Clean vs dirty

The rift in the outboard industry over "clean" and "dirty" engines reported by Marine Business Online last month resulted in a flood of comments and opinions being posted on our website. The obvious interest shown by the marine industry in the development of this story - which is probably the biggest upset to the outboard sector since OMC went broke back in 2000 - warrants much further investigation and analysis. As Australia's leading marine news publication and website, Marine Business considers it important to establish the facts behind the outboard emissions furore and also to examine the political and commercial ramifications of the delineation between the various industry players.

The stage was set in August with BRP, Honda and Suzuki leaving OEDA to form a new body, the Australian Marine Engine Council Inc. (AMEC). The three "clean-only" companies joined forces with Volvo Penta, Yanmar and Torqeedo electric outboards. AMEC is pro emission regulations, and wants to see Australia matching the US 2009 standard as soon as possible (2011).

This move left Mercury, Tohatsu and Yamaha remaining in the Outboard Engine Distributors Association (OEDA). These three companies have made statements that they support the idea of cleaner engines, but haven't yet set a date on the standards they support (see page 15 for more).

Which emissions?

According to emission experts Marine Business spoke to, the emissions affecting the outboard sector are not greenhouse gasses. Thus, there is little point comparing marine engines to cars and coal fired power stations.

International emissions regulations for small, off road, spark ignition (petrol) engines target three chemicals:

Hydrocarbons (HC) - this is the raw and part burned petrol and oil commonly seen as blue smoke or an oil slick on the water.

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) - this is an invisible gas that, in a chemical reaction with water, forms nitric acid. It's long accepted that this is the cause of acid rain and, in marine environments, can change the pH of the water. NOx is also a weak greenhouse gas.

In addition to HC and NOx, Europe regulates Carbon Monoxide. CO is a deadly poison to humans and a possible cause of some boating injuries. The USA EPA only required CO to be reported. That is, until USA EPA 2009 standard comes into effect later this year (model year 2010), then the US follows the EU with a CO limit.

The Australian Government's plan is to copy this US standard, including CO.

That means we won't see a noise level standard like the Europeans, but it will mean an evaporative standard for fuel tanks. Boat builders will have to use an expansion tank and add a carbon filter to the breather line, much like we have had in cars for years.

Why target two-strokes?

Emissions standards target high emissions engines - and according to the DEWHA 2007 (p2) report they all happen to be two-strokes. Four-strokes and direct injection two-strokes push out less than 31 grams of HC + NOx, per kilowatt (hp) per hour. On the other side, the cleanest two-stroke (EFI or carby) pushes out at least 100 and up to 681 g/kW/hr.

The outspoken Queensland-based marine industry consultant and academic Gary Fooks said many consumers were unaware an 8hp two-stroke could produce 50 per cent more emissions per hour than a 150hp "clean" engine.

"Overall, the two-strokes have about 10 times the emissions of hydrocarbons (fuel and oil) and oxides of nitrogen," said Fooks.

"These are the two emissions that are measured by the OEDA star labelling scheme.

"The choice of a 50hp clean vs. dirty outboard means an extra 4.7kg of nasty stuff into the water every typical hour (5.2kg - 0.5kg=4.7kg). But that's just one hour. Do 100 hours a year and keep the outboard just five years (or do 50 hours a year and assume it lasts just 10 years) then it's not an extra 4.7kg, it's an extra 2.3 tonnes (of emissions)."

A major two-stroke manufacturer contacted by Marine Business said this doesn't reflect the realities of Australian outboard use. A high number of Australian boats are used in windy, saltwater environments, as apposed to the large European and US freshwater reservoirs where emission regulations were first introduced.

"What needs to be considered is that boating here is very different from boating in those other continents ... 95 per cent of boating here is saltwater offshore or bays.

"Most of the boating in the US, Canada, and Europe is in closed waters where emissions are more of a problem."

International History

Outboard emissions standards were first seen in Europe in 1993 on the Bodensee, (Lake Constance) bordering Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The rest of Europe didn't start until 2005, after years of haggling. Meanwhile, the US started its controls in 1998.

These standards were introduced with years of advance discussions, which is why we now see, 15 years later, that every manufacturer has a full range of clean outboards.

Canada has had an industry voluntary code for the past three years which mirrored the US standards, until it could be replaced with legislation. Japan also has a voluntary code.

In all these jurisdictions it's not just outboards - small off-road engine regulations control everything from chain saws to lawn mowers.

Australian history

OEDA's recent statement tells us that the outboard industry has been discussing outboard emissions with governments since 2003.

NSW is where the government push started. The NSW Greater Metropolitan Region, from Newcastle to Wollongong (population 4.7 million) exceeds the maximum emissions limits at peak times. With car standards now meeting Euro 4 standard, the NSW EPA went looking for other areas to regulate.

The push was elevated to federal level in 2005, with a marine industry expert panel meeting with government throughout 2006. Reading the final report (DEWHA 2007) it was clear to that emission standards were well and truly on the agenda.

In parallel with the 2006 marine expert panel meetings, the garden equipment industry peak body, OPEA, also met with government. OPEA has called for regulations commencing in 2010 and began preparing its industry for change.

The marine industry hasn't heard the same level of warning. The industry peak body, AMIF, and the NSW Boating Industry Association, as well as all six outboard companies, were all represented on the 2006 expert panels and have seen the final report.

But what did we hear about the likely end of the two-stroke? Were Australian boat builders warned to plan ahead for possible legislation?

Will the new AMIF actively advise boat builders and others to prepare for a four-stroke and DI two-stroke world, as well as evaporative standards for boat fuel systems?

Marine Queensland GM Don Jones said: "In respect to outboard emissions (and for that matter other emissions from the manufacturing process itself) there are a range of complex requirements emerging that in some cases will require significant change to current practices.

"So, as you can see, this will mean that the industry associations will need to move fairly quickly to:

1. Inform and educate;

2. Develop well articulated policy positions;

3. Engage with members and other key stakeholders to ensure that co-management can be applied in an efficient, effective and sustainable manner; and

4. Actively participate in the management and application of the regulatory process.

"Have the associations done this (well) in the past? I suspect not. However, the new future that is rapidly emerging is going to require some fundamental shifts in thinking right across the spectrum of the industry - including the industry associations, governments, the environmental lobby and mainstream industry participants. Because one thing that is not sustainable is the current model of environmental management. The broader community arguably cannot now, and certainly will not in the future, continue to bear the ever increasing cost of compliance with new and emerging environmental requirements - be they marine environments, manufacturing processes, emissions or even day-to-day business operations."

NSW BIA GM Roy Privett said the process of informing members and the industry of ever changing environmental practices would be better achieved if the associations work as a national unified voice.

"Have the BIAs done enough to inform members of the changes? I believed the delivery of the message or alert to industry members has been stifled due to our eccentric state structure. Yes, we can definitely do better and the industry representative groups need to unify to produce cohesive industry guidance and united advocacy to government," said Privett.

NSW BIA is concerned the split with OEDA and the newly formed AMEC will damage the industry and could weaken future government discussions.

"Whilst BIA NSW had been a party to the initial discussions with government it has always been accepted that OEDA was the leading authority and advocate for the industry on outboard engine issues. With a split within the engine distributors organisation the industry now has a fractured voice which is detrimental to the industry and our message to the recreational boating community. A split into a two-stroke versus four-stroke camps is extremely damaging. We need to get back on track. It is not about who makes what type of engines or tactics to gain market share. Government won't support one brand or the other. There are a lot more facts that should be on the table and we should guard against blind acceptance of European or US standards. It is essentially a issue of emission levels and what we as an industry will be doing about it in a progressive and suitable timeframe to meet the requirements of Australian boating conditions and market place."

Haines Group director Greg Haines said his company had seen these changes approaching and has already prepared for the shift in environmental regulations.

"It has been clear for many years that we have been heading for green regulations. For us that meant four-strokes and low emission fibreglass techniques. I am worried about the financial future for boat builders who don't keep up with the trends, or worse still, see the changes coming and ignore them," said Haines.

VELS

What we saw from OEDA was an emission labelling scheme called VELS. The outboard companies keen on legislation say that VELS hasn't made a difference, and that there was a slow market trend toward clean engines anyway. On the opposite side, the three companies who are less enthusiastic about emissions standards have declared VELS a success.

Some inside the industry believed VELS wasn't properly promoted and remains a mystery to many outboard dealers.

"Evinrude E-TEC has from the very beginning widely promoted to consumers the value proposition of clean technology. After all, we are just one of the outboard companies who have been promoting the benefits of 3 star outboards for years - less smell, quiet and lower fuel consumption. On the other hand, the industry based VELS labelling scheme promotion was purposely weakened against my advice and was never going to make a difference to accelerate consumer uptake of clean engines," said BRP's David Heyes.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was suggested by government in 2007 handed the marine industry an opportunity to come up with its own plan to voluntarily reduce the sales of high emission two-strokes, without the restrictions of regulations.

That meant industry could have taken on world standards at its own pace (within reason) and in a way that would least affect boat builders and boat sales.

Canada had an MOU since 2001 until at least 2008, and Japan still operates under a similar arrangement.

The outboard companies in favour of emissions standards would have grabbed this opportunity with both hands. It's not known why OEDA and AMIF let this option pass by.

Government, however, has moved on. In late 2007, the expert panel report was discussed by the Council of State and Federal Environment Ministers (EPHC) which immediately decided to move to a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), as the next step toward regulations. The option for the marine industry to control its own future had passed.

When the CBA was presented in late 2008 the decision was made to move to the next step, a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS). The RIS was due to move into a public consultation phase in July 2009, however this has been delayed until November.

The delay was caused by a need to re-run the CBA, under a tighter model for emissions laws i.e. matching USA EPA 2009 and to include, for the first time, petrol inboards and stern drives, as well as the fuel tank evaporative standards mentioned earlier.

Diesel engine standards are currently under discussion and are running about two years behind petrol engine standards.

Predicting the future

It's now clear that government is heading for a copy of USA EPA 2009 standards. Considering the government processes, those regulations won't be seen until the end of 2010, with implementation in 2011 - at the earliest.

All that industry seems to have agreed upon is that we follow the USA standards. As the world's largest market, that makes a lot of sense. And it seems that this legislation is a done deal.

It's not all bad news for industry. Some say legislation may push up the price of entry level boating, but mum and the kids will have a quieter, less smelly experience and that will be good for the marine industry in the long-term. Some argue that boat owners pay more for maintenance, but all agree they pay less for fuel. However, as mentioned above, there are many legitimate reasons against a 2011 implementation with OEDA members citing a threat to the re-power industry and an increased pressure on struggling dealerships.

• I commend the unnamed author of the above article for his excellent coverage of the pending situation regarding regulation of boat motor emissions. It seems clear that the manufacture of small 2-stroke outboard engines, such as used for yacht tenders or the kids run-about tiny will be a thing of the past. It would seem that the proposed US Standard to be legislated in Australia in 2010 would also outlaw the use of your existing non complying small 2-strokes - so what is the alternative. As far as I know, there is only one International manufacturer who has developed and produces a small electric outboard that will take the place of the small 2-stroke. This is the Torqeedo of German manufacture. It is already in use world wide. Look up the name on U-tube to see what is happening with this engine around the world. It is ideally suitable for the cruising an racing yachtsman who only needs the motor to power his rubber ducky or small tender to access his moored boat. In the case of the cruising helmsman, ideal to power the rubber ducky to go ashore for a paper or milk etc. It is also powerfiul enough and much safer than it petrol cousin for the kids to use. The test we have conducted resulted in the Travel 801 model Torqeedo, available in long and short shaft, pushing the rubber ducky at 5-6kph and running on one battery charge for five plus hours. The great attraction to the sailor is the elimination of petrol fumes, grime and the constant threat of combustion of those fumes from the yacht. The Torqeedo is a cleverly design machine incorporating the modern rare-earth battery where your would normally expect to see the engine on a 2-stroke outboard. It is clean and easy to maintain. The Battery can be simply removed for recharging from any 240v AC outlet or by using an inexpensive inverter, from the yachts 12v or 24v electrical system. Never having to have petrol on board again is a cruising helmsman's dream. The Torqeedo is available from Sheerline at Brookvale NSW.
  Don West - Sheerline Yacht Masts on 24-Feb-10 10:20 PM

• You have got to stop referring to AMEC outboard members as the 3 clean only companies. Suzuki sells and actively promotes a range of 2 strokes throughout Australia and NZ. It should also be noted that fourstrokes emit greater amounts of CO per hp than 2 strokes.So not so clean, A?
  B.Knags on 13-Jan-10 01:58 PM