Avgas Where is the ceiling?

"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 ***

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
ground transportation, could be met with such alternatives as hydrogen fuel
or ethanol. That would dramatically reduce demand for oil and bring
gasoline and kerosene prices down. Of course, such a situation will also go
a long ways toward averting a global warming catastrophe.

-Elliott Drucker

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.

ground transportation, could be met with such alternatives as hydrogen fuel

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

or ethanol. That would dramatically reduce demand for oil and bring
gasoline and kerosene prices down. Of course, such a situation will also go
a long ways toward averting a global warming catastrophe.

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?)

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



-Elliott Drucker

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


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.

-Elliott Drucker

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

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.

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 04:06:08 GMT,
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

It's that "some price" that is scary.

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

But I think that mogas as we know it is going to go away and in the
not too distant future.



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,

True, but so far that is on a very localized basis. Plus 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. I think though that the
bio fuels will probably outdo the Hydrogen overall in the big
picture.. It's easier to increase trucking incrementally than it is to
increase the power grid.

The electric car is probably the least desirable as it would require
the greatest infrastructure change and is the least efficient "over
all".

Add into this the bio-fuels and the need for Hydrogen and electric
powered cars is greatly reduced. At least the Metal Hydrides used for
Hydrogen storage make a take full of H2 safer than one full of gas.

BTW, Hydrogen is treated more like the batter in the electric car than
a fuel. There is a loss in net energy with its production and another
loss in its use just as there is in using a battery to store
electrical energy.

and prices are coming down. Vast photoelectric farms in the desert could

On a local basis, going solar power to really power the home is about
$20,000 and that is for Florida. Up here in the frozen, cloudy north
it's not very practical unless you can develop a way of capturing a
lot and then storing it .

I saw the figure given as a solar farm 100 miles on a side out in the
desert could power the entire US. That would be one expensive
undertaking:-)) Both from the solar farm and the distribution.
OTOH single farms large enough to replace a couple of fossil fuel
powered electric generation plants are not out of the question. Using
parabolic mirrors to collect heat to power generators would be much
more compact and at current costs probably run about 10 to 20% (my
SWAG) of a photovoltaic farm capable of creating the same power.
A couple of 10 or 12' dishes used to heat water could probably heat
enough water in one day to heat my home for 3 to 5 days. I know a 10'
dish can collect a *lot* of heat ever since I painted one with some
excess aircraft paint and it melted the feed horn.

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.

It takes a lot of electricity to produce the Hydrogen on a large
scale. I used to work with the world's largest electrolytic Hydrogen
generator. The O2 was just blown off to the atmosphere as a
byproduct. That company used to have daily tankers of liquid H2
coming in and they had a tank farm for liquid H2.

The processes that used the H2 have been modified and streamlined to
the point where they use a very small percent of the H2, yet the basic
process that uses it has multiplied many fold.

Actually the tank farm AND the H2 generation cell are both gone with
just a *relatively* small tank remaining and I am speaking in relative
terms. That place is BIG and they are in the process of basically
doubling their capacity again.

One of the things I can refer to specifically is the change is the
basic charge to the customer. 30 some years ago the end product ran
as much as $165$ US per gram. Now the raw material is more pure than
that refined product and sells "some where" in the $2 to $5 a Kilogram
range.

That is a tremendous increase in efficiency.
Take that tot he Hybrid cars which I can say from experience my wife's
gets 50 MPG average. However hybrid cars take a different mind set.
These are not "economy cars". They are expensive cars (at present)
that get very good gas mileage. So although they save a *lot* at the
pump the overall operating cost has to be as much as many of the gas
guzzlers. OTOH the overall operating cost is far less than the new
luxury gas guzzlers.

As A personal opinion I see various forms of hybrid cars using various
fuels as being the current and at least short term way to go. They
alone in their current form "could be" enough to make us independent
from foreign oil and reduce the green house gases to acceptable
levels. In the mean time the alternative energy sources can be
developed to the point of being economically competitive, or even
economically superior.

The unfortunate down side is the people who really need the cars that
get high mileage can not afford them. Currently their only answer is
car pooling, driving less, mass transit, or moving closer to the
center of their activities.

One other step that is not going to be popular or painless is to empty
the high school parking lots and we could very easily see that happen.

As much as I'm afraid of being the one to put the first scratch on it,
I am now driving my wife's car (when it's available) and I don't need
the SUV for hauling *lots* of stuff. I can drive that thing to the
airport three times on about the same gas as it takes to get the SUV
there once and it gets good gas mileage. 20 years ago it would have
been considered outstanding.

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.

IF you are using the biomass produced fuels to produce the materials
(crops) and produce more fuel, you have a net reduction.

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


-Elliott Drucker

"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!

Doug Palmer wrote:

100 LL just jumped from $3.82 to $4.54 at our airport, and at HAF we
traditionally represent the lower costs for our area (SF Bay) Where will it
end? to the pessimists in the room this feels like the begning of the end
for those of us who pinch our pennies to get a little air time in once or
twice a week. It doesn't seem that long ago that it was just above $2/Gal.

I feel your pain. Here in the northeast US, many airports are over the US
$5. mark, with several of the largest and busiest at or over the $6 mark.

I wonder if the various Angel Flight organizations are experiencing a drop
in active volunteer pilots.

--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:
Doug Palmer wrote:


100 LL just jumped from $3.82 to $4.54 at our airport, and at HAF we
traditionally represent the lower costs for our area (SF Bay) Where will it
end? to the pessimists in the room this feels like the begning of the end
for those of us who pinch our pennies to get a little air time in once or
twice a week. It doesn't seem that long ago that it was just above $2/Gal.


I feel your pain. Here in the northeast US, many airports are over the US
$5. mark, with several of the largest and busiest at or over the $6 mark.

I wonder if the various Angel Flight organizations are experiencing a drop
in active volunteer pilots.

I can tell you That I have slowed my fling down considerably. I am
currently moving and I doubt I will sign up with the new Angel Flight
Organization until the cost of fuel drops.

Michelle