Lot's more Jetskis - Honda's new 4-stroke
Jim T
Now every yup can safely buy a reliable jetski.
Here's the pictures.
<http://www.hondamotorcycle.com/models/2001lineup/Four-Stroke_Personal_Watercraft.htm>
hkr...@capu.net
A good move for the PWC industry, but, unfortunately, it won't do
anything to change the patterns of use of PWC's, in that absolute idiots
will still buy them, drive them like lunatics, have accidents all out of
proportion to their numbers and cause the net of additional regulations
to fall over all of us.
--
Harry Krause
------------
The more times you run over a dead cat, the flatter it gets
J'
>
> Honda announced a 4-stroke jetski.
> Now every yup can safely buy a reliable jetski.
> Here's the pictures.
>
> <http://www.hondamotorcycle.com/models/2001lineup/Four-Stroke_Personal_Watercraft.htm>
Wow...that is great news.
4-strokes begin the domination of yet another transportation
category...jetskis this time.
I want one!
I better start completing the fall/winter "Honey Do" List...so she'll be
receptive to the jetski idea this summer.
(The married guys here understand what I'm saying) ;-)
Karl Denninger
>Honda announced a 4-stroke jetski.
>Now every yup can safely buy a reliable jetski.
>Here's the pictures.
>
><http://www.hondamotorcycle.com/models/2001lineup/Four-Stroke_Personal_Watercraft.htm>
Very cool.
I'm glad I didn't buy one of the "old smokers" this summer :-)
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net Cost-effective Consulting Solutions
http://childrens-justice.org Working to protect children's rights
Jim T
FYI, my 2000 Yama has a catlytic converter. I can do donuts for 10
minutes in one spot and not see or smell a whiff of smoke. I'd venture to
guess that mine is nearly as clean as the Honda if it doesn't use a CC.
cheers, JIm
timin...@my-deja.com
Jim T <green...@aol.com> wrote:
> Honda announced a 4-stroke jetski.
> Now every yup can safely buy a reliable jetski.
> Here's the pictures.
>
> <http://www.hondamotorcycle.com/models/2001lineup/Four-
Stroke_Personal_Watercraft.htm>
It's kind of interesting that this is listed at www.hondamotorcycle.com
and not www.honda-marine.com
quote "And, because it is a four-stroke, it's the answer to
environmental issues too."
I guess this means I can look forward to reliable, efficient, quiet,
environtmentally friendly waterbikes running over the endangered loon
nests on our lake.
--
TC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
hkr...@capu.net
>
> > I'm glad I didn't buy one of the "old smokers" this summer :-)
>
> FYI, my 2000 Yama has a catlytic converter. I can do donuts for 10
> minutes in one spot and not see or smell a whiff of smoke.
Wow...yours must be a lot smaller than mine. I don't think I could do a
donut for more than 30 seconds before it would fall apart.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Did you expect mere proof to sway my opinion?
Karl Denninger
>> I'm glad I didn't buy one of the "old smokers" this summer :-)
>
>FYI, my 2000 Yama has a catlytic converter. I can do donuts for 10
>guess that mine is nearly as clean as the Honda if it doesn't use a CC.
>
>cheers, JIm
I looked at the 2000 Yamas. Now with the Honda coming there are a couple
left at the local dealer - I may go over there and beat on them for a bit
to see what kind of a price point I can get.
I suspect that the 2-stroke becomes an INSTANT liability on these things
when the Honda hits the street for real, with the possible exception of the
real "superbike" category (racing machines and those tuned for extreme
speed.)
The Honda is going to be cheaper to operate (better fuel economy) and
cleaner. That devalues the existing stock significantly, and gives me a
nice advantage in negotiations.
Steve Pawlowskis
A good move for the PWC industry, but, unfortunately, it won't do
anything to change the patterns of use of PWC's, in that absolute idiots
will still buy them, drive them like lunatics, have accidents all out of
proportion to their numbers and cause the net of additional regulations
to fall over all of us.
Then Jim T wrote:
"I can do donuts for 10 minutes in one spot and not see or smell a whiff of
smoke."
I sez:
Nice goin'... you just proved Harry's point.
Jim T <green...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:39C0E159...@aol.com...
Matt Jensen
Just like in the greater boating world--Hondas (4-strokes in general)
are great in the applications to which they are suited. 2-strokes will
still be better in their strong areas: racing machines and those tuned
for extreme speed.
If I were in the market for a PWC, I would certainly buy a
Honda/4-stroke. Going 70mph, over water, in a matchbox, is not my idea
of fun. :-)
Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> I suspect that the 2-stroke becomes an INSTANT liability on these things
> when the Honda hits the street for real, with the possible exception of the
> real "superbike" category (racing machines and those tuned for extreme
> speed.)
--
Matt Jensen (my email address is "moc.noivbo@nesnejm" backwards)
'98 Ram 1500 QC 4x4 5.9L, '01 ZR 800, '01 ZR 600 EFI
'00 Checkmate Pulsare 2100 w/ Mercury Pro Max 225
J'
>
> In article <39C0D7B0...@aol.com>,
> Jim T <green...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Honda announced a 4-stroke jetski.
> > Now every yup can safely buy a reliable jetski.
> > Here's the pictures.
> >
> > <http://www.hondamotorcycle.com/models/2001lineup/Four-
> Stroke_Personal_Watercraft.htm>
>
> It's kind of interesting that this is listed at www.hondamotorcycle.com
> and not www.honda-marine.com
That's just an acknowledgment of where most of the market will be
found. Jetski buyers are more likely to be at a motorcycle shop, than a
Honda marine dealer.
> quote "And, because it is a four-stroke, it's the answer to
> environmental issues too."
>
> I guess this means I can look forward to reliable, efficient, quiet,
> environtmentally friendly waterbikes running over the endangered loon
> nests on our lake.
Very astute.
Unfortunately, Honda can only provide the machine, not the rider...
However...if we can get enough of those *irresponsible* jetskiers to buy
Ford Excretions with Brimstone tires...and try to drive them like
cars...that should solve the problem. ;-)
Jim T
> Harry wrote:
> A good move for the PWC industry, but, unfortunately, it won't do
> anything to change the patterns of use of PWC's, in that absolute idiots
> will still buy them, drive them like lunatics, have accidents all out of
> proportion to their numbers and cause the net of additional regulations
> to fall over all of us.
>
> Then Jim T wrote:
> "I can do donuts for 10 minutes in one spot and not see or smell a whiff of
> smoke."
>
> I sez:
> Nice goin'... you just proved Harry's point.
>
My rider profile is:
1) I'm 37, father or two, and bought a "family style" 3 seater last month and
paid
the premium to get a "green" boat with low emmissions and enhanced sound
muffler
system
2) Even though a boater
safety course is NOT required in NC, I took the 7 hour (!) course which
consumed a beautiful
Saturday. I took the course even though I grew up with a 20 foot cabin
cruiser and got to the point
where my parents trusted me to drive them around while they were both on skis.
3) I spend 75% of my riding time putting around a cove with my 4
YO daughter, and a little faster with my 7 YO son.
3a) The other 25% of my driving is in a responsible fashion with the main goal
of staying as far
away from any other boater and shore person as possible. If other boats come
to where I'm playing,
I'll leave and find a place that's more open.
4) Upon discovering that there is no PWC users group in our area, I am working
with the officals at
our lake (Corp of Engineers and State Parks) to be the laison between a PWC UG
that I started and the
officials.
5) Upon hearing of my work with the other officials, I was
asked by the State Wildlife officials to participate on their Safety Council
and to help them devise
ways to reduce friction between PWC'ers and the general boating public. I
gladly accepted.
6) I am in the planning stages of trying to get the boating regulations on our
local
lakes INCREASED up to the STRICTER standards proposed by the PWIA. I spent
the time to seek out the
safety/public relations people of Sea-Doo and Kawasaki for their
information and guidance on how to accomplish this.
Now Steve, do you got another smart a** comment?
cheers, jim
H82LUZ1
>Now Steve, do you got another smart a** comment?
>
>cheers, jim
<Golf clap>
Well Jim, My hat's off to you. You and others like you with the same
mindset make up probably 5% of all PWC operators. I hope (and pray) that you
can make that number increase drasticly.
Mike G.
BillS
Now at least the Motorcycle dealers who sell most of them will be actually able to
service the motors.
BillS
Jim T
> mindset make up probably 5% of all PWC operators.
Don't know where you're boating at but I'd say that after my
first summer of riding that I would place the percentage of
bad apples at 25% rather then 95%.
And of that 25%, I'd guess that a wide majority of them would
stop their antics if the lake police had proper manpower.
My opinion is that a lot of the bad practices are due to the
fact that the drivers know that there is essentially zero chance
of getting caught. In my 30 hours of runtime over the summer, I've
seen the lake police a total of ONE time. If the roads were
this lightly patrolled the roads would be bedlam.
cheers, jim
Gary Martin
> stop their antics if the lake police had proper manpower.
> My opinion is that a lot of the bad practices are due to the
> fact that the drivers know that there is essentially zero chance
> of getting caught. In my 30 hours of runtime over the summer, I've
> seen the lake police a total of ONE time. If the roads were
> this lightly patrolled the roads would be bedlam.
I would agree with your ratio of 25% jerks too from what I've seen on Lake
Perry here in KS.
BTW, our county Sheriff now has officers patrolling on.... *drumroll*
JETSKIS!
Yep, they're out there, carrying their full normal set of equipment
including Glock and riding about on a sit-down jetski. (big 3 seater,
keeping them high and dry)
Gary Martin
SeaRay 290 Sundancer
SeaDoo GTI (and proud of it)
Ted G
> I guess this means I can look forward to reliable, efficient, quiet,
> environtmentally friendly waterbikes running over the endangered loon
> nests on our lake.
TC should know that PWC rarely, if ever run where "real" boats don't since
shallow water and loon nest debris causes problems for them too. The idea
that PWC are running at full speed in 6" of water with endangered sea
grasses in it is a fantasy cooked up by the enviro-weenies and NEVER proven.
PWC actually cause less damage to wetlands due to smaller wakes and no nasty
old props to cut everything up. Looking for lawnmowers??-find a bass boat.
Ted
Jim
>Now at least the Motorcycle dealers who sell most of them will be actually
>able to
>service the motors.
Yeah, the inept and abysmal service should improve to just regular sh*tty.
JIm
H82LUZ1
>Don't know where you're boating at but I'd say that after my
>first summer of riding that I would place the percentage of
>bad apples at 25% rather then 95%.
I too boat on Lake Perry sometimes, and would agree to the 25% of idiots
(if not less) riding PWC's on that lake. On the other hand, go to Longview
lake, or the Ozarks.The number of morons jumps to the afore mentioned 95%.
That is with Missouri Water Patrol all over the place nailing big boat and PWC
operators left and right for various sins. I've actually seen a water patrol
officer, while writing a ticket to a PWC operator for blasting thru a no wake
zone, get blasted by another PWC's jet. Come to find out, both PWC operators
knew each other. This is the type of attitude that seems to be common among
the "jetski gang" down there. The sad part is, there are a lot of decent PWC
owners that have to pay the price for those who have no respect and show
complete disregard for the law, and their fellow boaters.
I'm not against PWC's at all. In fact, I enjoy riding a friends Seadoo XP
quite often. I just wish some would realize they are not a kids toy, nor a
"bumper boat" for everyone else to try to avoid.
Mike G.
K.Smith
>Jim T wrote:
>>
>> Honda announced a 4-stroke jetski.
>> Now every yup can safely buy a reliable jetski.
>> Here's the pictures.
>>
>> <http://www.hondamotorcycle.com/models/2001lineup/Four-Stroke_Personal_Watercraft.htm>
>
>
>Wow...that is great news.
Wow is right!! our spruiking 4 strokes is almost not required.
K
J'
> >> <http://www.hondamotorcycle.com/models/2001lineup/Four-Stroke_Personal_Watercraft.htm>
You quit the spruiking 4-strokes...I'll continue...I have a "yen" for
*all* that Japanese PR money. :-)
Actually, there was more good 4-stroke news at that link...Honda is
introducing their first 2-stroke motorcross bike on the racing circuit.
They'll be joining Yamaha, that has campaigned a 4-stroke motorcrosser
for a couple of years, and often wins open class races against the best
2-strokes.
http://www.hondamotorcycle.com/models/2001lineup/Four-Stroke_Motocrosser.htm
(sounds off the 4-stroke)
<somewhat off-topic>
As I type this I'm listening to my favorite rock group of all time (CCR)
Creedence Clearwater Revival (ahh the memories...college grad...navy
officer and flight training...getting married...lasers and small
runabouts on midwest lakes)
...anyway...they last 3 songs to play were "Proud Mary"-4 strokes
rolling down the river over 2-strokes..."Bad Moon Rising"-4 strokes
rolling down the river over 2 strokes...and "Lodi" (CA)...10 miles from
where I'm typing this... ;-)
Raymond T. Lowe
>
>
><somewhat off-topic>
>As I type this I'm listening to my favorite rock group of all time (CCR)
>Creedence Clearwater Revival (ahh the memories...college grad...navy
>officer and flight training...getting married...lasers and small
>runabouts on midwest lakes)
>
>...anyway...they last 3 songs to play were "Proud Mary"-4 strokes
>rolling down the river over 2-strokes..."Bad Moon Rising"-4 strokes
>rolling down the river over 2 strokes...and "Lodi" (CA)...10 miles from
>where I'm typing this... ;-)
CCR ?!? Jeez... was your first boat made of reeds?
RT
--
Remove "bogus" when replying by e-mail.
J'
> CCR ?!? Jeez... was your first boat made of reeds?
CCR had a looooong run? :-)
I don't need a boat...I walk on water...just ask me? ;-)
Hollowed out log...that's why I so like slow boats? ;-)
Actually...the first boat was an old-small-light-fast-aluminum jon boat
of undetermined vintage and brand...powered by an old gas leaking 7.5 HP
OMC...in the Big Muddy River behind the farm...fortunately one of our
fathers was a skilled welder...but alas we eventually caught the motor
on fire...abandoned ship...and watched the whole thing
blow-up...standing waist deep in the snag filled muddy waters...true
story.
...the next boat...was a canoe...with paddles... ;-)
Jim T
> lake, or the Ozarks.The number of morons jumps to the afore mentioned 95%.
> That is with Missouri Water Patrol all over the place nailing big boat and PWC
> operators left and right for various sins. I've actually seen a water patrol
> officer, while writing a ticket to a PWC operator for blasting thru a no wake
> zone, get blasted by another PWC's jet.
Well you wouldn't get an argument from me for ever-increasing fines for
reckless repeat offenders (first ticket $100, next $200, next $400).
That way people are either
going to learn their lesson or the sheriff will have a lot of shiny new patrol
boats to write even more tickets.
If I recall correctly, someone in RSJ was complaining about a $400+ ticket for
reckless
actions. He didn't get much sympathy. That size ticket will get your attention.
Cheers, Jim
K.Smith
>K.Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:03:59 -0700, J' <*@*.*> wrote:
>>
>> >Jim T wrote:
>
>> >> <http://www.hondamotorcycle.com/models/2001lineup/Four-Stroke_Personal_Watercraft.htm>
>
>> >Wow...that is great news.
>>
>> Wow is right!! our spruiking 4 strokes is almost not required.
>
>You quit the spruiking 4-strokes...I'll continue...I have a "yen" for
>*all* that Japanese PR money. :-)
>
>Actually, there was more good 4-stroke news at that link...Honda is
>introducing their first 2-stroke motorcross bike
A typo of course????
>on the racing circuit.
>They'll be joining Yamaha, that has campaigned a 4-stroke motorcrosser
>for a couple of years, and often wins open class races against the best
>2-strokes.
>
>http://www.hondamotorcycle.com/models/2001lineup/Four-Stroke_Motocrosser.htm
>(sounds off the 4-stroke)
>
><somewhat off-topic>
>As I type this I'm listening to my favorite rock group of all time (CCR)
>Creedence Clearwater Revival (ahh the memories...college grad...navy
>officer and flight training...getting married...lasers and small
>runabouts on midwest lakes)
Van the Man here; Tupelo Honey
>
>...anyway...they last 3 songs to play were "Proud Mary"-4 strokes
>rolling down the river over 2-strokes..."Bad Moon Rising"-4 strokes
>rolling down the river over 2 strokes...and "Lodi" (CA)...10 miles from
>where I'm typing this... ;-)
Now "J" you know the club rules about going back to the old days,
our task is to stop smoke not well........
Member#1
K.Smith
T. Lowe) wrote:
>In article <rTLx5.3$uE2....@news.pacbell.net>, *@*.* says...
>>
>>
>><somewhat off-topic>
>>As I type this I'm listening to my favorite rock group of all time (CCR)
>>Creedence Clearwater Revival (ahh the memories...college grad...navy
>>officer and flight training...getting married...lasers and small
>>runabouts on midwest lakes)
>>
>>...anyway...they last 3 songs to play were "Proud Mary"-4 strokes
>>rolling down the river over 2-strokes..."Bad Moon Rising"-4 strokes
>>rolling down the river over 2 strokes...and "Lodi" (CA)...10 miles from
>>where I'm typing this... ;-)
>
>
>CCR ?!? Jeez... was your first boat made of reeds?
Gees I'm glad you said that Ray,
I was wondering if he was Moses leading the 2 strokers out of the
wilderness but was scared to suggest it.
K
J'
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:15:01 GMT, bogus...@telus.net (Raymond
> T. Lowe) wrote:
> >CCR ?!? Jeez... was your first boat made of reeds?
>
> Gees I'm glad you said that Ray,
>
> I was wondering if he was Moses
Moses!...bah humbug...Let's just say a couple of years ago, friends that
know I'm an "old" avid springer spaniel dogs owner, gave me a black
tee-shirt saying "50 is dead in dog years" ;-)
> leading the 2 strokers out of the wilderness
I wouldn't lead 2 strokers *out* of the wilderness. ;-)
> but was scared to suggest it.
You'll have trouble convincing folks here you're "scared" to suggest
anything! :-)
> >Actually, there was more good 4-stroke news at that link...Honda is
> >introducing their first 2-stroke motorcross bike
>
> A typo of course????
Absolutely, that should have read "4-stroke motorcross bike"
> Van the Man here; Tupelo Honey
From Van Morrison's Tupelo Honey:
> She's an angel of the first degree
>She's as sweet as tupelo honey
>Just like honey from the bee
Well...I can "see" that picture you're painting...but I'm not sure Dave,
Bill or Butch will... ;-)
> >...anyway...they last 3 songs to play were "Proud Mary"-4 strokes
> >rolling down the river over 2-strokes..."Bad Moon Rising"-4 strokes
> >rolling down the river over 2 strokes...and "Lodi" (CA)...10 miles from
> >where I'm typing this... ;-)
>
> Now "J" you know the club rules about going back to the old days,
> our task is to stop smoke not well........
With my "twisted" sense on humor, that was *really* funny as I listened
to the CD...
We just agreed to lay off the direct Ficht and OMC stuff (for awhile
maybe)...not 4-stroke vs. 2-stroke...and pollution stuff...so...to stay
non PC in rec.boats...
S.C.O.W. agrees, 2-strokes are dirty...4-strokes are clean:
(interesting stats at the link)
http://www.coflyfishers.org/marchnews/march.html
---
NEWS FROM SCOW
(Skippers for Clean Oregon Waters)
submitted by John Anderson
SCOW has requested that the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission
review DEQs Administrative Rules
to determine if it is appropriate to regulate recreational 2-stroke
marine engines under existing Oregon
statutes prohibiting air and water pollution (Oregon law prohibits
discharging pollution into Oregon
waters without a DEQ permit). In their request to the DEQ rules
coordinator SCOW stated that: "Each year
in the State of Oregon, 75% of the nearly 4 million annual boating
‘Activity days’ employ 2-stroke engines
and consume an average of 6.5 gallons of gasoline per day (State Marine
Board). With a 2-stroke fuel
discharge rate of 25% (USEPA), this calculates out to 4,759,820 gallons
of unburned gasoline and oil
discharged into Oregon State waters per year (l996) survey. Or one and a
half gallons of fuel dumped, per
boat, per day of boating. Similar calculations for the Lower Willamette
River 540,000 gallons of unburned gasoline and oil is emitted by
2-stroke marine engines."
SCOW goes on to point out that:
1.A 100 horsepower 2-cycle outboard emits 27 times more hydrocarbon
pollutants compared to a
similar size 4-stroke outboard motor
2.A personal-water-craft operated for seven hours equals the
smog-forming emissions of 100,000
miles of a l998 passenger car (Calif. Air Resources Bd.)
3.2-stroke engines burn gasoline very inefficiently. As much as 30% of
the gasoline is discharged
unburned into the environment (Calif. Air Resources Bd.)
4.2-stroke marine engines are being banned or phased out all over the
world because of their high
emissions of hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, MTBE and other
pollutants (European
Commision:Bodensee regulations, Calif. State Bill AB 2439, & San Juan
Co., WA).
SCOW notes that "The US EPA has just begun an extremely weak 25 year
phase-out of typical 2-stroke
engines in favor of new fuel injected 2-strokes. These new engines are
required to emit less than 25% of
current levels, which sounds significant, except that right now 4-stroke
boat engines emit 5%, and autos
less than 5 tenths of a percent the pollution of current 2-strokes."
SCOW is proposing that the DEQ and it’s
Commission create rules that educate and encourage people to switch to
cleaner burning marine engines
and to require tougher emission standards for new marine engines sold in
Oregon.
They believe that "dumping gasoline into the river should be illegal
even when ‘laundered’ through a 2-stroke engine."
---
(Liked the last sentence above-it will be used at hearings in Cal)
:-)
K.Smith
Heheheh! I wish!
>
>> >...anyway...they last 3 songs to play were "Proud Mary"-4 strokes
>> >rolling down the river over 2-strokes..."Bad Moon Rising"-4 strokes
>> >rolling down the river over 2 strokes...and "Lodi" (CA)...10 miles from
>> >where I'm typing this... ;-)
>>
>> Now "J" you know the club rules about going back to the old days,
>> our task is to stop smoke not well........
>
>With my "twisted" sense on humor, that was *really* funny as I listened
>to the CD...
>
>We just agreed to lay off the direct Ficht and OMC stuff (for awhile
>maybe)...not 4-stroke vs. 2-stroke...and pollution stuff...so...to stay
>non PC in rec.boats...
Yeah dull isn't it ?? Oh well a deals a deal. at least for a
while.
I still haven't got any answers as to how they ever imagine those
things are going to run clean & keep running oveer the long haul.
but I better stop or the NG police will get me....again.
>
>S.C.O.W. agrees, 2-strokes are dirty...4-strokes are clean:
>(interesting stats at the link)
>
>http://www.coflyfishers.org/marchnews/march.html
>---
>NEWS FROM SCOW
> (Skippers for Clean Oregon Waters)
>submitted by John Anderson
I know you understand why I don't understand some of the
pollution stuff, but it seems there are groups pushing the
legislators there, yes????? so there must be votes in this stuff
or they wouldn't do it.
Democracy at work, don't ya love it.
K
J'
> I know you understand why I don't understand some of the
> pollution stuff, but it seems there are groups pushing the
> legislators there, yes????? so there must be votes in this stuff
> or they wouldn't do it.
>
> Democracy at work, don't ya love it.
Ya I love it, as long as us environmentalist keep winning. :-)
Bureaucrats do what politicians tell them to do...and politicians are
very good at counting majority votes. That's how these regs and laws
come to be.
I understand why marine pollution would be less a concern in AU. Makes
sense.
Actually, the emphasis on marine engine pollution, has been fairly
rational, in terms of where laws have been enacted, and enviro oriented
activities taking place. For the most part, those areas of the world,
and country, with either the highest concentration of boaters per acre
of waterways and/or the most pristine waters have seen the most laws and
environmental activism.
That's why we see laws, and environmental activity in highly populated
places with lots of boaters, like the West Coast and the North East of
the U.S. and Europe; and little activity in places with low population
densities and lots of water like AU and other countries with relatively
few recreational boaters.
Makes sense, in some areas dilution is enough to cope with the pollution
load, while in others there needs to be cleaner systems, since pollution
could overwhelm the dilution capacity. We used that concept all the
time, in wastewater treatment.
It will be interesting to see if OMC and Merc continue to build and send
lots of carbed 2-strokes out of the U.S., as the tougher regs kick-in
and most of their production for the American market is either DFI
2-stroke or 4-stroke.
P.S. What effect has the Olympics had on commercial and recreational AU
boating? I remember paying greatly inflated rental rates for a power
boat to go out and watch the America's Cup sailing trials, at San Diego,
a few years ago. I would imagine the same thing is happening now in AU?
PMaszak
>From: J' *@*.*
>Date: 9/19/00 8:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <rTLx5.3$uE2....@news.pacbell.net>
>
>K.Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:03:59 -0700, J' <*@*.*> wrote:
>>
>> >Jim T wrote:
>
>> >>
><http://www.hondamotorcycle.com/models/2001lineup/Four-Stroke_Personal_Wa
tercraft.htm>
>
>> >Wow...that is great news.
>>
>> Wow is right!! our spruiking 4 strokes is almost not required.
>
>You quit the spruiking 4-strokes...I'll continue...I have a "yen" for
>
>Actually, there was more good 4-stroke news at that link...Honda is
>for a couple of years, and often wins open class races against the best
>2-strokes.
>
not exactly true. Yamaha has been granted an AMA exception to campaign a 400cc
4 stroke against 250 cc 2 strokes. They have won a few races.They do not
dominate. The riders on Team Yamaha would win races on 250 2strokes as well.
No doubt the market is heading to the cleaner side hence the gradual change.
The ultimate racing road motorcycles are still the GP 500cc 2 strokes. No way 4
strokes will run with that technology....yet
J'
> >From: J' *@*.*
> >Actually, there was more good 4-stroke news at that link...Honda is
> >introducing their first 2-stroke motorcross bike on the racing circuit.
> >They'll be joining Yamaha, that has campaigned a 4-stroke motorcrosser
> >for a couple of years, and often wins open class races against the best
> >2-strokes.
> >
> Firstly it's "Motocross" and secondly
> not exactly true. Yamaha has been granted an AMA exception to campaign a 400cc
> 4 stroke against 250 cc 2 strokes. They have won a few races.They do not
> dominate. The riders on Team Yamaha would win races on 250 2strokes as well.
> No doubt the market is heading to the cleaner side hence the gradual change.
> The ultimate racing road motorcycles are still the GP 500cc 2 strokes. No way >4
> strokes will run with that technology....yet
I hang my head in embarrassment..."motorcross"...duh...since my own
nephew is a professional *motocross* rider...been to see him race many
times at both Hangtown and San Jose... ;-)
You might be interested in this recent development, if you're not
already aware of it. Yamaha has a new 4-stroke 250 CC motocross bike:
http://www.yamaha-motor.co.jp/news/2000-06-23/yz250f-e.html
segments: *note the emphasis below*
---
The new YZ250F was developed to be the fastest 4-stroke motocrosser in
its class with the
adoption of state-of-the-art technologies from the Yamaha YZ426F factory
machine that *won the
1999 World Motocross Championship in the 500cc class*. The super-compact
5-valve engine with
titanium valves and other features make this model even *lighter than a
2-stroke of the same
class* and give it outstanding competitiveness comparable to the
2-strokes.
With the 1998 release of its revolutionary 4-stroke motocrosser "YZ400F"
(followed by the
"YZ426F"), Yamaha sent a breath of fresh air into the motocross world
that until then had been
the domain of 2-strokes. Enthusiasts especially liked the gutsy
traction of this lightweight
4-stroke, and many fans began to look to it as the *next-generation*
motocrosser.
---
How's this all applicable to outboards? Shows 4-strokes can be lighter
and just as powerful as 2-strokes, at some of the highest levels of
engine development.
I hear the sweet sounds of 4-stroke music...or is that CCR :-)
The 4-strokes just keep on rollin down that river like Proud Mary.
Bad Moon Rising...for 2-strokes...they may end up stuck in Lodi. ;-)
Matt Jensen
4-strokes are not really the future: they're a stepping stone *toward*
the future. The future is wrapped up in electric, Stirling cycle or
rotary engines or something else "strange and new." The days of the
piston engine are numbered. It's a high number, but they're numbered
nonetheless.
The environmentalists (the real ones...not the J'<*@*.*>s of the world)
are already pushing us toward electrics. I really don't see it as a bad
thing...but we're going to have to agree on where all the electricity
will come from. Dams are bad; nuke is bad; coal is bad; wind farms are
bad; solar is bad...the energy has to come from somewhere, folks. Like
it or not, society as we know it cannot survive without huge amounts of
energy.
PMaszak wrote:
>
> I will not argue the point that 4 strokes are the future.Future being the
> keyword.
> Thanks for letting me know of the advancements in motocross technology.
PMaszak
>nephew is a professional *motocross* rider...been to see him race many
>times at both Hangtown and San Jose... ;-)
>
fitness and skill. The following is from Yamahas Page.....
<<<<<<The new YZ250F was developed to be the fastest 4-stroke motocrosser in
its class with the adoption of state-of-the-art technologies from the Yamaha
YZ426F factory machine that won the 1999 World Motocross Championship in the
500cc class. The super-compact 5-valve engine with titanium valves and other
features make this model even lighter than a 2-stroke of the same class and
give it outstanding competitiveness comparable to the 2-strokes.
Under the AMA and MFJ regulations, a 250cc 4-stroke machine can compete in the
125cc class, while under the present FIM regulations it competes in the 250cc
class. In either case it is hoped that the appearance of this model will
contribute to enlivened competition between the 4-strokes and 2-strokes in both
classes. >>
It looks as though that the AMA will let it race against 125 2 strokes in the
U.S......
I will not argue the point that 4 strokes are the future.Future being the
keyword.
Thanks for letting me know of the advancements in motocross technology.
Philip
K.Smith
>K.Smith wrote:
>
>> I know you understand why I don't understand some of the
>> pollution stuff, but it seems there are groups pushing the
>> legislators there, yes????? so there must be votes in this stuff
>> or they wouldn't do it.
>>
>> Democracy at work, don't ya love it.
>
>Ya I love it, as long as us environmentalist keep winning. :-)
>
>Bureaucrats do what politicians tell them to do...and politicians are
>very good at counting majority votes. That's how these regs and laws
>come to be.
>
>I understand why marine pollution would be less a concern in AU. Makes
>sense.
Well yes & no there was a smog alert out in Syd.
yesterday, a bit embarrassing for the olympics.
>
>Actually, the emphasis on marine engine pollution, has been fairly
>rational, in terms of where laws have been enacted, and enviro oriented
>activities taking place. For the most part, those areas of the world,
>and country, with either the highest concentration of boaters per acre
>of waterways and/or the most pristine waters have seen the most laws and
>environmental activism.
I've emntioned before we follow a mix of you & europe so
whatever you do we're not far behind. We are just bringing in the
new diesel rules etc. so even though most of the country doesn't
need it it is needed in specific places & it seems people do all
sorts of things to get around regs so the regs apply all over,
fairly well accepted as good thing by most people, besides I
think even the simpletons now realise it's the pollution regs
that have driven to much better car engines all round.
>
>That's why we see laws, and environmental activity in highly populated
>places with lots of boaters, like the West Coast and the North East of
>the U.S. and Europe; and little activity in places with low population
>densities and lots of water like AU and other countries with relatively
>few recreational boaters.
Yes generally true, but we have holding tanks etc in
specific places & so cruisers need them if they want to go to the
popular places (say Sydney)
No 2 stoke bans etc though at least not yet it seems
they're happy enough to just let trickle down from the US improve
the engines
>
>Makes sense, in some areas dilution is enough to cope with the pollution
>load, while in others there needs to be cleaner systems, since pollution
>could overwhelm the dilution capacity. We used that concept all the
>time, in wastewater treatment.
>
>It will be interesting to see if OMC and Merc continue to build and send
>lots of carbed 2-strokes out of the U.S., as the tougher regs kick-in
>and most of their production for the American market is either DFI
>2-stroke or 4-stroke.
They do but equally Merc are pushing Optis OMC were the
Fichts but not so much lately, why I wonder?
>
>P.S. What effect has the Olympics had on commercial and recreational AU
>boating? I remember paying greatly inflated rental rates for a power
>boat to go out and watch the America's Cup sailing trials, at San Diego,
>a few years ago. I would imagine the same thing is happening now in AU?
A bummer you can't enter the harbour unless you have
prearranged berths, so marinas being what they are have ripped
everybody off, indeed it's not the huge killing they had counted
on because most of the cruisers have not come, just leaving the
millionares & they're the hardest of all to rip off ;-)
Regards,
K
J'
his cave and grunted: ;-)
> '98 Ram 1500 QC 4x4 5.9L, '01 ZR 800, '01 ZR 600 EFI
> '00 Checkmate Pulsare 2100 w/ Mercury Pro Max 225
> 4-strokes are not really the future: they're a stepping stone *toward*
> the future. The future is wrapped up in electric, Stirling cycle or
> rotary engines or something else "strange and new." The days of the
> piston engine are numbered. It's a high number, but they're numbered
> nonetheless.
The near future is probably hybrid propulsion, I did a post on that a
few days ago. Here it is again, since you seem to have come around, and
are more interested in clean, efficient modes of transport as opposed to
your current dirty 2-strokes:
---
Hybrid power for boats could be closer to reality with the recent Cal
ZEV board hearing
results.
I think it could be a great application for a combination diesel (or
gas)/electric powertrain
for boats. Clean, quiet, efficient and redundant power systems
appropriate for use in high
or low speed boating applications, could be a huge benefit for all of
us.
Diesel/electric submarines have (sorta) used it for years.
Here's a nice link for Hybrid boat power discussions:
http://www.samurai.com/lists/trawler-world-hybrid-power/
and few links about hybrid land vehicles: (I've driven both the
Insight and Prius, they both
work great)
http://www.honda2000.com/models/insight/index.html
http://prius.toyota.com/
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/000407-2.htm (Ford SUV hybrid)
http://www.verde.com/newsandissues/1352ea745692ff3933d12b6fd032605d.html
(Chrysler and GM SUV hybrids)
E. Normus wrote:
>
> J wrote: I'm done with this, gotta go to a Cal State Transportation
Board
> hearing
> >regarding ZEV (zero emissions vehicles) and very low emissions
vehicles.
For any environmentalist lurkers that might want to know how the
hearings turned out, but
don't want to expose themselves in this "hostile" setting...here's a
link:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/beelive/show_story.cgi?air
The hearings were a major victory, for ZEV and related cars and trucks
including hybrid
vehicles, which could filter down into future use in boats, and will
most certainly effect
future car and truck types thru out the U.S.
> Are you the OFFICIAL representative of Bluewater Network at the
hearings?
> For those unfamiliar with bluewater, it's a political lobby that's
> anti-two-stroke.
No, I was not the OFFICIAL representative of Bluewater Network at the
hearings, but I was
there in another capacity completely unrelated to Bluewater, but
connected to my
business.
Actually, I'm no longer a member of Bluewater, but was a couple of
years ago, until joining
a local SF Bay and Delta enviro group, that sends out the same info,
plus some, but focuses
more on local water quality issues, primarily related to municipal,
industrial and
agricultural discharges...an area I have some background in.
I'm just an ordinary dues paying member, (like Sierra Club, Ducks
Unlimited and others)
don't work for any of them, but certainly support much of what they
do.
I do agree with about 90% of what Bluewater does, which is basically
promote clean
engines and discourage dirty engines, in appropriate places.
I especially support their positions on PWC and snowmobiles.
I think their opposition to SF Bay area ferries, while probably
technically correct on the air quality issues, is tough from a PR
standpoint. Case of being
right, but losing the battle for public opinion.
(hmm...I do that a lot here in rec.boats...but not in the real world)
;-)
Who doesn't like a ferry ride across a bay? I know I do.
Here's a link to Bluewater, so you can judge for yourselves what they
are about, without
the pro or con "spin" of the newsgroup:
http://www.earthisland.org/bw/
I'm outta here, and going boating, that was a loooooooong post...
> The environmentalists (the real ones...not the J'<*@*.*>s of the world)
<please see above> :-)
> are already pushing us toward electrics. I really don't see it as a bad
> thing...but we're going to have to agree on where all the electricity
> will come from. Dams are bad; nuke is bad; coal is bad; wind farms are
> bad; solar is bad...the energy has to come from somewhere, folks. Like
> it or not, society as we know it cannot survive without huge amounts of
> energy.
Electrics are great. I recently drove several of them at the ZEV Rally,
prior to the successful vote of the Cal Air Resource Board to continue
to require advanced tech vehicles in California.
It seems the future of electrics will probably be fueled by fuel cells,
at least in cars, and maybe in boats. Had a lengthy discussion with the
Senior Manager of Alternative Fuel Vehicle Programs for DaimlerChrysler
about that very thing recently.
Production fuel celled powered cars, are likely only 3-5 years away.
Matt Jensen
>
> Matt Jensen (self-described "smog belching neanderthal") emerged from
> his cave and grunted: ;-)
Ah, J'<*@*.*>, you're a peach. I really like your hallmark: an insult
followed by a smiling emoticon.
> > '98 Ram 1500 QC 4x4 5.9L, '01 ZR 800, '01 ZR 600 EFI
> > '00 Checkmate Pulsare 2100 w/ Mercury Pro Max 225
Amazing how you quote that (right at the top, as usual) when the subject
isn't even 2-stroke engines. What do you think that you are proving?
If I added my 4-stroke fishing boat to that list, as well as my
push-powered mower, would you clip them before you pasted it at the top
of your responses? How about the 75hp Honda that I ordered a couple
weeks ago (a gift for my parents, to replace the old 75hp Force on their
pontoon boat.)
> The near future is probably hybrid propulsion, I did a post on that a
> few days ago. Here it is again, since you seem to have come around, and
> are more interested in clean, efficient modes of transport as opposed to
> your current dirty 2-strokes:
You're putting words in my mouth. I am not "more interested" in
anything. I'm just speculating that all engines are going to follow the
same path that automobiles are now following...I'm not saying whether I
think that's a good thing or a bad thing. I really don't have an
opinion.
> ---
> Hybrid power for boats could be closer to reality with the recent Cal
> ZEV board hearing
> results.
>
> I think it could be a great application for a combination diesel (or
> gas)/electric powertrain
> for boats. Clean, quiet, efficient and redundant power systems
> appropriate for use in high
> or low speed boating applications, could be a huge benefit for all of
> us.
Well, I like Diesels. Plus, electric engines woudln't have some of the
power problems that 4-stroke gassers do. The sky's the limit when it
comes to HP and torque from an electric. I've never really looked into
their weight characteristics, though.
> Diesel/electric submarines have (sorta) used it for years.
>
> Here's a nice link for Hybrid boat power discussions:
>
> http://www.samurai.com/lists/trawler-world-hybrid-power/
>
> and few links about hybrid land vehicles: (I've driven both the
> Insight and Prius, they both
> work great)
>
> http://www.honda2000.com/models/insight/index.html
>
> http://prius.toyota.com/
>
> http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/000407-2.htm (Ford SUV hybrid)
>
>
> http://www.verde.com/newsandissues/1352ea745692ff3933d12b6fd032605d.html
> (Chrysler and GM SUV hybrids)
Hey, that's great. I may take a look at the SUV hybrids--until now,
I've never seen an electric or hybrid that could safely pull a trailer.
--
Matt Jensen (my email address is "moc.noivbo@nesnejm" backwards)
'98 Ram 1500 QC 4x4 5.9L, '01 ZR 800, '01 ZR 600 EFI
'00 Checkmate Pulsare 2100 w/ Mercury Pro Max 225
'01 Honda 75hp outboard, early-eightysomething Honda on a fishing boat
(last line just to test my hypothesis that J'<*@*.*> will clip it when
he quotes my sig at the top of his next response.)
hkr...@capu.net
>
> J' wrote:
> >
> > Matt Jensen (self-described "smog belching neanderthal") emerged from
> > his cave and grunted: ;-)
>
> Ah, J'<*@*.*>, you're a peach. I really like your hallmark: an insult
> followed by a smiling emoticon.
>
That's because "J" is the representative of the Smilin' Ass Party.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Tennis players have fuzzy balls
J'
'98 Ram 1500 QC 4x4 5.9L, '01 ZR 800, '01 ZR 600 EFI
'00 Checkmate Pulsare 2100 w/ Mercury Pro Max 225
*'01 Honda 75hp outboard, early-eightysomething Honda on a fishing boat*
Now if we can just get him out of that gas guzzling Power Ram...we'll
work on the 2-strokes later.
(If I quit kidding you Matt...it means I don't respect you...or what you
post) :-)
>How about the 75hp Honda that I ordered a couple
> weeks ago (a gift for my parents, to replace the old 75hp Force on their
> pontoon boat.)
That was a class thing to do. They're gonna love that motor. Wanna
adopt me?
I could use a new (even more fuel efficient) car.
> Well, I like Diesels. Plus, electric engines woudln't have some of the
> power problems that 4-stroke gassers do. The sky's the limit when it
> comes to HP and torque from an electric. I've never really looked into
> their weight characteristics, though.
While it's obviously no truck, the little Toyota Prius Hybrid running a
CVT transmission, had amazing amounts of torque, and the battery only
adds 100 lbs to the total weight. The whole hybrid system adds around
250 lbs, total.
I kept thinking as I drove it, how seemless the transition from battery
to *4-stroke* gas motor power was, and how useful a hybrid power system
(especially with diesel) could be in either a heavy duty truck or boat.
The dual power source, in a boat, would be a MAJOR advantage, and could
negate the need for twin gas or diesel motors for safety purposes.
Actually, one of the major truck companies had a prototype big rig truck
tractor with Hybrid power at the ZEV Rally.
Duffy Electric Boats was also there.
Speaking of electric boats, here's a terrific resource for lots of links
to electric boats and outboards:
http://www.econogics.com/ev/evboats.htm
> (last line just to test my hypothesis that J'<*@*.*> will clip it when
> he quotes my sig at the top of his next response.)
Surprised?
Matt Jensen
>
> Matt Jensen (slowly reforming polluter) revealed: ;-)
Well, I think myself as a guy who buys whatever best fits the
application and doesn't believe every environmentalist theory he
hears...but...
> '98 Ram 1500 QC 4x4 5.9L, '01 ZR 800, '01 ZR 600 EFI
> '00 Checkmate Pulsare 2100 w/ Mercury Pro Max 225
> *'01 Honda 75hp outboard, early-eightysomething Honda on a fishing boat*
Cool.
> Now if we can just get him out of that gas guzzling Power Ram...we'll
> work on the 2-strokes later.
Problem is, everything that can tow 2-3 tons is a gas guzzler. My next
truck will be a Diesel. They're not misers, but it's the best you can
do right now.
> (If I quit kidding you Matt...it means I don't respect you...or what you
> post) :-)
Sorry, some of it just doesn't sound like "kidding" to me. :-)
> >How about the 75hp Honda that I ordered a couple
> > weeks ago (a gift for my parents, to replace the old 75hp Force on their
> > pontoon boat.)
>
> That was a class thing to do. They're gonna love that motor. Wanna
> adopt me?
Yes, they will love it. Fuel-efficient and very quiet at pontoon
speeds. The ultimate pontoon motor. I'd never own a pontoon (or, as
I've said before fishing boat) with anything else. Not saying that's
all they're good for...those are just the applications where *I* believe
that they fit better than anything else.
> > Well, I like Diesels. Plus, electric engines woudln't have some of the
> > power problems that 4-stroke gassers do. The sky's the limit when it
> > comes to HP and torque from an electric. I've never really looked into
> > their weight characteristics, though.
>
> While it's obviously no truck, the little Toyota Prius Hybrid running a
> CVT transmission, had amazing amounts of torque, and the battery only
> adds 100 lbs to the total weight. The whole hybrid system adds around
> 250 lbs, total.
Gotta love those CVTs. They really make up for finicky/peaky engine
technologies. I don't know that I've ever seen one that will go 100,000
miles though. I'd commend Toyota if they managed to do it, though.
> I kept thinking as I drove it, how seemless the transition from battery
> to *4-stroke* gas motor power was, and how useful a hybrid power system
> (especially with diesel) could be in either a heavy duty truck or boat.
> The dual power source, in a boat, would be a MAJOR advantage, and could
> negate the need for twin gas or diesel motors for safety purposes.
>
> Actually, one of the major truck companies had a prototype big rig truck
> tractor with Hybrid power at the ZEV Rally.
It was only a matter of time. Trains have been using Diesel/electric
engines for years. That clearly shows that electric engines are
powerful enough for just about any job.
> Duffy Electric Boats was also there.
>
> Speaking of electric boats, here's a terrific resource for lots of links
> to electric boats and outboards:
>
> http://www.econogics.com/ev/evboats.htm
Not quite ready for mass consumption, but I won't deny that electrics
are where we're going. I think that's a much better future than one
operating on 4-stroke gassers. That would reduce hydrocarbon emissions,
but most/all of the other drawbacks would still be there.
> > (last line just to test my hypothesis that J'<*@*.*> will clip it when
> > he quotes my sig at the top of his next response.)
>
> Surprised?
Yes, pleasantly. :-)
--
Matt Jensen (my email address is "moc.noivbo@nesnejm" backwards)
K.Smith
wrote:
>The environmentalists (the real ones...not the J'<*@*.*>s of the world)
>are already pushing us toward electrics. I really don't see it as a bad
>thing...but we're going to have to agree on where all the electricity
>will come from. Dams are bad; nuke is bad; coal is bad;
Sorry to barge in Matt,
> wind farms are
>bad; solar is bad...
But why/how???? can they be "bad" I guess I'd even ask the same
of nuke power?
K
>the energy has to come from somewhere, folks. Like
>it or not, society as we know it cannot survive without huge amounts of
>energy.
>
>
>PMaszak wrote:
>>
>> I will not argue the point that 4 strokes are the future.Future being the
>> keyword.
>> Thanks for letting me know of the advancements in motocross technology.
>
hkr...@capu.net
>
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:34:33 -0500, Matt Jensen <n...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The environmentalists (the real ones...not the J'<*@*.*>s of the world)
> >are already pushing us toward electrics. I really don't see it as a bad
> >thing...but we're going to have to agree on where all the electricity
> >will come from. Dams are bad; nuke is bad; coal is bad;
>
> Sorry to barge in Matt,
>
> > wind farms are
> >bad; solar is bad...
>
> But why/how???? can they be "bad" I guess I'd even ask the same
> of nuke power?
power. They depend upon winds and sunlight.
And he's also right that j is not a real environmentalist.
--
Harry Krause
------------
We are not wholly bad or good Who live our lives under Milk Wood,
And Thou, I know, wilt be the first to see our best side, not our
worst--Dylan Thomas
Matt Jensen
>
> > wind farms are
> >bad; solar is bad...
>
> But why/how???? can they be "bad" I guess I'd even ask the same
> of nuke power?
Before I say anything...please note that I wasn't giving my opinions on
these energy sources--I was just illustrating that all of the known
energy sources have their detractors.
Wind farms? I haven't heard any complaints about these that I really
agree with. Most of them have to do with their ugliness and girth.
Another commonly-cited one is that they can kill birds. As I said, I
don't agree with any of these complaints. The only problem I see with
wind power is that a) wind is not reliable; and b) the price per KWh is
high due to the fact that each tower can only produce a small amount of
electricity.
Solar. The complaints I've heard are similar to wind. Solar fields
tend to be huge and ugly. Again, I don't agree with those complaints.
Again, the only drawback I see is that each cell produces relatively
little electricity, so solar fields are huge and expensive.
Nuke? I agree with you. However, there are the issues with possible
contamination and lack of permanent waste storage facilities. I always
thought shooting the waste at the Sun was a good idea. Too bad it's
dangerous and impractical.
For *myself*, I'd rank those power sources this way (from best to
worst):
1. Water (dams)
2. Nuclear
3. Solar
4. Wind
5. Chemical combustion (coal, oil.)
The only one that I, personally, dislike, is chemical combustion. It
just creates way too much pollution. Anyone who is disturbed by
2-stroke hydrocarbons should take a look at what is being belched out by
the average coal-fired powerplant.
(BTW, I ranked solar and wind under nuclear *only* because they're not
practical (yet?) given the huge amounts of electricity this country
consumes. Otherwise they would've been 2 & 3.)
K.Smith
wrote:
>"K.Smith" wrote:
>>
>> > wind farms are
>> >bad; solar is bad...
>>
>> But why/how???? can they be "bad" I guess I'd even ask the same
>> of nuke power?
>
>Before I say anything...please note that I wasn't giving my opinions on
>these energy sources--I was just illustrating that all of the known
>energy sources have their detractors.
>
>Wind farms? I haven't heard any complaints about these that I really
>agree with. Most of them have to do with their ugliness and girth.
>Another commonly-cited one is that they can kill birds. As I said, I
>don't agree with any of these complaints. The only problem I see with
>wind power is that a) wind is not reliable; and b) the price per KWh is
>high due to the fact that each tower can only produce a small amount of
>electricity.
Thanks Matt,
Yes here the nimbys bring all that up but it's just to usual
scared of change thing & not taken seriously (darwin awards for
birds????;-). we have very few wind farms compared to you, but
they're great.
But there's no serious downside to wind power from a genuine
environmental point of view that you can tell me about.
>
>Solar. The complaints I've heard are similar to wind. Solar fields
>tend to be huge and ugly. Again, I don't agree with those complaints.
>Again, the only drawback I see is that each cell produces relatively
>little electricity, so solar fields are huge and expensive.
Well lots of things are "ugly" but again I can't see how there's
an environmental downside, although I have heard that the
manufacture of the solar cells themselves does create more
environmental debit to be made up than the wind farms & as HK
points out neither are full time energy supplies. We also have
protests about a tidal power station but like the wind farm
nimbys it's just nonsense.
>
>Nuke? I agree with you. However, there are the issues with possible
>contamination and lack of permanent waste storage facilities. I always
>thought shooting the waste at the Sun was a good idea. Too bad it's
>dangerous and impractical.
I guess it's off topic etc. but even with the very worst of
accidents it seems very few people have actually died from nuke
power so it's much safer than say coal mines etc (hundreds every
yr outright plus lung probs for miles around, acid rain), It's
actually very clean in making power & I thought the waste thing
had been settled.
I seems you dig a very deep but smallish shaft in our central
outback which is apparently very "stable" rock. (my understanding
is that there's actually lots of naturally occurring radiation at
deeper depths anyway ) then you bore spokes out from the central
shaft & store the waste in there as each spoke is filled it's
concreted up when all the spokes at one level are full the bottom
of the liftwell is concreted up to the next level & the next
layer of spokes is positioned between the spokes below & so on.
Again just my understanding but apparently absolutely long term
safe, no new technology needed & yes it's expensive but not too
much so.
So there's risk in transporting the waste to the site etc. but
there is a risk of kids sticking their fingers in the power
points . Again the nimbys are whinging but as we export lots of
uranium it seems only right we should complete the cycle & bury
the waste.
besides we need the money !!! your dollar is murdering us.
>
>For *myself*, I'd rank those power sources this way (from best to
>worst):
>
>1. Water (dams)
>2. Nuclear
>3. Solar
>4. Wind
>5. Chemical combustion (coal, oil.)
>
>The only one that I, personally, dislike, is chemical combustion. It
>just creates way too much pollution. Anyone who is disturbed by
>2-stroke hydrocarbons should take a look at what is being belched out by
>the average coal-fired powerplant.
>
>(BTW, I ranked solar and wind under nuclear *only* because they're not
>practical (yet?) given the huge amounts of electricity this country
>consumes. Otherwise they would've been 2 & 3.)
It's a shame the world lacked the confidence in it's own
cleverness not to make much better utilisation of nuclear but as
things progress I think it'll have a revisit.
K
Matt Jensen
I believe that the world did, indeed, have that confidence in its own
cleverness. However, Chernobyl icksnayed that in one swell foop. :-)
"K.Smith" wrote:
>
> It's a shame the world lacked the confidence in it's own
> cleverness not to make much better utilisation of nuclear but as
> things progress I think it'll have a revisit.
--
MrDancer
"K.Smith" <drift...@nospamiprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:39cd74a...@news.iprimus.com.au...
We need huge solar panels in outer space, where they can remain in full
contact with the sun (no atmospheric problems or earth shadow), and they
will be closer to the sun. Then we just need to figure out a way to
transfer all of that energy back to earth.
If we can ever figure it out, our best source of electricity would probably
be lightning. Do you think they can build quick-charge capacitors large
enough to handle a lightning bolt?
Oh yeah, cold fusion and superconductors are good ideas, also.
On a more practical front, we could be harnessing tidal power for
hydroelectric generation. Build a series of locks on coastal bays, inlets,
canals. As the tide comes in, let the water rushing thru the locks inland
generate electricity, then again as the water rushes back out while the tide
is dropping. The trick is to store the tides in reservoirs to get more work
out of them......
OK, I'll quit rambling.....
K.Smith
wrote:
>
>I believe that the world did, indeed, have that confidence in its own
>cleverness. However, Chernobyl icksnayed that in one swell foop. :-)
Yeah certainly cause for concern but it was a "worst case" yet it
killed less people outright than a plane crash & longer term will
shorten some lives, yes but very few compared to coal & over a
much smaller area.
I took heart that it was a demo of why we should go nuke, but I'm
not popular in htat regard, nor many others it seems
K
K.Smith
<mrda...@camalott.com> wrote:
>
>"K.Smith" <drift...@nospamiprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>news:39cd74a...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>We need huge solar panels in outer space, where they can remain in full
>contact with the sun (no atmospheric problems or earth shadow), and they
>will be closer to the sun. Then we just need to figure out a way to
>transfer all of that energy back to earth.
>
>If we can ever figure it out, our best source of electricity would probably
>be lightning. Do you think they can build quick-charge capacitors large
>enough to handle a lightning bolt?
>
>Oh yeah, cold fusion and superconductors are good ideas, also.
>
>On a more practical front, we could be harnessing tidal power for
>hydroelectric generation. Build a series of locks on coastal bays, inlets,
>canals. As the tide comes in, let the water rushing thru the locks inland
>generate electricity, then again as the water rushes back out while the tide
>is dropping. The trick is to store the tides in reservoirs to get more work
>out of them......
Yeah we have one of those getting ready now it's in an
area that has 8 mtr (26ft) tides & seems a really good idea, they
can organise it so there's power 24 X 7, yet there're are
protests.
I know this sounds like a grassy kknowl thing but i
wonder who organises the protests because sometimes they just
defy logic.
K
hkr...@capu.net
"Mr.Dancer:" wrote:
> >On a more practical front, we could be harnessing tidal power for
> >hydroelectric generation. Build a series of locks on coastal bays, inlets,
> >canals. As the tide comes in, let the water rushing thru the locks inland
> >generate electricity, then again as the water rushes back out while the tide
> >is dropping. The trick is to store the tides in reservoirs to get more work
> >out of them......
>
> Yeah we have one of those getting ready now it's in an
> area that has 8 mtr (26ft) tides & seems a really good idea, they
> can organise it so there's power 24 X 7, yet there're are
> protests.
>
> I know this sounds like a grassy kknowl thing but i
> wonder who organises the protests because sometimes they just
> defy logic.
There may well be good reasons for the protests, for technical or
environmental reasons. Or perhaps there's a corporation sponsoring the
project whose reputation leaves something to be desired.
--
Harry Krause
------------
Book (n): a utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
hkr...@capu.net
>
>
> >> Yeah we have one of those getting ready now it's in an
> >> area that has 8 mtr (26ft) tides & seems a really good idea, they
> >> can organise it so there's power 24 X 7, yet there're are
> >> protests.
> >>
> >> I know this sounds like a grassy kknowl thing but i
> >> wonder who organises the protests because sometimes they just
> >> defy logic.
> >
> >There may well be good reasons for the protests, for technical or
> >environmental reasons. Or perhaps there's a corporation sponsoring the
> >project whose reputation leaves something to be desired.
> >
>
> "locals" have endless supplies of hydrocarbons to burn so they
> see anything that doesn't consume same as a direct threat.
>
> It appears the Fed Govt is going to give a subsidy to the
> tidal thing so it can help us meet our greenhouse obligations
> which the coal & gas producers see as a direct assault on them,
> which I guess it is in some ways.
>
> I like it because it seems like a great use of wasted
> energy.
Perhaps you can get your buddy j down there on a grassy knoll covered
with windmills and tell him to do what comes naturally...be a blowhard.
He might be able to generate a ...watt.
--
Harry Krause
------------
If you believe in telekinesis, raise my hand
Del Cecchi
Just goes to show that you can make something fool proof, but you can't
make it damn fool proof. Airplanes crash, you don't see people
demanding an end to air transport.
del cecchi.
K.Smith
>
>"Mr.Dancer:" wrote:
>> >On a more practical front, we could be harnessing tidal power for
>> >hydroelectric generation. Build a series of locks on coastal bays, inlets,
>> >canals. As the tide comes in, let the water rushing thru the locks inland
>> >generate electricity, then again as the water rushes back out while the tide
>> >is dropping. The trick is to store the tides in reservoirs to get more work
>> >out of them......
>>
>"K.Smith" wrote:
>
>> Yeah we have one of those getting ready now it's in an
>> area that has 8 mtr (26ft) tides & seems a really good idea, they
>> can organise it so there's power 24 X 7, yet there're are
>> protests.
>>
>> I know this sounds like a grassy kknowl thing but i
>> wonder who organises the protests because sometimes they just
>> defy logic.
>
>There may well be good reasons for the protests, for technical or
>environmental reasons. Or perhaps there's a corporation sponsoring the
>project whose reputation leaves something to be desired.
>
Yes I suppose that's true it's just in this case the
"locals" have endless supplies of hydrocarbons to burn so they
see anything that doesn't consume same as a direct threat.
It appears the Fed Govt is going to give a subsidy to the
tidal thing so it can help us meet our greenhouse obligations
which the coal & gas producers see as a direct assault on them,
which I guess it is in some ways.
I like it because it seems like a great use of wasted
energy.
K
LaBomba182
>Just goes to show that you can make something fool proof, but you can't
>make it damn fool proof. Airplanes crash, you don't see people
>demanding an end to air transport.
>
>del cecchi.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yes, but when a plane crashes only the people on the plane die and the ground
around the crash sight is not contaminated for hundreds of years. If that were
to happen, you can bet AmTrac would be booked solid and most airfields would be
drag strips by now. Capt. Bill