How much longer?

I will admit it is a bit out of the ordinary but I brought it up to show
a little of what is possible.

I think it's great (we, too, have a manual hangar door), and wish more
places would do this.

I'm curious how they are getting 110 volts for your outlets. I thought that
was unattainable with current (sorry!) technology.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Oh, in my previous post, I forgot to mention the drawback that next time
the
government decides to run in circles about security from aircraft, they
will
probably ban us from flying near these nuclear plants again, so not all is
good about them.

I believe that issue has been reasonably addressed with the Feds. See these
videos to know why:

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...crete-wall.wmv

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga..._test_slow.mpg

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...4crashtest.mpg
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Alan" wrote in message
...
In article Jim Logajan
writes:
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
environmental rules prevent their construction. As of now all
environmental restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are
lifted.

Not needed:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...n6xZeeLKqBXnLg


Oh, in my previous post, I forgot to mention the drawback that next time
the
government decides to run in circles about security from aircraft, they
will
probably ban us from flying near these nuclear plants again, so not all is
good about them.

Last time they were including a small plant that had been decomissioned
in 1967,
and had no nuclear material remaining on site. It just sat in a major VFR
flyway.

Alan

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
(Alan) wrote in
:

In article Bertie the
Bunyip writes:
"Mike Isaksen" wrote in
news:KRwKj.1375$XC1.1247 @trndny08:


"Alan" wrote ...
Bertie the Bunyip writes:
I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.

You say you started without - how?
Even gliders seem to need tows.

Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by wind
turbines.



Could do. There's lots of ways you can winch launch. The current world
record distance flight was launched off the back of a car. Probably a
thirty second tow, if that.

I doubt that this was an electric car charged from solar or wind
power,
was it? I'll bet it burned gasoline (or perhaps diesel fuel).

Point is, there's a million ways to skin a cat. If neceesity dictated,
a way would be found.

And your answer is?

Unless you have a better answer, I suggest folks start building
nuclear
power plants, and looking hard at extracting carbon from the
atmosphere to combine with hydrogen from water to produce various
petroleum fuels. We are not prepared to deal with hydrogen -- I can
just imagine the news stories about the result of accidents at
hydrogen fueling stations.


BTW, hydrogen is no real problem in regards to that. It can be used
safely in surface transport and fuelled safely as well. The real problem
with it is making it.

Making hydrogen is not a problem if you don't care about the cost.

The engineering problem for wide spread use is hydrogen embrittlement.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

You can't blame environmentalists for everything you don't like. Over the
last almost eight years I haven't noticed any environmentalists running
the show in Washington. Quite the opposite, in fact, but the price of oil
continues to climb, obviously due to factors other than your phantom
environmentalists.

Reality check he Politicians in Washington don't run the country --
bureaucrats (who persist from election cycle to election cycle) do.
Whether it's Republicrats or Democrans matters not, in the short term.

Over the last forty years, environmentalists have innocently and quietly
influenced the wording and structure of our regulations in a way that has
ultimately made it quite impossible to address our current energy issues.
It's all been innocuous, and "for the children" -- but it's completely
hog-tied us now that we really ARE in an energy bind.

Which, of course, anyone who knows the "Law of Unintended Consequences"
predicted long ago.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Maynard schrieb:
On 2008-04-08, Martin Hotze wrote:
is oil all you can think of? Su we can't make it _competletely_
without oil for the next time, but all you can think of is finding more
oil. You completely put away with any alternatives.

Alternatives are impractical until there's a complete, comprehensive
distribution infrastructure in place. That'll take 20 years. There's also a
significant chicken-and-egg problem.

OK. So when will you start switching? In 19 years, 11 months and 30 days?

#m

On Apr 8, 11:04*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

Of course there are many aspects of the energy problem. *They are all,
however, exacerbated by stupid, over-the-top environmental rules that are
abused by folks with a not-so-hidden agenda.

Just TRY to get something as simple as, oh, say, a runway extension
completed, and observe the almost unbelievable quantity of environmental red
tape that must be overcome. *Now imagine building an OIL REFINERY. *Ain't
gonna happen with the current set of rules.

If I were "King for a day", I would decree the following "4 Steps to
American Energy Independence":

1. New refineries are not being built because draconian environmental rules
prevent them from being constructed. *As of now, all environmental
restrictions on oil refinery construction are lifted.


Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind from
your hotel?? Didn't think so.

It's too bad all those existing refineries were shut down. It would
be a lot easier to expand those than to build new ones. By the way,
from 1975 to 2000 the EPA received exactly 1 permit request for a new
refinery. The oil companies haven't exactly been tripping over
themselves trying to build new capacity. During that time period,
there have been lots of requests to the EPA to expand existing
refineries. This expansion has been allowed, so it is a myth to claim
that environmental laws have prevented the oil industry from building
or expanding refining capacity.


2. New oil is not being pumped because draconian environmental rules prevent
new oil fields from being developed. *As of now all environmental
restrictions on development of known oil reserves are lifted.

What new American oil fields have they been prevented from developing?


3. New nuclear power plants are not being built because draconian
environmental rules prevent their construction. *As of now all environmental
restrictions on construction of new nuclear plants are lifted.

Here again, from 1978 until 2007 the NRC received exactly zero
requests for nuclear plant permits. The problem isn't that the
industry is getting turned down. The industry isn't trying to build
new plants. The reason is that nuclear plants are so hideously
expensive, and the payback period is so long, that it is a huge
financial risk to build them.

But we can agree that they probably should be built. Nuclear plants
actually emit less radiation than coal-fired power plants. Less
mercury too. And newer designs should be safer than the older ones we
currently operate. But before we ramp up the use of these, we need to
have a solution for long-term (10,000 years) storage of the
radioactive waste. Right now it's just sitting around at the existing
plants.

4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period. *From
this point on, by my decree, the scientific and industrial capacity of the
United States will be used to perfect a hydrogen distribution system to
replace our current gasoline distribution system, and all cars will be
powered by hydrogen. *Source:http://tinyurl.com/6hklhf

Sounds good, but where do you get the hydrogen??


These four steps will, in a matter of a decade, resolve 90% of our problems.
Unfortunately, it will take another Great Depression to shake our system
enough to force a repeal of the environmental restrictions that make
resolving our energy problems impossible.

I can see that you really want to believe that it is environmental
regulations that are causing these problems. That gives you a nice
boogey man you can rail against. But it is more complicated than
that.

Phil

Jay Honeck schrieb:
If I were "King for a day", I would decree the following "4 Steps to
American Energy Independence":


*woah* I don't want to live in your kingdom. Not for a day.

4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period. From

and you pump the hydrogen from the ocean or from the moon? With which
energy will you produce hydrogen? Hydrogen is only an energy carrier.

#m

wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
(Alan) wrote in
:

In article Bertie the
Bunyip writes:
"Mike Isaksen" wrote in
news:KRwKj.1375$XC1.1247 @trndny08:


"Alan" wrote ...
Bertie the Bunyip writes:
I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.

You say you started without - how?
Even gliders seem to need tows.

Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by
wind turbines.



Could do. There's lots of ways you can winch launch. The current
world record distance flight was launched off the back of a car.
Probably a thirty second tow, if that.

I doubt that this was an electric car charged from solar or wind
power,
was it? I'll bet it burned gasoline (or perhaps diesel fuel).

Point is, there's a million ways to skin a cat. If neceesity
dictated, a way would be found.

And your answer is?

Unless you have a better answer, I suggest folks start building
nuclear
power plants, and looking hard at extracting carbon from the
atmosphere to combine with hydrogen from water to produce various
petroleum fuels. We are not prepared to deal with hydrogen -- I can
just imagine the news stories about the result of accidents at
hydrogen fueling stations.


BTW, hydrogen is no real problem in regards to that. It can be used
safely in surface transport and fuelled safely as well. The real
problem with it is making it.

Making hydrogen is not a problem if you don't care about the cost.

The cost is getting pretty close to that of gasoline as it is, but
that's from hydrogen made from petroleum products, of course.

The engineering problem for wide spread use is hydrogen embrittlement.



What, from burning it in your engine or from manufacture?



Bertie

romeomike schrieb:
A bigger reason that new oil refineries aren't being built, as well as
nuclear waste facilities, is that no one wants one near his playground.

So maybe Jay should jump in and start a petition (he is good in such
things) for an oil raffinery close to his hotel and to the airport and a
nuclear power plant close to his home.

#m

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:M56Lj.112941$yE1.87006@attbi_s21:

I will admit it is a bit out of the ordinary but I brought it up to
show a little of what is possible.

I think it's great (we, too, have a manual hangar door), and wish more
places would do this.

I'm curious how they are getting 110 volts for your outlets. I
thought that was unattainable with current (sorry!) technology.

That's because you're an idiot.


Bertie