Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 
Old 06 August 2004, 21:39   #31
Member
 
Country: UK - Wales
Town: swansea
Boat name: Too Blue
Make: BLANK
Length: 8m +
Engine: Suzuki DT225
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,791
Agree there - RAPE may be the answer!!!
__________________

__________________
codprawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07 August 2004, 08:55   #32
Member
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Town: Oban
Boat name: RIB Tickle
Make: Humber Assault
Length: 5.3m
Engine: Yamaha 60ETO,Tohatsu 3.5
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 371
I am sure sexually molesting an outboard must but be against the law?
__________________

__________________
http://www.argylldiving.btinternet.co.uk
Rupert Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09 August 2004, 03:28   #33
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Looe
Make: Delta
Length: 4m +
Engine: Mercury
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,335
We have outboards at Barrus that run on LPG, and a multi fuel engine that runs on Diesel/Petrol and Avcat (Helicopter fuel)!.
__________________
Turbodiesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09 August 2004, 03:54   #34
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Birmingham
Make: Avon
Length: 5.5
Engine: Mercury 75
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 41
Send a message via MSN to Andy Beach
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Bear
However there are now plans to set up windfarms of 200-400 huge turbines on some exposed areas.
Forgive my ignorance but don't wind farms need to be located in exposed areas - so they get some wind?!!

Andy Beach
(Birmingham-based Scottish Power Consumer!)
__________________
Andy Beach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09 August 2004, 04:05   #35
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Birmingham
Make: Avon
Length: 5.5
Engine: Mercury 75
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 41
Send a message via MSN to Andy Beach
Quote:
Originally Posted by codprawn
Yes already available - hydrogen - why ditch 100yrs of ic engine design mucking around with fuel cells etc?
The current generation of IC engines are only about 25% efficient - that is to say they only convert about 1/4 of the stored energy in the fuel into useable power - the rest is lost mainly as heat. Now that's OK when you've got an energy rich fuel source such as petroleum, but any other form of fuel has much less energy, hence the poor efficiency becomes more of an an issue.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Stevens
Also they have developed cars that run on water yet the oil companies spend millions on buying the patents to keep oil in demand!
Fuel Cell vehicles (which run on hydrogen, not water water is the by-product of the process) are at least 10 years away from a production-feasible vehicle. Those that are running today are still very much research-oriented, as there remain many technical issues to solve to ensure they will be reliable for your average consumer on a mass-production basis to make them reasonably priced. GM is rumoured to have spent $1billion to get their current fleet of (I think four) fuel cell vehicles on the road.

And that is to say nothing of the huge investment in infrastructure that will be necessary to put a hydrogen filling station on every corner - that is if people will accept this once the scaremongerers amongst us start ranting about the prospect of a 'H'-Bomb type explosion in a residential neighbourhood!! Hydrogen is very hard to contain (being a very small molecule) and, unlike petrol vapour or LPG/CNG, it is lighter than air and disperses very quickly. Yes - it is possible to generate an explosive mix but very difficult to maintain this for any significant length of time (especially on a boat!).


Andy Beach
__________________
Andy Beach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09 August 2004, 05:30   #36
Member
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Town: Oban
Boat name: RIB Tickle
Make: Humber Assault
Length: 5.3m
Engine: Yamaha 60ETO,Tohatsu 3.5
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Beach
Forgive my ignorance but don't wind farms need to be located in exposed areas - so they get some wind?!!

Andy Beach
(Birmingham-based Scottish Power Consumer!)
One of the best if not the best areas for constant windspeeds AND wave generated power is NW Scotland. The main objection locally is that folk don't want huge windfarms despoiling the very reason that they live here in the first place.
There would be more of an argument if Scotland wasn't already a net exporter of power in the first place. There are enough glens flooded for hydro station here without chucking up hundreds of wind turbines as well.
Wind turbines are not even a particularly good way of generating power anyway, fairly inefficient and only being built in numbers now because of tax breaks etc.
If folk are serious about getting clean sources of power then they have to be based on water technologies to get the density for proper power generation and availability. The only real alternative is Fusion and the jury is still out on whether that will ever be practicable.
__________________
http://www.argylldiving.btinternet.co.uk
Rupert Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09 August 2004, 05:35   #37
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Farnborough
Boat name: Eleven
Make: Arrow
Length: 8m +
Engine: 557cu, 700hp
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,255
Isn't there an experimental offshore sub-sea water turbine somewhere off the UK coastline?
__________________
Matt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09 August 2004, 06:03   #38
Member
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Town: Oban
Boat name: RIB Tickle
Make: Humber Assault
Length: 5.3m
Engine: Yamaha 60ETO,Tohatsu 3.5
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 371
There is a shore based wave generator on Islay, there have also been failed experiments with surface moorings off Cape Wrath. Not aware of subsurface ones as yet but they have been talked about for a long time.
The main reasons against them at the moment is the horrendous maintenance costs and the fact that the grid would need to be extended out to sea.
__________________
http://www.argylldiving.btinternet.co.uk
Rupert Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09 August 2004, 06:18   #39
CJL
Member
 
CJL's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Town: London
Make: Ribcrafts
Length: 5m +
Engine: 150hp/2x115hp
MMSI: 235090215
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,115
RIBase
Send a message via Skype™ to CJL
I was out in Malaysia a few years ago doing some research with Uni. We spent a few days at the National Palm Oil Institute where they had a Merc C class running on a mixture of palm oil and diesel. It was about a 20 bhp drop in performance and the car stank like KFC all the time. It was mixed at about a 50% ratio and actually increased the durability of the engine cause of the lubrication properties of the stuff! I think a lower mixture rate removes the smell to below noticable levels.

A lot of people don't realise that in europe most diesel sold at PFS has a minimum of 5% bio derived products included in it so the UK is lagging behind.

Just before I sign off, please realise that an offshore wind farm is;
a) not very efficient,
b) a risk to shipping,
c) difficult to maintain,
d) requires foundations up to ten times more substantial than shore based plants. (Damage to seabed)
e) over 200 would be needed to provide the same Mw output as a nuclear fission power station.

Fission is the way forward but unfortunately it is expensive to build, maintain and run. Mind you is the better kit on your boat the cheapest in the shops?

You get what you pay for!

They do have inherent dangers but most things in this world have risks! The storage of the waste remains an issue but the amount produced in comparison to the amount that escapes up chimineys is minute.

Chris
__________________
CJL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09 August 2004, 07:45   #40
Member
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Town: Oban
Boat name: RIB Tickle
Make: Humber Assault
Length: 5.3m
Engine: Yamaha 60ETO,Tohatsu 3.5
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 371
Wate is not minute from a nuclear power station.
The popular conception of waste is the high level stuff. This is relativley small beer compared to the low level and medium level waste that is generated, this runs to tons and tons per station per year.
Nuclear power (and the bombs set off in the past) are gradually raising background radiation levels locally and globally meaning more cancers and other problems.
One point which is argued about is safe levels. There is no such thing as a "safe" dose of radiation. Every increase over background raises the risks for all sorts of health problems. the difference between most risks and radiation is that you have no choice, whether you take the risk is being decided for you by others.
The waste repository that is going to be needed eventually is going to cause all sorts of problems. I am waiting to see just where they try and put it.
__________________

__________________
http://www.argylldiving.btinternet.co.uk
Rupert Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.