How much longer?

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"

"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.

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

"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

"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

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

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

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! :-)

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.

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"