Eco-sailors rescued by oil tanker

[BobK]

Oh! The irony!
An expedition team which set sail from Plymouth on a 5,000-mile carbon emission-free trip to Greenland have been rescued by an oil tanker.
Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/8034027.stm)
What were the added emissions of their arch enemy while maneuvering to rescue them on their emission-free trip?

Seems like there have been a lot people vying to become Darwin Award contenders in the last couple years.

[geni]

Oh! The irony!

Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/8034027.stm)
What were the added emissions of their arch enemy while maneuvering to rescue them on their emission-free trip?

Not much. Modern marine engines are some of the most fuel efficient systems known to man.


Seems like there have been a lot people vying to become Darwin Award contenders in the last couple years.

Wouldn't qualify or every say plane crash would win a darwin award. Yachting has risks attached to it yes but they are not so extream that rational people will not partake in the sport.

[BobK]

Not much. Modern marine engines are some of the most fuel efficient systems known to man.
The size of the tanker isn't mentioned, but 1500 gph would probably be a ballpark figure. Figuring a minimum of a couple hours detour and the same to return to course and it's already 6000 gallons. What are the emissions for that? It's unlikely they were lucky enough to be on the tanker's exact course.

Wouldn't qualify or every say plane crash would win a darwin award. Yachting has risks attached to it yes but they are not so extream that rational people will not partake in the sport.

The fact that the wind generator and solar panels were ripped from the boat implies they likely did a shoddy retrofit installing them, rather than having them adequately factory installed for the possible conditions they might encounter.

[geni]

The size of the tanker isn't mentioned, but 1500 gph would probably be a ballpark figure. Figuring a minimum of a couple hours detour and the same to return to course and it's already 6000 gallons. What are the emissions for that? It's unlikely they were lucky enough to be on the tanker's exact course.

I would expect the main energy expenditure would be stopping to pick them up and starting again.



The fact that the wind generator and solar panels were ripped from the boat implies they likely did a shoddy retrofit installing them, rather than having them adequately factory installed for the possible conditions they might encounter.

Questionable. There have certain been cases of professionally installed yacht safely systems (keels come to mind) falling off. There was also that case where a guy had an emergency radio beacon blown of his boat resulted in him being presumed dead for several months.

[Soapy Sam]

In 1996 a team of "eco-warriors" took over the rig "Stena Dee" which was scheduled to go to BP's Foinaven operation.
Their behaviour while aboard the rig included urinating and defecating either onto the structure of the vessel itself (the toilets were not in operation) or into the sea. Either would have been an immediate firing offence for Stena's own crews. There were also numerous other safety violations.
I had spent half the previous year on the sister rig Stena Forth (Benreoch prior to the buyout by Stena)- and both the contractor and BP as operator had extremely tight health and environmental policies.
This is not to say I disagree with all protests against offshore drilling- but I would expect self-proclaimed eco-warriors to at least match the HSE standards of their evil enemies.

[luchog]

This is not to say I disagree with all protests against offshore drilling- but I would expect self-proclaimed eco-warriors to at least match the HSE standards of their evil enemies.

But... but... bodily wastes are "natural" donchaknow. And all that germ stuff is just a conspiracy cooked up by Big Pharma™ to sell poisonous drugs and autism-causing vaccines.

[fuelair]

Most of the "eco-warriors" are basically "eco-terrorists". I will grant that they may have some vague, half-baked idea about some kind ogoal - but they have no knowledge of how to actually accomplish anything specific and no idea of how to measure the effectiveness of anything they are doing. They seem to be doing stuff to be doing stuff. Not unlike the dolts who tie up financial meetings.

[geni]

Most of the "eco-warriors" are basically "eco-terrorists". I will grant that they may have some vague, half-baked idea about some kind ogoal - but they have no knowledge of how to actually accomplish anything specific and no idea of how to measure the effectiveness of anything they are doing. They seem to be doing stuff to be doing stuff. Not unlike the dolts who tie up financial meetings.

Please define how you are useing the term eco-warriors in this case.

[fuelair]

Please define how you are useing the term eco-warriors in this case.
Idiots who take over ships or try to run rings around them or otherwise play pranks because they think it's fun to harass people who do not agree with the way they think ecology/environment care should work. I will freely admit that I would be against them even if they were right - I do not like terrorists of any type.

[Shrike]

I would expect the main energy expenditure would be stopping to pick them up and starting again.

I'd think they'd put out a dinghy [sp?], rescue them and sail back. No need to stop the oil tanker.

[DC]

Oh! The irony!

Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/8034027.stm)
What were the added emissions of their arch enemy while maneuvering to rescue them on their emission-free trip?

Seems like there have been a lot people vying to become Darwin Award contenders in the last couple years.

its indeed ironic but has nothing to do with Darwin Award....

cant understand the schadenfreude when people fail that belive they should search for alternatives or think about nature......

i think you qualify far more for the Darwin Award.....

[roger]

I'd think they'd put out a dinghy [sp?], rescue them and sail back. No need to stop the oil tanker.Why would you think that? The article has a photo of the oil tanker right beside the Fleur.

[fuelair]

its indeed ironic but has nothing to do with Darwin Award....

cant understand the schadenfreude when people fail that belive they should search for alternatives or think about nature......

i think you qualify far more for the Darwin Award.....Thinking about/wishing to preserve nature are fine things to do - and I do many of them. There is a large difference between that and damaging, harming, destroying in the name of "saving/helping nature". I love animals and do not try to harm them, but I consider PETA to be slime and would love seeing it's member all jailed or removed from this Vale of Tears.

[DC]

Thinking about/wishing to preserve nature are fine things to do - and I do many of them. There is a large difference between that and damaging, harming, destroying in the name of "saving/helping nature". I love animals and do not try to harm them, but I consider PETA to be slime and would love seeing it's member all jailed or removed from this Vale of Tears.

i dont really see how their attempt in a 5,000-mile carbon emission-free trip to Greenland is damaging, harming or destroying.

[BenBurch]

Whatever happened to that team that was to go around the world in a boat partially fueled by rendered human fat?

[Typicallucas]

Not much. Modern marine engines are some of the most fuel efficient systems known to man.


I think you only get the efficiency when you divide the gallons-per-mile among the tons of cargo and compare that to other modes of transporting cargo.

If you have to burn thousand gallons of fuel for a rescue mission that is not as efficient as a Nortech 50 foot speed boat which would guzzle 600 gallons of gas for the round trip.

A cargo ship will burn something like 3600 gallons to go 30 miles.

[BenBurch]

No - efficient overall - as they very often include bottoming cycle heat recovery systems.

[Piscivore]

What happened to the Fleur, I wonder? Did the tanker tow it, or did they leave it to drift?

[fuelair]

My apologies for a misunderstanding - one completely of my fault, I am/have been popping around on several threads and responded here as if I was in one of the others. I do not mean that these particular people are/were eco-terrorists - at worst, just ill prepared for what they were trying to do. In the other threads, the subjects really were ET's.

[Typicallucas]

No - efficient overall - as they very often include bottoming cycle heat recovery systems.

I feel like you're missing an important point. Oil tankers are efficient only if you massage the numbers. They are not an efficient machine for detouring and performing rescue missions.

I read a stat somewhere that to ship petroleum across the Atlantic is costs $0.02 per gallon. That is very monetarily efficient.

The engines have high efficiency ratings when you divide the fuel consumption by the power output. That is technically fuel efficient. That means, if you could scale the engine down to fit in a compact car it would sip gas yet have some pep.

But in the real world 3600 gallons of gas to go 30 miles is still 3600 gallons. To call it fuel efficient in context of a detour to pick up eco-sailors isn't correct.

ETA: An SUV would burn 2 gallons of gas to go 30 miles and we call that a gas guzzler.

That being said, I don't give a flying eff how much gas is used to save a person from drowning. I just hope that with all the ironic positive press the oil co is getting they don't charge the guys they saved for the gas because we're talking (possibly tens of) thousands of dollars retail.