past 100 or so years of the rampant burning of carbon-based fuels as
well as the damage we will continue to do before we can stop ourselves.  The
price will also include the damage done to our health and the damage we are
already doing to those who come after us.

I strongly support additional fuel and energy taxes -- including the fuel we
use in our boat -- as long as those taxes go to projects and problems
directly related to the use of those fuels and/or energy.  All road and
highway infrastructure should be built and maintained only by the money
raised by taxing fuel, or in the near future, other sources of energy.  All
air travel infrastructure should be supported only by the moneys raised
through the taxation of fuels.  In other words, all transportation
infrastructure -- both of people and of goods -- should be supported by the
direct taxation of fuel and/or energy.  Yes, this will raise the price of
gas at the pump.  Yes, it will make life more difficult for many --
including myself.  In the end, though, we are going to pay for these things
one way or another and this policy would provide a direct link between
moving ourselves and the fuel and infrastructure required to do so.

I suspect if we as a nation were to peruse such a program we would very
quickly begin to evolve much more efficient systems of transportation and we
would become much less automobile dependent.

Regards,

Del
Delwin D Fandrich
Piano Designer & Builder
Hoquiam, Washington  USA
E.mail:  pianobuilders@olynet.com
Web Site:  http://pianobuilders.olynet.com/

--
I agree with Arild on most of his points, but have a couple of things
I'd like to add. First the amount of airborne pollution put out by
recreational boaters is close to minute when compared to autos and
trucks in this country. This problem, of course, didn't start overnite
and , hopefully, it will not be attemped to fix it overnite. For those
of us who have worked hard and saved every penny to enjoy the cruising
lifestyle, I sincerely hope we are not taxed out of our dreams Thses
sometimes "knee-jerk" fixes are generally a feel good solution that
effects little of the problem, yet causes a great burden on the
economically "challenged" cruisers. Arild you mention flying about this
land, just how efficient and pollution free are these great "birds"
you're riding around on??
As far as water pollution, I also have a couple of first hand accounts
I'd like to relay, and I'm fairly sure these are by no means isolated
examples. Here in the Louisville KY area there are two cities nearby
that are, by their own admission, operating totally overloaded sewage
treatment plants. That tranlates to millions of gallons of untreated
sewage being dumped into the Ohio river. Truly this makes me believe
that my flushing a little beer "pee" is not even close to a drop in the
bucket. But at the same time, because of our numbers, we get the blame
dumped on us. And some of us, maybe on a major "guilt trip" are willing
to take the blame. Having lived on a farm most of my early years and in
a farming area since than, I have seen lots of raw animal sewage washed
right into our streams, along with the pesticides and fertilizers that
are washed into those same streams. Because the population is fed from
these pactices lots of talk about fixing but little action, and
certainly no talk of TAXES to fix the problems.
So gentlemen, when these pollution problems are discussed, and the
future of our children and grandchildren is thown in, let's keep the
guilt spread around where it belongs.
Truly I feel no remorse when I fire up my Perkins and go crusin'

cheers

Dick
Capt Dick Schroder
43' Gulfstar trawler
"Panhandler"
docked Jeffersonville IN
812-246-4822

Delwin D Fandrich wrote:

--
Political types since the beginning of my time on this earth have been
loading us up with solutions to all our major problems that, not
amusingly, add up to major TAX increases. By this stage in my life, I
have to feel, that only the most gullible, would continue to believe
this "fix". Causes disappear and only the taxes remain for our children
and grandchildren.
It's time for grandpa to do a little cruisin' with no "guilt trips"
about his diesel or potty polution.

Cheers,

Dick
Capt Dick Schroder
43' Gulfstar trawler
"Panhandler"
docked Jeffersonville IN
812-246-4822