## 4 Discussion and Conclusions  
A summary of the analysis of the possibility of energy recycling for HFRP and the impact of the use of this material on the fire safety of the crew of a recreational vessel, based on the reaction of samples to fire, is presented in Table 3.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Reaction to Fire Results** & **Energy Recycling** & **Crew Safety** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Maximum weight loss} & HFRP (+) & \multirow{4}{*}{HFRP (0)} \\  & Smaller amount of waste be used compared to & \\  & GFRP, including heavy metal compounds after & No impact on crew safety \\  & the energy recycling process & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{The maximum rate of weight loss [g/s]} & HFRP (+) & \multirow{4}{*}{Higher rate of mass loss compared to GFRP, which may promote the rate of fire spread on a small craft} \\  & A higher rate of weight loss compared to GFRP & \\  & favors the recycling process. & \\  & & \\  & & \\  & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Sample ignition time [s]} & HFRP (\(-\)) & \multirow{4}{*}{A longer ignition time compared to GFRP can increase the time and possibility of evacuation} \\  & The longer ignition time compared to GFRP & \\  & extends the time of the recycling process & \\  & & \\  & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{The maximum average intensity of heat release MARHE [kW/m\({}^{2}\)]} & HFRP (+) & \multirow{4}{*}{The higher maximum intensity of heat release compared to \\  & A 12.5\% higher maximum heat release rate & \\  & compared to GFRP can favor the combustion & \\  & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & process, accelerating the energy recycling & \\ \cline{1-1}  & process. & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Maximum light attenuation [\%]} & HFRP (0) & \multirow{4}{*}{Less attenuation of light compared to \\  & No significant impact on the course of the & GFRP can facilitate and favor the \\  & recycling process & evacuation of the crew from the vessel \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Maximum smoke emission rate  SPR [m\({}^{2}\)/s]} & HFRP (0) & \multirow{4}{*}{HFRP (+)} \\  & No significant impact on the course of the & \\ \cline{1-1}  & recycling process & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-2} \cline  
Based on the analysis and laboratory tests, it can be concluded that:  
* The use of natural (hemp) fiber allows the amount of waste to be minimized compared to traditional composites reinforced with glass fiber, which is extremely desirable from an ecological point of view. The mass of the maximum waste for GFRP was 57.2% of the mass of the initial sample, and in the case of HFRP, it was only 2% of the mass of the initial sample (Table 3). * The use of hemp fiber made it possible to obtain more heat while increasing the amount of smoke and extending the ignition time, which is extremely important from the point of view of the safety of the people on a recreational vessel. The heat released during the combustion of the tested composite reinforced with hemp fabric (183 [MJ/m2]) was four times higher than 48.8 [MJ/m2] of the composite reinforced with glass fabric [MJ/m2]. The above conclusions indicate the greater profitability of recycling for HFRP than for GFRP. Regardless of the cause and regardless of the frequency of occurrence, the greatest threat to people on the yacht during a fire is hot smoke containing toxic combustion products. Due to the very high speed that it spreads around the vessel, it can result in cutting off the crew's escape route, poisoning, burns, and even death. Based on the obtained results, it was concluded that the directions of further research should focus on the analysis of the possibility of using flame retardants to assess their potential use with a composite reinforced with hemp fabric in order to minimize the possibility of ignition. At a later stage, an assessment of the utilization of laminate with a flame retardant additive should also be conducted.