With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much more
will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price point
will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?

Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we paid
$5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid over
$300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd see.

That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
appears to be no end in sight. So the question is: How much higher must gas
go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time? Anyone care
to predict what year the last personal flights will occur in America?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much
> more will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price
> point will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?

> So the question is: How much higher must gas go up before *you* hang up
> your headphones for the last time? Anyone care to predict what year the
> last personal flights will occur in America?

No, there will always be some that have enough money, but the question is
more like, how long will it be until the number of active pilots is cut in
half, and then, half again?

The trend will be to see STC's to convert more and more engines to lower
compression cylinders and pistons, to allow engines to burn auto gas, I
think.

That, and cleaner, slicker airframes will allow them to fly more miles to
the gallon. Look at some of the RV's that get something like 25 miles to
the gallon, of auto gas. Also, the continuing trend to the small LSA
airframes, or the likes of them, perhaps not LSA, but the same size, and
faster.

Still, the classics will still fly, many only as show items, like classic
hot rods that only go out to go to shows.

I do fear, as you, that gas prices will continue to price more and more
people out of the ability to continue flying. I hope a solution to switch
nearly everything to a more affordable fuel is made available, and soon.
--
Jim in NC

>
> That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
> appears to be no end in sight. So the question is: How much higher must gas
> go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time?

For me, the limit would be $10/gallon before I will stop long distance
flying, such as flying between Seattle to California. To stop local
fun flights - maybe $15-$20/gallon. And I use autofuel.

The worry though is when the price approaches $7-$8/gallon, so many
people would give up flying all together and we'll end up losing many
of our airports due to lack of use, and the remaining ones might not
have gasoline for sale due to low sales volume (JetA will likely still
be available in those places). That'll make long distance flying trip
less and less viable.

The problem is magnified by the fact that 100LL price will go
exponentially more expense as consumption continues to dwindle, due to
the need of a dedicated distribution infrastructure.

In article <6LBJj.53005$TT4.41626@attbi_s22>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much more
> will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price point
> will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>
> Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we paid
> $5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid over
> $300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd see.
>
> That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
> appears to be no end in sight. So the question is: How much higher must gas
> go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time? Anyone care
> to predict what year the last personal flights will occur in America?

If I lose my mechanics and can no longer do owner-assisted maintenance,
then I'll probably sell my airplane (I own one partly because I love working
on it).

The price of gas is not likely to be the cause of my giving up on flying.
Stupid idiotic "security" requirements will more likely drive me away from
flying. The price of gas is simply not that significant to me. Of course,
my plane burns around 8 gph, or less if I run at 65% or thereabouts.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
>> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much
>> more will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price
>> point will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>
>> So the question is: How much higher must gas go up before *you* hang up
>> your headphones for the last time? Anyone care to predict what year the
>> last personal flights will occur in America?
>
> No, there will always be some that have enough money, but the question is
> more like, how long will it be until the number of active pilots is cut in
> half, and then, half again?
>
> The trend will be to see STC's to convert more and more engines to lower
> compression cylinders and pistons, to allow engines to burn auto gas, I
> think.
>
> That, and cleaner, slicker airframes will allow them to fly more miles to
> the gallon. Look at some of the RV's that get something like 25 miles to
> the gallon, of auto gas. Also, the continuing trend to the small LSA
> airframes, or the likes of them, perhaps not LSA, but the same size, and
> faster.
>
> Still, the classics will still fly, many only as show items, like classic
> hot rods that only go out to go to shows.
>
> I do fear, as you, that gas prices will continue to price more and more
> people out of the ability to continue flying. I hope a solution to switch
> nearly everything to a more affordable fuel is made available, and soon.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
The fact is that, even though it does have me priced out for the moment,
this really is cyclical. The US dollar is currently depressed, which
contributes to the problem. In addition, for most of the past forty years,
crude oil has been the inflation leader--oil prices ratchet up and
eventually stabilize, and then the rest of the economy catches up. This
time, we had the housing bubble as well, so there are (at least) two highly
inflated segments for the rest of the economy to emulate.

I don't especially like it, and as the financial ads always say "past
performance is not a guarantee of future results"; but the past is still the
best indicator that we have available.

In other words, so long as tax rates are indexed for inflation, aviation
will be as affordable in a few years as it was a few years ago.

Peter
Just my $0.02

Jay Honeck wrote:
> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much
> more will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price
> point will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>
> Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we
> paid $5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid
> over $300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd see.
>
> That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
> appears to be no end in sight. So the question is: How much higher must
> gas go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time?
> Anyone care to predict what year the last personal flights will occur in
> America?

Republicans
Big oil
The Rich

The rest of us are eating ****

The turd is being molded by the Failed Aviation
Administration the Government agency who loves to suck big
business cock

Only the Rich will fly soon
Just like the 1930's
Only the rich

McSame will be 4 or 8 more years of the same ****
God Bless America

"BlowMe" > wrote

> Republicans
> Big oil

Last I checked, the price of oil was set by the WORLD demand marketplace,
and to a lesser degree by OPEC production quotas.

It is mighty nice of you to think that the Republicans are powerful enough
to control the WORLD price of oil.

But you are probably too stupid to realize this FACT of life.

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 02:47:30 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much more
>will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price point
>will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?

Cheer up Jay, it won't be much longer and you'' be paying that for the
auto gas.
>
>Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we paid
>$5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid over
>$300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd see.

You should fly something with big gas tanks plus tip tanks.<:-))
>
>That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
>appears to be no end in sight. So the question is: How much higher must gas
>go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time? Anyone care
>to predict what year the last personal flights will occur in America?

Some are calling for complete independence from foreign oil within a
decade which we need to do. Think gas is expensive now? wait until we
are using renewable fuels.

Jay,

> How much more
> will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price point
> will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>

Just look at Cirrus's order book as one indication: Are people buying the
SR20, with an engine that consumes less fuel? Nope, they are buying the
SR22, with a gas guzzler. Ergo: No problem yet, in the good ole USofA.
Bigger is still better.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Apr 4, 8:47*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much more
> will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? * At what price point
> will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>
> Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we paid
> $5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. *Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid over
> $300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd see.
>
> That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
> appears to be no end in sight. *So the question is: How much higher must gas
> go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time? * Anyone care
> to predict what year the last personal flights will occur in America?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I'm not an economist, but it seems with the increase in demand for
alternatively fueled cars, (hybrids, hydrogen powered, etc), the
demand for fuel will go way down, bring the price down with it.
Additionally, once the auto industry completely converts to hydrogen
(or whatever fuel type comes out on top), that technology will trickle
into aircraft engines.

The real problem is that it will only get worse before it gets better.
Unless something unforeseen happens, the price will only go up for at
least a few more years until it starts dropping again. The real
question is will the hobby survive until energy prices drop back down?

On Apr 5, 12:47 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much more
> will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price point
> will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>
> Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we paid
> $5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid over
> $300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd see.
>
> That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
> appears to be no end in sight. So the question is: How much higher must gas
> go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time? Anyone care
> to predict what year the last personal flights will occur in America?

In my case, I rent a nice, fairly new Australian "ultralight" (really
an LSA) for about $110 an hour. It burns just over 4 gallons/hour of
premium autogas, so if the price of fuel doubled, I'd only be out
another 20 dollars. In the scheme of things that isn't very much. A
full tank of fuel costs about $140 for over 6 hours of flight time.

When I tried going for my PPL I was paying $250 an hour for a clapped
out 172. I have no idea how people can justify the extra cost of GA in
Australia. Paying almost a weeks wages for a long cross country gets
old really fast.

Cheers,

Al

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:6LBJj.53005$TT4.41626@attbi_s22...
> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much
> more will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price
> point will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>
> Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we
> paid $5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid
> over $300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd see.
>
> That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
> appears to be no end in sight. So the question is: How much higher must
> gas go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time? Anyone
> care to predict what year the last personal flights will occur in America?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Over my ~13 years in aviation, fuel prices have increased by about 100%.
That's about 5.5% a year, against everything else which is inflating at ~3%
a year. Much of the run-up on fuel prices is due to currency fluctuations,
which have added something like a dollar to your cost of avgas. Most of
that currency fluctuation (devaluation of the dollar) is a recent
development. Take that out of the equation, and gas is no more expensive
today (inflation adjusted) than it was 13 years ago.

What does that mean? Unless we get our fiscal policies cleaned up, prices
on imported products (i.e. avgas) will continue to increase faster than
domestic products. Add that to the increasing energy demand in China and
India, which will add to inflationary pressures on fuel, and gasoline ain't
gonna be cheap.

When will it run people out of the air? Dunno, but the losses start at the
margins. How many ratty Cherokees and C-150's do you see buzzing around
these days? Not as many as you used to. IMO, those people may have been the
first victims. Light twins have taken a big hit in value (and flying time),
which is a function of fuel cost. Similarly, I'm starting to see good deals
on aircraft that have historically held their value well, like Commanches.
It takes a lot of gas to run a 250 hp engine.

Cirrus is doing well, as are several new aircraft manufacturers. If a
customer can afford a $350k airplane, s/he can afford the fuel for it. The
RV's are doing OK too. If you have $80-100k to invest over a 4 year build
period, you obviously have significant disposable income and when the
airplane is finished, you spend the bucks on flying rather than building.

To answer your question, though, smaller, cleaner airframes (RV's, LSA's,
etc) will continue to make flying affordable for the weekend flyer if the
weekend flyers' mission is 2 people and 50 pounds of baggage. BUT, it will
become expensive to carry around too much airframe - buzzing two people
around for hamburgers in a draggy airframe with a big engine isn't the wave
of the future...

KB

> Just look at Cirrus's order book as one indication: Are people buying the
> SR20, with an engine that consumes less fuel? Nope, they are buying the
> SR22, with a gas guzzler. Ergo: No problem yet, in the good ole USofA.
> Bigger is still better.

This is an interesting phenomenon. Cirrus is still apparently finding
enough wealthy pilots to prosper -- from where I know not. I'm extremely
happy for them, however. As long as there are Cirrus' being cranked out,
GA is still in good shape.

Unfortunately, I think the vast majority of pilots on America are closer to
my demographic, small business owners flying around in 35 year old planes
who are being squeezed by energy prices on all sides.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Over my ~13 years in aviation, fuel prices have increased by about 100%.
> That's about 5.5% a year, against everything else which is inflating at
> ~3% a year. Much of the run-up on fuel prices is due to currency
> fluctuations, which have added something like a dollar to your cost of
> avgas. Most of that currency fluctuation (devaluation of the dollar) is a
> recent development. Take that out of the equation, and gas is no more
> expensive today (inflation adjusted) than it was 13 years ago.

Yeah, I know all that -- but in real life you can't take that out of the
equation. Our dollar is in the dumpster, and we're all getting the pinch
because of it.

> When will it run people out of the air? Dunno, but the losses start at
> the margins. How many ratty Cherokees and C-150's do you see buzzing
> around these days? Not as many as you used to. IMO, those people may have
> been the first victims.

Yep. The beaters are still on the field, but I don't see them fly anymore.
My A&P says that he's seeing an awful lot of planes coming in for annual
inspections with few -- or even NO -- hours since last year. There are an
awful lot of owners hanging on by their fingernails.

> Light twins have taken a big hit in value (and flying time), which is a
> function of fuel cost.

I only know one private party still flying a twin, and most of the charters
have switched to turbines. Just a few years ago, they were all over the
airport.

> Similarly, I'm starting to see good deals on aircraft that have
> historically held their value well, like Commanches. It takes a lot of gas
> to run a 250 hp engine.

Yep, our O-540-powered Pathfinder has taken a significant hit in value. Of
course, almost all aircraft have. It's really a buyer's market out there
right now.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Apr 4, 8:47*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How
>> much mor
> e
>> will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? * At what price
>> point
>
>> will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>>
>> Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago,
>> we pai
> d
>> $5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. *Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid
>> over
>
>> $300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd see.
>>
>> That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and
>> there appears to be no end in sight. *So the question is: How much
>> higher must
> gas
>> go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time? *
>> Anyone c
> are
>> to predict what year the last personal flights will occur in America?
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> I'm not an economist, but it seems with the increase in demand for
> alternatively fueled cars, (hybrids, hydrogen powered, etc), the
> demand for fuel will go way down, bring the price down with it.
> Additionally, once the auto industry completely converts to hydrogen
> (or whatever fuel type comes out on top), that technology will trickle
> into aircraft engines.
>


God you#re an idiot. Where wil the hydrogen come from fjukktard?


Bertie

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Yep, our O-540-powered Pathfinder has taken a significant hit in
> value. Of course, almost all aircraft have. It's really a buyer's
> market out there right now.

Yes, I know. :-)

I've been wanting to buy an airplane since selling my 50% 182
partnership back in 1999 when my company nearly went bust, but the cost
was just too high given one kid in college, myself in graduate school
and another not far from college.

However, I've been looking at 182RGs (I want to finish my commercial)
and the prices have dropped dramatically the last couple of years.
There is one nearby me that was advertised for $95K a year ago, dropped
to 86K a few months ago and I just saw a new add for it at $77K! 77 is
my graduation year so maybe this is a sign! :-) Then again, I like the
number 70 also and I suspect by mid-summer when the recession is
officially declared, the price may get to that.

I came very close to buying an Arrow last winter, but the owner is
asking way above Vref and so far refuses to deal so that one likely
won't happen. It is more nicely equipped than the 182 (the 182 has a
high time engine and no GPS, but has LORAN, a FD, S-TEC 60 AP and other
goodies). I prefer the 182 for the additional interior room, extra
door, extra speed, range, useful load and high wing, but the Arrow would
be more economical to operate and I believe the gear is less troublesome
than the Cessna singles and it really is a very nice Arrow inside and
out. But $98K for a 77 Arrow is just way above market at present and I
really don't think the market for GA singles is ever going to return so
paying above market today is almost certainly money thrown away. Fuel
cost and future availability and the constant advance of regulations is
slowing dooming GA (low-end anyway) to the same fate as Europe.

Matt

Jay,

> This is an interesting phenomenon.
>

Isn't it?

I'm not so sure, however, that even you aren't part of the phenomenon -
no offense meant or implied, just making a non-judgmental observation.
After all, how many of those 235 horses your Dakota (?) has do you
really need? Wouldn't an Archer do 99 percent of your missions? And
with a much lower fuel bill?

How many US pilots are there complaining about all the fuel their Bo or
210 or even 182 uses? Well, I got news: Those are BIG airplanes with
BIG engines.

I live in the land of 13 USD per gallon Avgas - and I KNOW I could not
feed 550 or even 520 cubic inches. That's why I fly a Tobago at 115
knots and not a Trinidad at 150. And that's why I am in a 4-person
partnership. Single ownership in Germany? Forget it!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I'm still paying more in Canada. When our dollar climbed up, prices
didn't lower either.

Forget the cost, full steam ahead!

John

Jay Honeck wrote:

> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much more
> will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price point
> will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>
> Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we paid
> $5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid over
> $300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd see.
>
> That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
> appears to be no end in sight. So the question is: How much higher must gas
> go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time? Anyone care
> to predict what year the last personal flights will occur in America?

Al Borowski wrote:
> On Apr 5, 12:47 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>>With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much more
>>will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price point
>>will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>>
>>Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we paid
>>$5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid over
>>$300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd see.
>>
>>That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
>>appears to be no end in sight. So the question is: How much higher must gas
>>go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time? Anyone care
>>to predict what year the last personal flights will occur in America?
>
>
> In my case, I rent a nice, fairly new Australian "ultralight" (really
> an LSA) for about $110 an hour. It burns just over 4 gallons/hour of
> premium autogas, so if the price of fuel doubled, I'd only be out
> another 20 dollars. In the scheme of things that isn't very much. A
> full tank of fuel costs about $140 for over 6 hours of flight time.
>
> When I tried going for my PPL I was paying $250 an hour for a clapped
> out 172. I have no idea how people can justify the extra cost of GA in
> Australia. Paying almost a weeks wages for a long cross country gets
> old really fast.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Al
I know the feeling. I fly GA, in Cessnas and Pipers here in the US. When
I go to Australia I fly in a sportstar (LSA) as this is what I can
afford over there.

James.

On Apr 4, 11:40 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> >> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much
> >> more will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price
> >> point will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>
> >> So the question is: How much higher must gas go up before *you* hang up
> >> your headphones for the last time? Anyone care to predict what year the
> >> last personal flights will occur in America?
>
> > No, there will always be some that have enough money, but the question is
> > more like, how long will it be until the number of active pilots is cut in
> > half, and then, half again?
>
> > The trend will be to see STC's to convert more and more engines to lower
> > compression cylinders and pistons, to allow engines to burn auto gas, I
> > think.
>
> > That, and cleaner, slicker airframes will allow them to fly more miles to
> > the gallon. Look at some of the RV's that get something like 25 miles to
> > the gallon, of auto gas. Also, the continuing trend to the small LSA
> > airframes, or the likes of them, perhaps not LSA, but the same size, and
> > faster.
>
> > Still, the classics will still fly, many only as show items, like classic
> > hot rods that only go out to go to shows.
>
> > I do fear, as you, that gas prices will continue to price more and more
> > people out of the ability to continue flying. I hope a solution to switch
> > nearly everything to a more affordable fuel is made available, and soon.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> The fact is that, even though it does have me priced out for the moment,
> this really is cyclical. The US dollar is currently depressed, which
> contributes to the problem. In addition, for most of the past forty years,
> crude oil has been the inflation leader--oil prices ratchet up and
> eventually stabilize, and then the rest of the economy catches up. This
> time, we had the housing bubble as well, so there are (at least) two highly
> inflated segments for the rest of the economy to emulate.
>
> I don't especially like it, and as the financial ads always say "past
> performance is not a guarantee of future results"; but the past is still the
> best indicator that we have available.
>
> In other words, so long as tax rates are indexed for inflation, aviation
> will be as affordable in a few years as it was a few years ago.
>

I used to hold the same optimistic view that things always get better
after they get worse. But the economy doesn't move ahead or catch up
just because it has done so in the past. The economy is driven by
people who are healthy, innovative and are adventurous. I am concerned
that we have been on a precipitous decline in all these areas for some
time now. The old C-152 does not carry two adults anymore. Overweight
is normal, and obese is now overweight. Diabetes is a household word.
Children are growing up with all kinds of problems, drugs and crime
being the least of them. I work in education, and in recent years I
have graduated many people with doctorate and masters degrees in high-
tech areas whom I would consider frighteningly incompetent. These are
the people who go on to become scientific advisers to governments and
other organizations where they make decisions that affects everyone in
the world. I am not the least bit surprised that we have made many
stupid and dangerous decisions in the past. The energy crisis should
not have come as a surprise to any one. The reason for our low dollar
is the national debt, but we are doing nothing to fix that problem.
That could be offset if there were lots of innovation and a healthy
population. But a mounting debt combined with obesity and declining
health looks like a bad combination for a bright future. I am afraid
that the party might be coming to an end. But for the sake of my
children, I hope I am wrong and you are right.

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> I work in education, and in recent years I
> have graduated many people with doctorate and masters degrees in high-
> tech areas whom I would consider frighteningly incompetent.

That's something of a self-indictment, isn't it? In what manner do you work
in education, "graduate" many "incompetents," and not have any culpability
in the matter?

> I'm not so sure, however, that even you aren't part of the phenomenon -
> no offense meant or implied, just making a non-judgmental observation.
> After all, how many of those 235 horses your Dakota (?) has do you
> really need? Wouldn't an Archer do 99 percent of your missions? And
> with a much lower fuel bill?

None taken. You are absolutely correct.

Which is why we're looking at entering a six-way partnership (flying club,
actually) on a 1946 Ercoupe. 85 horses, 2 seats, 4 gph. The Pathfinder
(immediate predecessor to the Dakota) is an awesome plane for hauling a
family in style -- and we'll certainly keep it -- but Atlas burns 25 gph at
takeoff, which makes buzzing down to a pancake breakfast something you tend
to think twice about nowadays.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:GXVJj.107598$yE1.37839@attbi_s21:

>> I'm not so sure, however, that even you aren't part of the phenomenon
>> - no offense meant or implied, just making a non-judgmental
>> observation. After all, how many of those 235 horses your Dakota (?)
>> has do you really need? Wouldn't an Archer do 99 percent of your
>> missions? And with a much lower fuel bill?
>
> None taken. You are absolutely correct.
>
> Which is why we're looking at entering a six-way partnership (flying
> club, actually) on a 1946 Ercoupe. 85 horses, 2 seats, 4 gph. The
> Pathfinder (immediate predecessor to the Dakota) is an awesome plane
> for hauling a family in style -- and we'll certainly keep it -- but
> Atlas burns 25 gph at takeoff, which makes buzzing down to a pancake
> breakfast something you tend to think twice about nowadays.


You are an idiot. I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be
damned. I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.





Bertie

On Apr 4, 8:47*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much more
> will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? * At what price point
> will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?

JH, I know you dont like me responding to your posts but for the sake
of discussion I might add some perspective. I started flying at 14 and
I am mid 40ies now so I have been at this for some time. The one thing
that has been consistent in those 30 years is listening to complaints
about the cost of flying. I have been ask what it costs to own and
operate my airplanes and I allways tell people that I dont keep track
of it and even if it cost twice as much I would still fly because it
is worth it to me. I think it is more about getting the most out of
your flying and not so much worrying about the cost. There have been
plenty of " Weekend Pilots" who get bored and quit but for pilots who
challenge themselves with things like long XCs, advanced ratings,
aerobatics, etc., the cost will be less of an issue.

>
> Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we paid
> $5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. *Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid over
> $300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd see.

This is a shocker, but I would bet that for alot of people on this
list they never thought they would see the wages they are making
either. Ive read that the average american works less minutes for a
gallon of gas now than in the 70s

>
> That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
> appears to be no end in sight. *So the question is: How much higher must gas
> go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time? * Anyone care
> to predict what year the last personal flights will occur in America?
> --

I think the higher energy costs will foster better effeciency in
airframes and engines. Look at Diamond, Cirrus, and Columbia/Cessna. I
flew a 600 mile delivery flight on a kitplane I built and I trued at a
buck twenty on 3.9 gals/hr (With two adults and full bagage). Try that
with a 152. The first jet airliner I flew would carry 148 pax at .80
at 11000 lbs/hr (In cruise). The one I currently fly hauls 178 sheep
at .78 at under 7000 lbs/hr. These increases in efficiency have
trickled down to biz jets and larger GA and I dont think it will be
long before we see it at the sport pilot level. My prediction is that
we will go to OSH in a few years and see all manner of advancements in
technology.
Frank

"F. Baum" wrote ...
> My prediction is that we will go to OSH in a few years and see
> all manner of advancements in technology.

Frank,
I agree that tech advancements will continue to flood into aviation, but I
also think our GA pilot numbers will continue to shrink steadily.

I am most surprised by the feedback I got to a general question I posted a
few weeks back about club aircraft usage:

* ...25 (flying and named on insur policy) members per airplane
* would have seemed unmanageable 10 or 20 years ago. My club
* meetings turned into tirates when we first considered going from
* 10 to 12 per plane. Now I'm seeing member flying hours per year
* in the single digits, and a club almost needs 20 members per just
* to keep operational hours on the planes above 250 per year.
*
* What are you guys seeing as the recent numbers coming in from
* the clubs?
* a. Recent and past "hours per member per year"?
* b. Recent and past "hours per plane per year"?

I only got back 7 replies, but the trend was identical. Take away the
members actively seeking a rating and the avg was less than 12 hobbs hours
per year per member. Two different guys responded that more than half their
club members paid their dues but did not fly a single hour in 2007. The
other feedback I got was that most new members are coming in after selling
their own planes, or getting out of small partnerships.

Ten years ago the trend I saw was club members getting together and leaving
to buy their own airplane.

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>> I work in education, and in recent years I
>> have graduated many people with doctorate and masters degrees in high-
>> tech areas whom I would consider frighteningly incompetent.
>
> That's something of a self-indictment, isn't it? In what manner do you work
> in education, "graduate" many "incompetents," and not have any culpability
> in the matter?


So you "Graduated Many People" in "High Technology" who are
"Frighteningly Incompetent"??

You must work at a Guvment School right?

Great Job Comrade. Thanks for your wonderful example of our
****ed away tax dollars at work

No wonder America is going to hell in a hand basket

John,

> I am interested in learning what the total cost of ownership is in
> Germany/Europe for a single engine GA airplane.

All cost in USD, estimates for, say, an IFR-equipped mid-80s PA28 Archer or
a TB-10 Tobago with a Garmin 430 and an S-TEC 50 flown by a group of 5
pilots.

> Insurance
6000 to 7000

Maintenance+Annual+prop reserve (6 years)+database updates: 3400

> Hangarage (can be much higher in places, especially at big city airports
with IFR approaches - and obviously cheaper with outside parking):
3900

> Variable operating costs per hour:
Fuel: 75 (we lower that by flying to Denmark as much as we can, where Avgas
is much cheaper)
50 and 100 hour checks, engine reserve, paint reserve, reserve: 87

> Taxes and fees
Each landing is at least 10 dollars (at homebase in Germany), up to 150 and
more at large airports.

> Cost of certificates and registrations
> any and all other costs that add up annually
Included in the above

With about 150 hours flown per year, that ends up being about 260 bucks per
hour excluding landing fees and capital costs for buying the plane (no
loans or anything on it). That would be considered normal to low for a
"youngish" IFR-equipped aircraft here. If you want to rent it, add at least
50 bucks. Non-IFR can be cheaper since the annual required check of each
radio is 150 USD alone per radio, for example.

Normal rental fees for your average beat-up C172N or P are 220 to 260 USD.
Clubs are cheaper. A 172S with a G1000 at our home base rents for (are you
sitting down?) 380 USD.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"F. Baum" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 4, 8:47 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
JH> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much
more
JH> will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price point
JH> will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?

FB> I am mid 40ies now so I have been at this for some time. The one thing
FB> that has been consistent in those 30 years is listening to complaints
FB> about the cost of flying. I have been ask what it costs to own and
FB> operate my airplanes and I allways tell people that I dont keep track
FB> of it and even if it cost twice as much I would still fly because it
FB> is worth it to me. I think it is more about getting the most out of

Economies change. It's not so much the cost as it is the value. Flying no
matter what it costs only works as long as you can still put food on the
table.

I'm getting ready to fly to SnF and somone asked me how much it will cost.
My answer was: about the same cost as a first class ticket but a little
slower and a little more cost than driving my Suburban but about twice as
fast. That's for me flying solo.

For this kind of a trip, the question is go or not to go. Once I decide to
go, flying myself is a viable option that is not totally out of line.

I think weekend trips and family vacations fall in this same category. The
question is go or not to go. Flying yourself versus commercial or driving
have different costs and different tradeoffs but flying yourself is not the
clear looser. However, it's a larger expense and people tend to plan for and
save up for these kinds of trips.

Burger runs, brunch runs and just puttering around pose a different
question. Clearly, the purpose is to fly. Those kinds of flights will never
be justifiable and will diminish as people have less time and less
disposable income.

The problem with flying is that the more frequent, shorter, harder to
justify flights are necessary to keep skills up. There is a definite
threshold where you have to have enough time and money to keep the basic
skills up so that the occasional, justifiable trip is possible.

Parents that are properly engaged with their kids and well enough off want
to do things to pull their kids into the real world. Weekend trips to
explore the world are an important part of their children's development.
Those trips take time and cost money.

Again, the question is go or no-go. Once a decision is made to take the
family away for the weekend, flying is not that unaffordable.

As pilots, I think that we can do a lot more to support each other. If I fly
once a month or less because I can't afford to fly more frequently, my
skills are rusty everytime I get in the plane. But, if I fly with others
several other times a month, the whole experience helps keep my skills and
attitude up.

Heading to the airport alone? Call up a fellow pilot and invite him along.
It's more fun and cheaper for all.
------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

On Apr 4, 9:47*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much more
> will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? * At what price point
> will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>
> Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we paid
> $5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. *Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid over
> $300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd see.
>
> That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
> appears to be no end in sight. *So the question is: How much higher must gas
> go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time? * Anyone care
> to predict what year the last personal flights will occur in America?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Well that's still only 2 bucks more than auto gas.

$2 more for fuel compared to a car is a small price compared to the
rest of the expenses of owning a plane.

If gas reaches $10 a gallon before the rest of the economy catches up
to that inflation everything will come to a grinding halt and the
masses won't have food in their grocery stores. Aviation will be far
down on the list of your concerns.

Thomas Borchert schrieb:
> A 172S with a G1000 at our home base rents for (are you
> sitting down?) 380 USD.

good writeup; but you have to consider that the USD <-> EUR exchange
changed dramatically over the last 5 or so years. So the 380USD today
where about 200USD back then in about 2002 (hopefully calculated correct).

#m

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 02:02:27 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>news:GXVJj.107598$yE1.37839@attbi_s21:
>
>>> I'm not so sure, however, that even you aren't part of the phenomenon
>>> - no offense meant or implied, just making a non-judgmental
>>> observation. After all, how many of those 235 horses your Dakota (?)
>>> has do you really need? Wouldn't an Archer do 99 percent of your
>>> missions? And with a much lower fuel bill?
>>
>> None taken. You are absolutely correct.
>>
>> Which is why we're looking at entering a six-way partnership (flying
>> club, actually) on a 1946 Ercoupe. 85 horses, 2 seats, 4 gph. The
>> Pathfinder (immediate predecessor to the Dakota) is an awesome plane
>> for hauling a family in style -- and we'll certainly keep it -- but
>> Atlas burns 25 gph at takeoff, which makes buzzing down to a pancake
>> breakfast something you tend to think twice about nowadays.
>
>
>You are an idiot. I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be
>damned. I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
>
>Bertie

I look at it this way. Do I want to go flying? yes.
....f**k the cost. Lets go flying.
flying is about aviation not accounting.
of course it helps to be flying an efficient homebuilt.
Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 02:02:27 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>>news:GXVJj.107598$yE1.37839@attbi_s21:
>>
>>>> I'm not so sure, however, that even you aren't part of the
phenomenon
>>>> - no offense meant or implied, just making a non-judgmental
>>>> observation. After all, how many of those 235 horses your Dakota
(?)
>>>> has do you really need? Wouldn't an Archer do 99 percent of your
>>>> missions? And with a much lower fuel bill?
>>>
>>> None taken. You are absolutely correct.
>>>
>>> Which is why we're looking at entering a six-way partnership (flying
>>> club, actually) on a 1946 Ercoupe. 85 horses, 2 seats, 4 gph.
The
>>> Pathfinder (immediate predecessor to the Dakota) is an awesome plane
>>> for hauling a family in style -- and we'll certainly keep it -- but
>>> Atlas burns 25 gph at takeoff, which makes buzzing down to a pancake
>>> breakfast something you tend to think twice about nowadays.
>>
>>
>>You are an idiot. I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be
>>damned. I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> I look at it this way. Do I want to go flying? yes.
> ...f**k the cost. Lets go flying.
> flying is about aviation not accounting.
> of course it helps to be flying an efficient homebuilt.


Exactly. Once the technology was licked ther was always going to be a
way.

Martin,

> So the 380USD today
> where about 200USD back then in about 2002 (hopefully calculated correct).
>

True. But Avgas in the US (and here) was much cheaper then. And rental
rates were at least a good 30 to 40 percent lower in the US back then, too,
while not that much cheaper here.

Still, the weak dollar makes those numbers more impressive than I thought. I
need to go flying in the US again...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert schrieb:
>> So the 380USD today
>> where about 200USD back then in about 2002 (hopefully calculated correct).
>>
>
> True. But Avgas in the US (and here) was much cheaper then. And rental
> rates were at least a good 30 to 40 percent lower in the US back then, too,
> while not that much cheaper here.

all points taken, and you quoted a flying Prontosaurier with a G1000
that was not available back then.

> Still, the weak dollar makes those numbers more impressive than I thought.

This is what I was trying to point out.

> I need to go flying in the US again...

well ...

#m

I am an ancient ex-pilot who lost his medical 30 years ago. Took a
senimental trip to the local (private) strip a few weeks ago for the first
time in years. Shot the bull with several guys at the shack for a while. One
of the older guys was active there when I was still flying. He mentioned
that back then, any pretty weekend day, there was always 2-3 aircraft
puttering around the strip, shooting landings or just enjoying. While the
number of aircraft hangered there was about the same (20-30), the strip was
pretty much dead by comparison. There was 2-3 guys in their hangers working
on their planes, there was not the sound of a single engine.

His guess as to why? Just too expensive nowdays to just climb into the plane
at will and fly for the sheer joy of flight a couple times a week like we
used to do. Just staying at an acceptable level of competency was expensive
enough. He said that few of the pilots there could fly without an eye to the
cost.

On Apr 5, 8:22 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> > I work in education, and in recent years I
> > have graduated many people with doctorate and masters degrees in high-
> > tech areas whom I would consider frighteningly incompetent.
>
> That's something of a self-indictment, isn't it? In what manner do you work
> in education, "graduate" many "incompetents," and not have any culpability
> in the matter?

Ah, now you are asking a more complicated question. Graduate degrees
are granted by examining committees, not by taking an exam in a
classroom. There are no A - F grades. There is lots of wiggle room,
and political pressure by committee members and administrators to
graduate as many students as possible. More students means more
revenue, and more (short term) reputation for the institutions, and
this can also affect tenure decisions. How many PhD or MS candidates
do you think fail at their oral defense? In many institutions, this is
0%.

On Apr 6, 2:37 am, BlowMe > wrote:
>

> You must work at a Guvment School right?

No. 100% private money.

>
> Great Job Comrade. Thanks for your wonderful example of our
> ****ed away tax dollars at work

No tax dollars, thank you. It is your hard earned money. That is why
we have a greater incentive to graduate you even if you are
incompetent.

On Apr 5, 3:32*am, buttman > wrote:

> I'm not an economist, but it seems with the increase in demand for
> alternatively fueled cars, (hybrids, hydrogen powered, etc), the
> demand for fuel will go way down, bring the price down with it.
> Additionally, once the auto industry completely converts to hydrogen
> (or whatever fuel type comes out on top), that technology will trickle
> into aircraft engines.
>
> The real problem is that it will only get worse before it gets better.
> Unless something unforeseen happens, the price will only go up for at
> least a few more years until it starts dropping again. The real
> question is will the hobby survive until energy prices drop back down?

That is what happened in the 70s. We decreased our demand, and the
price of oil eventually went down. The problem is, the world
situation is different now than it was back then. Now we have China
and India ramping up demand. Even if we significantly decrease our
demand, the worldwide demand for oil is only going to continue to go
up. And that means that the only way the price will ever go down is
if the supply goes up. As I understand it, right now the supply is
bottlenecked by the lack of refining capacity. The refineries are
running at nearly 100% capacity. And there doesn't seem to be much of
a push by the oil companies to build more refineries. Given the
increase in demand, I would think that will change.

By the way, take a look at this list. This is the list of countries
that supply oil to the United States, in descending order by oil
volume. If you count Algeria, there are only three Middle Eastern
countries on the list! Canada actually has more known reserves of oil
than Saudi Arabia. But the oil is in the form of oil shale, which is
more expensive to extract and refine. Anyway, the point I am really
making is there is still plenty of oil in the ground to satisfy
demand. The real problem is that there isn't enough refining
capacity.

1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil


Phil

"Thomas Borchert" ...
> Still, the weak dollar makes those numbers more impressive
> than I thought. I need to go flying in the US again...
>

Come on over, many of the FBOs for the overseas pilots are back in full
business:

http://www.eaa-fly.com/

They claim a 50% clientele from Europe (I have no affiliation).

I think America is one of the best bargains considering the exchange. We
should be overrun with Euro tourists this summer,... if the Euro-media stops
the Bush-bashing.

What hasn't returned to the same level is the British flavored fly-schools.
Any ideas on that?

Mike Isaksen schrieb:
> We should be overrun with Euro tourists this summer,...
> if the Euro-media stops the Bush-bashing.

This has nothing to do with your current president. There are many
little things that add up, at least for some people, but it might not
hold back the masses (so prepare for tourists [1], but don't hold your
breath for _many_ pilots).

#m

[1]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401642.html
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/991-New-York-City-Shops-Put-Up-Euros-Accepted-Signs.html

Mike Isaksen wrote:
> "Thomas Borchert" ...
>> Still, the weak dollar makes those numbers more impressive
>> than I thought. I need to go flying in the US again...
>>
>
> Come on over, many of the FBOs for the overseas pilots are back in full
> business:
>
> http://www.eaa-fly.com/
>
> They claim a 50% clientele from Europe (I have no affiliation).
>
> I think America is one of the best bargains considering the exchange. We
> should be overrun with Euro tourists this summer,... if the Euro-media stops
> the Bush-bashing.
>
> What hasn't returned to the same level is the British flavored fly-schools.
> Any ideas on that?
>
>

Euro weenies are jealous of America.
We are the only country with balls

The Euro weenies have been de-nutted by
politically correct tyranny and weak men
sycophants with small dicks

Thank God America is made up of Viking and Irish and
Native American and Southern fighting lineage

The Euro weenies have been weakened by Muslim PC Tyranny
and soft white male sycophants

Right now America is being weakened by "Kissing the Black
Ass" and the Homosexual agenda. Thank God we are beginning
to see our mistakes and have begun the process of drifting
away from the Fags and Blacks and California fruits and nuts.

Except the FAA it is ruined by the above PC stupidity
just like Europe

The FAA needs to be disbanded
Start over

"DoItNow" wrote ...
> Euro weenies are jealous of America.
> We are the only country with balls.
>
> The Euro weenies have been de-nutted by
> politically correct blah blah blah blah...
>

MAW... better get Abner back in the box... it's Sunday and we gots company
coming.

"Phil J" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 3:32 am, buttman > wrote:

> I'm not an economist, but it seems with the increase in demand for
> alternatively fueled cars, (hybrids, hydrogen powered, etc), the
> demand for fuel will go way down, bring the price down with it.
> Additionally, once the auto industry completely converts to hydrogen
> (or whatever fuel type comes out on top), that technology will trickle
> into aircraft engines.
>
> The real problem is that it will only get worse before it gets better.
> Unless something unforeseen happens, the price will only go up for at
> least a few more years until it starts dropping again. The real
> question is will the hobby survive until energy prices drop back down?

That is what happened in the 70s. We decreased our demand, and the
price of oil eventually went down. The problem is, the world
situation is different now than it was back then. Now we have China
and India ramping up demand. Even if we significantly decrease our
demand, the worldwide demand for oil is only going to continue to go
up. And that means that the only way the price will ever go down is
if the supply goes up. As I understand it, right now the supply is
bottlenecked by the lack of refining capacity. The refineries are
running at nearly 100% capacity. And there doesn't seem to be much of
a push by the oil companies to build more refineries. Given the
increase in demand, I would think that will change.

By the way, take a look at this list. This is the list of countries
that supply oil to the United States, in descending order by oil
volume. If you count Algeria, there are only three Middle Eastern
countries on the list! Canada actually has more known reserves of oil
than Saudi Arabia. But the oil is in the form of oil shale, which is
more expensive to extract and refine.

Just a small nitpick, the Canadian non-conventional oil is in the form of
oil-sand / tar-sand. IIRC oil shale is located under Colorado and is
reported to contain more oil than the mid east or Canada. IIRC the Colorado
oil shale is deeper underground than the Canadian tar-sand but Canada is now
developing & using SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) to recover
deposits that are too deep for economical open pit extraction. I suspect
that this technology could be applied in Colorado if there was the will to
develop these deposits. IIRC tar-sand production cost is ~$60 and suspect
that Colorado oil shale woild be similar but YMMV. We can only speculate as
to the motives that prefer war to domestic development.

> Anyway, the point I am really
making is there is still plenty of oil in the ground to satisfy
demand. The real problem is that there isn't enough refining
capacity.

1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil


Phil

> JH, I know you dont like me responding to your posts but for the sake
> of discussion I might add some perspective.

Thanks for that, Frank. I always appreciate your aviation-related posts.

Re: Complaining about the cost of flying. Yes, everyone has always made a
hobby out of bitching about the high price of aviation -- but we've never
seen fuel costs soar so much in such a short period, especially not at a
time when wages are stagnant or declining.

I, too, will always fly, no matter the cost. (Remember, you're talking to a
guy who sold his plasma for flight time) But as fuel costs continue to
rise our flight time will diminish -- and at some level it will become
impossible to do much more than fly the pattern.

I just don't know what that level will be.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Apr 6, 5:01*pm, "Private" > wrote:

> Just a small nitpick, the Canadian non-conventional oil is in the form of
> oil-sand / tar-sand. *IIRC oil shale is located under Colorado and is
> reported to contain more oil than the mid east or Canada. *IIRC the Colorado
> oil shale is deeper underground than the Canadian tar-sand but Canada is now
> developing & using SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) to recover
> deposits that are too deep for economical open pit extraction. *I suspect
> that this technology could be applied in Colorado if there was the will to
> develop these deposits. *IIRC tar-sand production cost is ~$60 and suspect
> that Colorado oil shale woild be similar but YMMV. *We can only speculate as
> to the motives that prefer war to domestic development.

Interesting! I hadn't heard about the Colorado oil shale before. I
just did a little surfing and it sounds like it would require a lot of
water to extract this oil. There is concern that it would use all the
capacity of the Colorado river that is not currently allocated.

Personally I wish we had taken the money we have wasted on the war and
put it to work here at home for research into alternative energy
sources. Then it would have funded more American jobs, and maybe
contributed to a long-term sustainable energy plan. I would like to
see a serious, well-funded attempt to develop a working fusion
reactor, for example.

Phil

> He mentioned that back then, any pretty weekend day, there was always 2-3
> aircraft puttering around the strip, shooting landings or just enjoying.
> While the number of aircraft hangered there was about the same (20-30),
> the strip was pretty much dead by comparison. There was 2-3 guys in their
> hangers working on their planes, there was not the sound of a single
> engine.

My wife and I still fly a couple of times per week, and that's true
everywhere we go now. Places we used to always see/hear airplanes are
eerily quiet now.

It's weird -- supposedly Cirrus is selling all these new airplanes, but I
sure don't know where in hell they are flying. We flew to Florida and back
two weeks ago, and rarely saw/heard anything smaller than a King Air.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 2008-04-04 19:47:30 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > said:

> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much
> more will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price
> point will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>
> Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we
> paid $5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. Since we needed 60 gallons, we
> paid over $300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought
> I'd see.
>
> That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
> appears to be no end in sight. So the question is: How much higher
> must gas go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time?
> Anyone care to predict what year the last personal flights will occur
> in America?

Considering that there are waiting lists for people to buy a Cessna 172
for nearly $300,000, almost double what one cost a couple years ago, I
doubt that the price of gas is going to have much effect on aviation,
even if it goes to $100/gallon. The only effect will be to make the
complaints louder.

The cost of gas is a pittance compared to whatever else people spend on
an airplane. If gas starts to hurt airplane sales, the manufacturers
will simply offer incentives like Cessna has done in the past -- a free
year's fuel. Or more.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

> IIRC tar-sand production cost is ~$60 and suspect that Colorado oil shale
> woild be similar but YMMV. We can only speculate as to the motives that
> prefer war to domestic development.

This is probably a topic for a different thread, but it does make you wonder
about the true motives of those who would see people suffer on an
unprecedented economic scale rather than develop our known oil reserves.
Bottom line: When gas hits eight bucks a gallon, you're going to see
economic pain on an unprecedented level.

An interesting question to ponder: At what price point do the masses rise up
and over-ride the environmentalist rules that currently restrict the
process?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2008040618011616807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2008-04-04 19:47:30 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
> said:
>
>> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much
>> more will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? At what price
>> point will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>>
>> Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we
>> paid $5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid
>> over $300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd
>> see.

What were you paying in the past? What % of your operating expense is gas?

Try $5.11 everyday (CYS).

>>
>> That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
>> appears to be no end in sight. So the question is: How much higher must
>> gas go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time?

If you use an airplane for business, you can't hang up the headphones. OTOH,
I'm expanding my business into the oil producing regions where the RE market
is still pretty good (though mortgages are harder to get).

>> Anyone care to predict what year the last personal flights will occur in
>> America?

When it's too expensive to pursue as a HOBBY?

> Considering that there are waiting lists for people to buy a Cessna 172
> for nearly $300,000, almost double what one cost a couple years ago, I
> doubt that the price of gas is going to have much effect on aviation, even
> if it goes to $100/gallon. The only effect will be to make the complaints
> louder.
>
> The cost of gas is a pittance compared to whatever else people spend on an
> airplane. If gas starts to hurt airplane sales, the manufacturers will
> simply offer incentives like Cessna has done in the past -- a free year's
> fuel. Or more.

Operating cost is early 2007 were $185 an hour and fuel for me was an
average of $3.78; now it's $5.11 - at 15GPH my new cost is $20 more an hour
($205). My TOTAL cost is 11% higher.

Fortunately, I can just adjust my margins to match and my tax accountant has
new numbers to work with.

Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC
Cheyenne, WY

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:NteKj.55766$TT4.55642@attbi_s22:

>> IIRC tar-sand production cost is ~$60 and suspect that Colorado oil
>> shale woild be similar but YMMV. We can only speculate as to the
>> motives that prefer war to domestic development.
>
> This is probably a topic for a different thread, but it does make you
> wonder about the true motives of those who would see people suffer on
> an unprecedented economic scale rather than develop our known oil
> reserves. Bottom line: When gas hits eight bucks a gallon, you're
> going to see economic pain on an unprecedented level.
>
> An interesting question to ponder: At what price point do the masses
> rise up and over-ride the environmentalist rules that currently
> restrict the process?

You are a moron


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:p1eKj.55740$TT4.32970@attbi_s22:

>> JH, I know you dont like me responding to your posts but for the sake
>> of discussion I might add some perspective.
>
> Thanks for that, Frank. I always appreciate your aviation-related
> posts.
>
> Re: Complaining about the cost of flying. Yes, everyone has always
> made a hobby out of bitching about the high price of aviation -- but
> we've never seen fuel costs soar so much in such a short period,
> especially not at a time when wages are stagnant or declining.
>
> I, too, will always fly, no matter the cost. (Remember, you're talking
> to a guy who sold his plasma for flight time) But as fuel costs
> continue to rise our flight time will diminish -- and at some level it
> will become impossible to do much more than fly the pattern.
>
> I just don't know what that level will be.


That's because you are an idiot.


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:NteKj.55766$TT4.55642@attbi_s22...
>> IIRC tar-sand production cost is ~$60 and suspect that Colorado oil shale
>> woild be similar but YMMV. We can only speculate as to the motives that
>> prefer war to domestic development.
>
> An interesting question to ponder: At what price point do the masses rise
> up and over-ride the environmentalist rules that currently restrict the
> process?

Did Ron Paul get ANY delegates?

In article > "Matt W. Barrow" > writes:

>"C J Campbell" > wrote
>> Considering that there are waiting lists for people to buy a Cessna 172
>> for nearly $300,000, almost double what one cost a couple years ago, I
>> doubt that the price of gas is going to have much effect on aviation, even
>> if it goes to $100/gallon. The only effect will be to make the complaints
>> louder.
>>
>> The cost of gas is a pittance compared to whatever else people spend on an
>> airplane. If gas starts to hurt airplane sales, the manufacturers will
>> simply offer incentives like Cessna has done in the past -- a free year's
>> fuel. Or more.
>
>Operating cost is early 2007 were $185 an hour and fuel for me was an
>average of $3.78; now it's $5.11 - at 15GPH my new cost is $20 more an hour
>($205). My TOTAL cost is 11% higher.
>
>Fortunately, I can just adjust my margins to match and my tax accountant has
>new numbers to work with.

The problem is that costs go up for more than just gas. The local airport
had been raising their tie-down rates tied to the consumer price index, though
they are now talking of raising it much faster than that. Even tied to CPI,
the price of energy, food, etc., affect the price of tie-downs.

The mechanic needs to buy gasoline to get to work, and live his life. He
needs to buy food, clothes, etc. As these become more expensive, he has to
raise his prices to maintain his margins.

Those who manufacture and deliver aircraft parts need to raise their prices,
because their costs have gone up, both for the product, and for basic survival.

The food went up because the folks who deliver it pay more for gas, and for
everything else they need; the folks who retail it likewise have higher costs.
Even the folks who farm it need to fuel the tractors, feed themselves, buy
those pesky clothes, etc. They need to charge more. Conversion of food crops
to fuel crops for ethanol makes the food problem worse, but pushing up food
prices helps the farmers some.

When the price of energy goes up, so does a lot of other stuff that depends
on it, directly or indirectly.

For those who cannot pass on their increased costs, the choices are fly
cheaper, fly less, or don't fly at all.

I belive that we could make energy less expensive in this country, if we
had the will to do so.

Alan

In article > Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> Which is why we're looking at entering a six-way partnership (flying
>> club, actually) on a 1946 Ercoupe. 85 horses, 2 seats, 4 gph. The
>> Pathfinder (immediate predecessor to the Dakota) is an awesome plane
>> for hauling a family in style -- and we'll certainly keep it -- but
>> Atlas burns 25 gph at takeoff, which makes buzzing down to a pancake
>> breakfast something you tend to think twice about nowadays.
>
>You are an idiot. I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be
>damned. I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
>
>Bertie

And if stopping global warming demands that we all stop burning fossil fuels
(i.e. stop flying)? If you believe that global warming is a real effect of
man burning fossil fuels, and that it is a problem, you should be looking at
curtaling actions that burn those fuels --- including flying.

Replacing all the light bulbs in your house with compact flourescent lamps
will only save a few percent of your total electrical use, which will be
swamped by the increased use of the increasing population.

You say you started without - how? Even gliders seem to need tows.


Alan

Mike,

> What hasn't returned to the same level is the British flavored fly-schools.
> Any ideas on that?
>

Well, your simple-sounding "come on over" involves TSA checks months in
advance, visas for simple add-on ratings and thus, using only flight schools
that can request visa (Part 141 only?), deciding on a flight school and having
to stick with it before even coming over, and more quite onerous and expensive
pseudo-security stuff. I'm sure that's a big part of the reason.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 18:01:16 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>Considering that there are waiting lists for people to buy a Cessna 172
>for nearly $300,000, almost double what one cost a couple years ago, I
>doubt that the price of gas is going to have much effect on aviation,
>even if it goes to $100/gallon. The only effect will be to make the
>complaints louder.

Must be a wide definitoion of "a couple" - they've been over $250k
factory new since at least 2001. I also know some dealers with 07 and
08 models on the floor which they'd let you pick up right this minute
if they could. I guess with the territory system unless your dealer
is willing to work out a deal with another dealer to swap delivery
slots, you can have areas where people are waiting and areas with
inventory sitting on ramps which they can't sell to anyone outside
their area until (2?) years after they've inventoried it.

>The cost of gas is a pittance compared to whatever else people spend on
>an airplane. If gas starts to hurt airplane sales, the manufacturers
>will simply offer incentives like Cessna has done in the past -- a free
>year's fuel. Or more.

Actually, just to pick a nit, they gave out a gas card from
MultiService with a credit on it of (I forget, couple thousand?) and
you burned it off within two years or lost anything that was left on
it, so it could have lasted you 6 months or 2 years, depending on your
flying habits. The point that they'll adjust the price of acquisition
somehow does stand.

On 2008-04-05, Morgans > wrote:
> That, and cleaner, slicker airframes will allow them to fly more miles to
> the gallon. Look at some of the RV's that get something like 25 miles to
> the gallon, of auto gas.

If you're friendly with your passenger, even go for the Europa. IIRC,
the 912-engined Europa can do >40 nm/gal at 120 ktas. I have a friend
with a turboed (914S) Europa, and that one still gets great economy on
auto gas at 135 ktas. It also climbs out at almost 2000 fpm if you push
the throttle past the detent into the 'limited for 5 minutes' power
setting.

The cabin is NOT big, though. Fits me fine but then again at my last
medical I was 152 lbs.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On 2008-04-07, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> This is probably a topic for a different thread, but it does make you wonder
> about the true motives of those who would see people suffer on an
> unprecedented economic scale rather than develop our known oil reserves.

I'm not sure about 'suffer'; for instance, gasoline in Ireland is around
60% more expensive than in the United States, yet the Irish GDP per
capita overtook the USA a good two years ago now.

You can maintain a good standard of living while using less oil, for
example, driving a vehicle that gets 35 to the gallon isn't what I'd
call a decrease in living standard over driving an SUV that barely gets
12. Turning off the AC when you're not in the house makes a tremendous
difference. The power company in Texas mistakenly sent me the bill for
the people who moved into my place after I left, and the TNMPE bills all
had a 'last 12 months usage graph' on them. The new occupants used
*twice* as much power as me; I suspect they didn't turn the AC off
during the working day. Incidentally, that place had very little in the
way of good insulation - not even double glazing, and that seemed pretty
typical in the area I lived in. Over here by contrast virtually everyone
has good insulation and double glazing. These things significantly
reduce heating costs in the winter *without* degrading the quality of
life (in fact, improving it, since the home is quieter).

Much of the high energy cost people have done by their own choice. I
choose to operate an aircraft with a large engine for the airframe - I'm
not whining, it's a choice I made.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On Apr 4, 8:47*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much more
> will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? * At what price point
> will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>
> Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we paid
> $5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. *Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid over
> $300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd see.

Could have stopped 31 miles SSE at Festus and saved $60 while
supporting a small airport that's just trying to survive. Air Nav is
your friend.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> An interesting question to ponder: At what price point do the masses rise up
> and over-ride the environmentalist rules that currently restrict the
> process?

whatever the price is: what will mankind do after that? you're only
moving the finding of a solution to later generations.

#m

On Apr 4, 8:47*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> With Avgas topping five bucks a gallon, I find myself asking: How much more
> will it take before GA is completely unaffordable? * At what price point
> will all the current "weekend pilots" be driven from the market?
>
> Example: While on our trip back from Florida a couple of weeks ago, we paid
> $5.20 per gallon in St. Louis. *Since we needed 60 gallons, we paid over
> $300 for a single tank of gas -- something I *never* thought I'd see.
>
> That price has more than doubled in just the last few years, and there
> appears to be no end in sight. *So the question is: How much higher must gas
> go up before *you* hang up your headphones for the last time? * Anyone care
> to predict what year the last personal flights will occur in America?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

I just hung up mine... at least for the time being. I can no longer
afford to fly as a hobby.

Dean

"Alan" wrote ...
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>> I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
>> I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
>>
> You say you started without - how?
> Even gliders seem to need tows.

Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by wind
turbines.

"Dylan Smith" wrote ...
> Much of the high energy cost people have [is] done by their own choice.

Hey, most of the DINKs (double income no kids) I know insist they really
need 4300 sq ft houses.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:07:57 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:



>An interesting question to ponder: At what price point do the masses rise up
>and over-ride the environmentalist rules that currently restrict the
>process?

At what level of soreness do you wake up and realize how hard the
petroleum economy is f***ing you?

--
Dan
T182T at 4R4

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:25:35 GMT, Matt Whiting >

>However, I've been looking at 182RGs

Terrific airplane.


>I came very close to buying an Arrow last winter, but the owner is
>asking way above Vref and so far refuses to deal so that one likely
>won't happen. It is more nicely equipped than the 182 (the 182 has a
>high time engine and no GPS, but has LORAN, a FD, S-TEC 60 AP and other
>goodies). I prefer the 182 for the additional interior room, extra
>door, extra speed, range, useful load and high wing, but the Arrow would
>be more economical to operate and I believe the gear is less troublesome
>than the Cessna singles

Not really. I never had a speck of trouble in 900 hours with a 172RG,
which has the same gear. Do proper maintenance (you'd do that anyway,
right?) and it will be fine.



> and it really is a very nice Arrow inside and
>out. But $98K for a 77 Arrow is just way above market at present and I
>really don't think the market for GA singles is ever going to return so
>paying above market today is almost certainly money thrown away.

Indeed. You should be able to make a great deal nowadays.

--
Dan
T182T at 4R4

>Could have stopped 31 miles SSE at Festus and saved $60 while
>supporting a small airport that's just trying to survive. Air Nav is
>your friend.

Normally we would do something like that, Gene, but it was at the end of a
long day, in the midst of a long week of flying. We just wanted to be down
and stayin' put for the night....
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> An interesting question to ponder: At what price point do the masses rise
>> up and over-ride the environmentalist rules that currently restrict the
>> process?
>
> whatever the price is: what will mankind do after that? you're only moving
> the finding of a solution to later generations.

So....you're saying we should not look for more oil? Move the pain up
sooner? Leave the oil in the ground and force the collapse to happen
sooner?

I should think we'd be better off to not destroy our world economy. My
parents lived through the Great Depression, and it doesn't sound like
something to aspire to...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> I just hung up mine... at least for the time being. I can no longer
> afford to fly as a hobby.

I know, Dean. Yours was the impetus for my thread.

And you're not alone. I see an awful lot fewer folks at the airport
nowadays.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> At what level of soreness do you wake up and realize how hard the
> petroleum economy is f***ing you?

Um, apropos of what, exactly?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I, too, will always fly, no matter the cost. (Remember, you're talking
> to a guy who sold his plasma for flight time)

I knew I was missing a revenue source! Thanks, Jay.

Let me see.....how many pints equals 1 hour of flight time?

Al
Spokane Wa
1964 Skyhawk

One thing I have noticed at the lake we frequent: The nearby marina
day-use docks used to be filled every weekend with the "big boat" crowd
from the town about 25 miles up the lake. Now there's always room for
our little 18-footer. I think those folks realized that it's a couple
hundred dollars for the fuel to get to and from. They're just hanging
out in their slips instead and not starting those engines.

Kind of similar to the $100-200 hamburger flight.

Al
Spokane Wa
1964 Skyhawk

Jay Honeck schrieb:
>>> An interesting question to ponder: At what price point do the masses rise
>>> up and over-ride the environmentalist rules that currently restrict the
>>> process?
>> whatever the price is: what will mankind do after that? you're only moving
>> the finding of a solution to later generations.
>
> So....you're saying we should not look for more oil?

haven't said that. but oil is a finite ressource (whenever you believe
this will be). We can all make our economy more healthy if it does not
solely run on oil.

> Move the pain up
> sooner? Leave the oil in the ground and force the collapse to happen
> sooner?

you'll die without oil?

> I should think we'd be better off to not destroy our world economy. My
> parents lived through the Great Depression, and it doesn't sound like
> something to aspire to...

one day you might find out that you can't drink oil. the point is: as
long as there is good evidence for having oil for another decades start
NOW looking for alternative sources (not other oil sources, other
sources of producing energy). And start conserving. I bet you will be
ahead of costs in a couple of years in your hotel if you start
conserving energy (investing in things like insulation etc.) without
losing comfort.

#m

On 2008-04-07, Mike Isaksen > wrote:
>
> "Alan" wrote ...
>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>> I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
>>> I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
>>>
>> You say you started without - how?
>> Even gliders seem to need tows.
>
> Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by wind
> turbines.

You don't even need a winch. Just find a suitable hill and bungee launch
off it - it's *people* giving the initial run of energy for the glider.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6-EeuEi-KY

In any case, a winch is quite frugal, our Jaguar 4.2L based winch uses less
than 1/3rd gallon to launch a glider (in comparison, an aerotow to 2000'
uses about 2 gal). An electric winch would be even better - electric
motors have ideal characteristics for winch launching since they have
huge amounts of torque at low RPM, so it would give a really good pull
from a standing start. The challenge in building an electric winch is
the cost. Building a gasoline powered winch is cheap - a 6 or 8 cylinder
engine out of a scrapped car costs very little and works very well. The
batteries for an electric winch would be expensive however you cut it,
without getting on to obtaining a suitable traction motor.

Finally, there's always hang gliding. Find a suitable slope, and run
into the wind. Of course this demands a certain level of fitness that
seems to be absent from a large proportion of the population.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:13:56 -0400, John Smith wrote:

>> Not really. I never had a speck of trouble in 900 hours with a 172RG,
>> which has the same gear. Do proper maintenance (you'd do that anyway,
>> right?) and it will be fine.
>
>Dan, time to send Jay some photos of the "new" plane for the Rogue's
>Gallery.

I did; months ago.

--
Dan
T182T at 4R4

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:01:26 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> At what level of soreness do you wake up and realize how hard the
>> petroleum economy is f***ing you?
>
>Um, apropos of what, exactly?

Your blindness to what it's really costing you, Jay.

Apparently you have no problem adding more hidden costs--on top of the
massive price of U. S. military adventures in the Middle East--by
allowing refiners to pollute the air and water. Not everything you
pay is at the pump.

It's time we got off the oil tit. If you think it's expensive now,
wait till China, and then India, surpass the U. S. as petroleum
consumers.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed121507b.cfm

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:00:35 GMT, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> I just hung up mine... at least for the time being. I can no longer
>> afford to fly as a hobby.
>
>I know, Dean. Yours was the impetus for my thread.
>
>And you're not alone. I see an awful lot fewer folks at the airport
>nowadays.

I waited 6 years for a T-hangar at 4R4. Now there are vacancies.

--
Dan
T182T at 4R4

> It's time we got off the oil tit. If you think it's expensive now,
> wait till China, and then India, surpass the U. S. as petroleum
> consumers.

As much as I agree, this is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. What's
the alternative? We're going to need oil for the foreseeable future, and
hand-wringing isn't going to change that.

I, for one, am not willing to see my kids grow up in a world that has been
reduced to economic squalor simply to benefit a "green agenda". At some
point, probably when food and transportation costs are unaffordable due to
unreasonable environmentalist restrictions on research, the electorate will
rise up and overthrow the politicians who have created this mess. Only
then will we see fuel prices stabilize.

It will be an ugly time, I fear.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Let me see.....how many pints equals 1 hour of flight time?

Back in "the day" I could get about 30 minutes of flight time in a clapped
out Cherokee 140 for a unit of plasma.

Now, that's probably down to 15 minutes...although I haven't checked the
price of plasma in the last decade...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> Move the pain up sooner? Leave the oil in the ground and force the
>> collapse to happen sooner?
>
> you'll die without oil?

I don't think you've thought this all the way through, Martin. The affect
on the world economy of $100/barrel oil prices is staggering. The recent
run-up in gas prices alone has thrown the U.S. into a major (if
media-enhanced) recession.

Trillions of dollars that were being spent on, oh, say, *food*, is now being
spent on oil. The economy can't make that up instantly or fully,
translating into terrible hardship for common folks.

An example close to home: Our employees have been hit terribly hard by the
decades-old decision to not develop our domestic oil reserves.
Housekeepers, desk staff, and other entry-level jobs don't pay exceptionally
well in the best of times, and no one has received a raise to "make up" for
the sudden doubling of energy costs. EVERYTHING -- gasoline, heat, air
conditioning, (and, thus, rent, food, clothes, etc.) -- has gone up in cost
dramatically, causing them extreme hardship. I see and hear about it every
day.

Unfortunately, there is no way for me to raise their pay to match, because
no one is willing to pay more for a hotel room during an economic downturn.
As business drops, there is LESS money with which to pay employees, and the
downward spiral can really get wound up tightly.

And it's only just begun. Thanks to the short-sighted policies of people
who put the well-being of polar bears ahead of people, we haven't developed
our Alaskan oil reserves. Thanks to the short-sighted policies of people
who fear marring the beauty of the Rocky Mountains (as if we *could*), we
have not developed our Colorado oil reserves. And the Canadian oil shale
reserves. And the off-shore reserves.

The list goes on and on. My father was in the energy business his whole
life, and predicted this exact scenario almost 40 years ago. He called it
the "environmentalist's energy crisis", and -- although he predicted the
collapse for the year 2000 -- he was only off by a decade or so.

You may wish to ponder this, Martin. You're well protected from a backlash,
sitting in Austria, but at some point people around the world -- stupid,
slow, and easily kept in the dark for short periods -- are going to wake up
to the fact that their economic hard times are due to people who think like
*you*.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>>Dan, time to send Jay some photos of the "new" plane for the Rogue's
>>Gallery.
>
> I did; months ago.

Sorry, guys. I "lost that lovin' feelin'" for the 'groups -- and, thus, the
Rogue's Gallery -- after the trolls took over. When most of the regulars
were driven off the groups, there didn't seem much point in maintaining the
gallery anymore.

Gee, maybe we should add pictures of the trolls to the gallery? If anyone
has any pictures they'd like to submit of, oh, say, a bunyip, I'd be glad to
add them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Apr 8, 5:59 am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2008-04-07, Mike Isaksen > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Alan" wrote ...
> >> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> >>> I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
> >>> I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
>
> >> You say you started without - how?
> >> Even gliders seem to need tows.
>
> > Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by wind
> > turbines.
>
> You don't even need a winch. Just find a suitable hill and bungee launch
> off it - it's *people* giving the initial run of energy for the glider.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6-EeuEi-KY
>
> In any case, a winch is quite frugal, our Jaguar 4.2L based winch uses less
> than 1/3rd gallon to launch a glider (in comparison, an aerotow to 2000'
> uses about 2 gal). An electric winch would be even better - electric
> motors have ideal characteristics for winch launching since they have
> huge amounts of torque at low RPM, so it would give a really good pull
> from a standing start. The challenge in building an electric winch is
> the cost. Building a gasoline powered winch is cheap - a 6 or 8 cylinder
> engine out of a scrapped car costs very little and works very well. The
> batteries for an electric winch would be expensive however you cut it,
> without getting on to obtaining a suitable traction motor.
>
> Finally, there's always hang gliding. Find a suitable slope, and run
> into the wind. Of course this demands a certain level of fitness that
> seems to be absent from a large proportion of the population.
>
> --
> From the sunny Isle of Man.
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

And if not a fitness issue then a wing loading one!
Richard

On Apr 8, 2:13 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> [...]
>
> What a great idea.
> I'll bet Jay has never even thought of that or done any type of a cost/benefit
> analysis. :)

Interesting cost/benefit for one case. ~7 year to pay for it.

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/solar/house.html>

Obviously it's a stretch to apply it to all houses. Interesting show,
nonetheless.

Entire show is here: <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/solar/program.html>

Thinking of checking out one of the houses that's featured in the show
(Somerville is one town over from where I work).
===============

I remember playing around Freshman year in college ('80). I was a tech
theatre major and 'borrowed' one of the Fresnel lenses. Found a beat
up old car radiator in the garage. Cut a 55 gal. drum in half, painted
the inside black, filled up the radiator with water, and proceeded to
set the el-cheapo experiment into motion.

Took about a minute, and the pressure built up enough that you could
hear the metal stressing out. The tranny lines, which were cut and
bent, began to straighten out. We took a few steps back. 30 seconds
or so later, and what little tranny juice had remained, shot out
fairly rapidly. We took a few more steps back.

Finally, the radiator just failed completely, as steam shot at high
pressure from whatever new orifices were being created.

We concluded: Stupid solar, might as well abandon this. Damn old
rusted cheap, sitting in the garage for 10+ years, radiator. Waste of
time... let's go do something constructive, like take the dirt bikes
out again...

Yeah, we were down a few quarts, so had to be properly oiled (heh)
beforehand, to ensure an nice uncontrolled experiment :P


Regards,
Jon

> Finally, the radiator just failed completely, as steam shot at high
> pressure from whatever new orifices were being created.

Uh oh -- thread creep. Good story, though.

Back during the LAST "energy crisis" in the 1970s, solar collectors sprouted
on rooftops like daisies. Everyone wanted to harness all that "free"
energy.

What we soon discovered, however, is that it was far from free. The thermal
stress on all that black plastic soon reduced the collectors to cracked and
leaky junk -- and it was all ABOVE YOUR HOUSE so that the leaks did the most
harm to your home. Within just a few years, they were gone from the
rooftops, and lots of contractors had prospered fleecing lots of "green"
home owners.

Now, you say, could these not be made more durable today? You bet they
could, but at a cost that would amaze you. And, no matter what you make
plumbing out of, no matter how much money you spend on it, there is one
truism that every long-term property owner knows to be true: Eventually, it
WILL leak.

One day these problems may be overcome. Until then, the natural gas
furnaces and water heaters will continue to be the most efficient choices.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:07:11 +0000, Jay Honeck sayeth:

> If
> anyone has any pictures they'd like to submit of, oh, say, a bunyip, I'd
> be glad to add them.

Found one:

http://www2.badtux.net/uploaded_images/fat_man-733339.jpg

"Nomen Nescio" wrote:

> You might appreciate this speech, given at the Heritage Foundation,
> entitled "How Modern Liberals Think".
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

Standard right wing polemics occasionally verging on outright paranoia. I
can get that virtually any time I want on Fox News or talk radio.

But thanks, anyway.

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
>> It's time we got off the oil tit. If you think it's expensive now,
>> wait till China, and then India, surpass the U. S. as petroleum
>> consumers.
>
> As much as I agree, this is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
> What's the alternative? We're going to need oil for the foreseeable
> future, and hand-wringing isn't going to change that.

Who's advocating hand-wringing?


>
> I, for one, am not willing to see my kids grow up in a world that has been
> reduced to economic squalor simply to benefit a "green agenda".

Puh-leeze.


> At some point, probably when food and transportation costs are
> unaffordable due to unreasonable environmentalist restrictions on
> research, the electorate will rise up and overthrow the politicians who
> have created this mess. Only then will we see fuel prices stabilize.

How do you imagine petroleum prices will stabilize? The demand keeps
skyrocketing while oil gets harder and harder to extract. How's that going
to work?


> It will be an ugly time, I fear.

It already is. We better find some good alternatives and fast.

Jay Honeck schrieb:
> We're going to need oil for the foreseeable future, and
> hand-wringing isn't going to change that.

is oil all you can think of? Sure: we can't make it _competletely_
without oil for the next time, but all you can think of is finding more
oil. You completely put away with any alternatives.

> It will be an ugly time, I fear.

yes, but for other reasons, IMHO.

#m

(Alan) wrote in
:

> In article > Bertie the
> Bunyip > writes:
>>"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>>> Which is why we're looking at entering a six-way partnership (flying
>>> club, actually) on a 1946 Ercoupe. 85 horses, 2 seats, 4 gph.
>>> The Pathfinder (immediate predecessor to the Dakota) is an awesome
>>> plane for hauling a family in style -- and we'll certainly keep it
>>> -- but Atlas burns 25 gph at takeoff, which makes buzzing down to a
>>> pancake breakfast something you tend to think twice about nowadays.
>>
>>You are an idiot. I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be
>>damned. I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> And if stopping global warming demands that we all stop burning
> fossil fuels
> (i.e. stop flying)? If you believe that global warming is a real
> effect of man burning fossil fuels, and that it is a problem, you
> should be looking at curtaling actions that burn those fuels ---
> including flying.
>
> Replacing all the light bulbs in your house with compact flourescent
> lamps
> will only save a few percent of your total electrical use, which will
> be swamped by the increased use of the increasing population.
>
> You say you started without - how? Even gliders seem to need tows.

Tows don't aloways mean gasoline. In my case we used an Oldsmobile, but
you can run that on anything...

Bertie

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in news:KRwKj.1375$XC1.1247
@trndny08:

>
> "Alan" wrote ...
>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>> I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
>>> I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
>>>
>> You say you started without - how?
>> Even gliders seem to need tows.
>
> Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by wind
> turbines.
>
>

Could do. There's lots of ways you can winch launch. The current world
record distance flight was launched off the back of a car. Probably a
thirty second tow, if that.
Point is, there's a million ways to skin a cat. If neceesity dictated, a
way would be found.


Bertie

Jay Honeck schrieb:
>>> Move the pain up sooner? Leave the oil in the ground and force the
>>> collapse to happen sooner?
>> you'll die without oil?
>
> I don't think you've thought this all the way through, Martin. The affect
> on the world economy of $100/barrel oil prices is staggering. The recent
> run-up in gas prices alone has thrown the U.S. into a major (if
> media-enhanced) recession.

your current economic situation is not (only) due to the current oil
price. We have the same oil price, thoug, we have some advantages
because of the weak dollar.

> Trillions of dollars that were being spent on, oh, say, *food*, is now being
> spent on oil. The economy can't make that up instantly or fully,
> translating into terrible hardship for common folks.
>
> An example close to home: Our employees have been hit terribly hard by the
> decades-old decision to not develop our domestic oil reserves.

What will you do with your reserves? You'll move a problem to a later
time (when the reserves are consumed).

> Housekeepers, desk staff, and other entry-level jobs don't pay exceptionally
> well in the best of times, and no one has received a raise to "make up" for
> the sudden doubling of energy costs. EVERYTHING -- gasoline, heat, air
> conditioning, (and, thus, rent, food, clothes, etc.) -- has gone up in cost
> dramatically, causing them extreme hardship.

well, maybe your heat.
My costs haven't doubles. This winter we had heating costs of about
300EUR. For a house with 2 families and 1 single person, alltogether
maybe 250m2 (please do your own conversion into your odd values *g*).

> Unfortunately, there is no way for me to raise their pay to match, because
> no one is willing to pay more for a hotel room during an economic downturn.
> As business drops, there is LESS money with which to pay employees, and the
> downward spiral can really get wound up tightly.

recession.

> And it's only just begun. Thanks to the short-sighted policies of people
> who put the well-being of polar bears ahead of people, we haven't developed
> our Alaskan oil reserves. Thanks to the short-sighted policies of people
> who fear marring the beauty of the Rocky Mountains (as if we *could*), we
> have not developed our Colorado oil reserves. And the Canadian oil shale
> reserves. And the off-shore reserves.

and what will you do after that?

> The list goes on and on. My father was in the energy business his whole
> life, and predicted this exact scenario almost 40 years ago. He called it
> the "environmentalist's energy crisis", and -- although he predicted the
> collapse for the year 2000 -- he was only off by a decade or so.

I'd call it stupidity. Sorry.

> You may wish to ponder this, Martin. You're well protected from a backlash,
> sitting in Austria, but at some point people around the world -- stupid,

do you think that we here receive our oil from our government? or that
we fill our tanks and the government picks up the tab?

> slow, and easily kept in the dark for short periods -- are going to wake up
> to the fact that their economic hard times are due to people who think like
> *you*.

well, I believe that I am doing OK. One of the next things (in a few
years) will be throwing out the oil out of the house and heat with wood,
combined with producing energy, this will make the house about 50%
independent of electricity prices (not calculating some ecologic values)
and 100% idenpendent of oil prices. By mid of this year I will buy a new
car powered with natural gas and save about 30 to 50% money per
kilometer. Solar power right now is too expensive, heating water with
solar is a working alternative, but it won't be a practical idea for the
house.

#m

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:lMLKj.58041$TT4.8149@attbi_s22:

>> Finally, the radiator just failed completely, as steam shot at high
>> pressure from whatever new orifices were being created.
>
> Uh oh -- thread creep. Good story, though.
>
> Back during the LAST "energy crisis" in the 1970s, solar collectors
> sprouted on rooftops like daisies. Everyone wanted to harness all
> that "free" energy.
>
> What we soon discovered, however, is that it was far from free. The
> thermal stress on all that black plastic soon reduced the collectors
> to cracked and leaky junk -- and it was all ABOVE YOUR HOUSE so that
> the leaks did the most harm to your home. Within just a few years,
> they were gone from the rooftops, and lots of contractors had
> prospered fleecing lots of "green" home owners.
>
> Now, you say, could these not be made more durable today? You bet
> they could, but at a cost that would amaze you. And, no matter what
> you make plumbing out of, no matter how much money you spend on it,
> there is one truism that every long-term property owner knows to be
> true: Eventually, it WILL leak.
>
> One day these problems may be overcome. Until then, the natural gas
> furnaces and water heaters will continue to be the most efficient
> choices.



you're an idiot.


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:uiAKj.57244$TT4.46171@attbi_s22:

>>> An interesting question to ponder: At what price point do the masses
>>> rise up and over-ride the environmentalist rules that currently
>>> restrict the process?
>>
>> whatever the price is: what will mankind do after that? you're only
>> moving the finding of a solution to later generations.
>
> So....you're saying we should not look for more oil? Move the pain up
> sooner? Leave the oil in the ground and force the collapse to happen
> sooner?
>
> I should think we'd be better off to not destroy our world economy.
> My parents lived through the Great Depression, and it doesn't sound
> like something to aspire to...

God you're a moron.


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:%_JKj.57911$TT4.27145@attbi_s22:

>>> Move the pain up sooner? Leave the oil in the ground and force the
>>> collapse to happen sooner?
>>
>> you'll die without oil?
>
> I don't think you've thought this all the way through, Martin. The
> affect on the world economy of $100/barrel oil prices is staggering.
> The recent run-up in gas prices alone has thrown the U.S. into a major
> (if media-enhanced) recession.
>
> Trillions of dollars that were being spent on, oh, say, *food*, is now
> being spent on oil. The economy can't make that up instantly or
> fully, translating into terrible hardship for common folks.
>
> An example close to home: Our employees have been hit terribly hard
> by the decades-old decision to not develop our domestic oil reserves.
> Housekeepers, desk staff, and other entry-level jobs don't pay
> exceptionally well in the best of times, and no one has received a
> raise to "make up" for the sudden doubling of energy costs.
> EVERYTHING -- gasoline, heat, air conditioning, (and, thus, rent,
> food, clothes, etc.) -- has gone up in cost dramatically, causing them
> extreme hardship. I see and hear about it every day.
>
> Unfortunately, there is no way for me to raise their pay to match,
> because no one is willing to pay more for a hotel room during an
> economic downturn. As business drops, there is LESS money with which
> to pay employees, and the downward spiral can really get wound up
> tightly.
>
> And it's only just begun. Thanks to the short-sighted policies of
> people who put the well-being of polar bears ahead of people, we
> haven't developed our Alaskan oil reserves. Thanks to the
> short-sighted policies of people who fear marring the beauty of the
> Rocky Mountains (as if we *could*), we have not developed our Colorado
> oil reserves. And the Canadian oil shale reserves. And the
> off-shore reserves.
>
> The list goes on and on. My father was in the energy business his
> whole life, and predicted this exact scenario almost 40 years ago.
> He called it the "environmentalist's energy crisis", and -- although
> he predicted the collapse for the year 2000 -- he was only off by a
> decade or so.
>
> You may wish to ponder this, Martin. You're well protected from a
> backlash, sitting in Austria, but at some point people around the
> world -- stupid, slow, and easily kept in the dark for short periods
> -- are going to wake up to the fact that their economic hard times are
> due to people who think like *you*.


Good grief.


Bertie

On 2008-04-08, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> is oil all you can think of? Sure: we can't make it _competletely_
> without oil for the next time, but all you can think of is finding more
> oil. You completely put away with any alternatives.

Alternatives are impractical until there's a complete, comprehensive
distribution infrastructure in place. That'll take 20 years. There's also a
significant chicken-and-egg problem.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

In article >,
Dan Luke > wrote:

> I waited 6 years for a T-hangar at 4R4. Now there are vacancies.

I'm still amazed that people are paying $100 every two years to
be on the T-hangar waiting list for KBED. Rates are 25% higher
than when I left in Sept 2006.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Apr 8, 7:59*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >> Move the pain up sooner? *Leave the oil in the ground and force the
> >> collapse to happen sooner?
>
> > you'll die without oil?
>
> I don't think you've thought this all the way through, Martin. *The affect
> on the world economy of $100/barrel oil prices is staggering. * The recent
> run-up in gas prices alone has thrown the U.S. into a major (if
> media-enhanced) recession.
>
> Trillions of dollars that were being spent on, oh, say, *food*, is now being
> spent on oil. *The economy can't make that up instantly or fully,
> translating into terrible hardship for common folks.
>
> An example close to home: *Our employees have been hit terribly hard by the
> decades-old decision to not develop our domestic oil reserves.
> Housekeepers, desk staff, and other entry-level jobs don't pay exceptionally
> well in the best of times, and no one has received a raise to "make up" for
> the sudden doubling of energy costs. * EVERYTHING -- gasoline, heat, air
> conditioning, (and, thus, rent, food, clothes, etc.) -- has gone up in cost
> dramatically, causing them extreme hardship. * I see and hear about it every
> day.
>
> Unfortunately, there is no way for me to raise their pay to match, because
> no one is willing to pay more for a hotel room during an economic downturn..
> As business drops, there is LESS money with which to pay employees, and the
> downward spiral can really get wound up tightly.
>
> And it's only just begun. *Thanks to the short-sighted policies of people
> who put the well-being of polar bears ahead of people, we haven't developed
> our Alaskan oil reserves. *Thanks to the short-sighted policies of people
> who fear marring the beauty of the Rocky Mountains (as if we *could*), we
> have not developed our Colorado oil reserves. * And the Canadian oil shale
> reserves. *And the off-shore reserves.
>
> The list goes on and on. *My father was in the energy business his whole
> life, and predicted this exact scenario almost 40 years ago. * He called it
> the "environmentalist's energy crisis", and -- although he predicted the
> collapse for the year 2000 -- he was only off by a decade or so.
>
> You may wish to ponder this, Martin. *You're well protected from a backlash,
> sitting in Austria, but at some point people around the world -- stupid,
> slow, and easily kept in the dark for short periods -- are going to wake up
> to the fact that their economic hard times are due to people who think like
> *you*.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

So I guess the huge increases in demand for oil from China and India
aren't responsible for the high price of oil? It's all because of
environmentalists? What happened to supply and demand?

If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to
supply 5% of the U.S. demand, they would last about 12 years. That's
hardly a real solution to the problem. The oil shale in Colorado
would be expensive to extract and refine. It's not going to yield
fuel that is cheaper than what we have today. Same goes for the
Canadian oil sands. They will yield oil, but not cheap oil.

And what about the problem of refining? That's the real bottleneck
on the fuel supply We have far fewer refineries now than we used to.
In 1982 we had 263 refineries in this country with a capacity of 17
million barrels a day. In 2002, we had only 159 refineries with a
capacity of about 17 million barrels a day. Same capacity, but higher
demand. As a result, we import a lot more refined fuel now, and when
one refinery goes down, it has a much larger impact. These were
existing, approved refineries that had regulatory approval that were
shut down. Most of this was due to consolidation in the oil industry,
leaving a total of only five large integrated oil companies. In 1993,
the largest five oil refiners controlled one-third of the U.S. market,
while the largest 10 had 56 percent. By 2005, the largest five
controlled 55 percent of the market, and the largest 10 refiners
dominate the market with over 80 percent market share. Consolidation
leads to a decrease in competition. Competition, according to most
conservatives I know, is supposed to be a good thing. Yet most
conservatives don't seem to be bothered at all by this wave of
consolidation in the oil industry.

I think your desire to blame environmentalists is an
oversimplification of a complicated situation. I think your
description of short-sighted leadership is probably pretty correct,
but not for the reasons you like to believe.

Phil

"Phil J" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 7:59 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> I don't think you've thought this all the way through, Martin. The affect
> on the world economy of $100/barrel oil prices is staggering. The recent
> run-up in gas prices alone has thrown the U.S. into a major (if
> media-enhanced) recession.
>
> Trillions of dollars that were being spent on, oh, say, *food*, is now
> being
> spent on oil. The economy can't make that up instantly or fully,
> translating into terrible hardship for common folks.
snip
> You may wish to ponder this, Martin. You're well protected from a
> backlash,
> sitting in Austria, but at some point people around the world -- stupid,
> slow, and easily kept in the dark for short periods -- are going to wake
> up
> to the fact that their economic hard times are due to people who think
> like
> *you*.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

So I guess the huge increases in demand for oil from China and India
aren't responsible for the high price of oil? It's all because of
environmentalists? What happened to supply and demand?

If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil reserves were used to
supply 5% of the U.S. demand, they would last about 12 years. That's
hardly a real solution to the problem. The oil shale in Colorado
would be expensive to extract and refine. It's not going to yield
fuel that is cheaper than what we have today. Same goes for the
Canadian oil sands. They will yield oil, but not cheap oil.
snip


I think your desire to blame environmentalists is an
oversimplification of a complicated situation. I think your
description of short-sighted leadership is probably pretty correct,
but not for the reasons you like to believe.

Phil


Nicely said.

Happy landings

On Apr 8, 9:00*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> Uh oh -- thread creep. *Good story, though.
>
> Back during the LAST "energy crisis" in the 1970s, solar collectors sprouted
> on rooftops like daisies. *Everyone wanted to harness all that "free"
> energy.
>
> Now, you say, could these not be made more durable today? *You bet they
> could, but at a cost that would amaze you. *
> One day these problems may be overcome. *> Jay Honeck

Jay, Ill try to get things a little more on topic. The airport where I
keep one of my airplanes is run almost entirely on Solar power (There
is a small diesel engine for the well) . Most of the equipment ,
including the batteries, was purchased government surplus and the
system has payed for itself several times over. As an interesting side
note, all the hangars on the field are secondhand . I am 30 minutes
from a major metro area and I pay a buck fifty a month for a hangar.
FB

>I think your desire to blame environmentalists is an
>oversimplification of a complicated situation. I think your
>description of short-sighted leadership is probably pretty correct,
>but not for the reasons you like to believe.

Of course there are many aspects of the energy problem. They are all,
however, exacerbated by stupid, over-the-top environmental rules that are
abused by folks with a not-so-hidden agenda.

Just TRY to get something as simple as, oh, say, a runway extension
completed, and observe the almost unbelievable quantity of environmental red
tape that must be overcome. Now imagine building an OIL REFINERY. Ain't
gonna happen with the current set of rules.

If I were "King for a day", I would decree the following "4 Steps to
American Energy Independence":

1. New refineries are not being built because draconian environmental rules
prevent them from being constructed. As of now, all environmental
restrictions on oil refinery construction are lifted.

2. New oil is not being pumped because draconian environmental rules prevent
new oil fields from being developed. As of now all environmental
restrictions on development of known oil reserves are lifted.

3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all environmental
restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are lifted.

4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period. From
this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial capacity of the
United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen distribution system to
replace our current gasoline distribution system, and all cars will be
powered by hydrogen. Source: http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf

These four steps will, in a matter of a decade, resolve 90% of our problems.
Unfortunately, it will take another Great Depression to shake our system
enough to force a repeal of the environmental restrictions that make
resolving our energy problems impossible.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>Jay, Ill try to get things a little more on topic. The airport where I keep
>one of my >airplanes is run almost entirely on Solar power (There is a
>small diesel engine for
> the well)

What parts of the airport are solar powered? Runway lights? Lights in the
FBO? How do they supply heating/air conditioning?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Apr 8, 10:08*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> What parts of the airport are solar powered? *Runway lights? *Lights in the
> FBO? * How do they supply heating/air conditioning?
> --
> Jay Honeck

No runway lights. One paved and two grass runways (Runways mowed by
fossil fuel burning tractor). EVERYTHING else, including the office/
bar is solar. I dont have one of those fancy electric hangar door
openers (I need the exersize anyways) but I do have electric outlets
in my hangar. The owner of the field is not a tree hugger or a
granola, I think he was just looking for the cheapest way to do
things.
As for heat and air; Swamp cooler in the summer (Or we sit outside on
the patio for our cookouts on the weekends) and the place is closed
much of the winter (Owner travels south for the winter and no snow
removal but you can land and take off when the runway is clear). I
will admit it is a bit out of the ordinary but I brought it up to show
a little of what is possible.
Frank

In article > "F. Baum" > writes:

>Jay, Ill try to get things a little more on topic. The airport where I
>keep one of my airplanes is run almost entirely on Solar power (There
>is a small diesel engine for the well) . Most of the equipment ,
>including the batteries, was purchased government surplus and the
>system has payed for itself several times over.

And, paying for that stuff at retail would cost *lots* more. If the
taxpayers had not paid for it already, it would be way out of reach.

> As an interesting side
>note, all the hangars on the field are secondhand . I am 30 minutes
>from a major metro area and I pay a buck fifty a month for a hangar.

And a bit farther than that out of San Francisco, $120/month will get
you a tail-in tie down outside, but talk is that it may go up substantially
in the next few months.

Alan

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> If I were "King for a day", I would decree the following "4 Steps to
> American Energy Independence":
>
> 1. New refineries are not being built because draconian environmental
> rules prevent them from being constructed. As of now, all
> environmental restrictions on oil refinery construction are lifted.

It's probably cheaper to "outsource" refining and ship only the refined
product into the country. Not sure why it matters that the refineries are
in the country where the refined products are consumed - you may as well
decree that some of the international oil fields be moved into the country
too since it makes about as much sense. ;-)

> 3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
> environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
> environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are
> lifted.

Not needed:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9kbCdss47gaPin6xZeeLKqBXnLg

> 4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period.
> From this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial
> capacity of the United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen
> distribution system to replace our current gasoline distribution
> system, and all cars will be powered by hydrogen. Source:
> http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf

Well at least you linked to an article that makes clear that the hydrogen
has to be generated from another source of energy. H2 sucks anyway on
several counts - and your last decree will essentially ground all small
aircraft, including your own. Contrary to your ultimate goal, I assume.

Currently, the only known way of cramming hydrogen into a small enough
volume to be of use in your airplane is, ironically, by _lightly_ binding
the H atoms to something like, oh say, carbon. A hydrocarbon.

In article > Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
>"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in news:KRwKj.1375$XC1.1247
>@trndny08:
>
>>
>> "Alan" wrote ...
>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>> I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
>>>> I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
>>>>
>>> You say you started without - how?
>>> Even gliders seem to need tows.
>>
>> Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by wind
>> turbines.
>>
>>
>
>Could do. There's lots of ways you can winch launch. The current world
>record distance flight was launched off the back of a car. Probably a
>thirty second tow, if that.

I doubt that this was an electric car charged from solar or wind power,
was it? I'll bet it burned gasoline (or perhaps diesel fuel).

>Point is, there's a million ways to skin a cat. If neceesity dictated, a
>way would be found.

And your answer is?

Unless you have a better answer, I suggest folks start building nuclear
power plants, and looking hard at extracting carbon from the atmosphere to
combine with hydrogen from water to produce various petroleum fuels.
We are not prepared to deal with hydrogen -- I can just imagine the news
stories about the result of accidents at hydrogen fueling stations.

Alan

"Phil J" > wrote in message
...

So I guess the huge increases in demand for oil from China and India
aren't responsible for the high price of oil?

For that, we can thank Wall street and its sole focus on quarterly results,
which has resulted in the outsourcing of engineering jobs to India and
China.

In article > Jim Logajan > writes:
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> 3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
>> environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
>> environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are
>> lifted.
>
>Not needed:
>http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9kbCdss47gaPin6xZeeLKqBXnLg

2 plants in the country? Good to get started, but We should probably
be building 20 - 30 in California alone.

However:
California law prohibits the construction of any new nuclear power
plants in California until the Energy Commission finds that the
federal government has approved and there exists a demonstrated
technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel from these
facilities.
Source: http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html

We need to do something about that. We should be recycling this
slightly used nuclear fuel, not throwing it away.

[ Now, I would suggest that all electrical power to Sacramento (the
CA capitol) be shut off until the legislature comes to their senses. ]

>> 4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period.
>> From this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial
>> capacity of the United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen
>> distribution system to replace our current gasoline distribution
>> system, and all cars will be powered by hydrogen. Source:
>> http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf
>
>Well at least you linked to an article that makes clear that the hydrogen
>has to be generated from another source of energy. H2 sucks anyway on
>several counts - and your last decree will essentially ground all small
>aircraft, including your own. Contrary to your ultimate goal, I assume.

Indeed. Hydrogen is a difficult fuel, with fairly low energy density
for a givin volume. It is also difficult to handle and transport safely.

>Currently, the only known way of cramming hydrogen into a small enough
>volume to be of use in your airplane is, ironically, by _lightly_ binding
>the H atoms to something like, oh say, carbon. A hydrocarbon.

Which makes for a better fuel, safer, and well suited to running our
aircraft.

All we need to do is extract the carbon from the atmosphere, and I have
seen hints that such may be reasonably doable.

Alan

In article > Jim Logajan > writes:
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> 3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
>> environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
>> environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are
>> lifted.
>
>Not needed:
>http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9kbCdss47gaPin6xZeeLKqBXnLg


Oh, in my previous post, I forgot to mention the drawback that next time the
government decides to run in circles about security from aircraft, they will
probably ban us from flying near these nuclear plants again, so not all is
good about them.

Last time they were including a small plant that had been decomissioned in 1967,
and had no nuclear material remaining on site. It just sat in a major VFR flyway.

Alan

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Phil J" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> So I guess the huge increases in demand for oil from China and India
> aren't responsible for the high price of oil?
>
> For that, we can thank Wall street and its sole focus on quarterly
> results,
> which has resulted in the outsourcing of engineering jobs to India and
> China.

"What would rather be doing in the 21st Century, toasters, or CAT Scan
machines?" - Jack Welch, CEO GE, 1981-2000.

Tom would rather be doing toasters, evidently.

On 2008-04-08, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> Alternatives are impractical until there's a complete, comprehensive
> distribution infrastructure in place. That'll take 20 years. There's also a
> significant chicken-and-egg problem.

Diesel from algae has the potential for 10000 usg/acre used (and is more
of an industrial than agricultural process). So far it's not been
developed because oil has been so cheap.

The infrastructure already exists for that sort of fuel.

There's also no chicken and egg problem for using fuel more wisely.
We've only been wasteful of it because it's been so cheap it's not been
worth using it efficiently. There are significant efficiencies that can
be had that do not result in "economic squalor". For example, insulating
my Victorian house halved my winter heating bills and made the house
more pleasant to live in. Hardly 'squalor', in fact the very opposite.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On 2008-04-08, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Back during the LAST "energy crisis" in the 1970s, solar collectors sprouted
> on rooftops like daisies. Everyone wanted to harness all that "free"
> energy.
>
> What we soon discovered, however, is that it was far from free. The thermal
> stress on all that black plastic soon reduced the collectors to cracked and
> leaky junk -- and it was all ABOVE YOUR HOUSE so that the leaks did the most
> harm to your home.

That's a classic example of a straw man argument - comparing 70s junk
with properly made stuff of 2008 with CE approval.

Incidentally, our roofs already stop water coming in, or it would be
very inconvenient when it rained. Modern solar collectors don't mean a
wholesale removal of the roof underneath them, just holes to allow the
mountings.

> Now, you say, could these not be made more durable today? You bet they
> could, but at a cost that would amaze you.

No, not really. The only 'cost would amaze you' items are solar
photovoltaic panels which ARE very expensive.

> plumbing out of, no matter how much money you spend on it, there is one
> truism that every long-term property owner knows to be true: Eventually, it
> WILL leak.
>
> One day these problems may be overcome. Until then, the natural gas
> furnaces and water heaters will continue to be the most efficient choices.

Guess what, they leak too. I had to spend significant money on mine
after an internal steam leak corroded internal parts and caused it to
fail.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I think your desire to blame environmentalists is an
>> oversimplification of a complicated situation. I think your
>> description of short-sighted leadership is probably pretty correct,
>> but not for the reasons you like to believe.
>
> Of course there are many aspects of the energy problem. They are all,
> however, exacerbated by stupid, over-the-top environmental rules that
> are abused by folks with a not-so-hidden agenda.
>
> Just TRY to get something as simple as, oh, say, a runway extension
> completed, and observe the almost unbelievable quantity of environmental
> red tape that must be overcome. Now imagine building an OIL REFINERY.
> Ain't gonna happen with the current set of rules.
>
> If I were "King for a day", I would decree the following "4 Steps to
> American Energy Independence":
>
> 1. New refineries are not being built because draconian environmental
> rules prevent them from being constructed. As of now, all environmental
> restrictions on oil refinery construction are lifted.
>
> 2. New oil is not being pumped because draconian environmental rules
> prevent new oil fields from being developed. As of now all
> environmental restrictions on development of known oil reserves are lifted.
>
> 3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
> environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
> environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are
> lifted.
>
> 4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period.
> From this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial
> capacity of the United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen
> distribution system to replace our current gasoline distribution system,
> and all cars will be powered by hydrogen. Source:
> http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf
>
> These four steps will, in a matter of a decade, resolve 90% of our
> problems. Unfortunately, it will take another Great Depression to shake
> our system enough to force a repeal of the environmental restrictions
> that make resolving our energy problems impossible.

Well, Jay, just let me say I'm glad you aren't king! :-)

"Alan" > wrote in message
...
> In article > Jim Logajan
> > writes:
>>"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>>> 3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
>>> environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
>>> environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are
>>> lifted.
>>
>>Not needed:
>>http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9kbCdss47gaPin6xZeeLKqBXnLg
>
> 2 plants in the country? Good to get started, but We should probably
> be building 20 - 30 in California alone.
>
> However:
> California law prohibits the construction of any new nuclear power
> plants in California until the Energy Commission finds that the
> federal government has approved and there exists a demonstrated
> technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel from these
> facilities.
> Source: http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html
>
> We need to do something about that. We should be recycling this
> slightly used nuclear fuel, not throwing it away.
>
Very true. I don't know how much of the energy we are currently using from
out nuclear fuel, but there is certainly a tremendous resource remaining and
we should be using it as fully as we are able.

> [ Now, I would suggest that all electrical power to Sacramento (the
> CA capitol) be shut off until the legislature comes to their senses. ]
>
>>> 4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period.
>>> From this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial
>>> capacity of the United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen
>>> distribution system to replace our current gasoline distribution
>>> system, and all cars will be powered by hydrogen. Source:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf
>>
>>Well at least you linked to an article that makes clear that the hydrogen
>>has to be generated from another source of energy. H2 sucks anyway on
>>several counts - and your last decree will essentially ground all small
>>aircraft, including your own. Contrary to your ultimate goal, I assume.
>
> Indeed. Hydrogen is a difficult fuel, with fairly low energy density
> for a givin volume. It is also difficult to handle and transport safely.
>
>>Currently, the only known way of cramming hydrogen into a small enough
>>volume to be of use in your airplane is, ironically, by _lightly_ binding
>>the H atoms to something like, oh say, carbon. A hydrocarbon.
>
> Which makes for a better fuel, safer, and well suited to running our
> aircraft.
>
> All we need to do is extract the carbon from the atmosphere, and I have
> seen hints that such may be reasonably doable.
>
> Alan

My only dissagreement here is that I wonder whether extracting carbon from
the atmosphere is really necessary, or even usefull. There seems to be
evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere results in increased plant
growth--and that means that plants will extract the CO2 for us, with no
polution nor industrial effort, and will yeild food and other products in
the process.

Peter

(Alan) wrote in
:

> In article > Bertie the
> Bunyip > writes:
>>"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in
>>news:KRwKj.1375$XC1.1247 @trndny08:
>>
>>>
>>> "Alan" wrote ...
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>>> I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
>>>>> I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
>>>>>
>>>> You say you started without - how?
>>>> Even gliders seem to need tows.
>>>
>>> Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by wind
>>> turbines.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Could do. There's lots of ways you can winch launch. The current world
>>record distance flight was launched off the back of a car. Probably a
>>thirty second tow, if that.
>
> I doubt that this was an electric car charged from solar or wind
> power,
> was it? I'll bet it burned gasoline (or perhaps diesel fuel).
>
>>Point is, there's a million ways to skin a cat. If neceesity dictated,
>>a way would be found.
>
> And your answer is?


I could fly a hang glider or an airplane powered by anyhting I cared to
grow. It's only an answer for me.

>
> Unless you have a better answer, I suggest folks start building
> nuclear
> power plants, and looking hard at extracting carbon from the
> atmosphere to combine with hydrogen from water to produce various
> petroleum fuels. We are not prepared to deal with hydrogen -- I can
> just imagine the news stories about the result of accidents at
> hydrogen fueling stations.

Well, Not so keen on the nukes unless they get that contraption at
Cadarache going. I was pointing out "where there is a will there is a
way" as an antidote to whiney Jay wondering where his bottle has gone.



Bertie

(Alan) wrote in
:

> In article > Bertie the
> Bunyip > writes:
>>"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in
>>news:KRwKj.1375$XC1.1247 @trndny08:
>>
>>>
>>> "Alan" wrote ...
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>>> I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
>>>>> I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
>>>>>
>>>> You say you started without - how?
>>>> Even gliders seem to need tows.
>>>
>>> Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by wind
>>> turbines.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Could do. There's lots of ways you can winch launch. The current world
>>record distance flight was launched off the back of a car. Probably a
>>thirty second tow, if that.
>
> I doubt that this was an electric car charged from solar or wind
> power,
> was it? I'll bet it burned gasoline (or perhaps diesel fuel).
>
>>Point is, there's a million ways to skin a cat. If neceesity dictated,
>>a way would be found.
>
> And your answer is?
>
> Unless you have a better answer, I suggest folks start building
> nuclear
> power plants, and looking hard at extracting carbon from the
> atmosphere to combine with hydrogen from water to produce various
> petroleum fuels. We are not prepared to deal with hydrogen -- I can
> just imagine the news stories about the result of accidents at
> hydrogen fueling stations.
>

BTW, hydrogen is no real problem in regards to that. It can be used
safely in surface transport and fuelled safely as well. The real problem
with it is making it.
It's not so good for airplanes. You have three storage options, one, as
a straight gas inside a cylinder, which is not such a good idea for a
lot of reasons. The volume required, even at a relatively high pressure,
to give you any sort of range, would be ferocious. A second option is to
carry it as a liquid, which requires extremely low temps. Fine for a
once off use, but once you leave your contraption parked for any length
of time the H2 is going to want to get out once it warms up a bit.
NASA was flying a Musketeer about thirty years ago with a liquid
hydrogen setup. It had thermos bottle fuel tanks that NASA said could
keep a cup of coffee hot for ten years, but even this approach is
fraught with problems. The Russians were flying a jet airliner on H2 as
an experiment in the 70's as well and the first succesful jet engine run
by von Ohain in the thirties was run on H2.The russians needed most of
the fuselage volume to carry the fuel. Not a great commercial idea.
Also, the DC-10 was actually designed with possible conversion to H2 in
mind. It would have required fuselage plugs to install fuel tanks in a
stretched fuselage as the volume available in the wings would not have
been sufficient. Note that the energy value by weight is considerably
better for hydrogen, so you'd go further for a given fuel weight penalty
in an airplane as opposed hydrocafbon fuels. Bit scary to have two big
fuselage tanks filled with the stuff as a loose gas, though. Having said
that you're sitting on a lot of high explosive in the center tank on an
airliner anyway.
The third option is to have fuel tanks filled with a metal hydride. This
allows a good deal of hydrogen to be carried at a low pressure and if
the tank ruptures the only fire would be at the hydride surface. This
third option is much less of a risk than carrying gasoline. Much much
less. But the tanks are extremely heavy. A tank to carry enough fuel to
propel a family sized car an equivelant distance to 15 gallon fuel tank
would weigh in the region of 300-400 lbs. Less for a good fuel cell
powered car.It's clearly not a runner for an airplane.
Still, it's an option I would go for now for my car if the H2 was made
in a friendly manner. There are people doing this at home, BTW, using
solar and/or wind. It's expensive to gear up for it. Very expensive. But
it can be done and it would be cheaper were it done on a larger scale
and with metal hydride tanks it's very safe. If you want, you can do
this right now. Today. Converting an IC car to hydrogen is not difficult
and the stuff to do it is freely available. The new Morgan sports car is
available as a dual fuel car. And there is a fuel cell powered
motorcycle for sale as well, the "NV". It's a kind of a trail bike.
Neither is cheap, but again, neither is that much more expensive than a
standard issue contraption
There are already many countries using LPG for fuel. The refueling
challenges are exactly the same and it's being done safely, so that's no
excuse either... In any case look at the death and destruction on the
roads we count as acceptable in our love affair with the car. Do you
think a handful of refuelling explosions would stop people if it were
the only way? Thankfully that's not an issue anyway.
The only real problem with hydrogen for surface use is the clean
manufacture of it and that is a big problem. It's a plentiful resource
only if you can extract it from water without using something dirty and
nasty to do so.



Bertie

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> 1. New refineries are not being built because draconian environmental
> rules prevent them from being constructed. As of now, all environmental
> restrictions on oil refinery construction are lifted.

A bigger reason that new oil refineries aren't being built, as well as
nuclear waste facilities, is that no one wants one near his playground.
Everyone wants a new refinery in someone else's backyard. Any way you
cut it, oil companies undeniably have the profits to build refineries,
but where is it going to be located?
You can't blame environmentalists for everything you don't like. Over
the last almost eight years I haven't noticed any environmentalists
running the show in Washington. Quite the opposite, in fact, but the
price of oil continues to climb, obviously due to factors other than
your phantom environmentalists.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:36KKj.111170$yE1.33995@attbi_s21:

>>>Dan, time to send Jay some photos of the "new" plane for the Rogue's
>>>Gallery.
>>
>> I did; months ago.
>
> Sorry, guys. I "lost that lovin' feelin'" for the 'groups -- and,
> thus, the Rogue's Gallery -- after the trolls took over. When most of
> the regulars were driven off the groups, there didn't seem much point
> in maintaining the gallery anymore.
>
> Gee, maybe we should add pictures of the trolls to the gallery? If
> anyone has any pictures they'd like to submit of, oh, say, a bunyip,
> I'd be glad to add them.



Aww, I thought I didn't exist in your world anymore Jay.





Bertie

Buttman > wrote in news:ftg4tq$l39$1
@registered.motzarella.org:

> On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:07:11 +0000, Jay Honeck sayeth:
>
>> If
>> anyone has any pictures they'd like to submit of, oh, say, a bunyip, I'd
>> be glad to add them.
>
> Found one:
>
> http://www2.badtux.net/uploaded_images/fat_man-733339.jpg
>

Oh dear. That'd probably really hurt if I was fat or if I dressed poorly.

OTOH, there's no mistaking the fact that you and Jay are fjukktards.


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:LfXKj.112154$yE1.66521@attbi_s21:

>>I think your desire to blame environmentalists is an
>>oversimplification of a complicated situation. I think your
>>description of short-sighted leadership is probably pretty correct,
>>but not for the reasons you like to believe.
>
> Of course there are many aspects of the energy problem. They are all,
> however, exacerbated by stupid, over-the-top environmental rules that
> are abused by folks with a not-so-hidden agenda.
>
> Just TRY to get something as simple as, oh, say, a runway extension
> completed, and observe the almost unbelievable quantity of
> environmental red tape that must be overcome. Now imagine building an
> OIL REFINERY. Ain't gonna happen with the current set of rules.
>
> If I were "King for a day", I would decree the following "4 Steps to
> American Energy Independence":
>
> 1. New refineries are not being built because draconian environmental
> rules prevent them from being constructed. As of now, all
> environmental restrictions on oil refinery construction are lifted.


idiot.
>
> 2. New oil is not being pumped because draconian environmental rules
> prevent new oil fields from being developed. As of now all
> environmental restrictions on development of known oil reserves are
> lifted.


Nope, wrong again, fjukktard.
>
> 3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
> environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
> environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are
> lifted.


Yeah, god forbid that a few thousand deaths and an area the size of New
Jersey being made uninhabitable gets between you and your mindless
aerial hazard forays into the wild blue.
>
> 4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period.
> From this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial
> capacity of the United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen
> distribution system to replace our current gasoline distribution
> system, and all cars will be powered by hydrogen. Source:
> http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf


You are a moron. Hydrogen is not a fuel, it is a medium. What you gonna
make it with, Jay?




Bertie

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

>
> "Alan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article > Jim Logajan
>> > writes:
>>>"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>
>>>> 3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
>>>> environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
>>>> environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants
>>>> are lifted.
>>>
>>>Not needed:
>>>http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9kbCdss47gaPin6xZeeLKqBXnLg
>>
>> 2 plants in the country? Good to get started, but We should
>> probably
>> be building 20 - 30 in California alone.
>>
>> However:
>> California law prohibits the construction of any new nuclear power
>> plants in California until the Energy Commission finds that the
>> federal government has approved and there exists a demonstrated
>> technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel from these
>> facilities.
>> Source: http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html
>>
>> We need to do something about that. We should be recycling this
>> slightly used nuclear fuel, not throwing it away.
>>
> Very true. I don't know how much of the energy we are currently using
> from out nuclear fuel, but there is certainly a tremendous resource
> remaining and we should be using it as fully as we are able.
>
>> [ Now, I would suggest that all electrical power to Sacramento (the
>> CA capitol) be shut off until the legislature comes to their senses.
>> ]
>>
>>>> 4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period.
>>>> From this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial
>>>> capacity of the United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen
>>>> distribution system to replace our current gasoline distribution
>>>> system, and all cars will be powered by hydrogen. Source:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf
>>>
>>>Well at least you linked to an article that makes clear that the
>>>hydrogen has to be generated from another source of energy. H2 sucks
>>>anyway on several counts - and your last decree will essentially
>>>ground all small aircraft, including your own. Contrary to your
>>>ultimate goal, I assume.
>>
>> Indeed. Hydrogen is a difficult fuel, with fairly low energy
>> density
>> for a givin volume. It is also difficult to handle and transport
>> safely.
>>
>>>Currently, the only known way of cramming hydrogen into a small
>>>enough volume to be of use in your airplane is, ironically, by
>>>_lightly_ binding the H atoms to something like, oh say, carbon. A
>>>hydrocarbon.
>>
>> Which makes for a better fuel, safer, and well suited to running our
>> aircraft.
>>
>> All we need to do is extract the carbon from the atmosphere, and I
>> have
>> seen hints that such may be reasonably doable.
>>
>> Alan
>
> My only dissagreement here is that I wonder whether extracting carbon
> from the atmosphere is really necessary, or even usefull. There seems
> to be evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere results in
> increased plant growth--and that means that plants will extract the
> CO2 for us, with no polution nor industrial effort, and will yeild
> food and other products in the process.

Yes, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere does lend itself to increased
plant growth. In fact,it's a bit of a mystery, or at least it has been a
bit of a mystery that all the CO2 we've produced over the last 200 years
hasn['t increased the carbon in the atmosphere as much as it should
have. The explanation is the rainforests. The increased CO2 in the
atmosphere has partly been absorbed by the rainforests, particularly the
Amazon. Sounds like a good thing, eh? Not neccesarily. The problem is
twofold. First, we're still cutting it down to beat the the band, lately
one of the main culpriots has been the thirst for biofuels. Indonesia
has been decimating its rainforests for land to grow crops for fuel for
the industrialised world. At the current rate, their forest will be
completely gone in a few more years. And of course, we're still chopping
it down for hardwoods and grazing lands as well. the bigger problem is,
the rainforests have had a fairly steady diet of CO2 for millenia and an
increase upsets the balance and may well result in a forst that grows so
quickly that it outstrips the nutrients in the soil and the result could
be desertification of the region or, at least a modification to
scrubland. Either way, no more rain forest and no more CO2 accumulator.





Bertie

Bertie

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> On 2008-04-08, Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> Alternatives are impractical until there's a complete, comprehensive
>> distribution infrastructure in place. That'll take 20 years. There's
>> also a significant chicken-and-egg problem.
>
> Diesel from algae has the potential for 10000 usg/acre used (and is
> more of an industrial than agricultural process). So far it's not been
> developed because oil has been so cheap.



Really? Haven't heard anything at all of this process.. I'll have to
have a look around unless you can shortcut me to somewhere ...




Bertie
>
> The infrastructure already exists for that sort of fuel.
>
> There's also no chicken and egg problem for using fuel more wisely.
> We've only been wasteful of it because it's been so cheap it's not
> been worth using it efficiently. There are significant efficiencies
> that can be had that do not result in "economic squalor". For example,
> insulating my Victorian house halved my winter heating bills and made
> the house more pleasant to live in. Hardly 'squalor', in fact the very
> opposite.
>

> I will admit it is a bit out of the ordinary but I brought it up to show
> a little of what is possible.

I think it's great (we, too, have a manual hangar door), and wish more
places would do this.

I'm curious how they are getting 110 volts for your outlets. I thought that
was unattainable with current (sorry!) technology.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Oh, in my previous post, I forgot to mention the drawback that next time
> the
> government decides to run in circles about security from aircraft, they
> will
> probably ban us from flying near these nuclear plants again, so not all is
> good about them.

I believe that issue has been reasonably addressed with the Feds. See these
videos to know why:

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2005_jet-vs-concrete-wall.wmv

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-5-22-f_4crash_test_slow.mpg

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-5-22-f_4crashtest.mpg
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Alan" > wrote in message
...
> In article > Jim Logajan
> > writes:
>>"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>>> 3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
>>> environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
>>> environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are
>>> lifted.
>>
>>Not needed:
>>http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9kbCdss47gaPin6xZeeLKqBXnLg
>
>
> Oh, in my previous post, I forgot to mention the drawback that next time
> the
> government decides to run in circles about security from aircraft, they
> will
> probably ban us from flying near these nuclear plants again, so not all is
> good about them.
>
> Last time they were including a small plant that had been decomissioned
> in 1967,
> and had no nuclear material remaining on site. It just sat in a major VFR
> flyway.
>
> Alan

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> (Alan) wrote in
> :

> > In article > Bertie the
> > Bunyip > writes:
> >>"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in
> >>news:KRwKj.1375$XC1.1247 @trndny08:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "Alan" wrote ...
> >>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> >>>>> I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
> >>>>> I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
> >>>>>
> >>>> You say you started without - how?
> >>>> Even gliders seem to need tows.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by wind
> >>> turbines.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Could do. There's lots of ways you can winch launch. The current world
> >>record distance flight was launched off the back of a car. Probably a
> >>thirty second tow, if that.
> >
> > I doubt that this was an electric car charged from solar or wind
> > power,
> > was it? I'll bet it burned gasoline (or perhaps diesel fuel).
> >
> >>Point is, there's a million ways to skin a cat. If neceesity dictated,
> >>a way would be found.
> >
> > And your answer is?
> >
> > Unless you have a better answer, I suggest folks start building
> > nuclear
> > power plants, and looking hard at extracting carbon from the
> > atmosphere to combine with hydrogen from water to produce various
> > petroleum fuels. We are not prepared to deal with hydrogen -- I can
> > just imagine the news stories about the result of accidents at
> > hydrogen fueling stations.
> >

> BTW, hydrogen is no real problem in regards to that. It can be used
> safely in surface transport and fuelled safely as well. The real problem
> with it is making it.

Making hydrogen is not a problem if you don't care about the cost.

The engineering problem for wide spread use is hydrogen embrittlement.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

> You can't blame environmentalists for everything you don't like. Over the
> last almost eight years I haven't noticed any environmentalists running
> the show in Washington. Quite the opposite, in fact, but the price of oil
> continues to climb, obviously due to factors other than your phantom
> environmentalists.

Reality check here: Politicians in Washington don't run the country --
bureaucrats (who persist from election cycle to election cycle) do.
Whether it's Republicrats or Democrans matters not, in the short term.

Over the last forty years, environmentalists have innocently and quietly
influenced the wording and structure of our regulations in a way that has
ultimately made it quite impossible to address our current energy issues.
It's all been innocuous, and "for the children" -- but it's completely
hog-tied us now that we really ARE in an energy bind.

Which, of course, anyone who knows the "Law of Unintended Consequences"
predicted long ago.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Maynard schrieb:
> On 2008-04-08, Martin Hotze > wrote:
>> is oil all you can think of? Sure: we can't make it _competletely_
>> without oil for the next time, but all you can think of is finding more
>> oil. You completely put away with any alternatives.
>
> Alternatives are impractical until there's a complete, comprehensive
> distribution infrastructure in place. That'll take 20 years. There's also a
> significant chicken-and-egg problem.

OK. So when will you start switching? In 19 years, 11 months and 30 days?

#m

On Apr 8, 11:04*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Of course there are many aspects of the energy problem. *They are all,
> however, exacerbated by stupid, over-the-top environmental rules that are
> abused by folks with a not-so-hidden agenda.
>
> Just TRY to get something as simple as, oh, say, a runway extension
> completed, and observe the almost unbelievable quantity of environmental red
> tape that must be overcome. *Now imagine building an OIL REFINERY. *Ain't
> gonna happen with the current set of rules.
>
> If I were "King for a day", I would decree the following "4 Steps to
> American Energy Independence":
>
> 1. New refineries are not being built because draconian environmental rules
> prevent them from being constructed. *As of now, all environmental
> restrictions on oil refinery construction are lifted.
>

Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind from
your hotel?? Didn't think so.

It's too bad all those existing refineries were shut down. It would
be a lot easier to expand those than to build new ones. By the way,
from 1975 to 2000 the EPA received exactly 1 permit request for a new
refinery. The oil companies haven't exactly been tripping over
themselves trying to build new capacity. During that time period,
there have been lots of requests to the EPA to expand existing
refineries. This expansion has been allowed, so it is a myth to claim
that environmental laws have prevented the oil industry from building
or expanding refining capacity.


> 2. New oil is not being pumped because draconian environmental rules prevent
> new oil fields from being developed. *As of now all environmental
> restrictions on development of known oil reserves are lifted.

What new American oil fields have they been prevented from developing?


> 3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
> environmental rules prevent their construction. *As of now all environmental
> restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are lifted.

Here again, from 1978 until 2007 the NRC received exactly zero
requests for nuclear plant permits. The problem isn't that the
industry is getting turned down. The industry isn't trying to build
new plants. The reason is that nuclear plants are so hideously
expensive, and the payback period is so long, that it is a huge
financial risk to build them.

But we can agree that they probably should be built. Nuclear plants
actually emit less radiation than coal-fired power plants. Less
mercury too. And newer designs should be safer than the older ones we
currently operate. But before we ramp up the use of these, we need to
have a solution for long-term (10,000 years) storage of the
radioactive waste. Right now it's just sitting around at the existing
plants.

> 4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period. *From
> this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial capacity of the
> United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen distribution system to
> replace our current gasoline distribution system, and all cars will be
> powered by hydrogen. *Source:http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf

Sounds good, but where do you get the hydrogen??


> These four steps will, in a matter of a decade, resolve 90% of our problems.
> Unfortunately, it will take another Great Depression to shake our system
> enough to force a repeal of the environmental restrictions that make
> resolving our energy problems impossible.

I can see that you really want to believe that it is environmental
regulations that are causing these problems. That gives you a nice
boogey man you can rail against. But it is more complicated than
that.

Phil

Jay Honeck schrieb:
> If I were "King for a day", I would decree the following "4 Steps to
> American Energy Independence":


*woah* I don't want to live in your kingdom. Not for a day.

> 4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period. From

and you pump the hydrogen from the ocean or from the moon? With which
energy will you produce hydrogen? Hydrogen is only an energy carrier.

#m

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> (Alan) wrote in
>> :
>
>> > In article > Bertie the
>> > Bunyip > writes:
>> >>"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in
>> >>news:KRwKj.1375$XC1.1247 @trndny08:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> "Alan" wrote ...
>> >>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>> >>>>> I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
>> >>>>> I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> You say you started without - how?
>> >>>> Even gliders seem to need tows.
>> >>>
>> >>> Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by
>> >>> wind turbines.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Could do. There's lots of ways you can winch launch. The current
>> >>world record distance flight was launched off the back of a car.
>> >>Probably a thirty second tow, if that.
>> >
>> > I doubt that this was an electric car charged from solar or wind
>> > power,
>> > was it? I'll bet it burned gasoline (or perhaps diesel fuel).
>> >
>> >>Point is, there's a million ways to skin a cat. If neceesity
>> >>dictated, a way would be found.
>> >
>> > And your answer is?
>> >
>> > Unless you have a better answer, I suggest folks start building
>> > nuclear
>> > power plants, and looking hard at extracting carbon from the
>> > atmosphere to combine with hydrogen from water to produce various
>> > petroleum fuels. We are not prepared to deal with hydrogen -- I can
>> > just imagine the news stories about the result of accidents at
>> > hydrogen fueling stations.
>> >
>
>> BTW, hydrogen is no real problem in regards to that. It can be used
>> safely in surface transport and fuelled safely as well. The real
>> problem with it is making it.
>
> Making hydrogen is not a problem if you don't care about the cost.

The cost is getting pretty close to that of gasoline as it is, but
that's from hydrogen made from petroleum products, of course.
>
> The engineering problem for wide spread use is hydrogen embrittlement.
>
>

What, from burning it in your engine or from manufacture?



Bertie

romeomike schrieb:
> A bigger reason that new oil refineries aren't being built, as well as
> nuclear waste facilities, is that no one wants one near his playground.

So maybe Jay should jump in and start a petition (he is good in such
things) for an oil raffinery close to his hotel and to the airport and a
nuclear power plant close to his home.

#m

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:M56Lj.112941$yE1.87006@attbi_s21:

>> I will admit it is a bit out of the ordinary but I brought it up to
>> show a little of what is possible.
>
> I think it's great (we, too, have a manual hangar door), and wish more
> places would do this.
>
> I'm curious how they are getting 110 volts for your outlets. I
> thought that was unattainable with current (sorry!) technology.

That's because you're an idiot.


Bertie

Jay Honeck schrieb:
> I'm curious how they are getting 110 volts for your outlets. I thought that
> was unattainable with current (sorry!) technology.

*hihi*

230V is doable. without problems. *doohhhh*

#m

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> (Alan) wrote in
> >> :
> >
> >> > In article > Bertie the
> >> > Bunyip > writes:
> >> >>"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in
> >> >>news:KRwKj.1375$XC1.1247 @trndny08:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "Alan" wrote ...
> >> >>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> >> >>>>> I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
> >> >>>>> I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>> You say you started without - how?
> >> >>>> Even gliders seem to need tows.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by
> >> >>> wind turbines.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>Could do. There's lots of ways you can winch launch. The current
> >> >>world record distance flight was launched off the back of a car.
> >> >>Probably a thirty second tow, if that.
> >> >
> >> > I doubt that this was an electric car charged from solar or wind
> >> > power,
> >> > was it? I'll bet it burned gasoline (or perhaps diesel fuel).
> >> >
> >> >>Point is, there's a million ways to skin a cat. If neceesity
> >> >>dictated, a way would be found.
> >> >
> >> > And your answer is?
> >> >
> >> > Unless you have a better answer, I suggest folks start building
> >> > nuclear
> >> > power plants, and looking hard at extracting carbon from the
> >> > atmosphere to combine with hydrogen from water to produce various
> >> > petroleum fuels. We are not prepared to deal with hydrogen -- I can
> >> > just imagine the news stories about the result of accidents at
> >> > hydrogen fueling stations.
> >> >
> >
> >> BTW, hydrogen is no real problem in regards to that. It can be used
> >> safely in surface transport and fuelled safely as well. The real
> >> problem with it is making it.
> >
> > Making hydrogen is not a problem if you don't care about the cost.

> The cost is getting pretty close to that of gasoline as it is, but
> that's from hydrogen made from petroleum products, of course.
> >
> > The engineering problem for wide spread use is hydrogen embrittlement.
> >
> >

> What, from burning it in your engine or from manufacture?

From containing it.

Essentially the same problem as ethenol; existing plumbing won't
handle hydrogen, so if you want to distribute the stuff in anything
other than liquid hydrogen trucks, you need all new pipes designed
to carry hydrogen.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > I will admit it is a bit out of the ordinary but I brought it up to show
> > a little of what is possible.

> I think it's great (we, too, have a manual hangar door), and wish more
> places would do this.

> I'm curious how they are getting 110 volts for your outlets. I thought that
> was unattainable with current (sorry!) technology.

From what, solar cells?

A big ass inverter.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Apr 9, 12:35 pm, wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
> > (Alan) wrote in
> :
> > > In article > Bertie the
> > > Bunyip > writes:
> > >>"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in
> > >>news:KRwKj.1375$XC1.1247 @trndny08:
>
> > >>> "Alan" wrote ...
> > >>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> > >>>>> I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
> > >>>>> I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
>
> > >>>> You say you started without - how?
> > >>>> Even gliders seem to need tows.
>
> > >>> Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by wind
> > >>> turbines.
>
> > >>Could do. There's lots of ways you can winch launch. The current world
> > >>record distance flight was launched off the back of a car. Probably a
> > >>thirty second tow, if that.
>
> > > I doubt that this was an electric car charged from solar or wind
> > > power,
> > > was it? I'll bet it burned gasoline (or perhaps diesel fuel).
>
> > >>Point is, there's a million ways to skin a cat. If neceesity dictated,
> > >>a way would be found.
>
> > > And your answer is?
>
> > > Unless you have a better answer, I suggest folks start building
> > > nuclear
> > > power plants, and looking hard at extracting carbon from the
> > > atmosphere to combine with hydrogen from water to produce various
> > > petroleum fuels. We are not prepared to deal with hydrogen -- I can
> > > just imagine the news stories about the result of accidents at
> > > hydrogen fueling stations.
>
> > BTW, hydrogen is no real problem in regards to that. It can be used
> > safely in surface transport and fuelled safely as well. The real problem
> > with it is making it.
>
> Making hydrogen is not a problem if you don't care about the cost.
>
> The engineering problem for wide spread use is hydrogen embrittlement.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

For instance?

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

>> Diesel from algae has the potential for 10000 usg/acre used (and is
>> more of an industrial than agricultural process). So far it's not been
>> developed because oil has been so cheap.
>
>
>
> Really? Haven't heard anything at all of this process.. I'll have to
> have a look around unless you can shortcut me to somewhere ...


http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

On 2008-04-09, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> Jay Maynard schrieb:
>> Alternatives are impractical until there's a complete, comprehensive
>> distribution infrastructure in place. That'll take 20 years. There's also a
>> significant chicken-and-egg problem.
> OK. So when will you start switching? In 19 years, 11 months and 30 days?

When the infrastructure is there to meet my mission requirements. Not
before.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

wrote in :
>
> From containing it.
>
> Essentially the same problem as ethenol; existing plumbing won't
> handle hydrogen, so if you want to distribute the stuff in anything
> other than liquid hydrogen trucks, you need all new pipes designed
> to carry hydrogen.
>

Ah, OK.


Bertie

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-04-09, Martin Hotze > wrote:
>> Jay Maynard schrieb:
>>> Alternatives are impractical until there's a complete, comprehensive
>>> distribution infrastructure in place. That'll take 20 years. There's
>>> also a significant chicken-and-egg problem.
>> OK. So when will you start switching? In 19 years, 11 months and 30
>> days?
>
> When the infrastructure is there to meet my mission requirements. Not
> before.

You have mission requirements to dress up like Tron?

bertie

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
m:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>>> Diesel from algae has the potential for 10000 usg/acre used (and is
>>> more of an industrial than agricultural process). So far it's not
been
>>> developed because oil has been so cheap.
>>
>>
>>
>> Really? Haven't heard anything at all of this process.. I'll have to
>> have a look around unless you can shortcut me to somewhere ...
>
>
> http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
>
>

Hmm, very good. A bit tainted by his hydrogen info, though, which is a
bit off in spots.


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:LfXKj.112154$yE1.66521@attbi_s21...
>
> If I were "King for a day", I would decree the following "4 Steps to
> American Energy Independence":
>
> 1. New refineries are not being built because draconian environmental
> rules prevent them from being constructed. As of now, all environmental
> restrictions on oil refinery construction are lifted.
>
> 2. New oil is not being pumped because draconian environmental rules
> prevent new oil fields from being developed. As of now all environmental
> restrictions on development of known oil reserves are lifted.
>
> 3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
> environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
> environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are
> lifted.
>
> 4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period. From
> this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial capacity of the
> United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen distribution system to
> replace our current gasoline distribution system, and all cars will be
> powered by hydrogen. Source: http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf
>
> These four steps will, in a matter of a decade, resolve 90% of our
> problems. Unfortunately, it will take another Great Depression to shake
> our system enough to force a repeal of the environmental restrictions that
> make resolving our energy problems impossible.

and in a later post

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ai6Lj.112958$yE1.56035@attbi_s21...
> -- but it's completely hog-tied us now that we really ARE in an energy
> bind.
>
> Which, of course, anyone who knows the "Law of Unintended Consequences"
> predicted long ago.

Since we all hope that you would not offer unconsidered or overly simple
solutions to complex problems, I am sure you have considered the possible
'unintended consequences' of your proposals. In the event that your
proposals were actually serious and not meant as a joke, I would ask you to
comment on their likely result.

Happy landings,

cavedweller > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 12:35 pm, wrote:
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > (Alan) wrote in
> > :
> > > > In article > Bertie the
> > > > Bunyip > writes:
> > > >>"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in
> > > >>news:KRwKj.1375$XC1.1247 @trndny08:
> >
> > > >>> "Alan" wrote ...
> > > >>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> > > >>>>> I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
> > > >>>>> I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.
> >
> > > >>>> You say you started without - how?
> > > >>>> Even gliders seem to need tows.
> >
> > > >>> Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by wind
> > > >>> turbines.
> >
> > > >>Could do. There's lots of ways you can winch launch. The current world
> > > >>record distance flight was launched off the back of a car. Probably a
> > > >>thirty second tow, if that.
> >
> > > > I doubt that this was an electric car charged from solar or wind
> > > > power,
> > > > was it? I'll bet it burned gasoline (or perhaps diesel fuel).
> >
> > > >>Point is, there's a million ways to skin a cat. If neceesity dictated,
> > > >>a way would be found.
> >
> > > > And your answer is?
> >
> > > > Unless you have a better answer, I suggest folks start building
> > > > nuclear
> > > > power plants, and looking hard at extracting carbon from the
> > > > atmosphere to combine with hydrogen from water to produce various
> > > > petroleum fuels. We are not prepared to deal with hydrogen -- I can
> > > > just imagine the news stories about the result of accidents at
> > > > hydrogen fueling stations.
> >
> > > BTW, hydrogen is no real problem in regards to that. It can be used
> > > safely in surface transport and fuelled safely as well. The real problem
> > > with it is making it.
> >
> > Making hydrogen is not a problem if you don't care about the cost.
> >
> > The engineering problem for wide spread use is hydrogen embrittlement.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.

> For instance?

For instance the only existing distribution plumbing that will handle
hydrogen is on liquid hydrogen trucks; you can't run it down existing
gas pipe lines.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:00:34 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

> Back during the LAST "energy crisis" in the 1970s, solar collectors sprouted
> on rooftops like daisies. Everyone wanted to harness all that "free"
> energy.
>
> What we soon discovered, however, is that it was far from free. The thermal
> stress on all that black plastic soon reduced the collectors to cracked and
> leaky junk -- and it was all ABOVE YOUR HOUSE so that the leaks did the most
> harm to your home. Within just a few years, they were gone from the
> rooftops, and lots of contractors had prospered fleecing lots of "green"
> home owners.
>
> Now, you say, could these not be made more durable today? You bet they
> could, but at a cost that would amaze you. And, no matter what you make
> plumbing out of, no matter how much money you spend on it, there is one
> truism that every long-term property owner knows to be true: Eventually, it
> WILL leak.
>
> One day these problems may be overcome. Until then, the natural gas
> furnaces and water heaters will continue to be the most efficient choices.

My, you are a dolt.

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 01:40:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Martin Hotze >
>
>>well, I believe that I am doing OK. One of the next things (in a few
>>years) will be throwing out the oil out of the house and heat with wood,
>
> Wood heat?
> You're really marching into the 21st century, ain't you Marty.
> More pollution, greenhouse gasses, and some radioactive isotopes.
> Great Idea. And your neighbors are just going to LOVE breathing your
> smoke as it settles over the neighborhood.
>
> We've got TWO people, in our neighborhood of abou 200 houses,
> who have started heating with wood. The air has become unbreathable
> on a cold, still night. 198 households have been quietly discussing how
> nice it would be if 2 particular houses burned to the ground. And someone
> spray painted the word ASSHOLE on both their garages on New Years Eve.
>
> You're going to be VERY popular.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBR/woTJMoscYxZNI5AQEwqAP+K5kxfusiXkWNFg7wg+Z6xDaDJygo s7Cf
> vTIY1zaSDnreA/lxllpcD8jiceGTE8bvRMGdf2Ft/eQ/pzpYMT2D2NSvoDjZAYhs
> zA5ISIhoFz9yk03XmfNtbuS+8KbE2lk4SGDcuEqfu9r9ZRF7sc VoaYxcxRXOnHL0
> CCNbeafEnEM=
> =XADN
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tough guys are usually anonymous. Imagine that.

Waving bye-bye to all!
--
Kyla%b
now deleting entire thread

On Apr 9, 3:05 pm, wrote:
> cavedweller > wrote:

> > For instance?
>
> For instance the only existing distribution plumbing that will handle
> hydrogen is on liquid hydrogen trucks; you can't run it down existing
> gas pipe lines.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
Where does the hydrogen embrittlement part come in?

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:35:50 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote:

> http://www.tronguy.net
> (Yes, that's me!)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My God!!!

Speaking of Zodiacs

http://tinyurl.com/5u29ms

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

>>
>
> Hmm, very good. A bit tainted by his hydrogen info, though, which is a
> bit off in spots.

I don't know much about it.

Where's he off about hydrogen?

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
m:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, very good. A bit tainted by his hydrogen info, though, which is
a
>> bit off in spots.
>
> I don't know much about it.
>
> Where's he off about hydrogen?
>
>
>

Well, he dismisses it pretty much out of hand for all the wrong reasons.
The volume thing is a non-issue with metal hydride tanks as well as the
safety issue. I only mention it because it calls into question the rest
of his article in my mind. If half of what he says about algae based
diesel is true, though, it sounds very promising.
In any case, there are a number of potential sources of fuels that have
recently become cheaper options than petro-chemical fuels. All it takes
now is a little education and a little will to get moving on them.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> The volume thing is a non-issue with metal hydride tanks as well as the
> safety issue.

The information I've found on metal hydrides is not nearly so optimistic.
Allegedly about 4 times heavier per unit of energy than gasoline and many
of the known metal hydrides (e.g. lithium) themselves being health hazards.

>>> The engineering problem for wide spread use is hydrogen
>>> embrittlement.
>>>
>>>
>
>> What, from burning it in your engine or from manufacture?
>
> From containing it.
>
> Essentially the same problem as ethenol; existing plumbing won't
> handle hydrogen, so if you want to distribute the stuff in anything
> other than liquid hydrogen trucks, you need all new pipes designed
> to carry hydrogen.

Hydrogen atoms are so small, they will wedge themselves even into the matrix
of solid metal materials. This reduces the ability of the metal atoms to
slide alongside each other, hence the material will break rather than bend
if force is applied -> the material becomes brittle.

regards,
Friedrich

On Apr 9, 3:05 pm, wrote:
> cavedweller > wrote:

> > > The engineering problem for wide spread use is hydrogen embrittlement.

> > For instance?
>
> For instance the only existing distribution plumbing that will handle
> hydrogen is on liquid hydrogen trucks; you can't run it down existing
> gas pipe lines.
>
Hmmmm. I see that I should have asked rather "Of what?" (relative to
hydrogen embrittlement)

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> The volume thing is a non-issue with metal hydride tanks as well as
>> the safety issue.
>
> The information I've found on metal hydrides is not nearly so
> optimistic. Allegedly about 4 times heavier per unit of energy than
> gasoline and many of the known metal hydrides (e.g. lithium)
> themselves being health hazards.
>

Well, they're tanked for life and like for like the crap that's in
modern gasoline is probably worse. Metal hydrides are heavy, no doubt
about it. Very heavy. Too heavy for airplanes, certainly. There's a
number of hydride combinations that look to improve on that. They do
provide a practical way of carrying H2 safely in a reasonable volume,
though. I'd be a lot more comfortable driving a car so equipped than an
H2 powered car with a simple pressure tank. They have another drawback
as well. Temperature. The hydrides only release the H2 at a usable rate
when the temperature in the tank is high enough. How high depends on the
hydrides used, but it's warmer than ambient most of the year. So you
need to heat it up a bit. Not a big problem, but it is an added
complication.


Bertie

cavedweller > wrote:
> On Apr 9, 3:05 pm, wrote:
> > cavedweller > wrote:

> > > > The engineering problem for wide spread use is hydrogen embrittlement.

> > > For instance?
> >
> > For instance the only existing distribution plumbing that will handle
> > hydrogen is on liquid hydrogen trucks; you can't run it down existing
> > gas pipe lines.
> >
> Hmmmm. I see that I should have asked rather "Of what?" (relative to
> hydrogen embrittlement)

If you want to use hydrogen on a large scale, you have to have some
way to distribute it such as is done with natural gas. Huge fleets of
liquid hydrogen tankers isn't going to cut it.

Because of hydrogen embrittlement, any such distribution system will
have to be built starting from zero as no existing system can handle
hydrogen and building such a system will be both an engineering and
economic challenge.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Martin Hotze wrote:
> romeomike schrieb:
>> A bigger reason that new oil refineries aren't being built, as well as
>> nuclear waste facilities, is that no one wants one near his playground.
>
> So maybe Jay should jump in and start a petition (he is good in such
> things) for an oil raffinery close to his hotel and to the airport and a
> nuclear power plant close to his home.
>
> #m

No, he'd want some environmentalists to come use all those regulations
he detests to save HIS environment.

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> The volume thing is a non-issue with metal hydride tanks as well as
>> the safety issue.
>
> The information I've found on metal hydrides is not nearly so
> optimistic. Allegedly about 4 times heavier per unit of energy than
> gasoline and many of the known metal hydrides (e.g. lithium)
> themselves being health hazards.

One other issue with metal hydrides for storage of hydrogen is the energy
needed to load/unload them. The loading with hydrogen is an exotherm
process, while refuelling your typical family car in 5-10 minutes for a
range of 300 miles (comparable to a liquid hydrocarbon fuel), you would have
to dissipate around 400 kW of heat energy. To retrive the hydrogen, you have
to put that same energy back into the storage unit by heating it.

regards,
Friedrich

On Apr 9, 5:15 pm, wrote:

>
> > Hmmmm. I see that I should have asked rather "Of what?" (relative to
> > hydrogen embrittlement)
>
> If you want to use hydrogen on a large scale, you have to have some
> way to distribute it such as is done with natural gas. Huge fleets of
> liquid hydrogen tankers isn't going to cut it.
>
> Because of hydrogen embrittlement, any such distribution system will
> have to be built starting from zero as no existing system can handle
> hydrogen and building such a system will be both an engineering and
> economic challenge.
>
'mkay..

I'm well aware of the phenomenon related to hardened steels and
electroplating, but have no experience with embrittlement effects on
pipeline type steels (other than extreme cold) and was intrigued to
learn that Hydrogen was a concern.

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:38:30 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> You can't blame environmentalists for everything you don't like. Over the
>> last almost eight years I haven't noticed any environmentalists running
>> the show in Washington. Quite the opposite, in fact, but the price of oil
>> continues to climb, obviously due to factors other than your phantom
>> environmentalists.
>
>Reality check here: Politicians in Washington don't run the country --
>bureaucrats (who persist from election cycle to election cycle) do.
>Whether it's Republicrats or Democrans matters not, in the short term.
>
>Over the last forty years, environmentalists have innocently and quietly
>influenced the wording and structure of our regulations in a way that has
>ultimately made it quite impossible to address our current energy issues.
>It's all been innocuous, and "for the children" -- but it's completely
>hog-tied us now that we really ARE in an energy bind.

Horse hockey.

We've painted ourselves into a corner by building an economy based on
unrenewable, cheap energy.


>Which, of course, anyone who knows the "Law of Unintended Consequences"
>predicted long ago.

Anyone knowing the law of supply and demand, you mean.

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:58:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>> Where's he off about hydrogen?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Well, he dismisses it pretty much out of hand for all the wrong reasons.
>The volume thing is a non-issue with metal hydride tanks as well as the
>safety issue.

Seems like a non-starter for a number of other reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel


> I only mention it because it calls into question the rest
>of his article in my mind. If half of what he says about algae based
>diesel is true, though, it sounds very promising.
>In any case, there are a number of potential sources of fuels that have
>recently become cheaper options than petro-chemical fuels. All it takes
>now is a little education and a little will to get moving on them.

Yes, and the removal of oil men from high office in the U. S.

Dan Luke > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:58:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>> Where's he off about hydrogen?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well, he dismisses it pretty much out of hand for all the wrong
reasons.
>>The volume thing is a non-issue with metal hydride tanks as well as
the
>>safety issue.
>
> Seems like a non-starter for a number of other reasons:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel

Well, if it were al we had it would certainly be made to work. Hell, f
all we had was wound up rubber bands that technology would be a lot
further along as well.
>
>
>> I only mention it because it calls into question the rest
>>of his article in my mind. If half of what he says about algae based
>>diesel is true, though, it sounds very promising.
>>In any case, there are a number of potential sources of fuels that
have
>>recently become cheaper options than petro-chemical fuels. All it
takes
>>now is a little education and a little will to get moving on them.
>
> Yes, and the removal of oil men from high office in the U. S.
>
That would go hand in hand with education!


Bertie

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 01:30:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio wrote:


>
>You sound like another MX sockpuppet.
>Or worse, you just think like him.

Hee-hee!

****.

>Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind from
>your hotel?? Didn't think so.

Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of the
country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT. Of course you
wouldn't build a refinery in a populated area.

> It's too bad all those existing refineries were shut down. It would
> be a lot easier to expand those than to build new ones. By the way,
> from 1975 to 2000 the EPA received exactly 1 permit request for a new
> refinery. The oil companies haven't exactly been tripping over
> themselves trying to build new capacity.

Wow, talk about confusing "effect" with "cause"! The plain and simple
reason there have been almost no applications is because the draconian
environmental rules have made building a new refinery a multi-billion-dollar
nightmare of paperwork, hearings, and a never-ending web of interlocking
regulations that would keep a fleet of lawyers busy for decades.

> What new American oil fields have they been prevented from developing?

Here's a quote from 2005 -- when oil was at "record prices of $50/barrel":
************************************************** ************************************************** *********************
"America has no shortage of oil. Washington has a shortage
of political will to let American workers go get it."
- Chairman Richard W. Pombo

Washington, DC - As oil prices climb to record highs above $50 per barrel,
some have asserted that we are "running out" of this resource. In truth, we
are not running out of oil in America. We can safely increase domestic
production by at least 17.2 million barrels per day by 2025.

"America has no shortage of oil for the foreseeable future," House Resources
Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-CA) said. "Washington has a shortage
of the political will required to let American workers go get it. We have
not increased domestic supply in thirty years. As a result, our dependence
on foreign oil has skyrocketed to the point where we are sending $200
billion overseas to import this resource every year. At least a fraction of
that sum should be spent at home to increase supply, lower prices, and
create jobs."
************************************************** ************************************************** *********************
You might want to check this DOE document, which was the source of his
information: http://tinyurl.com/5fv3nj
It's even more pertinent today than it was in 2005.

>Here again, from 1978 until 2007 the NRC received exactly zero
>requests for nuclear plant permits. The problem isn't that the
>industry is getting turned down. The industry isn't trying to build
>new plants. The reason is that nuclear plants are so hideously
>expensive, and the payback period is so long, that it is a huge
>financial risk to build them.

Again, you've got the cart in front of the horse. The reason reactor costs
are prohibitive isn't because the technology is any big deal -- just check
out the way the Navy builds reactors for the fleet, without incident -- but
because the regulation of domestic reactors has been made purposefully so
convoluted that they CAN'T be built without literally spending years in
court, supporting another fleet of lawyers.

> But before we ramp up the use of these, we need to
> have a solution for long-term (10,000 years) storage of the
> radioactive waste. Right now it's just sitting around at the existing
> plants.

Another environmentalist-induced catastrophe waiting to happen. The safe
nuclear waste storage facility has been built (at a cost of billion$) and
has been ready for years -- but "environmentalists" (and I use the term
loosely) have the whole concept of long-term storage tied up in an endless
series of lawsuits. So, all of our ever-growing stockpiles of nuclear
waste continue to be stored unsafely at each power plant. It's criminal.

> Sounds good, but where do you get the hydrogen??

Why, from the newly-built plethora of safe, non-polluting nuke plants that I
(as King) decreed -- of course!

:-)

>I can see that you really want to believe that it is environmental
>regulations that are causing these problems. That gives you a nice
>boogey man you can rail against. But it is more complicated than
>that.

I didn't say environmental regulations are "causing" the problems -- I said
over-regulation has made the problems virtually unsolvable. Bottom line:
Until these onerous agenda-driven regulations are relaxed, we will continue
to see our economy thrashed by ever-increasing energy costs.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:qcdLj.60058$TT4.34792@attbi_s22:

>>Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind from
>>your hotel?? Didn't think so.
>
> Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of the
> country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT.

On that basis we should build it inside your head.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> news:qcdLj.60058$TT4.34792@attbi_s22:
>
>>>Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind from
>>>your hotel?? Didn't think so.
>>
>> Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of the
>> country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT.
>
> On that basis we should build it inside your head.
>
>
> Bertie

And you offer this pointless tid bit because you have no point, or don't
understand the issue, or both?

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:GKdLj.65016$y05.28316
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> news:qcdLj.60058$TT4.34792@attbi_s22:
>>
>>>>Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind
from
>>>>your hotel?? Didn't think so.
>>>
>>> Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of
the
>>> country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT.
>>
>> On that basis we should build it inside your head.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> And you offer this pointless tid bit because you have no point, or
don't
> understand the issue, or both?



Just being constructive.


865


Bertie

On Apr 9, 7:30*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >Right. *And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind from
> >your hotel?? *Didn't think so.
>
> Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of the
> country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT. * Of course you
> wouldn't build a refinery in a populated area.
>

Apparently you have never flown over this country at night. When I
have, I have looked down at thousands of lights, everywhere. Other
than the mountains, there are not very many areas that are not
populated. But I notice that you don't want a refinery built near
your home or business. Well everyone else feels the same way, and
THAT is a major problem for building new refineries. That isn't a
liberal or a conservative issue. Even a teeth-gnashing conservative
like yourself doesn't want one of these things built near him.


> > It's too bad all those existing refineries were shut down. *It would
> > be a lot easier to expand those than to build new ones. *By the way,
> > from 1975 to 2000 the EPA received exactly 1 permit request for a new
> > refinery. *The oil companies haven't exactly been tripping over
> > themselves trying to build new capacity.
>
> Wow, talk about confusing "effect" with "cause"! * The plain and simple
> reason there have been almost no applications is because the draconian
> environmental rules have made building a new refinery a multi-billion-dollar
> nightmare of paperwork, hearings, and a never-ending web of interlocking
> regulations that would keep a fleet of lawyers busy for decades.
>

No, Jay. They didn't build them because they didn't want to.
Refining has always been a low-margin business. It was more
economical to expand the existing refineries. The permits for those
expansions were submitted to the EPA, and they were approved.

> > What new American oil fields have they been prevented from developing?
>
> Here's a quote from 2005 -- when oil was at "record prices of $50/barrel":
> ************************************************** ************************************************** **********************
> "America has no shortage of oil. Washington has a shortage
> of political will to let American workers go get it."
> - Chairman Richard W. Pombo

I checked out your document. Here is another quote from the same
article:

"Contrary to the claims of special interest groups, we can produce
more energy to grow our
economy and continue environmental achievements at the same time,"
Pombo said. "These
efforts go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive."

I assume you are in the special interest group he mentioned. Seems
like your man Pombo disagrees with you, Jay.

By the way, did you even bother to read that article? It was about
"technically recoverable" oil. That is oil that up till now has been
too difficult or expensive to recover. Here again, this oil will be
more expensive than the current, easily recovered reserves. That
translates to expensive fuel, so it isn't going to decrease our energy
costs.


> You might want to check this DOE document, which was the source of his
> information: *http://tinyurl.com/5fv3nj
> It's even more pertinent today than it was in 2005.
>
> >Here again, from 1978 until 2007 the NRC received exactly zero
> >requests for nuclear plant permits. *The problem isn't that the
> >industry is getting turned down. *The industry isn't trying to build
> >new plants. *The reason is that nuclear plants are so hideously
> >expensive, and the payback period is so long, that it is a huge
> >financial risk to build them.
>
> Again, you've got the cart in front of the horse. *The reason reactor costs
> are prohibitive isn't because the technology is any big deal -- just check
> out the way the Navy builds reactors for the fleet, without incident -- but
> because the regulation of domestic reactors has been made purposefully so
> convoluted that they CAN'T be built without literally spending years in
> court, supporting another fleet of lawyers.

There are about 30 new nuclear plants in the planning stages now. Why
all of a sudden is the industry going back to nuclear power? Did all
those nasty environmental laws suddenly get repealed? No. The reason
is economics. Here is an article for you to read. There isn't much
mention of environmental laws (except to note that any future carbon
tax would actually favor nuclear plants). There is a lot in this
article about the financial risk of building these plants. And that
translates to nervous regulators who regulate these public utilities.
But it is the finances that give them acid stomachs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16286304/


> > But before we ramp up the use of these, we need to
> > have a solution for long-term (10,000 years) storage of the
> > radioactive waste. *Right now it's just sitting around at the existing
> > plants.
>
> Another environmentalist-induced catastrophe waiting to happen. *The safe
> nuclear waste storage facility has been built (at a cost of billion$) and
> has been ready for years -- but "environmentalists" (and I use the term
> loosely) have the whole concept of long-term storage tied up in an endless
> series of lawsuits. * So, all of our ever-growing stockpiles of nuclear
> waste continue to be stored unsafely at each power plant. *It's criminal..

Yeah. The big problem is all those flaming liberal environmentalists
in Nevada don't want the storage facility in their back yard. Nevada
is full of flaming liberal environmentalists, right??


> > Sounds good, but where do you get the hydrogen??
>
> Why, from the newly-built plethora of safe, non-polluting nuke plants that I
> (as King) decreed -- of course!
>
> :-)
>
> >I can see that you really want to believe that it is environmental
> >regulations that are causing these problems. *That gives you a nice
> >boogey man you can rail against. *But it is more complicated than
> >that.
>
> I didn't say environmental regulations are "causing" the problems -- I said
> over-regulation has made the problems virtually unsolvable. *Bottom line:
> Until these onerous agenda-driven regulations are relaxed, we will continue
> to see our economy thrashed by ever-increasing energy costs.

Well, the nuclear industry is moving forward and the "agenda-driven
regulations" haven't been relaxed. What does that tell you?

Phil

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:GKdLj.65016$y05.28316
> @newsfe22.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>>> news:qcdLj.60058$TT4.34792@attbi_s22:
>>>
>>>>>Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind
> from
>>>>>your hotel?? Didn't think so.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of
> the
>>>> country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT.
>>>
>>> On that basis we should build it inside your head.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> And you offer this pointless tid bit because you have no point, or
> don't
>> understand the issue, or both?
>
>
>
> Just being constructive.
>
>
> 865
>
>
> Bertie

73

In article > Phil J > writes:

>Apparently you have never flown over this country at night. When I
>have, I have looked down at thousands of lights, everywhere. Other
>than the mountains, there are not very many areas that are not
>populated.

Aha, back to AVIATION!!!

Flying at night is wonderful, but you must be from the east, since
night or day, much of Nevada and Utah looks pretty abandoned.

It is pretty amazing to come around the corner of the Sierras into
the central valley of California at night, and see the ground go from
almost completely dark to lit up all over.

Alan

Alan,

> Flying at night is wonderful, but you must be from the east, since
> night or day, much of Nevada and Utah looks pretty abandoned.
>

Great places for solar power plants. Just like Arizona, NM and parts of
Texas, too.

If Jay somehow shouldn't make it to tyrannical dictatorship with the
cozy name "Kingdom" applied, sensible solutions might just prevail over
utter madness...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 2008-04-09, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Over the last forty years, environmentalists have innocently and quietly
> influenced the wording and structure of our regulations in a way that has
> ultimately made it quite impossible to address our current energy issues.

That's patently untrue.

Environmental regulation, on the other hand, has at least made those of
us who have oil refineries in their back yard a reasonable quality of
life.

> It's all been innocuous, and "for the children" -- but it's completely
> hog-tied us now that we really ARE in an energy bind.

It's for the adults, too. I've lived in an oil town, and even with the
environmental regulations we have today, the sky still turns green over
La Porte, and after flying a clean aircraft for a half hour, you land
and there's a film of gunk adhering to the leading edges of everything.
This is Texas City, Baytown, La Porte and most of the east side of
Houston today, not a story from antiquity. If you're flying the ILS into
Galveston, you can do without a marker beacon in your panel - the air
gets a unique stench as you approach the outer marker (and for most of
the rest of the approach). Texas City residents just have to live with
that stench.

The examiner I had for my instrument rating checkride came from Beaumont.
He's the lived the longest out of any member of his recent family - 50
years old. When he was a kid growing up, the rivers used to catch fire.

If that's what you really want, are you prepared to live in an oil town?
It's terribly easy to sit in rural Iowa and decree that oil towns should
be cancerous armpits. Having lived in an oil town, I think the
environmental regulations aren't tight enough.

Why don't you campaign locally to get oil refineries set up in Iowa
City?

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On 2008-04-09, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I'm curious how they are getting 110 volts for your outlets. I thought that
> was unattainable with current (sorry!) technology.

It's been attainable to get 110vac from DC probably for the best part of
a century or more. The magic device is called an inverter.

I have a little solar photovoltaic panel on my shed roof for powering the
electric stuff in the garden, like lighting, pond pump etc. It currently
has 3 outlets - 12 volt DC, 6 volt DC (a DC-DC converter I built myself
for charging 6 volt lead acid batteries, for use with my bike), and 240
volts AC off an inverter.

Technology to make AC from DC, DC from AC, high voltage DC from low
voltage DC and all the combinations has existed for decades. It's very
basic stuff. I've made 1000 volts DC from 12 volts DC. It's not even
hard to do.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On 2008-04-10, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind from
>>your hotel?? Didn't think so.
>
> Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of the
> country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT. Of course you
> wouldn't build a refinery in a populated area.

Where are you going to get the workers?

Refineries need infrastructure. If you want to build a refinery on
vacant land it will be an inordinately expensive proposition: you need
to build suitable roads, pipelines, houses for the workers to live -
you've got to get the materials in to build the refinery.

If you look at where the refineries are at the moment, there are good
reasons for why they are where they are, because they need to be close
enough for certain resources: engineers to run the plant, workers to do
the day to day operation, safety and security (fire crews, police). You
have to get the raw materials in and the refined product out. These go
in and out in colossal quantities, so refineries are often in a place
where you can get large ships into and out of. Since you have all those
workers now running the plant, the workers themselves need all the other
infrastructure to support their lives: shops, entertainment, and all the
other typical things you find in a city. If you want to build that in
the middle of nowhere, you're also going to have to build a city to go
with it and also find workers (many who need to be highly educated and
skilled) who are prepared to work in a new city, in the middle of
nowhere. Presumably, given your political leanings, you don't want this
to be the only class of people who are likely to want to do this -
immigrants from poor countries off your southern border.

Additionally, building the new city that must go with the refinery is
going to be orders of magnitude more expensive than simply extending an
existing refinery, or building one where the people already live that
doesn't turn the air green.

We don't have refineries that run as unattended automatons. A refinery
needs very close supervision because it's basically a giant bomb.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:PpeLj.27077$KJ1.10288
@newsfe19.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:GKdLj.65016$y05.28316
>> @newsfe22.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>>>> news:qcdLj.60058$TT4.34792@attbi_s22:
>>>>
>>>>>>Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind
>> from
>>>>>>your hotel?? Didn't think so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of
>> the
>>>>> country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT.
>>>>
>>>> On that basis we should build it inside your head.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> And you offer this pointless tid bit because you have no point, or
>> don't
>>> understand the issue, or both?
>>
>>
>>
>> Just being constructive.
>>
>>
>> 865
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> 73
>
>
>

92


Bertie

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> On 2008-04-10, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>>Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind
from
>>>your hotel?? Didn't think so.
>>
>> Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of
the
>> country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT. Of course
you
>> wouldn't build a refinery in a populated area.
>
> Where are you going to get the workers?
>


I think he's probably hopoing he can get illegal immigrants and drug
addicts, like he has in his 'hotel'.

> Refineries need infrastructure. If you want to build a refinery on
> vacant land it will be an inordinately expensive proposition: you need
> to build suitable roads, pipelines, houses for the workers to live -
> you've got to get the materials in to build the refinery.
>
> If you look at where the refineries are at the moment, there are good
> reasons for why they are where they are, because they need to be close
> enough for certain resources: engineers to run the plant, workers to
do
> the day to day operation, safety and security (fire crews, police).
You
> have to get the raw materials in and the refined product out. These go
> in and out in colossal quantities, so refineries are often in a place
> where you can get large ships into and out of. Since you have all
those
> workers now running the plant, the workers themselves need all the
other
> infrastructure to support their lives: shops, entertainment, and all
the
> other typical things you find in a city. If you want to build that in
> the middle of nowhere, you're also going to have to build a city to go
> with it and also find workers (many who need to be highly educated and
> skilled) who are prepared to work in a new city, in the middle of
> nowhere. Presumably, given your political leanings, you don't want
this
> to be the only class of people who are likely to want to do this -
> immigrants from poor countries off your southern border.
>
> Additionally, building the new city that must go with the refinery is
> going to be orders of magnitude more expensive than simply extending
an
> existing refinery, or building one where the people already live that
> doesn't turn the air green.
>
> We don't have refineries that run as unattended automatons. A refinery
> needs very close supervision because it's basically a giant bomb.
>

You'll confuse him now! You do realise he gets all his info from Fox
news, right?



Bertie

Dylan,

> If that's what you really want, are you prepared to live in an oil town?
> It's terribly easy to sit in rural Iowa and decree that oil towns should
> be cancerous armpits. Having lived in an oil town, I think the
> environmental regulations aren't tight enough.
>

Dammit, you're gonna make him lose the love for the group again.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 2008-04-10, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> It's for the adults, too. I've lived in an oil town, and even with the
> environmental regulations we have today, the sky still turns green over
> La Porte, and after flying a clean aircraft for a half hour, you land
> and there's a film of gunk adhering to the leading edges of everything.
> This is Texas City, Baytown, La Porte and most of the east side of
> Houston today, not a story from antiquity. If you're flying the ILS into
> Galveston, you can do without a marker beacon in your panel - the air
> gets a unique stench as you approach the outer marker (and for most of
> the rest of the approach). Texas City residents just have to live with
> that stench.

I lived in Houston well past my 40th birthday. I learned to fly out of
Ellington Field, and flew back and forth to Galveston to practice. I didn't
notice any of this.

I'd be happy to have a refinery in Fairmont. It won't happen, though, as the
regulatory climate in Minnesota is extremely anti-oil.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-04-10, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>>Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind from
>>>your hotel?? Didn't think so.
>>
>> Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of the
>> country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT. Of course you
>> wouldn't build a refinery in a populated area.
>
> Where are you going to get the workers?
>
> Refineries need infrastructure. If you want to build a refinery on
> vacant land it will be an inordinately expensive proposition: you need
> to build suitable roads, pipelines, houses for the workers to live -
> you've got to get the materials in to build the refinery.
>
> If you look at where the refineries are at the moment, there are good
> reasons for why they are where they are, because they need to be close
> enough for certain resources: engineers to run the plant, workers to do
> the day to day operation, safety and security (fire crews, police). You
> have to get the raw materials in and the refined product out. These go
> in and out in colossal quantities, so refineries are often in a place
> where you can get large ships into and out of. Since you have all those
> workers now running the plant, the workers themselves need all the other
> infrastructure to support their lives: shops, entertainment, and all the
> other typical things you find in a city. If you want to build that in
> the middle of nowhere, you're also going to have to build a city to go
> with it and also find workers (many who need to be highly educated and
> skilled) who are prepared to work in a new city, in the middle of
> nowhere. Presumably, given your political leanings, you don't want this
> to be the only class of people who are likely to want to do this -
> immigrants from poor countries off your southern border.
>
> Additionally, building the new city that must go with the refinery is
> going to be orders of magnitude more expensive than simply extending an
> existing refinery, or building one where the people already live that
> doesn't turn the air green.
>
> We don't have refineries that run as unattended automatons. A refinery
> needs very close supervision because it's basically a giant bomb.
>
> --
> From the sunny Isle of Man.
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Why is your argument precisely the reverse of every accepted tenet of urban
planning and development and the ripple effect of any additional skilled and
professional jobs?

Could it be that you simply have it backward?

Peter

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Dylan,
>
>> If that's what you really want, are you prepared to live in an oil town?
>> It's terribly easy to sit in rural Iowa and decree that oil towns should
>> be cancerous armpits. Having lived in an oil town, I think the
>> environmental regulations aren't tight enough.
>>
>
> Dammit, you're gonna make him lose the love for the group again.
>

ewww, the image that just conjured up...

Shudder..

Bertie

On 2008-04-10, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> I lived in Houston well past my 40th birthday. I learned to fly out of
> Ellington Field, and flew back and forth to Galveston to practice. I didn't
> notice any of this.

You must be quite unobservant. The Ellington field area is quite near
refineryland. From Houston Gulf, where I was based (until it closed
down), on a clear day looking north over Clear Lake, the air quite
obviously had a green tinge (more so if there was a temperature
inversion). The smell is very strong if you drive up to La Porte
airport past the refineries themselves. Looking south to Texas City, you
could often see a greenish haze there too, although not as dense as the
La Porte/Belaire/Baytown area. Our aircraft had a nice clean paint job
and lots of polished surfaces, the film of light brown gunk on all the
leading edges soon became noticable.

If you couldn't smell the outer marker when approaching Galveston then
you've no sense of smell or were remarkably unobservant. In League City
where I lived, when the wind was out of the north the smell of
petrochemicals was very noticable, and nearly everyone commented about
the smelly air.

Whenever I go to Houston now, the smell when you leave the terminal at
IAH is noticable, even though that's some distance away from the
main refinery areas. I never used to notice it that far out when I
actually lived there, probably because that's just how the air was and I
didn't really notice it any more.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:46:34 GMT, Jay Maynard wrote:

>On 2008-04-10, Dylan Smith > wrote:
>> It's for the adults, too. I've lived in an oil town, and even with the
>> environmental regulations we have today, the sky still turns green over
>> La Porte, and after flying a clean aircraft for a half hour, you land
>> and there's a film of gunk adhering to the leading edges of everything.
>> This is Texas City, Baytown, La Porte and most of the east side of
>> Houston today, not a story from antiquity. If you're flying the ILS into
>> Galveston, you can do without a marker beacon in your panel - the air
>> gets a unique stench as you approach the outer marker (and for most of
>> the rest of the approach). Texas City residents just have to live with
>> that stench.
>
>I lived in Houston well past my 40th birthday. I learned to fly out of
>Ellington Field, and flew back and forth to Galveston to practice. I didn't
>notice any of this.

You must have lived in the alternate universe Houston.

I was born and raised there. I vividly remember a family reunion
picnic being driven from Milby Park by the stench of a nearby chemical
plant.

Houston, despite being located on a flat plain near the ocean, is
regularly among the smoggiest cities in the U. S. L. A. at least has
the excuse of being in a basin that traps the gunk.

http://www.ewg.org/reports/fuzzyair


>I'd be happy to have a refinery in Fairmont. It won't happen, though, as the
>regulatory climate in Minnesota is extremely anti-oil.

Refiners know they can beat environmental rules by upgrading existing
plants that are "grandfathered." They don't need to build new ones.

On 2008-04-10, Peter Dohm > wrote:
> Why is your argument precisely the reverse of every accepted tenet of urban
> planning and development and the ripple effect of any additional skilled and
> professional jobs?

It isn't. Jay's solution is to build a refinery in the middle of
nowhere, which by definition has no people yet. So you're going to have
to bootstrap the process *somehow*.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On 2008-04-10, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> Our aircraft had a nice clean paint job and lots of polished surfaces, the
> film of light brown gunk on all the leading edges soon became noticable.

This wasn't an issue for any of the aircraft in the Ellington Field Aero
Club for as long as I was a member.

> If you couldn't smell the outer marker when approaching Galveston then
> you've no sense of smell or were remarkably unobservant. In League City
> where I lived, when the wind was out of the north the smell of
> petrochemicals was very noticable, and nearly everyone commented about
> the smelly air.

I, too, lived in League City (in fact, I was a volunteer paramedic there for
over a decade), and nobody commented on it in my presence.

> Whenever I go to Houston now, the smell when you leave the terminal at
> IAH is noticable, even though that's some distance away from the
> main refinery areas. I never used to notice it that far out when I
> actually lived there, probably because that's just how the air was and I
> didn't really notice it any more.

I still don't notice it, there or down in League City. I do notice it just a
little bit along Texas 225 out toward the Battleship Texas, but how many
refineries are out that way?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

On 2008-04-10, Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> If you couldn't smell the outer marker when approaching Galveston then
>> you've no sense of smell or were remarkably unobservant. In League City
>> where I lived, when the wind was out of the north the smell of
>> petrochemicals was very noticable, and nearly everyone commented about
>> the smelly air.
>
> I, too, lived in League City (in fact, I was a volunteer paramedic there for
> over a decade), and nobody commented on it in my presence.

Really? We even had a term for it - we called it "the smell of money"
whenever the wind blew from the north. Your sense of smell must be
remarkably poor.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2008-04-08, Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> Alternatives are impractical until there's a complete, comprehensive
>> distribution infrastructure in place. That'll take 20 years. There's also a
>> significant chicken-and-egg problem.
>
> Diesel from algae has the potential for 10000 usg/acre used (and is more
> of an industrial than agricultural process). So far it's not been
> developed because oil has been so cheap.
>
Sure we can. The only problem is that if say Chevron said they were
going to build a plant to do just that there would be a "Save the Algae"
protest scheduled the the next day and the environmental impact study
would take 20 years.

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> On 2008-04-10, Peter Dohm > wrote:
>> Why is your argument precisely the reverse of every accepted tenet of
>> urban planning and development and the ripple effect of any
>> additional skilled and professional jobs?
>
> It isn't. Jay's solution is to build a refinery in the middle of
> nowhere, which by definition has no people yet. So you're going to
> have to bootstrap the process *somehow*.
>


Use jay's solution to everything else. Mexican slaves



Bertie

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> On 2008-04-10, Jay Maynard > wrote:
>>> If you couldn't smell the outer marker when approaching Galveston
>>> then you've no sense of smell or were remarkably unobservant. In
>>> League City where I lived, when the wind was out of the north the
>>> smell of petrochemicals was very noticable, and nearly everyone
>>> commented about the smelly air.
>>
>> I, too, lived in League City (in fact, I was a volunteer paramedic
>> there for over a decade), and nobody commented on it in my presence.
>
> Really? We even had a term for it - we called it "the smell of money"
> whenever the wind blew from the north. Your sense of smell must be
> remarkably poor.
>

Maybe it was a virtual league city, existing solely in a computer....


Bertie

On Apr 10, 11:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dylan Smith > wrote :
>
> > On 2008-04-10, Jay Maynard > wrote:
> >>> If you couldn't smell the outer marker when approaching Galveston
> >>> then you've no sense of smell or were remarkably unobservant. In
> >>> League City where I lived, when the wind was out of the north the
> >>> smell of petrochemicals was very noticable, and nearly everyone
> >>> commented about the smelly air.
>
> >> I, too, lived in League City (in fact, I was a volunteer paramedic
> >> there for over a decade), and nobody commented on it in my presence.
>
> > Really? We even had a term for it - we called it "the smell of money"
> > whenever the wind blew from the north. Your sense of smell must be
> > remarkably poor.
>
> Maybe it was a virtual league city, existing solely in a computer....
>

Jay loves the smell of refineries in the morning. Smells like
victory!!

Phil

Jay Honeck wrote:

> I, for one, am not willing to see my kids grow up in a world that has
> been reduced to economic squalor simply to benefit a "green agenda".

That's a tenable argument, but, the antebellum south said the same thing
about slavery. If we don't have slaves, how we gonna pick cotton? If
we don't have cotton, how we gonna afford the plantation?

Even before Eastwood cheapened the expression with that stupid-ass
movie, the Marines had a simple philosophy: Adapt and overcome.

Right now we are dependent upon terrorist oil and if we tap the Alaska
oil, it'll be eight years before it gets to market. Eight years ago, we
could have tapped Alaska, OR we could have spent the trillion dollars
we're blowing giving a damn what people do in Allah-land researching and
developing alternative energy with the tenacity that we developed the
atomic bomb and the moon lander.

Sadly, we did neither. We blew our money on stocks and let our energy
and telecom conglomerate executives annihilate our economy.

What troubles me more about RIGHT NOW is that western oil dependency is
more critical than ever; our economy is suffering and it's not just
America, but everywhere. The Osama types live in caves and mud huts.
They don't need oil, but, more importantly, they get it cheap. RIGHT
NOW would be their prime opportunity to attack an oil field or a
refinery or whatever it takes to give the oil barons further excuse to
jack up oil costs (/profits) and for maximum economic impact.

Right now, more than ever, we should be stomping the **** out of the
actual ANTI-WESTERN TERRORISTS and investing hell-for-leather in
releasing what Bush rightfully called our dependence on foreign oil.

The problem is, we all squandered too much time and money in the last
decade to solve our problems, and so here we are. (I get sick of
Republicrats and liberal/conservative propagandists pointing the finger
at each other. We're all responsible. We have to do what we have to
do, green agenda or not. What we have to do is get away from oil or
we're better off going back to horses, coal and steam.)

No sacrifice that I will make in my lifetime will equal the sacrifice my
brother's comrade made in the Anbar province when an IED blew half his
face off. The IED wasn't put there by Al Queda, just a local
warlord/mayor who didn't want his porn/drugs/movie/guns smuggling racket
broken up.

The dark side of me says, let Afghanistan grow poppy like there's no
tomorrow, and get Iran, Iraq, China and North Korea strung out on heroin
like they've got us strung out on oil and cheap lead-laden imports. (and
then kill anybody who tries to smuggle it into the western hemisphere)

Meanwhile, our idealogical enemies would love to sell us a new Cessna
Skycatcher or a fake Rolex. I hear they're cheap.

-c

Nomen Nescio wrote:

>> http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed121507b.cfm
>
> You might appreciate this speech, given at the Heritage Foundation,
> entitled "How Modern Liberals Think".

I wouldn't trust Michael Moore telling me how gun owners think, or an
anti-GA group telling me how pilots think, so why would I waste 50
minutes of my life listening to some propagandist telling me how half of
America thinks?

First I heard, "Barack Hussein Osama" was a sleeper Muslim waiting to
convert us all to Islam. Then I heard he was a sleeper racist lurking
at a racist Christian church for the last 20 years. "Skerry Kerry" sat
next to Fonda, Bush was going to reinstate the draft in 2004/2005/2006,
McCain was a coward, Huckabee is a fundamentalist, blahblahblah.

We all learned along time ago not to believe everything you see on
TV/hear on the radio/read on the internet. Same as it ever was...

-c

Phil J > wrote in
:

> On Apr 10, 11:48*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dylan Smith > wrote
>> innews:slrnfvs3qo.5vi.dylan@ve
> xed3.alioth.net:
>>
>> > On 2008-04-10, Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> >>> If you couldn't smell the outer marker when approaching Galveston
>> >>> then you've no sense of smell or were remarkably unobservant. In
>> >>> League City where I lived, when the wind was out of the north the
>> >>> smell of petrochemicals was very noticable, and nearly everyone
>> >>> commented about the smelly air.
>>
>> >> I, too, lived in League City (in fact, I was a volunteer paramedic
>> >> there for over a decade), and nobody commented on it in my
>> >> presence.
>>
>> > Really? We even had a term for it - we called it "the smell of
>> > money" whenever the wind blew from the north. Your sense of smell
>> > must be remarkably poor.
>>
>> Maybe it was a virtual league city, existing solely in a computer....
>>
>
> Jay loves the smell of refineries in the morning. Smells like
> victory!!
>

I used to have to drive past one daily. Ech! Smells like ****.

Bertie

F. Baum wrote:

> Jay, Ill try to get things a little more on topic. The airport where I
> keep one of my airplanes is run almost entirely on Solar power (There
> is a small diesel engine for the well)

This is a brilliant example of the right idea. Germany has turned
solar-cell development into a national project similar to the way they
built metal-skin monowing fighter--I mean, uh, "race"--aircraft when
everbody else was still putzing around in bi-planes.

The multi-wavelength cells are taking solar energy out of the '70s and
back-shelf Radio Shack hobby kits where the rest of the world abandoned
it and turning it into something.

Maybe we'll never get the internal combustion engine out of the general
aviation aircraft or the tractor-trailer, but if we get Guam to stop
burning diesel 24/7 for power (for example) and we find alternative ways
to fuel -other- things where we can, we'll lessen the burden on that
which truly requires oil.

Maybe that will be enough to get us by until we develop a better way to
push a piston. In the meantime, a whole economy can and will be built
around alternative energy including solar, hydrogen, lithium ion, corn,
beets, sugar, uranium, offshore wave energy, etc. It will take a
generation of people willing to think out of the box the way the Wright
Brothers did before we're free again.

-c

> A bigger reason that new oil refineries aren't being built, as well as
> nuclear waste facilities, is that no one wants one near his playground.
> Everyone wants a new refinery in someone else's backyard.

Yep. A case in point was San Jose when the new Cisco plant went in.
Sure it caused brownouts, but when it came time for a new power plant,
the Cisco people in city planning argued that a power plant in their
backyard would ruin the view for the workers at the factory.

As a result of that and the Enron shenanigans, electricity rates in
Oregon went through the roof. And, by the way, haven't come down since.

Nevada keeps talking about burying the entire world's nuclear waste in
the Nevada test site where nothing lives and nobody goes, but California
NIMBYs don't want a nuke railroad running through their state.

-c

On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, gatt > wrote:
> > A bigger reason that new oil refineries aren't being built, as well as
> > nuclear waste facilities, is that no one wants one near his playground.
> > Everyone wants a new refinery in someone else's backyard.
>
> Yep. A case in point was San Jose when the new Cisco plant went in.
> Sure it caused brownouts, but when it came time for a new power plant,
> the Cisco people in city planning argued that a power plant in their
> backyard would ruin the view for the workers at the factory.
>
> As a result of that and the Enron shenanigans, electricity rates in
> Oregon went through the roof. And, by the way, haven't come down since.
>
> Nevada keeps talking about burying the entire world's nuclear waste in
> the Nevada test site where nothing lives and nobody goes, but California
> NIMBYs don't want a nuke railroad running through their state.
> -c

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Has them arabs worried.
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Apr 10, 1:42 pm, gatt > wrote:
>> > A bigger reason that new oil refineries aren't being built, as well
>> > as nuclear waste facilities, is that no one wants one near his
>> > playground. Everyone wants a new refinery in someone else's
>> > backyard.
>>
>> Yep. A case in point was San Jose when the new Cisco plant went in.
>> Sure it caused brownouts, but when it came time for a new power
>> plant, the Cisco people in city planning argued that a power plant in
>> their backyard would ruin the view for the workers at the factory.
>>
>> As a result of that and the Enron shenanigans, electricity rates in
>> Oregon went through the roof. And, by the way, haven't come down
>> since.
>>
>> Nevada keeps talking about burying the entire world's nuclear waste
>> in the Nevada test site where nothing lives and nobody goes, but
>> California NIMBYs don't want a nuke railroad running through their
>> state. -c
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
> Has them arabs worried.
> Ken
>

Good grief.

Bertie

On Apr 10, 3:42*pm, gatt > wrote:
> > A bigger reason that new oil refineries aren't being built, as well as
> > nuclear waste facilities, is that no one wants one near his playground.
> > Everyone wants a new refinery in someone else's backyard.
>
> Yep. *A case in point was San Jose when the new Cisco plant went in.
> Sure it caused brownouts, but when it came time for a new power plant,
> the Cisco people in city planning argued that a power plant in their
> backyard would ruin the view for the workers at the factory.
>
> As a result of that and the Enron shenanigans, electricity rates in
> Oregon went through the roof. *And, by the way, haven't come down since.
>
> Nevada keeps talking about burying the entire world's nuclear waste in
> the Nevada test site where nothing lives and nobody goes, but California
> NIMBYs don't want a nuke railroad running through their state.
>

A majority of people in Nevada absolutely do not want the Yucca
Mountain site to become active. They feel that the rest of the
country is trying to cram this thing down their throats, and they
resent it.

Phil

Phil J wrote:

>
> A majority of people in Nevada absolutely do not want the Yucca
> Mountain site to become active. They feel that the rest of the
> country is trying to cram this thing down their throats, and they
> resent it.
>
> Phil

Absolutely correct, and Utah doesn't want that stuff going through its
state on the way to Nevada either. Save transportation costs and bury it
in Iowa.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>>> Diesel from algae has the potential for 10000 usg/acre used (and is
>>> more of an industrial than agricultural process). So far it's not been
>>> developed because oil has been so cheap.
>>
>>
>>
>> Really? Haven't heard anything at all of this process.. I'll have to
>> have a look around unless you can shortcut me to somewhere ...
>
>
> http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
>
No time to study it next week, but this sort of thing has a way of including
a decimal point in the wrong place. It could still be a very good and
economically viable idea; just not a solution to 100% of the requirement.
That can also be a good thing, because a single source of amost anything is
a risky proposition.

Peter

Alan wrote:
> In article > Phil J > writes:
>
>> Apparently you have never flown over this country at night. When I
>> have, I have looked down at thousands of lights, everywhere. Other
>> than the mountains, there are not very many areas that are not
>> populated.
>
> Aha, back to AVIATION!!!
>
> Flying at night is wonderful, but you must be from the east, since
> night or day, much of Nevada and Utah looks pretty abandoned.

Most of eastern Washington and Oregon, too. I prefer it that way,
except on those night cross countries when the fuel needles are bouncing
around or there are thunderstorms developing all around.

-c

Phil J wrote:

>
> A majority of people in Nevada absolutely do not want the Yucca
> Mountain site to become active. They feel that the rest of the
> country is trying to cram this thing down their throats, and they
> resent it.

Rumor was (I had friends there who moved back to Oregon from Vegas
because the hated it) that it would radically reduce taxes for Nevada
residents if they charged the world to stow it's nuclear waste.

And it ain't like Nevada citizens haven't been radiated before. :/

It doesn't have to be Nevada. They could put it in downtown LA for what
most of the west coast cares. Berkeley would be a fair compromise.

-c

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2008-04-09, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> I'm curious how they are getting 110 volts for your outlets. I thought that
>> was unattainable with current (sorry!) technology.
>
> It's been attainable to get 110vac from DC probably for the best part of
> a century or more. The magic device is called an inverter.
>
> I have a little solar photovoltaic panel on my shed roof for powering the
> electric stuff in the garden, like lighting, pond pump etc. It currently
> has 3 outlets - 12 volt DC, 6 volt DC (a DC-DC converter I built myself
> for charging 6 volt lead acid batteries, for use with my bike), and 240
> volts AC off an inverter.

But how useful is 10 microA at 240V? :-)

Matt

On Apr 10, 4:50*pm, romeomike > wrote:
> Phil J wrote:
>
> > A majority of people in Nevada absolutely do not want the Yucca
> > Mountain site to become active. *They feel that the rest of the
> > country is trying to cram this thing down their throats, and they
> > resent it.
>
> > Phil
>
> Absolutely correct, and Utah doesn't want that stuff going through its
> state on the way to Nevada either. Save transportation costs and bury it
> in Iowa.

The Alexis Park Inn and Nuculer Waste Storage Suites. Kinda has a
ring to it!

Phil

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
>Has them arabs worried.


Haw-haw!

Idiot.

Phil J wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:50 pm, romeomike > wrote:
>> Phil J wrote:
>>
>>> A majority of people in Nevada absolutely do not want the Yucca
>>> Mountain site to become active. They feel that the rest of the
>>> country is trying to cram this thing down their throats, and they
>>> resent it.
>>> Phil
>> Absolutely correct, and Utah doesn't want that stuff going through its
>> state on the way to Nevada either. Save transportation costs and bury it
>> in Iowa.
>
> The Alexis Park Inn and Nuculer Waste Storage Suites. Kinda has a
> ring to it!
>
> Phil

Yeah, but they need a refinery first. but you know, ..."those who live
by the sword, die by the sword." But those evil environmentalists will
probably save him.

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:PpeLj.27077$KJ1.10288
> @newsfe19.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:GKdLj.65016$y05.28316
>>> @newsfe22.lga:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>>>>> news:qcdLj.60058$TT4.34792@attbi_s22:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind
>>> from
>>>>>>>your hotel?? Didn't think so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of
>>> the
>>>>>> country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT.
>>>>>
>>>>> On that basis we should build it inside your head.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> And you offer this pointless tid bit because you have no point, or
>>> don't
>>>> understand the issue, or both?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just being constructive.
>>>
>>>
>>> 865
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> 73
>>
>>
>>
>
> 92
>
>
> Bertie

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:EtzLj.59112$yk5.51434
@newsfe18.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:PpeLj.27077$KJ1.10288
>> @newsfe19.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:GKdLj.65016$y05.28316
>>>> @newsfe22.lga:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>>>>>> news:qcdLj.60058$TT4.34792@attbi_s22:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built
upwind
>>>> from
>>>>>>>>your hotel?? Didn't think so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most
of
>>>> the
>>>>>>> country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On that basis we should build it inside your head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> And you offer this pointless tid bit because you have no point, or
>>>> don't
>>>>> understand the issue, or both?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just being constructive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 865
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> 73
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 92
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
>

Poor poor Maxie....




Bertie

On Apr 10, 8:35*pm, romeomike > wrote:
> Phil J wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 4:50 pm, romeomike > wrote:
> >> Phil J wrote:
>
> >>> A majority of people in Nevada absolutely do not want the Yucca
> >>> Mountain site to become active. *They feel that the rest of the
> >>> country is trying to cram this thing down their throats, and they
> >>> resent it.
> >>> Phil
> >> Absolutely correct, and Utah doesn't want that stuff going through its
> >> state on the way to Nevada either. Save transportation costs and bury it
> >> in Iowa.
>
> > The Alexis Park Inn and Nuculer Waste Storage Suites. *Kinda has a
> > ring to it!
>
> > Phil
>
> Yeah, but they need a refinery first. but you know, ..."those who live
> by the sword, die by the sword." But those evil environmentalists will
> probably save him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The Alexis Park Inn and Nuculer Waste Storage Suites.
Read our customers' glowing reviews!

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:EtzLj.59112$yk5.51434
> @newsfe18.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:PpeLj.27077$KJ1.10288
>>> @newsfe19.lga:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>> .. .
>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:GKdLj.65016$y05.28316
>>>>> @newsfe22.lga:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>>>>>>> news:qcdLj.60058$TT4.34792@attbi_s22:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built
> upwind
>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>your hotel?? Didn't think so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most
> of
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On that basis we should build it inside your head.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you offer this pointless tid bit because you have no point, or
>>>>> don't
>>>>>> understand the issue, or both?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just being constructive.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 865
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> 73
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 92
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>>
>>
>
> Poor poor Maxie....
>
>
>
>
> Bertie

Phil J wrote:
> On Apr 10, 8:35 pm, romeomike > wrote:
>> Phil J wrote:
>>> On Apr 10, 4:50 pm, romeomike > wrote:
>>>> Phil J wrote:
>>>>> A majority of people in Nevada absolutely do not want the Yucca
>>>>> Mountain site to become active. They feel that the rest of the
>>>>> country is trying to cram this thing down their throats, and they
>>>>> resent it.
>>>>> Phil
>>>> Absolutely correct, and Utah doesn't want that stuff going through its
>>>> state on the way to Nevada either. Save transportation costs and bury it
>>>> in Iowa.
>>> The Alexis Park Inn and Nuculer Waste Storage Suites. Kinda has a
>>> ring to it!
>>> Phil
>> Yeah, but they need a refinery first. but you know, ..."those who live
>> by the sword, die by the sword." But those evil environmentalists will
>> probably save him.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The Alexis Park Inn and Nuculer Waste Storage Suites.
> Read our customers' glowing reviews!
>

Soak up some rays by the pool! Enjoy aroma therapy on our patio!
Moisturize you skin in our sludge ponds! Avoid surgery, sterilization by
gamma rays!... Endless potential attractions to increase business.

"Dylan Smith" > wrote

> Technology to make AC from DC, DC from AC, high voltage DC from low
> voltage DC and all the combinations has existed for decades. It's very
> basic stuff. I've made 1000 volts DC from 12 volts DC. It's not even
> hard to do.

Right, not hard; just expensive and inefficient as hell, and in some cases,
almost unusable.

Most of the home level inverters are what they call "modified sine wave"
inverters. All that says is that the innards of the inverter cut the power
on and off rapidly, so if you read the voltage, it rises and falls in a
choppy square notched "sort-a-looks-like-a-sine-wave" if you squint real
hard.

The more sophisticated ones are more than three times the cost, which makes
them very expensive.

The modified sine wave converters will power most stuff without permanent
damage, but don't try to use your DeWalt cordless drill battery charger.
Anything that reads like a high voltage until you put the load on it will
fry, and it says so in the inverter's instructions, if you take the time to
read the fine print. Don't ask me how I know that.

They also put out a good bit of heat, and guess what. That heat is power
going out the window, in a big efficiency loss. Oh, and don't try to power
a refrigerator, or AC, unless you really want to see a big time efficiency
hit. They don't work very well, at all.

So, the long and short is that if you are using battery or Solar DC, you had
better be using as many DC units as at all possible, or your batteries will
not last very darn long.

I'm not against Solar, but everyone needs to know the limitations of doing
so. You need a specially designed system using mostly straight DC, or lots
of money, if you expect to get much useful power out of the system.
--
Jim in NC
--
Jim in NC

On Apr 10, 6:07 pm, Dan Luke > wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
> >Has them arabs worried.
>
> Haw-haw!

Get a mirror and check out your anus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Composition
Dofus you think all that methane is from dinosaur
farts?
Earth's loaded with "fossil fuels", but you don't
need to know that, because you'd rather be a
sucker.
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:0228d370-e42f-4ee4-
:

> On Apr 10, 6:07 pm, Dan Luke > wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
>> >Has them arabs worried.
>>
>> Haw-haw!
>
> Get a mirror and check out your anus.

I think you got the wrong group for that Kennie.


Bertie

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:16BLj.65627$y05.26375
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:EtzLj.59112$yk5.51434
>> @newsfe18.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:PpeLj.27077$KJ1.10288
>>>> @newsfe19.lga:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>>> .. .
>>>>>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:GKdLj.65016
$y05.28316
>>>>>> @newsfe22.lga:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:qcdLj.60058$TT4.34792@attbi_s22:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built
>> upwind
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>your hotel?? Didn't think so.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over
most
>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On that basis we should build it inside your head.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you offer this pointless tid bit because you have no point,
or
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> understand the issue, or both?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just being constructive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 865
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> 73
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 92
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Poor poor Maxie....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
>

And he doesn't even know...


Poor maxie.

Bertie

On Apr 11, 12:30*am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:

> Agreed.
> I believe nothing because someone says so.
> But, I listen to everything.
> Once in a while, I learn something.
> Other times, it's a matter of "know your enemy". ie. Bowling for Colombine,
> which I've seen in it's entirety. And I certainly wouldn't comment on it until
> I actually saw it.
> I rented Algore's "propaganda", also, before I felt I could comment on it.
>
> I've also learned that anyone who thinks they know everything about
> something they've never seen is probably an idiot and always will be.
>
> The video link I posted offers what I think is a rational hypothesis for
> some of the seemingly irrational thinking that has permeated politics,
> lately.
> Not saying I buy it, but I found it worth considering.
>
> I may be wrong about a lot of things. But, unlike a lot of people, I actually
> TRY to be right.
>

On behalf of everyone on this group, I want to thank you for making
clear just what an exceptional human being you are. You are a shining
example for us all.

Phil

Morgans > wrote:

> "Dylan Smith" > wrote

> > Technology to make AC from DC, DC from AC, high voltage DC from low
> > voltage DC and all the combinations has existed for decades. It's very
> > basic stuff. I've made 1000 volts DC from 12 volts DC. It's not even
> > hard to do.

> Right, not hard; just expensive and inefficient as hell, and in some cases,
> almost unusable.

> Most of the home level inverters are what they call "modified sine wave"
> inverters. All that says is that the innards of the inverter cut the power
> on and off rapidly, so if you read the voltage, it rises and falls in a
> choppy square notched "sort-a-looks-like-a-sine-wave" if you squint real
> hard.

> The more sophisticated ones are more than three times the cost, which makes
> them very expensive.

> The modified sine wave converters will power most stuff without permanent
> damage, but don't try to use your DeWalt cordless drill battery charger.
> Anything that reads like a high voltage until you put the load on it will
> fry, and it says so in the inverter's instructions, if you take the time to
> read the fine print. Don't ask me how I know that.

> They also put out a good bit of heat, and guess what. That heat is power
> going out the window, in a big efficiency loss. Oh, and don't try to power
> a refrigerator, or AC, unless you really want to see a big time efficiency
> hit. They don't work very well, at all.

> So, the long and short is that if you are using battery or Solar DC, you had
> better be using as many DC units as at all possible, or your batteries will
> not last very darn long.

> I'm not against Solar, but everyone needs to know the limitations of doing
> so. You need a specially designed system using mostly straight DC, or lots
> of money, if you expect to get much useful power out of the system.
> --

You do realize that most computer rooms and some entire buildings
have battery backup and huge inverters for power failure protection?

These are true sine wave inverters, are quite efficient, regulated, and
phase synchronized to the grid so switchover is transparent.

However, you are correct about the cheap Chinese junk you get at places
like Pep Boys; they put out crap wave forms, are inefficient, and
seldom have regulated outputs.

And you are correct about the cost; decent inverters cost a lot more
than the junk.

There is no potential technology to lower the cost of such inverters
other than economies of scale, and the installation and maintenance
cost of such inverters is usually ignored by solar energy proponents.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Phil J" wrote:

>>
>> I may be wrong about a lot of things. But, unlike a
>> lot of people, I actuall TRY to be right.
>>

> On behalf of everyone on this group, I want to
> thank you for making clear just what an
> exceptional human being you are. You are a
> shining example for us all.

I'm in awe.

Isn't it humbling to be in the presence of such integrity?



--
Dan

"Shut up! Shut up!"
- Bill O'Reilly

On Apr 11, 11:40*am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Phil J >
>
> >On behalf of everyone on this group, I want to thank you for making
> >clear just what an exceptional human being you are. *You are a shining
> >example for us all.
>
> >Phil
>
> Thank you for the compliment.
> When I become Supreme Dictator, your death will be quick and painless.

Well thanks! I appreciate that as I am really hoping to avoid a slow,
painful death. By the way, you might want to re-post your original
message such that it isn't removed in 6 days. That way future
generations can bask in the warm glow of your greatness.

Phil

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> I'm curious how they are getting 110 volts for your outlets. I
> thought that was unattainable with current (sorry!) technology.

Go to www.amazon.com and enter "inverter" in their search field. You should
see dozens of products that plug into an automobile lighter outlet and
convert 12V DC to 110V AC (some up to 700 W). I have one in my car for use
on long trips (e.g. to recharge camera batteries, etc.) Most under $50.

gatt schrieb:
> Germany has turned
> solar-cell development into a national project similar to (...)

uhm, I wouldn't call it a national project, but it is recognised as a
serious industry.

#m

On 2008-04-11, > wrote:
> These are true sine wave inverters, are quite efficient, regulated, and
> phase synchronized to the grid so switchover is transparent.

You can also get small UPSs with decent inverters, and they aren't
overly expensive.

But all this misses the point, the point was Jay believed it was
impossible to get 110vac with current technology, which is demonstrably
untrue (and has been untrue for decades).

Inverters and DC-DC converters don't need to be inefficient either, I've
not built my own inverters yet, but I've built a switch mode DC-DC
converter out of dirt cheap parts (CMOS 555, a handful of discrete
components including a chunky power FET, and a home made inductor) which
pushed 90% efficiency.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> On 2008-04-11, >
> wrote:
>> These are true sine wave inverters, are quite efficient, regulated,
>> and phase synchronized to the grid so switchover is transparent.
>
> You can also get small UPSs with decent inverters, and they aren't
> overly expensive.
>
> But all this misses the point, the point was Jay believed it was
> impossible to get 110vac with current technology, which is
> demonstrably untrue (and has been untrue for decades).

Many many decades. About 14 of them, to be precise. Inverters were
commonplace on large aircraft even in the 1930s and on ships before that.
These were all motor T/Rs, of course.
And ol Nikola Tesla would have been lost without them....



Bertie





Bertie

Martin Hotze wrote:
> gatt schrieb:
>> Germany has turned solar-cell development into a national project
>> similar to (...)
>
> uhm, I wouldn't call it a national project, but it is recognised as a
> serious industry.

Thanks for the correction. Still, it's better then what the entire
United States of America has developed to date. Was a time when
Americans looked at what Germany did and said "We can do it better."

Now they look at what Germany is doing and say "Well, good for them."

Daimler recently bought Freightliner. According to a friend there, all
Daimler managers will be receiving a new Mercedes. Either they're
crushing US vehicle makers or they're crazy. ('Course, they're Germans
so it could go either way. ;> )

-c

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> I'm curious how they are getting 110 volts for your outlets. I thought
> that was unattainable with current (sorry!) technology.

I don't know about the state of technology in the USA, but here in
Europe I've had a 220V inverter in my car 20 years ago, and it wasn't
exactly cutting edge technology then. Oh, and the artificial horizon I
have in my glider (yes, for cloud flying) runs on 3x115V 400Hz
three-phase AC, powered by the 12V battery pack.

The hilarious part of your post is that you think you're qualified to
comment about scientific and technologic research while you don't even
have the dimmest idea of such really basic stuff. As much as I detest
the posts of Bertie, he is right when he says that you don't have a clue.

Stefan > wrote in news:77e24$47ffcc7a$54497ef5
:

> Jay Honeck schrieb:
>
>> I'm curious how they are getting 110 volts for your outlets. I
thought
>> that was unattainable with current (sorry!) technology.
>
> I don't know about the state of technology in the USA, but here in
> Europe I've had a 220V inverter in my car 20 years ago, and it wasn't
> exactly cutting edge technology then. Oh, and the artificial horizon I
> have in my glider (yes, for cloud flying) runs on 3x115V 400Hz
> three-phase AC, powered by the 12V battery pack.
>
> The hilarious part of your post is that you think you're qualified to
> comment about scientific and technologic research while you don't even
> have the dimmest idea of such really basic stuff. As much as I detest
> the posts of Bertie, he is right when he says that you don't have a
clue.
>

Awww, I feel all warm and fuzzy inside!


Bertie

gatt schrieb:

> Thanks for the correction. Still, it's better then what the entire
> United States of America has developed to date. Was a time when
> Americans looked at what Germany did and said "We can do it better."

Wasn't it: "Our Germans are better than their Germans"? :-)

gatt > wrote in news:sOWdnaMwC-
0AVmLanZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@integraonline:

> Martin Hotze wrote:
>> gatt schrieb:
>>> Germany has turned solar-cell development into a national project
>>> similar to (...)
>>
>> uhm, I wouldn't call it a national project, but it is recognised as a
>> serious industry.
>
> Thanks for the correction. Still, it's better then what the entire
> United States of America has developed to date. Was a time when
> Americans looked at what Germany did and said "We can do it better."

I can't think of many instances where that's happened. In the motor
industry, for instance, what German car is the basis for something
America did better? Mind you, Germans aren't too good at copying things
and making a sucess of them either. I get to see German MTV, for
instance. holy ****.



Bertie

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> I'm curious how they are getting 110 volts for your outlets. I
>> thought that was unattainable with current (sorry!) technology.
>
> Go to www.amazon.com and enter "inverter" in their search field. You
> should
> see dozens of products that plug into an automobile lighter outlet and
> convert 12V DC to 110V AC (some up to 700 W). I have one in my car for use
> on long trips (e.g. to recharge camera batteries, etc.) Most under $50.

Be very careful what you plug into these things. They are not true sine
wave, and are unregulated, and WILL fry things like cordless tool battery
chargers. DAMHIKT.
--
Jim in NC

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
\
>> Thanks for the correction. Still, it's better then what the entire
>> United States of America has developed to date. Was a time when
>> Americans looked at what Germany did and said "We can do it better."
>
> I can't think of many instances where that's happened. In the motor
> industry, for instance, what German car is the basis for something
> America did better?

Ah, I was thinking of that dip**** nazi-wannabe over in r.a.m. and was
thinking of the P-51 Mustang. My dad's Porsche was a real P.O.S., but,
man, what a ride!

>Mind you, Germans aren't too good at copying things
> and making a sucess of them either. I get to see German MTV, for
> instance. holy ****.

LOL! I've experienced that myself. I never thought I'd see afro-German
gansta-rap. WTF?!

"And now it's time for another episode of Germany's Most Distuuuurbing
Home Videos" -Dieter/Sprockets

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:10:05 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio wrote:


>Perhaps you can educate me on a concept that I just don't understand.
>Why do idiots, such as MX and yourself, take such pride in being idiots?

You mean you can't even understand concepts you make up yourself?

How sad is that?

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message ...
> Stefan > wrote in news:77e24$47ffcc7a$54497ef5
> :
>
>> Jay Honeck schrieb:
>>
>>> I'm curious how they are getting 110 volts for your outlets. I
> thought
>>> that was unattainable with current (sorry!) technology.
>>
>> I don't know about the state of technology in the USA, but here in
>> Europe I've had a 220V inverter in my car 20 years ago, and it wasn't
>> exactly cutting edge technology then. Oh, and the artificial horizon I
>> have in my glider (yes, for cloud flying) runs on 3x115V 400Hz
>> three-phase AC, powered by the 12V battery pack.
>>
>> The hilarious part of your post is that you think you're qualified to
>> comment about scientific and technologic research while you don't even
>> have the dimmest idea of such really basic stuff. As much as I detest
>> the posts of Bertie, he is right when he says that you don't have a
> clue.
>>
>
> Awww, I feel all warm and fuzzy inside!
>
>
> Bertie
>

It's that 400 hz rush?

"Blueskies" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Stefan > wrote in
>> news:77e24$47ffcc7a$54497ef5 :
>>
>>> Jay Honeck schrieb:
>>>
>>>> I'm curious how they are getting 110 volts for your outlets. I
>> thought
>>>> that was unattainable with current (sorry!) technology.
>>>
>>> I don't know about the state of technology in the USA, but here in
>>> Europe I've had a 220V inverter in my car 20 years ago, and it
>>> wasn't exactly cutting edge technology then. Oh, and the artificial
>>> horizon I have in my glider (yes, for cloud flying) runs on 3x115V
>>> 400Hz three-phase AC, powered by the 12V battery pack.
>>>
>>> The hilarious part of your post is that you think you're qualified
>>> to comment about scientific and technologic research while you don't
>>> even have the dimmest idea of such really basic stuff. As much as I
>>> detest the posts of Bertie, he is right when he says that you don't
>>> have a
>> clue.
>>>
>>
>> Awww, I feel all warm and fuzzy inside!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> It's that 400 hz rush?
>
>
>

Uh, OK. That what you get when you stick your fingers behind the panel?

Bertie

gatt > wrote in
news:4sGdnffb6uiuRWLanZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@integraonlin e:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> \
>>> Thanks for the correction. Still, it's better then what the entire
>>> United States of America has developed to date. Was a time when
>>> Americans looked at what Germany did and said "We can do it better."
>>
>> I can't think of many instances where that's happened. In the motor
>> industry, for instance, what German car is the basis for something
>> America did better?
>
> Ah, I was thinking of that dip**** nazi-wannabe over in r.a.m. and was
> thinking of the P-51 Mustang. My dad's Porsche was a real P.O.S.,
but,
> man, what a ride!

As compared to what, a Corvette? Last one of those I drove was like
driving an overpowered paddling pool.
>
>>Mind you, Germans aren't too good at copying things
>> and making a sucess of them either. I get to see German MTV, for
>> instance. holy ****.
>
> LOL! I've experienced that myself. I never thought I'd see afro-
German
> gansta-rap. WTF?!
>
> "And now it's time for another episode of Germany's Most Distuuuurbing
> Home Videos" -Dieter/Sprockets
>

They really are pretty scary....


Bertie

gatt schrieb:

> Daimler recently bought Freightliner. According to a friend there, all
> Daimler managers will be receiving a new Mercedes. Either they're
> crushing US vehicle makers or they're crazy. ('Course, they're Germans
> so it could go either way. ;> )

nah, it's a cheap (for them) way for binding them to the company and
make them show identification with the company. And it also let them
talk about their company at meetings: 'look, this Benz was for free
because I work for Freightliner'. And a Mercedes is still a prestige object.

> -c

#m