Dare to Say No

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by Chris Ostlind, Nov 23, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

    While I do respect your opinion, Troy, it sounds refreshingly like the same arguments that were presented by the horse owners when automobiles first arrived on the scene.

    Pick a moment in the history of man when a new technological reality first appeared and I'll show you the gang of refusers who said it would never work. They moaned while the world marched past.

    You can argue against it, but you can't resist its inevitability.
     
  2. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    That's hardly a valid argument....unless you've invented something that will replace a boat, instead of just improving it?:confused:
     
    Doug Lord likes this.
  3. portacruise
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 1,475
    Likes: 178, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 218
    Location: USA

    portacruise Senior Member

    Nuclear plants make sense to me. In China, now with eleven operating reactors producing 1.2% of the total electricity produced, the country is well into the next phase of its nuclear power program. Some 22 reactors are either under construction or likely to be so by the end of 2009. Another 27 units are planned, with construction due to start within three years. China aims at least to quadruple its nuclear capacity from that operating and under construction by 2020.

    [/QUOTE]

    Seems to me like your comments about wind power would apply equally to nuclear. The chief issue with nuclear that is being ignored is the million year poisonous waste issue. Most wastes are simply being stored on site and ignored for the time being, which makes nuclear seem quite economical. AFAIK there aren't even any decomissioning procedures set up yet, even in France. Even if you just encase the whole plant in cement like Chernobyl, and post guards for a million years, that is not economical in the long run. The USA is at least 10 years behind in "proper?" disposal of even the low level. What can we expect from China, where there is essentially no regulation, and especially monitoring, regarding pollution?

    Using less energy, even with present technology should have the least impact. I agree that cradle to grave studies of "green" approaches need to be considered before we dive in, lest we have to come back to perhaps more ecological fossil fuels in 10 years.

    Porta
     
  4. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member


    Who said we should replace boats? What has been said is that we should start to design and produce more efficient boats. What has also been said is that the changeover should proceed in a logical, timely fashion and not simply shut-off the old ways and begin tomorrow building in the new.

    If the comment that change is inevitable is not valid, Troy, you might want to tell us how old you are, what functional, efficiency oriented changes have taken place during your lifetime and how they have made your life better with less waste of energy? Perhaps you are a carpenter who still pounds nails by hand for every job you do... refusing to adopt air driven nailers as new fangled and unneccessary? Perhaps you are watching as your competitors, who have long ago adopted air nailers as the status quo, as they steal each and every job from you, or drive down your hourly wage because you can't keep up the same pace on the job?

    I grew-up in L.A. and I will tell you from personal experience that the air in the basin is much, much better today than it was when I was a teenager (the 60's) and there are way more cars in town now than there ever were back then. That has happened because someone saw the writing on the wall and had the sack to enact legislation that forced auto makers to install smog devices on the cars rather than simply do nothing and dump tons of crap into the atmosphere.

    Maybe you have an Energy Star regrigerator in your home...? Without those changes in appliance design and manufacturing, you'd be spending more on electricity than without. You'd have fewer boating dollars each year. Yet, you want to argue for doing nothing?

    The examples are all over the place in our modern world and you have been using some of them for years with no complaint at all. You have lighter, more efficient clothing; lighter, more efficient cars; More efficient just about everything because consumers want all they can get for the least amount of cash outlay and the smallest usage bills they can find. Yet, you want to argue for doing nothing?

    Like I said, Troy, the world will simply pass you by at the next curve in the road and soon enough, whether you like it or not, legislation will force you to comply. So, why not look at the whole deal as an opportunity and not a problem?

    When we argue for our limitations, we are stuck in the moment of yesterday. When we argue for our potential, we have the whole, wide open landscape of tomorrow before us.

    You get to choose for the time being. Make it a good one.
     
  5. SamSam
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 3,899
    Likes: 200, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 971
    Location: Coastal Georgia

    SamSam Senior Member

    They went ahead and built them, without solving any problems about the waste or what to do with de-commissioned power plants. The French apparently have more faith in their "technocrats" than we do, and changing the name from "burying" nuclear waste to "stockpiling" it for the future (in case they come up with a use for, or a solution for, the waste) is all it took to make the people comfortable.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html
    It's a political problem because there is no acceptable technological solution.
     
    Chris Ostlind likes this.
  6. TeddyDiver
    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 2,614
    Likes: 136, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1650
    Location: Finland/Norway

    TeddyDiver Gollywobbler

    Nope.. It's a technological problem without a politically acceptable solution ;)
     
  7. RHough
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 1,792
    Likes: 61, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 793
    Location: BC Summers / Nayarit Winters

    RHough Retro Dude

    Tom, I agree with you for the most part.

    The planet has "gone to ****" for countless numbers of living things in the past. The planet will someday "go to ****" for every form of life we know of when the power runs out.

    The debate here is only about how fast it will go to **** for humans. And none of us wants to be here when it does go to **** for us.

    Humans might be considered a virus that the planet's immune system is starting to deal with. Can the human virus change and adapt quickly enough to survive the planet's attempts to return to health? Will humans figure out how to move out before the landlord forces death by turning off the sun?

    Are our egos so big that we think that the the planet depends on us for survival? Isn't only our own survival that we are concerned about and not bleeding the planet dry is has a selfish motive?

    I think the planet was just fine before we came along and it will be just fine after we are gone. In the greater scheme of things humans are pretty insignificant.

    In galactic terms would an overnight return to 100% organic boats have any real effect on anything?

    Are "reasoning humans" anything more than a puss filled infection that the planet will deal with in it's own way?
     
  8. TollyWally
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 774
    Likes: 26, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 423
    Location: Fox Island

    TollyWally Senior Member

    "Nope.. It's a technological problem without a politically acceptable solution "


    Bingo!
     
  9. RHough
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 1,792
    Likes: 61, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 793
    Location: BC Summers / Nayarit Winters

    RHough Retro Dude

    Can't we just toss the waste into the furnace? :)
     
  10. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    I never said I opposed change; I never claimed it isn't inevitable. Stop trying to set me up as some sort of antediluvian, retrograde straw man you can slap around for the sake of furthering your argument.

    Here's a little reality check, though: you seem to have some vision of displacing and replacing centuries of boatbuilding design, construction and culture with politically and socioeconomically 'correct' boats. It ain't gonna happen. The world is arse-deep in boats that have evolved to fulfill particular functions, and they aren't going to go away because you're on a crusade to save energy. Nor are the designers, builders or customers.

    I repeat the point that you're blithely ignoring: Prius and other fuel-efficient hybrids have won a well-deserved place in automobile transportation. But they have not driven pickup trucks, SUV's, sports cars, minivans, 4x4's, or other politically incorrect vehicles off the road. Nor will they.

    I never said we can't or shouldn't do what we can to make boats more energy efficient. But you appear to be on some sort of religious crusade. So tell me: how far are you willing to go in the holy name of The God of Low Fuel Consumption?

    Let's just outlaw ski boats, for example. After all, a craft that's designed mostly to pull skiers across the lake is an inherently inefficient, fuel-guzzling mode of transportation. So is a bass boat. You can catch plenty of fish sitting on the bank with a string on a stick; you don't need to chase all over the lake for some stupid tournament that isn't even feeding the homeless.

    You know, it would be a lot easier on the environment if we all just stayed home, veg'ing on the couch and watching professional athletes beat up on each other. All those people trailering their boats out to Havasu or the Colorado River, or heading down to Marina del Rey to fire up their weekend cruisers? They're just wasting precious energy.
     
  11. TeddyDiver
    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 2,614
    Likes: 136, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1650
    Location: Finland/Norway

    TeddyDiver Gollywobbler

    Burying the waste deep in the bedrock becomes politically accepted when the first temporary store get's busted by terrorists or by an accident. After that the public wants it done ASP. So it's only a matter of time and mr Murphy..
     
  12. boat fan
    Joined: Sep 2008
    Posts: 717
    Likes: 17, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 435
    Location: Australia

    boat fan Senior Member

  13. Chris Ostlind

    Chris Ostlind Previous Member

    Thanks for the conversation, Troy, it's been great fun.

    Out
     
  14. portacruise
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 1,475
    Likes: 178, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 218
    Location: USA

    portacruise Senior Member

    Actually, I believe that's one of the best ultimate solutions. If we use a fusion powered furnace which mimics the sun on a small scale. Generates power from the hydrogen as it goes and would presumably break down radioactive fission products that are injected to their harmless subatomic particles. Too bad we are expected to achieve fusion for the foreseeable future, nothing can contain the super high temperatures for more than milliseconds or so....

    Porta
     

  15. apex1

    apex1 Guest

    Really do´nt know what all the drama here was good for?
    just making bubbles....

    We have affordable boats (and always had), leave the gimmicks out and voila.

    We have cheap boats (cheaper than ever, when you compare real purchasing power/value).

    We have environmental friendly boats (clients choice to which extend).

    We have simple boats (simpler than ever, due to better materials and knowledge)
    Bolger was´nt possible 75 years ago....

    We have economical boats (we had´nt 75 years ago), getting steadily better.

    And then we have the exact opposite of all the boats mentioned above!
    Not enough, we have every single nuance in between!



    Mates, we have a competitive market! Designers, Builders and even Brokers fight for every penny!
    There is absolutely NO NEED to change anything, to improve something, to act in any way!
    We do so already, every single day since the first log went adrift by human will. (that was a few weeks before I entered the business, so I know from heresay only)

    Of course, today we process materials in a different (often more expensive) way than years ago. We Build in wood / Epoxy, coat steel in Epoxy, to make boating easier and cheaper!
    Sure! Cheaper! Less maintenance and corrosion makes the boat cheaper over the intended lifecycle. We use light fibres, have sandwich structures, to make boats cheaper, simpler, more economical.

    Cheaper? YES cheaper! A lighter and stronger structure is a cheaper structure, over the lifecycle, what else?

    We see the hybrid idea coming up every single week twice. Still not mature, but that will develop, sure!

    We have seen dramatically changes in our el. departement in the past 25 years (bus systems, LED lighting, integrated inverter technology, lighter genny´s, sophisticated power management, etc.)

    Of course, no wine cellar onboard, no AC in the bilge room, no widescreen TV in every single compartement, no lighting in the chain locker, no triple redundant Inmarsat, no self tracking antenna for every single nonsense, that can make some little difference to what sixpack Joe dreams about (and buys too often).

    Get the client mature!

    Not the industry!


    and..................................this:
    ... was just true!

    Regards
    Richard
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.