Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
AD

Gretta Thunbergs zero carbon voyage carbon foot print of carbon fibre manufacture

Recommended Posts

(edited)

So as the title suggests I am curious as to Gretta Thunberg the 16 year old climate change protesters ' zero carbon' voyage across the Atlantic.

Firstly all power too her for her strength of character and courage in her convictions and unlike Aron Banks I wish her well with her trans Atlantic sailing trip.

My question is as I suspect very little in this world is infact zero carbon. 

Does anyone know what is the carbon foot print of manufacturing a 60 foot carbon fibre racing yacht ?

I suspect she might have been ill advised here as I know carbon fibre needs to be heated under pressure in an auto clave ( Using lots of energy ) I would also suspect a racing yachts manufacture is very energy and labour intensive.

Once more I would suspect a racing yachts life cycle is much shorter than a GRP cruising yacht.

Would be interested in anyone's thoughts here.

Edited by Auson
spelling
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Auson said:

So as the title suggests I am curious as to Gretta Thunberg the 16 year old climate change protesters ' zero carbon' voyage across the Atlantic.

Firstly all power too her for her strength of character and courage in her convictions and unlike Aron Banks I wish her well with her trans Atlantic sailing trip.

My question is as I suspect very little in this world is infact zero carbon. 

Does anyone know what is the carbon foot print of manufacturing a 60 foot carbon fibre racing yacht ?

I suspect she might have been ill advised here as I know carbon fibre needs to be heated under pressure in an auto clave ( Using lots of energy ) I would also suspect a racing yachts manufacture is very energy and labour intensive.

Once more I would suspect a racing yachts life cycle is much shorter than a GRP cruising yacht.

Would be interested in anyone's thoughts here.

Bear in mind that yacht probably has a 30 year life span even when its competitive racing career has ended. You cant attribute all the imbedded carbon in the build to Greta's single trip.

Whether you agree or not with her campaign at least as a sixteen year old she has interests beyond X factor, Love Island, the Kardashians or some other reality TV Drivel.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 hours ago, NickW said:

Bear in mind that yacht probably has a 30 year life span even when its competitive racing career has ended. You cant attribute all the imbedded carbon in the build to Greta's single trip.

Whether you agree or not with her campaign at least as a sixteen year old she has interests beyond X factor, Love Island, the Kardashians or some other reality TV Drivel.

Nick W

I did say all power too her. Its great what she's doing I just object to the zero carbon bit. Especially as the yacht is full carbon ! I doubt the yacht will be in use for 30 years. Its a bare racer so will only get used while its still competitive. Just my thoughts. As I said I could be wrong.

Edited by Auson
spelling
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Auson said:

So as the title suggests I am curious as to Gretta Thunberg the 16 year old climate change protesters ' zero carbon' voyage across the Atlantic.

Its a valid point - a timber boat would have served her aim better.. you could certainly have argued that a timber boat is renewable. But I think you'll find that only a very few are made each year and they would cost a lot more than the fibreglass variety, so she wouldn't have much choice. However, I agree that it jars. Much the same point could be made about the safety gear (life jackets, rafts, etc) which she would be required to carry as well as the mandated navigational and communications devices. Don't think sat phones are zero emissions.  Come to think of it, what's the rigging and sails on the boat made of - nylon or natural fibre and who would make natural fibre these days? She might cause fewer emissions by buying a plane ticket. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Publicity stunt, with a massive carbon footprint ignored by the fawning, adoring media who shove climate armageddon panic down our throats with gusto.

Crew of Five Are Flying To New York To Bring Greta’s Boat Back

Bjorn Lomborg has picked up on this story from the German news site, Taz:

 image

https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1162311408144531457?s=20

This is the translation from the Taz story:

BERLIN taz | Climate activist Greta Thunberg causes more greenhouse gas emissions from her sailing trip from the United Kingdom to the United States than if she had flown. About five employees would sail the yacht back to Europe, said Andreas Kling, spokesman for Thunberg skipper Boris Herrmann, on Thursday the taz. 
"Of course, they fly over there, that’s no different," says Kling. Herrmann will also take the plane for the return journey. The sailing trip triggers at least six climate-damaging air travel across the Atlantic. If Thunberg had flown with her father, only two would have been necessary to come to New York.

According to the atmosfair emissions calculator, a flight from New York to Hamburg has a climate impact of around 1,800 kilograms of carbon dioxide. That is more than three quarters of what every person is entitled to each year if global warming is to be stopped at 2 degrees. 

Because flights are so damaging to the climate, Thunberg had been looking for a better way to travel to the United Nations Climate Change Summit in New York in September. On Wednesday afternoon, the 16-year-old struck aboard the high-sea yacht "Malizia II" together with the two professional sailors Herrmann and Pierre Casiraghi and their father Svante and a filmmaker in the southern English town of Plymouth. The ship is powered by the wind, electricity for navigation and communication is generated by solar cells.

The press spokesperson for the Fridays for Future activist was unable to reach an opinion on the carbon footprint of the sailing trip until the copy deadline. Skipper spokesman Kling admitted that the departure with hundreds of journalists, supporters and spectators in Plymouth had a carbon footprint. "It would have been less greenhouse gas emissions if we had not made this departure," Kling said. "Of course it would have been more environmentally friendly not to draw attention to the fact that we urgently need to do something against the climate crisis. But if nobody points out, then we do not do anything. " 

When asked if it would not have been more climate-friendly if Thunberg had travelled on a container ship, Kling replied: "This is a thought that is actually being considered for the return to Europe."

https://taz.de/Thunbergs-Segelreise-in-die-USA/!5615733/

 

This proves that Thunberg’s decision to sail by racing yacht had nothing whatsoever to do with saving emissions, and was no more than a silly publicity stunt.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Auson said:

 

I did say all power too her. Its great what she's doing I just object to the zero carbon bit. Especially as the yacht is full carbon ! I doubt the yacht will be in use for 30 years. Its a bare racer so will only get used while its still competitive. Just my thoughts. As I said I could be wrong.

Well that carbon is essentially sequestered! :)

Don't assume carbon fiber has a short lifespan.  I've owned several carbon fiber racing bicycles and they last a long time - they don't rust like steel or have fatigue fractures like aluminum. 

Not saying this particular boat will last, but it's possible.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Green Team is simply using this young girl as a 'face' for their propaganda. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Does this young lady understand the controversy and science involved in the debate regarding climate change and the proposed financials to fix the problem if it actually exists?

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miss Thundergs striving to become Nongqawuse of the Climate Cargo Cult... 

(I sure hope madness of crowds will break over people’s pragmatism when it comes to their pockets)

http://www.siyabona.com/eastern-cape-xhosa-cattle-killing.html

funny observation - blaming Russians have a long history... 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Auson said:

Nick W

I did say all power too her. Its great what she's doing I just object to the zero carbon bit. Especially as the yacht is full carbon ! I doubt the yacht will be in use for 30 years. Its a bare racer so will only get used while its still competitive. Just my thoughts. As I said I could be wrong.

Perhaps low carbon would have been a better choice of words.

You can always convert a bare racer to a cruiser racer. Great day / weekend boat

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Publicity stunt, with a massive carbon footprint ignored by the fawning, adoring media who shove climate armageddon panic down our throats with gusto.

Crew of Five Are Flying To New York To Bring Greta’s Boat Back

Bjorn Lomborg has picked up on this story from the German news site, Taz:

 image

https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1162311408144531457?s=20

This is the translation from the Taz story:

BERLIN taz | Climate activist Greta Thunberg causes more greenhouse gas emissions from her sailing trip from the United Kingdom to the United States than if she had flown. About five employees would sail the yacht back to Europe, said Andreas Kling, spokesman for Thunberg skipper Boris Herrmann, on Thursday the taz. 
"Of course, they fly over there, that’s no different," says Kling. Herrmann will also take the plane for the return journey. The sailing trip triggers at least six climate-damaging air travel across the Atlantic. If Thunberg had flown with her father, only two would have been necessary to come to New York.

According to the atmosfair emissions calculator, a flight from New York to Hamburg has a climate impact of around 1,800 kilograms of carbon dioxide. That is more than three quarters of what every person is entitled to each year if global warming is to be stopped at 2 degrees. 

Because flights are so damaging to the climate, Thunberg had been looking for a better way to travel to the United Nations Climate Change Summit in New York in September. On Wednesday afternoon, the 16-year-old struck aboard the high-sea yacht "Malizia II" together with the two professional sailors Herrmann and Pierre Casiraghi and their father Svante and a filmmaker in the southern English town of Plymouth. The ship is powered by the wind, electricity for navigation and communication is generated by solar cells.

The press spokesperson for the Fridays for Future activist was unable to reach an opinion on the carbon footprint of the sailing trip until the copy deadline. Skipper spokesman Kling admitted that the departure with hundreds of journalists, supporters and spectators in Plymouth had a carbon footprint. "It would have been less greenhouse gas emissions if we had not made this departure," Kling said. "Of course it would have been more environmentally friendly not to draw attention to the fact that we urgently need to do something against the climate crisis. But if nobody points out, then we do not do anything. " 

When asked if it would not have been more climate-friendly if Thunberg had travelled on a container ship, Kling replied: "This is a thought that is actually being considered for the return to Europe."

https://taz.de/Thunbergs-Segelreise-in-die-USA/!5615733/

 

This proves that Thunberg’s decision to sail by racing yacht had nothing whatsoever to do with saving emissions, and was no more than a silly publicity stunt.

From a carbon emissions perspective she would have been best off to select an economy seat on a fully booked flight  in one of the most fuel efficient aircraft (787 / A350) .

Then off set the carbon emissions by paying to insulate a couple of poor peoples lofts . 

Wouldn't have got the publicity though. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, DanilKa said:

Miss Thundergs striving to become Nongqawuse of the Climate Cargo Cult... 

(I sure hope madness of crowds will break over people’s pragmatism when it comes to their pockets)

http://www.siyabona.com/eastern-cape-xhosa-cattle-killing.html

funny observation - blaming Russians have a long history... 

Turns out I wasn’t the first to draw analogy of the child prophet of Xhosa cattle killing - very thorough article on the subject of using children in climate catastrophism 

https://judithcurry.com/2019/07/29/child-prophets-and-proselytizers-of-climate-catastrophe/#more-25045

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2019 at 2:59 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Publicity stunt, with a massive carbon footprint ignored by the fawning, adoring media who shove climate armageddon panic down our throats with gusto.

Crew of Five Are Flying To New York To Bring Greta’s Boat Back

Bjorn Lomborg has picked up on this story from the German news site, Taz:

 image

https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1162311408144531457?s=20

This is the translation from the Taz story:

BERLIN taz | Climate activist Greta Thunberg causes more greenhouse gas emissions from her sailing trip from the United Kingdom to the United States than if she had flown. About five employees would sail the yacht back to Europe, said Andreas Kling, spokesman for Thunberg skipper Boris Herrmann, on Thursday the taz. 
"Of course, they fly over there, that’s no different," says Kling. Herrmann will also take the plane for the return journey. The sailing trip triggers at least six climate-damaging air travel across the Atlantic. If Thunberg had flown with her father, only two would have been necessary to come to New York.

According to the atmosfair emissions calculator, a flight from New York to Hamburg has a climate impact of around 1,800 kilograms of carbon dioxide. That is more than three quarters of what every person is entitled to each year if global warming is to be stopped at 2 degrees. 

Because flights are so damaging to the climate, Thunberg had been looking for a better way to travel to the United Nations Climate Change Summit in New York in September. On Wednesday afternoon, the 16-year-old struck aboard the high-sea yacht "Malizia II" together with the two professional sailors Herrmann and Pierre Casiraghi and their father Svante and a filmmaker in the southern English town of Plymouth. The ship is powered by the wind, electricity for navigation and communication is generated by solar cells.

The press spokesperson for the Fridays for Future activist was unable to reach an opinion on the carbon footprint of the sailing trip until the copy deadline. Skipper spokesman Kling admitted that the departure with hundreds of journalists, supporters and spectators in Plymouth had a carbon footprint. "It would have been less greenhouse gas emissions if we had not made this departure," Kling said. "Of course it would have been more environmentally friendly not to draw attention to the fact that we urgently need to do something against the climate crisis. But if nobody points out, then we do not do anything. " 

When asked if it would not have been more climate-friendly if Thunberg had travelled on a container ship, Kling replied: "This is a thought that is actually being considered for the return to Europe."

https://taz.de/Thunbergs-Segelreise-in-die-USA/!5615733/

 

This proves that Thunberg’s decision to sail by racing yacht had nothing whatsoever to do with saving emissions, and was no more than a silly publicity stunt.

I am fully convinced that we need to care for climate, environment and reasonable use of ressources. But I am severely concerned about the numerous hysteric, ideological driven, "green climate protection" activities ongoing.

Some PR people behind Greta (PR company of Ingmar Rentzhog) are strongly driven by profit interests, others by gaining more political power (green parties). Non of them cares about the economic and social consequences of their ideological driven climate activism with the goal to fuel ill-founded fears among large parts of the population.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Before setting off, the 16-year-old Swede said she would simply “ignore” climate sceptics and that “there are always going to be people who don't understand or accept the united science.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/14/greta-thunberg-sets-us-carbon-neutral-yacht-says-doesnt-expect/amp/

Shameless that the AGW messiahs need to use a child to try and push their agenda.

"Before setting off from Plymouth, Thunberg accepted that solar yachts are not for everyone but says she was hoping to demonstrate there are alternatives to air travel."

Currently using Booking.com to sail to Australia to make crew change....

This really demonstrates the naivety and the way Thunberg is being manipulated, shame as I am sure she is committed to her ideals, however she is a puppet for a much more sinister organisations which exist in this new business model based on profit for the few.

“It’s a really ironic first market for carbon capture technology. Oil companies willing to make more oil which is not good for the climate are actually a really important initial application for technology designed exactly for the purpose of reducing carbon emissions and cleaning them up.”

Lots of flip flopping going on, they need the oil companies to assist them to decimate the oil industry and the products that are keeping this planet turning, currently ready to jump out of the window (Ground floor).

Most definitely in denial and will continue to do so until an iceberg floats past Copa Cabana and Christ the Redeemer blasts off into orbit (Zero Emissions) as he would obviously just lift off being a provider of miracles.

Screen Shot 2019-08-18 at 07.49.05.png

Edited by James Regan
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, James Regan said:

Before setting off, the 16-year-old Swede said she would simply “ignore” climate sceptics and that “there are always going to be people who don't understand or accept the united science.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/14/greta-thunberg-sets-us-carbon-neutral-yacht-says-doesnt-expect/amp/

Shameless that the AGW messiahs need to use a child to try and push their agenda.

"Before setting off from Plymouth, Thunberg accepted that solar yachts are not for everyone but says she was hoping to demonstrate there are alternatives to air travel."

Currently using Booking.com to sail to Australia to make crew change....

This really demonstrates the naivety and the way Thunberg is being manipulated, shame as I am sure she is committed to her ideals, however she is a puppet for a much more sinister organisations which exist in this new business model based on profit for the few.

“It’s a really ironic first market for carbon capture technology. Oil companies willing to make more oil which is not good for the climate are actually a really important initial application for technology designed exactly for the purpose of reducing carbon emissions and cleaning them up.”

Lots of flip flopping going on, they need the oil companies to assist them to decimate the oil industry and the products that are keeping this planet turning, currently ready to jump out of the window (Ground floor).

Most definitely in denial and will continue to do so until an iceberg floats past Copa Cabana and Christ the Redeemer blasts off into orbit (Zero Emissions) as he would obviously just lift off being a provider of miracles.

Screen Shot 2019-08-18 at 07.49.05.png

Is Cachaca carbon neutral ? Anyone who knows Cachaca knows its rocket fuel so I could see this happening.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

7 minutes ago, Auson said:

Is Cachaca carbon neutral ? Anyone who knows Cachaca knows its rocket fuel so I could see this happening.

It’s definitely rocket 🚀 fuel, and I guess a renewable, many Fuscas (VW Beetles) have been bailed out in pinga....

Showing the legendary 51 Cachaca at a Dollar 50 a bottle.....

when I was crew changing from Brasil I would bring it back to Scotland and put it in a big mixture for all to consume we called it the Party Wrecker as it always made people fall out for some reason 👌🏻

8F07AA9C-FA5E-4A4C-8AF5-5DE12B114581.jpeg

Edited by James Regan
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohhh...the Macae memories. Hazy as they were in my youth. I think that stuff would kill me now!😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armed militias from around the world gather around white boards searching their souls and racking their brains trying figure ways to improve environmental sustainability an improve the carrying capacity of an overpopulated world. Well maybe not.

Go Greta, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

It's almost like some here can't comprehend the difference between using fossil fuels to construct a product that will be in service for years as is and burning tons of fossil fuels (yes, even a car will burn through 1500kg of gasoline every single year over it's lifetime in the US with an average of 25 miles per gallon, many cars weigh this much themselves) in order to propel a product which itself used fossil fuels in it's production. How hard is it to comprehend the difference or do people here live in some magical world where products propelled by fossil fuels are constructed in a way as not to use fossil fuels in their production?

If you do not have to burn the stuff over the lifetime of the product then you automatically have a much lower emissions setup and even if the production uses energy from fossil fuels atm, it's not like nobody has solutions for this too is it now? You could easily incorporate more renewables in the production of cars, boats and so on and thus lower their emissions by massive amounts while maintaining functionality.

Only people who have a flawed understanding of energy systems and general infrastructure both current and alternative (or personal interests in maintaining the current wasteful system) bring up issues of products constructed with the help of fossil fuels while apparently forgetting that their comparison is with products that are both constructed and fuelled by fossil fuels. I would expect more from the community of an energy website purportedly populated by energy industry professionals but I guess anything goes these days.

Edited by David Jones
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, David Jones said:

It's almost like some here can't comprehend the difference between using fossil fuels to construct a product that will be in service for years as is and burning tons of fossil fuels (yes, even a car will burn through 1500kg of gasoline every single year over it's lifetime in the US with an average of 25 miles per gallon, many cars weigh this much themselves) in order to propel a product which itself used fossil fuels in it's production. How hard is it to comprehend the difference or do people here live in some magical world where products propelled by fossil fuels are constructed in a way as not to use fossil fuels in their production?

If you do not have to burn the stuff over the lifetime of the product then you automatically have a much lower emissions setup and even if the production uses energy from fossil fuels atm, it's not like nobody has solutions for this too is it now? You could easily incorporate more renewables in the production of cars, boats and so on and thus lower their emissions by massive amounts while maintaining functionality.

Only people who have a flawed understanding of energy systems and general infrastructure both current and alternative (or personal interests in maintaining the current wasteful system) bring up issues of products constructed with the help of fossil fuels while apparently forgetting that their comparison is with products that are both constructed and fuelled by fossil fuels. I would expect more from the community of an energy website purportedly populated by energy industry professionals but I guess anything goes these days.

David Jones,

Thanks for your detailed response. The sole reason I created this thread was to show that a carbon fibre racing yacht is not zero carbon, as I suspect something state of the art that cost $4m to build would have been very energy intensive to create and would only be in service for 5 to 10 years verses 20, 30 or more years for a GRP or wood hulled yacht.

I'm glad you bring up Electric Vehicles as these seem to be hailed as the solution to all our climate change problems. I believe this is wrong and I also doubt the motives of Government and big business in trying to convince us all this is so. E.V's are also far from zero emission. A bicycle much closer to zero emissions but not a 2+ ton Tesla with vegan leather seats and Ludicrous mode enabled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you understood the point I was making above, it really doesn't matter if it's "zero carbon" (nobody is going "zero carbon" today but that's also not the point, the focus is to aim for that by 2050 while following a set decline curve), the difference in emissions intensity between a yacht that sails and a yacht that uses fossil fuels as it's energy source is night and day, and obviously the difference between producing a plane that consumes fossil fuels and a yacht is beyond anything one should reasonably discuss in terms of emission intensity. In addition, the carbon inside the material is basically sequestered. An interesting way of reducing CO2 concentration might actually be to extract it from the atmosphere and sequester it within the product and infrastructure pipelines.

As for electric cars, sure a bicycle is better but are you proposing that people be banned from using cars? If not then your comment is pointless and the idea of banning cars entirely seems far more radical than current government proposals for EVs. Again, why bring such an argument up if you have spent even a second considering the situation? I'm generally fed up with such arguments so excuse me if my demeanour is confrontational. I have herd such arguments on many occasions, they were no good back when I first encountered them years ago and they are no good today.

What is actually happening is that more and larger emission intensive vehicles are being sold so if people are going to drive cars and ever larger ones, then they should purchase EVs. A 2+ ton Tesla is definitely less emission intensive than a 2+ ton SUV powered by fossil fuels (of which the latter will likely burn 2 tons within a single year of it's existence)  assuming a reasonably clean grid (the US average is definitely well within the necessary CO2 per kWh range for EVs) and obviously a grid with low emission intensity is a must to tackle the issue at hand or even just dampen the outcome somewhat. Also, contrary to the reports people throw about here, a Tesla can actually be driven for many hundreds of thousands of miles without even 20% battery degradation and it's range is now up to 370 miles so 20% degradation still means the range remains higher than anything currently on the market. Research that was recently posted here was done with the assumption of about 100k miles (or possibly just 100k km). That's about 1/3rd of the driving a Model S can do in it's lifetime and consequently, the comparative emissions profile versus a fossil fuel car over such distances is again, night and day.

Since we can't build millions of EVs in 30 years time suddenly out of nowhere never mind the infrastructure to support them (and it wouldn't even prevent reaching dangerous levels of warming if we followed such mantra across the transition infrastructure at that point since warming would already be in the pipeline so to say) or retire cars entirely, you need to develop the infrastructure now even if some areas haven't cleaned up their grid yet. In fact, this is why the process should have started in earnest 30 years ago which would have reduced concerns of increased emissions during the transition period but no, people at the top did not want to deal with it and felt it's better to spread BS about the issue instead. Well every one will end up dealing with it whether they want to or not. It just wont be on our terms.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0