Will the end of Red Diesel Make for Better yachting?

Hi Jinks - "the decision to go for power rather than sail because power best suits my circumstances"

• What about what best suits the future? (See Alec's post below). Sorry, I have to say that to be consistent.

Hi tcm - always so personal, so okay. Is tcm some distorted abbreviation of techno-optimist? I thought obvious evidence of global warming was rendering such a position fairly marginal. :)

"All this environment crao is the last resort of timid teachers, imho".

• In your honest opinion, really? But, you have a good memory. But I'm not timid and I've not been in a school since my teens (not that that's important). And , anyway, if people had more respect for teachers - say, listened to some of them - then some of the obvious things I've said in this thread wouldn't be needed. And to think we live in a democracy - how scary is that?

• And why would it be a good thing for teachers - and I assume you mean male teachers - to drive around in expensive cars. Are these the values that are important to you? :(

"I bet that would be a bit more encouragement for them to get on a create some decent heritage?"

• Can I refer you to Alec's post below?

Marsupial, thanks for the link. What can you expect - the RYA is a pressure group for middle and upper income people who live in England, especially the south coast. (They have a journal, it's called YM. All the important and exciting stuff they produce, like how to sail a new Beneteau into Southampton). But that's another issue - and, of course, no one has to buy into either.

LongJohnSilver. True, I spent a lot of time on here yesterday, but I'm not a politician, any more than we all are in some way. I thought it was important to reply to posts rather than dodge the issue. One hopes that at least someone listens and changes their view slightly (see posts above on butterfly’s wings. Everything is linked, it's called non-locality - everything counts, even a post here.) But in the end it's not about who's right, but having a discussion and learning something new, even if it's uncomfortable. But, I didn't get anything done yesterday, so after this post I'll have to stop. At least that way someone else will get the last word. That's got to be fair.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
>>>
Slow running, non-turbocharged engines consume a fraction of the fuel used by those travelling at 20 knots or more. The problem, is that for the moment, very few non planing powerboats are around to buy.
>>>
Ignoring speed, isn't a turbocharger supposed to make for more fuel efficiency, more grunt per unit of consumption or the same grunt with less consumption? If so, then surely turbocharging should be compulsory, with a tax on any non turbocharged engine, or one with less than so many kW/kg.

As for paying extra tax, what do _I_ get out of it, in _my_ lifetime. Nack all I suspect. Like others I anticipate that my children or grandchildren will see a fusion powered world who look back at fossil fuels in the way that the uninitiated smirk at Victorian high tech.

<hr width=100% size=1>Two beers please, my friend is paying.
 
No, sorry - but I'm not going to be held responsible for the fact that carbon based fuels are a finite commodity and damage the Earth. If I was being facetious I would say that if they are that bad then the sooner they are gone the better and I'll do all I can to help that come about.

There have been warnings about the damage hydrocarbons do to the earth since day one and the effect on big business usage has been ......... nil.

I'm sure you aren't kidding yourself that the obscene amounts of money being spent on oil exploration and extraction are for any sort of altruistic purpose. The bottom line, however unfortunate it may be, is that while it is there it will be dug out and burned and I'm cynical enough to believe that the only thing that will alter that course of action is when they are convinced that it is running out they will divert money into researching an alternative. TCM probably has that spot on.

Yes I care about the environment and the World I live in and leave behind but while big businesses and Nations are using oil in massive quantities and will continue to do so as long as it lasts, my 100 litres a month or so on a hobby that I can afford only because I make other sacrifices is not going to make any significant difference at all.

Now, back to the original question........





<hr width=100% size=1>Of all the things I've lost - I miss my mind the most!
 
Re: original question....

of course being considerate regarding the use of my fossil fuel allowance I will no longer (1) go other than in a straight line to my objective and (2) travel at other than my most efficient speed (15knots in most conditions).
As for coming off the plane for dingy's etc.....well that would clearly be a scandalous waste of valuable resources

<hr width=100% size=1>madesco madidum ..../forums/images/icons/smile.gif
 
100 litres of vegetable oil (bulk buy) and 5 litres of white spirit for less than £20 - seems fair to me - stuff the red - I am going veggie.

Don't know about "modern" diesel engines but the older ones seem to run fine on it.

Next thing old brown nose will be taxing is cooking oil.

<hr width=100% size=1>
hammer.thumb.gif
 
I would like to thank all of the contributors to this thread who have covered the wasting of valuable Hydro Carbons issue. IMHO we all risk being more than a little precious, yes I agree that my Volvos do burn a limited resource and it would be more sensible to use it to make drugs etc. However whenever I visit a marina or go to the boatshows I have to say that very few of the Sailing Fraternarty still sail Wooden Boats with Canvas sails either. If you really want to be environmentally friendly then make sure you don't use GRP or any of those High Tech sail cloths.

However I would like to try to return to the debate in my earlier posts, in which I tried to argue that the reality of the loss of Red Diesle will remove a large number of MoBos; and due to the lack of alternative demand for pontoon spaces either Marinas will go bust, reduce their facilities or charge the remaining boat owners more money. I haven't seen any posts which IMHO put a cogent arguement up against this position so I guess you all accept that you will have fewer facilities and /or will need to spend more on your sailing.

I stand by to be shot down in flames !!!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I haven't seen any posts which IMHO put a cogent arguement up against this position so I guess you all accept that you will have fewer facilities and /or will need to spend more on your sailing.

Didn't I answer that at the begining?

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://big-blunkett.blogspot.com/>Say no to compulsary ID, vote out Überfuhrer Blunkett</A>
 
Hi Phandango

Wasn't going to come back to this thread re. the environment (though it was fun while it lasted), but on the serious cost issue, I said something earlier about elastic/inelastic demand, and price being set to bring in people off swinging moorings. One thing that may likely happen (but markets are complex) is that supply will reduce in response to reduced demand and new price levels would be established in a different market place (one in which the cost of a berth would (probably) be valued downwards). There may be a quantitaive economist around here somewhere who could model various hypotheses for us.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: disagree

the more people go boating, the higher the cost. That's what supply and demand is all about. So in short term prices might fall. Longer term, less investment cos the market is smaller, so it's not a good thing. Likeroads, the extra tax wouldn't be directed at the sector from which the tax arises .

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top