The ethanol nightmare has arrived!

[Al[_2_]]

I just happened to see a sticker on a fuel pump today that stated "may
contain up to 10% ethanol" while I was filling my car this morning.
Upon further investigation with my fuel retailer, the local fuel jobber,
and the fuel distributor here in Spokane, Washington that there is a
federal mandate to add 9 billion gallons of ethanol per year to the
nationwide gasoline fuel stream. A new twist is a 5.1 cent per gallon
federal fuel tax break to the oil companies to get this "alternative"
fuel into the market. Tomorrow (April 8) is the first day of the
program and the dealers get their price tonight. According to my
sources, there is a possibility that some retailers may opt out, however
if that 5.1 cent break is passed on to them, it won't be likely.

I was lucky and just happened to ask the right question at the right
time. I haven't seen an outcry on this issue by EAA, AOPA or any other
aviation group.

This is a nationwide situation. Not just in a few states. You may not
find non-ethanol autogas at your usual outlet. Our jobber started
mixing in ethanol last week, however I had not purchased any since
mid-March so was unaware.

In essence, with the 5.1 cent per gallon tax break, the US federal
government has just killed the Aviation autogas concept.

I'm trying to locate a new source, but may not be successful. The
ethanol is added at the distribution rack. Chevron and a couple others
are requiring their retailers to go to E-10.


Al
Spokane, Wa
1964 Skyhawk with an AutoGas STC

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 7, 7:41*pm, Al > wrote:
> I just happened to see a sticker on a fuel pump today that stated "may
> contain up to 10% ethanol" while I was filling my car this morning.
> Upon further investigation with my fuel retailer, the local fuel jobber,
> and the fuel distributor here in Spokane, Washington that there is a
> federal mandate to add 9 billion gallons of ethanol per year to the
> nationwide gasoline fuel stream. *A new twist is a 5.1 cent per gallon
> federal fuel tax break to the oil companies to get this "alternative"
> fuel into the market. *Tomorrow (April 8) is the first day of the
> program and the dealers get their price tonight. *According to my
> sources, there is a possibility that some retailers may opt out, however
> if that 5.1 cent break is passed on to them, it won't be likely.

I bet the days of seaplane cross country flying are done. You aren't
going to find ethanol free gas at the docks either.

-Robert

[Cubdriver]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:41:39 -0700, Al >
wrote:

>This is a nationwide situation. Not just in a few states. You may not
>find non-ethanol autogas at your usual outlet.

The local airport stocks mogas without additives, which is a huge boon
to people like me who don't want to put the alky-diluted stuff in our
small engines (snowblower, lawnmower, chainsaw) where it can literally
gum the works. It was four dollars a gallon last time I brought the
stuff home, but I don't use that many gallons in a year.

Happily for us, you can't transport alky-gas over long distances in
pipelines or on tankers, so the stuff is mixed at the port of entry,
which for us is Portland ME, sixty miles north. When the airport owner
needs to fill the mogas main supply, he orders us a truckload of the
unadulterated stuff from the terminal.

This began here four or five years ago as a way of getting mogas
without MBTE in it. Though not as objectional as alcohol, the purists
didn't want to put it in their airplane tanks.


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> In essence, with the 5.1 cent per gallon tax break, the US federal
> government has just killed the Aviation autogas concept.

Thanks for the head's up. We've used over 9,000 gallons of mogas in our
Lycoming O-540, without a burp, at a savings of well over $10K. Obviously
this change will be catastrophic if it is, indeed, nationwide.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On Apr 8, 8:22 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > In essence, with the 5.1 cent per gallon tax break, the US federal
> > government has just killed the Aviation autogas concept.
>
> Thanks for the head's up. We've used over 9,000 gallons of mogas in our
> Lycoming O-540, without a burp, at a savings of well over $10K. Obviously
> this change will be catastrophic if it is, indeed, nationwide.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

The Conti E-185 in the '47 V tail Bonanza is STCed for mogas, but the
biggest problem is getting it to the airplane.

Jay -- what changes do you see in leaning, startup, etc with mogas v.
100ll?


Dan Mc

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Jay -- what changes do you see in leaning, startup, etc with mogas v.
> 100ll?

The only changes we've seen are:

- The oil doesn't turn black
- The plugs don't foul with little BBs of lead
- There is an extra $10,000 in the bank

Anyone who's got the mogas STC and is choosing not to use it is needlessly
burning Ben Franklins at a breath-taking rate.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On Apr 8, 9:13*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Jay -- what changes do you see in leaning, startup, etc with mogas v.
> > 100ll?
>
> The only changes we've seen are:
>
> - The oil doesn't turn black
> - The plugs don't foul with little BBs of lead
> - There is an extra $10,000 in the bank
>
> Anyone who's got the mogas STC and is choosing not to use it is needlessly
> burning Ben Franklins at a breath-taking rate.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

But burning Ben Franklins at a breath-taking rate is normal operation
for aviation. Hence the AMU to lessen the shock.

I'm only kidding of course and if you can burn mogas that's great. I'm
in Florida and our gas pumps are also sprouting the "Ethanol less than
10%" stickers. I heard a blurb on NPR the other day that it's mandated
by the feds for the summer to lessen polution. I think, if I recall
correctly that that's how it started in California as well. The point
of the news blurb was that ethanol prices are spiking causing gas
prices to rise. Also, since they're using corn, tortillas and Fritos
will rise as well.

I'm really thinking that diesel is where piston aviation is going to
survive at all and that will be a significant blow due to the costs of
upgrading existing planes. Most won't bother, I think.

Jay, if your only alternative to keep flying was to drop, say, $40K
into a diesel conversion for Atlas, would you?

I don't own (yet) so I'll have to deal with the rental fleet.

John

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 8, 2:59*am, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:41:39 -0700, Al >
> wrote:
>
> >This is a nationwide situation. *Not just in a few states. *You may not
> >find non-ethanol autogas at your usual outlet. *
>
> The local airport stocks mogas without additives, which is a huge boon
> to people like me who don't want to put the alky-diluted stuff in our
> small engines (snowblower, lawnmower, chainsaw) where it can literally
> gum the works. It was four dollars a gallon last time I brought the
> stuff home, but I don't use that many gallons in a year.

I believe out here in California its illegal to sell mogas w/o the
ethanol.

-robert

[pgbnh]

Take a look at last week's Time magazine cover article on the great myth of
ethanol. It turns out that the list of 'unintended consequences' is quite
long and the net effect of increased ethanol usage is far more damaging to
the environment than the use of oil-based fuels. (This does not address the
damage to engines, the decreased performance (which means more fuel burned),
impact on other commodities, etc etc).

But of course, to 'Big Corn' (corollary to 'Big Oil') the fact that ethanol
is far from our salvation is ignored. Also by the various politicians who
are deep into the pockets of 'Big Corn'.
> wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 9:13 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Jay -- what changes do you see in leaning, startup, etc with mogas v.
> > 100ll?
>
> The only changes we've seen are:
>
> - The oil doesn't turn black
> - The plugs don't foul with little BBs of lead
> - There is an extra $10,000 in the bank
>
> Anyone who's got the mogas STC and is choosing not to use it is needlessly
> burning Ben Franklins at a breath-taking rate.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

But burning Ben Franklins at a breath-taking rate is normal operation
for aviation. Hence the AMU to lessen the shock.

I'm only kidding of course and if you can burn mogas that's great. I'm
in Florida and our gas pumps are also sprouting the "Ethanol less than
10%" stickers. I heard a blurb on NPR the other day that it's mandated
by the feds for the summer to lessen polution. I think, if I recall
correctly that that's how it started in California as well. The point
of the news blurb was that ethanol prices are spiking causing gas
prices to rise. Also, since they're using corn, tortillas and Fritos
will rise as well.

I'm really thinking that diesel is where piston aviation is going to
survive at all and that will be a significant blow due to the costs of
upgrading existing planes. Most won't bother, I think.

Jay, if your only alternative to keep flying was to drop, say, $40K
into a diesel conversion for Atlas, would you?

I don't own (yet) so I'll have to deal with the rental fleet.

John

[Peter Dohm]

"pgbnh" > wrote in message
...
> Take a look at last week's Time magazine cover article on the great myth
> of ethanol. It turns out that the list of 'unintended consequences' is
> quite long and the net effect of increased ethanol usage is far more
> damaging to the environment than the use of oil-based fuels. (This does
> not address the damage to engines, the decreased performance (which means
> more fuel burned), impact on other commodities, etc etc).
>
> But of course, to 'Big Corn' (corollary to 'Big Oil') the fact that
> ethanol is far from our salvation is ignored. Also by the various
> politicians who are deep into the pockets of 'Big Corn'.

If it were not such a dissaster for the country, and all of us in it, all of
that would really be quite amusing. ADM, et al, have gotten the
environmentalists signed onto yet another scheme that does little more than
pick our pockets and polute everything in sight--it's MTBE back and bigger
than ever.

Peter

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>Jay, if your only alternative to keep flying was to drop, say, $40K
>into a diesel conversion for Atlas, would you?

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

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> But of course, to 'Big Corn' (corollary to 'Big Oil') the fact that
> ethanol is far from our salvation is ignored. Also by the various
> politicians who are deep into the pockets of 'Big Corn'.

Boy, you ain't kidding. Here in Iowa, we're seeing ethanol plants pop up
everywhere, like daisies. (The only thing being built faster is casinos --
we now have 19 casinos in a state with less population than Metro Chicago!)

I keep wondering what in the hell is going to happen to all these plants,
built in all these communities, when the ethanol bubble bursts. It's just
another gummint scam.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[M[_1_]]

> I'm trying to locate a new source, but may not be successful. The
> ethanol is added at the distribution rack. Chevron and a couple others
> are requiring their retailers to go to E-10.
>


Have you actually tried to go to a Chevron station, get some of the
Premium gas, and actually test it for ethanol? E10 should be very
obvious with the test tube method.

Because Washington state has a relatively sensible ethanol law, and
the fact that wholesale ethanol price is very high right now, there's
a chance that you might get ethanol free gas by buying the Premium
fuel.

Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in pipelines.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:apXKj.58870$TT4.53961@attbi_s22...
>> But of course, to 'Big Corn' (corollary to 'Big Oil') the fact that
>> ethanol is far from our salvation is ignored. Also by the various
>> politicians who are deep into the pockets of 'Big Corn'.
>
> Boy, you ain't kidding. Here in Iowa, we're seeing ethanol plants pop up
> everywhere, like daisies. (The only thing being built faster is casinos --
> we now have 19 casinos in a state with less population than Metro
> Chicago!)

That's why I'm so glad I moved almost 200 miles further east - it's a great
opportunity to expand my "territory" !

> I keep wondering what in the hell is going to happen to all these plants,
> built in all these communities, when the ethanol bubble bursts. It's
> just another gummint scam.

They'll be the "ghost towns" of the 21st century. The gummint will spend
more $$$billions to "re-locate" the inhabitants.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC
Cheyenne, WY

[M[_1_]]

On Apr 7, 7:41 pm, Al > wrote:
> A new twist is a 5.1 cent per gallon
> federal fuel tax break to the oil companies to get this "alternative"
> fuel into the market.

BTW, this credit (5.1 cent on E10) has been on the book since 2004.
It's not a new thing:

http://www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=78&parentid=26#Volumetric%20Ethanol%20Excise%20Tax%20 Credit

[M[_1_]]

On Apr 8, 8:44 am, wrote:

> I heard a blurb on NPR the other day that it's mandated
> by the feds for the summer to lessen polution.

There seems to be so many misinformation about ethanol in fuel. A
little Google search shows:

* ethanol was first introduced in larger scale in gasoline as an
oxygenate back in 1990s, the RFG program, to reduce the CO emission
mostly in winter in some metro areas. On carburated auto engines
ethanol has the effect of leaning out the mixture - hence reducing the
CO emission especially when the engine is cold. This effect is mostly
irrelevant now that vast majority of the cars have electronic ignition
and automatic mixture control.

* The oil companies didn't like ethanol because 1. it can't be
transported in pipelines and 2. they didn't control its production.
They prefer MTBE, an oxygenate produced from petroleum. EPA at the
time didn't care whether MTBE and ethanol is being used.

* MTBE was later found to be contaminating ground water, and the
congress in 2005(6?) denied MTBE producer's request for a liability
waver. As a result, MTBE as an oxygenate was completely phased out
about two years ago and all areas designated as "non-attainment" areas
by EPA must use ethanol as oxygenate, which triggered the first large
scale shortage of ethanol and a big price run-up.

* In the mean time, some states have passed various laws mandating
ethanol blending in gasoline. The exact requirement can be very
different from state to state.

* In 2004, Congress passed the law to give 51 cent per gallon subsidy
for pure ethanol (and proportional tax credit for various % of blend).

* In 2007, Congress passed the law (and Bush signed it) to require a
rapidly increase of renewable fuel by 2022 (See
http://www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=78&parentid=26 for the schedule).
For the first few years this would come almost entirely from corn
ethanol. This misguided effort resulted in a huge increase of corn
price, food price - particular meats, and ethanol price in 2007 when
20% of the entire U.S. corn production was turned into ethanol - which
was merely the first year of the schedule (see
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=corn+ethanol&btnG=Search+News).
Interestingly enough, even with 51c a gallon tax credit ethanol
producers have been barely turning a profit lately due to this huge
run-up of corn price, and this is merely the beginning. To produce 15
billion gallons of corn ethanol a year it would probably require more
than 50% of the entire U.S. corn harvest, a situation that's highly
unlikely to occur. If you think $3/dozen eggs is expensive, imagine
$10/dozen eggs - that's what'll happen if we produce anywhere near 15
billion gallons of corn ethanol a year.

* Even though the 2007 law requires a massive increase of ethanol
blending in gasoline, it didn't exactly specify that each gallon of
gasoline must contain certain percentage of ethanol. The oil
companies are free to blend ethanol in some areas and not other
areas , or to blend in regular gas but not premium, etc, etc -
subject to state by state regulations.


My point is? This ethanol madness totally sucks, but the hard reality
has begun to set in. Just wait for another year when the food price
totally shoot through the roof, something will change. I have already
seen the news coverage regarding corn ethanol turning largely negative
in the last month or so.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:apXKj.58870$TT4.53961@attbi_s22...
>>> But of course, to 'Big Corn' (corollary to 'Big Oil') the fact that
>>> ethanol is far from our salvation is ignored. Also by the various
>>> politicians who are deep into the pockets of 'Big Corn'.
>>
>> Boy, you ain't kidding. Here in Iowa, we're seeing ethanol plants
>> pop up everywhere, like daisies. (The only thing being built faster
>> is casinos -- we now have 19 casinos in a state with less population
>> than Metro Chicago!)
>
> That's why I'm so glad I moved almost 200 miles further east - it's a
> great opportunity to expand my "territory" !
>
>> I keep wondering what in the hell is going to happen to all these
>> plants, built in all these communities, when the ethanol bubble
>> bursts. It's just another gummint scam.
>
> They'll be the "ghost towns" of the 21st century. The gummint will
> spend more $$$billions to "re-locate" the inhabitants.
>

Wow, the sum of your's and Jay's IQ's combined are somehow less than
they are independantly. Amazing. How do you do that?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:apXKj.58870$TT4.53961@attbi_s22:

>> But of course, to 'Big Corn' (corollary to 'Big Oil') the fact that
>> ethanol is far from our salvation is ignored. Also by the various
>> politicians who are deep into the pockets of 'Big Corn'.
>
> Boy, you ain't kidding. Here in Iowa, we're seeing ethanol plants pop
> up everywhere, like daisies. (The only thing being built faster is
> casinos -- we now have 19 casinos in a state with less population
> than Metro Chicago!)
>
> I keep wondering what in the hell is going to happen to all these
> plants, built in all these communities, when the ethanol bubble
> bursts. It's just another gummint scam.


You are an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:TlXKj.112166
$yE1.82115@attbi_s21:

>>Jay, if your only alternative to keep flying was to drop, say, $40K
>>into a diesel conversion for Atlas, would you?
>
> Nope.

Well, there you are. Dummer'n dirt.



Bertie

[John \C\]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:apXKj.58870$TT4.53961@attbi_s22...
> >>> But of course, to 'Big Corn' (corollary to 'Big Oil') the fact
that
> >>> ethanol is far from our salvation is ignored. Also by the various
> >>> politicians who are deep into the pockets of 'Big Corn'.
> >>
> >> Boy, you ain't kidding. Here in Iowa, we're seeing ethanol plants
> >> pop up everywhere, like daisies. (The only thing being built faster
> >> is casinos -- we now have 19 casinos in a state with less
population
> >> than Metro Chicago!)
> >
> > That's why I'm so glad I moved almost 200 miles further east - it's
a
> > great opportunity to expand my "territory" !
> >
> >> I keep wondering what in the hell is going to happen to all these
> >> plants, built in all these communities, when the ethanol bubble
> >> bursts. It's just another gummint scam.
> >
> > They'll be the "ghost towns" of the 21st century. The gummint will
> > spend more $$$billions to "re-locate" the inhabitants.
> >
>
> Wow, the sum of your's and Jay's IQ's combined are somehow less than
> they are independantly. Amazing. How do you do that?
>
> Bertie

It involves "animal magnetism".

Number One

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"John \"C\"" > wrote in
et:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> > news:apXKj.58870$TT4.53961@attbi_s22...
>> >>> But of course, to 'Big Corn' (corollary to 'Big Oil') the fact
> that
>> >>> ethanol is far from our salvation is ignored. Also by the various
>> >>> politicians who are deep into the pockets of 'Big Corn'.
>> >>
>> >> Boy, you ain't kidding. Here in Iowa, we're seeing ethanol plants
>> >> pop up everywhere, like daisies. (The only thing being built
faster
>> >> is casinos -- we now have 19 casinos in a state with less
> population
>> >> than Metro Chicago!)
>> >
>> > That's why I'm so glad I moved almost 200 miles further east - it's
> a
>> > great opportunity to expand my "territory" !
>> >
>> >> I keep wondering what in the hell is going to happen to all these
>> >> plants, built in all these communities, when the ethanol bubble
>> >> bursts. It's just another gummint scam.
>> >
>> > They'll be the "ghost towns" of the 21st century. The gummint will
>> > spend more $$$billions to "re-locate" the inhabitants.
>> >
>>
>> Wow, the sum of your's and Jay's IQ's combined are somehow less than
>> they are independantly. Amazing. How do you do that?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> It involves "animal magnetism".
>
> Number One
>
>

Or maybe it's like mixing count Chocula and Lucky charms together.
Independantly they taste awful, together.. yech.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

M writes:

> Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
> distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in pipelines.

Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in pipelines?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> M writes:

> > Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
> > distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in pipelines.

> Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in pipelines?

The same reason it can't be used in existing airplanes; pieces of the
plumbing start leaking.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> I have already
> seen the news coverage regarding corn ethanol turning largely negative
> in the last month or so.

Me, too -- and that is a VERY good thing.

Although my fellow Iowans vehemently disagree, naturally. The change from
"poverty-stricken" to "millionaires" has been a good one for farmers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 8, 9:59*am, "pgbnh" > wrote:
> Take a look at last week's Time magazine cover article on the great myth of
> ethanol. It turns out that the list of 'unintended consequences' is quite
> long and the net effect of increased ethanol usage is far more damaging to
> the environment than the use of oil-based fuels. (This does not address the
> damage to engines, the decreased performance (which means more fuel burned),
> impact on other commodities, etc etc).

In the words of Castro "Now those damn Americans are putting our food
in their cars".

-robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:Am6Lj.59611$TT4.49906@attbi_s22:

>> I have already
>> seen the news coverage regarding corn ethanol turning largely
>> negative in the last month or so.
>
> Me, too -- and that is a VERY good thing.


How the **** would you know, you moron? you don't know the first thing
about any aspect of energy.
>
> Although my fellow Iowans vehemently disagree, naturally. The change
> from "poverty-stricken" to "millionaires" has been a good one for
> farmers.


You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> M writes:
>
>> > Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
>> > distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in pipelines.
>
>> Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in pipelines?
>
> The same reason it can't be used in existing airplanes; pieces of the
> plumbing start leaking.
>
>

It can be used in existing airplanes. All you need to do is replace
fittings. I've done it. My old Luscombe ran on Ethanol laden mogas.



Bertie

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> M writes:
> >
> >> > Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
> >> > distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in pipelines.
> >
> >> Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in pipelines?
> >
> > The same reason it can't be used in existing airplanes; pieces of the
> > plumbing start leaking.
> >
> >

> It can be used in existing airplanes. All you need to do is replace
> fittings. I've done it. My old Luscombe ran on Ethanol laden mogas.

Then it isn't the existing plumbing, is it?

Depending on what the existing plumbing is made of, you may have to
replace all, some, or none of gaskets, fittings, lines, tanks, and
the carburetor, i.e. everything the fuel touches.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in
>> :
>
>> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >> M writes:
>> >
>> >> > Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
>> >> > distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in
>> >> > pipelines.
>> >
>> >> Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in pipelines?
>> >
>> > The same reason it can't be used in existing airplanes; pieces of
>> > the plumbing start leaking.
>> >
>> >
>
>> It can be used in existing airplanes. All you need to do is replace
>> fittings. I've done it. My old Luscombe ran on Ethanol laden mogas.
>
> Then it isn't the existing plumbing, is it?

Nope, but it cost about 8 bucks to convert the airplane.
>
> Depending on what the existing plumbing is made of, you may have to
> replace all, some, or none of gaskets, fittings, lines, tanks, and
> the carburetor, i.e. everything the fuel touches.
>
>

Yep, did that. All that was really required was the flexible line from
the firewall to the carb and to ensure the float was a metal one. For
the flexible line we just got a length of automotive line and put
aircraft fittings on the end of it. The system is pretty simple and
fairly devoid of stuff that could be affected.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in
> >> :
> >
> >> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> >> M writes:
> >> >
> >> >> > Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
> >> >> > distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in
> >> >> > pipelines.
> >> >
> >> >> Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in pipelines?
> >> >
> >> > The same reason it can't be used in existing airplanes; pieces of
> >> > the plumbing start leaking.
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >> It can be used in existing airplanes. All you need to do is replace
> >> fittings. I've done it. My old Luscombe ran on Ethanol laden mogas.
> >
> > Then it isn't the existing plumbing, is it?

> Nope, but it cost about 8 bucks to convert the airplane.
> >
> > Depending on what the existing plumbing is made of, you may have to
> > replace all, some, or none of gaskets, fittings, lines, tanks, and
> > the carburetor, i.e. everything the fuel touches.
> >
> >

> Yep, did that. All that was really required was the flexible line from
> the firewall to the carb and to ensure the float was a metal one. For
> the flexible line we just got a length of automotive line and put
> aircraft fittings on the end of it. The system is pretty simple and
> fairly devoid of stuff that could be affected.

If the entire GA fleet were built like Luscombes we'd be home free.

What about the last twenty years worth of C-172's, C-182's and PA-28's?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:kogvc5-ruf.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:
>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote in
>> >> :
>> >
>> >> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >> >> M writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
>> >> >> > distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in
>> >> >> > pipelines.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in
pipelines?
>> >> >
>> >> > The same reason it can't be used in existing airplanes; pieces
of
>> >> > the plumbing start leaking.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> It can be used in existing airplanes. All you need to do is
replace
>> >> fittings. I've done it. My old Luscombe ran on Ethanol laden
mogas.
>> >
>> > Then it isn't the existing plumbing, is it?
>
>> Nope, but it cost about 8 bucks to convert the airplane.
>> >
>> > Depending on what the existing plumbing is made of, you may have to
>> > replace all, some, or none of gaskets, fittings, lines, tanks, and
>> > the carburetor, i.e. everything the fuel touches.
>> >
>> >
>
>> Yep, did that. All that was really required was the flexible line
from
>> the firewall to the carb and to ensure the float was a metal one. For
>> the flexible line we just got a length of automotive line and put
>> aircraft fittings on the end of it. The system is pretty simple and
>> fairly devoid of stuff that could be affected.
>
> If the entire GA fleet were built like Luscombes we'd be home free.

If the enbtire GA fleet was built like luscombes, they'd still be flying
70 years after they were built.
>
> What about the last twenty years worth of C-172's, C-182's and PA-
28's?


Plumbing problems are really very small in the greater scheme of
things. If all that was available was straight ethanol or methanol,
plumbing would become available.


Bertie


Bertie>

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 21:59:41 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:



>>
>> What about the last twenty years worth of C-172's, C-182's and PA-
>28's?
>
>
>Plumbing problems are really very small in the greater scheme of
>things. If all that was available was straight ethanol or methanol,
>plumbing would become available.

Right.

All this whining about the problems with alternative fuels is nothing
but hand-wringing.

We will *have* to change to alternative fuels, or perish.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dan Luke > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 21:59:41 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>
>
>>>
>>> What about the last twenty years worth of C-172's, C-182's and PA-
>>28's?
>>
>>
>>Plumbing problems are really very small in the greater scheme of
>>things. If all that was available was straight ethanol or methanol,
>>plumbing would become available.
>
> Right.
>
> All this whining about the problems with alternative fuels is nothing
> but hand-wringing.
>
> We will *have* to change to alternative fuels, or perish.
>

Well you might perish!
I'll just walk.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke > wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 21:59:41 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:



> >>
> >> What about the last twenty years worth of C-172's, C-182's and PA-
> >28's?
> >
> >
> >Plumbing problems are really very small in the greater scheme of
> >things. If all that was available was straight ethanol or methanol,
> >plumbing would become available.

> Right.

> All this whining about the problems with alternative fuels is nothing
> but hand-wringing.

Right.

Let's not bother to look at any of the details, let's just pull something
out of our ass and implement it.

If it turns out to be unworkable for reasons of economics or engineering
or both, we'll just keep pulling things out of our ass until we luck out
and get something that works.

Great plan.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:55:03 GMT, wrote:


>> All this whining about the problems with alternative fuels is nothing
>> but hand-wringing.
>
>Right.
>
>Let's not bother to look at any of the details, let's just pull something
>out of our ass and implement it.

Who said it would be easy, Jim?

There will be problems, f-ups and failures.

But what's the alternative? SNAFU?

>
>If it turns out to be unworkable for reasons of economics or engineering
>or both, we'll just keep pulling things out of our ass until we luck out
>and get something that works.
>
>Great plan.

What's your plan?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in :

> Dan Luke > wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 21:59:41 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>
>
>> >>
>> >> What about the last twenty years worth of C-172's, C-182's and PA-
>> >28's?
>> >
>> >
>> >Plumbing problems are really very small in the greater scheme of
>> >things. If all that was available was straight ethanol or methanol,
>> >plumbing would become available.
>
>> Right.
>
>> All this whining about the problems with alternative fuels is nothing
>> but hand-wringing.
>
> Right.
>
> Let's not bother to look at any of the details, let's just pull
something
> out of our ass and implement it.
>
> If it turns out to be unworkable for reasons of economics or
engineering
> or both, we'll just keep pulling things out of our ass until we luck
out
> and get something that works.
>
> Great plan.
>

Bit like pulling out straw man arguments, eh?



Bertie

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-10, > wrote:
> Right.
>
> Let's not bother to look at any of the details, let's just pull something
> out of our ass and implement it.
>
> If it turns out to be unworkable for reasons of economics or engineering
> or both, we'll just keep pulling things out of our ass until we luck out
> and get something that works.

Like Minnesota's plan to mandate 20% ethanol in all gasoline sold for road
use by 2010. Nobody has yet told me who'll pay the bills when my car's fuel
system melts into a puddle of goo that Toyota won't cover because the ethanol
percentage is too high...
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-04-10, >
> wrote:
>> Right.
>>
>> Let's not bother to look at any of the details, let's just pull
>> something out of our ass and implement it.
>>
>> If it turns out to be unworkable for reasons of economics or
>> engineering or both, we'll just keep pulling things out of our ass
>> until we luck out and get something that works.
>
> Like Minnesota's plan to mandate 20% ethanol in all gasoline sold for
> road use by 2010. Nobody has yet told me who'll pay the bills when my
> car's fuel system melts into a puddle of goo that Toyota won't cover
> because the ethanol percentage is too high...




Don't you have one of those electron powerd motorcycles anyway?


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke > wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:55:03 GMT, wrote:


> >> All this whining about the problems with alternative fuels is nothing
> >> but hand-wringing.
> >
> >Right.
> >
> >Let's not bother to look at any of the details, let's just pull something
> >out of our ass and implement it.

> Who said it would be easy, Jim?

> There will be problems, f-ups and failures.

Only if sound, established engineering and economic practices are ignored,
in which case you get boondogles like the current ethanol fiasco.

> But what's the alternative? SNAFU?

We could follow the example of Brazil, which contrary to popular perception
did not put a major empapthis on ethanol (it's a minor source), rather
they greatly increased domestic petroleum production. Ever heard of
Alaska?

There is increased exploration, improved recovery technology, shale and
tar sands recovery technology and synthesis from coal for starters.

None of those require massive changes in infrastructure or the invention
of unobtainium to succeed, just grunt research and engineering.

While that's going on, you continue to do research into photovoltaics
and reactors so eventually, with some luck, electricity becomes so
cheap to produce that synthesizing hydrocarbons from random garbage
becomes economically viable.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Jay Maynard > wrote:
> On 2008-04-10, > wrote:
> > Right.
> >
> > Let's not bother to look at any of the details, let's just pull something
> > out of our ass and implement it.
> >
> > If it turns out to be unworkable for reasons of economics or engineering
> > or both, we'll just keep pulling things out of our ass until we luck out
> > and get something that works.

> Like Minnesota's plan to mandate 20% ethanol in all gasoline sold for road
> use by 2010. Nobody has yet told me who'll pay the bills when my car's fuel
> system melts into a puddle of goo that Toyota won't cover because the ethanol
> percentage is too high...

And a box of corn flakes costs $30.

Just be glad that tortillas aren't a major part of your diet.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Brian[_1_]]

On Apr 9, 11:57*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> M writes:
>
> >> > Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
> >> > distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in pipelines.
>
> >> Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in pipelines?
>
> > The same reason it can't be used in existing airplanes; pieces of the
> > plumbing start leaking.
>
> It can be used in existing airplanes. All you need to do is replace
> fittings. I've done it. My old Luscombe ran on Ethanol laden mogas.
>
> Bertie

So does this conversion have any limitations? Can you run E85? How
about E20?

Brian

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Brian > wrote in
:

> On Apr 9, 11:57*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> :
>>
>> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >> M writes:
>>
>> >> > Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
>> >> > distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in
>> >> > pipelines.
>>
>> >> Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in pipelines?
>>
>> > The same reason it can't be used in existing airplanes; pieces of
>> > the plumbing start leaking.
>>
>> It can be used in existing airplanes. All you need to do is replace
>> fittings. I've done it. My old Luscombe ran on Ethanol laden mogas.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> So does this conversion have any limitations? Can you run E85? How
> about E20?
>

If it'd start on carrot juice, I ran it.


Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:25:03 GMT, wrote:

>We could follow the example of Brazil, which contrary to popular perception
>did not put a major empapthis on ethanol (it's a minor source), rather
>they greatly increased domestic petroleum production. Ever heard of
>Alaska?

Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?

Oil in the ground is a *good* thing to have.

>
>There is increased exploration, improved recovery technology, shale and
>tar sands recovery technology and synthesis from coal for starters.
>
>None of those require massive changes in infrastructure or the invention
>of unobtainium to succeed, just grunt research and engineering.

And more environmental destruction and more cost to recover and no
reduction in GHG emissions.

>
>While that's going on, you continue to do research into photovoltaics
>and reactors so eventually, with some luck, electricity becomes so
>cheap to produce that synthesizing hydrocarbons from random garbage
>becomes economically viable.

Wind and solar technology are sufficiently evolved to make major
contributions now. It's already starting to happen:

http://www.doe.gov/pricestrends/5091.htm

http://www.news.com/Solar-cell-business-poised-for-huge-growth/2100-1008_3-6126962.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/solarreport/solar.html

====================
....demand is rising and [] the prices of solar cells, measured in cost
per watt, continue to drop. In 1980, a solar panel cost about $21 per
watt. (That is, each watt produced from the panel would cost about $21
each over the life of the panel.) Now it's about $2.70 per watt.

By 2010, crystalline silicon solar cells will sell for about $1.25 to
$1.50 per watt, while thin-film solar cells will sell for 90 cents to
$1.30 per watt. The thin-film cells, however, will be less efficient.

He likened the cost decline to what has occurred in transistors. In
1974, a transistor cost about 10 cents to produce. Now, an individual
transistor costs 5 nanodollars, or 5 billionths of a dollar.
=====================

No unobtanium needed.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-10, Dan Luke > wrote:
> Oil in the ground is a *good* thing to have.

Only if you're willing to use it at some point. Otherwise, it's worthless.

> Wind and solar technology are sufficiently evolved to make major
> contributions now. It's already starting to happen:

Just as soon as I can power my car - and get the same performance, the same
range, and the same carrying capacity - that way, I'll be happy to listen.

Or my airplane.

> He likened the cost decline to what has occurred in transistors. In
> 1974, a transistor cost about 10 cents to produce. Now, an individual
> transistor costs 5 nanodollars, or 5 billionths of a dollar.

It took 34 years to reach that point.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[RST Engineering]

You are wrong.

Jim




--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
news:625af64a-d1c1-473a-91ec-


I believe out here in California its illegal to sell mogas w/o the
ethanol.

-robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-04-10, Dan Luke > wrote:
>> Oil in the ground is a *good* thing to have.
>
> Only if you're willing to use it at some point. Otherwise, it's
> worthless.
>
>> Wind and solar technology are sufficiently evolved to make major
>> contributions now. It's already starting to happen:
>
> Just as soon as I can power my car - and get the same performance, the
> same range, and the same carrying capacity - that way, I'll be happy
> to listen.
>
> Or my airplane.
>
>> He likened the cost decline to what has occurred in transistors. In
>> 1974, a transistor cost about 10 cents to produce. Now, an individual
>> transistor costs 5 nanodollars, or 5 billionths of a dollar.
>
> It took 34 years to reach that point.



Easy to see why you're a computer genius. You counted from 74 to 08 just
like that!





Bertie

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke > wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:25:03 GMT, wrote:

> >We could follow the example of Brazil, which contrary to popular perception
> >did not put a major empapthis on ethanol (it's a minor source), rather
> >they greatly increased domestic petroleum production. Ever heard of
> >Alaska?

> Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?

Long enough to develop other technologies without civilization coming
to a screaming halt in the mean time.

> Oil in the ground is a *good* thing to have.

Oil in the ground is about as usefull as a screen door on a submarine.

> >There is increased exploration, improved recovery technology, shale and
> >tar sands recovery technology and synthesis from coal for starters.
> >
> >None of those require massive changes in infrastructure or the invention
> >of unobtainium to succeed, just grunt research and engineering.

> And more environmental destruction and more cost to recover and no
> reduction in GHG emissions.

Weren't you the one complaining about hand wringing?

Did you miss the part about improving the technologies?

> >While that's going on, you continue to do research into photovoltaics
> >and reactors so eventually, with some luck, electricity becomes so
> >cheap to produce that synthesizing hydrocarbons from random garbage
> >becomes economically viable.

> Wind and solar technology are sufficiently evolved to make major
> contributions now. It's already starting to happen:

Wind is not dependable as Texas has found out:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2749522920080228?feedType=RSS&f
eedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Right now the delivered cost of solar is several times that of conventional
electricity, which is OK if you don't mind your electric bill being tripled.

The other minor problem with solar is there isn't any at night and peak
demand is around 8 to 9 pm most of the year. During Summer, there is
an additional midafternoon peak.

http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html

But electricity currently has very little to do with oil.

If you want to do fuel synthesis with solar energy during the day,
the delivered cost needs to go down by an order of magnitude for it
to be viable unless you are OK with paying $25/gal for fuel.

That is going to take time and research.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Dan Luke > wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:25:03 GMT, wrote:
>
>> >We could follow the example of Brazil, which contrary to popular
>> >perception did not put a major empapthis on ethanol (it's a minor
>> >source), rather they greatly increased domestic petroleum
>> >production. Ever heard of Alaska?
>
>> Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?
>
> Long enough to develop other technologies without civilization coming
> to a screaming halt in the mean time.

having been to LA and seen big Brother on TV, I think it can safely be
said that civilisation has already come to a screeching halt.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Dan Luke > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:25:03 GMT, wrote:
> >
> >> >We could follow the example of Brazil, which contrary to popular
> >> >perception did not put a major empapthis on ethanol (it's a minor
> >> >source), rather they greatly increased domestic petroleum
> >> >production. Ever heard of Alaska?
> >
> >> Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?
> >
> > Long enough to develop other technologies without civilization coming
> > to a screaming halt in the mean time.

> having been to LA and seen big Brother on TV, I think it can safely be
> said that civilisation has already come to a screeching halt.

I believe the oldest recorded statement to that effect was made by
Cicero.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

> wrote:

>> Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?
>
> Long enough to develop other technologies without civilization coming
> to a screaming halt in the mean time.

LOL.

Who's advocating civilization coming to a screaming halt?

Besides Rush Limbaugh's strawman, I mean.

And how long would the Alaskan reserves satisfy the U. S. demand?


>
>> Oil in the ground is a *good* thing to have.
>
> Oil in the ground is about as usefull as a screen door on a submarine.

Wrong. Reserves in the ground are money in the bank. Using them up would
merely be a short postponement of the inevitable.


>
>> >There is increased exploration, improved recovery technology, shale and
>> >tar sands recovery technology and synthesis from coal for starters.
>> >
>> >None of those require massive changes in infrastructure or the invention
>> >of unobtainium to succeed, just grunt research and engineering.
>
>> And more environmental destruction and more cost to recover and no
>> reduction in GHG emissions.
>
> Weren't you the one complaining about hand wringing?
>
> Did you miss the part about improving the technologies?

Why spend money improving technologies that keep us wedded to
environmentally destructive and non-renewable energy sources? Why not work
on getting out from under this stuff?


>
>> >While that's going on, you continue to do research into photovoltaics
>> >and reactors so eventually, with some luck, electricity becomes so
>> >cheap to produce that synthesizing hydrocarbons from random garbage
>> >becomes economically viable.
>
>> Wind and solar technology are sufficiently evolved to make major
>> contributions now. It's already starting to happen:
>
> Wind is not dependable as Texas has found out:
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2749522920080228?feedType=RSS&f
> eedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

It's early days yet. There are ways to flywheel wind energy.


>
> Right now the delivered cost of solar is several times that of
> conventional
> electricity,

Right now.

http://www.edn.com/article/CA6432171.html


> which is OK if you don't mind your electric bill being tripled
> The other minor problem with solar is there isn't any at night and peak
> demand is around 8 to 9 pm most of the year. During Summer, there is
> an additional midafternoon peak.
>
> http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
>
> But electricity currently has very little to do with oil.
>
> If you want to do fuel synthesis with solar energy during the day,
> the delivered cost needs to go down by an order of magnitude for it
> to be viable unless you are OK with paying $25/gal for fuel.
>
> That is going to take time and research.

Exactly. Time to get going on it in a big way.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:mso1d5-jsb.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:
>
>> > Dan Luke > wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:25:03 GMT, wrote:
>> >
>> >> >We could follow the example of Brazil, which contrary to popular
>> >> >perception did not put a major empapthis on ethanol (it's a minor
>> >> >source), rather they greatly increased domestic petroleum
>> >> >production. Ever heard of Alaska?
>> >
>> >> Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?
>> >
>> > Long enough to develop other technologies without civilization
coming
>> > to a screaming halt in the mean time.
>
>> having been to LA and seen big Brother on TV, I think it can safely
be
>> said that civilisation has already come to a screeching halt.
>
> I believe the oldest recorded statement to that effect was made by
> Cicero.
>
>

And he was right


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke > wrote:

> > wrote:

> >> Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?
> >
> > Long enough to develop other technologies without civilization coming
> > to a screaming halt in the mean time.

> LOL.

> Who's advocating civilization coming to a screaming halt?

No one fool.

If the natural oil runs out before finding a practical replacement,
civilization comes to a screeming halt.

It's a statement of fact.

> Besides Rush Limbaugh's strawman, I mean.

> And how long would the Alaskan reserves satisfy the U. S. demand?

> >> Oil in the ground is a *good* thing to have.
> >
> > Oil in the ground is about as usefull as a screen door on a submarine.

> Wrong. Reserves in the ground are money in the bank. Using them up would
> merely be a short postponement of the inevitable.

And how long would the the reserves in the ground satisfy the U. S. demand?

You can't have it both ways.

> > Wind is not dependable as Texas has found out:
> >
> > http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2749522920080228?feedType=RSS&f
> > eedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

> It's early days yet. There are ways to flywheel wind energy.

Yeah, pump water uphill assuming you have water and an uphill to put it.

> > Right now the delivered cost of solar is several times that of
> > conventional
> > electricity,

> Right now.

Yeah, that's where we live, right now.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 11, 3:45*am, wrote:
> Dan Luke > wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:25:03 GMT, wrote:
> > >We could follow the example of Brazil, which contrary to popular perception
> > >did not put a major empapthis on ethanol (it's a minor source), rather
> > >they greatly increased domestic petroleum production. Ever heard of
> > >Alaska?
> > Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?
>
> Long enough to develop other technologies without civilization coming
> to a screaming halt in the mean time.
>
> > Oil in the ground is a *good* thing to have.
>
> Oil in the ground is about as usefull as a screen door on a submarine.
>
> > >There is increased exploration, improved recovery technology, shale and
> > >tar sands recovery technology and synthesis from coal for starters.
>
> > >None of those require massive changes in infrastructure or the invention
> > >of unobtainium to succeed, just grunt research and engineering.
> > And more environmental destruction and more cost to recover and no
> > reduction in GHG emissions.
>
> Weren't you the one complaining about hand wringing?
>
> Did you miss the part about improving the technologies?
>
> > >While that's going on, you continue to do research into photovoltaics
> > >and reactors so eventually, with some luck, electricity becomes so
> > >cheap to produce that synthesizing hydrocarbons from random garbage
> > >becomes economically viable.
> > Wind and solar technology are sufficiently evolved to make major
> > contributions now. *It's already starting to happen:
>
> Wind is not dependable as Texas has found out:
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2749522920080228?fee...
> eedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
>
> Right now the delivered cost of solar is several times that of conventional
> electricity, which is OK if you don't mind your electric bill being tripled.
>
> The other minor problem with solar is there isn't any at night and peak
> demand is around 8 to 9 pm most of the year. During Summer, there is
> an additional midafternoon peak.
>
> http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
>
> But electricity currently has very little to do with oil.
>
> If you want to do fuel synthesis with solar energy during the day,
> the delivered cost needs to go down by an order of magnitude for it
> to be viable unless you are OK with paying $25/gal for fuel.
>
> That is going to take time and research.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>

To supply CA's 30 GW demand you would need about 300 square kilometers
of solar panels(assuming 100W/m2). That's a truly huge area and I
think it shows why solar is not a viable solution. If you now want to
add to that power for thousands of cars then nuclear seems to be the
only viable option.

Cheers

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

> wrote:

>> >
>> > Long enough to develop other technologies without civilization coming
>> > to a screaming halt in the mean time.
>
>> LOL.
>
>> Who's advocating civilization coming to a screaming halt?
>
> No one fool.

There's more than one fool advocating it?

Friends of yours?

[Cubdriver]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:34:01 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>I believe out here in California its illegal to sell mogas w/o the
>ethanol.

Good grief. So it's all true about the Left Coast?

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Cubdriver]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 01:37:02 -0700 (PDT), M > wrote:

>* MTBE was later found to be contaminating ground water, and the
>congress in 2005(6?) denied MTBE producer's request for a liability
>waver.

Democrats paying their debts to the plaintiffs' bar!

The same thing is happening to the telephone companies, which will no
longer cooperative with the Feds looking for terrorist chat because
the (Democratic) Congress won't give them immunity from lawsuits for
so cooperating.


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Blueskies]

"Al" > wrote in message . ..
>I just happened to see a sticker on a fuel pump today that stated "may contain up to 10% ethanol" while I was filling
>my car this morning. Upon further investigation with my fuel retailer, the local fuel jobber, and the fuel distributor
>here in Spokane, Washington that there is a federal mandate to add 9 billion gallons of ethanol per year to the
>nationwide gasoline fuel stream. A new twist is a 5.1 cent per gallon federal fuel tax break to the oil companies to
>get this "alternative" fuel into the market. Tomorrow (April 8) is the first day of the program and the dealers get
>their price tonight. According to my sources, there is a possibility that some retailers may opt out, however if that
>5.1 cent break is passed on to them, it won't be likely.
>

Worse than that, htere is NO requirement from the feds to mark the gas pumps with the 'may contain 10%' warning. There
may be a local or state requirement to do so though. I wonder if the gas companies will pass on the 5.1 cent savings to
us (Not!) to compensate for the degraded performance (read mileage) the contaminated gasoline provides.



> I was lucky and just happened to ask the right question at the right time. I haven't seen an outcry on this issue by
> EAA, AOPA or any other aviation group.
>
> This is a nationwide situation. Not just in a few states. You may not find non-ethanol autogas at your usual outlet.
> Our jobber started mixing in ethanol last week, however I had not purchased any since mid-March so was unaware.
>
> In essence, with the 5.1 cent per gallon tax break, the US federal government has just killed the Aviation autogas
> concept.
>
> I'm trying to locate a new source, but may not be successful. The ethanol is added at the distribution rack. Chevron
> and a couple others are requiring their retailers to go to E-10.
>
>
> Al
> Spokane, Wa
> 1964 Skyhawk with an AutoGas STC


Like you said above, the ethanol is added at the the distribution rack. There is a chance that uncontaminated gasoline
can be purchased there. I did see a pump at the marina labeled 'no ethanol added' here in Michigan last summer...

Dan
Kalamazoo, MI
1960 172A (not a Skyhawk yet) autogas STC

[Cubdriver]

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:27:30 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>
>Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in pipelines?

Because it absorbs water?


Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[Blueskies]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:WrJKj.57870$TT4.6732@attbi_s22...
>> In essence, with the 5.1 cent per gallon tax break, the US federal government has just killed the Aviation autogas
>> concept.
>
> Thanks for the head's up. We've used over 9,000 gallons of mogas in our Lycoming O-540, without a burp, at a savings
> of well over $10K. Obviously this change will be catastrophic if it is, indeed, nationwide.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


I told you this last year, Jay, and you acknowledged it, yet you still said that none of the gas you put in atlas had
ethanol contamination. I warned you to test all the gas you put in if it was not 100LL Hope you did!

[Blueskies]

"Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:27:30 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in pipelines?
>
> Because it absorbs water?
>
>
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
> Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
> new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com


Probably also seals, gaskets and sealants are not compatible, same problems we have in planes...

[Mike Isaksen]

....
>> Jay, if your only alternative to keep flying was to drop, say,
>> $40K into a diesel conversion for Atlas, would you?

Jay's only choice would be the 235hp SMA diesel for about $100,000 firewall
forward. And I don't think they've made any progress toward an STC for his
PA28 model, so Jay would have to "transfer" into an Experimental
Certificate. Seeing as Jay has expressed his opinion on the government
bureaucracy rather strongly, I'd suspect his head would explode going down
that road.
;-)

[Jim Logajan]

WingFlaps > wrote:
> To supply CA's 30 GW demand you would need about 300 square kilometers
> of solar panels(assuming 100W/m2). That's a truly huge area and I
> think it shows why solar is not a viable solution.

300 km^2 is chump change! (Lake Mead itself is ~640 km^2.)

Want to know how much surface area it would take for SOLAR TO REPLACE
ALL OTHER SOURCES OF POWER FOR THE ENTIRE PLANET?

Here's my math and sources:

As of 2005 all consumption of power for the entire world is estimated to
be on the order of ~463 quadrillion BTUs/year (or ~5*10^20 J/year)[1].

Assuming an average of only ~3 full-sun-hours/day insolation (e.g. loss
due to clouds and low angle attentuation) and ~10% conversion (or about
100 W/m^2) you get:

365 days/year * 3 hr/day * 3600 s/hr * 100 J/s/m^2 ~= 3*10^8 J/year/m^2

So (5*10^20 J/year) / (3*10^8 J/year/m^2) ~= 1.7*10^12 m^2

Or about 1,700,000 km^2.

By comparison, the total surface area taken up by all man-made water
reservoirs is about 500,000 km^2 [2].

I don't know what the surface area of farmland is (though reference [3]
suggest it could be up to 30% of all land area), but I'm sure if only a
small fraction of it were turned over to direct solar power production
it would also suffice.

The total land surface area of the Earth is ~150,000,000 km^2 [3] so the
percentage needed is (drum roll, please!) 100*1,700,000/150,000,000 ~=

1.1%

A tad over 1% of the land surface - a little over three times the area
consumed by water reservoirs and probably much less area than that used
for farming. Another comparison is road surface area. I've seen
estimates that indicate that roads in the U.S. and UK take up ~1% to
1.4% of the surface area of those countries.[4][5] And I haven't even
considered using ocean surface area, more efficient solar conversion,
higher insolation average, or even solar power satellites.

Even at today's low PV efficiencies, there appears to be adequate area
to use solar energy to power human civilization on this planet.

[1] http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table18.xls
[2] http://webworld.unesco.org/water/ihp/publications/waterway/webpc/pag21.html
[3] http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielChen.shtml
[4] http://www.newscientist.com/backpage.ns?id=lw1065
[5] http://www.magicalliance.org/Fragmentation/area_affected_by_roads.htm

[Ken Chaddock]

Jay Maynard wrote:
> On 2008-04-10, > wrote:
>
>>Right.
>>
>>Let's not bother to look at any of the details, let's just pull something
>>out of our ass and implement it.
>>
>>If it turns out to be unworkable for reasons of economics or engineering
>>or both, we'll just keep pulling things out of our ass until we luck out
>>and get something that works.
>
>
> Like Minnesota's plan to mandate 20% ethanol in all gasoline sold for road
> use by 2010. Nobody has yet told me who'll pay the bills when my car's fuel
> system melts into a puddle of goo that Toyota won't cover because the ethanol
> percentage is too high...

Brazil’s ethanol fuel program provides a ~22% ethanol blend used
nationwide, plus 100% hydrous ethanol for four million cars. Today,
Brazil gets more than 30% of its automobile fuels from sugar cane-based
ethanol.
I guess they must be *much* smarter than you Yanks huh ?I still don't
understand why GM can't figure it our...oh, wait, GM DID FIGURE IT
OUT...in fact, much of the technology used in Brizilian automobiles is
GM, go figure !

....Ken

[Ken Chaddock]

wrote:

> Dan Luke > wrote:
>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Ever heard how long Alaskan reserves would last?
>>>
>>>Long enough to develop other technologies without civilization coming
>>>to a screaming halt in the mean time.
>
>
>>LOL.
>
>
>>Who's advocating civilization coming to a screaming halt?
>
>
> No one fool.
>
> If the natural oil runs out before finding a practical replacement,
> civilization comes to a screeming halt.
>
> It's a statement of fact.
>
>
>>Besides Rush Limbaugh's strawman, I mean.
>
>
>>And how long would the Alaskan reserves satisfy the U. S. demand?
>
>
>>>>Oil in the ground is a *good* thing to have.
>>>
>>>Oil in the ground is about as usefull as a screen door on a submarine.
>
>
>>Wrong. Reserves in the ground are money in the bank. Using them up would
>>merely be a short postponement of the inevitable.
>
>
> And how long would the the reserves in the ground satisfy the U. S. demand?

There is enough *proven* reserve in the Athabaska tar sands (Alberta
Canada) to supply 100% of North American demand (Canada, the US &
Mexico)...even with the projected growth in demend...for approximately
250 years, and that's just *proven* reserves. We know that there is a
whole lot more out there that hasn't been quantified yet...AND, it can
be extracted and processed for about $60 per barrel...and thanks to the
NAFTA deal, you guys have unrestricted access to it...though that's
likely to change if Hillary or Obama try to re-negotiate NAFTA :-(

....Ken

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:35:05 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:



>The total land surface area of the Earth is ~150,000,000 km^2 [3] so the
>percentage needed is (drum roll, please!) 100*1,700,000/150,000,000 ~=
>
>1.1%
>
>A tad over 1% of the land surface - a little over three times the area
>consumed by water reservoirs and probably much less area than that used
>for farming. Another comparison is road surface area. I've seen
>estimates that indicate that roads in the U.S. and UK take up ~1% to
>1.4% of the surface area of those countries.[4][5] And I haven't even
>considered using ocean surface area, more efficient solar conversion,
>higher insolation average, or even solar power satellites.
>
>Even at today's low PV efficiencies, there appears to be adequate area
>to use solar energy to power human civilization on this planet.


And no one except those unable to understand more than one concept at
a time thinks this is being proposed.

Some P-V, some solar thermal, some geothermal, some wind, some hydro,
some nuke, some algae-diesel; pretty soon we're telling OPEC to go
**** up a rope.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in
news:ATwLj.9840$Ug4.1603@trndny01:

>
> ...
>>> Jay, if your only alternative to keep flying was to drop, say,
>>> $40K into a diesel conversion for Atlas, would you?
>
> Jay's only choice would be the 235hp SMA diesel for about $100,000
> firewall forward. And I don't think they've made any progress toward
> an STC for his PA28 model, so Jay would have to "transfer" into an
> Experimental Certificate. Seeing as Jay has expressed his opinion on
> the government bureaucracy rather strongly, I'd suspect his head would
> explode going down that road.
> ;-)
>
>
>

At least it would be open then.


Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Al" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>I just happened to see a sticker on a fuel pump today that stated "may
>>contain up to 10% ethanol" while I was filling my car this morning. Upon
>>further investigation with my fuel retailer, the local fuel jobber, and
>>the fuel distributor here in Spokane, Washington that there is a federal
>>mandate to add 9 billion gallons of ethanol per year to the nationwide
>>gasoline fuel stream. A new twist is a 5.1 cent per gallon federal fuel
>>tax break to the oil companies to get this "alternative" fuel into the
>>market. Tomorrow (April 8) is the first day of the program and the
>>dealers get their price tonight. According to my sources, there is a
>>possibility that some retailers may opt out, however if that 5.1 cent
>>break is passed on to them, it won't be likely.
>>
>
> Worse than that, htere is NO requirement from the feds to mark the gas
> pumps with the 'may contain 10%' warning. There may be a local or state
> requirement to do so though. I wonder if the gas companies will pass on
> the 5.1 cent savings to us (Not!) to compensate for the degraded
> performance (read mileage) the contaminated gasoline provides.
>
>
>
There is no savings and the 5.1 cents is only to help offset the petroleum
distributors' increased cost to provide an inferior product. But enev if
there had been any savings: on a purely mathematical basis, presuming the
"closed loop" system is working correct for your computer controlled
automobile engine, based on a pump price of $3.40 USD, 10% ethanol at 60% of
the thermal content of gasolene reduces the value by 13.6 cents for a net
loss to the customer of 8.5 cents--even if they reduced the price by 5.1
cents.

Ignoring all of the compatibility issues; the 60% efficiency figure would
mean that, if "pure" gasolene is worth $3.40, then pute ethanol would be
worth $2.04 per gallon.

There are indeed a lot of people who claim that, in actual use as a motor
fuel, ethanol is actually 80% as efficient as gasolene. However, even if
that was true, a 5.1 cent rebate for the use of E10 would still result in a
net loss of 1.7 cents. So, we are clearly not receiving a good value!

Peter

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke > wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:35:05 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:



> >The total land surface area of the Earth is ~150,000,000 km^2 [3] so the
> >percentage needed is (drum roll, please!) 100*1,700,000/150,000,000 ~=
> >
> >1.1%
> >
> >A tad over 1% of the land surface - a little over three times the area
> >consumed by water reservoirs and probably much less area than that used
> >for farming. Another comparison is road surface area. I've seen
> >estimates that indicate that roads in the U.S. and UK take up ~1% to
> >1.4% of the surface area of those countries.[4][5] And I haven't even
> >considered using ocean surface area, more efficient solar conversion,
> >higher insolation average, or even solar power satellites.
> >
> >Even at today's low PV efficiencies, there appears to be adequate area
> >to use solar energy to power human civilization on this planet.


> And no one except those unable to understand more than one concept at
> a time thinks this is being proposed.

> Some P-V, some solar thermal, some geothermal, some wind, some hydro,
> some nuke, some algae-diesel; pretty soon we're telling OPEC to go
> **** up a rope.

OPEC and oil has little to nothing to do with electricity in North
America.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 10, 2:55*pm, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:34:01 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
>
> > wrote:
> >I believe out here in California its illegal to sell mogas w/o the
> >ethanol.
>
> Good grief. So it's all true about the Left Coast?

There was talk at one point of allowing pilots to purchase non-ethanol
fuel but it didn't appear sure that anyone would actually be willing
to make it and if it would be less expensive than 100LL. The ethanol
is mandated by the state by region I believe.

-Robert

[[email protected]]

On Apr 9, 11:35*am, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > M writes:
> > > Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
> > > distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in pipelines.
> > Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in pipelines?
>
> The same reason it can't be used in existing airplanes; pieces of the
> plumbing start leaking.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Okay, that is true. However since the days of yore Indy 500 cars have
run on ethanol (or is it methanol!!). Their plumbing does not leak the
alcohol all over the engine all the time. Maybe it would if the race
wasn't over so quickly though ... hmmm.

I have a hard time believing there isn't a technical solution to this
leak problem.

It's a problem that could be fixed for new designs. Older planes are
screwed of course.

Having said all this I think the entire corn ethanol business is an
extraordinary boondoggle that's screwing the average American.

The Brazilian's do it with sugar cane / beet sugar. Now, I thought
they were more corrupt than us? Guess not.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:35?am, wrote:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > M writes:
> > > > Remember, ethanol is not mixed into the fuel until the local
> > > > distribution terminal, because it can't be transported in pipelines.
> > > Just out of curiosity, why can't it be transported in pipelines?
> >
> > The same reason it can't be used in existing airplanes; pieces of the
> > plumbing start leaking.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.

> Okay, that is true. However since the days of yore Indy 500 cars have
> run on ethanol (or is it methanol!!). Their plumbing does not leak the
> alcohol all over the engine all the time. Maybe it would if the race
> wasn't over so quickly though ... hmmm.

> I have a hard time believing there isn't a technical solution to this
> leak problem.

Of course there is, but when most existing stuff was designed to
hold gasoline, no one thought that there would ever be a significant
amount of alcohol in the gas.

> It's a problem that could be fixed for new designs. Older planes are
> screwed of course.

It depends on what materials were used in the old system and how much
it would cost to replace the parts that need replacing.

In any case, AFAIK, the FAA hasn't signed off on the use of gas with
significant fractions of alcohol in it, so the whole point is moot.

> Having said all this I think the entire corn ethanol business is an
> extraordinary boondoggle that's screwing the average American.

And the average Mexican with the increased price of tortillas.

> The Brazilian's do it with sugar cane / beet sugar. Now, I thought
> they were more corrupt than us? Guess not.

Contrary to the popular hype, the Brazilians primarily did a lot of
domestic exploration and greatly increased their domestic oil
production.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke > wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:35:05 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>
>
>> >The total land surface area of the Earth is ~150,000,000 km^2 [3] so the
>> >percentage needed is (drum roll, please!) 100*1,700,000/150,000,000 ~=
>> >
>> >1.1%
>> >
>> >A tad over 1% of the land surface - a little over three times the area
>> >consumed by water reservoirs and probably much less area than that used
>> >for farming. Another comparison is road surface area. I've seen
>> >estimates that indicate that roads in the U.S. and UK take up ~1% to
>> >1.4% of the surface area of those countries.[4][5] And I haven't even
>> >considered using ocean surface area, more efficient solar conversion,
>> >higher insolation average, or even solar power satellites.
>> >
>> >Even at today's low PV efficiencies, there appears to be adequate area
>> >to use solar energy to power human civilization on this planet.
>
>
>> And no one except those unable to understand more than one concept at
>> a time thinks this is being proposed.
>
>> Some P-V, some solar thermal, some geothermal, some wind, some hydro,
>> some nuke, some algae-diesel; pretty soon we're telling OPEC to go
>> **** up a rope.
>
> OPEC and oil has little to nothing to do with electricity in North
> America.

No. But producing enough power to plug in electric automobiles and making
bio-diesel from algae will have a lot to do with getting off the imported
oil addiction.

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dan Luke > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:35:05 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> >The total land surface area of the Earth is ~150,000,000 km^2 [3] so the
> >> >percentage needed is (drum roll, please!) 100*1,700,000/150,000,000 ~=
> >> >
> >> >1.1%
> >> >
> >> >A tad over 1% of the land surface - a little over three times the area
> >> >consumed by water reservoirs and probably much less area than that used
> >> >for farming. Another comparison is road surface area. I've seen
> >> >estimates that indicate that roads in the U.S. and UK take up ~1% to
> >> >1.4% of the surface area of those countries.[4][5] And I haven't even
> >> >considered using ocean surface area, more efficient solar conversion,
> >> >higher insolation average, or even solar power satellites.
> >> >
> >> >Even at today's low PV efficiencies, there appears to be adequate area
> >> >to use solar energy to power human civilization on this planet.
> >
> >
> >> And no one except those unable to understand more than one concept at
> >> a time thinks this is being proposed.
> >
> >> Some P-V, some solar thermal, some geothermal, some wind, some hydro,
> >> some nuke, some algae-diesel; pretty soon we're telling OPEC to go
> >> **** up a rope.
> >
> > OPEC and oil has little to nothing to do with electricity in North
> > America.

> No. But producing enough power to plug in electric automobiles and making
> bio-diesel from algae will have a lot to do with getting off the imported
> oil addiction.

The electric automobile will remain insignificant until battery technology
is greatly improved. I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket.

As for bio-diesel from algae, that was said about corn ethenol; we'll
see.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

> wrote
>
> The electric automobile will remain insignificant until battery technology
> is greatly improved. I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket.

No basket will hold all the eggs. Diversified energy production/use will be
the key, IMO.

Battery technology is still in the middle of a revolution. Check on what's
coming with nano-tech supercapacitors, too.

>
> As for bio-diesel from algae, that was said about corn ethenol; we'll
> see.

Indeed. But the yield/acre for oil algae is far more promising than corn
ethanol, which was never a good idea unless you are a corn farmer.

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke > wrote:

> > wrote
> >
> > The electric automobile will remain insignificant until battery technology
> > is greatly improved. I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket.

> No basket will hold all the eggs. Diversified energy production/use will be
> the key, IMO.

> Battery technology is still in the middle of a revolution. Check on what's
> coming with nano-tech supercapacitors, too.

I have; by any way you measure it, supercapacitors have far less energy
capacity then chemical batteries and basic physics says it will allways
be that way.

Also, capacitors make the charging circuitry god awful complex at high
power levels.

> > As for bio-diesel from algae, that was said about corn ethenol; we'll
> > see.

> Indeed. But the yield/acre for oil algae is far more promising than corn
> ethanol, which was never a good idea unless you are a corn farmer.

Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.

Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn is about the
worst thing one could pick.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message ...
>
> Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.
>
> Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn is about the
> worst thing one could pick.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.


Bio diesel from seaweed...read an article an area the size of Belgium would be sufficient to fuel all aircraft needs....

[Jim Logajan]

Dan Luke > wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:35:05 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:
>>Even at today's low PV efficiencies, there appears to be adequate area
>>to use solar energy to power human civilization on this planet.
>
>
> And no one except those unable to understand more than one concept at
> a time thinks this is being proposed.

Quite.

The whole point of my post was not that, but to point out that the OP's
complaint that solar requires too much surface area to be viable was
without foundation. I simply used the most extreme case (powering all of
human civilization with solar power) to show that even in that edge case
there was more than adequate land area. (I feel I am repeating myself.)

> Some P-V, some solar thermal, some geothermal, some wind, some hydro,
> some nuke, some algae-diesel; pretty soon we're telling OPEC to go
> **** up a rope.

Diversification has its advantages.

(By the way, I could go through the steps to prove that adequate uranium
sources exist to allow nuclear energy to power all of human civilization
for hundreds of thousands of years. The universe, and even just our planet,
is full of energy sources.)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in
:

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.
>>
>> Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn is about the
>> worst thing one could pick.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
>
> Bio diesel from seaweed...read an article an area the size of Belgium
> would be sufficient to fuel all aircraft needs....
>

Belgium is pretty small! Also if belgium turned it's lights out once in
a while it'd be a huge start! You can see the place from all over
europe! I've been told it's because it's easier than adjusting the
output on their nukes every night. You'd think they;'d just sell a bit
to France or Germany, though.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Blueskies > wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.
> >
> > Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn is about the
> > worst thing one could pick.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.


> Bio diesel from seaweed...read an article an area the size of Belgium would be sufficient to fuel all aircraft needs....

Well, that's discouraging since aircraft needs are a drop in the bucket.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message ...
> Blueskies > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message ...
>> >
>> > Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.
>> >
>> > Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn is about the
>> > worst thing one could pick.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jim Pennino
>> >
>> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
>
>> Bio diesel from seaweed...read an article an area the size of Belgium would be sufficient to fuel all aircraft
>> needs....
>
> Well, that's discouraging since aircraft needs are a drop in the bucket.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.


Maybe, but we can run just about everything else on electricity...

[[email protected]]

Blueskies > wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> > Blueskies > wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> > Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.
> >> >
> >> > Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn is about the
> >> > worst thing one could pick.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Jim Pennino
> >> >
> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
> >
> >
> >> Bio diesel from seaweed...read an article an area the size of Belgium would be sufficient to fuel all aircraft
> >> needs....
> >
> > Well, that's discouraging since aircraft needs are a drop in the bucket.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.

> Maybe, but we can run just about everything else on electricity...

You mean like trucks, trains, busses and farm and construction equipment?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message ...
> Blueskies > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message ...
>> > Blueskies > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > wrote in message ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.
>> >> >
>> >> > Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn is about the
>> >> > worst thing one could pick.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Jim Pennino
>> >> >
>> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Bio diesel from seaweed...read an article an area the size of Belgium would be sufficient to fuel all aircraft
>> >> needs....
>> >
>> > Well, that's discouraging since aircraft needs are a drop in the bucket.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jim Pennino
>> >
>> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
>> Maybe, but we can run just about everything else on electricity...
>
> You mean like trucks, trains, busses and farm and construction equipment?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>


Yup...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Blueskies > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Blueskies > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.
>> >> >
>> >> > Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn is about
>> >> > the worst thing one could pick.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Jim Pennino
>> >> >
>> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Bio diesel from seaweed...read an article an area the size of
>> >> Belgium would be sufficient to fuel all aircraft needs....
>> >
>> > Well, that's discouraging since aircraft needs are a drop in the
>> > bucket.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jim Pennino
>> >
>> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
>> Maybe, but we can run just about everything else on electricity...
>
> You mean like trucks, trains, busses and farm and construction
> equipment?
>

Electric trucks trains and busses have been around for ages. Farm
equipment? Why not?

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Blueskies > wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Blueskies > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn is about
> >> >> > the worst thing one could pick.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Jim Pennino
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Bio diesel from seaweed...read an article an area the size of
> >> >> Belgium would be sufficient to fuel all aircraft needs....
> >> >
> >> > Well, that's discouraging since aircraft needs are a drop in the
> >> > bucket.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Jim Pennino
> >> >
> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
> >
> >> Maybe, but we can run just about everything else on electricity...
> >
> > You mean like trucks, trains, busses and farm and construction
> > equipment?
> >

> Electric trucks trains and busses have been around for ages. Farm
> equipment? Why not?

LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those hauling
crap between cities, much less across the country.

Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those hauling
> crap between cities, much less across the country.
>
> Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.

Ahem:

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


Anyway, why move the long-haul trucks when you can move the road (using
electricity) instead? Ever read Robert Heinlein's "The Roads must Roll"?
;-)

(I understand H. G. Wells had moving roads in "When the Sleeper Wakes"
though I haven't read it - even though the full text is online on a couple
sites, including project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/775)

[[email protected]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those hauling
> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
> >
> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.

> Ahem:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive

Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.

Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:55:04 GMT, wrote:


>LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those hauling
>crap between cities, much less across the country.

Isn't the Amtrak Northeast corridor (DC to BOS) electrified?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Amtrak-nj-transit.jpg

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:e635d5-sen.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:
>
>> > Blueskies > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Blueskies > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn is
about
>> >> >> > the worst thing one could pick.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > Jim Pennino
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Bio diesel from seaweed...read an article an area the size of
>> >> >> Belgium would be sufficient to fuel all aircraft needs....
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, that's discouraging since aircraft needs are a drop in the
>> >> > bucket.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Jim Pennino
>> >> >
>> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>> >
>> >> Maybe, but we can run just about everything else on electricity...
>> >
>> > You mean like trucks, trains, busses and farm and construction
>> > equipment?
>> >
>
>> Electric trucks trains and busses have been around for ages. Farm
>> equipment? Why not?
>
> LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those hauling
> crap between cities, much less across the country.
>
> Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
>

Maybe not, but you can have long distance electric trains, no problem.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those hauling
>> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
>> >
>> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
>
>> Ahem:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
>
> Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
> is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
> transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.

What, a 2,000 mile long electric system is down the road?
>
> Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.

Not with an attitude like that there isn't!


Bertie
>

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
> is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
> transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
>
> Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.

Diesel-electric locomotives are the norm in the US. Some of those electric
engines are decades old, and going strong. Not the same, I know...but
perhaps indicative of what electric technology *can* do.

We just watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" last night. I had never seen
GM's Saturn EV-1, and was dumbfounded to see the EXACT car I was looking for
(unsuccessfully) last fall. Man, I'd buy that car in a heartbeat.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:1b3Mj.63697$TT4.62169@attbi_s22:

>> Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
>> is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
>> transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
>>
>> Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.
>
> Diesel-electric locomotives are the norm in the US. Some of those
> electric engines are decades old, and going strong. Not the same, I
> know...but perhaps indicative of what electric technology *can* do.
>
> We just watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" last night. I had never
> seen GM's Saturn EV-1, and was dumbfounded to see the EXACT car I was
> looking for (unsuccessfully) last fall. Man, I'd buy that car in a
> heartbeat.

The **** you would.

A pathetic attempt to try and buy back some cred after the whupping you
just took.



Bertie

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
> > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
> > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
> >
> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> > electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.

> Diesel-electric locomotives are the norm in the US. Some of those electric
> engines are decades old, and going strong. Not the same, I know...but
> perhaps indicative of what electric technology *can* do.

Diesel-electric locomotives run on diesel fuel, not electricity.

A big conventional diesel engine drives a conventional generator which
in turn powers electric motors.

Why don't they just drive the thing directly from the diesel engine?

The electric drive eliminates the need for a huge transmission.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those hauling
> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
> >> >
> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> >> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
> >
> >> Ahem:
> >
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
> >
> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
> > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
> > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.

> What, a 2,000 mile long electric system is down the road?

Where is there an electric train system 2000 miles long?

> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> > electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.

> Not with an attitude like that there isn't!

Attitude has nothing to do with it, it is economics.

Who is going to pay to string up and maintain the overhead wires for
the 140,490 miles of freight railway in the US?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Peter Clark > wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:55:04 GMT, wrote:


> >LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those hauling
> >crap between cities, much less across the country.

> Isn't the Amtrak Northeast corridor (DC to BOS) electrified?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Amtrak-nj-transit.jpg

Amtrak isn't a freight hauler.

DC to BOS is about 350 miles.

LA to Chicago is about 1500 miles.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in news:e635d5-sen.ln1
> @mail.specsol.com:
> >
> >> > Blueskies > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > Blueskies > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn is
> about
> >> >> >> > the worst thing one could pick.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > --
> >> >> >> > Jim Pennino
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Bio diesel from seaweed...read an article an area the size of
> >> >> >> Belgium would be sufficient to fuel all aircraft needs....
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, that's discouraging since aircraft needs are a drop in the
> >> >> > bucket.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Jim Pennino
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
> >> >
> >> >> Maybe, but we can run just about everything else on electricity...
> >> >
> >> > You mean like trucks, trains, busses and farm and construction
> >> > equipment?
> >> >
> >
> >> Electric trucks trains and busses have been around for ages. Farm
> >> equipment? Why not?
> >
> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those hauling
> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
> >
> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
> >

> Maybe not, but you can have long distance electric trains, no problem.

Other than the almost 150,000 miles of wires you would have to string,
no problem.

You sure aren't going to run them on batteries.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Dohm]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> wrote in :
>
>> Blueskies > wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Blueskies > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn is about
>>> >> > the worst thing one could pick.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > Jim Pennino
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Bio diesel from seaweed...read an article an area the size of
>>> >> Belgium would be sufficient to fuel all aircraft needs....
>>> >
>>> > Well, that's discouraging since aircraft needs are a drop in the
>>> > bucket.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Jim Pennino
>>> >
>>> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>>> Maybe, but we can run just about everything else on electricity...
>>
>> You mean like trucks, trains, busses and farm and construction
>> equipment?
>>
>
> Electric trucks trains and busses have been around for ages. Farm
> equipment? Why not?
>
> Bertie

A lot of stationary farm equipment is electric. As to a lot of the rest,
you'll know better if you think about it.

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:1is5d5-uv9.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:
>
>> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those
hauling
>> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
>> >> >
>> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> >> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
>> >
>> >> Ahem:
>> >
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
>> >
>> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
>> > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
>> > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
>
>> What, a 2,000 mile long electric system is down the road?
>
> Where is there an electric train system 2000 miles long?
>
>> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> > electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.
>
>> Not with an attitude like that there isn't!
>
> Attitude has nothing to do with it, it is economics.
>
> Who is going to pay to string up and maintain the overhead wires for
> the 140,490 miles of freight railway in the US?
>

Same people that pays for everything, you.

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:s0h5d5-l06.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:
>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote in news:e635d5-sen.ln1
>> @mail.specsol.com:
>> >
>> >> > Blueskies > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > Blueskies > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn is
>> about
>> >> >> >> > the worst thing one could pick.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >> > Jim Pennino
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Bio diesel from seaweed...read an article an area the size
of
>> >> >> >> Belgium would be sufficient to fuel all aircraft needs....
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well, that's discouraging since aircraft needs are a drop in
the
>> >> >> > bucket.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > Jim Pennino
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Maybe, but we can run just about everything else on
electricity...
>> >> >
>> >> > You mean like trucks, trains, busses and farm and construction
>> >> > equipment?
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> Electric trucks trains and busses have been around for ages. Farm
>> >> equipment? Why not?
>> >
>> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those hauling
>> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
>> >
>> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
>> >
>
>> Maybe not, but you can have long distance electric trains, no
problem.
>
> Other than the almost 150,000 miles of wires you would have to string,
> no problem.
>
> You sure aren't going to run them on batteries.
>

Who said anyone was?

Not much of an argument. Lionel can do it, surely amtrak can.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Blueskies > wrote:
>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > Blueskies > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> > wrote in message
>>>> >> ...
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn is about
>>>> >> > the worst thing one could pick.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > --
>>>> >> > Jim Pennino
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> Bio diesel from seaweed...read an article an area the size of
>>>> >> Belgium would be sufficient to fuel all aircraft needs....
>>>> >
>>>> > Well, that's discouraging since aircraft needs are a drop in the
>>>> > bucket.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Jim Pennino
>>>> >
>>>> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>>
>>>> Maybe, but we can run just about everything else on electricity...
>>>
>>> You mean like trucks, trains, busses and farm and construction
>>> equipment?
>>>
>>
>> Electric trucks trains and busses have been around for ages. Farm
>> equipment? Why not?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> A lot of stationary farm equipment is electric. As to a lot of the
> rest, you'll know better if you think about it.
>

Well, i'm sitting and thinking about it and seeing as how one of the
methods of preventing compacting soil is to install little roadways for
the tractors, it should be a piece of cake.

in any case, we're sabout to see an explosion in battery technologies.
Not that any of it is that new. th eplastic batt principle has been
known for decades and is only now coming into its own, but electric
tractors? Sure..


Bertie


Bertie

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:45:03 GMT, wrote:

>Peter Clark > wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:55:04 GMT, wrote:
>
>
>> >LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those hauling
>> >crap between cities, much less across the country.
>
>> Isn't the Amtrak Northeast corridor (DC to BOS) electrified?
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Amtrak-nj-transit.jpg
>
>Amtrak isn't a freight hauler.
>
>DC to BOS is about 350 miles.
>
>LA to Chicago is about 1500 miles.

I wouldn't call 350 miles "local". I call local the Boston T or the
NY subway. The Cambridge overhead electrified bus lines. I think I
read something about electric busses starting to replace the old stock
in NY, BOS, and CHI. As for rail, the ability to add to the existing
intermediate haul segments of the system exists, and has for decades.
Still have to fuel the generators that power the overhead gantries, so
does it take less fuel to put it in each engine, or to run generators
to power overhead electrified lines in the absense of large scale
nuclear power generators to feed such a system?

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:55:09 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:
>
>Diesel-electric locomotives are the norm in the US. Some of those electric
>engines are decades old, and going strong. Not the same, I know...but
>perhaps indicative of what electric technology *can* do.

Here in the Northeast, we even have diesel-electric-electric! <G>

The locomotives that run in and out of the NYC tunnels have electrical
systems that match the overhead and third rail. When no wires are
available, the diesel generates the electricity. When a wire is
available, the diesel is shut down, and the locomotive runs as an
electric.

Some of the early versions, built in the '50's, are still running
after refurbishment in the early 80's.

The old:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_FL9>
The replacements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Genesis

The dual mode idea keeps the smoke out of the tunnels and eliminates
the need to swap locomotives at the end of the electrified portion of
the rail line.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:45:03 GMT, wrote:

>Amtrak isn't a freight hauler.
>
>DC to BOS is about 350 miles.
>
>LA to Chicago is about 1500 miles.

Electric locomotives also haul freight, going back to maybe the 1920's
in the Northeast.

On the other hand, on a 1500 mile haul through nowhere, a diesel
locomotive is still an efficient and relatively clean solution,
compared to a comparable number of tractor-trailers.

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in news:1is5d5-uv9.ln1
> @mail.specsol.com:
> >
> >> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those
> hauling
> >> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> >> >> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
> >> >
> >> >> Ahem:
> >> >
> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
> >> >
> >> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
> >> > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
> >> > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
> >
> >> What, a 2,000 mile long electric system is down the road?
> >
> > Where is there an electric train system 2000 miles long?
> >
> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> >> > electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.
> >
> >> Not with an attitude like that there isn't!
> >
> > Attitude has nothing to do with it, it is economics.
> >
> > Who is going to pay to string up and maintain the overhead wires for
> > the 140,490 miles of freight railway in the US?
> >

> Same people that pays for everything, you.

And what would be the motivation to do this unless there was some
astounding breakthrough and electricity became esentially free?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Peter Clark > wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:45:03 GMT, wrote:

> >Peter Clark > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:55:04 GMT, wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those hauling
> >> >crap between cities, much less across the country.
> >
> >> Isn't the Amtrak Northeast corridor (DC to BOS) electrified?
> >
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Amtrak-nj-transit.jpg
> >
> >Amtrak isn't a freight hauler.
> >
> >DC to BOS is about 350 miles.
> >
> >LA to Chicago is about 1500 miles.

> I wouldn't call 350 miles "local". I call local the Boston T or the
> NY subway. The Cambridge overhead electrified bus lines. I think I
> read something about electric busses starting to replace the old stock
> in NY, BOS, and CHI. As for rail, the ability to add to the existing
> intermediate haul segments of the system exists, and has for decades.
> Still have to fuel the generators that power the overhead gantries, so
> does it take less fuel to put it in each engine, or to run generators
> to power overhead electrified lines in the absense of large scale
> nuclear power generators to feed such a system?

Even absent nuclear, little electricity in North America comes from
oil.

And there is there are about 150,000 miles of freight track in the US.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in news:s0h5d5-l06.ln1
> @mail.specsol.com:
> >
> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> wrote in news:e635d5-sen.ln1
> >> @mail.specsol.com:
> >> >
> >> >> > Blueskies > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > Blueskies > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn is
> >> about
> >> >> >> >> > the worst thing one could pick.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > --
> >> >> >> >> > Jim Pennino
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Bio diesel from seaweed...read an article an area the size
> of
> >> >> >> >> Belgium would be sufficient to fuel all aircraft needs....
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Well, that's discouraging since aircraft needs are a drop in
> the
> >> >> >> > bucket.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > --
> >> >> >> > Jim Pennino
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Maybe, but we can run just about everything else on
> electricity...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You mean like trucks, trains, busses and farm and construction
> >> >> > equipment?
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Electric trucks trains and busses have been around for ages. Farm
> >> >> equipment? Why not?
> >> >
> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those hauling
> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
> >> >
> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> >> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
> >> >
> >
> >> Maybe not, but you can have long distance electric trains, no
> problem.
> >
> > Other than the almost 150,000 miles of wires you would have to string,
> > no problem.
> >
> > You sure aren't going to run them on batteries.
> >

> Who said anyone was?

> Not much of an argument. Lionel can do it, surely amtrak can.

Just because something can be done is not a reason it should be
done.

And once again, Amtrak doesn't haul freight.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> Diesel-electric locomotives run on diesel fuel, not electricity.
>
> A big conventional diesel engine drives a conventional generator which
> in turn powers electric motors.
>
> Why don't they just drive the thing directly from the diesel engine?
>
> The electric drive eliminates the need for a huge transmission.

Plus another very important factor.

The electric motors turn into big generators, when the train starts pushing
the locomotive, like when coming down a fairly steep grade.

Rather than overheat or wear out the car brakes, the wheel motors generate
massive amounts of electricity that the engineer directs into a huge banks
of resistors, which act like giant electric heaters, heating the outside
air. Only when all of the resistors are running at full power, does the
engineer begin selecting the car brakes.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:7417d5-p8l.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:
>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote in news:1is5d5-uv9.ln1
>> @mail.specsol.com:
>> >
>> >> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those
>> hauling
>> >> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be
any
>> >> >> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to
Chicago.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Ahem:
>> >> >
>> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
>> >> >
>> >> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul
there
>> >> > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for
local
>> >> > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
>> >
>> >> What, a 2,000 mile long electric system is down the road?
>> >
>> > Where is there an electric train system 2000 miles long?
>> >
>> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> >> > electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.
>> >
>> >> Not with an attitude like that there isn't!
>> >
>> > Attitude has nothing to do with it, it is economics.
>> >
>> > Who is going to pay to string up and maintain the overhead wires
for
>> > the 140,490 miles of freight railway in the US?
>> >
>
>> Same people that pays for everything, you.
>
> And what would be the motivation to do this unless there was some
> astounding breakthrough and electricity became esentially free?
>
>

Well, when it's cheaper than diesel.... That's what we're talking about,
I believe.

Berti

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:pj17d5-p8l.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:
>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote in news:s0h5d5-l06.ln1
>> @mail.specsol.com:
>> >
>> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> wrote in news:e635d5-sen.ln1
>> >> @mail.specsol.com:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Blueskies > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> > Blueskies > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Avacados give a higher yield/acre then corn.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Unless the intent was to subsidize corn farmers, corn
is
>> >> about
>> >> >> >> >> > the worst thing one could pick.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >> >> > Jim Pennino
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Bio diesel from seaweed...read an article an area the
size
>> of
>> >> >> >> >> Belgium would be sufficient to fuel all aircraft
needs....
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Well, that's discouraging since aircraft needs are a drop
in
>> the
>> >> >> >> > bucket.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >> > Jim Pennino
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Maybe, but we can run just about everything else on
>> electricity...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You mean like trucks, trains, busses and farm and
construction
>> >> >> > equipment?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Electric trucks trains and busses have been around for ages.
Farm
>> >> >> equipment? Why not?
>> >> >
>> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those
hauling
>> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
>> >> >
>> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> >> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> Maybe not, but you can have long distance electric trains, no
>> problem.
>> >
>> > Other than the almost 150,000 miles of wires you would have to
string,
>> > no problem.
>> >
>> > You sure aren't going to run them on batteries.
>> >
>
>> Who said anyone was?
>
>> Not much of an argument. Lionel can do it, surely amtrak can.
>
> Just because something can be done is not a reason it should be
> done.
>
> And once again, Amtrak doesn't haul freight.
>

OK, so SF or whatever. In any case, just reintroducing rail in place of
the current over-reliance on trucking would be a huge help. Even diesel
trains are many rimes more efficient than trucks.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in news:7417d5-p8l.ln1
> @mail.specsol.com:
> >
> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> wrote in news:1is5d5-uv9.ln1
> >> @mail.specsol.com:
> >> >
> >> >> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those
> >> hauling
> >> >> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be
> any
> >> >> >> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to
> Chicago.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Ahem:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul
> there
> >> >> > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for
> local
> >> >> > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
> >> >
> >> >> What, a 2,000 mile long electric system is down the road?
> >> >
> >> > Where is there an electric train system 2000 miles long?
> >> >
> >> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> >> >> > electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.
> >> >
> >> >> Not with an attitude like that there isn't!
> >> >
> >> > Attitude has nothing to do with it, it is economics.
> >> >
> >> > Who is going to pay to string up and maintain the overhead wires
> for
> >> > the 140,490 miles of freight railway in the US?
> >> >
> >
> >> Same people that pays for everything, you.
> >
> > And what would be the motivation to do this unless there was some
> > astounding breakthrough and electricity became esentially free?
> >
> >

> Well, when it's cheaper than diesel.... That's what we're talking about,
> I believe.

OK, so there is this astounding breakthrough and electricity becomes
essentially free and you electrify the roughly 150,000 miles of
freight railway.

That takes care of about 38% of the freight in terms of ton-miles.

Then all you have to do is electrify a couple of orders of magnitude
more highways and build electric trucks.

Then all you have to do is electrify all the roads between the rail
depots, distribution centers, and all the shops, stores, and supermarkets.

If the astounding breakthrough occured, it would be far simpler and cheaper
to just synthesize diesel fuel with the electricity, which isn't done
now because the cost of the energy to do it is too high.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> A lot of stationary farm equipment is electric. As to a lot of the rest,
> you'll know better if you think about it.

What, like the fact that much farm equipment runs at high output levels,
for hours on end, going up to 16+ hours per day during harvest time?

Nahhh, that couldn't be it. ;-))
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in
>> :
>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote in news:7417d5-p8l.ln1
>> @mail.specsol.com:
>> >
>> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> wrote in news:1is5d5-uv9.ln1
>> >> @mail.specsol.com:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not
>> >> >> >> > those
>> >> hauling
>> >> >> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to
>> >> >> >> > be
>> any
>> >> >> >> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to
>> Chicago.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Ahem:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul
>> there
>> >> >> > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for
>> local
>> >> >> > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
>> >> >
>> >> >> What, a 2,000 mile long electric system is down the road?
>> >> >
>> >> > Where is there an electric train system 2000 miles long?
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be
>> >> >> > any electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El
>> >> >> > Paso.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Not with an attitude like that there isn't!
>> >> >
>> >> > Attitude has nothing to do with it, it is economics.
>> >> >
>> >> > Who is going to pay to string up and maintain the overhead wires
>> for
>> >> > the 140,490 miles of freight railway in the US?
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> Same people that pays for everything, you.
>> >
>> > And what would be the motivation to do this unless there was some
>> > astounding breakthrough and electricity became esentially free?
>> >
>> >
>
>> Well, when it's cheaper than diesel.... That's what we're talking
>> about, I believe.
>
> OK, so there is this astounding breakthrough and electricity becomes
> essentially free and you electrify the roughly 150,000 miles of
> freight railway.
>
> That takes care of about 38% of the freight in terms of ton-miles.
>
> Then all you have to do is electrify a couple of orders of magnitude
> more highways and build electric trucks.

No I don't.

>
> Then all you have to do is electrify all the roads between the rail
> depots, distribution centers, and all the shops, stores, and
> supermarkets.

Why would I do that?

>
> If the astounding breakthrough occured, it would be far simpler and
> cheaper to just synthesize diesel fuel with the electricity, which
> isn't done now because the cost of the energy to do it is too high.


OK, now you're thinking.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> OK, so SF or whatever. In any case, just reintroducing rail in place of
> the current over-reliance on trucking would be a huge help. Even diesel
> trains are many rimes more efficient than trucks.

Because, in spite of roughly 150,000 miles of track, rail doesn't go
anywhere near all the places stuff needs to go to.

And, trains are only slightly more efficient than trucks for the majority
of freight.

Where trains have the big edge is on heavy bulk stuff like coal, lumber,
raw steel, etc.

They are less efficient for stuff like lettuce and iPods.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
>> is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
>> transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
>>
>> Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.
>
> Diesel-electric locomotives are the norm in the US. Some of those
> electric engines are decades old, and going strong. Not the same, I
> know...but perhaps indicative of what electric technology *can* do.

Electric motor, Jay, motor! :-)

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/engine.htm

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>> Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
>>> is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
>>> transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
>>>
>>> Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>>> electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.
>
>> Diesel-electric locomotives are the norm in the US. Some of those electric
>> engines are decades old, and going strong. Not the same, I know...but
>> perhaps indicative of what electric technology *can* do.
>
> Diesel-electric locomotives run on diesel fuel, not electricity.
>
> A big conventional diesel engine drives a conventional generator which
> in turn powers electric motors.
>
> Why don't they just drive the thing directly from the diesel engine?
>
> The electric drive eliminates the need for a huge transmission.
>

Yes, and the other reason is that electric motors make maximum torque at
zero RPM which is pretty much opposite from a diesel engine. This is an
advantageous characteristic for a machine like a locomotive.

Matt

[Matt W. Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those hauling
>> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
>> >
>> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
>
>> Ahem:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
>
> Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
> is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
> transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
>
> Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.

http://fusion.gat.com/global/Home (Maybe in our lifetimes??)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those
hauling
>>> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
>>> >
>>> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>>> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
>>
>>> Ahem:
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
>>
>> Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
>> is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
>> transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
>>
>> Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.
>
> http://fusion.gat.com/global/Home (Maybe in our lifetimes??)
>
>
>
>

Well, the Cadarache plant is under construction, and with this new large
scale facility, they do reckon they'll get the sustained fire they've
been seeking. I think th elongest reaction so far has been less than 2
seconds, but they reclon a larger reactor will sort that out. I believe
completion is due about 2012, but they're talking cloned facilities
about ten years after that.
There's a guy in Purdue U who reckons he's discovered a different kind
of cold fusion, but I think he's been largely discredited now. This was
several years ago and it was based on sonoluminscence, and there is some
energy detectable, but they reckon his measurement system isn't up to
the task. There's also been some big progress with zero point
experimentation, but even optimistc scientists reckon that's at least a
century away ( I'll qualify that as "sane" scientists before someone
produces some tinfoil doctor of reflexology who's made a zero point
device with two pieces of polished glass and some dental floss)



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> OK, so SF or whatever. In any case, just reintroducing rail in place
of
>> the current over-reliance on trucking would be a huge help. Even
diesel
>> trains are many rimes more efficient than trucks.
>
> Because, in spite of roughly 150,000 miles of track, rail doesn't go
> anywhere near all the places stuff needs to go to.

But it can go much of the way.

>
> And, trains are only slightly more efficient than trucks for the
majority
> of freight.
>
> Where trains have the big edge is on heavy bulk stuff like coal,
lumber,
> raw steel, etc.
>
> They are less efficient for stuff like lettuce and iPods.
>
>

I beg to differ, and you've just stepped into territory that I know
something about!
My family were freight consolidators for many years. We did freight and
trucks. No way would we run a truck more than a couple of hundred miles.
Most of it was clothing., also toys, stuf like that. A lot of
lightweight crap for woolworths or JC Penney. high value stuff was
problematic because of theft, but there wasn't anything that was cheaper
to drive out by truck. Of course, labour was more expensive. Goods had
to be transferred from factory to consolidation and then offloaded, by
hand, from truck to boxcar, and then again at the other end) This sort
of transportation of goods became less popular for several reasons over
the years, but not because it was less energy efficient. It remains
popular in Europe and elsewhere, and is regaining some of the losses
it's made there in recent years. Carriage by airfreight is just nuts and
it's popularity has more to do with instant gratification than anything.
While some businesses absolutely have to have it the next day, of
course, mostly it's just Ebay crap being shifted form one attic to
another. 50,000 lbs of diesel to shift 50,000 lbs of freight 2500 miles?
Yow!


Bertie

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:15:01 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>My family were freight consolidators for many years. We did freight and
>trucks. No way would we run a truck more than a couple of hundred miles.

Which is why UPS and most other shippers put trucks and containers on
trains.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:15:01 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>My family were freight consolidators for many years. We did freight
and
>>trucks. No way would we run a truck more than a couple of hundred
miles.
>
> Which is why UPS and most other shippers put trucks and containers on
> trains.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport>
>
>
>

Yeah, we did Ro Ro too. Saves a lot of handling. Trains are a very under
utilised resource. Looks like they're coming back a bit, though..


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in
> >> :
> >
> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> wrote in news:7417d5-p8l.ln1
> >> @mail.specsol.com:
> >> >
> >> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> >> wrote in news:1is5d5-uv9.ln1
> >> >> @mail.specsol.com:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not
> >> >> >> >> > those
> >> >> hauling
> >> >> >> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to
> >> >> >> >> > be
> >> any
> >> >> >> >> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to
> >> Chicago.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Ahem:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul
> >> there
> >> >> >> > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for
> >> local
> >> >> >> > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> What, a 2,000 mile long electric system is down the road?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Where is there an electric train system 2000 miles long?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be
> >> >> >> > any electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El
> >> >> >> > Paso.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Not with an attitude like that there isn't!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Attitude has nothing to do with it, it is economics.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Who is going to pay to string up and maintain the overhead wires
> >> for
> >> >> > the 140,490 miles of freight railway in the US?
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Same people that pays for everything, you.
> >> >
> >> > And what would be the motivation to do this unless there was some
> >> > astounding breakthrough and electricity became esentially free?
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >> Well, when it's cheaper than diesel.... That's what we're talking
> >> about, I believe.
> >
> > OK, so there is this astounding breakthrough and electricity becomes
> > essentially free and you electrify the roughly 150,000 miles of
> > freight railway.
> >
> > That takes care of about 38% of the freight in terms of ton-miles.
> >
> > Then all you have to do is electrify a couple of orders of magnitude
> > more highways and build electric trucks.

> No I don't.

> >
> > Then all you have to do is electrify all the roads between the rail
> > depots, distribution centers, and all the shops, stores, and
> > supermarkets.

> Why would I do that?

You're the one advocating electric freight hauling, not me.

Don't be a MX.


> > If the astounding breakthrough occured, it would be far simpler and
> > cheaper to just synthesize diesel fuel with the electricity, which
> > isn't done now because the cost of the energy to do it is too high.


> OK, now you're thinking.

Now?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Jay Honeck > wrote:
> >>> Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
> >>> is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
> >>> transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
> >>>
> >>> Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> >>> electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.
> >
> >> Diesel-electric locomotives are the norm in the US. Some of those electric
> >> engines are decades old, and going strong. Not the same, I know...but
> >> perhaps indicative of what electric technology *can* do.
> >
> > Diesel-electric locomotives run on diesel fuel, not electricity.
> >
> > A big conventional diesel engine drives a conventional generator which
> > in turn powers electric motors.
> >
> > Why don't they just drive the thing directly from the diesel engine?
> >
> > The electric drive eliminates the need for a huge transmission.
> >

> Yes, and the other reason is that electric motors make maximum torque at
> zero RPM which is pretty much opposite from a diesel engine. This is an
> advantageous characteristic for a machine like a locomotive.

> Matt

Yes, and why if you didn't use electric drive you would need a huge
transmission.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Al" > wrote

> This is a nationwide situation. Not just in a few states. You may not
> find non-ethanol autogas at your usual outlet. Our jobber started mixing
> in ethanol last week, however I had not purchased any since mid-March so
> was unaware.
>
> In essence, with the 5.1 cent per gallon tax break, the US federal
> government has just killed the Aviation autogas concept.
>
> I'm trying to locate a new source, but may not be successful. The ethanol
> is added at the distribution rack. Chevron and a couple others are
> requiring their retailers to go to E-10.

I know this suggestion may be a bit far out, and you may not have the time
or ability to make it happen, but perhaps one of your friends would.

How about getting a slightly clapped out fuel truck, and setting up yourself
as a distributor, and going and getting a load at a time of untainted fuel,
and bringing it back and either using it yourself, or selling it to yourself
and a few others?
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those hauling
> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
> >> >
> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> >> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
> >
> >> Ahem:
> >
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
> >
> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
> > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
> > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
> >
> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> > electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.

> http://fusion.gat.com/global/Home (Maybe in our lifetimes??)

Maybe if you are about 10 right now.

However, Mr. Fusion as in Back to the Future will likely never happen.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> >> OK, so SF or whatever. In any case, just reintroducing rail in place
> of
> >> the current over-reliance on trucking would be a huge help. Even
> diesel
> >> trains are many rimes more efficient than trucks.
> >
> > Because, in spite of roughly 150,000 miles of track, rail doesn't go
> > anywhere near all the places stuff needs to go to.

> But it can go much of the way.

The last 10% of any job usually takes 90% of the effort, but that's
irrelevant as for a lot of stuff, that already happens.

> >
> > And, trains are only slightly more efficient than trucks for the
> majority
> > of freight.
> >
> > Where trains have the big edge is on heavy bulk stuff like coal,
> lumber,
> > raw steel, etc.
> >
> > They are less efficient for stuff like lettuce and iPods.
> >
> >

> I beg to differ, and you've just stepped into territory that I know
> something about!
> My family were freight consolidators for many years. We did freight and
> trucks. No way would we run a truck more than a couple of hundred miles.
> Most of it was clothing., also toys, stuf like that. A lot of
> lightweight crap for woolworths or JC Penney. high value stuff was
> problematic because of theft, but there wasn't anything that was cheaper
> to drive out by truck. Of course, labour was more expensive. Goods had
> to be transferred from factory to consolidation and then offloaded, by
> hand, from truck to boxcar, and then again at the other end) This sort
> of transportation of goods became less popular for several reasons over
> the years, but not because it was less energy efficient. It remains
> popular in Europe and elsewhere, and is regaining some of the losses
> it's made there in recent years. Carriage by airfreight is just nuts and
> it's popularity has more to do with instant gratification than anything.
> While some businesses absolutely have to have it the next day, of
> course, mostly it's just Ebay crap being shifted form one attic to
> another. 50,000 lbs of diesel to shift 50,000 lbs of freight 2500 miles?
> Yow!

Cost and efficiency are two different things.

Most produce from Central California goes to Chicago by truck for a
lot of reasons, none of which are energy efficiency.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in
>> :
>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >
>> >> OK, so SF or whatever. In any case, just reintroducing rail in
>> >> place
>> of
>> >> the current over-reliance on trucking would be a huge help. Even
>> diesel
>> >> trains are many rimes more efficient than trucks.
>> >
>> > Because, in spite of roughly 150,000 miles of track, rail doesn't
>> > go anywhere near all the places stuff needs to go to.
>
>> But it can go much of the way.
>
> The last 10% of any job usually takes 90% of the effort, but that's
> irrelevant as for a lot of stuff, that already happens.
>

Well, that need not be true in this case.
>> >
>> > And, trains are only slightly more efficient than trucks for the
>> majority
>> > of freight.
>> >
>> > Where trains have the big edge is on heavy bulk stuff like coal,
>> lumber,
>> > raw steel, etc.
>> >
>> > They are less efficient for stuff like lettuce and iPods.
>> >
>> >
>
>> I beg to differ, and you've just stepped into territory that I know
>> something about!
>> My family were freight consolidators for many years. We did freight
>> and trucks. No way would we run a truck more than a couple of hundred
>> miles. Most of it was clothing., also toys, stuf like that. A lot of
>> lightweight crap for woolworths or JC Penney. high value stuff was
>> problematic because of theft, but there wasn't anything that was
>> cheaper to drive out by truck. Of course, labour was more expensive.
>> Goods had to be transferred from factory to consolidation and then
>> offloaded, by hand, from truck to boxcar, and then again at the other
>> end) This sort of transportation of goods became less popular for
>> several reasons over the years, but not because it was less energy
>> efficient. It remains popular in Europe and elsewhere, and is
>> regaining some of the losses it's made there in recent years.
>> Carriage by airfreight is just nuts and it's popularity has more to
>> do with instant gratification than anything. While some businesses
>> absolutely have to have it the next day, of course, mostly it's just
>> Ebay crap being shifted form one attic to another. 50,000 lbs of
>> diesel to shift 50,000 lbs of freight 2500 miles? Yow!
>
> Cost and efficiency are two different things.
>

My point exactly.

> Most produce from Central California goes to Chicago by truck for a
> lot of reasons, none of which are energy efficiency.
>
>
Again... my point.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:q5d7d5-26q.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:
>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote in
>> >> :
>> >
>> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> wrote in news:7417d5-p8l.ln1
>> >> @mail.specsol.com:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> >> wrote in news:1is5d5-uv9.ln1
>> >> >> @mail.specsol.com:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not
>> >> >> >> >> > those
>> >> >> hauling
>> >> >> >> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going
to
>> >> >> >> >> > be
>> >> any
>> >> >> >> >> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to
>> >> Chicago.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Ahem:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long
haul
>> >> there
>> >> >> >> > is what would be called just down the road in the US and
for
>> >> local
>> >> >> >> > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> What, a 2,000 mile long electric system is down the road?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Where is there an electric train system 2000 miles long?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to
be
>> >> >> >> > any electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even
El
>> >> >> >> > Paso.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Not with an attitude like that there isn't!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Attitude has nothing to do with it, it is economics.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Who is going to pay to string up and maintain the overhead
wires
>> >> for
>> >> >> > the 140,490 miles of freight railway in the US?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Same people that pays for everything, you.
>> >> >
>> >> > And what would be the motivation to do this unless there was
some
>> >> > astounding breakthrough and electricity became esentially free?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> Well, when it's cheaper than diesel.... That's what we're talking
>> >> about, I believe.
>> >
>> > OK, so there is this astounding breakthrough and electricity
becomes
>> > essentially free and you electrify the roughly 150,000 miles of
>> > freight railway.
>> >
>> > That takes care of about 38% of the freight in terms of ton-miles.
>> >
>> > Then all you have to do is electrify a couple of orders of
magnitude
>> > more highways and build electric trucks.
>
>> No I don't.
>
>> >
>> > Then all you have to do is electrify all the roads between the rail
>> > depots, distribution centers, and all the shops, stores, and
>> > supermarkets.
>
>> Why would I do that?
>
> You're the one advocating electric freight hauling, not me.
>
> Don't be a MX.

I'm not. You're the one offering up spurious arguments to beat the band!


>
>
>> > If the astounding breakthrough occured, it would be far simpler and
>> > cheaper to just synthesize diesel fuel with the electricity, which
>> > isn't done now because the cost of the energy to do it is too high.
>
>
>> OK, now you're thinking.
>
> Now?
>
>

Maybe not.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those
hauling
>> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
>> >> >
>> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> >> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
>> >
>> >> Ahem:
>> >
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
>> >
>> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
>> > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
>> > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
>> >
>> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> > electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.
>
>> http://fusion.gat.com/global/Home (Maybe in our lifetimes??)
>
> Maybe if you are about 10 right now.
>
> However, Mr. Fusion as in Back to the Future will likely never happen.
>
>

Prolly not, but the large scale hot plant probably will. That plant in
France is going ahead and they do expect it to work. If it does, most of
us will at least live to see that, and most of those will live to see
large scale implementation of the technology. Even given the inevitable
delays with projects like these, cadarache should be running within ten
years and commercial aplication should be within another ten.

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> Diesel-electric locomotives are the norm in the US. Some of those
>> electric engines are decades old, and going strong. Not the same, I
>> know...but perhaps indicative of what electric technology *can* do.
>
> Electric motor, Jay, motor! :-)
>
> http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/engine.htm

I think Jay had it right, this time. I think he was referring to the whole
thing.

What do you call the whole thing, internal combustion engine, electric
motors, wheels, fuel tanks, hitches, and all, that pull long strings of
train cars.

Train motors?

I don't think so, Tim! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> >>> Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
>> >>> is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
>> >>> transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
>> >>>
>> >>> Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> >>> electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.
>> >
>> >> Diesel-electric locomotives are the norm in the US. Some of those
>> >> electric
>> >> engines are decades old, and going strong. Not the same, I
>> >> know...but
>> >> perhaps indicative of what electric technology *can* do.
>> >
>> > Diesel-electric locomotives run on diesel fuel, not electricity.
>> >
>> > A big conventional diesel engine drives a conventional generator which
>> > in turn powers electric motors.
>> >
>> > Why don't they just drive the thing directly from the diesel engine?
>> >
>> > The electric drive eliminates the need for a huge transmission.
>> >
>
>> Yes, and the other reason is that electric motors make maximum torque at
>> zero RPM which is pretty much opposite from a diesel engine. This is an
>> advantageous characteristic for a machine like a locomotive.
>
>> Matt
>
> Yes, and why if you didn't use electric drive you would need a huge
> transmission.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
Actually, the electric drive is far more capable than any plausible
mechanical transmission--especially at the high and low ends of the speed
range. If it were not for our demand that utomobiles and light trucks
maintain a rather high rate of acceleration at highway speeds, hybrid cars
would probably operate more like railway locomotives--and might be more
efficient as a result.

Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> If the astounding breakthrough occured, it would be far simpler and
> cheaper
> to just synthesize diesel fuel with the electricity, which isn't done
> now because the cost of the energy to do it is too high.

That does not solve the carbon into the atmosphere problem, (which I
realize that everyone will not agree is a problem) unless you take the
carbon out of the atmosphere.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
> Yes, and the other reason is that electric motors make maximum torque at
> zero RPM which is pretty much opposite from a diesel engine. This is an
> advantageous characteristic for a machine like a locomotive.

<Chuckle>
Yeah, and I just had a rather amusing thought, too.

If trains had regular geared transmissions, can you imagine the engineer, if
he had to let out a clutch to get a big heavy train rolling uphill on a
grade?
--
Jim in NC

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:20:54 -0400, "Morgans" wrote:


>> If the astounding breakthrough occured, it would be far simpler and
>> cheaper
>> to just synthesize diesel fuel with the electricity, which isn't done
>> now because the cost of the energy to do it is too high.
>
> That does not solve the carbon into the atmosphere problem, (which I
>realize that everyone will not agree is a problem) unless you take the
>carbon out of the atmosphere.


That's the idea. Or you get it from fossil fuel power plant
emissions.

I like the idea of electric cars and trucks better. For the long-haul
stuff you might have to stick with diesel longer, until there are
breakthroughs in supercapacitors and charging systems to make quick
"fill-ups" possible.
--
Dan
T182T at 4R4

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:23:05 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>If trains had regular geared transmissions, can you imagine the engineer, if
>he had to let out a clutch to get a big heavy train rolling uphill on a
>grade?

Gun & dump!

Then the wheels would slip and the whole shebang would head backwards
down the hill! <G>

I know there were a few diesel-hydraulics (Krause-Maffei <SP?>) over
the years, but they didn't have a clutch, either.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> " and the other reason is that electric motors make maximum torque at
>> zero RPM which is pretty much opposite from a diesel engine. This is an
>> advantageous characteristic for a machine like a locomotive.

Matt

-----------------------------------------------------
Dang, it loses the punch, when it is screwed up, so here is what I "meant"
to say.

> <Chuckle>
> Yeah, and I just had a rather amusing thought, too.
>
> If trains had regular geared transmissions, can you imagine the engineer,
> if he had to let out a clutch to get a stopped, big heavy train started,
> going uphill on a grade?

No pressure, there! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke > wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:20:54 -0400, "Morgans" wrote:


> >> If the astounding breakthrough occured, it would be far simpler and
> >> cheaper
> >> to just synthesize diesel fuel with the electricity, which isn't done
> >> now because the cost of the energy to do it is too high.
> >
> > That does not solve the carbon into the atmosphere problem, (which I
> >realize that everyone will not agree is a problem) unless you take the
> >carbon out of the atmosphere.


> That's the idea. Or you get it from fossil fuel power plant
> emissions.

> I like the idea of electric cars and trucks better. For the long-haul
> stuff you might have to stick with diesel longer, until there are
> breakthroughs in supercapacitors and charging systems to make quick
> "fill-ups" possible.

Never going to happen.

Batteries, maybe, capacitors, never; basic physics.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those
> hauling
> >> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> >> >> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
> >> >
> >> >> Ahem:
> >> >
> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
> >> >
> >> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
> >> > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
> >> > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
> >> >
> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> >> > electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.
> >
> >> http://fusion.gat.com/global/Home (Maybe in our lifetimes??)
> >
> > Maybe if you are about 10 right now.
> >
> > However, Mr. Fusion as in Back to the Future will likely never happen.
> >
> >

> Prolly not, but the large scale hot plant probably will. That plant in
> France is going ahead and they do expect it to work. If it does, most of
> us will at least live to see that, and most of those will live to see
> large scale implementation of the technology. Even given the inevitable
> delays with projects like these, cadarache should be running within ten
> years and commercial aplication should be within another ten.

Add ten years for the environmental impact report and another ten
for the lawsuits by the wack jobs claiming it will destroy the planet.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote
>> Yes, and the other reason is that electric motors make maximum torque at
>> zero RPM which is pretty much opposite from a diesel engine. This is an
>> advantageous characteristic for a machine like a locomotive.
>
> <Chuckle>
> Yeah, and I just had a rather amusing thought, too.
>
> If trains had regular geared transmissions, can you imagine the engineer, if
> he had to let out a clutch to get a big heavy train rolling uphill on a
> grade?

I'd like to first see him depress the clutch pedal! :-)

Matt

[Al[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
>> is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
>> transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.

Rail Electrification was the reality just to the east of Spokane Wa and
through Idaho, Montana and the Rocky Mountains. I remember driving (OK
riding in the back seat while my dad drove) along US 10 (now I-90) in
Montana and watching the electric trains on the adjacent tracks.

This was the Milwaukee Road Railroad. An interesting narrative on their
electrification experience is on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_Road#Electrification

They were ahead of their time.

On a side note: I was driving in Spokane on Friday and pulled up next
to a Xebra Electric car. Cool! I had to roll down my window and ask
for more info. About $11,000 for a base model. The guy said his was
about 18k after options.

A full charge for that car is about 4kwh. At our rate of 5.2 cents per
kwh, that's a good deal. It gets about 35 miles to the charge.

Al
Spokane WA
Cessna 172E

[Al[_2_]]

> I know this suggestion may be a bit far out, and you may not have the time
> or ability to make it happen, but perhaps one of your friends would.
>
> How about getting a slightly clapped out fuel truck, and setting up yourself
> as a distributor, and going and getting a load at a time of untainted fuel,
> and bringing it back and either using it yourself, or selling it to yourself
> and a few others?

Thinking about it. Now looking for a fuel source. Of course, then I
would have to go through a huge bureaucratic process to get that truck
onto the field. But...I'm thinking about it.

Al

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in
>> :
>
>> > Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those
>> hauling
>> >> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be
>> >> >> > any electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to
>> >> >> > Chicago.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Ahem:
>> >> >
>> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
>> >> >
>> >> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul
>> >> > there is what would be called just down the road in the US and
>> >> > for local transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
>> >> >
>> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> >> > electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.
>> >
>> >> http://fusion.gat.com/global/Home (Maybe in our lifetimes??)
>> >
>> > Maybe if you are about 10 right now.
>> >
>> > However, Mr. Fusion as in Back to the Future will likely never
>> > happen.
>> >
>> >
>
>> Prolly not, but the large scale hot plant probably will. That plant
>> in France is going ahead and they do expect it to work. If it does,
>> most of us will at least live to see that, and most of those will
>> live to see large scale implementation of the technology. Even given
>> the inevitable delays with projects like these, cadarache should be
>> running within ten years and commercial aplication should be within
>> another ten.
>
> Add ten years for the environmental impact report and another ten
> for the lawsuits by the wack jobs claiming it will destroy the planet.
>
>

Mm, don't think so this time. The greens are generally behind it and
have been for some time. There's lots left to learn about fusion, not
least of which is how to do it, but it's generally considered to be the
best option available if it does become available. Nobody will know for
sure until it's running, though. I've just been looking around, they're
talking about firing it up in 2016. We'll have to wait and see.


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> I'd like to first see him depress the clutch pedal! :-)

<chuckle> Yeah, that would be a whopper, wouldn't it!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Al" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>> I know this suggestion may be a bit far out, and you may not have the
>> time or ability to make it happen, but perhaps one of your friends would.
>>
>> How about getting a slightly clapped out fuel truck, and setting up
>> yourself as a distributor, and going and getting a load at a time of
>> untainted fuel, and bringing it back and either using it yourself, or
>> selling it to yourself and a few others?
>
> Thinking about it. Now looking for a fuel source. Of course, then I
> would have to go through a huge bureaucratic process to get that truck
> onto the field. But...I'm thinking about it.

Good. Until a few people start doing that, the FBO's will continue to sit
on their butts, and not go out of their ways to make good fuel available,
along with the 100LL.
--
Jim in NC

[Mike Isaksen]

"Al" wrote ...
> ...on Friday and pulled up next to a Xebra Electric car.
>
> A full charge for that car is about 4 kwh. At our
> rate of 5.2 cents per kwh, that's a good deal. It gets about 35 miles to
> the charge.

Damn, that's cheap! I'll buy one (plug-in) when they become available. Even
though on Long Island NY, I'm paying about 9.5 cents for energy and 10.5
cents for system and delivery. With fees and taxes, the final comes to about
21.2 cents per KWH. In the summer operating period it goes up another penny
or two.

About 15 years ago my company got a few "electric conversions" for local
use, and put in a few extra charging stations in for free employee use. A
year later the program died and the only users for the charging stations now
are the diesel block heater crowd.

[Matt W. Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in :
>
>> > Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those
>> hauling
>> >> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> >> >> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Ahem:
>> >> >
>> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
>> >> >
>> >> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
>> >> > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
>> >> > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
>> >> >
>> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
>> >> > electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.
>> >
>> >> http://fusion.gat.com/global/Home (Maybe in our lifetimes??)
>> >
>> > Maybe if you are about 10 right now.
>> >
>> > However, Mr. Fusion as in Back to the Future will likely never happen.

And a computer will never need more than 640K of memory. :~)

>> >
>> >
>
>> Prolly not, but the large scale hot plant probably will. That plant in
>> France is going ahead and they do expect it to work. If it does, most of
>> us will at least live to see that, and most of those will live to see
>> large scale implementation of the technology. Even given the inevitable
>> delays with projects like these, cadarache should be running within ten
>> years and commercial aplication should be within another ten.
>
> Add ten years for the environmental impact report and another ten
> for the lawsuits by the wack jobs claiming it will destroy the planet.

So, are you saying the issue is one of bureaucracy, rather than
technological?

[[email protected]]

Matt W. Barrow > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in :
> >
> >> > Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those
> >> hauling
> >> >> >> > crap between cities, much less across the country.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> >> >> >> > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Ahem:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
> >> >> > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
> >> >> > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> >> >> > electric powered trains between LA and Omaha or even El Paso.
> >> >
> >> >> http://fusion.gat.com/global/Home (Maybe in our lifetimes??)
> >> >
> >> > Maybe if you are about 10 right now.
> >> >
> >> > However, Mr. Fusion as in Back to the Future will likely never happen.

> And a computer will never need more than 640K of memory. :~)

> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >> Prolly not, but the large scale hot plant probably will. That plant in
> >> France is going ahead and they do expect it to work. If it does, most of
> >> us will at least live to see that, and most of those will live to see
> >> large scale implementation of the technology. Even given the inevitable
> >> delays with projects like these, cadarache should be running within ten
> >> years and commercial aplication should be within another ten.
> >
> > Add ten years for the environmental impact report and another ten
> > for the lawsuits by the wack jobs claiming it will destroy the planet.

> So, are you saying the issue is one of bureaucracy, rather than
> technological?

No.

As is usual for any discussion on matters of energy, the discussion tends
to focus on one issue and ignores the big picture.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Brian[_1_]]

On Apr 12, 10:56*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Al" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
>
>
> >> *I know this suggestion may be a bit far out, and you may not have the
> >> time or ability to make it happen, but perhaps one of your friends would.
>
> >> How about getting a slightly clapped out fuel truck, and setting up
> >> yourself as a distributor, and going and getting a load at a time of
> >> untainted fuel, and bringing it back and either using it yourself, or
> >> selling it to yourself and a few others?
>
> > Thinking about it. *Now looking for a fuel source. *Of course, then I
> > would have to go through a huge bureaucratic process to get that truck
> > onto the field. *But...I'm thinking about it.
>
> Good. *Until a few people start doing that, the FBO's will continue to sit
> on their butts, and not go out of their ways to make good fuel available,
> along with the 100LL.
> --
> Jim in NC

The problem with this is that it is easy to find used fuel trucks.
However, driving them off of the airport requires insurance that will
make your auto fuel cost more that than the 100LL unless you are
selling or using very large quantities of fuel. This is why most Av-
gas trucks never leave the airport.

Brian

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 00:05:03 GMT, wrote:

>> I like the idea of electric cars and trucks better. For the long-haul
>> stuff you might have to stick with diesel longer, until there are
>> breakthroughs in supercapacitors and charging systems to make quick
>> "fill-ups" possible.
>
>Never going to happen.
>
>Batteries, maybe, capacitors, never; basic physics.

Eh?

Why not?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Brian" > wrote

The problem with this is that it is easy to find used fuel trucks.
However, driving them off of the airport requires insurance that will
make your auto fuel cost more that than the 100LL unless you are
selling or using very large quantities of fuel. This is why most Av-
gas trucks never leave the airport.

The next best thing would be to get to know someone that has a fleet of 18
wheeler delivery trucks, and see if he will load one of the cells in his
truck with some clean premium, and bring it to you at the airport.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke > wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 00:05:03 GMT, wrote:

> >> I like the idea of electric cars and trucks better. For the long-haul
> >> stuff you might have to stick with diesel longer, until there are
> >> breakthroughs in supercapacitors and charging systems to make quick
> >> "fill-ups" possible.
> >
> >Never going to happen.
> >
> >Batteries, maybe, capacitors, never; basic physics.

> Eh?

> Why not?

The short answer is the materials making up the capacitor start coming
apart when the internal field gets to a certain point for the energy
density and the relationship between current, voltage, and capacitance
for the charger.

Battery techonology improvements hold better promise for small vehicle,
such as automobile, use.

The bottom line is electricity doesn't store well, so carrying it with
you is problematic.

If electricity were free, the best use of it with existing technology
is to use it to manufacture chemical fuels, which would **** off the
green house gas faction, but real life is far from perfect.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt W. Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
>> >
>> > Add ten years for the environmental impact report and another ten
>> > for the lawsuits by the wack jobs claiming it will destroy the planet.
>
>> So, are you saying the issue is one of bureaucracy, rather than
>> technological?
>
> No.
>
> As is usual for any discussion on matters of energy, the discussion tends
> to focus on one issue and ignores the big picture.

And the "Big Picture" is... what, that is missing in my question to your
statement?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Brian" > wrote
>
> The problem with this is that it is easy to find used fuel trucks.
> However, driving them off of the airport requires insurance that will
> make your auto fuel cost more that than the 100LL unless you are
> selling or using very large quantities of fuel. This is why most Av-
> gas trucks never leave the airport.
>
> The next best thing would be to get to know someone that has a fleet
> of 18 wheeler delivery trucks, and see if he will load one of the
> cells in his truck with some clean premium, and bring it to you at the
> airport.

This is what we have to do to get 100LL at our strip. It makes it a good
bit more expensive than getting it at an airport, but we gotta have it
there, so!

Bertie

[[email protected]]

Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Add ten years for the environmental impact report and another ten
> >> > for the lawsuits by the wack jobs claiming it will destroy the planet.
> >
> >> So, are you saying the issue is one of bureaucracy, rather than
> >> technological?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > As is usual for any discussion on matters of energy, the discussion tends
> > to focus on one issue and ignores the big picture.

> And the "Big Picture" is... what, that is missing in my question to your
> statement?

An understanding that just because I mentioned bureaucratic issues, it
does not mean those are the only issues, nor am I implying those are
the only issues, nor am I implying they are the most important issues.

They are simply one of many issues.

You want a list of issues?

Here's a quick one probably missing numerous items:

Can sustained man made fusion even be done?

Once fired up, would the plant have a continuous duty cycle or would
it need to be shut down now and then to maintain/refuel something?

If so, how often would that be?

What would the required capital cost to build a commercial plant be?

What would the life cycle cost of the plant be and the amortized cost
of the electricity generated?

How long can a plant be expected to last?

What are the safety issues? If something goes wrong will the fire just
go out or will there need to be safeguards to keep the plant from
vaporizing?

What, if any, waste products will be produced?

Will massive amounts of waste heat be generated requiring large amounts
of water to deal with the heat?

Would the waste heat have an impact on the local environment?

What is the required land area for a plant including any required
safety zones?

Will NIMBY's and Luddites block contruction of such a plant at every
turn?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Add ten years for the environmental impact report and another ten
>> >> > for the lawsuits by the wack jobs claiming it will destroy the
>> >> > planet.
>> >
>> >> So, are you saying the issue is one of bureaucracy, rather than
>> >> technological?
>> >
>> > No.
>> >
>> > As is usual for any discussion on matters of energy, the discussion
>> > tends
>> > to focus on one issue and ignores the big picture.
>
>> And the "Big Picture" is... what, that is missing in my question to your
>> statement?
>
> An understanding that just because I mentioned bureaucratic issues, it
> does not mean those are the only issues, nor am I implying those are
> the only issues, nor am I implying they are the most important issues.
>
> They are simply one of many issues.
>
> You want a list of issues?
>
> Here's a quick one probably missing numerous items:
>
> Can sustained man made fusion even be done?
>
> Once fired up, would the plant have a continuous duty cycle or would
> it need to be shut down now and then to maintain/refuel something?
>
> If so, how often would that be?
>
> What would the required capital cost to build a commercial plant be?
>
> What would the life cycle cost of the plant be and the amortized cost
> of the electricity generated?
>
> How long can a plant be expected to last?
>
> What are the safety issues? If something goes wrong will the fire just
> go out or will there need to be safeguards to keep the plant from
> vaporizing?
>
> What, if any, waste products will be produced?
>
> Will massive amounts of waste heat be generated requiring large amounts
> of water to deal with the heat?
>
> Would the waste heat have an impact on the local environment?
>
> What is the required land area for a plant including any required
> safety zones?
>
> Will NIMBY's and Luddites block contruction of such a plant at every
> turn?
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
All of the above and excellent points, as was your comment that "electricity
does not store well" and I would like to add an additional caveat:

What will happen when a solution is accepted as safe, reliable, and
therefore as essential.

My reason for that concern is that I believe that we are already much too
dependent upon electricity. I am not opposed to its use, and I even remain
an advocate of electrified roadways on the highest traffic trunk routes.
But, that simply can not be allowed to become the sole source of power. The
traffic still must be able to continue without the electric power, by using
stored chemical fuels, even if that can only be accomplished at reduced
speeds.

Even now, when very little electricity is used for transportation, electric
power outages are entirely too news-worthy. A familiy memeber pointed out
to me that her gas furnace and gas stove both require a modest amount of
electric power to operate. In my own local service area, we actually had a
congressional investigation into a breif power outage when a glitch at a
transformer station caused a cascade effect. We need to get away from our
reliance on uninterupted supply lines, beacuse otherwise there will be no
future for us to worry about!

Peter

[[email protected]]

Peter Dohm > wrote:

> All of the above and excellent points, as was your comment that "electricity
> does not store well" and I would like to add an additional caveat:

> What will happen when a solution is accepted as safe, reliable, and
> therefore as essential.

> My reason for that concern is that I believe that we are already much too
> dependent upon electricity. I am not opposed to its use, and I even remain
> an advocate of electrified roadways on the highest traffic trunk routes.
> But, that simply can not be allowed to become the sole source of power. The
> traffic still must be able to continue without the electric power, by using
> stored chemical fuels, even if that can only be accomplished at reduced
> speeds.

> Even now, when very little electricity is used for transportation, electric
> power outages are entirely too news-worthy. A familiy memeber pointed out
> to me that her gas furnace and gas stove both require a modest amount of
> electric power to operate. In my own local service area, we actually had a
> congressional investigation into a breif power outage when a glitch at a
> transformer station caused a cascade effect. We need to get away from our
> reliance on uninterupted supply lines, beacuse otherwise there will be no
> future for us to worry about!

Power outages are newsworthy because they are relatively rare.

The only real problem with the current grid system is generation
construction hasn't kept up with demand.

A few nukes on the west side of the Rockies and a few coal plants or
nukes east of the Rockies would fix that.

Good luck on getting that past the NIMBY's and CO2 fanatics.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt W. Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Add ten years for the environmental impact report and another ten
>> >> > for the lawsuits by the wack jobs claiming it will destroy the
>> >> > planet.
>> >
>> >> So, are you saying the issue is one of bureaucracy, rather than
>> >> technological?
>> >
>> > No.
>> >
>> > As is usual for any discussion on matters of energy, the discussion
>> > tends
>> > to focus on one issue and ignores the big picture.
>
>> And the "Big Picture" is... what, that is missing in my question to your
>> statement?
>
> An understanding that just because I mentioned bureaucratic issues, it
> does not mean those are the only issues, nor am I implying those are
> the only issues, nor am I implying they are the most important issues.

I realize that.
>
> They are simply one of many issues.
>
> You want a list of issues?
>
> Here's a quick one probably missing numerous items:
>
> Can sustained man made fusion even be done?
>
> Once fired up, would the plant have a continuous duty cycle or would
> it need to be shut down now and then to maintain/refuel something?
>
> If so, how often would that be?
>
> What would the required capital cost to build a commercial plant be?
>
> What would the life cycle cost of the plant be and the amortized cost
> of the electricity generated?
>
> How long can a plant be expected to last?
>
> What are the safety issues? If something goes wrong will the fire just
> go out or will there need to be safeguards to keep the plant from
> vaporizing?
>
> What, if any, waste products will be produced?
>
> Will massive amounts of waste heat be generated requiring large amounts
> of water to deal with the heat?
>
> Would the waste heat have an impact on the local environment?
>
> What is the required land area for a plant including any required
> safety zones?
>
> Will NIMBY's and Luddites block contruction of such a plant at every
> turn?

Those are issues? Some of us meet and solve those every day.

I'd say that the bureaucratic/environuts facet is 90% of the "issue".

[From memory, so TIFWIW] Back in the late 80's or early 90's, Deke Slayton
and a few others tried to put together a private rocket launch company. They
started with $300 million in capital.

By the time they got done with paperwork, the $300M was GONE.

Lew Rockwell once estimated that regulations and paperwork added $1.25 to a
gallon of gas when gas was going around $2.25. Taxes today are on average
46.5 cents a gallon (by comparison, Exxon, the most efficient gasoline
producer, makes 19-22 cents, the gas station makes about 12-15 cents).

And those "tax breaks" that gas companies get are the same breaks enjoyed by
every other company in any other industry. Gas companies also pay
lease/extraction taxes, etc.

As in so many cases, the answer is not more of what the statists want, but
more lassez faire (get the hell outta the way).

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> Peter Dohm > wrote:
>
>> All of the above and excellent points, as was your comment that
>> "electricity
>> does not store well" and I would like to add an additional caveat:
>
>> What will happen when a solution is accepted as safe, reliable, and
>> therefore as essential.
>
>> My reason for that concern is that I believe that we are already much too
>> dependent upon electricity. I am not opposed to its use, and I even
>> remain
>> an advocate of electrified roadways on the highest traffic trunk routes.
>> But, that simply can not be allowed to become the sole source of power.
>> The
>> traffic still must be able to continue without the electric power, by
>> using
>> stored chemical fuels, even if that can only be accomplished at reduced
>> speeds.
>
>> Even now, when very little electricity is used for transportation,
>> electric
>> power outages are entirely too news-worthy. A familiy memeber pointed
>> out
>> to me that her gas furnace and gas stove both require a modest amount of
>> electric power to operate. In my own local service area, we actually had
>> a
>> congressional investigation into a breif power outage when a glitch at a
>> transformer station caused a cascade effect. We need to get away from
>> our
>> reliance on uninterupted supply lines, beacuse otherwise there will be no
>> future for us to worry about!
>
> Power outages are newsworthy because they are relatively rare.
>
> The only real problem with the current grid system is generation
> construction hasn't kept up with demand.
>
> A few nukes on the west side of the Rockies and a few coal plants or
> nukes east of the Rockies would fix that.
>
> Good luck on getting that past the NIMBY's and CO2 fanatics.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
I still don't like single products and single sources, but you are right
about the lack of additional (and reserve) capacity and the chances of
fixing it.

Peter

[[email protected]]

Peter Dohm > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Peter Dohm > wrote:
> >
> >> All of the above and excellent points, as was your comment that
> >> "electricity
> >> does not store well" and I would like to add an additional caveat:
> >
> >> What will happen when a solution is accepted as safe, reliable, and
> >> therefore as essential.
> >
> >> My reason for that concern is that I believe that we are already much too
> >> dependent upon electricity. I am not opposed to its use, and I even
> >> remain
> >> an advocate of electrified roadways on the highest traffic trunk routes.
> >> But, that simply can not be allowed to become the sole source of power.
> >> The
> >> traffic still must be able to continue without the electric power, by
> >> using
> >> stored chemical fuels, even if that can only be accomplished at reduced
> >> speeds.
> >
> >> Even now, when very little electricity is used for transportation,
> >> electric
> >> power outages are entirely too news-worthy. A familiy memeber pointed
> >> out
> >> to me that her gas furnace and gas stove both require a modest amount of
> >> electric power to operate. In my own local service area, we actually had
> >> a
> >> congressional investigation into a breif power outage when a glitch at a
> >> transformer station caused a cascade effect. We need to get away from
> >> our
> >> reliance on uninterupted supply lines, beacuse otherwise there will be no
> >> future for us to worry about!
> >
> > Power outages are newsworthy because they are relatively rare.
> >
> > The only real problem with the current grid system is generation
> > construction hasn't kept up with demand.
> >
> > A few nukes on the west side of the Rockies and a few coal plants or
> > nukes east of the Rockies would fix that.
> >
> > Good luck on getting that past the NIMBY's and CO2 fanatics.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> I still don't like single products and single sources, but you are right
> about the lack of additional (and reserve) capacity and the chances of
> fixing it.

What else are you going to run your refrigerator, TV, airconditioning,
lighting, vacuum cleaner, computer, and lights on, natural gas?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
>
> What else are you going to run your refrigerator, TV, airconditioning,
> lighting, vacuum cleaner, computer, and lights on, natural gas?

> --
> Jim Pennino
>
No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way. I am
just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric power
plants as well.

Peter

[Matt W. Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> Peter Dohm > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Peter Dohm > wrote:
>> >
>> I still don't like single products and single sources, but you are right
>> about the lack of additional (and reserve) capacity and the chances of
>> fixing it.
>
> What else are you going to run your refrigerator, TV, airconditioning,
> lighting, vacuum cleaner, computer, and lights on, natural gas?

Batteries.

And a squirrel on a treadmill.

[[email protected]]

Peter Dohm > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > What else are you going to run your refrigerator, TV, airconditioning,
> > lighting, vacuum cleaner, computer, and lights on, natural gas?

> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way. I am
> just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric power
> plants as well.

The energy density of electric storage devices are more than an order
of magnitude inadequate for that to happen and there are no potential
breakthroughs of even an order of magnitude on the horizon.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote
>>
> No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way. I am
> just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric power
> plants as well.

They used to make natural gas (only) full sized refrigerators, and still
may.

A buddy had a place that did not have electricity to it, except for a small
generator, run only when absolutely necessary.

When he got it, (used) the guy he bought it from said that if it did not
start cooling soon after he lit it off, that he needed to shut it down, and
turn it upside-down for 30 minutes or so, then turn it over and light it
off.

Damned if it needed it, and damned if that didn't fix it!

I worked off of an ammonia coolant cycle, as I recall.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Morgans > wrote:

> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
> >>
> > No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way. I am
> > just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric power
> > plants as well.

> They used to make natural gas (only) full sized refrigerators, and still
> may.

They are still made for niche applications; you won't find one at
Home Depot.

Also, don't expect to make a lot of ice cubes with one of them as they
don't work all that well which is but one of the reasons you won't find
them in general use.

> A buddy had a place that did not have electricity to it, except for a small
> generator, run only when absolutely necessary.

> When he got it, (used) the guy he bought it from said that if it did not
> start cooling soon after he lit it off, that he needed to shut it down, and
> turn it upside-down for 30 minutes or so, then turn it over and light it
> off.

> Damned if it needed it, and damned if that didn't fix it!

> I worked off of an ammonia coolant cycle, as I recall.

Another reason you won't find them in general use.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> Morgans > wrote:
>
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>> >>
>> > No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way. I
>> > am
>> > just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric
>> > power
>> > plants as well.
>
>> They used to make natural gas (only) full sized refrigerators, and still
>> may.
>
> They are still made for niche applications; you won't find one at
> Home Depot.
>
> Also, don't expect to make a lot of ice cubes with one of them as they
> don't work all that well which is but one of the reasons you won't find
> them in general use.
>
>> A buddy had a place that did not have electricity to it, except for a
>> small
>> generator, run only when absolutely necessary.
>
>> When he got it, (used) the guy he bought it from said that if it did not
>> start cooling soon after he lit it off, that he needed to shut it down,
>> and
>> turn it upside-down for 30 minutes or so, then turn it over and light it
>> off.
>
>> Damned if it needed it, and damned if that didn't fix it!
>
>> I worked off of an ammonia coolant cycle, as I recall.
>
> Another reason you won't find them in general use.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
Actually, I think that I heard they only might need to be tilted, but you
had to know which direction, and you are correct that ammonia was the
refrigerant.

In any case, there is a variant which can be operated on propane or
electric, and possibly a gas or electric version as well, that is sold for
the recretonal vehicle market. The full size gas only models were normally
sold by or through the loack gase companies, and may still be offered in
that manner as I have heard that they were very innexpensive to operate.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> Peter Dohm > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > What else are you going to run your refrigerator, TV, airconditioning,
>> > lighting, vacuum cleaner, computer, and lights on, natural gas?
>
>> > --
>> > Jim Pennino
>> >
>> No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way. I am
>> just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric power
>> plants as well.
>
> The energy density of electric storage devices are more than an order
> of magnitude inadequate for that to happen and there are no potential
> breakthroughs of even an order of magnitude on the horizon.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
I believe that we are really in basic agreement. Electric energy storage is
more than an order of magnetude inadiquate to run our transporation system
on batteries, and the rest of the electric infrastructure seems equally
short of being able to work around that problem. Therefore, we will
continue to do as we have done for the foreseeable future.

Peter

[Jennifer Howland]

wrote:

> Jim Logajan > wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those haulingu
> the
> > > crap between cities, much less across the country.
> > >
> > > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> > > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
>
> > Ahem:
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
>
> Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
> is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
> transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.

Huh? Have you even done much train riding in Europe?? Today, one can take
an electric train from London to Paris and thence to Marseilles. (For
example; there are many others). You think that is equivalent to the local
trains that just serve the SF Bay Area? Dream on! The European trains can
go a good bit faster too.

Even in the USA, you can ride an all electric train froom Washington DC to
Boston MA? You don't consider that inter-city?

Heck, the Pennsylvania Railroad had electric trains between New York (later
to New Haven), Washington, Philadelphia, and Harrisburg almost 100 years
ago.

[Jennifer Howland]

Morgans wrote:

> > wrote
>
> > Diesel-electric locomotives run on diesel fuel, not electricity.
> >
> > A big conventional diesel engine drives a conventional generator which
> > in turn powers electric motors.
> >
> > Why don't they just drive the thing directly from the diesel engine?
> >
> > The electric drive eliminates the need for a huge transmission.
>
> Plus another very important factor.
>
> The electric motors turn into big generators, when the train starts pushing
> the locomotive, like when coming down a fairly steep grade.
>
> Rather than overheat or wear out the car brakes, the wheel motors generate
> massive amounts of electricity that the engineer directs into a huge banks
> of resistors, which act like giant electric heaters, heating the outside
> air. Only when all of the resistors are running at full power, does the
> engineer begin selecting the car brakes.

On some train systems, at least some of this braking energy can be diverted
back into the catenary to power other trains. I believe even the Acela can do
this.

[B A R R Y]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:43:56 -0400, Jennifer Howland
> wrote:
>
>On some train systems, at least some of this braking energy can be diverted
>back into the catenary to power other trains. I believe even the Acela can do
>this.


I think the New York subway system also does it.

[[email protected]]

Jennifer Howland > wrote:


> wrote:

> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those haulingu
> > the
> > > > crap between cities, much less across the country.
> > > >
> > > > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> > > > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
> >
> > > Ahem:
> >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
> >
> > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
> > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
> > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.

> Huh? Have you even done much train riding in Europe?? Today, one can take
> an electric train from London to Paris and thence to Marseilles. (For
> example; there are many others). You think that is equivalent to the local
> trains that just serve the SF Bay Area? Dream on! The European trains can
> go a good bit faster too.

> Even in the USA, you can ride an all electric train froom Washington DC to
> Boston MA? You don't consider that inter-city?

> Heck, the Pennsylvania Railroad had electric trains between New York (later
> to New Haven), Washington, Philadelphia, and Harrisburg almost 100 years
> ago.

Yep, works where distances are short and population densities are high.

European and US East Coast distances are tiny and population densities
enourmous when take into context of the whole US.

Compare the distance and population density from Los Angeles to Chicago
or San Diego to Maddison.

California has a bigger county than some European countries.

Have you ever traveled from Detroit to Los Angeles on the ground?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[B A R R Y]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:35:03 GMT, wrote:

>
>California has a bigger county than some European countries.

California is also the world's 8th largest economy.

[Some Other Guy]

Morgans wrote:
> A buddy had a place that did not have electricity to it, except for a
> small generator, run only when absolutely necessary.
>
> When he got it, (used) the guy he bought it from said that if it did not
> start cooling soon after he lit it off, that he needed to shut it down,
> and turn it upside-down for 30 minutes or so, then turn it over and light
> it off.
>
> Damned if it needed it, and damned if that didn't fix it!
>
> I worked off of an ammonia coolant cycle, as I recall.

Gas absorption refrigerator. What I find most amazing by them is that they
have no moving parts *at all*.

It's just a hell of a clever plumbing arrangement. Add heat at one part
(by burning gas, whatever), and another part gets cold:

http://www.gasrefrigerators.com/howitworks.htm

[[email protected]]

Peter Dohm > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Peter Dohm > wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > What else are you going to run your refrigerator, TV, airconditioning,
> >> > lighting, vacuum cleaner, computer, and lights on, natural gas?
> >
> >> > --
> >> > Jim Pennino
> >> >
> >> No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way. I am
> >> just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric power
> >> plants as well.
> >
> > The energy density of electric storage devices are more than an order
> > of magnitude inadequate for that to happen and there are no potential
> > breakthroughs of even an order of magnitude on the horizon.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> I believe that we are really in basic agreement. Electric energy storage is
> more than an order of magnetude inadiquate to run our transporation system
> on batteries, and the rest of the electric infrastructure seems equally
> short of being able to work around that problem. Therefore, we will
> continue to do as we have done for the foreseeable future.

Well, not quite.

Electric transportation will require a major breakthrough in battery
technology which may or may not ever happen, as well as increased grid
infrastructure.

Production of synthetic petroleum products from raw stock other than
crude oil requires that electricity production costs drop, which could
well happen if you are talking about on the ground facilities, and the
electric production facility need not be tied into the grid or anything
else other than the synthesis facility.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Peter Dohm > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Morgans > wrote:
> >
> >> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> > No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way. I
> >> > am
> >> > just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric
> >> > power
> >> > plants as well.
> >
> >> They used to make natural gas (only) full sized refrigerators, and still
> >> may.
> >
> > They are still made for niche applications; you won't find one at
> > Home Depot.
> >
> > Also, don't expect to make a lot of ice cubes with one of them as they
> > don't work all that well which is but one of the reasons you won't find
> > them in general use.
> >
> >> A buddy had a place that did not have electricity to it, except for a
> >> small
> >> generator, run only when absolutely necessary.
> >
> >> When he got it, (used) the guy he bought it from said that if it did not
> >> start cooling soon after he lit it off, that he needed to shut it down,
> >> and
> >> turn it upside-down for 30 minutes or so, then turn it over and light it
> >> off.
> >
> >> Damned if it needed it, and damned if that didn't fix it!
> >
> >> I worked off of an ammonia coolant cycle, as I recall.
> >
> > Another reason you won't find them in general use.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> Actually, I think that I heard they only might need to be tilted, but you
> had to know which direction, and you are correct that ammonia was the
> refrigerant.

> In any case, there is a variant which can be operated on propane or
> electric, and possibly a gas or electric version as well, that is sold for
> the recretonal vehicle market. The full size gas only models were normally
> sold by or through the loack gase companies, and may still be offered in
> that manner as I have heard that they were very innexpensive to operate.

Yep, but when running on gas, they don't make ice cubes worth a damn; they
can't move heat fast enough.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:35:03 GMT, wrote:

> >
> >California has a bigger county than some European countries.

> California is also the world's 8th largest economy.

Yep, and also has electric trains for moving people along most of the
coast.

But it is diesel-electrics moving bulk cargo across the Mojave and
points east.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jennifer Howland" > wrote
>
> On some train systems, at least some of this braking energy can be
> diverted
> back into the catenary to power other trains. I believe even the Acela
> can do
> this.
Of course, you know that you are talking two totally different kinds of
train systems.

Diesel electric trains run on tracks with NO electrical pickups on wires
above, or on a third rail.

That was the type being discussed, though.

I do wonder on systems that feed electricity back onto the line, since most
are AC, I believe, how do they match phases with the current already on the
line? That would be necessary.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Some Other Guy" > wrote
>
> It's just a hell of a clever plumbing arrangement. Add heat at one part
> (by burning gas, whatever), and another part gets cold:
>
> http://www.gasrefrigerators.com/howitworks.htm
>
If that isn't the best explanation I have ever seen.... Good pictures, too.
;-)

I guess that turning the thing upside down got the hydrogen back up (down)
in the reservoir, so that it could keep in the evaporation side once the
heat got things moving. That makes sense, now. At the time, with no
internet in '83, it seemed a bit like magic, to me! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Matt W. Barrow]

> "Some Other Guy" > wrote
>
> It's just a hell of a clever plumbing arrangement. Add heat at one part
> (by burning gas, whatever), and another part gets cold:
>
> http://www.gasrefrigerators.com/howitworks.htm

Ever wonder why they never became popular?

[[email protected]]

Morgans > wrote:

> "Jennifer Howland" > wrote
> >
> > On some train systems, at least some of this braking energy can be
> > diverted
> > back into the catenary to power other trains. I believe even the Acela
> > can do
> > this.
> Of course, you know that you are talking two totally different kinds of
> train systems.

> Diesel electric trains run on tracks with NO electrical pickups on wires
> above, or on a third rail.

> That was the type being discussed, though.

> I do wonder on systems that feed electricity back onto the line, since most
> are AC, I believe, how do they match phases with the current already on the
> line? That would be necessary.

Well, since frequency and phase out of a mechanical generator is RPM
dependent, you would either have to have an infinite ratio transmission
or a DC generator followed by a controllable inverter.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Add ten years for the environmental impact report and another
>> >> > ten for the lawsuits by the wack jobs claiming it will destroy
>> >> > the planet.
>> >
>> >> So, are you saying the issue is one of bureaucracy, rather than
>> >> technological?
>> >
>> > No.
>> >
>> > As is usual for any discussion on matters of energy, the discussion
>> > tends to focus on one issue and ignores the big picture.
>
>> And the "Big Picture" is... what, that is missing in my question to
>> your statement?
>
> An understanding that just because I mentioned bureaucratic issues, it
> does not mean those are the only issues, nor am I implying those are
> the only issues, nor am I implying they are the most important issues.
>
> They are simply one of many issues.
>
> You want a list of issues?
>
> Here's a quick one probably missing numerous items:
>
> Can sustained man made fusion even be done?
>
> Once fired up, would the plant have a continuous duty cycle or would
> it need to be shut down now and then to maintain/refuel something?
>
> If so, how often would that be?
>
> What would the required capital cost to build a commercial plant be?
>
> What would the life cycle cost of the plant be and the amortized cost
> of the electricity generated?
>
> How long can a plant be expected to last?
>
> What are the safety issues? If something goes wrong will the fire just
> go out or will there need to be safeguards to keep the plant from
> vaporizing?
>
> What, if any, waste products will be produced?
>
> Will massive amounts of waste heat be generated requiring large
> amounts of water to deal with the heat?
>
> Would the waste heat have an impact on the local environment?
>
> What is the required land area for a plant including any required
> safety zones?
>
> Will NIMBY's and Luddites block contruction of such a plant at every
> turn?
>
>

Those aren't issues, those are questions that you have which you can
easily find answers to.



Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:25:04 GMT, wrote in
>:

>Electric transportation will require a major breakthrough in battery
>technology which may or may not ever happen, as well as increased grid
>infrastructure.

I look for the next venture cycle to be the installation of solar
generating equipment in industry and homes, much the same way the
dot-com Internet boom occurred. As it is, photovoltaic hardware
production significantly lags demand, but large productions facilities
are imminently due to become operational worldwide.

Locally generated power is destined to become mainstream if for no
other reason than the redundancy distributed power generation
provides.

[Peter Dohm]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
>> "Some Other Guy" > wrote
>>
>> It's just a hell of a clever plumbing arrangement. Add heat at one part
>> (by burning gas, whatever), and another part gets cold:
>>
>> http://www.gasrefrigerators.com/howitworks.htm
>
> Ever wonder why they never became popular?
>
>
Nope. My grandfolks said the gas refrigerators were a lot more convenient
than carrying 50 pound blocks of ice up the stairs.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:25:04 GMT, wrote in
> >:
>
>>Electric transportation will require a major breakthrough in battery
>>technology which may or may not ever happen, as well as increased grid
>>infrastructure.
>
> I look for the next venture cycle to be the installation of solar
> generating equipment in industry and homes, much the same way the
> dot-com Internet boom occurred. As it is, photovoltaic hardware
> production significantly lags demand, but large productions facilities
> are imminently due to become operational worldwide.
>
> Locally generated power is destined to become mainstream if for no
> other reason than the redundancy distributed power generation
> provides.

Redundancy is a very usefull feature, sometimes the most usefull...

Peter
I still like Ike!

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:25:04 GMT, wrote in
> >:
>
>> Electric transportation will require a major breakthrough in battery
>> technology which may or may not ever happen, as well as increased grid
>> infrastructure.
>
> I look for the next venture cycle to be the installation of solar
> generating equipment in industry and homes, much the same way the
> dot-com Internet boom occurred. As it is, photovoltaic hardware
> production significantly lags demand, but large productions facilities
> are imminently due to become operational worldwide.
>
> Locally generated power is destined to become mainstream if for no
> other reason than the redundancy distributed power generation
> provides.

Sam's (the warehouse division of Wal-Mart) has a $40,000 package
available in their recent catalog that includes, a long with a bunch of
energy star appliances, a solar system and a electricity generating
windmill. The package includes installation and a one week eco-friendly
vacation for you to take while they are installing everything.

[John Godwin[_2_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in news:SDfNj.49945
:

> Ever wonder why they never became popular?
>
Gas Refrigerators were pretty dirty. After about a year of operation,
there was a large black streak up the wall.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote
>
> Well, since frequency and phase out of a mechanical generator is RPM
> dependent, you would either have to have an infinite ratio transmission
> or a DC generator followed by a controllable inverter.

I'll bet that they have the inverter.

It would make sense, since they have to be able to jump around from system to
system, with different voltages, and different frequencies.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:25:04 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >Electric transportation will require a major breakthrough in battery
> >technology which may or may not ever happen, as well as increased grid
> >infrastructure.

> I look for the next venture cycle to be the installation of solar
> generating equipment in industry and homes, much the same way the
> dot-com Internet boom occurred. As it is, photovoltaic hardware
> production significantly lags demand, but large productions facilities
> are imminently due to become operational worldwide.

> Locally generated power is destined to become mainstream if for no
> other reason than the redundancy distributed power generation
> provides.

California is in the second or third round of this; I lose track.

It will go down the dumper once again as the payback time, even with
tax credits, is measured in decades.

Get the total installed cost payback time under 4 to 5 years, then
something may happen.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:45:04 GMT, wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:25:04 GMT, wrote in
>> >:
>
>> >Electric transportation will require a major breakthrough in battery
>> >technology which may or may not ever happen, as well as increased grid
>> >infrastructure.
>
>> I look for the next venture cycle to be the installation of solar
>> generating equipment in industry and homes, much the same way the
>> dot-com Internet boom occurred. As it is, photovoltaic hardware
>> production significantly lags demand, but large productions facilities
>> are imminently due to become operational worldwide.
>
>> Locally generated power is destined to become mainstream if for no
>> other reason than the redundancy distributed power generation
>> provides.
>
>California is in the second or third round of this; I lose track.
>
>It will go down the dumper once again as the payback time, even with
>tax credits, is measured in decades.
>

Fortunately, there's more to on-site solar generated electricity than
merely the time it takes to pay for the equipment. Why do you think
Toyota Prius buyers were willing to pay 36% OVER book price for them
when they were introduced? A lot of folks see it as their civic
responsibility to take action to protect the environment.

An then there's the independence from centrally generated utility
power that redundancy provides.

>Get the total installed cost payback time under 4 to 5 years, then
>something may happen.

With the 90% run up in petroleum prices over the last decade*, I look
for electricity, in fact nearly all goods and many services, to
reflect the rising energy costs with higher prices. With more
photovoltaic fabrication facilities poised to come on-line, there's a
chance of some price competition in solar generating equipment. So if
rising Edison bills and reduced solar equipment costs fail to make the
payback more attractive, perhaps the prospect of rolling-blackouts
this summer will. :-)


* http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif



--

"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush, Trenton, NJ Sept 2002.


"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." --Vice
President Cheney

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-16, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Fortunately, there's more to on-site solar generated electricity than
> merely the time it takes to pay for the equipment. Why do you think
> Toyota Prius buyers were willing to pay 36% OVER book price for them
> when they were introduced? A lot of folks see it as their civic
> responsibility to take action to protect the environment.

There's one born every minute.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:45:04 GMT, wrote in
> >:

> >Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:25:04 GMT, wrote in
> >> >:
> >
> >> >Electric transportation will require a major breakthrough in battery
> >> >technology which may or may not ever happen, as well as increased grid
> >> >infrastructure.
> >
> >> I look for the next venture cycle to be the installation of solar
> >> generating equipment in industry and homes, much the same way the
> >> dot-com Internet boom occurred. As it is, photovoltaic hardware
> >> production significantly lags demand, but large productions facilities
> >> are imminently due to become operational worldwide.
> >
> >> Locally generated power is destined to become mainstream if for no
> >> other reason than the redundancy distributed power generation
> >> provides.
> >
> >California is in the second or third round of this; I lose track.
> >
> >It will go down the dumper once again as the payback time, even with
> >tax credits, is measured in decades.
> >

> Fortunately, there's more to on-site solar generated electricity than
> merely the time it takes to pay for the equipment. Why do you think
> Toyota Prius buyers were willing to pay 36% OVER book price for them
> when they were introduced? A lot of folks see it as their civic
> responsibility to take action to protect the environment.

Because for the most part they can't do simple math and just look
at the milage figures. That and people get sucked into hype.

Why were people willing to pay 3 times the list price for a
S&W .44 magnum after Dirty Harry hit the theaters?

The next door neighbor was all hot to trot to buy a Prius and even
rented one for a couple of days to see how they actually performed.

He then sat down and ran the numbers.

He bought a 2001 Toyota Corrola for his work car.

Few folks are willing to **** away their own money to protect the
environment.

> An then there's the independence from centrally generated utility
> power that redundancy provides.

How are you going to be independant when the sun's not shining?

Oh, you are going to put in a battery storage system and oversized
collectors so your refrigerator keeps running at night and during
the rainy season.

Well great, you just pushed the payback time out another couple of
decades.

It is your money to **** away.

> >Get the total installed cost payback time under 4 to 5 years, then
> >something may happen.

> With the 90% run up in petroleum prices over the last decade*, I look
> for electricity, in fact nearly all goods and many services, to
> reflect the rising energy costs with higher prices. With more
> photovoltaic fabrication facilities poised to come on-line, there's a
> chance of some price competition in solar generating equipment. So if
> rising Edison bills and reduced solar equipment costs fail to make the
> payback more attractive, perhaps the prospect of rolling-blackouts
> this summer will. :-)

Petroleum has little to nothing to do with electricity in North America.

There is already price competition in solar generating equipment.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Blueskies]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Brian" > wrote
>
> The problem with this is that it is easy to find used fuel trucks.
> However, driving them off of the airport requires insurance that will
> make your auto fuel cost more that than the 100LL unless you are
> selling or using very large quantities of fuel. This is why most Av-
> gas trucks never leave the airport.
>
> The next best thing would be to get to know someone that has a fleet of 18
> wheeler delivery trucks, and see if he will load one of the cells in his
> truck with some clean premium, and bring it to you at the airport.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>


Most of the mogas STCs don't even require 'premium'

[Jennifer Howland]

wrote:

> Jennifer Howland > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those haulingu
> > > the
> > > > > crap between cities, much less across the country.
> > > > >
> > > > > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> > > > > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
> > >
> > > > Ahem:
> > >
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
> > >
> > > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
> > > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
> > > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
>
> > Huh? Have you even done much train riding in Europe?? Today, one can take
> > an electric train from London to Paris and thence to Marseilles. (For
> > example; there are many others). You think that is equivalent to the local
> > trains that just serve the SF Bay Area? Dream on! The European trains can
> > go a good bit faster too.
>
> > Even in the USA, you can ride an all electric train froom Washington DC to
> > Boston MA? You don't consider that inter-city?
>
> > Heck, the Pennsylvania Railroad had electric trains between New York (later
> > to New Haven), Washington, Philadelphia, and Harrisburg almost 100 years
> > ago.
>
> Yep, works where distances are short and population densities are high.

You declared that long haul in Europe "would be called just down the road in the
US and for local transit such as the Bay Area BART system." London to
Marseilles, one example that I cited, is a good deal greater than the local BART
system, or "down the road."

>
>
> European and US East Coast distances are tiny and population densities
> enourmous when take into context of the whole US.

Really? Europe distances are certainly comparable to the US, even the whole US.
And the population density of US places such as Southern Califoniia is a good
deal greater than most places in Europe that have far superior rail
coverage/service.


> Compare the distance and population density from Los Angeles to Chicago
> or San Diego to Maddison.
>
> California has a bigger county than some European countries.

So does Massachusetts. So what???

> Have you ever traveled from Detroit to Los Angeles on the ground?

No, but I've travelled from Philadelphia to Seattle, Denver to Virginia Beach,
etc. So what?

You compared long distance trains in Europe to the San Francisco Bay BART
system. Baloney!

Take a trip to Europe and learn something.

[Jennifer Howland]

wrote:

> B A R R Y > wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:35:03 GMT, wrote:
>
> > >
> > >California has a bigger county than some European countries.
>
> > California is also the world's 8th largest economy.
>
> Yep, and also has electric trains for moving people along most of the
> coast.

Really? Which lines are those that move people "along most of the coast"
with electricity?

[Jennifer Howland]

B A R R Y wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:35:03 GMT, wrote:
>
> >
> >California has a bigger county than some European countries.
>
> California is also the world's 8th largest economy.

Be careful with that statistic. It is only true if you can consider
Califonia as a country in its own right for analysis, but do not
consider portions of other countries. However, if you can do that with
California, one can cherry pick other regions from other countries (such
as a portion of Japan) and put them in line too.

[[email protected]]

Jennifer Howland > wrote:


> wrote:

> > B A R R Y > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:35:03 GMT, wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >California has a bigger county than some European countries.
> >
> > > California is also the world's 8th largest economy.
> >
> > Yep, and also has electric trains for moving people along most of the
> > coast.

> Really? Which lines are those that move people "along most of the coast"
> with electricity?

Not in one piece, in segments, just like most of the stuff in Europe.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jennifer Howland]

wrote:

> Jennifer Howland > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > B A R R Y > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:35:03 GMT, wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >California has a bigger county than some European countries.
> > >
> > > > California is also the world's 8th largest economy.
> > >
> > > Yep, and also has electric trains for moving people along most of the
> > > coast.
>
> > Really? Which lines are those that move people "along most of the coast"
> > with electricity?
>
> Not in one piece, in segments, just like most of the stuff in Europe.

What electrified rail segments are you talking about that move people "along
most of the coast" in Californnia?

[[email protected]]

Jennifer Howland > wrote:
> wrote:

> > Jennifer Howland > wrote:
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those haulingu
> > > > the
> > > > > > crap between cities, much less across the country.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> > > > > > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
> > > >
> > > > > Ahem:
> > > >
> > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
> > > >
> > > > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
> > > > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
> > > > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
> >
> > > Huh? Have you even done much train riding in Europe?? Today, one can take
> > > an electric train from London to Paris and thence to Marseilles. (For
> > > example; there are many others). You think that is equivalent to the local
> > > trains that just serve the SF Bay Area? Dream on! The European trains can
> > > go a good bit faster too.
> >
> > > Even in the USA, you can ride an all electric train froom Washington DC to
> > > Boston MA? You don't consider that inter-city?
> >
> > > Heck, the Pennsylvania Railroad had electric trains between New York (later
> > > to New Haven), Washington, Philadelphia, and Harrisburg almost 100 years
> > > ago.
> >
> > Yep, works where distances are short and population densities are high.

> You declared that long haul in Europe "would be called just down the road in the
> US and for local transit such as the Bay Area BART system." London to
> Marseilles, one example that I cited, is a good deal greater than the local BART
> system, or "down the road."

Are you having a problem understanding "such as"?

Do I need to specifically mention the stuff on the east coast to make
you happy?


> > European and US East Coast distances are tiny and population densities
> > enourmous when take into context of the whole US.

> Really? Europe distances are certainly comparable to the US, even the whole US.
> And the population density of US places such as Southern Califoniia is a good
> deal greater than most places in Europe that have far superior rail
> coverage/service.

Oh really?

Los Angeles to New York 2139 nm
Houston to Billings 1141 nm

Lisbon to Berlin 1247 nm
Rome to London 779 nm

And the population density of California is why there is any rail service
at all.

> > Compare the distance and population density from Los Angeles to Chicago
> > or San Diego to Maddison.
> >
> > California has a bigger county than some European countries.

> So does Massachusetts. So what???

> > Have you ever traveled from Detroit to Los Angeles on the ground?

> No, but I've travelled from Philadelphia to Seattle, Denver to Virginia Beach,
> etc. So what?

> You compared long distance trains in Europe to the San Francisco Bay BART
> system. Baloney!

No, I didn't.

Your paranoia is showing.

> Take a trip to Europe and learn something.

There isn't a lot of passenger rail in the US because there isn't much
use for it other than the places it alread exists, and even in those
places, much of it has to be subsidized to get anyone on it.

But let's get back to freight, which was the original issue.

As of 2000, US percentage of freight moved by rail 38%, the European
Union 8%.

The amount of freight moved, US 2,165 billion ton-kilometers, European
Union 238 billion ton-kilometers.

Obviously the US is WAY behind Europe when it comes to trains.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote

> Most of the mogas STCs don't even require 'premium'

While that is true, some do. Extra octane does not hurt an engine, other than
perhaps causing slightly less HP, unless the engine is tuned with advanced
timing to take advantage of the octane.

Most or perhaps all Rotax that are become very popular with the LSA crowd need
premium. If you are going to go to a bunch of effort to get clean gas, might
as well get some that everyone can use, right?

After all, the gallon of premium at the pump goes for about 20 cents per gallon
more than regular. Compare the price of premium unleaded to 100 LL, and it is
still a bargain.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Jennifer Howland > wrote:


> wrote:

> > Jennifer Howland > wrote:
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > B A R R Y > wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:35:03 GMT, wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >California has a bigger county than some European countries.
> > > >
> > > > > California is also the world's 8th largest economy.
> > > >
> > > > Yep, and also has electric trains for moving people along most of the
> > > > coast.
> >
> > > Really? Which lines are those that move people "along most of the coast"
> > > with electricity?
> >
> > Not in one piece, in segments, just like most of the stuff in Europe.

> What electrified rail segments are you talking about that move people "along
> most of the coast" in Californnia?

OK, you got me, there's nothing north of San Francisco, but then again,
there are no people north of San Francisco.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jennifer Howland]

wrote:

> Jennifer Howland > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Jennifer Howland > wrote:
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > B A R R Y > wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:35:03 GMT, wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >California has a bigger county than some European countries.
> > > > >
> > > > > > California is also the world's 8th largest economy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, and also has electric trains for moving people along most of the
> > > > > coast.
> > >
> > > > Really? Which lines are those that move people "along most of the coast"
> > > > with electricity?
> > >
> > > Not in one piece, in segments, just like most of the stuff in Europe.
>
> > What electrified rail segments are you talking about that move people "along
> > most of the coast" in Californnia?
>
> OK, you got me, there's nothing north of San Francisco, but then again,
> there are no people north of San Francisco.

How about electrified rail segments along most of the Californian coast, south of
San Francisco?

[Big John]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:45:03 GMT, wrote:

>Peter Dohm > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > What else are you going to run your refrigerator, TV, airconditioning,
>> > lighting, vacuum cleaner, computer, and lights on, natural gas?
>
>> > --
>> > Jim Pennino
>> >
>> No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way. I am
>> just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric power
>> plants as well.
>
>The energy density of electric storage devices are more than an order
>of magnitude inadequate for that to happen and there are no potential
>breakthroughs of even an order of magnitude on the horizon.
******************************************8

Jim
Have you been tracking the Nano technology? Was in headlines here in
Houston for a while with a several year time frame to demonstrate
capability to go to market. Activity at Rice U

Big John

[Jennifer Howland]

wrote:

> Jennifer Howland > wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > > Jennifer Howland > wrote:
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > LOCAL trucks, LOCAL trains, and LOCAL busses, but not those haulingu
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > crap between cities, much less across the country.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Absent the invention of Mr. Fusion, there isn't going to be any
> > > > > > > electric powered trucks hauling carrots from Fresno to Chicago.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ahem:
> > > > >
> > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
> > > > >
> > > > > Electric trains work in parts of Europe because a long haul there
> > > > > is what would be called just down the road in the US and for local
> > > > > transit such as the Bay Area Bart system.
> > >
> > > > Huh? Have you even done much train riding in Europe?? Today, one can take
> > > > an electric train from London to Paris and thence to Marseilles. (For
> > > > example; there are many others). You think that is equivalent to the local
> > > > trains that just serve the SF Bay Area? Dream on! The European trains can
> > > > go a good bit faster too.
> > >
> > > > Even in the USA, you can ride an all electric train froom Washington DC to
> > > > Boston MA? You don't consider that inter-city?
> > >
> > > > Heck, the Pennsylvania Railroad had electric trains between New York (later
> > > > to New Haven), Washington, Philadelphia, and Harrisburg almost 100 years
> > > > ago.
> > >
> > > Yep, works where distances are short and population densities are high.
>
> > You declared that long haul in Europe "would be called just down the road in the
> > US and for local transit such as the Bay Area BART system." London to
> > Marseilles, one example that I cited, is a good deal greater than the local BART
> > system, or "down the road."
>
> Are you having a problem understanding "such as"?

Not at all. "Such as" indicates a specific example, to wit San Francisco Bay's BART
local system, which you indicated is what would be called "long haul" in Europe..

>
>
> Do I need to specifically mention the stuff on the east coast to make
> you happy?

No, just try to relate to reality. Long Haul in Europe is NOT analogous to local
transit, 'such as' BART.

>
>
> > > European and US East Coast distances are tiny and population densities
> > > enourmous when take into context of the whole US.
>
> > Really? Europe distances are certainly comparable to the US, even the whole US.
> > And the population density of US places such as Southern Califoniia is a good
> > deal greater than most places in Europe that have far superior rail
> > coverage/service.
>
> Oh really?
>
> Los Angeles to New York 2139 nm
> Houston to Billings 1141 nm
>
> Lisbon to Berlin 1247 nm
> Rome to London 779 nm

Keep picking arbitrary city pairs and you can confirm any belief you please.

>
>
> And the population density of California is why there is any rail service
> at all.
>
> > > Compare the distance and population density from Los Angeles to Chicago
> > > or San Diego to Maddison.
> > >
> > > California has a bigger county than some European countries.
>
> > So does Massachusetts. So what???

?

>
>
> > > Have you ever traveled from Detroit to Los Angeles on the ground?
>
> > No, but I've travelled from Philadelphia to Seattle, Denver to Virginia Beach,
> > etc. So what?
>
> > You compared long distance trains in Europe to the San Francisco Bay BART
> > system. Baloney!
>
> No, I didn't.

"...long haul there [EUROPE] is what would be called just down the road in the US and
for local transit such as the Bay Area Bart system." --Jim Pennino

>
>
> Your paranoia is showing.

Paranoia of what? Oh do tell!!! :-)



> > Take a trip to Europe and learn something.
>
> There isn't a lot of passenger rail in the US because there isn't much
> use for it other than the places it alread exists, and even in those
> places, much of it has to be subsidized to get anyone on it.

Of course it's subsidized. So is everything else. According to Phil Boyer's [AOPA]
last talk in my area, General Aviation receives far more from the Airway and Aviation
Trust Fund more than it sends from fuel taxes. That is one of the reasons why AOPA
supported the privatization of AFSS services. In other words ticket taxes subsidize
GA airport improvements and operations. (Runway surfacing, ASOS, PAPI, lighting, GPS
approach design and verification, etc. My property and income taxes pay for/subsidize
local, county, and state roads, whether I use them or not. Sure, it would be nice if
just the fuel tax paid for that, but it doesn't happen. While railroads need to pay
for the train, the locomotive, the fuel (plus any taxes) AND all of the tracks and
land (plus the associated real estate taxes), trucking companies need only pay for the
truck and fuel. The fuel tax is a pay as you go system. (Trucks pay other fees as
well, but nothing comparable to paying for the entire transportation infrastructure.)
Before and while the nation's policies started decimating the previously very
successful rail industry, rail taxes helped subsidize highway construction.

>
>
> But let's get back to freight, which was the original issue.
>
> As of 2000, US percentage of freight moved by rail 38%, the European
> Union 8%.
>
> The amount of freight moved, US 2,165 billion ton-kilometers, European
> Union 238 billion ton-kilometers.

Source? What were the competing modes? Are we still just comparing roads vs rail or
are we now introducing water/sea/canal transport?

> Obviously the US is WAY behind Europe when it comes to trains.

"Obviously....?" :-)

[[email protected]]

Big John > wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:45:03 GMT, wrote:

> >Peter Dohm > wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > What else are you going to run your refrigerator, TV, airconditioning,
> >> > lighting, vacuum cleaner, computer, and lights on, natural gas?
> >
> >> > --
> >> > Jim Pennino
> >> >
> >> No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way. I am
> >> just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric power
> >> plants as well.
> >
> >The energy density of electric storage devices are more than an order
> >of magnitude inadequate for that to happen and there are no potential
> >breakthroughs of even an order of magnitude on the horizon.
> ******************************************8

> Jim
> Have you been tracking the Nano technology? Was in headlines here in
> Houston for a while with a several year time frame to demonstrate
> capability to go to market. Activity at Rice U

Yes. Everything I've seen is still at least an order of magnitude
short of being able to replace liquid fuels.

In addition, there has been nothing to suggest nano technology can
practically produce power at the 100,000 watt level.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> Big John > wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:45:03 GMT, wrote:
>
>> >Peter Dohm > wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > What else are you going to run your refrigerator, TV,
>> >> > airconditioning,
>> >> > lighting, vacuum cleaner, computer, and lights on, natural gas?
>> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Jim Pennino
>> >> >
>> >> No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way. I
>> >> am
>> >> just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric
>> >> power
>> >> plants as well.
>> >
>> >The energy density of electric storage devices are more than an order
>> >of magnitude inadequate for that to happen and there are no potential
>> >breakthroughs of even an order of magnitude on the horizon.
>> ******************************************8
>
>> Jim
>> Have you been tracking the Nano technology? Was in headlines here in
>> Houston for a while with a several year time frame to demonstrate
>> capability to go to market. Activity at Rice U
>
> Yes. Everything I've seen is still at least an order of magnitude
> short of being able to replace liquid fuels.
>
> In addition, there has been nothing to suggest nano technology can
> practically produce power at the 100,000 watt level.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
That's exactly the point. We need to drill more holes, build more
refineries, and start building more power plants. Once we have the added
capacity and a comfortable safety margin, we can start looking for utopian
solutions. (We should have reached that point before now; but at our best
plausible rate of progress, I'll be pushing up at least my tenth crop of
daisies...)

Ultra capacitors and all the rest are technically fascinating; but, for the
next twenty or so years, chemical fuels will be the reality for mobile power
on demand. And, BTW, 100KW is really not much power.

Peter

[[email protected]]

Peter Dohm > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Big John > wrote:
> >> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:45:03 GMT, wrote:
> >
> >> >Peter Dohm > wrote:
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What else are you going to run your refrigerator, TV,
> >> >> > airconditioning,
> >> >> > lighting, vacuum cleaner, computer, and lights on, natural gas?
> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Jim Pennino
> >> >> >
> >> >> No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way. I
> >> >> am
> >> >> just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric
> >> >> power
> >> >> plants as well.
> >> >
> >> >The energy density of electric storage devices are more than an order
> >> >of magnitude inadequate for that to happen and there are no potential
> >> >breakthroughs of even an order of magnitude on the horizon.
> >> ******************************************8
> >
> >> Jim
> >> Have you been tracking the Nano technology? Was in headlines here in
> >> Houston for a while with a several year time frame to demonstrate
> >> capability to go to market. Activity at Rice U
> >
> > Yes. Everything I've seen is still at least an order of magnitude
> > short of being able to replace liquid fuels.
> >
> > In addition, there has been nothing to suggest nano technology can
> > practically produce power at the 100,000 watt level.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> That's exactly the point. We need to drill more holes, build more
> refineries, and start building more power plants. Once we have the added
> capacity and a comfortable safety margin, we can start looking for utopian
> solutions. (We should have reached that point before now; but at our best
> plausible rate of progress, I'll be pushing up at least my tenth crop of
> daisies...)

> Ultra capacitors and all the rest are technically fascinating; but, for the
> next twenty or so years, chemical fuels will be the reality for mobile power
> on demand. And, BTW, 100KW is really not much power.

Relative to engines, 100 kW isn't much power; it is roughly a round number
minimum for a practical C-152 class airplane or an econo-box commuting car.

I quite frankly don't believe pure electric vehicles will ever become
practical, and for the nitpickers, that doesn't mean golf carts, fork
lifts or electrified rail trains.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Some Other Guy]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> "Some Other Guy" > wrote
>>
>> It's just a hell of a clever plumbing arrangement. Add heat at one part
>> (by burning gas, whatever), and another part gets cold:
>>
>> http://www.gasrefrigerators.com/howitworks.htm
>
> Ever wonder why they never became popular?

On the contrary, it became popular as hell after it was invented
in Sweden in 1922 because reliable electricity was not available
in the world at that time.

They're still widely used in cottages. The really cool thing about
them (apart from the temperature) is that they're deathly quiet.

Damn thing just sits there hissing quietly.

....so you can get your cold beer after landing on the lake at your cottage
in Northern Ontario, Canada [official rec.aviation.piloting content]

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
...
> Peter Dohm > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Big John > wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:45:03 GMT, wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Peter Dohm > wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What else are you going to run your refrigerator, TV,
>> >> >> > airconditioning,
>> >> >> > lighting, vacuum cleaner, computer, and lights on, natural gas?
>> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > Jim Pennino
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> No, although some smaller refrigerators can be operated that way.
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> am
>> >> >> just not sold on making transportation fully dependent on electric
>> >> >> power
>> >> >> plants as well.
>> >> >
>> >> >The energy density of electric storage devices are more than an order
>> >> >of magnitude inadequate for that to happen and there are no potential
>> >> >breakthroughs of even an order of magnitude on the horizon.
>> >> ******************************************8
>> >
>> >> Jim
>> >> Have you been tracking the Nano technology? Was in headlines here in
>> >> Houston for a while with a several year time frame to demonstrate
>> >> capability to go to market. Activity at Rice U
>> >
>> > Yes. Everything I've seen is still at least an order of magnitude
>> > short of being able to replace liquid fuels.
>> >
>> > In addition, there has been nothing to suggest nano technology can
>> > practically produce power at the 100,000 watt level.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jim Pennino
>> >
>> That's exactly the point. We need to drill more holes, build more
>> refineries, and start building more power plants. Once we have the added
>> capacity and a comfortable safety margin, we can start looking for
>> utopian
>> solutions. (We should have reached that point before now; but at our
>> best
>> plausible rate of progress, I'll be pushing up at least my tenth crop of
>> daisies...)
>
>> Ultra capacitors and all the rest are technically fascinating; but, for
>> the
>> next twenty or so years, chemical fuels will be the reality for mobile
>> power
>> on demand. And, BTW, 100KW is really not much power.
>
> Relative to engines, 100 kW isn't much power; it is roughly a round number
> minimum for a practical C-152 class airplane or an econo-box commuting
> car.
>
> I quite frankly don't believe pure electric vehicles will ever become
> practical, and for the nitpickers, that doesn't mean golf carts, fork
> lifts or electrified rail trains.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
For the remainder of my own lifetime, I agree.

Peter

[Ash Wyllie]

Some Other Guy opined

>Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>> "Some Other Guy" > wrote
>>>
>>> It's just a hell of a clever plumbing arrangement. Add heat at one part
>>> (by burning gas, whatever), and another part gets cold:
>>>
>>> http://www.gasrefrigerators.com/howitworks.htm
>>
>> Ever wonder why they never became popular?

>On the contrary, it became popular as hell after it was invented
>in Sweden in 1922 because reliable electricity was not available
>in the world at that time.

>They're still widely used in cottages. The really cool thing about
>them (apart from the temperature) is that they're deathly quiet.

And RVs.

>Damn thing just sits there hissing quietly.

I've never heard mine hiss.

>...so you can get your cold beer after landing on the lake at your cottage
>in Northern Ontario, Canada [official rec.aviation.piloting content]

I like a cold drink while driving at 65mph.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2008!
Vote the greater evil.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:41:39 -0700, Al >
wrote:

>I just happened to see a sticker on a fuel pump today that stated "may
>contain up to 10% ethanol" while I was filling my car this morning.

Man, what state is that far behind the times?
Here in Michigan they started doing that IIRC in the late 70's. Now
they no longer tell you whether the fuel has alcohol in it or not. The
sticker only says meets standard such and such.

>Upon further investigation with my fuel retailer, the local fuel jobber,
>and the fuel distributor here in Spokane, Washington that there is a
>federal mandate to add 9 billion gallons of ethanol per year to the
>nationwide gasoline fuel stream. A new twist is a 5.1 cent per gallon
>federal fuel tax break to the oil companies to get this "alternative"
>fuel into the market. Tomorrow (April 8) is the first day of the
>program and the dealers get their price tonight. According to my
>sources, there is a possibility that some retailers may opt out, however
>if that 5.1 cent break is passed on to them, it won't be likely.
>
>I was lucky and just happened to ask the right question at the right
>time. I haven't seen an outcry on this issue by EAA, AOPA or any other
>aviation group.

AOPA has been working on this for some years. They have successfully
fought battles in a number of states that were going to mandate
Alcohol in all gas at the pumps.

>
>This is a nationwide situation. Not just in a few states. You may not
>find non-ethanol autogas at your usual outlet. Our jobber started
>mixing in ethanol last week, however I had not purchased any since
>mid-March so was unaware.
>
>In essence, with the 5.1 cent per gallon tax break, the US federal
>government has just killed the Aviation autogas concept.
>
>I'm trying to locate a new source, but may not be successful. The
>ethanol is added at the distribution rack. Chevron and a couple others
>are requiring their retailers to go to E-10.
>
>
>Al
>Spokane, Wa
>1964 Skyhawk with an AutoGas STC
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:41:39 -0700, Al >
> wrote:
>
>>I just happened to see a sticker on a fuel pump today that stated "may
>>contain up to 10% ethanol" while I was filling my car this morning.
>
> Man, what state is that far behind the times?
> Here in Michigan they started doing that IIRC in the late 70's. Now
> they no longer tell you whether the fuel has alcohol in it or not. The
> sticker only says meets standard such and such.

In the 70s it was being called "Gasahol" and was from a seperate, labeled
pump.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:33:30 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

wrote in :
>
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:41:39 -0700, Al >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I just happened to see a sticker on a fuel pump today that stated "may
>>>contain up to 10% ethanol" while I was filling my car this morning.
>>
>> Man, what state is that far behind the times?
>> Here in Michigan they started doing that IIRC in the late 70's. Now
>> they no longer tell you whether the fuel has alcohol in it or not. The
>> sticker only says meets standard such and such.
>
>In the 70s it was being called "Gasahol" and was from a seperate, labeled
>pump.

Although they called E10 Gasohol, here in Michigan there were no
separate pumps. Typically there was a sticker that said the gas
contained 10% Alcohol. Some stations IIRC did still offer
"uncontaminated gas" in a separate pump or pumps. I don't remember
ever seeing a serrate pump for the Gasohol locally. However I don't
claim to have an infallible memory. Seems like I was wrong one
time...don't remember why though.
>
>
>Bertie
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in :

> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:33:30 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:41:39 -0700, Al >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I just happened to see a sticker on a fuel pump today that stated
>>>>"may contain up to 10% ethanol" while I was filling my car this
>>>>morning.
>>>
>>> Man, what state is that far behind the times?
>>> Here in Michigan they started doing that IIRC in the late 70's. Now
>>> they no longer tell you whether the fuel has alcohol in it or not.
>>> The sticker only says meets standard such and such.
>>
>>In the 70s it was being called "Gasahol" and was from a seperate,
>>labeled pump.
>
> Although they called E10 Gasohol, here in Michigan there were no
> separate pumps. Typically there was a sticker that said the gas
> contained 10% Alcohol. Some stations IIRC did still offer
> "uncontaminated gas" in a separate pump or pumps. I don't remember
> ever seeing a serrate pump for the Gasohol locally. However I don't
> claim to have an infallible memory. Seems like I was wrong one
> time...don't remember why though.


Hmm, mebbe. I was in living in Michigan at the time but i can't remember
if they had it seperate there or not, now you mention it, they
definitely did in other states. I remember clearly seeing the pic of a
corn cob on the pump. IIRC it was also a bit more expensive. I also
remembver it filled your fuel filter with crap almost instantly. Had to
change three or four of them in my car before it cleared up.


Bertie
>