![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think your desire to blame environmentalists is an
oversimplification of a complicated situation. I think your description of short-sighted leadership is probably pretty correct, but not for the reasons you like to believe. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
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. It's probably cheaper to "outsource" refining and ship only the refined product into the country. Not sure why it matters that the refineries are in the country where the refined products are consumed - you may as well decree that some of the international oil fields be moved into the country too since it makes about as much sense. ;-) 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 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 Well at least you linked to an article that makes clear that the hydrogen has to be generated from another source of energy. H2 sucks anyway on several counts - and your last decree will essentially ground all small aircraft, including your own. Contrary to your ultimate goal, I assume. Currently, the only known way of cramming hydrogen into a small enough volume to be of use in your airplane is, ironically, by _lightly_ binding the H atoms to something like, oh say, carbon. A hydrocarbon. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 2 plants in the country? Good to get started, but We should probably be building 20 - 30 in California alone. However: California law prohibits the construction of any new nuclear power plants in California until the Energy Commission finds that the federal government has approved and there exists a demonstrated technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel from these facilities. Source: http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html We need to do something about that. We should be recycling this slightly used nuclear fuel, not throwing it away. [ Now, I would suggest that all electrical power to Sacramento (the CA capitol) be shut off until the legislature comes to their senses. ] 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 Well at least you linked to an article that makes clear that the hydrogen has to be generated from another source of energy. H2 sucks anyway on several counts - and your last decree will essentially ground all small aircraft, including your own. Contrary to your ultimate goal, I assume. Indeed. Hydrogen is a difficult fuel, with fairly low energy density for a givin volume. It is also difficult to handle and transport safely. Currently, the only known way of cramming hydrogen into a small enough volume to be of use in your airplane is, ironically, by _lightly_ binding the H atoms to something like, oh say, carbon. A hydrocarbon. Which makes for a better fuel, safer, and well suited to running our aircraft. All we need to do is extract the carbon from the atmosphere, and I have seen hints that such may be reasonably doable. Alan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 2 plants in the country? Good to get started, but We should probably be building 20 - 30 in California alone. However: California law prohibits the construction of any new nuclear power plants in California until the Energy Commission finds that the federal government has approved and there exists a demonstrated technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel from these facilities. Source: http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html We need to do something about that. We should be recycling this slightly used nuclear fuel, not throwing it away. Very true. I don't know how much of the energy we are currently using from out nuclear fuel, but there is certainly a tremendous resource remaining and we should be using it as fully as we are able. [ Now, I would suggest that all electrical power to Sacramento (the CA capitol) be shut off until the legislature comes to their senses. ] 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 Well at least you linked to an article that makes clear that the hydrogen has to be generated from another source of energy. H2 sucks anyway on several counts - and your last decree will essentially ground all small aircraft, including your own. Contrary to your ultimate goal, I assume. Indeed. Hydrogen is a difficult fuel, with fairly low energy density for a givin volume. It is also difficult to handle and transport safely. Currently, the only known way of cramming hydrogen into a small enough volume to be of use in your airplane is, ironically, by _lightly_ binding the H atoms to something like, oh say, carbon. A hydrocarbon. Which makes for a better fuel, safer, and well suited to running our aircraft. All we need to do is extract the carbon from the atmosphere, and I have seen hints that such may be reasonably doable. Alan My only dissagreement here is that I wonder whether extracting carbon from the atmosphere is really necessary, or even usefull. There seems to be evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere results in increased plant growth--and that means that plants will extract the CO2 for us, with no polution nor industrial effort, and will yeild food and other products in the process. Peter |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Peter Dohm" wrote in
: "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 2 plants in the country? Good to get started, but We should probably be building 20 - 30 in California alone. However: California law prohibits the construction of any new nuclear power plants in California until the Energy Commission finds that the federal government has approved and there exists a demonstrated technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel from these facilities. Source: http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html We need to do something about that. We should be recycling this slightly used nuclear fuel, not throwing it away. Very true. I don't know how much of the energy we are currently using from out nuclear fuel, but there is certainly a tremendous resource remaining and we should be using it as fully as we are able. [ Now, I would suggest that all electrical power to Sacramento (the CA capitol) be shut off until the legislature comes to their senses. ] 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 Well at least you linked to an article that makes clear that the hydrogen has to be generated from another source of energy. H2 sucks anyway on several counts - and your last decree will essentially ground all small aircraft, including your own. Contrary to your ultimate goal, I assume. Indeed. Hydrogen is a difficult fuel, with fairly low energy density for a givin volume. It is also difficult to handle and transport safely. Currently, the only known way of cramming hydrogen into a small enough volume to be of use in your airplane is, ironically, by _lightly_ binding the H atoms to something like, oh say, carbon. A hydrocarbon. Which makes for a better fuel, safer, and well suited to running our aircraft. All we need to do is extract the carbon from the atmosphere, and I have seen hints that such may be reasonably doable. Alan My only dissagreement here is that I wonder whether extracting carbon from the atmosphere is really necessary, or even usefull. There seems to be evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere results in increased plant growth--and that means that plants will extract the CO2 for us, with no polution nor industrial effort, and will yeild food and other products in the process. Yes, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere does lend itself to increased plant growth. In fact,it's a bit of a mystery, or at least it has been a bit of a mystery that all the CO2 we've produced over the last 200 years hasn['t increased the carbon in the atmosphere as much as it should have. The explanation is the rainforests. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere has partly been absorbed by the rainforests, particularly the Amazon. Sounds like a good thing, eh? Not neccesarily. The problem is twofold. First, we're still cutting it down to beat the the band, lately one of the main culpriots has been the thirst for biofuels. Indonesia has been decimating its rainforests for land to grow crops for fuel for the industrialised world. At the current rate, their forest will be completely gone in a few more years. And of course, we're still chopping it down for hardwoods and grazing lands as well. the bigger problem is, the rainforests have had a fairly steady diet of CO2 for millenia and an increase upsets the balance and may well result in a forst that grows so quickly that it outstrips the nutrients in the soil and the result could be desertification of the region or, at least a modification to scrubland. Either way, no more rain forest and no more CO2 accumulator. Bertie Bertie |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jay Honeck wrote:
I think your desire to blame environmentalists is an oversimplification of a complicated situation. I think your description of short-sighted leadership is probably pretty correct, but not for the reasons you like to believe. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. Well, Jay, just let me say I'm glad you aren't king! :-) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jay Honeck wrote:
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. 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. Everyone wants a new refinery in someone else's backyard. Any way you cut it, oil companies undeniably have the profits to build refineries, but where is it going to be located? 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My 302 and PDA are no longer on speaking terms | Dixie Sierra | Soaring | 4 | September 10th 07 05:16 PM |
Some IFR GPS's no longer useable | kevmor | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | May 28th 07 02:27 AM |
Jepp no longer in the GA business...? | John Harper | Instrument Flight Rules | 30 | June 17th 04 10:49 PM |
Some airmen facing longer deployments | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 16th 04 08:34 PM |