Solar Electric Powered Aircraft

Hi Jim,
sorry I touched a raw nerve there! Without wanting to ramp up
the
"discussion" my comment would be: -

Your argument really seems to say that, dam the rest of the world, we are
going
to use all the energy we want. We did similar things in the past, as with
high
sulphur coal for power generation. The result was lots of acidified lakes
and dead
trees east of us.

Attitudes will have to change, or your very dry Death Valley will cover
rather more
of the country than it currently does..

Malcolm...


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Malcolm Austin" wrote in message
news
I do hope your only talking about the USA. The rest of us are rather
better
at using our fuel than the oversize/overused States ;-0

I see the smiley, but that attitude ****es me off, so bad. (and I don't
mean
drunk)

If the US were the size of England, it sure would make a difference, on
how
much energy we used. Trains would be feasible. We wouldn't have so many
unpaved roads that need SUV's.

I realize there are many people that have larger vehicles than they need,
but when I travel it is by car, not train. I like to be able to take my
whole family, and their stuff.
--
Jim in NC

Malcolm Austin wrote:

Attitudes will have to change, or your very dry Death Valley will cover
rather more of the country than it currently does.

No problem Malcolm, we'll just move to Jolly Old England and make ourselves
at home amongst the "wind generators".

"O-ver, we're coming o-ver, and we won't be back...."

It should make "over-paid, over-sexed, and over here," look like a minor
episode. Of course, we'll have some suggestions on changes that will need to
be made to your customary way of doing things -- hope you won't mind.


Jack

"Malcolm Austin" wrote

sorry I touched a raw nerve there! Without wanting to ramp up
the
"discussion" my comment would be: -

Your argument really seems to say that, dam the rest of the world, we are
going
to use all the energy we want.

No, not at all. There are not ANY alternatives to driving for most people,
with the exceptions being the percentage of people living in or very near to
the few largest cities that have good mass transit systems.

I do carpentry work. I have a full sized van to carry my tools and
material. It does not get good gas mileage, but I can not afford to get a
second small efficient car to drive back and forth to work.

My wife has a mini van, because we have 2 kids, and do a lot of driving for
vacationing, and entertaining with other couples. Once again, there is no
alternative, but to drive a larger vehicle for commuting, if you are going
to use it for the size as you need it, sometimes.

There are lots of people that live on gravel roads, WAY out in the country,
sometimes with 100 meter (and more) drop-offs right next to the road, with
no guard rails. 4 wheel drive is necessary for when it is very wet, or snow
is on the road. Sometime these roads never get plowed, until the snow melts
weeks later. Do you see any safe and reliable alternatives?

It is true, that there is a segment of our population that could drive
smaller vehicles. That needs to happen, and I realize that. It is not
possible for some.

I would love to walk a couple blocks and catch a train, and walk a couple
more blocks to get to work. The neares passenger line is 90 miles away, and
it is one line, straight though the sate, with no branches. This is in a
state that I think is larger than England. Imagine that; one line for all
of England.
--
Jim in NC

Malcolm Austin wrote:
Hi Jim,
sorry I touched a raw nerve there! Without wanting to ramp up
the
"discussion" my comment would be: -

Your argument really seems to say that, dam the rest of the world, we are
going
to use all the energy we want. We did similar things in the past, as with
high
sulphur coal for power generation. The result was lots of acidified lakes
and dead
trees east of us.

Attitudes will have to change, or your very dry Death Valley will cover
rather more
of the country than it currently does..

Death Valley is currently covered in wild flowers. I was there last
week, beautiful. The world is changing so fast these days, you can't
even rely on a time tested metaphor.

Shawn

"Morgans" writes:

We wouldn't have so many
unpaved roads that need SUV's.

Oh, puh-leeeeeeze!

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Dick
Cheney, 2001.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:26:59 -0500, Corky Scott
wrote in
::

There does not appear to be any viable substitute for oil
based energy at this time or on the horizon, not at the colossal
amounts we consume per day now anyway.

Don't forget about coal. There's a lot of that.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/coalreserves.htm
Worldwide, coal is the most abundant of the fossil fuels, and its
reserves are also the most widely distributed. Estimates of the
world's total recoverable reserves of coal in 2002 were about
1,081 billion sort tons. The resulting ratio of coal reserves to
production exceeds 200 years, meaning that at current rates of
production (and no change in reserves), coal reserves could in
theory last for another two centuries.

More he
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/reserves/front-1.html
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/.../coal/coal.asp

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:16:21 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

Don't forget about coal. There's a lot of that.

I was actually thinking in terms of what's useful to burn for energy
in our airplanes.

Many industries switched from coal and high sulfur oil to liquid
petroleum gas to reduce emissions in the last two or three decades.
Their profits are tied to the cost of oil, which is rising rapidly
right now.

It doesn't matter that we still have an estimated 200 years of oil to
use up, it's still a finite reserve, it isn't being magically replaced
somehow. At some point in the much nearer future, what is relatively
easily tapped right now, will become increasingly more difficult to
remove. Something will needed in the future to replace it. Perhaps
it will be nuclear (or as GW puts it, newkular) I don't know but the
time to think about this is now before it becomes a crisis and the
world goes to war over oil. Hmm, going to war over oil... Isn't that,
oh nevermind.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
news

I read a really depressing article about the future of oil several
days ago. There does not appear to be any viable substitute for oil
based energy at this time or on the horizon, not at the colossal
amounts we consume per day now anyway.

Considering that we have anywhere from 40 to 200 years of known reserves,
and that breakthroughs happen with considerable frequency, I'd say whoever
wrote the article was pushing an agenda. The history of mankind has been
laced with such hysterics.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
news

I read a really depressing article about the future of oil several
days ago. There does not appear to be any viable substitute for oil
based energy at this time or on the horizon, not at the colossal
amounts we consume per day now anyway.

Considering that we have anywhere from 40 to 200 years of known reserves,
and that breakthroughs happen with considerable frequency, I'd say whoever
wrote the article was pushing an agenda. The history of mankind has been
laced with such hysterics.


The "years of known reserves" is a very tricky number. To get an answer,
you have to project the rate of consumption and what those consumers will
pay. (At one million $ per barrel, we have an infinite supply whereas the
number of years of reserves at $10 per barrel is zero.)

The jokers in the deck are China and India both rapidly becoming first world
economies. If their consumption curve follows the rest of the
industrialized world, we are in very big trouble indeed.

Nuclear, anyone?

Bill Daniels

"Bill Daniels" wrote in message ...
The jokers in the deck are China and India both rapidly becoming first
world
economies. If their consumption curve follows the rest of the
industrialized world, we are in very big trouble indeed.

Nuclear, anyone?

Nuke China and India? Well... If you *insist*...
politically-incorrect-grin