So what happens when 100LL is gone anyway?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:F8tFe.52$_t.47@okepread01...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news:uasFe.4654

Yes and more expensive fuel is causing me to reexamine my habits. I am
more focused on combining or eliminating trips.


Then you are doing the exactly the wrong thing if it is the planet and the
enviroment you would like to protect.

If that is the LONG term goal you would like then the best thing we could
do is drop the price of gas to zero and have the government pay us to burn
it.

Then we would at some point run out and come up with something much better
as an energy source. So throttle up and burn all you can.

Gig


We will never "run out" of petroleum, it will just become so expensive that
we won't use it for fuel. Using less inputs to get the same output is
always a good idea anyway and is the definition of productivity. Using more
now does nothing to help anything.

Mike
MU-2

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...


Nice elitist attitude.

Elitist? It seemed like a pretty straightforward summary of the
situation
to me. The economics of cheap energy DOES encourage the above.

The only part I disagree with is the tax statement. I don't see any
meaningful difference between taxing consumption vs. production. The
end
consumer pays the tax anyway so it doesn't really matter where in the
chain you apply the tax.


Matt

The only difference is that consumers make choices and taxing energy
consumption would reduce that consumption and reduce all of the by
products
like dependence of foreign oil, pollution


Yup...you're going to tell them how to live.


No, taxing energy would allow people a choice. Taxing their income isn't
really a choice.

Neither is really a choice...that's why taxes are a form of FORCE, rather
than persuation. Taxes are persuasion at gun point. Your's is the typical
statist response, and I figure that's not your true type, but you're telling
people, through taxes, how to live their lives.

You do understand supply and demand; when demand gets too much, prices will
rise and do two things: encourage reduced consumption and find alternatives.

the market will take care of it; you don't have to go the
jackbooted-IRS-thug routine. Again, why give the politicians more money to
**** away? How do you encourage THAT behavior?

We have become so innured to a governemtn screwing things up and then giving
them still more power that it's become our kneejerk reaction.

I have a better idea: Let's kick PRODUCTION in the ass.


Every drilling rig has been drilling nonstop for a long time now. You
simply aren't going to produce enough to keep prices under $40. The
larger
the number of declining legacy wells, the harder it will be to replace
production so every year it gets harder to keep production flat.
Additionally, the areas where major new reserves are likely to be found
are
more expensive to drill than similiar areas were in the past for the
simple
reason that the easier, cheaper locations were developed first.
Production
will increase but it will do so slower than demand, therefore prices will
continue to increase although there will be a lot of volitility.

Low petroleum prices are a thing of the past.

I was paying 87 cents for 89 octane (car gas) just five years ago.

I don't expect that to last forever, but the US has done so much to curtail
production that we just expect it to always be that way.


Some of us recognized this
three years ago.


Some people recognized that back before the end of the 19th century.

Analogy: I have no sympathy for people guys who beat their spouse, then
bitch when they "don't get any".

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...



Pretty clear factual statement supported by high school economics or by
looking around the world and observing energy use.

:: Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the "wrong" things for
a
country

I differentiate your solution from your correct grasp of supply&demand.

Aren't you the guy who runs around in a 4.5 MPG turbo-prop?


Yes and more expensive fuel is causing me to reexamine my habits. I am
more
focused on combining or eliminating trips.

I would expect that you fly for the same reason I do: it saves loads of time
and let's you expand your business. That's what you should be measuring.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

We will never "run out" of petroleum, it will just become so expensive
that
we won't use it for fuel. Using less inputs to get the same output is
always a good idea anyway and is the definition of productivity. Using
more
now does nothing to help anything.


And with all that's going on, it's still less expensive than it was in 1980,
even though we use, what?, four times as much?

And (as mentioned) the supply hysterics go all the way back to the late
1890's (US Geological Survey, 1891) and The Federal Oil Conservation Board
(1906).

I for one would love to see 10-20 years from now when alternative fuel
vehicles (I'm hoping for fuel cells) take hold because they're better than
what we use now, not because petrol products are getting expensive.

Between OPEC, the Feds, and the environuts, gas is still a good buy --- but
wasting anything is stupid.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:F8tFe.52$_t.47@okepread01...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news:uasFe.4654

Yes and more expensive fuel is causing me to reexamine my habits. I am
more focused on combining or eliminating trips.


Then you are doing the exactly the wrong thing if it is the planet and
the enviroment you would like to protect.

If that is the LONG term goal you would like then the best thing we could
do is drop the price of gas to zero and have the government pay us to
burn it.

Then we would at some point run out and come up with something much
better as an energy source. So throttle up and burn all you can.

Gig


We will never "run out" of petroleum, it will just become so expensive
that we won't use it for fuel. Using less inputs to get the same output
is always a good idea anyway and is the definition of productivity. Using
more now does nothing to help anything.


You are quite right we want run out because we have never run out of
anything it has just become more scarce and or has been replaced by
something better.

But what is the outcome you want?

Create and use a better more effecient fuel?
Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to develop
and adopt the something more effecient.

Save the enviroment in the long term?
Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to develop
and adopt the something cleaner.

Stop dependance one foreign oil?
Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to develop
and adopt the something else that isn't under Saudi.

But to do as some in this thread have suggested to just tax it to make it
more expensive gives you the same output with more input.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:21:54 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Roger wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:27:06 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:


Roger wrote:


On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:19:01 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:



Roger,



What would make you think that? Other than the "Hummers" and the
really expensive *big* SUVs people are looking at mileage.


Yes, but the American look at mileage is worlds apart from a European
look at mileage.


True, but when you've been looking at 10, then 15, then 20 MPG over
the last 40 years, 30 MPG looks like something with super efficiency.
BTW my wife's mini, mini van which has almost 200,000 miles on it
still gets almost 40 MPG

What kind of minivan is this? A diesel?

It's not a minivan, but rather what they used to call a mini, mini
van.

It's a Chrysler Summit with a 1.7 liter gas engine and stick shift.

Is that was was originally an Eagle Summit? Made by Mitsubishi as I
recall. I'd call that a station wagon. :-)

That's the one. Originally they were billed as mini, mini vans, but I
think station wagon sounded better. :-)) OTOH there's hardly enough
there and it's far too plain to be called a station wagon:-)) She
does a lot of bicycling, (on the order of 2,000 to 3,000 miles a
year). So it has the bike rack on the back and often serves as one of
the "sag wagons" for some of the larger (and longer) rides here in
Michigan. West Shoreline is coming up starting Sunday.

Actually my 4-Runner which is a 4 WD SUV says station wagon on the
title which I find even more confusing.

That means it has all the anti-pollution stuff on it. It is a lot
nicer inside, but gets used like a truck most of the time.
It even has a removable bed liner to fit in back so all the leaky
parts don't ruin the carpet. Besides hydraulic oil is some times
difficult to get out of carpets and you can smell it for weeks.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Matt

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:W7vFe.54$_t.21@okepread01...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:F8tFe.52$_t.47@okepread01...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
news:uasFe.4654

Yes and more expensive fuel is causing me to reexamine my habits. I am
more focused on combining or eliminating trips.


Then you are doing the exactly the wrong thing if it is the planet and
the enviroment you would like to protect.

If that is the LONG term goal you would like then the best thing we
could do is drop the price of gas to zero and have the government pay us
to burn it.

Then we would at some point run out and come up with something much
better as an energy source. So throttle up and burn all you can.

Gig


We will never "run out" of petroleum, it will just become so expensive
that we won't use it for fuel. Using less inputs to get the same output
is always a good idea anyway and is the definition of productivity.
Using more now does nothing to help anything.


You are quite right we want run out because we have never run out of
anything it has just become more scarce and or has been replaced by
something better.

But what is the outcome you want?

Create and use a better more effecient fuel?
Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to
develop and adopt the something more effecient.

Save the enviroment in the long term?
Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to
develop and adopt the something cleaner.

Stop dependance one foreign oil?
Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to
develop and adopt the something else that isn't under Saudi.

But to do as some in this thread have suggested to just tax it to make it
more expensive gives you the same output with more input.



Basically I think that we should recognize that petroleum is a precious,
finite, non-renewable fuel. We should not waste it. We need it to last
until there is an alternative. Our children may need it and driving around
in huge vihicles with one person aboard is irresponsible. There is no
alternative for the forseeable future. Hydrogen is a joke.

Mike
MU-2

In article et,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

Basically I think that we should recognize that petroleum is a precious,

true

finite, non-renewable fuel.

um, not true. not non-renewable, it just takes a loooong time
;-)

We should not waste it.

true.

There is no
alternative for the forseeable future. Hydrogen is a joke.

eh? Hydrogen is awesome, it's plentiful. We already know how
to extract it from water.

Until we can find dilithium crystals or make naquadah generators, let's
not overcomplicate things...

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In article kC9Fe.7146$eg4.3217@trndny01, says...
Repo Man wrote:

I can see you disagreed with it. But maybe your child could do a better
job explaining why.

Ah! So you were writing for ignorant children. That explains it.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.


You said it. I didn't.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:08:34 +0200, Friedrich Ostertag
wrote:

Hi Roger,

However it's not as simple as just choosing to go to smaller more
efficient cars. In many cases it's just not practical, safe, or
economical. In many cases, if not most, the little European car would
not be safe or practical here.

The matter of safety here is more complicated than it seems at first.
The big SUVs and trucks are not at all safer in themselves, as many
people would believe. Try driving a Pickup and an economy car (no,
don't..) into a solid wall and you will find that your chances of
escaping injury or death are actually greater in the ecomony, at least
if it is of fairly recent make. Use a medium or large passenger car, and
your chances are MUCH better. Reason for this is, that trucks are build
very rigid and will impose very high deceleration forces on their
passengers, even if cushioned by airbags etc.

This basically also applies for collisions between vehicles of similar
weight.

However, when collisions between vehicles of different weight are
considered, the weight of a truck will give it a very significant
advantage over lighter vehicles just by the physics. The lighter vehicle

There are still a lot of variables.
I used to drive a Trans Am. One of those immortal teen agers in his
invincible SUB came out of a parking lot with all 4 burning. I think I
left less than 12 feet of skid marks before T-boning him. It bent the
GMC Jimmy into a shallow U. The only thing that saved the kids life
was that massive door pillar.

However, the difference in mass sure was evident. I turned him 90
degrees and maybe knocked the SUV about 20 to 30 feet.

My TA was spun through on coming traffic and into a parking lot on the
other side of the 4 lane (plus center turn lane) highway. It drove
the right front wheel back into the passenger compartment and put the
firewall against the bottom of the dash all the way across.

Other than some scuff marks on the insides of my forearms from
skidding on the steering wheel when I wrapped it around the column and
being as punchy as an all night drinking binge, I was fine. Even the
cheap drunk feeling was gone in about 15 minutes and I wasn't even
sore the next day. The kid ended up in the Hospital with a broken
shoulder or collar bone.

Needless to say, I couldn't convince the insurance company to rebuild
the TA. It didn't look all that bad other than having the windshield
blown out and the right front wheel seemed to be a bit out of place.
Of course when you looked under the hood or inside... The SUV was
totaled as well.

But what it comes down to is that everyone has to drive big cars because
everyone drives big cars....

To a point that is true for safety when all things are equal. Some
SUVs are built more like cars with crumple zones and others are more
like trucks, but even our smaller trucks have crumple zones.

The SUVs have a problem with higher CG and lack of driver knowledge.
We get a lot of roll overs and one vehicle accidents with SUVs. They
have even started an advertising campaign to educate the drivers.
(which is probably a waste of time)


This is also known as the "theater effect". If one person in a theater
stands up, he gets a much better view of the stage. However, if everyone
stands up, everyone gets the same view as before, but now everyone has

Gets even worse for the short people.

to stand. This is why standing in theaters is frowned upon...
snip

Then there are the farmers who have to make
the choice between getting a car and truck, or just driving the truck.
When you are looking at another $20,000 for just a small car it's an
easy choice.

Yes, in these cases the use of the truck also for normal transport is
certainly justifiable. But the majority of trucks and SUVs never leave
paved roads.

I think a lot of them get used for "mudding":-)) which is a popular
pastime here, but that is evolving into specialized *expensive* and
modified trucks. However it is true that the vast majority are more
of a status symbol.


Then there are people with large families that have to
get them around some how. Remember, much of the US is rural and a
drive to town can be quite a trip.

You are talking about more than 5 heads per family? What about a Van?

In some places it gets difficult to tell the van from the SUV except
by the interior. I think they are trying to combine them in some
aspects. Even then the regular vans and SUVs are heavy and use more
gas.

Another thing that is very popular up here in the Northern states is 4
wheel drive. I find there may be weeks at a time when I need it
getting around the airport and even getting out of our driveway. Of
course that takes good tires too. "Street Slicks" on all 4 corners
aren't very efficient when it comes to "go or whoa" Then we have that
segment that figures if the 4 WD will let them go twice or three times
as fast in slippery conditions they will be able to control them at
that speed. The darn things don't stop any better than any other
vehicle of the same weight.

Although we are seen as a society with every one driving a huge new
car, we are really a society with a few driving the new ones and a lot
of families driving those old rust buckets, or people driving the
pickup or SUV they use for work for their regular driving.

How many of the trucks and SUVs are really regularly used for jobs that
couldn't be done by a passcar?


Probably a sizeable percent, but then even if the SUV, truck, or van
is put to its designed use 15% of the time it eliminates the need for
two vehicles.

You are also looking at an entirely different set of traffic
conditions. Effectively, we have no mass transit except in some
local settings. Amtrack is not heavily used except in some specific
areas and requires massive subsidies.

accepted point. With the infrastructure in place people have to rely on
road traffic, and it has to be affordable.

and to many that means driving the old "bondo beauty", gas hog because
they can't afford a $20,000 or $30,000 car. Me? I purchase used.

That puts some very heavy traffic on the roads where we are mixing
every thing from very large tractor-trailers to small economy cars.

Just the same in Europe. We also have HGVs on our roads... But a truck
or SUV is not helping you there. If you have a serious collision with
one of these you are a goner, no matter truck or passcar.

Agreed.

The yearly death toll is coming down, (I believe a bit over 43,000
last year put it close to a 20 or 30 year low. Some one on here
undoubtedly has that statistic) but the safety measures add weight
and size to the cars and that reduces mileage.

True, but just the same in Europe. Our cars are by no means less save in
themselves. (see beginning of post)

We have so many cars
on the roads that we have to apply anti-pollution standards to the
cars and those reduce the gas mileage.

Again, it's just the same in Europe, standards are very similar today.
The mileage penalty exists, but it is not a big deal, just a few percent.

We have literally millions of
cars on the roads every day. Just the disposal of worn out tires is a
major problem. I read, and I don't know the accuracy of the
statement, that more oil is thrown out into the woods from individuals
doing their own oil changes every year than the entire Exxon Valdez
(sp?) oil spill.

Wow, really? Over here you can dispose of as much used oil as you bought
new at the shop where you bought it. The shop must take it and dispose
of it in a proper manner.

They don't have to, but most will. I can't think of a local
automotive supplier who won't take the used oil. I know one guy who
will take all he can get to mix with the fuel oil in his hangar
heater.

Now as to the large cars: If people would car pool and fill the seats
the amount of gas per passenger mile would drop dramatically. Car
pooling alone could make a big difference in the amount of crude
required and reduce pollution.

Quite true. As a matter of fact a car with 4 people in it comes very
close in prime energy consumption to the famed rail transport.

Unfortunately car pooling is not
effective in many areas due to the wide spread population.

doesn't really work over here as well. People are too individually
minded. Also everyone nowadays is required to be "flexible" about his
work hours.

That "used to be" a US phenomena. It must be contagious.


Because much of the US consists of miles and miles, of nothing but
miles and miles, mass transit becomes impractical and uneconomical in
those areas. That means the individual needs a vehicle that can be
used to haul more than people.

I don't quite get that point. I have never thought about sending any
goods by rail. If I buy something that exeeds my cars hauling capability
I can mostly have it delivered to my door.

It's a mix. If I need some plywood sheets, or steel stock for a
project, I could have the plywood delivered, but I might have to wait
a couple of days and I wouldn't get to select the individual sheets.
It'd also cost me about $25 or $30 even though I live just outside the
city limits. Midland Steel has been kind enough to drop off some big
pieces when the owner is on his way home with the truck, but for
regular stock I need to bring it home on my own.


I drive a relatively small SUV (huge by European standards), but it's
used more as a truck for hauling stuff (rear seats folded down for
even more cargo area). So for me to get the utility I need (hauling
equipment and parts), I'd need at least an economy car and a truck.
Although the car would save me some gas on some trips, the truck would
cost me more gas when not hauling a full load. So the SUV is a good
compromise.

Have you thought about a car and a trailer?

I was raised on a farm and even farmed 80 acres through high school
and up until I was 21 so I have a lot of practice backing trailers and
even wagons with articulated tongues. With that background I find a
moderate size trailer to be a real pain in traffic. When hauling one
into town there is no place to park it. The only places it can be
parked are the Mall, the airport, and the discount builders supply
places. Even then it takes more than two parking spots which leaves
the back end sticking wayyy out.

I know I hide it well, but I hate trailers in parking lots. :-))


So, it's a complicated issue that goes far beyond the availability of
cars and engines that get much better gas mileage.

The one thing that would probably make a bigger difference than going
to small cars would be people learning to schedule their time and
trips so they'd be driving a minimum rather than going into town two
or three times a day. Combining trips with planning. I usually try
to organize my trips into town so I can do things in order as I cross
town. Often store and office hours modify this but it can still be
done. I've been building my G-III so long that having to wait until
tomorrow for the part I just discovered I need to finish up a piece.
Still, I know one couple who only keep enough food to run them through
the next day. They will drive 30 miles one way to find a store so
they can save $5 on the shopping.

One day I sat down and started figuring out how much I'd spent on new
cars over the years. I had a good job that paid well and I could
afford them. Thing is, had I stuck with nice used ones, or kept them
until I *needed* one, I'd have enough money to do almost anything I so
desire. I've averaged over 30,000 miles a year even when I take into
account I started driving at age 14 with a regular license (it was a
while back) and now being retired I have no need to drive as much. I
was able to take early retirement by choice so I could go play.
But I have driven over one and a half million miles and gone through
about 14 new cars and several used ones. I try not to think of how
much I could have saved:-))

A quick comparison: When traveling to Denver from Michigan I figured
the different costs. Driving a car is *very* expensive unless you
drive it until the wheels fall off.

Driving my TA was the most expensive:
Then came a non discount coach class airfare.
Then flying the Debonair for my wife and I.
(Alone the Deb was still slightly cheaper than the TA)
Then the discount airfare (coach)
and finally the cheapest...renting a compact car (If I didn't count
food and lodging for the two day trip)

Some where in the archives for one of the aviation groups (probably
this one) you will find the calculations I did with the specific
costs.

Absolutely

Take care,

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


regards,
Friedrich