Talk:Electric boat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Energy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 

It's not magic[edit]

Dear 166.127.1.35,

First, welcome to wikipedia, and I'm sure we all hope you enjoy your stay. Second, it would be a very good idea if you created an account, so that you do not get muddled, in the furture, with others who might share the same IP address, as isued by your ISP, at different times.

Thanks for the suggestion. Taken under advisement. I question Wikipedia's ability to track IP addresses accurately anyway, as while I've been working on this response I got a message saying I'd edited the list of NY City schools, which I certainly never have. No one else has access to this computer. What a world. 166.127.1.35 20:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the point is that that isn't your IP address, but belongs to your ISP, along with a batch of others. It may get issued to anyone who goes on line via that ISP when you're not, and also you may not get re-issued with this one at any point in the future. Just a by-the-by. --Nigelj 17:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation of how IP addresses work. I guess you missed the whole point, which is to say that, the changes made to the other article, which I have never even visited much less edited, were attributed to me while I was working on a response to this page. It's not possible for two people to use the same computer to edit two different articles at the same time, so there must be something else going on. 166.127.1.35 15:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
While it may not be possible for two people to use the same computer (which is technically incorrect). It is perfectly normal for multiple computers to use the same IP address. Some 500 students at my school use the same server (computer) to store their files on. Another server (computer) runs multiple instances of other Operating Systems (computers), and multiple people login to and use that single piece of hardware. All of the computers at the school appear (from outside the school) to have a single IP address. In the end, you should register a user. --D0li0 07:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thirdly, the article made it very clear that we are talking about local pollution, in the water where the boat sits, from an electric motor compared to a petroleum-fuelled motor running on board. There is no doubt that electric motors do not produce smoke, exhaust gases, or fuel or oil splils, or oil-film on the water in the way that all petroleum engines can and and most marine installations often do.

Red herring. Pollution is pollution regardless of where it occurs. By your logic, the fact that my home gets its power from a nuclear power plant means that I'm not polluting, which is clearly not true. It's just not polluting my back yard. 166.127.1.35 20:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe the point was that the vehicle itself creates no pollution. The grid that is used (sometimes in this case) may or may not cause pollution. If it does there is a good chance that it will get cleaner over time. Unlike traditional gas fueled vehicles which can not become cleaner. As far as you home polluting, yes it does, so perhaps you should focus on changing that rather than dismissing potential solutions. --D0li0 10:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Fourthly, my own boat meets just about all its own electric power needs from solar panels on all the time, and by a towed generator when under sail. With a wind generator as well it could produce a lot more. OK, all of these gizmoes were made in conventional manufacturing plants, from materials extracted and smelted using conventional power sources, but since then, they have produced considerable amounts of electrical power with no pollution whatsoever. Fact.

But their manufacture causes pollution, as you so kindly point out. This fact alone disproves your the assertion that electric propulsion is non-polluting. All of these parts will eventually end up as landfill (AKA pollution) or littering the bottom of the sea (I hope not with you included!), which, depending upon what sort of chemicals leach out of the equipment may cause pollution as well, although we can certainly hope they form a reef instead. Also, you help my argument againg by pointing out that your vessel meets "just about" all of it's own energy needs with solar panels, but not all. 166.127.1.35 20:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, batteries are highly recyclable (I believe there are fines for simply throwing them away). As such this part of these vehicles is entirely managable and as such non-polluting. Gas on the otherhand is non-managable, you can not prevent the hydrocarbons from re-entering the environment. Sure energy is consumed in their creation and recycling, but again, as these energy resources become renew/systain-able so to do these products. I might also point out that most everything we consume is produced from these same energy sources, so why place undue criticizm on products that can be used to store energy for clean vehicles? Rather shouldn't we be working towards cleaner energy sources? --D0li0 10:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Want some tartar sauce with all that red herring? Aluminum cans are also highly recyclable, yet most aluminum cans are not recycled. The ability of batteries to be recycled has no bearing on whether or not the use of electric propulsion systems creates pollution, and the fact that they can be recycled doesn't mean they will be. Factually, the production of electricity causes pollution, therefore the use of electric drives charged from mains causes pollution. I am not criticizing the use of electric drives, but am rather protesting the fact that this article labels them as non-polluting, which is patently false, and tries to apologize for this fact by pointing out that the pollution doesn't go directly into the water in which the vessel is operating. It doesn't matter where the pollution goes; it's still someone's problem to deal with and any suggestion to the contrary is little more than ED wankery. This article and this discussion are not about the merits of cleaner energy sources, but rather whether or not they can be accurately labeled as non-polluting. 166.127.1.35 15:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I guess it all depends on your perspective and referance frame. On any given day of crusing while compairing an electric boat to a gas boat it can accurately be said that the EB is non-polluting while the other is not. While compairing the creation, use, and retirement of the two they are both polluting as they both become junk when skuttled. Or you could also include the labor and lives of those who created them. Perhaps, in the end we come to a point where we are considering everything, then it's all pollution, or it's all not pollution. So, where do we draw the line? This article is about electric boats, not grid power production nor battery production and recycling. So in the referance frame of this article EB's are non-polluting (so long as you get your holding tank pumped out properly). --D0li0 07:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Yet more red herrings out of you. You can't say an electric drive is non-polluting if the production of the electricty it consumes generated electricity however. For the last time: global or local pollution is still pollution. You must think that electric boats are non-polluting because they may not be discharging pollutants while they're being operated. You ignore the fact that the electricity used did come into being through the creation of pollution. Whether or not the drive discharges pollutants during operation has nothing to do with the fact that it's use CAUSES POLLUTION. 166.127.1.35 17:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Per Ignoratio_elenchi, I can see where you argument (electricity production might cause pollution) may in and of itself be valid, however in the context of this article your argument is irrevelant. In particular this change you just made: Electric outboards have for some years provided an ideal drive system for inland waterway fishermen, being quiet and pollution-free so as not to scare away or harm the fish and other wildlife. This sentance is about inland waterway fishermen and this electric boat powertrain which is silence and does not emit any pollution, which it does not. What about this statment is invalid? --D0li0 11:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Fifth and last, and as the article also makes clear, there are very strict controls on the air- and water-bourne emissions and other waste that are allowed from commercial and government owned power stations in most parts of the world. These are much stricter than the controls applied to most petroleum-fuelled marine power-plants, either propulsion or petroleum fuelled generator sets, and even if these controls exist in some countries, they are hard to apply to craft out at sea. In many countries increasing amounts of the grid power is already being produced from wind, wave and other non-polluting sources (OK, non-polluting apart from the pollution caused by the manufacture of the equipment - but this doesn't seem to be your argument). So even if an electric boat' s batteries are recharged by x kWh of shore-power, most likely this still produces much less pollution in the world than if it produced x kWh of local power by firing up a marine diesel or two-stroke on board. And, of course, none of the power-station pollution is going to appear as an oily film on the water surface around the back end of the boat itself!

The article produces no citations to support this statement on the strictness of emissions controls world-wide. In any event, producing LESS pollution is not the same as producing NO pollution, and polluting globally rather than locally is STILL POLLUTION. You're labeling things with the "non-polluting" label that clearly do create pollution at some level and some locale, you're just using special qualifiers (non-local pollution, gov't controlled emissions standards, &c.) to try to justify this patently false statement.166.127.1.35 20:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we all need to check out this Pollution article, I'll go check it out now... --D0li0 10:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to read this article 166.127.1.35 17:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the whole problem is that 166.127.1.35 is comparing the pollution-cost of an electric boat with that of no boat at all; I'm comparing the pollution-cost of an electric boat with that of a typical petroleum-powered boat, as of today, in the real world of pleasure boat owners. --Nigelj 17:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
No, you are saying that EB's produce no pollution, when they do, and trying to deflect factual observations that they do contribute to pollution by stressing that the pollution is not local and by hyping environmental controls placed on shore based power generation systems: "Since the energy crises of the 1970s, interest in this silent, non-polluting and potentially renewable energy source has been increasing steadily again." Also: "This calls into question claims that the boat is 'non-polluting' and uses 'renewable energy', but at least it does not directly pollute the water in which it sits as would the use of any petroleum-based motor. Shore-based power stations are subject to much stricter environmental controls than the average marine diesel or outboard motor." It's right there in black and white. Maybe EB's don't directly pollute the water that they're in. Small comfort to those who live near power plants, since the pollution produced by the EB winds up in their back yard....166.127.1.35 15:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Referance frame, This article is not about the boat, the lake, the world, and everything else. Just the boat. Regester, maybe even make a user page of your own. --D0li0 07:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
You must not have read the article. The article is about the use of electric drives and boats. The topic of this discussion is whether or not the article description of electric drives is accurate. Why do I have to point this out to you, just like I had to point out that this discussion is not about the merits of alternative energy sources? My position is that the article's description is not accurate and I've explained why repeatedly. I grow weary of it. In response to "Regester, maybe even make a user page of your own." might I take a moment to tell you that I don't appreciate your bossiness, don't think that this discussion page is an appropriate forum for you to tell me how to live my life, and don't appreciate your red herring logical fallicies. Please stop commenting on this page if you can't actually contribute anything to the discussion regarding the article's accuracy. Thanks! 166.127.1.35 17:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
You mean this article named Electric boat? Ya, I read it, it's about electric boats. It is not about the sources of electricity and their potential pollution, there are other articles which cover that topic. The Charging portion of this article clearly points out that Grid power or ICE generated power is not clean. --D0li0 11:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the suggestion that you register, which was mearly a kind suggestion. With the added benefit of potentially creating your own page, I meerly though that perhaps this additional perk would help to encourage you. Others have made this same suggestion I was just trying to sweeten the deal for you. No offense was intended, I was in no way telling you how to live your life, do or do not what you will. --D0li0 11:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


I have removed the factually incorrect statements from the article, and have not had to do so again since you reverted the changes. Unless you can prove that electrical production does not cause pollution, which you can't, please leave the article as it is, since I think all of the controversial (and false) parts are now gone. Thanks! 166.127.1.35 16:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

How many times have you been warned about vandalism on the 166.127.1.35 talk page? Don't start getting aggressive in your language here too. Please try to find something useful to contribute, rather than just to delete. --Nigelj 20:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have never vandalised Wikipedia, so I'll guess zero, but since you seem to insist on mistaking me for the other school children who seem to access (and sometimes vandalise) Wikipedia from my IP address of record, I've created a username. I hope you like it. We're never going to get anywhere if you continue to dismiss my contributions as vandalism or simple deletion, since if I do delete something it's in order to remove a falsehood. I keep trying to explain this.
I recently made an extremely minor change that actually fixed all of the article's problems, only to have D0li0 revert them back to the untruthful version. Somehow, this is not considered vandalism Somehow this makes me the bad guy. I have never insulted anyone in this discussion and find your accusations of aggression laughable, really. There's nothing wrong with calling people on logical fallacies, especially when they resort to them repeatedly. Please check my detailed response to your user talk comments. Your recent "tidy up" was fair, but leaves one loose thread that I simply cannot live with, since it's patently false. I propose the following change, and will make it tomorrow unless someone can present a valid argument why I ought not to do so (since electrical production does cause pollution as I've maintained for a while now:
Change this sentence: "Electric boats were very popular from the 1880s until the 1920s, when the internal combustion engine took dominance. Since the energy crises of the 1970s, interest in this quiet, non-polluting and potentially renewable marine energy source has been increasing steadily again." TO "Electric boats were very popular from the 1880s until the 1920s, when the internal combustion engine took dominance. Since the energy crises of the 1970s, interest in this quiet and potentially renewable marine energy source has been increasing steadily again."
I'm not the only one that has reverted your edits. As for your proposed changes - present a valid argument why I ought not to do so (since electrical production does cause pollution as I've maintained - The point is that this article is not about electricity production, it's about an electric boat. I can present many situations in which electricity production does not cause pollution, so to maintain that you've proven such is not nearly enough, nor does it even apply to this argument. See Ignoratio elenchi.
In order to try and clarify this whole context thing that you seem to be missing I'll present the following. A traditional gas powered boat dumps unburned fuel, oil, coolant, and exaust gasses directly into the environment in which it opperates, this is the pollution from that boat. The extraction and production of those fuels that it consumes are not genreally considered as part of the boats pollution. Gas production consumes a substantial ammount of electricity durring refining, that electricity and refinery emissions are polluting. But these are not the boats emissions. The coal or NG consumed to produce the electricity that the refinery uses are polluting, but not emissions from the boat. The exploration and drilling process to extract the oil to be refined are also polluting, but these too are not emissions from the boat.
We are not debating that electricity production may be polluting, we are simply pointing out that electricity production is not an aspect of the boat. Since you are so passionate about how dirty electricity production is then perhaps you could do some constructive work to try and solve that problem, doing so would positively effect power you use at home, school, work, and perhaps someday the fuel source use use for your electric boat. Be Positive! --D0li0 11:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Move to 'Battery electric water vehicle"[edit]

See the battery-electric vehicle talk page for more information. (Under nr 58; requested move) Thanks.

If the name sounds too cumbersome/silly (aldough its most accurate), we may atleast try to change the name to "Electric water vehicle", or "Electric watercraft" as electric boat only involves boats (thus limiting the article's possible expantion) KVDP (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


I oppose the move. BEWV may be a more accurate description, but very few people would regard it as a natural term to search for. Greg Locock (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The article describes deriving electric power from solar panels, wind turbines and other electric power sources. True, there are likely to be batteries involved too, but there are batteries in lots of things without them getting top-billing in these things' names. At the moment, the article is clearly focussed on boats, too - not ships, submarines, trawlers, pedallos, canoes or any other watercraft. Owners and crews of many such vessels often refer to theirs as 'the boat' too, in my experience. There is no need to obfuscate what is simple. --Nigelj (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Popular Culture ?[edit]

The 1980s anime The Mysterious Cities of Gold had a really interesting concept of ancient civilisations using a gigantic solar ship with sun sails called The Solaris which additionally used the sun as a war weapon. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)