50hp versus 35hp Kenai debate...

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SockeyOrange
    replied
    Some questions...

    Is the sky really going to fall if the Kenai changes to 50 hp? It would make sense that a motor that spends most of it's time in the lower end of the rpm range (back trolling and all) is going to pollute the same amount regardless of a throttle cam. A motor that is allowed to operate how it was designed when it is WOT would meet the EPA standards that were in place when it was built. The real problem is over crowding, both guides and private types alike.
    How about some drift only days...maybe limit the number of guides or the trips they can take. The point is we all have to be part of the solution..

    Leave a comment:


  • yukon
    replied
    Mark this day, Nerka and Doc agreeing!!! LOL LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • Nerka
    replied
    nice job

    I was just about to post when you came on fishnphysician. You are correct, the 600 gallons a day figure is not for everyday and your values for BTEX are right on.

    Leave a comment:


  • fishNphysician
    replied
    I stand corrected....

    Originally posted by fishNphysician View Post

    That works out to about 100 gallons per day. Split among 250 boats per day, that's about 0.4 gallon of spilled fuel per boat per day. This assumes all boats fishing every day, which they don't. If powerboats only run 25 days in the month, then that's 120 gallons per day or about half a gallon per day per boat.

    That puts the pollution problem in much more tangible terms for the individual boater.

    But it also begs the question... how in the hell did DEC come up with their 600 gallons per day estimate of dumped fuel? That would result in pollution levels 6 times greater than the 10 ppb standard. Sounds like fuzzy math to me.

    Nerka?
    In the interest of disseminating good information, I must amend some of the above assertions.

    The 100 gallons/day that I calculated is what's required to consistently produce 10 PPB of volatile hydrocarbon compounds in the river during typical July flows.

    The 100 gallon figure represents actual HC's or BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, xylene). These are the volatile contaminants being measured, and these make up anywhere from 25-40% of the actual volume of gasoline sold at the pump. Refineries change the formulation of gasoline depending on geographic area, climate, and season of the year:

    "The desired volatility depends on the ambient temperature: in hotter climates, gasoline components of higher molecular weight and thus lower volatility are used. In cold climates, too little volatility results in cars failing to start. In hot climates, excessive volatility results in what is known as "vapour lock" where combustion fails to occur. In the United States, volatility is regulated in large urban centers to reduce the emission of unburned hydrocarbons. In large cities, so-called reformulated gasoline that is less prone to evaporation, among other properties, is required. In Australia, the volatility limit changes every month and differs for each main distribution center, but most countries simply have a summer, winter and perhaps intermediate limit."


    In other words, the volume of gasoline containing 100 gallons of BTEX will be some figure greater than 100 gallons. If we assume the midpoint of the 25-40% range (33% or about 1/3) then it's easy to see that it takes about 300 gallons of gasoline to get 100 gallons of BTEX.


    I stated that it takes 100 gallons/day of these compounds to produce 10 PPB contamination. On the worst day sampled ( July 21 2006) the contamination actually reached 20 PPB... that would have required about 200 gallons of BTEX.


    That translates to about 600 gallons of raw gasoline.


    So yes, it is definitely in the realm of probability that the equivalent of 600 gallons of raw fuel could be discharged into the river on the worst days of contamination. Mind you, not 600 gallons every day, but certainly on days when the fleet swells to 700 boats with nearly 30% of them being 2 strokes.

    My apologies for casting doubt on the 600 figure.

    There, Nerka... I caught and released myself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcus
    replied
    I'm tired. . .

    Guys, I think I'm going to rest my case about here. I'm too old and too tired to keep on endlessly hashing over the same tired arguments.

    The big-motor, more-is-less, don't-restrict-commercial-use, there-is-no-problem, get-rid-of-the-2-strokes-now crowd have their point of view, stated over and over and over on this and other threads as has been mine.

    Unless someone comes up with something new, I going to go read a good book.

    This is going nowhere, and I have much more pleasant ways to waste my time.

    Leave a comment:


  • fishNphysician
    replied
    On the other hand....

    Originally posted by Marcus View Post
    If you're really so afraid of the Feds jumping in that quickly, why on earth would you even want to chance going to 50s when there is no data whatsoever that says such an increase won't actually increase pollution?

    On the flip side, I don't believe there is any body of data out there that says it will.

    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...1&postcount=59

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcus
    replied
    Is there an end to this?

    Originally posted by yukon View Post
    Cut commercial use to 1 trip per day = More guide boats and rental boats on the water.
    One more drift day = another "Super Tuesday" effect therefore putting more demand in fewer days with power boats and increasing hydrocarbons over that time.

    Smaller boats, lighter loads few trips = more guide boats on the water and smaller boats mean less safety.

    With this plan you will take a lot of non-guides off the river as well, if you reduce the size of the boats to, let's say 16' or even 18', make them all flat bottoms and only allow 4 people total per boat. Please write a letter to the editor advocating that and see how it goes over with the general public. (unless guide are the only usergroup you want to single out, then the public will probably go for it)

    Sorry to put a plan in your "mouth" (for lack of a better term) but what size boats would you feel is acceptable and who would have to have them?

    And what "load" is acceptable and who would it apply to, guides and non-guided boats?

    Where is your data for the statement:

    "We have reached and gone beyond, violating the carrying capacity of the resource."
    yukon: Sorry, but that dog won't hunt; he wasn't any good in the first place, and he's worn out to boot. At some point, supply creates its own demand. Nor am I aiming only at commercial users. . . all user groups are part of the problem, and all user groups will bear part of the costs of a solution. Personally, I get weary of the endless litany of "well if you do that, this will happen." Give it a rest, please. You can't build a growth industry on a finite resource.

    I have no "plan" in mind, only a direction less, not more for everyone: mom and pop 2-strokes, private boaters, commercial users, etc., everyone.

    As for the data supporting my claim that we've violated the carrying capacity of the river, you can't be serious! What part of hydrocarbon pollution don't you understand?

    Leave a comment:


  • yukon
    replied
    Cut commercial use to 1 trip per day = More guide boats and rental boats on the water.
    One more drift day = another "Super Tuesday" effect therefore putting more demand in fewer days with power boats and increasing hydrocarbons over that time.

    Smaller boats, lighter loads few trips = more guide boats on the water and smaller boats mean less safety.



    With this plan you will take a lot of non-guides off the river as well, if you reduce the size of the boats to, let's say 16' or even 18', make them all flat bottoms and only allow 4 people total per boat. Please write a letter to the editor advocating that and see how it goes over with the general public. (unless guide are the only usergroup you want to single out, then the public will probably go for it)

    Sorry to put a plan in your "mouth" (for lack of a better term) but what size boats would you feel is acceptable and who would have to have them?

    And what "load" is acceptable and who would it apply to, guides and non-guided boats?

    Where is your data for the statement:

    "We have reached and gone beyond, violating the carrying capacity of the resource."

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcus
    replied
    You bet. . .

    Originally posted by yukon View Post
    Okay, maybe "feelings" was the wrong term, in their expert opinion and their indepth knowledge of how an outboard operates their opinion is a non-choked off 50hp is more efficient than a choked off 35.

    Marcus I am getting two messages from you. First you say "the river is impaired - in violation of the law" and in other posts you don't want to get rid of 2-strokes until 2010.

    My interrupratation is you want the river cleaner (I get a sense of urgency in your posts, I could be wrong) but you don't want mom and pop's motor off the river for 3-4 years.

    Could you please clarify so I don't get the wrong message?
    I'll try. . . as my dad used to say, "That's all a steer can do." There probably isn't the urgency on my part you perceive. We didn't get here quickly, and we're not going to get out of this mess quickly either. We're in a place where we'd better be thinking long-term but trying to bite the bullet piecemeal because few are going to like the taste.

    The critical thing, the imperative thing is that we acknowledge the problem and begin moving in the right direction. Bigger motors is incredibly in the wrong direction. Getting rid of 2-strokes is moving in the right direction.

    We have reached and gone beyond, violating the carrying capacity of the resource. How in the name of common sense are bigger motors rational in the face of that fact? One may opine or feel whatever, but more is not less and never will be. We've got to retreat, go back, reduce. Commercial users, if they want to be in business in the future, need to be thinking about smaller boats, lighter loads, fewer trips how plain does it have to get? More is not less. Bite the bullet now, the longer we wait, the bigger the bullet will get we have to swallow.

    Get rid of the 2-strokes by 2010, keep the horsepower limit where it is, cut commercial use to one trip per day, institute one more drift day these kinds of solutions and others will, over time, bring us into compliance with the law and actually reduce the pollution caused by outboard motors.

    If KRSA had any long-term brains, they'd be putting out red alerts soliciting KRSMA, DEC, DNR, ADF&G, and the Board of Fish to start implementing some of the kinds of options named above, not going for bigger motors.

    Heaven help us. . .

    Hope that answers your question. . .

    Leave a comment:


  • fishNphysician
    replied
    Originally posted by fishNphysician View Post
    I used to consume 15-16 gallons of fuel per day running a 2-stroke. At 30% of the fuel discharged unburned, I was effectively dumping nearly 5 gallons of fuel/oil a day. I now run a bigger boat with a 4 stroke that only burns about 8-9 gallons a day. If it spills 2% of total fuel consumption (1/15th of 30%) then we're dumping only 0.16-0.18 gallons a day. HUGE difference!

    So if anything, that would make 2-strokes even worse polluters in my original mathematical analysis because they use more fuel per day.
    (Time elapsed to be able to edit my last post, but I thought I would flesh this idea out a little further for full impact.)

    Considering just my own personal impact on reducing spillage of hydrocarbons as a non-guided private boater:

    I used to burn 16 gallons a day and spilled 4.8 gallons of fuel/oil running a 2-stroke.

    I now run a 4-stroke and burn 9 gallons a day, spilling perhaps 0.18 gallons of fuel (and virtually no oil).

    (4.8)/(0.18) = 26.7

    Even though the study I cited shows that a 2-stroke emits 15-fold more unburned fuel, the net effect of my switching to a 4-stroke is really closer to 27-fold, simply by virtue of vastly improved fuel-efficiency inherent to 4-stroke technology.

    27 times less spilled fuel over the course of my fishing day! Now that's something all 4-stroke users can feel good about!

    Leave a comment:


  • yukon
    replied
    Okay, maybe "feelings" was the wrong term, in their expert opinion and their indepth knowledge of how an outboard operates their opinion is a non-choked off 50hp is more efficient than a choked off 35.

    Marcus I am getting two messages from you. First you say "the river is impaired - in violation of the law" and in other posts you don't want to get rid of 2-strokes until 2010.

    My interrupratation is you want the river cleaner (I get a sense of urgency in your posts, I could be wrong) but you don't want mom and pop's motor off the river for 3-4 years.

    Could you please clarify so I don't get the wrong message?

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcus
    replied
    Feelings?

    Originally posted by yukon View Post
    I have talked with Yamaha mechanics and they felt the motor would run cleaner not being choked off.

    Remember, the river is much, much, much cleaner today than 10 to 20 years ago when there were only 2-strokes on the river. A non-scientific opinion and looking at the returns over those years, shows me that the river is in very good shape putting an excess of fish on the spawning beds.
    yukon: Feelings? what happens if your Yamaha mechanics' "feelings" are wrong?

    Whether the river is cleaner today or not, the river today is impaired in violation of the law.

    "Problem, what problem?" is so reminiscent of the rural debate!

    Leave a comment:


  • yukon
    replied
    Good post, that is correct AKfishingguide. 50hp will not make any difference while backtrolling or being at idle at anytime. I also believe that DEC has been corrected that there is not a 40% increase when going to 50 hp even at full throttle. From the information that I have heard DEC assumed that if "x" amount of hydrocarbons are expelled at 35hp and 50hp is about a 40% increase then the emmisions at 50hp are 40% more. I have talked with Yamaha mechanics and they felt the motor would run cleaner not being choked off.

    Remember, the river is much, much, much cleaner today than 10 to 20 years ago when there were only 2-strokes on the river. A non-scientific opinion and looking at the returns over those years, shows me that the river is in very good shape putting an excess of fish on the spawning beds.

    Leave a comment:


  • alaskanfishguides
    replied
    Originally posted by Nerka View Post
    However, going to 50 hp will increase fuel consumption for four stroke engines by 40%.
    Nerka,

    How do you figure this? My take is except for the 2005 Yamaha, which used a plate to restrict the airflow thorugh the throttle body, there will be ZERO difference on the lower end of the power-band/fuel consumption because all the throttle cam does is limit the throw of the throttle to 85% reach thus reducing the HP to 35.

    Then, assuming that most fishers on the river in July are backtrolling, backbouncing, or drifting, the majority of the time, the engine is at idle. How will that increase fuel consumption 40%?

    Now, if I spent my day running full throttle from the start to the end, I could possibly buy that theory, but that simply is not the case. Nevertheless, there are some who will fish a hole for 20 minutes, and if not connected will bail and run somewhere else... I suspect that their fuel consumption will certainly increase.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcus
    replied
    A broader view. . .

    Regardless of who's right in the "How much gas does a 2-stroke gas" quibble, anyone who thinks getting rid of the 2-strokes will make the problem go away is passing gas.

    Does anyone actually think that use of the Kenai is likely to decline in the years ahead? Not a chance. Now there's no question the inefficient 2-strokes need to go, and to the degree they're eliminated over time, their contribution to hydrocarbon pollution will disappear.

    On the other hand, if at the same time the horsepower limit is raised to 50, more hydrocarbons will enter the river. To claim that increased horsepower will not increase hydrocarbons is Brave New World Newspeak — "More is Less."

    Add to that increased use of the Kenai by out-of-area Alaskans with now-legal 50-horsepower motors, increased area population, and increased commercial use, and we're not back where we started — we're much worse off.

    Now the Feds are at the door. This pollution thing is not going to go away, and anyone who thinks getting rid of the 2-strokes solves the problems is greatly mistaken. Going to 50-horsepower is a bad, bad idea with ominous implications for the future. The 2-stroke solution is at best a very short term reprieve from a problem that's only going to get worse in the long term.

    Alaskans have been here before, but are we any smarter? Alaskans could not resolve the rural preference issue because politics kept the question from being presented to the Alaskan people. Uncle Ted held the Feds off for a while, but in the end the Feds won, and Alaskans lost control of their resources.

    Same thing obtains right now. Politics and special interests are pushing for a superficial, short-term fix by getting rid of old 2-strokes and raising the horsepower to 50. It won't work. The river will only become more polluted by bigger motors, increased use, and increased area development. Then one day the Feds will say, "Enough," and Alaskans will lose control of the Kenai. Special interests couldn't thumb their noses at ANILCA and special interests can't thumb their noses at the EPA and the Clean Water Act.

    On the social level, getting rid of the 2-strokes, mostly mom-and-pop motors in one year rather than over a period of three or four years really puts the screws to folks who might not be able to shell out the bucks for a new engine. Simultaneously raising horsepower to 50, mostly if not exclusively, to benefit commercial users will only intensify the hostility felt by many toward that industry. Really bad press.

    What needs be done is to get rid of the 2-strokes over time—gone by, say, 2010, keep horsepower limits where they are, and search for solutions that decrease current use patterns—smaller boats, fewer trips, lighter loads, etc. We simply can't continue to encourage a growth industry on and to the detriment of a finite resource.

    Moeover to think that increased boat speeds will produce a safer fishery is, I thnk, wishful thinking that may come back to bite us. Surely a superficial examination of highway safety records will show that any increase in highway speed results in a proportionate increase in accidents. Can we honestly expect anything different from faster boats?

    Habitat is being degraded by motorized angling activity and more. Using bigger motors may or may not slow down erosion, but how commendable is it to merely slow down abusive activity when to the degree than non-motorized use is increased, to that exact degree the habitat degradation caused by motors is entirely eliminated? Pandering to motorized use of the river is a pitiful substitute for doing the right thing, which is to reduce such activity.

    Finally, many people are appalled at what they witness on the Kenai, viewing wholesale catch-and-release, combat fishing, and trophy hunting as an angling and social disgrace. Rather than attempting to continue to commercialize and develop an increasingly fragile Kenai River fishery, we should instead take a longer-term view, endeavoring instead to capitalize on the quality of the experience rather than sheer quantity.

    Alaska Department of Natural Resources is receiving public comment on this issue until December 19th. Contact:
    Chris Degernes
    Chief of Field Operations
    Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
    550 W. Seventh Avenue, Suite 1380
    Anchorage, AK 99501-3561
    Fax 907-269-8907
    E-mail Chris_Degernes@dnr.state.ak.us

    Leave a comment:

Footer Adsense

Collapse
Working...
X