Avgas Where is the ceiling?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
in, save your ass, and go home.


As "conquered peoples" go, "Native Americans" have come out pretty
well. Certainly better than MY ancestors.

I always get a laugh out of those who say the land belonged to the American
Aborigines since the AA's had no concept of land ownership and, as nomadic
wanderers, didn't really occupy the land in any sense we'd call
"proprietorship".

BTW...how did the AA's come to occupy an area of land in the first place?
That's right, they _conquered_ it. As they did, they slaughtered each other
for generations. Those constant wars don't happen anymore. (Not to mention
the constant raids to rape the other tribes cattle and steal their women)

For all their faults, the "white" people brought a way of dealing with
ownership and disputes over ownership.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Martin Hotze wrote:

What's the best place to fight a war?

abroad, where else. better to destroy their country than mine.
but this doesn't solve the root cause why the war started.

complain to the people who started the war.


I'm sure they'll be very receptive to said complaints.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Give everybody his fair share? You're an idiot.

well, what are the alternatives? fighting those wars until some wacko
hits
the red button and fires all those nukes (even firing one is enough)?
what's next? get a broader view, please.

The alternative is certainly not "giving everyone his fair
share"...whatever THAT is.

And what about the people that created that stuff he wants to redistribute?

".Blueskies." wrote in message
news:YJw2g.13688
The problem here is that we are continuing to pay those 'hidden' expenses
and taxes while also paying the ever increasing costs of the gasolene. The
prices are being driven by speculators, not by true demand, and the
profits are exorbitant.

China and India tripling and quadrupling their consumption is not a "true
demand"?

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 05:27:20 GMT,
wrote:


On 20-Apr-2006, "Doug" wrote:

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.


I doubt it, too. BUT, there are practical limits to prices for crude oil
and the distillates derived from it. One is the cost of producing
alternative sources of energy. If, instead of wasting hundreds of
billions
of dollars in Iraq, we spent those sums on alternative energy R&D I am
convinced the US would gain energy independence within a decade.

The unique needs of aviation will continue to require high grade liquid
fuels (i.e. gasoline or kerosene). But many other applications, including

And that may shift to biodesiel for some. We are going to see the
demand for high grade avgas drop to the point where it will become
unavailable. Then we'll have to find gas without alcohol and
additives so we can burn it in the high compression engines.

They've been looking for such a solution since the 1930's.

No luck yet!

wrote in message
news:Q2D2g.767$yI1.26@trnddc04...

On 22-Apr-2006, Roger wrote:

We are going to see the
demand for high grade avgas drop to the point where it will become
unavailable. Then we'll have to find gas without alcohol and
additives so we can burn it in the high compression engines.


I think that there will still be enough demand for a suitable high octane
aviation gasoline that it will be made available -- at some price. The
real
key is that Continental and Lycoming need to get to work on building
engines
(and airframe manufacturers need to make fuel tanks and lines) that work
with premium mogas, including those with ethanol. Otherwise, the future
for
light GA aircraft will be diesel


http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182149-1.html

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:59:33 GMT, ktbr wrote:

Matt Barrow wrote:
Last I heard, the US was a "democracy" (ie, representatives were
elected),
so if there's a problem, thank your friednds and neighbors.

Actually, its supposed to be a representative republic not a true
deomocracy. But anyway, I'm not convinced that the average voter

Actually the US is a Republic that is governed as a representative
democracy.

today has necessary economic education to fully understand the issues

I would say, "most voters", not the average voter does not have either
the information or the ability to use it to the point of being able to
make an intelligent choice.

I would add that most voters have neither the information nor the ability to
make sense of it, and DON'T HAVE THE INTERST in doing so.

Hey, don't bother me, the ballgame is on...

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 14:59:44 GMT, ktbr wrote:

IS User wrote:
That's _make_, not pump and refine.

Eventually you will see more of this type of processing waste
into energy. But you must realize that it would take a massive

But this is a very limited resource.

contruction effort to build enough of these plants to make even
a small dent in the total oil needs of the United States.

By the time you have enough to make a small dent the raw materials
will become scarce and expensive.

Which raw materials are you referring to?

wrote:

On 22-Apr-2006, Roger wrote:

We are going to see the
demand for high grade avgas drop to the point where it will become
unavailable. Then we'll have to find gas without alcohol and
additives so we can burn it in the high compression engines.


I think that there will still be enough demand for a suitable high octane
aviation gasoline that it will be made available -- at some price. The real
key is that Continental and Lycoming need to get to work on building engines
(and airframe manufacturers need to make fuel tanks and lines) that work
with premium mogas, including those with ethanol. Otherwise, the future for
light GA aircraft will be diesel

And this would be a bad thing why?


Hydrogen, when looked at on a large scale, makes all this other stuff
look cheap.

Depends on the original energy source. Right now, photovoltaic systems can
be constructed for about $1 per delivered watt, or $1 million per megawatt,
and prices are coming down. Vast photoelectric farms in the desert could
produce copious amounts of cheap, environmentally innocuous electricity.
But how to transform that electric energy to a form that can readily be used
for highway transportation? Hydrogen from water dissociation.


They are talking 5 to 9 degrees over the next century. If it goes to
5 or 6 degrees, it is going to drastically alter some coast lines and
economies. If it really does go to 9 degrees some one needs to read up
on the "Permian Extension" (SP?)

Yes, we simply have to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, the leading
source of the greenhouse gas CO2. Burning biodiesel and ethanol also
produces CO2, of course, but growing the chlorophyll-based plants from which
these fuels are derived absorbs as much CO2 as is produced when they are
burned. No net add of CO2 to the atmosphere. Hydrogen/water cycle
generates zero greenhouse gases or any other pollutant.

Nonsense.

Anything that burns using the oxygen from air produces oxides of nitrogen,
i.e. smog.

-Elliott Drucker

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article , wrote:

Anything that burns using the oxygen from air produces oxides of nitrogen,
i.e. smog.

Burning Hydrogen would produce smog?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate