On Sunday 01 July 2007 03:27, PeterO wrote: > Wondered if anyone could help me with figures on CO2 emmissions created > during the manufacture of kayaks (plastic, fibreglass or wooden). > Alternatively embodied energy for their manufacture would be useful. I would say the average trip to go paddling for the average kayaker is the main emission of CO2s - often it is one guy in a SUV, or pickup, with one kayak on top, going hundreds, if not thousands, of miles to his favourite spot for launching. Another huge is the transport of ready-made kayaks around the globe. I would guess that a wooden kayak needs least energy and least CO2, but many builders import their wood from far away places. Learned a long time ago that you use more fossil fuel energy to build and run a nuclear reactor during its entire active life, than the electricity it produces! Not sure it is true as our plants seem to go on and on, but at the same time the investment in energy and money along the way is massive, too - and that's not counting the workers that build and maintain the plants, and all the CO2 they produce directly, and indirectly! Transport, production of electricity and travel are the big emitters of CO2, no doubt about that! Tord [subject line was changed from digest subject line to a relevent subject line by moderator] *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This is a monstrous imponderable. To chase this down, you'd need to compare carbon "consumption" for all facets: transportation of the raw materials, whether the resins contain fossil carbon or contemporary carbon, where the carbon would go when it is disposed of, what you do not do when you use your boat, how its eventual breakdown proceeds, etc. You can not just look at one isolated facet of a boat and guess at the overall carbon budget. Something to consider, in this vein: which disposal method of your own remains has the greatest _net_ input of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Cremation? Embalming? Internment such that "natural" processes "take care of them?" [about as delicately put as I can do] Burial at sea? Burial in a freshwater lake? Allowing scavengers to have their way? The very bottom line for reducing our carbon consumption (and in turn reducing subsequent CO2 production): reduce reduce reduce our population. When we get serious about that, then I'll believe we have truly begun to confront the root source of greenhouse gas-induced global warming. The rest of it is just fine tuning ... and choice of material for one's sea kayak is fine tuning of the fine tuning. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This is, prima facie, an utterly ridiculous statement. On 7/1/07, Tord Eriksson <tord_at_tord.nu> wrote: > Learned a long time ago that you use more fossil fuel energy to > build and run a nuclear reactor during its entire active life, than the > electricity it produces! *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Monday 02 July 2007 02:14, you wrote: > This is, prima facie, an utterly ridiculous statement. > > On 7/1/07, Tord Eriksson <tord_at_tord.nu> wrote: > > Learned a long time ago that you use more fossil fuel energy to > > build and run a nuclear reactor during its entire active life, than > > the electricity it produces! Oh, is it?! Considering the millions of tons concrete that is needed, and knowing how concrete is made, it sure uses up a lot of energy, plus all the metal, transports, et cetera, I am not that sure it isn't correct. But in those days a nuclear power station had a practical life of 20 years, now they more like 50, or more! But the older they get the more service they need, and the higher is the risk for something catstorphic to happen. What irritates me more is the conclusion that electric cars, boats, even planes (all three kind exist, as you probably know) are good for the environment, as the losses involved are massive (for instance charging batteries usually involve a 40% loss in the form of heat), and in most places the power stations feeding the battery chargers involved spews out massive amounts of CO2, NOX and sulphur (the latter two can be lessened by advanced technology, but just a minority of the world's powerplants have access to sulphur free fuel). Switching to only nuclear power would at least quaddruple (sp?) the number of nuclear plants needed, which in turn does the same with the risks and the amount of waste produced, that nobody wants to take care of. I'll applaud the day when all our energy needs come from wind power, photovoltaic power and solar panels for heating - we sure are a long way off! And in the event of war I want as few nuclear installations as possible, world wide, and I, for one, don't see a future where no nuclear countries (like Sverige (aka Sweden), La France, the US, et cetera) aren't involved in war (one way or other - Sweden has troops in Afghanistan - under US command), or exposed to terrorism (one's terrorist, the other's freedom fighter). What use of going paddling in a radioactive sea?! I will not, for sure, enjoy paddling in a dead sea, with no seals, no fish, no birds nor any whales! Tord S Eriksson, Sweden *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Tord Eriksson wrote: > Oh, is it?! Considering the millions of tons concrete that is needed, and > knowing how concrete is made, it sure uses up a lot of energy, Making cement means releasing CO2 from limestone. Worldwide, cement manufacturing is a significant source of CO2. While building a nuke consumes a lot of concrete, I don't know how much CO2 results directly compared to the use of other fuel for generating electricity. > But in those days a nuclear power station had a practical life of 20 years, > now they more like 50, or more! In most engineering endeavours, the design life is somewhat shorter than the useful life. The design life of a typical building is only 50 years but most can last a lot longer. Mechanical and electrical systems do wear out over the design lifespan and get replaced, but the structure just goes on. > as the losses involved are massive (for instance charging > batteries usually involve a 40% loss in the form of heat), On the plus side, some of the newer technology batteries are reducing this to the 20-30% range. Mike *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Monday 02 July 2007 21:54, Steve wrote: > Right on Rob! I guess it's ok if someone kills your children because > they are freedom fighters. Personally, I call that terrorism too. Agree 100%! Killing children and other non-combatants is killing children and non-combatants, and nothing else! The bombing of Dresden was as bad as the bombing of Coventry, as neither was a military target. Tord *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
It has been my observation that the total resource consumed is generally based on the total life cycle cost. The lower the purchase and ownership costs, the less the resources consumed. This should also correspond to a lower carbon "foot print". For example if the total life cycle cost of a hybrid car, (purchase price, total fuel used over its life, total maintain cost, etc.) as compared to an equivalent model thoroughbred (non-hybrid) car, then the one with the lower total life-cycle cost is the one that consumes less resources. It takes labor, energy and raw materials to make the car, and it takes labor, energy, and materials to run and maintain the car over its useful life. You trade one off for the other with a hybrid, but as far as I can see it appears the total life-cycle cost for the hybrid would be higher, therefore you might be wasting resources with a hybrid. If you do not recover the extra costs over its useful life. This should roughly correspond to the carbon foot print as well. Of course the life-cycle costs of the hybrid has not established a good track record so far since it appears replacing the battery pack every 5 years or so would make for a very high operating cost. We will have to see as we get more experience with them. This would also be true of nuke power plants, most cost more to operate than other types of fuels (mostly because of the extra safety requirements), so they consume more total resources. Not a good choice if there are other lower cost fuels available. I build my skin-on-frame kayaks with salvaged lumber and sealant (that would be burned or sent to a land fill), and I only need to buy the fabric, glue and a few other minor items, for a total cost of about $40 to $50 each kayak (I have built seven so far). Since I used salvaged materials, I have actually saved impacts since the raw materials did not end up in a land fill. "Tupperware" kayaks cost about $300 to $800, fiberglass $1200-$2500+, Carbon/kevlar $3000+++. You have to weigh this off against durability, if it cost twice as much but lasts three times longer than you saved resources. You could compare the weight of the petrochemicals in each type as purely a carbon "foot print" yet some materials take less energy to form so the total picture would not be clear (again total manufacturing costs would still be relevant). My skin-on-frames only use about 2-3 pounds of polyurethane sealant each, but it was salvaged from left-overs, so it actually reduced the impacts on the environment. Though I think the total cost of each type, compared to its life span, is a better measure of environmental impacts, as imperfect as that may be. Good luck. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Peter Chopelas wrote: > It has been my observation that the total resource consumed is generally > based on the total life cycle cost. The lower the purchase and > ownership costs, the less the resources consumed. This should also > correspond to a lower carbon "foot print". While there are likely many cases where this rule of thumb is valid, there are also many where it can be misleading. For an extreme example, Honda makes retail cars at $20,000 and F1 racing cars at $5,000,000 each. My Honda Civic is now 15 years old and still running well and at low cost. An F1 model will be obsolete in a few years. Life cycle costs will greatly overestimate the resource demands of the F1 car (though they are very inefficient and have a large carbon footprint compared to regular cars). In the case of hybrids, the low production volumes cause higher prices. Battery technology, Atkinson cycle engines, inline motors etc do not benefit from the economy of scale that would exist if all cars were hybrids. This can skew the results. (BTW - if you calculate the battery replacement cost on a per kilometre basis, it's cheaper than buying the fuel you would otherwise need). Ditto comparing kayaks. Carbon fibre is priced according to the market, not according to resources and CF has increased in price lately. That would bias the comparison with a fiberglass kayak. Ditto all other materials - resins are sensitive to oil prices, which in turn are _not_ governed by resource price (resource price at the wellhead is zero - no one pays Mother Earth. Extraction costs can be relatively fixed for a considerable period, taxes vary with political moods and other markups are governed by such "free" market systems as commodity markets and perceived risk/demand/etc). Mike *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I think that all Michael's points are valid. On 7/3/07, Michael Daly <michaeldaly_at_greatlakeskayaker.ca> wrote: > > > Ditto all other materials - resins are sensitive to oil prices, which in > turn are _not_ governed by resource price (resource price at the > wellhead is zero - no one pays Mother Earth. Except, maybe, this one. If you add a well to a known oil field then the resource costs are just those associated with drilling and finishing that well-head and then the installation of the extraction devices. (Are the some-times substantial charges to the appropriate government part of the resource price?) But if you take into account the costs of finding replacement oil, then the resource price can be substantial. Particularly since a lot of exploration now is in very deep water offshore (>8000 feet). But perhaps Michael had something else in mind. Anyway, it's hard to argue with building a kayak out of scrap wood even if it's covered in dacron and epoxy. I plan to do that right after I buy my Mariner play boat. Craig Jungers Royal City, WA *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Craig Jungers wrote: > But perhaps Michael had something else in mind. What I meant was exactly that "no one pays Mother Earth". If you follow the money back from the consumer, you'll find lots of companies/governments/etc taking a piece of the pie. But in the end, the actual cost of the resource itself is $0.00 - some entity, usually a government, lays claim to the resource and doesn't pay a cent for it. In some cases, such as resources outside of any country's territory (e.g. international waters) whoever gets there first grabs it for free. They incur costs, but they don't pay for the resource. Of course, anything that is free tends to get wasted. This is part of the reason that we are seeing fish stocks worldwide diminishing, non-renewable resources being wiped out etc without concern for the future. Economists can't get a handle on opportunity costs and politicians, always pleased to stroke the hand that feeds it, errr... them, will grab onto that as a reason for ignoring the future. Hence, future value of non-renewables are wiped out. We don't borrow the Earth from our children; we steal it. If you do care about your descendants, you'll live responsibly now. You'll be in a small minority while you do. Mike *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
[ okay folks, steer the thread back to having some paddling content or it starts to get blocked... - Kirk ] I think the real problem here is over population. We (the world population) have exceeded the earths carrying capacity. If we want to reduce emissions by 1/2 at some future date, and the population doubles in the same time, we are really saying that we can 1/4 the emissions per capita. Pretty tall order. building nukes is what we should have been doing since the 70's, not more dirt (coal) burners that spew toxins in the air. There now, that should get things rolling. :-) Tony *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
[Please remove all old content that is not pertinent to your reply including old headers and footers. It's list policy.... this post was modified to meet policy] OK, we need more nuclear powered kayaks, and fewer coal- burning ones. Bradford R. Crain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Olsen" <tony_at_tonyolsen.com> Subject: Re: [Paddlewise] [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: CO2 output >[ okay folks, steer the thread back to having some paddling content or > it starts to get blocked... - Kirk ] > > building nukes is what we should have been doing since the 70's, not more > dirt (coal) burners that spew toxins in the air. > There now, that should get things rolling. :-) *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:45 PDT