So what happens when 100LL is gone anyway?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Create and use a better more effecient fuel?
Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to develop
and adopt the something more effecient.

Actually, that just makes something less efficient cost-competitive.

Save the enviroment in the long term?
Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to develop
and adopt the something cleaner.

Actually, we would fall back on coal. Which is *not* cleaner.

Stop dependance one foreign oil?
Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to develop
and adopt the something else that isn't under Saudi.

Coal again.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Bob Noel wrote:

eh? Hydrogen is awesome, it's plentiful. We already know how
to extract it from water.

Yeah, but it takes more energy to extract it from water than we get by burning
it. Which increases our consumption of electricity. Which will increase our
consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

Basically I think that we should recognize that petroleum is a precious,

true

finite, non-renewable fuel.

um, not true. not non-renewable, it just takes a loooong time
;-)


I concede the point :-)


There is no
alternative for the forseeable future. Hydrogen is a joke.

eh? Hydrogen is awesome, it's plentiful. We already know how
to extract it from water.


It takes more energy to extract hydrogen from water then you get out of it.
Then there is the problem of storage. H2 and O2 is the most energetic
chemical reaction known (that is why it is used in the Shuttle), Do we
really want a kiloton worth of explosive energy scattered around numerous
sites in every city? It will also escape from anything except perfect
tanks. Other than those things, hydrogen is great. The practical reality
is that we will need huge amounts of nuclear energy to drive a H2 economy.

Mike
MU-2

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:26:38 GMT, Jose
wrote:

The locals just keep saying I'm the world's oldest Debonair pilot.

No. The world's oddest Debonair pilot.

Probably more than one of the locals would agree with that. :-))

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

Jose

Sport Pilot wrote:

I think you are mistaken there. Emissions are mesured in ppm, because
it's the only possible way, you can't collect the NOx from an exhaust
stream and put it on a scale.


Actually you can measure it in % of air. This is common when the
amount is greater than 10,000 ppm or so.

correct. That's what's used for CO and CO2, which are in that range.
NOx, HC and NMOG are measured in ppm.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:24:39 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

We will never "run out" of petroleum, it will just become so expensive that
we won't use it for fuel.

Well, the first part is certainly right.

Note that a good part of the runup in petroleum over the past five
years was due to the bear market in the dollar. If a dollar lost 30
percent against a basket of world currencies, then the income from a
$25 barrel of oil has dropped to an effective $17.50. To maintain the
same buying power outside the U.S., the petrocountries have to raise
the price by 43 percent, or to $37.50 (I'm doing this in my head, so
all figures are approximate).

And that's before China's and India's boom economies are factored into
the demand side. Thank God Europe and Japan are in the economic
toilet!

Some of this imbalance has now been corrected, of course. The dollar
today is about where it was a year ago, and that eventually means a
bit of relief for the (U.S.) fuel consumer.

I don't think though that we will soon stop using petroleum for fuel.
Rather, we are likely to see widespread use of gas-electric hybrids
and the widespread introduction of composite materials to make
lighter, stronger cars. No reason we couldn't see a 100 mpg hybrid by
2010.

We can use all those SUVs and pickups for landfill.





-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:48:57 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

Hydrogen is a joke.

Until it catches fire!

The Hindenberg was fueled with hydrogen. Not what I'd want my
granddaughter driving around with a tank-full of.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Cub Driver wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:48:57 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:


Hydrogen is a joke.


Until it catches fire!

The Hindenberg was fueled with hydrogen. Not what I'd want my
granddaughter driving around with a tank-full of.

The Hindenburg was LIFTED by Hydrogen, not fueled. (Hydrogen was used to
fill the hull, as NAZI-Germany could not get hold of helium). And it
suffered lightning stroke.

Actually, hydrogen is significantly less dangerous than gasoline vapour.
It will burn but it won't explode. And due to it's low weight it will
disperse very quickly when released, while other gases or vapours of
flammable stuff will accumulate on the ground.

That said, I don't see hydrogen as the fuel of the future. To many
problems attached, like low energy content, very hard to store, leakes
through about every containing material due to it's small molekules.
Once hydrogen is available from solar or nuclear energy, it's much more
feasible to use it to produce some sort of artifical fuel like methanol.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

Friedrich Ostertag wrote:
Cub Driver wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:48:57 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:


Hydrogen is a joke.


Until it catches fire!

The Hindenberg was fueled with hydrogen. Not what I'd want my
granddaughter driving around with a tank-full of.

The Hindenburg was LIFTED by Hydrogen, not fueled. (Hydrogen was used to
fill the hull, as NAZI-Germany could not get hold of helium). And it
suffered lightning stroke.

Actually, hydrogen is significantly less dangerous than gasoline vapour.
It will burn but it won't explode. And due to it's low weight it will
disperse very quickly when released, while other gases or vapours of
flammable stuff will accumulate on the ground.

That said, I don't see hydrogen as the fuel of the future. To many
problems attached, like low energy content, very hard to store, leakes
through about every containing material due to it's small molekules.
Once hydrogen is available from solar or nuclear energy, it's much more
feasible to use it to produce some sort of artifical fuel like methanol.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

The latest analysis of the Hindenburg disaster I read was that the
accident was not caused by leaking hydrogen. Rather it was the
unusually high nitrate in the dope and aluminum powder for the dope
pigment. If you look at the films the fabric is burning at a very high
rate, the hydogen cells ignite well behind the fabric.

Mike Rapoport wrote:
"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:

Basically I think that we should recognize that petroleum is a precious,

true

finite, non-renewable fuel.

um, not true. not non-renewable, it just takes a loooong time
;-)


I concede the point :-)


There is no
alternative for the forseeable future. Hydrogen is a joke.

eh? Hydrogen is awesome, it's plentiful. We already know how
to extract it from water.


It takes more energy to extract hydrogen from water then you get out of it.
Then there is the problem of storage. H2 and O2 is the most energetic
chemical reaction known (that is why it is used in the Shuttle), Do we
really want a kiloton worth of explosive energy scattered around numerous
sites in every city? It will also escape from anything except perfect
tanks. Other than those things, hydrogen is great. The practical reality
is that we will need huge amounts of nuclear energy to drive a H2 economy.

Mike
MU-2

Actually the reason hydrogen is used in space craft is its high energy
to weight ratio. It is not a very strong fuel per volume, that is why
more energetic fuels are used on the boosters and hydrogen is used on
the upper stages. Gasoline has a much higher energy per volume.