Aviation fuel - price of crude...

[kontiki]

Up above $53/barrel now.... Can we *puhleeeze* start developing our own oil
in Alaska; off the coast of Calif. and the gulf now??? Or should we just
keep on doing what we are doing ... nothing... in total denial and keep paying
out the anal cavity to other countries.

In my opinion it is way past time to start developing our own oil here at home.
Put Americans to work and help our own economy at the same time and reduce
the trade deficit while we are at it. And why not start building a few more
nuclear power plants to replace some aging fossil fuel plants????

But NO.... if the environmentalists have their way we'll be paying $20
a gallon for gas (GA will no longer exist) and we'll be reminiscing over
some ripped and out of date sectionals by candlelight.

[Peter Duniho]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> But NO.... if the environmentalists have their way we'll be paying $20
> a gallon for gas (GA will no longer exist) and we'll be reminiscing over
> some ripped and out of date sectionals by candlelight.

Not to worry. We'll never have to pay $20/gallon for gas. After all, don't
you remember? As a self-professed expert posted right here, oil will never
cost more than $60/barrel. According to that guy, we're nearly done --
forever -- with price increases for oil.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=230120032152392585%25lg-remove-harris%40xmission.com

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> kontiki > wrote:

> Can we *puhleeeze* start developing our own oil
> in Alaska; off the coast of Calif. and the gulf now???

Correct me if I am wrong but I do believe that one of the areas that
your country has repeatedly turned down is the states that contain
shale oil.

Up here in Northern Alberta (Canada) we have huge amounts of what is
called tarsands where the oil is held in suspension in sand. This is
similar to which you have in some of the lower 48 states

It's black, oily, hard as rock and that's in the summertime.

You ought to see the equipment, and technology needed to extract the oil
especially in the middle of winter.

When our government first allowed development years ago when the price
of a barrel of oil was much lower it was very difficult with technology
and costs at that time for the companies to make a profit.

Now 30 years later, with new technology, and yes oil being worth much
more per barrel the companies are able to make money with that process.

There have been numerous politicians including governors from oil shale
producing states that have come up to see for themselves how it works
but to date I don't believe any State in the US is actually mining it
in any way shape or form... correct me if I am wrong.

Here in Northern Alberta we probably are supplying about 15 - 20
percent of our daily Canadian consumption and it is generally agreed
that the reserves in oil are far greater than that of Saudi Arabia plus
a few other smaller oil producing countries.

There are lots of start up operations currently in the area testing the
methadology, market, etc. but the two links below will take you to the
two large companies that have been in existance now for many years.


http://www.syncrude.com/

http://www.suncor.com/start.aspx

[kontiki]

You are quite correct... thanks for the response. There are extensive
oil shale reserves over and above that liquid stuff we have in areas
of Alaska and off the coasts.

Nothing will be done however until we can eliminate the naysayers...
those who continually raise the argument that "our reserves are not
as big as Saudi Arabia's so why even bother?. Lets all just get used
to conserving and doing without (except politicians of course) and
someday [maybe] we'll have alternative forms..."

Using that logic the vast majority of people can argue that they will
never, ever have the vast monetary reserves that John Kerry or Oprah
Winfrey have (to name a few) so why even bother to work hard and try
to make more money??? Lets just all give up... plan to live simpler
lives, go barefoot and ride bikes like other 3rd world countries and
just shut up and vote for John Kerry and be happy about it.

Well apparently thousands of illegal immigrants a day come here for
a better life than they have in their country so I guess they haven't
gotten the message yet.

[Gig Giacona]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Up above $53/barrel now.... Can we *puhleeeze* start developing our own
> oil
> in Alaska; off the coast of Calif. and the gulf now??? Or should we
> just
> keep on doing what we are doing ... nothing... in total denial and keep
> paying
> out the anal cavity to other countries.
>
> In my opinion it is way past time to start developing our own oil here at
> home.
> Put Americans to work and help our own economy at the same time and reduce
> the trade deficit while we are at it. And why not start building a few
> more
> nuclear power plants to replace some aging fossil fuel plants????
>
> But NO.... if the environmentalists have their way we'll be paying $20
> a gallon for gas (GA will no longer exist) and we'll be reminiscing over
> some ripped and out of date sectionals by candlelight.
>

We we could and it is a great idea to pay the $53/barrel to ourselves
instead of others BUT the problem remains that all of the refineries just
about everywhere are a 100% cap right now.

We need to build more refineries and you can blame the lack of them on the
Envirowacks.

[Bob Fry]

kontiki > writes:

> Up above $53/barrel now.... Can we *puhleeeze* start developing our own oil
> in Alaska; off the coast of Calif. and the gulf now??? Or should we just
> keep on doing what we are doing ... nothing... in total denial and keep paying
> out the anal cavity to other countries.

Sure. While we're at it, can we *puhleeeze* have a rational energy
policy that includes conservation, like raising CAFE standards? How
about encouraging solar energy panels for homes, especially in the
Southwest (Calif-Nevada-Ariz-NM-Texas-Col) via tax incentives? How
about dropping bogus political distractions like hydrogen for cars,
which is simply another *form* of energy, *not* new energy?

This country developed the atom bomb and sent men to the moon when it
wanted to...if we elect politicians with real honesty and courage, we
can *easily* do it again and become energy independent of the
middle-east.

[John T]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message

>
> Sure. While we're at it, can we *puhleeeze* have a rational energy
> policy that includes conservation, like raising CAFE standards?

I'm all for a rational energy policy, but how does imposing MPG standards on
manufacturers achieve those goals? Why not let the market decide? As shown
by the waiting list for the latest generation of hybrid cars, there is pent
up demand for high mileage cars and the major manufacturers are responding
to that demand.

As a rule, the less government intervention, the better.

> How
> about encouraging solar energy panels for homes, especially in the
> Southwest (Calif-Nevada-Ariz-NM-Texas-Col) via tax incentives?

How about just a flat Federal income tax? I local jurisdictions want to
provide tax breaks, more power to them.

> How
> about dropping bogus political distractions like hydrogen for cars,
> which is simply another *form* of energy, *not* new energy?

Um...what "new energy", for example?

FWIW, I like the excitement about hydrogen. It may turn out to be
completely infeasible, but at least it's getting people to think beyond the
status quo.

> This country developed the atom bomb and sent men to the moon when it
> wanted to...if we elect politicians with real honesty and courage, we
> can *easily* do it again and become energy independent of the
> middle-east.

Agreed.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

It does not really matte guys, with the Kyoto Protocol going into effect
soon, the world with have to dramatically cut down on production of harmful
gases. Don't worry about the cost of gas it will be a null point when it is
not needed to drive the us population to work everyday.

You also have to think of the point of technology and the way the world
works. Look at the Internal combustion engine and the incredible
in-efficient way it burns fuel. We must ask ourselves why have we not come
up with better technologies? Mr. Big oil doesn't like it.


"John T" > wrote in message
news:1097205380.tfcDDVgHhsNXJeJEYLKL8g@bubbanews.. .
> "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> Sure. While we're at it, can we *puhleeeze* have a rational energy
>> policy that includes conservation, like raising CAFE standards?
>
> I'm all for a rational energy policy, but how does imposing MPG standards
> on manufacturers achieve those goals? Why not let the market decide? As
> shown by the waiting list for the latest generation of hybrid cars, there
> is pent up demand for high mileage cars and the major manufacturers are
> responding to that demand.
>
> As a rule, the less government intervention, the better.
>
>> How
>> about encouraging solar energy panels for homes, especially in the
>> Southwest (Calif-Nevada-Ariz-NM-Texas-Col) via tax incentives?
>
> How about just a flat Federal income tax? I local jurisdictions want to
> provide tax breaks, more power to them.
>
>> How
>> about dropping bogus political distractions like hydrogen for cars,
>> which is simply another *form* of energy, *not* new energy?
>
> Um...what "new energy", for example?
>
> FWIW, I like the excitement about hydrogen. It may turn out to be
> completely infeasible, but at least it's getting people to think beyond
> the status quo.
>
>> This country developed the atom bomb and sent men to the moon when it
>> wanted to...if we elect politicians with real honesty and courage, we
>> can *easily* do it again and become energy independent of the
>> middle-east.
>
> Agreed.
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> ____________________
>
>

"John T" > wrote in message
news:1097205380.tfcDDVgHhsNXJeJEYLKL8g@bubbanews.. .
> "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> Sure. While we're at it, can we *puhleeeze* have a rational energy
>> policy that includes conservation, like raising CAFE standards?
>
> I'm all for a rational energy policy, but how does imposing MPG standards
> on manufacturers achieve those goals? Why not let the market decide? As
> shown by the waiting list for the latest generation of hybrid cars, there
> is pent up demand for high mileage cars and the major manufacturers are
> responding to that demand.
>
> As a rule, the less government intervention, the better.
>
>> How
>> about encouraging solar energy panels for homes, especially in the
>> Southwest (Calif-Nevada-Ariz-NM-Texas-Col) via tax incentives?
>
> How about just a flat Federal income tax? I local jurisdictions want to
> provide tax breaks, more power to them.
>
>> How
>> about dropping bogus political distractions like hydrogen for cars,
>> which is simply another *form* of energy, *not* new energy?
>
> Um...what "new energy", for example?
>
> FWIW, I like the excitement about hydrogen. It may turn out to be
> completely infeasible, but at least it's getting people to think beyond
> the status quo.
>
>> This country developed the atom bomb and sent men to the moon when it
>> wanted to...if we elect politicians with real honesty and courage, we
>> can *easily* do it again and become energy independent of the
>> middle-east.
>
> Agreed.
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> ____________________
>
>

[Blanche]

John T > wrote:
>"Bob Fry" > wrote in message

[snip]

>> This country developed the atom bomb and sent men to the moon when it
>> wanted to...if we elect politicians with real honesty and courage, we
>> can *easily* do it again and become energy independent of the
>> middle-east.
>
>Agreed.

personally, I wish I could vote for Jed Bartlett....

[Mike Rapoport]

Yeah, lets pump it all out today leaving nothing for the future. Further
petroleum development is not really an answer, supply is going to contract
anyway. Even if there were no restrictions to drilling in the US, the price
wouldn't be affected very much. Far more could be saved through
conservation than could be produced through increased production and the
saving through conservation can be continued forever. Four years ago, GWB
decided not to increase the scheduled CAFE increase for automobiles. So
now, four years later, we have 50,000,000 cars which are getting about 10%
worse fuel economy than they would have if the increase was implemented.
That is just one example. Because we as a nation are so stupid, driving
14mpg cars 50 miles each way to work, the free market is having to impose
disipline by raising the price until some incremental demand is choked off.
I'm as guilty as anyone, flying my own airplane around buring hundreds of
gallons of fuel, but at least I'm not complaining about the outcome. It is
working, sales of SUVs are declining and soon people will start thinking
about how far from work they should live.

Total worldwide oil production will peak this decade and start to decline
regardless of exploration activity. Petroleum is a finite resource with
constantly increasing demand....its pretty simple where that leads...

Mike
MU-2


"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Up above $53/barrel now.... Can we *puhleeeze* start developing our own
> oil
> in Alaska; off the coast of Calif. and the gulf now??? Or should we
> just
> keep on doing what we are doing ... nothing... in total denial and keep
> paying
> out the anal cavity to other countries.
>
> In my opinion it is way past time to start developing our own oil here at
> home.
> Put Americans to work and help our own economy at the same time and reduce
> the trade deficit while we are at it. And why not start building a few
> more
> nuclear power plants to replace some aging fossil fuel plants????
>
> But NO.... if the environmentalists have their way we'll be paying $20
> a gallon for gas (GA will no longer exist) and we'll be reminiscing over
> some ripped and out of date sectionals by candlelight.
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Actually shale oil will be produced when it is economic to do so. Assuming
that prices remain at $50, we will start seeing oil from tar sands and
shale. BTW the largest Saudi fields are now making about 60% water, the
days of cheap energy are behind us.

Mike
MU-2


"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> You are quite correct... thanks for the response. There are extensive
> oil shale reserves over and above that liquid stuff we have in areas
> of Alaska and off the coasts.
>
> Nothing will be done however until we can eliminate the naysayers...
> those who continually raise the argument that "our reserves are not
> as big as Saudi Arabia's so why even bother?. Lets all just get used
> to conserving and doing without (except politicians of course) and
> someday [maybe] we'll have alternative forms..."
>
> Using that logic the vast majority of people can argue that they will
> never, ever have the vast monetary reserves that John Kerry or Oprah
> Winfrey have (to name a few) so why even bother to work hard and try
> to make more money??? Lets just all give up... plan to live simpler
> lives, go barefoot and ride bikes like other 3rd world countries and
> just shut up and vote for John Kerry and be happy about it.
>
> Well apparently thousands of illegal immigrants a day come here for
> a better life than they have in their country so I guess they haven't
> gotten the message yet.
>

[[email protected]]

I say we worry about the future in the future and worry about today today


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Yeah, lets pump it all out today leaving nothing for the future. Further
> petroleum development is not really an answer, supply is going to contract
> anyway. Even if there were no restrictions to drilling in the US, the
price
> wouldn't be affected very much. Far more could be saved through
> conservation than could be produced through increased production and the
> saving through conservation can be continued forever. Four years ago, GWB
> decided not to increase the scheduled CAFE increase for automobiles. So
> now, four years later, we have 50,000,000 cars which are getting about 10%
> worse fuel economy than they would have if the increase was implemented.
> That is just one example. Because we as a nation are so stupid, driving
> 14mpg cars 50 miles each way to work, the free market is having to impose
> disipline by raising the price until some incremental demand is choked
off.
> I'm as guilty as anyone, flying my own airplane around buring hundreds of
> gallons of fuel, but at least I'm not complaining about the outcome. It
is
> working, sales of SUVs are declining and soon people will start thinking
> about how far from work they should live.
>
> Total worldwide oil production will peak this decade and start to decline
> regardless of exploration activity. Petroleum is a finite resource with
> constantly increasing demand....its pretty simple where that leads...
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "kontiki" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Up above $53/barrel now.... Can we *puhleeeze* start developing our own
> > oil
> > in Alaska; off the coast of Calif. and the gulf now??? Or should we
> > just
> > keep on doing what we are doing ... nothing... in total denial and keep
> > paying
> > out the anal cavity to other countries.
> >
> > In my opinion it is way past time to start developing our own oil here
at
> > home.
> > Put Americans to work and help our own economy at the same time and
reduce
> > the trade deficit while we are at it. And why not start building a few
> > more
> > nuclear power plants to replace some aging fossil fuel plants????
> >
> > But NO.... if the environmentalists have their way we'll be paying $20
> > a gallon for gas (GA will no longer exist) and we'll be reminiscing over
> > some ripped and out of date sectionals by candlelight.
> >
>
>

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> "> wrote:

> I say we worry about the future in the future and worry about today today

Well good bad or indifferent that pretty well sums up the attitude that
many people have.

It covers our insatiable thirst for fuel, our cavilier attitude towards
pollution in every form possible, and our course our lifestyles revolve
around it.

Eat junk food today, pack on the weight and worry about health problems
tomorrow..... that's as good an analogy as any.

Don't worry about global warming, but when Florida is under water, the
mid west is a frozen wasteland, very few countries can grow food due to
plagues of insects, monsoons, or drought, and we are starving while
those in third world countries are already dead.... well maybe then our
grandchildren will actually have to bite the bullet and get down to the
serious business of actually worrying about the future.

But we won't have to worry about it because our time on earth will be
long gone by then, and we will all be dead.

So live for today, eat junk food, burn fuel, and be merry.

[Peter Duniho]

" <gdbutler at bellsouth.net> wrote in message
.. .
>I say we worry about the future in the future and worry about today today

Unfortunately, in spite of the incredibly obvious problems with such a
short-sighted attitude, there are many people who, amazingly enough, agree
with that sentiment.

In truth, you can avoid major problems in the future by worrying a little
today about the problems. If you wait until the future, tiny problems turn
into incredibly large problems.

There are countless examples in history of this, but a recent example would
be the whole "Year 2000" computer software issue. According to your
philosophy, we should have waited until all the software broke, and then fix
it rather than going through all the software ahead of time and making sure
things work when the date rolls over. Furthermore, that example shows very
clearly that the long-term cost is much higher when one doesn't plan ahead;
it would have been minimally expensive to have written the software in the
first place without that limitation, and it cost billions of dollars to fix
it after the fact.

In aviation, one need only look at the benefits of keeping an airplane
properly maintained, rather than waiting for things to break. It is much
more costly to fix things after they break, even if you suffer no greater
indignity than to have to cancel a flight. Heaven forbid something should
break in flight...the costs are guaranteed to be even higher, and could even
involve injury or death.

So, you can go around being ignorant about the concept of planning for the
future if you like, but anyone with any common sense understands what an
idiotic attitude that is.

Pete

[John T]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message

>
> There are countless examples in history of this, but a recent example
> would be the whole "Year 2000" computer software issue. ... it would have
> been
> minimally expensive to have written the software in the first place
> without that limitation, and it cost billions of dollars to fix it
> after the fact.

Um.... How much Y2K work did you do?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[[email protected]]

i will

"Shiver Me Timbers" > wrote in message
...
> > "> wrote:
>
> > I say we worry about the future in the future and worry about today
today
>
> Well good bad or indifferent that pretty well sums up the attitude that
> many people have.
>
> It covers our insatiable thirst for fuel, our cavilier attitude towards
> pollution in every form possible, and our course our lifestyles revolve
> around it.
>
> Eat junk food today, pack on the weight and worry about health problems
> tomorrow..... that's as good an analogy as any.
>
> Don't worry about global warming, but when Florida is under water, the
> mid west is a frozen wasteland, very few countries can grow food due to
> plagues of insects, monsoons, or drought, and we are starving while
> those in third world countries are already dead.... well maybe then our
> grandchildren will actually have to bite the bullet and get down to the
> serious business of actually worrying about the future.
>
> But we won't have to worry about it because our time on earth will be
> long gone by then, and we will all be dead.
>
> So live for today, eat junk food, burn fuel, and be merry.

[[email protected]]

i will

"Shiver Me Timbers" > wrote in message
...
> > "> wrote:
>
> > I say we worry about the future in the future and worry about today
today
>
> Well good bad or indifferent that pretty well sums up the attitude that
> many people have.
>
> It covers our insatiable thirst for fuel, our cavilier attitude towards
> pollution in every form possible, and our course our lifestyles revolve
> around it.
>
> Eat junk food today, pack on the weight and worry about health problems
> tomorrow..... that's as good an analogy as any.
>
> Don't worry about global warming, but when Florida is under water, the
> mid west is a frozen wasteland, very few countries can grow food due to
> plagues of insects, monsoons, or drought, and we are starving while
> those in third world countries are already dead.... well maybe then our
> grandchildren will actually have to bite the bullet and get down to the
> serious business of actually worrying about the future.
>
> But we won't have to worry about it because our time on earth will be
> long gone by then, and we will all be dead.
>
> So live for today, eat junk food, burn fuel, and be merry.

[[email protected]]

lol but let me clarify and expand now that all of the philosophers are
upset. Dont worry about tomorrow, just look foreward toward tomorrow and
make the proper decisions today so that there is nothing to worry about.

: )

" <gdbutler at bellsouth.net> wrote in message
.. .
> i will
>
> "Shiver Me Timbers" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > "> wrote:
> >
> > > I say we worry about the future in the future and worry about today
> today
> >
> > Well good bad or indifferent that pretty well sums up the attitude that
> > many people have.
> >
> > It covers our insatiable thirst for fuel, our cavilier attitude towards
> > pollution in every form possible, and our course our lifestyles revolve
> > around it.
> >
> > Eat junk food today, pack on the weight and worry about health problems
> > tomorrow..... that's as good an analogy as any.
> >
> > Don't worry about global warming, but when Florida is under water, the
> > mid west is a frozen wasteland, very few countries can grow food due to
> > plagues of insects, monsoons, or drought, and we are starving while
> > those in third world countries are already dead.... well maybe then our
> > grandchildren will actually have to bite the bullet and get down to the
> > serious business of actually worrying about the future.
> >
> > But we won't have to worry about it because our time on earth will be
> > long gone by then, and we will all be dead.
> >
> > So live for today, eat junk food, burn fuel, and be merry.
>
>

[[email protected]]

lol but let me clarify and expand now that all of the philosophers are
upset. Dont worry about tomorrow, just look foreward toward tomorrow and
make the proper decisions today so that there is nothing to worry about.

: )

" <gdbutler at bellsouth.net> wrote in message
.. .
> i will
>
> "Shiver Me Timbers" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > "> wrote:
> >
> > > I say we worry about the future in the future and worry about today
> today
> >
> > Well good bad or indifferent that pretty well sums up the attitude that
> > many people have.
> >
> > It covers our insatiable thirst for fuel, our cavilier attitude towards
> > pollution in every form possible, and our course our lifestyles revolve
> > around it.
> >
> > Eat junk food today, pack on the weight and worry about health problems
> > tomorrow..... that's as good an analogy as any.
> >
> > Don't worry about global warming, but when Florida is under water, the
> > mid west is a frozen wasteland, very few countries can grow food due to
> > plagues of insects, monsoons, or drought, and we are starving while
> > those in third world countries are already dead.... well maybe then our
> > grandchildren will actually have to bite the bullet and get down to the
> > serious business of actually worrying about the future.
> >
> > But we won't have to worry about it because our time on earth will be
> > long gone by then, and we will all be dead.
> >
> > So live for today, eat junk food, burn fuel, and be merry.
>
>

[C Kingsbury]

Two things to throw into your analysis:

1. China is just starting to drive. There's a lot of demand yet to happen
there. The Saudis could be siphoning gasoline straight out of puddles and it
wouldn't matter if demand continues to rise.

2. Right now most analysts estimate we are seeing about a $10/bbl "terrorism
premium." If a large portion of production shifted to Canada, then we would
see that premium decrease as less of the world's oil production is
concentrated in such high-risk areas.

I also wonder whether we're anywhere near the efficiency frontier with
regards to shale oil extraction technologies. So long as it's cheaper to go
divining for liquid petroleum we won't see maximum commercial investment in
this area. Most technologies don't reach full efficiency until they're
scaled into major commercial applications.

-cwk.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Actually shale oil will be produced when it is economic to do so.
Assuming
> that prices remain at $50, we will start seeing oil from tar sands and
> shale. BTW the largest Saudi fields are now making about 60% water, the
> days of cheap energy are behind us.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

[C Kingsbury]

Two things to throw into your analysis:

1. China is just starting to drive. There's a lot of demand yet to happen
there. The Saudis could be siphoning gasoline straight out of puddles and it
wouldn't matter if demand continues to rise.

2. Right now most analysts estimate we are seeing about a $10/bbl "terrorism
premium." If a large portion of production shifted to Canada, then we would
see that premium decrease as less of the world's oil production is
concentrated in such high-risk areas.

I also wonder whether we're anywhere near the efficiency frontier with
regards to shale oil extraction technologies. So long as it's cheaper to go
divining for liquid petroleum we won't see maximum commercial investment in
this area. Most technologies don't reach full efficiency until they're
scaled into major commercial applications.

-cwk.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Actually shale oil will be produced when it is economic to do so.
Assuming
> that prices remain at $50, we will start seeing oil from tar sands and
> shale. BTW the largest Saudi fields are now making about 60% water, the
> days of cheap energy are behind us.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

[C Kingsbury]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> saving through conservation can be continued forever. Four years ago, GWB
> decided not to increase the scheduled CAFE increase for automobiles. So
> now, four years later, we have 50,000,000 cars which are getting about 10%
> worse fuel economy than they would have if the increase was implemented.

My concern with legislated efficiency/consumption whether Kyoto or CAFE is
that while I suspect Teresa Heinz and Laurie David will always find enough
Benjamins in the couch cushions to gas up their Gulfstreams, I strongly
suspect that mere mortals like us will be unable to afford to fly anything
over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at Europe-
I don't want that to be the future of GA.

-cwk.

[C Kingsbury]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> saving through conservation can be continued forever. Four years ago, GWB
> decided not to increase the scheduled CAFE increase for automobiles. So
> now, four years later, we have 50,000,000 cars which are getting about 10%
> worse fuel economy than they would have if the increase was implemented.

My concern with legislated efficiency/consumption whether Kyoto or CAFE is
that while I suspect Teresa Heinz and Laurie David will always find enough
Benjamins in the couch cushions to gas up their Gulfstreams, I strongly
suspect that mere mortals like us will be unable to afford to fly anything
over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at Europe-
I don't want that to be the future of GA.

-cwk.

[kontiki]

Exactly.

C Kingsbury wrote:
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>
>>saving through conservation can be continued forever. Four years ago, GWB
>>decided not to increase the scheduled CAFE increase for automobiles. So
>>now, four years later, we have 50,000,000 cars which are getting about 10%
>>worse fuel economy than they would have if the increase was implemented.
>
>
> My concern with legislated efficiency/consumption whether Kyoto or CAFE is
> that while I suspect Teresa Heinz and Laurie David will always find enough
> Benjamins in the couch cushions to gas up their Gulfstreams, I strongly
> suspect that mere mortals like us will be unable to afford to fly anything
> over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at Europe-
> I don't want that to be the future of GA.
>
> -cwk.
>
>

[kontiki]

Exactly.

C Kingsbury wrote:
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>
>>saving through conservation can be continued forever. Four years ago, GWB
>>decided not to increase the scheduled CAFE increase for automobiles. So
>>now, four years later, we have 50,000,000 cars which are getting about 10%
>>worse fuel economy than they would have if the increase was implemented.
>
>
> My concern with legislated efficiency/consumption whether Kyoto or CAFE is
> that while I suspect Teresa Heinz and Laurie David will always find enough
> Benjamins in the couch cushions to gas up their Gulfstreams, I strongly
> suspect that mere mortals like us will be unable to afford to fly anything
> over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at Europe-
> I don't want that to be the future of GA.
>
> -cwk.
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>> saving through conservation can be continued forever. Four years ago,
>> GWB
>> decided not to increase the scheduled CAFE increase for automobiles. So
>> now, four years later, we have 50,000,000 cars which are getting about
>> 10%
>> worse fuel economy than they would have if the increase was implemented.
>
> My concern with legislated efficiency/consumption whether Kyoto or CAFE is
> that while I suspect Teresa Heinz and Laurie David will always find enough
> Benjamins in the couch cushions to gas up their Gulfstreams, I strongly
> suspect that mere mortals like us will be unable to afford to fly anything
> over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at
> Europe-
> I don't want that to be the future of GA.
>
> -cwk.
>
>
Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>> saving through conservation can be continued forever. Four years ago,
>> GWB
>> decided not to increase the scheduled CAFE increase for automobiles. So
>> now, four years later, we have 50,000,000 cars which are getting about
>> 10%
>> worse fuel economy than they would have if the increase was implemented.
>
> My concern with legislated efficiency/consumption whether Kyoto or CAFE is
> that while I suspect Teresa Heinz and Laurie David will always find enough
> Benjamins in the couch cushions to gas up their Gulfstreams, I strongly
> suspect that mere mortals like us will be unable to afford to fly anything
> over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at
> Europe-
> I don't want that to be the future of GA.
>
> -cwk.
>
>
Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.

Mike
MU-2

[kontiki]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.

Here we are... right back to my original post where I mentioned a couple of
excellent ones. I'll list them and more here:

1) Develop our energy reserves here on this continent. Liberals have
consistently blocked this effort thus prolonging the inevitable.

3) Build some additional refining capacity. Higher prices are due to higher
demand and he have not built a new refinery in some 30 years. Wait till
refineries switch to heating oil this winter and watch gas prices rise
further.

2) Enforce a consistent nationwide gasoline blend. Refineries have
to produce a multitude of blends for different parts of the country
which reduces production and delivery efficiency and availability and
increases costs.

4) Plan to build new nuclear power plants that can replace aging
(and in-efficient) fossil fuel plants. Technology marches on yet we
have done nothing in this area. All new (larger) Navy ships us
nuclear power these days and do it very well.

5) Offer significant (not paltry) tax incentives to people for adding
solar heating or power generation capability to their homes and
businesses.

6) Reduce the burden of massive government regulations in the
auto industry (and other industries for that matter) so that prices
can be more affordable for cars using hybrid or electric power. When
the cost of these vehicles becomes equal to or less than gasoline
vehicles people will by them.

All of this can be started IMMEDIATELY. The rest is continued research
into refining ideas that are now too impractical or expensive. To not
do these things is simply irresponsible.

[kontiki]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.

Here we are... right back to my original post where I mentioned a couple of
excellent ones. I'll list them and more here:

1) Develop our energy reserves here on this continent. Liberals have
consistently blocked this effort thus prolonging the inevitable.

3) Build some additional refining capacity. Higher prices are due to higher
demand and he have not built a new refinery in some 30 years. Wait till
refineries switch to heating oil this winter and watch gas prices rise
further.

2) Enforce a consistent nationwide gasoline blend. Refineries have
to produce a multitude of blends for different parts of the country
which reduces production and delivery efficiency and availability and
increases costs.

4) Plan to build new nuclear power plants that can replace aging
(and in-efficient) fossil fuel plants. Technology marches on yet we
have done nothing in this area. All new (larger) Navy ships us
nuclear power these days and do it very well.

5) Offer significant (not paltry) tax incentives to people for adding
solar heating or power generation capability to their homes and
businesses.

6) Reduce the burden of massive government regulations in the
auto industry (and other industries for that matter) so that prices
can be more affordable for cars using hybrid or electric power. When
the cost of these vehicles becomes equal to or less than gasoline
vehicles people will by them.

All of this can be started IMMEDIATELY. The rest is continued research
into refining ideas that are now too impractical or expensive. To not
do these things is simply irresponsible.

[Mike Rapoport]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>> Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.
>
> Here we are... right back to my original post where I mentioned a couple
> of
> excellent ones. I'll list them and more here:
>
> 1) Develop our energy reserves here on this continent. Liberals have
> consistently blocked this effort thus prolonging the inevitable.
>
It has very little to do with liberals or conservatives. You seem to
believe that:
1) There is significant oil to be found in the US. This is not true.
2) It is the right of this generation to use all the natural resources on
the planet.
3) That all availible resources should be extracted to facilitate your (and
my) wasteful consumption.

> 3) Build some additional refining capacity. Higher prices are due to
> higher
> demand and he have not built a new refinery in some 30 years. Wait till
> refineries switch to heating oil this winter and watch gas prices rise
> further.

It is very expensive to add refining capacity. Consider that a refinery
takes at least a square mile of land on the coast at a major port. The
places that really need it (California) have very high real estate prices.
Current refining margins don't justify adding major capacity. Why don't you
invest in natural gas instead of complaining about the price of energy?
That is something YOU can do that will solve YOUR problem.

> 2) Enforce a consistent nationwide gasoline blend. Refineries have
> to produce a multitude of blends for different parts of the country
> which reduces production and delivery efficiency and availability and
> increases costs.

They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different from that
in AZ.

> 4) Plan to build new nuclear power plants that can replace aging
> (and in-efficient) fossil fuel plants. Technology marches on yet we
> have done nothing in this area. All new (larger) Navy ships us
> nuclear power these days and do it very well.

This I agree with, it makes very little sense to burn precious petroleum to
produce electricity.. There was recently a new permit application filed for
a nuclear plant. Hopefullt there will be more.

> 5) Offer significant (not paltry) tax incentives to people for adding
> solar heating or power generation capability to their homes and
> businesses.

Why should I (taxpayer) pay people to install inefficient systems? If the
systems really make economic sens, then people will install them without tax
incentives.

> 6) Reduce the burden of massive government regulations in the
> auto industry (and other industries for that matter) so that prices
> can be more affordable for cars using hybrid or electric power. When
> the cost of these vehicles becomes equal to or less than gasoline
> vehicles people will by them.

Why do you think that it is the government that is keeping all this from
happening. Don't you think that it might be YOU and I not buying efficient
cars? WE bought inefficient cars for the past 20yrs so the industry tooled
up to produce them.

WE are the problem, not the "government", not the liberals, not the
conservatives, not the enviornmentalists, not the oil companies and not the
auto companies.

[Mike Rapoport]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>> Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.
>
> Here we are... right back to my original post where I mentioned a couple
> of
> excellent ones. I'll list them and more here:
>
> 1) Develop our energy reserves here on this continent. Liberals have
> consistently blocked this effort thus prolonging the inevitable.
>
It has very little to do with liberals or conservatives. You seem to
believe that:
1) There is significant oil to be found in the US. This is not true.
2) It is the right of this generation to use all the natural resources on
the planet.
3) That all availible resources should be extracted to facilitate your (and
my) wasteful consumption.

> 3) Build some additional refining capacity. Higher prices are due to
> higher
> demand and he have not built a new refinery in some 30 years. Wait till
> refineries switch to heating oil this winter and watch gas prices rise
> further.

It is very expensive to add refining capacity. Consider that a refinery
takes at least a square mile of land on the coast at a major port. The
places that really need it (California) have very high real estate prices.
Current refining margins don't justify adding major capacity. Why don't you
invest in natural gas instead of complaining about the price of energy?
That is something YOU can do that will solve YOUR problem.

> 2) Enforce a consistent nationwide gasoline blend. Refineries have
> to produce a multitude of blends for different parts of the country
> which reduces production and delivery efficiency and availability and
> increases costs.

They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different from that
in AZ.

> 4) Plan to build new nuclear power plants that can replace aging
> (and in-efficient) fossil fuel plants. Technology marches on yet we
> have done nothing in this area. All new (larger) Navy ships us
> nuclear power these days and do it very well.

This I agree with, it makes very little sense to burn precious petroleum to
produce electricity.. There was recently a new permit application filed for
a nuclear plant. Hopefullt there will be more.

> 5) Offer significant (not paltry) tax incentives to people for adding
> solar heating or power generation capability to their homes and
> businesses.

Why should I (taxpayer) pay people to install inefficient systems? If the
systems really make economic sens, then people will install them without tax
incentives.

> 6) Reduce the burden of massive government regulations in the
> auto industry (and other industries for that matter) so that prices
> can be more affordable for cars using hybrid or electric power. When
> the cost of these vehicles becomes equal to or less than gasoline
> vehicles people will by them.

Why do you think that it is the government that is keeping all this from
happening. Don't you think that it might be YOU and I not buying efficient
cars? WE bought inefficient cars for the past 20yrs so the industry tooled
up to produce them.

WE are the problem, not the "government", not the liberals, not the
conservatives, not the enviornmentalists, not the oil companies and not the
auto companies.

[kontiki]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> It has very little to do with liberals or conservatives. You seem to
> believe that:
> 1) There is significant oil to be found in the US. This is not true.
There are considerable reserves sir. Not as much as in the middle east, but
considerable and they are doing no one any good sitting in the ground.
> 2) It is the right of this generation to use all the natural resources on
> the planet.
All generations do what they need to do, both giving and taking.
> 3) That all availible resources should be extracted to facilitate your (and
> my) wasteful consumption.
Speak for yourself!!!! I DO NOT WASTE. Maybe YOU do, buty I don't and I
resent your insinuating that I do. get a life.
>
>

>
> It is very expensive to add refining capacity. Consider that a refinery
> takes at least a square mile of land on the coast at a major port. The
> places that really need it (California) have very high real estate prices.
> Current refining margins don't justify adding major capacity. Why don't you
> invest in natural gas instead of complaining about the price of energy?
> That is something YOU can do that will solve YOUR problem.
>
So What??? its expensive to do ANYTHING in this world today. Flying is
expensive... that means we all should not do it? Thank you Mr. Negative.
>
>
> They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different from that
> in AZ.
and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all money and wasted
time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.
>

>
> This I agree with, it makes very little sense to burn precious petroleum to
> produce electricity.. There was recently a new permit application filed for
> a nuclear plant. Hopefullt there will be more.

Well... finally *something* Mr. Negative agrees with.
------
Snip the rest because its alll the same BS....
----
>
> WE are the problem, not the "government", not the liberals, not the
> conservatives, not the enviornmentalists, not the oil companies and not the
> auto companies.
>
Maybe YOU are the problem sir, but *I* am not. Again, please speak for yourself.
I am sorry that you have such an inferiority complex, but I am a net producer
and contributor to this economy and I am *not* the problem.

[kontiki]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> It has very little to do with liberals or conservatives. You seem to
> believe that:
> 1) There is significant oil to be found in the US. This is not true.
There are considerable reserves sir. Not as much as in the middle east, but
considerable and they are doing no one any good sitting in the ground.
> 2) It is the right of this generation to use all the natural resources on
> the planet.
All generations do what they need to do, both giving and taking.
> 3) That all availible resources should be extracted to facilitate your (and
> my) wasteful consumption.
Speak for yourself!!!! I DO NOT WASTE. Maybe YOU do, buty I don't and I
resent your insinuating that I do. get a life.
>
>

>
> It is very expensive to add refining capacity. Consider that a refinery
> takes at least a square mile of land on the coast at a major port. The
> places that really need it (California) have very high real estate prices.
> Current refining margins don't justify adding major capacity. Why don't you
> invest in natural gas instead of complaining about the price of energy?
> That is something YOU can do that will solve YOUR problem.
>
So What??? its expensive to do ANYTHING in this world today. Flying is
expensive... that means we all should not do it? Thank you Mr. Negative.
>
>
> They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different from that
> in AZ.
and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all money and wasted
time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.
>

>
> This I agree with, it makes very little sense to burn precious petroleum to
> produce electricity.. There was recently a new permit application filed for
> a nuclear plant. Hopefullt there will be more.

Well... finally *something* Mr. Negative agrees with.
------
Snip the rest because its alll the same BS....
----
>
> WE are the problem, not the "government", not the liberals, not the
> conservatives, not the enviornmentalists, not the oil companies and not the
> auto companies.
>
Maybe YOU are the problem sir, but *I* am not. Again, please speak for yourself.
I am sorry that you have such an inferiority complex, but I am a net producer
and contributor to this economy and I am *not* the problem.

[C Kingsbury]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> > over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at
> > Europe-
> > I don't want that to be the future of GA.
> >
> >
> Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.

Over the next five years? Mogas. We've gotta get off the 100LL before it
kills us. Many engines can run it already and higher-performance ones ought
to be able to with things like the PRISM ignition systems.

Next decade? Diesel/Jet-A engines. Higher efficiency and longer life, and
with increased production volume costs ought to come down. I don't know that
I'd buy a new plane right now that relies on a fuel whose supply is unclear.

Beyond that, hydrogen may become practical- checkout www.safehydrogen.com
for one of a thousand little companies trying to turn it into a practical
power source for vehicles. Weight being a much bigger issue for airplanes
than for cars, we may see anti-gravity vehicles before we see non-Fossil
Fuel burning aircraft. Of course, if we can stop using FF everywhere they're
not absolutely needed, we may be able to make do with what we have, or even
switch to biodiesel.

It is of course likely still that costs will go up. At least we won't be as
regulated as in Europe, and we will on average have higher incomes to afford
it. But much like the dying days of the Old West, it seems like the glory
days of GA lie behind us, and our best hope of keeping flying accessible to
a maximum number of people will in fact be LSAs, in other words, the
European solution.

Best,
-cwk.

[C Kingsbury]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> > over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at
> > Europe-
> > I don't want that to be the future of GA.
> >
> >
> Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.

Over the next five years? Mogas. We've gotta get off the 100LL before it
kills us. Many engines can run it already and higher-performance ones ought
to be able to with things like the PRISM ignition systems.

Next decade? Diesel/Jet-A engines. Higher efficiency and longer life, and
with increased production volume costs ought to come down. I don't know that
I'd buy a new plane right now that relies on a fuel whose supply is unclear.

Beyond that, hydrogen may become practical- checkout www.safehydrogen.com
for one of a thousand little companies trying to turn it into a practical
power source for vehicles. Weight being a much bigger issue for airplanes
than for cars, we may see anti-gravity vehicles before we see non-Fossil
Fuel burning aircraft. Of course, if we can stop using FF everywhere they're
not absolutely needed, we may be able to make do with what we have, or even
switch to biodiesel.

It is of course likely still that costs will go up. At least we won't be as
regulated as in Europe, and we will on average have higher incomes to afford
it. But much like the dying days of the Old West, it seems like the glory
days of GA lie behind us, and our best hope of keeping flying accessible to
a maximum number of people will in fact be LSAs, in other words, the
European solution.

Best,
-cwk.

[Mike Rapoport]

Easy to say "I'm not the problem, everybody else is" but in your previous
posts you demonstrated a lack of understanding of the whole energy issue.
Placing the blame on "Liberals and Enviornmentalists" is simply ignorant.
The problem is that WE are consuming fossil fuels at a rate 400 times
greater than they are being replaced. The current energy price increase is
a function of rapidly rising demand for a finite, non-renewable commodity at
the same time that production of that commodity is peaking. It is also
partly a function of the declining dollar which is loosing its status as the
worlds reserve currency (the price of oil denominated in gold has not risen
nearly as much as in dollars). Consider that, until recently, only a small
(well under 20%) of the world population used much energy. Now that other
80% is going to use much more (multiples of their prior use) as they
industrialize. There is no way that any solution based on drilling for more
oil is going to keep the price down where it has been over the past two
decades. On one hand we have a huge increase in the rate of growth in
demand and on the other, all the wells drilled over the past 100yrs are
declining. To keep prices where they have been (lets say under $40/bbl) oil
production need to at least double in the next 20yrs and probably quadruple.
That is not going to happen.

Rising prices will keep the supply/demand in balance by reducing demand and
increasing supply but the world is going to have to live with the higher
prices. We could have made things easier on ourselves but we didn't. We
could have built a society where people live closer to where they work, and
make more efficient use of energy for both transportation and
heating/cooling. This would have also forestalled the rise in energy prices
by significantly lowering demand. We chose not to do these things and so we
are where we are today. This is not a judgement just a fact.

The real issue is how should we react to the situation. Should we extract
and consume the remaining resources as fast as possible so that we can avoid
changing our habits for a few decades? Or should we achknowledge that price
of energy will rise so that new sources become economically and technically
viable? In the meantime we will react to the higher prices by becoming more
efficient.

Mike
MU-2

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>
>> It has very little to do with liberals or conservatives. You seem to
>> believe that:
>> 1) There is significant oil to be found in the US. This is not true.
> There are considerable reserves sir. Not as much as in the middle east,
> but
> considerable and they are doing no one any good sitting in the ground.
>> 2) It is the right of this generation to use all the natural resources on
>> the planet.
> All generations do what they need to do, both giving and taking.
>> 3) That all availible resources should be extracted to facilitate your
>> (and my) wasteful consumption.
> Speak for yourself!!!! I DO NOT WASTE. Maybe YOU do, buty I don't and I
> resent your insinuating that I do. get a life.
>>
>>
>
>>
>> It is very expensive to add refining capacity. Consider that a refinery
>> takes at least a square mile of land on the coast at a major port. The
>> places that really need it (California) have very high real estate
>> prices. Current refining margins don't justify adding major capacity.
>> Why don't you invest in natural gas instead of complaining about the
>> price of energy? That is something YOU can do that will solve YOUR
>> problem.
>>
> So What??? its expensive to do ANYTHING in this world today. Flying is
> expensive... that means we all should not do it? Thank you Mr. Negative.
>>
>>
>> They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different from
>> that in AZ.
> and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all
> money and wasted
> time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.
>>
>
>>
>> This I agree with, it makes very little sense to burn precious petroleum
>> to produce electricity.. There was recently a new permit application
>> filed for a nuclear plant. Hopefullt there will be more.
>
> Well... finally *something* Mr. Negative agrees with.
> ------
> Snip the rest because its alll the same BS....
> ----
>>
>> WE are the problem, not the "government", not the liberals, not the
>> conservatives, not the enviornmentalists, not the oil companies and not
>> the auto companies.
> Maybe YOU are the problem sir, but *I* am not. Again, please speak for
> yourself.
> I am sorry that you have such an inferiority complex, but I am a net
> producer
> and contributor to this economy and I am *not* the problem.
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Easy to say "I'm not the problem, everybody else is" but in your previous
posts you demonstrated a lack of understanding of the whole energy issue.
Placing the blame on "Liberals and Enviornmentalists" is simply ignorant.
The problem is that WE are consuming fossil fuels at a rate 400 times
greater than they are being replaced. The current energy price increase is
a function of rapidly rising demand for a finite, non-renewable commodity at
the same time that production of that commodity is peaking. It is also
partly a function of the declining dollar which is loosing its status as the
worlds reserve currency (the price of oil denominated in gold has not risen
nearly as much as in dollars). Consider that, until recently, only a small
(well under 20%) of the world population used much energy. Now that other
80% is going to use much more (multiples of their prior use) as they
industrialize. There is no way that any solution based on drilling for more
oil is going to keep the price down where it has been over the past two
decades. On one hand we have a huge increase in the rate of growth in
demand and on the other, all the wells drilled over the past 100yrs are
declining. To keep prices where they have been (lets say under $40/bbl) oil
production need to at least double in the next 20yrs and probably quadruple.
That is not going to happen.

Rising prices will keep the supply/demand in balance by reducing demand and
increasing supply but the world is going to have to live with the higher
prices. We could have made things easier on ourselves but we didn't. We
could have built a society where people live closer to where they work, and
make more efficient use of energy for both transportation and
heating/cooling. This would have also forestalled the rise in energy prices
by significantly lowering demand. We chose not to do these things and so we
are where we are today. This is not a judgement just a fact.

The real issue is how should we react to the situation. Should we extract
and consume the remaining resources as fast as possible so that we can avoid
changing our habits for a few decades? Or should we achknowledge that price
of energy will rise so that new sources become economically and technically
viable? In the meantime we will react to the higher prices by becoming more
efficient.

Mike
MU-2

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>
>> It has very little to do with liberals or conservatives. You seem to
>> believe that:
>> 1) There is significant oil to be found in the US. This is not true.
> There are considerable reserves sir. Not as much as in the middle east,
> but
> considerable and they are doing no one any good sitting in the ground.
>> 2) It is the right of this generation to use all the natural resources on
>> the planet.
> All generations do what they need to do, both giving and taking.
>> 3) That all availible resources should be extracted to facilitate your
>> (and my) wasteful consumption.
> Speak for yourself!!!! I DO NOT WASTE. Maybe YOU do, buty I don't and I
> resent your insinuating that I do. get a life.
>>
>>
>
>>
>> It is very expensive to add refining capacity. Consider that a refinery
>> takes at least a square mile of land on the coast at a major port. The
>> places that really need it (California) have very high real estate
>> prices. Current refining margins don't justify adding major capacity.
>> Why don't you invest in natural gas instead of complaining about the
>> price of energy? That is something YOU can do that will solve YOUR
>> problem.
>>
> So What??? its expensive to do ANYTHING in this world today. Flying is
> expensive... that means we all should not do it? Thank you Mr. Negative.
>>
>>
>> They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different from
>> that in AZ.
> and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all
> money and wasted
> time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.
>>
>
>>
>> This I agree with, it makes very little sense to burn precious petroleum
>> to produce electricity.. There was recently a new permit application
>> filed for a nuclear plant. Hopefullt there will be more.
>
> Well... finally *something* Mr. Negative agrees with.
> ------
> Snip the rest because its alll the same BS....
> ----
>>
>> WE are the problem, not the "government", not the liberals, not the
>> conservatives, not the enviornmentalists, not the oil companies and not
>> the auto companies.
> Maybe YOU are the problem sir, but *I* am not. Again, please speak for
> yourself.
> I am sorry that you have such an inferiority complex, but I am a net
> producer
> and contributor to this economy and I am *not* the problem.
>

[Mike Rapoport]

I think that you are seeing the future clearly.

Mike
MU-2


"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
>> > over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at
>> > Europe-
>> > I don't want that to be the future of GA.
>> >
>> >
>> Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.
>
> Over the next five years? Mogas. We've gotta get off the 100LL before it
> kills us. Many engines can run it already and higher-performance ones
> ought
> to be able to with things like the PRISM ignition systems.
>
> Next decade? Diesel/Jet-A engines. Higher efficiency and longer life, and
> with increased production volume costs ought to come down. I don't know
> that
> I'd buy a new plane right now that relies on a fuel whose supply is
> unclear.
>
> Beyond that, hydrogen may become practical- checkout www.safehydrogen.com
> for one of a thousand little companies trying to turn it into a practical
> power source for vehicles. Weight being a much bigger issue for airplanes
> than for cars, we may see anti-gravity vehicles before we see non-Fossil
> Fuel burning aircraft. Of course, if we can stop using FF everywhere
> they're
> not absolutely needed, we may be able to make do with what we have, or
> even
> switch to biodiesel.
>
> It is of course likely still that costs will go up. At least we won't be
> as
> regulated as in Europe, and we will on average have higher incomes to
> afford
> it. But much like the dying days of the Old West, it seems like the glory
> days of GA lie behind us, and our best hope of keeping flying accessible
> to
> a maximum number of people will in fact be LSAs, in other words, the
> European solution.
>
> Best,
> -cwk.
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

I think that you are seeing the future clearly.

Mike
MU-2


"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
>> > over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at
>> > Europe-
>> > I don't want that to be the future of GA.
>> >
>> >
>> Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.
>
> Over the next five years? Mogas. We've gotta get off the 100LL before it
> kills us. Many engines can run it already and higher-performance ones
> ought
> to be able to with things like the PRISM ignition systems.
>
> Next decade? Diesel/Jet-A engines. Higher efficiency and longer life, and
> with increased production volume costs ought to come down. I don't know
> that
> I'd buy a new plane right now that relies on a fuel whose supply is
> unclear.
>
> Beyond that, hydrogen may become practical- checkout www.safehydrogen.com
> for one of a thousand little companies trying to turn it into a practical
> power source for vehicles. Weight being a much bigger issue for airplanes
> than for cars, we may see anti-gravity vehicles before we see non-Fossil
> Fuel burning aircraft. Of course, if we can stop using FF everywhere
> they're
> not absolutely needed, we may be able to make do with what we have, or
> even
> switch to biodiesel.
>
> It is of course likely still that costs will go up. At least we won't be
> as
> regulated as in Europe, and we will on average have higher incomes to
> afford
> it. But much like the dying days of the Old West, it seems like the glory
> days of GA lie behind us, and our best hope of keeping flying accessible
> to
> a maximum number of people will in fact be LSAs, in other words, the
> European solution.
>
> Best,
> -cwk.
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

All probably true.

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
>> > over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at
>> > Europe-
>> > I don't want that to be the future of GA.
>> >
>> >
>> Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.
>
> Over the next five years? Mogas. We've gotta get off the 100LL before it
> kills us. Many engines can run it already and higher-performance ones
> ought
> to be able to with things like the PRISM ignition systems.
>
> Next decade? Diesel/Jet-A engines. Higher efficiency and longer life, and
> with increased production volume costs ought to come down. I don't know
> that
> I'd buy a new plane right now that relies on a fuel whose supply is
> unclear.
>
> Beyond that, hydrogen may become practical- checkout www.safehydrogen.com
> for one of a thousand little companies trying to turn it into a practical
> power source for vehicles. Weight being a much bigger issue for airplanes
> than for cars, we may see anti-gravity vehicles before we see non-Fossil
> Fuel burning aircraft. Of course, if we can stop using FF everywhere
> they're
> not absolutely needed, we may be able to make do with what we have, or
> even
> switch to biodiesel.
>
> It is of course likely still that costs will go up. At least we won't be
> as
> regulated as in Europe, and we will on average have higher incomes to
> afford
> it. But much like the dying days of the Old West, it seems like the glory
> days of GA lie behind us, and our best hope of keeping flying accessible
> to
> a maximum number of people will in fact be LSAs, in other words, the
> European solution.
>
> Best,
> -cwk.
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

All probably true.

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
>> > over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at
>> > Europe-
>> > I don't want that to be the future of GA.
>> >
>> >
>> Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.
>
> Over the next five years? Mogas. We've gotta get off the 100LL before it
> kills us. Many engines can run it already and higher-performance ones
> ought
> to be able to with things like the PRISM ignition systems.
>
> Next decade? Diesel/Jet-A engines. Higher efficiency and longer life, and
> with increased production volume costs ought to come down. I don't know
> that
> I'd buy a new plane right now that relies on a fuel whose supply is
> unclear.
>
> Beyond that, hydrogen may become practical- checkout www.safehydrogen.com
> for one of a thousand little companies trying to turn it into a practical
> power source for vehicles. Weight being a much bigger issue for airplanes
> than for cars, we may see anti-gravity vehicles before we see non-Fossil
> Fuel burning aircraft. Of course, if we can stop using FF everywhere
> they're
> not absolutely needed, we may be able to make do with what we have, or
> even
> switch to biodiesel.
>
> It is of course likely still that costs will go up. At least we won't be
> as
> regulated as in Europe, and we will on average have higher incomes to
> afford
> it. But much like the dying days of the Old West, it seems like the glory
> days of GA lie behind us, and our best hope of keeping flying accessible
> to
> a maximum number of people will in fact be LSAs, in other words, the
> European solution.
>
> Best,
> -cwk.
>
>

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi kontiki,

>> They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different
>> from that in AZ.
> and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all
> money and wasted time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.

It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi kontiki,

>> They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different
>> from that in AZ.
> and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all
> money and wasted time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.

It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

[W P Dixon]

But Friedrich!
The reasons here in the States that the gas is different has nothing to
do with the reasons you put forth. The reasons here is because a group of
politicians pass laws for the tree huggers, to make more anti-pollution
standards that the gas industry in this country is not equipped to handle.
And before the tree huggers get offended, AHHH go get in YOUR car and drive
to work just like everybody else..earth murderer!!!!HAHA
But anyways , hard starting in altitude and extreme cold has nothing to
do with the political agenda of our gas problems. It should be those reasons
you put forth, but sadly it is our government over legislating..as it tends
to do!

Patrick
"Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in message
...
> Hi kontiki,
>
> >> They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different
> >> from that in AZ.
> > and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all
> > money and wasted time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.
>
> It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
> to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
> preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
> northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
> you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
> below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.
>
> regards,
> Friedrich
>
> --
> for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress
>

[W P Dixon]

But Friedrich!
The reasons here in the States that the gas is different has nothing to
do with the reasons you put forth. The reasons here is because a group of
politicians pass laws for the tree huggers, to make more anti-pollution
standards that the gas industry in this country is not equipped to handle.
And before the tree huggers get offended, AHHH go get in YOUR car and drive
to work just like everybody else..earth murderer!!!!HAHA
But anyways , hard starting in altitude and extreme cold has nothing to
do with the political agenda of our gas problems. It should be those reasons
you put forth, but sadly it is our government over legislating..as it tends
to do!

Patrick
"Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in message
...
> Hi kontiki,
>
> >> They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different
> >> from that in AZ.
> > and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all
> > money and wasted time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.
>
> It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
> to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
> preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
> northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
> you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
> below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.
>
> regards,
> Friedrich
>
> --
> for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress
>

[C Kingsbury]

I've been keeping an eye out looking for types of businesses that would
benefit from climate change of the sort that the tree-huggers are always
talking about. The way I see it, you make a bunch of small speculative
investments now, and if it ever comes to pass, you only need one of them to
hit in order to make a killing. Biggest problem is no one knows when it
might start to hit or what the real effects would be, so you'd probably need
to place an awful lot of bets, and the return is unclear. Perhaps I should
just start a fund and go ringing up rich individuals...

Best,
-cwk.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> I think that you are seeing the future clearly.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

[C Kingsbury]

I've been keeping an eye out looking for types of businesses that would
benefit from climate change of the sort that the tree-huggers are always
talking about. The way I see it, you make a bunch of small speculative
investments now, and if it ever comes to pass, you only need one of them to
hit in order to make a killing. Biggest problem is no one knows when it
might start to hit or what the real effects would be, so you'd probably need
to place an awful lot of bets, and the return is unclear. Perhaps I should
just start a fund and go ringing up rich individuals...

Best,
-cwk.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> I think that you are seeing the future clearly.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

[C Kingsbury]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> But Friedrich!
> The reasons here in the States that the gas is different has nothing
to
> do with the reasons you put forth. The reasons here is because a group of

There was a Wall Street Journal piece about a year ago that said there were
something like 30-50 (may have been a lot more) different gas blends sold in
the US, with neighboring states (with equivalent geography/climate) often
mandating slightly different blends.

This isn't as bad as the specialized handling 100LL requires, but it does
have the effect of adding a layer of signifcant complexity to the refining
and transport of autogas. It also means that frequently only one refinery
produces a given blend, meaning any shutdowns or such can cause prices to
spike. This is why oil refiners love the idea of blends: it turns what looks
like the ultimate commodity into a more specialized product, allowing them
to maintain higher margins. I am not normally a fan of federal overruling of
state authority, but there is really no reason why we should have more than
4-5 blends sold across the US.

Still, none of this has anything to do with long-term supply and demand.
While tar sands and deep offshore drilling almost certainly ensure we won't
simply run out of the stuff in our lifetime, prices will almost certainly
rise significantly.

-cwk.

[C Kingsbury]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> But Friedrich!
> The reasons here in the States that the gas is different has nothing
to
> do with the reasons you put forth. The reasons here is because a group of

There was a Wall Street Journal piece about a year ago that said there were
something like 30-50 (may have been a lot more) different gas blends sold in
the US, with neighboring states (with equivalent geography/climate) often
mandating slightly different blends.

This isn't as bad as the specialized handling 100LL requires, but it does
have the effect of adding a layer of signifcant complexity to the refining
and transport of autogas. It also means that frequently only one refinery
produces a given blend, meaning any shutdowns or such can cause prices to
spike. This is why oil refiners love the idea of blends: it turns what looks
like the ultimate commodity into a more specialized product, allowing them
to maintain higher margins. I am not normally a fan of federal overruling of
state authority, but there is really no reason why we should have more than
4-5 blends sold across the US.

Still, none of this has anything to do with long-term supply and demand.
While tar sands and deep offshore drilling almost certainly ensure we won't
simply run out of the stuff in our lifetime, prices will almost certainly
rise significantly.

-cwk.

[kontiki]

Friedrich Ostertag wrote:

> It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
> to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
> preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
> northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
> you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
> below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.

By that logic then, we'd need to have a different blend of AVGAS for
each density altitude that we fly at, which is, of course preposterous.
Now I am not arguing *for* the archaic engine designs now currently in
use by we average GA airplane owner. Perhaps if FAA certification was
not so costly, ponderous then engines of more modern design could be
be made affordable enough for the average guy to install in his plane.
(yes I know some of these engines already exist but will they ever
be STC'd for the current fleet????)

Motor vehicle engines are not weight limited and are generally far more
advanced in design than the average piston aircraft engine. This technology
gives them the capability to adjust their fuel air mixtures and ignition
timing based upon real time conditions so they can always operate at maximum
efficiency at any altitude or temperature (after being warmed up of course).
Different fuel blends are not necessary unless you carry emission standards to
exaggerated extremes, which is exactly what is going on in this
country today.

[kontiki]

Friedrich Ostertag wrote:

> It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
> to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
> preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
> northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
> you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
> below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.

By that logic then, we'd need to have a different blend of AVGAS for
each density altitude that we fly at, which is, of course preposterous.
Now I am not arguing *for* the archaic engine designs now currently in
use by we average GA airplane owner. Perhaps if FAA certification was
not so costly, ponderous then engines of more modern design could be
be made affordable enough for the average guy to install in his plane.
(yes I know some of these engines already exist but will they ever
be STC'd for the current fleet????)

Motor vehicle engines are not weight limited and are generally far more
advanced in design than the average piston aircraft engine. This technology
gives them the capability to adjust their fuel air mixtures and ignition
timing based upon real time conditions so they can always operate at maximum
efficiency at any altitude or temperature (after being warmed up of course).
Different fuel blends are not necessary unless you carry emission standards to
exaggerated extremes, which is exactly what is going on in this
country today.

[kontiki]

> Still, none of this has anything to do with long-term supply and demand.
> While tar sands and deep offshore drilling almost certainly ensure we won't
> simply run out of the stuff in our lifetime, prices will almost certainly
> rise significantly.

Beyond all this discussion of gasoline one must consider the fact that
there is hardly a manufacturing operation or product that does not rely
on petroleum products/by-products of one type or another. Even the few
that don't will probably have packaging that does. Petro chemicals and
lubricants are used in everywhere and this use is continuing to grow.

We need to start thinking out of the box and utilize every avenue at our
disposal to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil and energy.
Simply focusing on conservation or resigning ourselves to "be like Europe"
will not get the job done.

[kontiki]

> Still, none of this has anything to do with long-term supply and demand.
> While tar sands and deep offshore drilling almost certainly ensure we won't
> simply run out of the stuff in our lifetime, prices will almost certainly
> rise significantly.

Beyond all this discussion of gasoline one must consider the fact that
there is hardly a manufacturing operation or product that does not rely
on petroleum products/by-products of one type or another. Even the few
that don't will probably have packaging that does. Petro chemicals and
lubricants are used in everywhere and this use is continuing to grow.

We need to start thinking out of the box and utilize every avenue at our
disposal to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil and energy.
Simply focusing on conservation or resigning ourselves to "be like Europe"
will not get the job done.

[C J Campbell]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>
> This country developed the atom bomb and sent men to the moon when it
> wanted to...if we elect politicians with real honesty and courage, we
> can *easily* do it again and become energy independent of the
> middle-east.

That is so bogus. "If we can send men to the moon, then why can't..." First
of all, we barely managed to send men to the moon. We haven't done it in
thirty years and can't do it now.

Secondly, sending men to the moon is one technology and is possible.
Perpetual motion is not possible, and a lot of energy-saving pipedreams
amount to a wish for perpetual motion.

[C J Campbell]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>
> This country developed the atom bomb and sent men to the moon when it
> wanted to...if we elect politicians with real honesty and courage, we
> can *easily* do it again and become energy independent of the
> middle-east.

That is so bogus. "If we can send men to the moon, then why can't..." First
of all, we barely managed to send men to the moon. We haven't done it in
thirty years and can't do it now.

Secondly, sending men to the moon is one technology and is possible.
Perpetual motion is not possible, and a lot of energy-saving pipedreams
amount to a wish for perpetual motion.

[Mike Rapoport]

This is partly true but the original premise was the having these different
formulations was adding significant cost to the price of gas. Since gas
needs to be different for different markets anyway, there is little added
cost. The market is so large that even with 30 different formulations each
is produced in huge volumes and none of them are specialty products in the
way that avgas is. As Friedrich points out, vapor pressure has to be varied
with temperature. Refiners have always had different formulations for
different climates and for summer and winter. If all gas was the same,
consumers wouldn't be happy with the product.

Mike
MU-2

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> But Friedrich!
> The reasons here in the States that the gas is different has nothing to
> do with the reasons you put forth. The reasons here is because a group of
> politicians pass laws for the tree huggers, to make more anti-pollution
> standards that the gas industry in this country is not equipped to handle.
> And before the tree huggers get offended, AHHH go get in YOUR car and
> drive
> to work just like everybody else..earth murderer!!!!HAHA
> But anyways , hard starting in altitude and extreme cold has nothing to
> do with the political agenda of our gas problems. It should be those
> reasons
> you put forth, but sadly it is our government over legislating..as it
> tends
> to do!
>
> Patrick
> "Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi kontiki,
>>
>> >> They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different
>> >> from that in AZ.
>> > and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all
>> > money and wasted time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.
>>
>> It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
>> to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
>> preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
>> northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
>> you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
>> below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.
>>
>> regards,
>> Friedrich
>>
>> --
>> for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress
>>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

This is partly true but the original premise was the having these different
formulations was adding significant cost to the price of gas. Since gas
needs to be different for different markets anyway, there is little added
cost. The market is so large that even with 30 different formulations each
is produced in huge volumes and none of them are specialty products in the
way that avgas is. As Friedrich points out, vapor pressure has to be varied
with temperature. Refiners have always had different formulations for
different climates and for summer and winter. If all gas was the same,
consumers wouldn't be happy with the product.

Mike
MU-2

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> But Friedrich!
> The reasons here in the States that the gas is different has nothing to
> do with the reasons you put forth. The reasons here is because a group of
> politicians pass laws for the tree huggers, to make more anti-pollution
> standards that the gas industry in this country is not equipped to handle.
> And before the tree huggers get offended, AHHH go get in YOUR car and
> drive
> to work just like everybody else..earth murderer!!!!HAHA
> But anyways , hard starting in altitude and extreme cold has nothing to
> do with the political agenda of our gas problems. It should be those
> reasons
> you put forth, but sadly it is our government over legislating..as it
> tends
> to do!
>
> Patrick
> "Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi kontiki,
>>
>> >> They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different
>> >> from that in AZ.
>> > and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all
>> > money and wasted time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.
>>
>> It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
>> to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
>> preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
>> northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
>> you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
>> below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.
>>
>> regards,
>> Friedrich
>>
>> --
>> for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress
>>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Friedrich Ostertag wrote:
>
>> It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
>> to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
>> preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
>> northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
>> you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
>> below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.
>
> By that logic then, we'd need to have a different blend of AVGAS for
> each density altitude that we fly at, which is, of course preposterous.
> Now I am not arguing *for* the archaic engine designs now currently in
> use by we average GA airplane owner. Perhaps if FAA certification was
> not so costly, ponderous then engines of more modern design could be
> be made affordable enough for the average guy to install in his plane.
> (yes I know some of these engines already exist but will they ever
> be STC'd for the current fleet????)

Actually the lower preasure and lower temperature tend to cancel each other
out so density altitude is not a big problem. The problem is that the gas
that works well in high hot locaitons like Reno at 100F wouldn't allow your
engine to start in Minneapolis at -20. There simply wouldn't be enough
vapor preasure. Using fuel formulated for cold temperatures would cause
vapor lock at high, hot locations.


> Motor vehicle engines are not weight limited and are generally far more
> advanced in design than the average piston aircraft engine. This
> technology
> gives them the capability to adjust their fuel air mixtures and ignition
> timing based upon real time conditions so they can always operate at
> maximum
> efficiency at any altitude or temperature (after being warmed up of
> course).
> Different fuel blends are not necessary unless you carry emission
> standards to exaggerated extremes, which is exactly what is going on in
> this
> country today.
>

It doesn't matter how advanced the engine is if the fuel won't vaporize, the
engine won't start.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Friedrich Ostertag wrote:
>
>> It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
>> to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
>> preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
>> northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
>> you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
>> below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.
>
> By that logic then, we'd need to have a different blend of AVGAS for
> each density altitude that we fly at, which is, of course preposterous.
> Now I am not arguing *for* the archaic engine designs now currently in
> use by we average GA airplane owner. Perhaps if FAA certification was
> not so costly, ponderous then engines of more modern design could be
> be made affordable enough for the average guy to install in his plane.
> (yes I know some of these engines already exist but will they ever
> be STC'd for the current fleet????)

Actually the lower preasure and lower temperature tend to cancel each other
out so density altitude is not a big problem. The problem is that the gas
that works well in high hot locaitons like Reno at 100F wouldn't allow your
engine to start in Minneapolis at -20. There simply wouldn't be enough
vapor preasure. Using fuel formulated for cold temperatures would cause
vapor lock at high, hot locations.


> Motor vehicle engines are not weight limited and are generally far more
> advanced in design than the average piston aircraft engine. This
> technology
> gives them the capability to adjust their fuel air mixtures and ignition
> timing based upon real time conditions so they can always operate at
> maximum
> efficiency at any altitude or temperature (after being warmed up of
> course).
> Different fuel blends are not necessary unless you carry emission
> standards to exaggerated extremes, which is exactly what is going on in
> this
> country today.
>

It doesn't matter how advanced the engine is if the fuel won't vaporize, the
engine won't start.

Mike
MU-2

[Friedrich Ostertag]

kontiki wrote:
> Friedrich Ostertag wrote:
>
>> It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties
>> need to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in
>> AZ, preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of
>> the northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the
>> mileage you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the
>> morning at below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.
>
> By that logic then, we'd need to have a different blend of AVGAS for
> each density altitude that we fly at,

Only if you require to cold-start it at altitude...

And if you expect a clean, instantaneous runup like you get from any
current production car. From what I have seen the starting behavior of
aircraft engines couldn't be further from it even at "normal" ambient
temperatures.

Another point, of which I'm not perfectly sure, but could it be, that
the detailed and stringent requirements on many properties of Avgas,
which ensure that it will work properly under very different
conditions, are part of what makes it so expensive?

> Motor vehicle engines are not weight limited and are generally far
> more advanced in design than the average piston aircraft engine. This
> technology gives them the capability to adjust their fuel air
> mixtures and ignition timing based upon real time conditions so they
> can always operate at maximum efficiency at any altitude or
> temperature (after being warmed up of course).

partly true, but to warm it you have to start it first. And no car user
would accept having to warm up his vehicle for 10-15 Minutes before
driving away. Cars today are expected to perform flawlessly even when
cold (or, for that matter, very hot). This does require different fuel
properties depending on climatic conditions. Although I will admit,
that you have a point in the following:

> Different fuel blends
> are not necessary unless you carry emission standards to exaggerated
> extremes, which is exactly what is going on in this
> country today.

At least, the emission standards, and therefore the dependant fuel
properties, should be handled at federal level.


regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

[Friedrich Ostertag]

kontiki wrote:
> Friedrich Ostertag wrote:
>
>> It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties
>> need to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in
>> AZ, preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of
>> the northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the
>> mileage you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the
>> morning at below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.
>
> By that logic then, we'd need to have a different blend of AVGAS for
> each density altitude that we fly at,

Only if you require to cold-start it at altitude...

And if you expect a clean, instantaneous runup like you get from any
current production car. From what I have seen the starting behavior of
aircraft engines couldn't be further from it even at "normal" ambient
temperatures.

Another point, of which I'm not perfectly sure, but could it be, that
the detailed and stringent requirements on many properties of Avgas,
which ensure that it will work properly under very different
conditions, are part of what makes it so expensive?

> Motor vehicle engines are not weight limited and are generally far
> more advanced in design than the average piston aircraft engine. This
> technology gives them the capability to adjust their fuel air
> mixtures and ignition timing based upon real time conditions so they
> can always operate at maximum efficiency at any altitude or
> temperature (after being warmed up of course).

partly true, but to warm it you have to start it first. And no car user
would accept having to warm up his vehicle for 10-15 Minutes before
driving away. Cars today are expected to perform flawlessly even when
cold (or, for that matter, very hot). This does require different fuel
properties depending on climatic conditions. Although I will admit,
that you have a point in the following:

> Different fuel blends
> are not necessary unless you carry emission standards to exaggerated
> extremes, which is exactly what is going on in this
> country today.

At least, the emission standards, and therefore the dependant fuel
properties, should be handled at federal level.


regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

[Jim Weir]

They were, and that's how the goddamned farmers in Iowa got California mandated
to go to this frikkin' gasahol.

Jim


"Friedrich Ostertag" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:


->
->At least, the emission standards, and therefore the dependant fuel
->properties, should be handled at federal level.


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com