Avgas Where is the ceiling?

"Roger" wrote

... for hydrogen
you are limited to the distribution system that has yet to be
implemented except on a small scale. Electricity is easier to
transport and the electric farm you list below is one whale of a good
start. Unfortunately our power grid is only capable of *almost*
meeting peak demands. Cars user far more energy so that would mean
either trucking vast amounts of Hydrogen, increasing the size of our
electric grid several fold over what we have now, or a combination of
both with the latter being the most likely ...

Why transport the hydrogen? Just produce it electrolytically at every gas
station.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Matt Barrow wrote:


Well, "Indians" sure isn't a sensible term for them!


They haven't been called "Indians" since John Wayne movies.

They are Indians today. They call themselves that. What's the problem?


They've called themselves "Native Americans" for better part of a generation
around here.

Bob Noel wrote:
But who is this "we"? I'm part Sioux. Does this mean I took land away
from myself?

Quite possibly; or at least from other tribes. I know the Lakota were
relative newcomers in this part of the country when we came along and
displaced them.

well, actually, no. Not one person alive today took land belonging
to any "native american" alive today.

Except for various energy concerns. (Read up on Peabody Coal
to start.) Oh, and if Indians take like one fish for every
hundred a major fishing company takes and the fish population
starts to decline, guess who gets the blame? And then there
were the forced sterilizations in the 70s, Norplant and
Depo-Provera experiments in the 80s, toxic waste dumps from
the 50s to present day . . . Shall I go on?

Oh, and might I add, if you have a problem with the government
snatching up Indian lands and leasing it to huge corporations
for toxic waste dumps without the locals' consent, you're a
communist.

Oh, and might I add, if you have a problem with the government
snatching up Indian lands and leasing it to huge corporations
for toxic waste dumps without the locals' consent, you're a
communist.

Do you have any examples of this happening?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
If you burn 10 gallons an hour and fly 100 hours a year, then an
additional dollar a gallon is $1000 more a year to fly an airplane the
probably costs about 410,000 or more a year to keep. So lets not get
overboard here. Yes fuel prices hurt, but the increase is less than 10%
of the total cost for most of us.

410,000 for an airplane that burns 10 gal an hour? Somebody got taken for a
ride.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Icebound" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Not to degenerate this to a political argument, but numerous studies
have been
done to determine the "true" price of gasoline in the U.S.... not what
the pump price
is. The studies vary, but usually it adds an additional $2-$6/gallon
that we pay for
the fuel, only indirectly through other taxes.

Could you expand on that, please?
--

He may be referring to THIS report:

http://209.200.74.155/doc/Real%20Pri...20Gasoline.pdf

from the US-based "International Center for Technology Assessment".

It was done way back 1998 or 2000, I believe, and concluded the "true"
price could be from around 4.60 (then), up to more than $14 a gallon...
and that the consumer was shielded from this in various ways.





I always have a problem with any report that takes into account, as an
added real cost, money the government DOESN'T take away from a person or
company.

That study could have just a easily have said the actual cost of gas is
$100.00/gal but doesn't because the government decided not to tax gas at
X00%.

Do you know how much you actually pay for food thanks to government
agricultural "subsidies"? Do you know how much money you give away to oil
companies because the Shrub in the WH thinks we should extend exemptions
from payment of royalties from gulf oil extraction, for example, even though
the subsidies are only meant to be used when oil prices are really low? Most
citizens of this country are totally blind to the reaming they get on the
part of their government.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

*pffffrt* but it is not english, either. And I'd bet they'd rather learn
German than English ...

In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
in, save your ass, and go home.

And in case anyone has forgotten, the early 3k dead soldiers, plus the tens
of thousands of other soldiers that have been maimed, wounded and then died
(but don't get counted because they died somewhere else) are dead because...

why is it that they have died in Iraq?

Oh yeah, the CIA told the shrub and his Team Moron that Iraq had no WMD's or
nuclear program.

But they ignored that. The decision was already made to lie like good little
repukes. Why?

Simple. Because Saddam was funnelling a sh*tload of money to the
Palestinians and rewarding the families of "suicide bombers".

So we got kids dying in Iraq to support the Israeli regime.

Then we tell the Palestinians to hold democratic elections. They do. So well
that not a single observer can see any sign of fraud.

BUT WAIT, democracy US style means that if you vote in a democratic election
and you elect someone we don't like, IT DOESN'T COUNT.

And this is what those are defending? That's why they have given their
lives?



*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:38:12 -0400, "Juan Jimenez"
wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
groups.com...
There is no limit really. Name something else you can put in a tank and
burn that is less expensive. Alchohol? Biodiesel? Electric? Right now,
all of those are more. There is a pretty good chance it will go back
down, SOME. But I doubt we will ever see it under $2 again.

That's what they were saying in the 70's during the oil embargo... It will
come down.

This is a whole different set of conditions than what we saw in the 70's

Not really. It was an artificial increase then and its artificial now. The
media keeps talking about "jittery traders" and all that crap the citizens
of the US swallow hook, like and sinker.

*Only* and I emphasize "only", if we reduce the amount we use and keep
it there will prices come down. However it is in the best interests
of both the environmental and industrial groups to see the price go to
$3.50 and stay there. That is where alternative and environmentally
friendly fuels become economically competitive on a large, or nation
wide scale.

Alternative fuels are here now. The problem is not the ability to produce
them, but rather the interests of the companies that would lose a ****load
of money if they are available at their true price. Ethanol has been proven
viable in places like Brazil. Biodiesel is also quite viable. Propane has
been used in cars for decades now in alleged third world countries. IMO it's
like pharmaceuticals. When it comes to prescription medicines, the companies
and the government screw their own citizens? Why? Because they can.


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Jay Honeck wrote:
Oh, and might I add, if you have a problem with the government
snatching up Indian lands and leasing it to huge corporations
for toxic waste dumps without the locals' consent, you're a
communist.

Do you have any examples of this happening?

You must not remember the 70s very well . . .

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
om...
Most citizens of this country are totally blind to the reaming they get on
the part of their government.


If you had just said "...by their government." It would have been the first
time I ever agreed with Juan. Damn.