How much longer?

Alan,

Flying at night is wonderful, but you must be from the east, since
night or day, much of Nevada and Utah looks pretty abandoned.


Great places for solar power plants. Just like Arizona, NM and parts of
Texas, too.

If Jay somehow shouldn't make it to tyrannical dictatorship with the
cozy name "Kingdom" applied, sensible solutions might just prevail over
utter madness...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Alan wrote:
In article Phil J writes:

Apparently you have never flown over this country at night. When I
have, I have looked down at thousands of lights, everywhere. Other
than the mountains, there are not very many areas that are not
populated.

Aha, back to AVIATION!!!

Flying at night is wonderful, but you must be from the east, since
night or day, much of Nevada and Utah looks pretty abandoned.

Most of eastern Washington and Oregon, too. I prefer it that way,
except on those night cross countries when the fuel needles are bouncing
around or there are thunderstorms developing all around.

-c

On 2008-04-10, Jay Honeck wrote:
Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind from
your hotel?? Didn't think so.

Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of the
country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT. Of course you
wouldn't build a refinery in a populated area.

Where are you going to get the workers?

Refineries need infrastructure. If you want to build a refinery on
vacant land it will be an inordinately expensive proposition: you need
to build suitable roads, pipelines, houses for the workers to live -
you've got to get the materials in to build the refinery.

If you look at where the refineries are at the moment, there are good
reasons for why they are where they are, because they need to be close
enough for certain resources: engineers to run the plant, workers to do
the day to day operation, safety and security (fire crews, police). You
have to get the raw materials in and the refined product out. These go
in and out in colossal quantities, so refineries are often in a place
where you can get large ships into and out of. Since you have all those
workers now running the plant, the workers themselves need all the other
infrastructure to support their lives: shops, entertainment, and all the
other typical things you find in a city. If you want to build that in
the middle of nowhere, you're also going to have to build a city to go
with it and also find workers (many who need to be highly educated and
skilled) who are prepared to work in a new city, in the middle of
nowhere. Presumably, given your political leanings, you don't want this
to be the only class of people who are likely to want to do this -
immigrants from poor countries off your southern border.

Additionally, building the new city that must go with the refinery is
going to be orders of magnitude more expensive than simply extending an
existing refinery, or building one where the people already live that
doesn't turn the air green.

We don't have refineries that run as unattended automatons. A refinery
needs very close supervision because it's basically a giant bomb.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Dylan Smith wrote in
:

On 2008-04-10, Jay Honeck wrote:
Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind
from
your hotel?? Didn't think so.

Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of
the
country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT. Of course
you
wouldn't build a refinery in a populated area.

Where are you going to get the workers?



I think he's probably hopoing he can get illegal immigrants and drug
addicts, like he has in his 'hotel'.

Refineries need infrastructure. If you want to build a refinery on
vacant land it will be an inordinately expensive proposition: you need
to build suitable roads, pipelines, houses for the workers to live -
you've got to get the materials in to build the refinery.

If you look at where the refineries are at the moment, there are good
reasons for why they are where they are, because they need to be close
enough for certain resources: engineers to run the plant, workers to
do
the day to day operation, safety and security (fire crews, police).
You
have to get the raw materials in and the refined product out. These go
in and out in colossal quantities, so refineries are often in a place
where you can get large ships into and out of. Since you have all
those
workers now running the plant, the workers themselves need all the
other
infrastructure to support their lives: shops, entertainment, and all
the
other typical things you find in a city. If you want to build that in
the middle of nowhere, you're also going to have to build a city to go
with it and also find workers (many who need to be highly educated and
skilled) who are prepared to work in a new city, in the middle of
nowhere. Presumably, given your political leanings, you don't want
this
to be the only class of people who are likely to want to do this -
immigrants from poor countries off your southern border.

Additionally, building the new city that must go with the refinery is
going to be orders of magnitude more expensive than simply extending
an
existing refinery, or building one where the people already live that
doesn't turn the air green.

We don't have refineries that run as unattended automatons. A refinery
needs very close supervision because it's basically a giant bomb.


You'll confuse him now! You do realise he gets all his info from Fox
news, right?



Bertie

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2008-04-10, Jay Honeck wrote:
Right. And would you want that unregulated refinery built upwind from
your hotel?? Didn't think so.

Ah, yes -- another person who apparently hasn't flown over most of the
country -- which, by the way is almost entirely VACANT. Of course you
wouldn't build a refinery in a populated area.

Where are you going to get the workers?

Refineries need infrastructure. If you want to build a refinery on
vacant land it will be an inordinately expensive proposition: you need
to build suitable roads, pipelines, houses for the workers to live -
you've got to get the materials in to build the refinery.

If you look at where the refineries are at the moment, there are good
reasons for why they are where they are, because they need to be close
enough for certain resources: engineers to run the plant, workers to do
the day to day operation, safety and security (fire crews, police). You
have to get the raw materials in and the refined product out. These go
in and out in colossal quantities, so refineries are often in a place
where you can get large ships into and out of. Since you have all those
workers now running the plant, the workers themselves need all the other
infrastructure to support their lives: shops, entertainment, and all the
other typical things you find in a city. If you want to build that in
the middle of nowhere, you're also going to have to build a city to go
with it and also find workers (many who need to be highly educated and
skilled) who are prepared to work in a new city, in the middle of
nowhere. Presumably, given your political leanings, you don't want this
to be the only class of people who are likely to want to do this -
immigrants from poor countries off your southern border.

Additionally, building the new city that must go with the refinery is
going to be orders of magnitude more expensive than simply extending an
existing refinery, or building one where the people already live that
doesn't turn the air green.

We don't have refineries that run as unattended automatons. A refinery
needs very close supervision because it's basically a giant bomb.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Why is your argument precisely the reverse of every accepted tenet of urban
planning and development and the ripple effect of any additional skilled and
professional jobs?

Could it be that you simply have it backward?

Peter

On 2008-04-10, Peter Dohm wrote:
Why is your argument precisely the reverse of every accepted tenet of urban
planning and development and the ripple effect of any additional skilled and
professional jobs?

It isn't. Jay's solution is to build a refinery in the middle of
nowhere, which by definition has no people yet. So you're going to have
to bootstrap the process *somehow*.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Dylan Smith wrote in
:

On 2008-04-10, Peter Dohm wrote:
Why is your argument precisely the reverse of every accepted tenet of
urban planning and development and the ripple effect of any
additional skilled and professional jobs?

It isn't. Jay's solution is to build a refinery in the middle of
nowhere, which by definition has no people yet. So you're going to
have to bootstrap the process *somehow*.



Use jay's solution to everything else. Mexican slaves



Bertie

Jay Honeck schrieb:
If I were "King for a day", I would decree the following "4 Steps to
American Energy Independence":


*woah* I don't want to live in your kingdom. Not for a day.

4. By decree, hydrogen fuel is now the way of the future -- period. From

and you pump the hydrogen from the ocean or from the moon? With which
energy will you produce hydrogen? Hydrogen is only an energy carrier.

#m

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:LfXKj.112154$yE1.66521@attbi_s21...

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.

and in a later post

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ai6Lj.112958$yE1.56035@attbi_s21...
-- 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.

Since we all hope that you would not offer unconsidered or overly simple
solutions to complex problems, I am sure you have considered the possible
'unintended consequences' of your proposals. In the event that your
proposals were actually serious and not meant as a joke, I would ask you to
comment on their likely result.

Happy landings,