PHIL BOYER: 40% OF AOPA MEMBERS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASING THEIR FLYING DUE TO FUEL PRICES

"kontiki" wrote in message
...

Why do you have mixed feelings about it? My feelings about it are not at all
mixed.

Obviously I hate to see good folks get hurt, and these fuel prices hurt our
entire economy.

On the other hand this will finally force us to use energy in a more rational
manner. For example; there is no reason why we should be commuting to work in
gas guzzlers. Have you noticed the difference in the car lots? I am finally
seeing more and more small cars displayed in the front row while the SUVs and
pickups are gradually being relegated to the back rows.

Vaughn

Maybe if George Bush hadn't vetoed drilling in ANWR back in 1995 and
worked so hard to put so many areas off limits to drilling, we would
be swimming in oil now. I sure hope I get my share of the windfall
profit tax on the oil companies so I can spend $30-40,000 to put solar
panels on my house and fly my airplane more often, too.

DF

wrote:

Maybe if George Bush hadn't vetoed drilling in ANWR back in 1995 and
worked so hard to put so many areas off limits to drilling, we would
be swimming in oil now. I sure hope I get my share of the windfall
profit tax on the oil companies so I can spend $30-40,000 to put solar
panels on my house and fly my airplane more often, too.


How does the governor of Texas veto oil drilling in Alaska?

On Jun 16, 10:12�am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
wrote:

Maybe if George Bush hadn't vetoed drilling in ANWR back in 1995 and
worked so hard to put so many areas off limits to drilling, we would
be swimming in oil now. �I sure hope I get my share of the windfall
profit tax on the oil companies so I can spend $30-40,000 to put solar
panels on my house and fly my airplane more often, too.

How does the governor of Texas veto oil drilling in Alaska?

I can't believe anybody took my first comments seriously. Of course
it was Bill Clinton who vetoed drilling in ANWAR. I don't have the
roll call on the votes over the years, but you can make your own guess
at which party has voted most often against generating our own
energy. I'm all for conservation, but no matter how much you conserve
anything, you eventually run out if you don't produce more.

DF

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:50:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote in
:

I'm all for conservation, but no matter how much you conserve
anything, you eventually run out if you don't produce more.


Right.

That's why it's important to begin to switch to renewable energy
sources. Then the Sword Of Damocles can be put to rest.

On 2008-06-16, wrote:
Maybe if George Bush hadn't vetoed drilling in ANWR back in 1995 and
worked so hard to put so many areas off limits to drilling, we would
be swimming in oil now.

You wouldn't be swimming in oil: that oil would be traded on the global
market for oil along with all the rest of it. The amounts of oil from
that drilling would be minor compared to world demand.

It would require the socialist approach of nationalization for it to
have any particular impact on the US.

Vaughn Simon wrote:
Have you noticed the difference in the car lots? I am finally
seeing more and more small cars displayed in the front row while the SUVs and
pickups are gradually being relegated to the back rows.


Americans are a reactive bunch. If prices were to come back down, those
SUVs would probably start flying out the door again. When prices spiked
back in '03, smaller cars became the top sellers in the U.S., but only for
about 6 months. As soon as prices came back down, the trucks and SUVs went
right back to the top of the shopping list.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200806/1

Americans are a reactive bunch. If prices were to come back down, those
SUVs would probably start flying out the door again. When prices spiked
back in '03, smaller cars became the top sellers in the U.S., but only for
about 6 months. As soon as prices came back down, the trucks and SUVs
went
right back to the top of the shopping list.

That's because trucks and SUVs are more useful than itty-bitty cars.

Bottom line: SUVs can do all sorts of things that econocars cannot, while
SUVs can do everything that the econocar can do, better. With one
exception: Fuel consumption.

I think we'll see a short-term boom for small-car manufacturers, as
consumers shift to multiple vehicles, and use the ones that make the most
sense for the task at hand.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
Americans are a reactive bunch. If prices were to come back down, those
SUVs would probably start flying out the door again. When prices
spiked
back in '03, smaller cars became the top sellers in the U.S., but only
for
about 6 months. As soon as prices came back down, the trucks and SUVs
went
right back to the top of the shopping list.

That's because trucks and SUVs are more useful than itty-bitty cars.

Bottom line: SUVs can do all sorts of things that econocars cannot,
while SUVs can do everything that the econocar can do, better. With one
exception: Fuel consumption.

I think we'll see a short-term boom for small-car manufacturers, as
consumers shift to multiple vehicles, and use the ones that make the
most sense for the task at hand.

I think you are wrong here. Gas is never going to be $2.00/gal again
and probably not $3. Around here, and we are at the low end of the gas
price spectrum, they can't give away all the SUVs that they have taken
in on trade in the last month or two. There is a car lot down the street
from my office and they have prices slashed on the things. When I say
slashed I'm talking 30 - 50% below current Blue-book.

There is a middle ground between SUVs and econocars. That middle ground
is good old mid-size and even large cars. I'd bet that 90% of the SUVs
on the road could be replaced by those cars and with the exception of
soccer Mom's having to spend 30 more seconds properly loading the trunk
they would see no difference in utility.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:06:57 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:


There is a middle ground between SUVs and econocars. That middle ground
is good old mid-size and even large cars.

Here's an even better alternative:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007...ell-power.html
Fuel Cell Powertrain in the Honda FCX Clarity Is Significant
Advancement over Predecessors

Honda's FCX Clarity utilizes Honda’s V Flow Stack in combination
with a new compact and efficient lithium-ion battery pack and a
single hydrogen storage tank to power the vehicle’s electric drive
motor. The fuel cell stack operates as the vehicle’s main power
source. ...
http://world.honda.com/news/2008/408...w-FCX-Clarity/

And you can make your own fuel:

http://world.honda.com/news/2003/c031002.html
Honda Begins Experiments with Hydrogen Home Energy Station and
Improves Solar-Cell Technology for Production of Hydrogen

http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/FCX/station/
In addition to a solar cell-powered hydrogen refueling station,
Honda is operating an experimental Home Energy Station that
generates hydrogen from natural gas for use in fuel cell vehicles
while supplying electricity and hot water to the home as part of
its ongoing research into development of hydrogen production and
supply systems for a hydrogen-based society of the future. ...


Honda's already got fuel-cell cars in the hands of consumers. Where
are GM and Ford? Laggin'.