Aviation fuel - price of crude...

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:

Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.

Here we are... right back to my original post where I mentioned a couple
of
excellent ones. I'll list them and more he

1) Develop our energy reserves here on this continent. Liberals have
consistently blocked this effort thus prolonging the inevitable.

It has very little to do with liberals or conservatives. You seem to
believe that:
1) There is significant oil to be found in the US. This is not true.
2) It is the right of this generation to use all the natural resources on
the planet.
3) That all availible resources should be extracted to facilitate your (and
my) wasteful consumption.

3) Build some additional refining capacity. Higher prices are due to
higher
demand and he have not built a new refinery in some 30 years. Wait till
refineries switch to heating oil this winter and watch gas prices rise
further.

It is very expensive to add refining capacity. Consider that a refinery
takes at least a square mile of land on the coast at a major port. The
places that really need it (California) have very high real estate prices.
Current refining margins don't justify adding major capacity. Why don't you
invest in natural gas instead of complaining about the price of energy?
That is something YOU can do that will solve YOUR problem.

2) Enforce a consistent nationwide gasoline blend. Refineries have
to produce a multitude of blends for different parts of the country
which reduces production and delivery efficiency and availability and
increases costs.

They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different from that
in AZ.

4) Plan to build new nuclear power plants that can replace aging
(and in-efficient) fossil fuel plants. Technology marches on yet we
have done nothing in this area. All new (larger) Navy ships us
nuclear power these days and do it very well.

This I agree with, it makes very little sense to burn precious petroleum to
produce electricity.. There was recently a new permit application filed for
a nuclear plant. Hopefullt there will be more.

5) Offer significant (not paltry) tax incentives to people for adding
solar heating or power generation capability to their homes and
businesses.

Why should I (taxpayer) pay people to install inefficient systems? If the
systems really make economic sens, then people will install them without tax
incentives.

6) Reduce the burden of massive government regulations in the
auto industry (and other industries for that matter) so that prices
can be more affordable for cars using hybrid or electric power. When
the cost of these vehicles becomes equal to or less than gasoline
vehicles people will by them.

Why do you think that it is the government that is keeping all this from
happening. Don't you think that it might be YOU and I not buying efficient
cars? WE bought inefficient cars for the past 20yrs so the industry tooled
up to produce them.

WE are the problem, not the "government", not the liberals, not the
conservatives, not the enviornmentalists, not the oil companies and not the
auto companies.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:

Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.

Here we are... right back to my original post where I mentioned a couple
of
excellent ones. I'll list them and more he

1) Develop our energy reserves here on this continent. Liberals have
consistently blocked this effort thus prolonging the inevitable.

It has very little to do with liberals or conservatives. You seem to
believe that:
1) There is significant oil to be found in the US. This is not true.
2) It is the right of this generation to use all the natural resources on
the planet.
3) That all availible resources should be extracted to facilitate your (and
my) wasteful consumption.

3) Build some additional refining capacity. Higher prices are due to
higher
demand and he have not built a new refinery in some 30 years. Wait till
refineries switch to heating oil this winter and watch gas prices rise
further.

It is very expensive to add refining capacity. Consider that a refinery
takes at least a square mile of land on the coast at a major port. The
places that really need it (California) have very high real estate prices.
Current refining margins don't justify adding major capacity. Why don't you
invest in natural gas instead of complaining about the price of energy?
That is something YOU can do that will solve YOUR problem.

2) Enforce a consistent nationwide gasoline blend. Refineries have
to produce a multitude of blends for different parts of the country
which reduces production and delivery efficiency and availability and
increases costs.

They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different from that
in AZ.

4) Plan to build new nuclear power plants that can replace aging
(and in-efficient) fossil fuel plants. Technology marches on yet we
have done nothing in this area. All new (larger) Navy ships us
nuclear power these days and do it very well.

This I agree with, it makes very little sense to burn precious petroleum to
produce electricity.. There was recently a new permit application filed for
a nuclear plant. Hopefullt there will be more.

5) Offer significant (not paltry) tax incentives to people for adding
solar heating or power generation capability to their homes and
businesses.

Why should I (taxpayer) pay people to install inefficient systems? If the
systems really make economic sens, then people will install them without tax
incentives.

6) Reduce the burden of massive government regulations in the
auto industry (and other industries for that matter) so that prices
can be more affordable for cars using hybrid or electric power. When
the cost of these vehicles becomes equal to or less than gasoline
vehicles people will by them.

Why do you think that it is the government that is keeping all this from
happening. Don't you think that it might be YOU and I not buying efficient
cars? WE bought inefficient cars for the past 20yrs so the industry tooled
up to produce them.

WE are the problem, not the "government", not the liberals, not the
conservatives, not the enviornmentalists, not the oil companies and not the
auto companies.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

It has very little to do with liberals or conservatives. You seem to
believe that:
1) There is significant oil to be found in the US. This is not true.
There are considerable reserves sir. Not as much as in the middle east, but
considerable and they are doing no one any good sitting in the ground.
2) It is the right of this generation to use all the natural resources on
the planet.
All generations do what they need to do, both giving and taking.
3) That all availible resources should be extracted to facilitate your (and
my) wasteful consumption.
Speak for yourself!!!! I DO NOT WASTE. Maybe YOU do, buty I don't and I
resent your insinuating that I do. get a life.




It is very expensive to add refining capacity. Consider that a refinery
takes at least a square mile of land on the coast at a major port. The
places that really need it (California) have very high real estate prices.
Current refining margins don't justify adding major capacity. Why don't you
invest in natural gas instead of complaining about the price of energy?
That is something YOU can do that will solve YOUR problem.

So What??? its expensive to do ANYTHING in this world today. Flying is
expensive... that means we all should not do it? Thank you Mr. Negative.


They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different from that
in AZ.
and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all money and wasted
time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.



This I agree with, it makes very little sense to burn precious petroleum to
produce electricity.. There was recently a new permit application filed for
a nuclear plant. Hopefullt there will be more.

Well... finally *something* Mr. Negative agrees with.
------
Snip the rest because its alll the same BS....
----

WE are the problem, not the "government", not the liberals, not the
conservatives, not the enviornmentalists, not the oil companies and not the
auto companies.

Maybe YOU are the problem sir, but *I* am not. Again, please speak for yourself.
I am sorry that you have such an inferiority complex, but I am a net producer
and contributor to this economy and I am *not* the problem.

Mike Rapoport wrote:

It has very little to do with liberals or conservatives. You seem to
believe that:
1) There is significant oil to be found in the US. This is not true.
There are considerable reserves sir. Not as much as in the middle east, but
considerable and they are doing no one any good sitting in the ground.
2) It is the right of this generation to use all the natural resources on
the planet.
All generations do what they need to do, both giving and taking.
3) That all availible resources should be extracted to facilitate your (and
my) wasteful consumption.
Speak for yourself!!!! I DO NOT WASTE. Maybe YOU do, buty I don't and I
resent your insinuating that I do. get a life.




It is very expensive to add refining capacity. Consider that a refinery
takes at least a square mile of land on the coast at a major port. The
places that really need it (California) have very high real estate prices.
Current refining margins don't justify adding major capacity. Why don't you
invest in natural gas instead of complaining about the price of energy?
That is something YOU can do that will solve YOUR problem.

So What??? its expensive to do ANYTHING in this world today. Flying is
expensive... that means we all should not do it? Thank you Mr. Negative.


They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different from that
in AZ.
and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all money and wasted
time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.



This I agree with, it makes very little sense to burn precious petroleum to
produce electricity.. There was recently a new permit application filed for
a nuclear plant. Hopefullt there will be more.

Well... finally *something* Mr. Negative agrees with.
------
Snip the rest because its alll the same BS....
----

WE are the problem, not the "government", not the liberals, not the
conservatives, not the enviornmentalists, not the oil companies and not the
auto companies.

Maybe YOU are the problem sir, but *I* am not. Again, please speak for yourself.
I am sorry that you have such an inferiority complex, but I am a net producer
and contributor to this economy and I am *not* the problem.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at
Europe-
I don't want that to be the future of GA.


Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.

Over the next five years? Mogas. We've gotta get off the 100LL before it
kills us. Many engines can run it already and higher-performance ones ought
to be able to with things like the PRISM ignition systems.

Next decade? Diesel/Jet-A engines. Higher efficiency and longer life, and
with increased production volume costs ought to come down. I don't know that
I'd buy a new plane right now that relies on a fuel whose supply is unclear.

Beyond that, hydrogen may become practical- checkout www.safehydrogen.com
for one of a thousand little companies trying to turn it into a practical
power source for vehicles. Weight being a much bigger issue for airplanes
than for cars, we may see anti-gravity vehicles before we see non-Fossil
Fuel burning aircraft. Of course, if we can stop using FF everywhere they're
not absolutely needed, we may be able to make do with what we have, or even
switch to biodiesel.

It is of course likely still that costs will go up. At least we won't be as
regulated as in Europe, and we will on average have higher incomes to afford
it. But much like the dying days of the Old West, it seems like the glory
days of GA lie behind us, and our best hope of keeping flying accessible to
a maximum number of people will in fact be LSAs, in other words, the
European solution.

Best,
-cwk.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at
Europe-
I don't want that to be the future of GA.


Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.

Over the next five years? Mogas. We've gotta get off the 100LL before it
kills us. Many engines can run it already and higher-performance ones ought
to be able to with things like the PRISM ignition systems.

Next decade? Diesel/Jet-A engines. Higher efficiency and longer life, and
with increased production volume costs ought to come down. I don't know that
I'd buy a new plane right now that relies on a fuel whose supply is unclear.

Beyond that, hydrogen may become practical- checkout www.safehydrogen.com
for one of a thousand little companies trying to turn it into a practical
power source for vehicles. Weight being a much bigger issue for airplanes
than for cars, we may see anti-gravity vehicles before we see non-Fossil
Fuel burning aircraft. Of course, if we can stop using FF everywhere they're
not absolutely needed, we may be able to make do with what we have, or even
switch to biodiesel.

It is of course likely still that costs will go up. At least we won't be as
regulated as in Europe, and we will on average have higher incomes to afford
it. But much like the dying days of the Old West, it seems like the glory
days of GA lie behind us, and our best hope of keeping flying accessible to
a maximum number of people will in fact be LSAs, in other words, the
European solution.

Best,
-cwk.

Easy to say "I'm not the problem, everybody else is" but in your previous
posts you demonstrated a lack of understanding of the whole energy issue.
Placing the blame on "Liberals and Enviornmentalists" is simply ignorant.
The problem is that WE are consuming fossil fuels at a rate 400 times
greater than they are being replaced. The current energy price increase is
a function of rapidly rising demand for a finite, non-renewable commodity at
the same time that production of that commodity is peaking. It is also
partly a function of the declining dollar which is loosing its status as the
worlds reserve currency (the price of oil denominated in gold has not risen
nearly as much as in dollars). Consider that, until recently, only a small
(well under 20%) of the world population used much energy. Now that other
80% is going to use much more (multiples of their prior use) as they
industrialize. There is no way that any solution based on drilling for more
oil is going to keep the price down where it has been over the past two
decades. On one hand we have a huge increase in the rate of growth in
demand and on the other, all the wells drilled over the past 100yrs are
declining. To keep prices where they have been (lets say under $40/bbl) oil
production need to at least double in the next 20yrs and probably quadruple.
That is not going to happen.

Rising prices will keep the supply/demand in balance by reducing demand and
increasing supply but the world is going to have to live with the higher
prices. We could have made things easier on ourselves but we didn't. We
could have built a society where people live closer to where they work, and
make more efficient use of energy for both transportation and
heating/cooling. This would have also forestalled the rise in energy prices
by significantly lowering demand. We chose not to do these things and so we
are where we are today. This is not a judgement just a fact.

The real issue is how should we react to the situation. Should we extract
and consume the remaining resources as fast as possible so that we can avoid
changing our habits for a few decades? Or should we achknowledge that price
of energy will rise so that new sources become economically and technically
viable? In the meantime we will react to the higher prices by becoming more
efficient.

Mike
MU-2

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:

It has very little to do with liberals or conservatives. You seem to
believe that:
1) There is significant oil to be found in the US. This is not true.
There are considerable reserves sir. Not as much as in the middle east,
but
considerable and they are doing no one any good sitting in the ground.
2) It is the right of this generation to use all the natural resources on
the planet.
All generations do what they need to do, both giving and taking.
3) That all availible resources should be extracted to facilitate your
(and my) wasteful consumption.
Speak for yourself!!!! I DO NOT WASTE. Maybe YOU do, buty I don't and I
resent your insinuating that I do. get a life.




It is very expensive to add refining capacity. Consider that a refinery
takes at least a square mile of land on the coast at a major port. The
places that really need it (California) have very high real estate
prices. Current refining margins don't justify adding major capacity.
Why don't you invest in natural gas instead of complaining about the
price of energy? That is something YOU can do that will solve YOUR
problem.

So What??? its expensive to do ANYTHING in this world today. Flying is
expensive... that means we all should not do it? Thank you Mr. Negative.


They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different from
that in AZ.
and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all
money and wasted
time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.



This I agree with, it makes very little sense to burn precious petroleum
to produce electricity.. There was recently a new permit application
filed for a nuclear plant. Hopefullt there will be more.

Well... finally *something* Mr. Negative agrees with.
------
Snip the rest because its alll the same BS....
----

WE are the problem, not the "government", not the liberals, not the
conservatives, not the enviornmentalists, not the oil companies and not
the auto companies.
Maybe YOU are the problem sir, but *I* am not. Again, please speak for
yourself.
I am sorry that you have such an inferiority complex, but I am a net
producer
and contributor to this economy and I am *not* the problem.

Easy to say "I'm not the problem, everybody else is" but in your previous
posts you demonstrated a lack of understanding of the whole energy issue.
Placing the blame on "Liberals and Enviornmentalists" is simply ignorant.
The problem is that WE are consuming fossil fuels at a rate 400 times
greater than they are being replaced. The current energy price increase is
a function of rapidly rising demand for a finite, non-renewable commodity at
the same time that production of that commodity is peaking. It is also
partly a function of the declining dollar which is loosing its status as the
worlds reserve currency (the price of oil denominated in gold has not risen
nearly as much as in dollars). Consider that, until recently, only a small
(well under 20%) of the world population used much energy. Now that other
80% is going to use much more (multiples of their prior use) as they
industrialize. There is no way that any solution based on drilling for more
oil is going to keep the price down where it has been over the past two
decades. On one hand we have a huge increase in the rate of growth in
demand and on the other, all the wells drilled over the past 100yrs are
declining. To keep prices where they have been (lets say under $40/bbl) oil
production need to at least double in the next 20yrs and probably quadruple.
That is not going to happen.

Rising prices will keep the supply/demand in balance by reducing demand and
increasing supply but the world is going to have to live with the higher
prices. We could have made things easier on ourselves but we didn't. We
could have built a society where people live closer to where they work, and
make more efficient use of energy for both transportation and
heating/cooling. This would have also forestalled the rise in energy prices
by significantly lowering demand. We chose not to do these things and so we
are where we are today. This is not a judgement just a fact.

The real issue is how should we react to the situation. Should we extract
and consume the remaining resources as fast as possible so that we can avoid
changing our habits for a few decades? Or should we achknowledge that price
of energy will rise so that new sources become economically and technically
viable? In the meantime we will react to the higher prices by becoming more
efficient.

Mike
MU-2

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:

It has very little to do with liberals or conservatives. You seem to
believe that:
1) There is significant oil to be found in the US. This is not true.
There are considerable reserves sir. Not as much as in the middle east,
but
considerable and they are doing no one any good sitting in the ground.
2) It is the right of this generation to use all the natural resources on
the planet.
All generations do what they need to do, both giving and taking.
3) That all availible resources should be extracted to facilitate your
(and my) wasteful consumption.
Speak for yourself!!!! I DO NOT WASTE. Maybe YOU do, buty I don't and I
resent your insinuating that I do. get a life.




It is very expensive to add refining capacity. Consider that a refinery
takes at least a square mile of land on the coast at a major port. The
places that really need it (California) have very high real estate
prices. Current refining margins don't justify adding major capacity.
Why don't you invest in natural gas instead of complaining about the
price of energy? That is something YOU can do that will solve YOUR
problem.

So What??? its expensive to do ANYTHING in this world today. Flying is
expensive... that means we all should not do it? Thank you Mr. Negative.


They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different from
that in AZ.
and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all
money and wasted
time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.



This I agree with, it makes very little sense to burn precious petroleum
to produce electricity.. There was recently a new permit application
filed for a nuclear plant. Hopefullt there will be more.

Well... finally *something* Mr. Negative agrees with.
------
Snip the rest because its alll the same BS....
----

WE are the problem, not the "government", not the liberals, not the
conservatives, not the enviornmentalists, not the oil companies and not
the auto companies.
Maybe YOU are the problem sir, but *I* am not. Again, please speak for
yourself.
I am sorry that you have such an inferiority complex, but I am a net
producer
and contributor to this economy and I am *not* the problem.

I think that you are seeing the future clearly.

Mike
MU-2


"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
.net...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at
Europe-
I don't want that to be the future of GA.


Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.

Over the next five years? Mogas. We've gotta get off the 100LL before it
kills us. Many engines can run it already and higher-performance ones
ought
to be able to with things like the PRISM ignition systems.

Next decade? Diesel/Jet-A engines. Higher efficiency and longer life, and
with increased production volume costs ought to come down. I don't know
that
I'd buy a new plane right now that relies on a fuel whose supply is
unclear.

Beyond that, hydrogen may become practical- checkout www.safehydrogen.com
for one of a thousand little companies trying to turn it into a practical
power source for vehicles. Weight being a much bigger issue for airplanes
than for cars, we may see anti-gravity vehicles before we see non-Fossil
Fuel burning aircraft. Of course, if we can stop using FF everywhere
they're
not absolutely needed, we may be able to make do with what we have, or
even
switch to biodiesel.

It is of course likely still that costs will go up. At least we won't be
as
regulated as in Europe, and we will on average have higher incomes to
afford
it. But much like the dying days of the Old West, it seems like the glory
days of GA lie behind us, and our best hope of keeping flying accessible
to
a maximum number of people will in fact be LSAs, in other words, the
European solution.

Best,
-cwk.

I think that you are seeing the future clearly.

Mike
MU-2


"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
.net...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at
Europe-
I don't want that to be the future of GA.


Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.

Over the next five years? Mogas. We've gotta get off the 100LL before it
kills us. Many engines can run it already and higher-performance ones
ought
to be able to with things like the PRISM ignition systems.

Next decade? Diesel/Jet-A engines. Higher efficiency and longer life, and
with increased production volume costs ought to come down. I don't know
that
I'd buy a new plane right now that relies on a fuel whose supply is
unclear.

Beyond that, hydrogen may become practical- checkout www.safehydrogen.com
for one of a thousand little companies trying to turn it into a practical
power source for vehicles. Weight being a much bigger issue for airplanes
than for cars, we may see anti-gravity vehicles before we see non-Fossil
Fuel burning aircraft. Of course, if we can stop using FF everywhere
they're
not absolutely needed, we may be able to make do with what we have, or
even
switch to biodiesel.

It is of course likely still that costs will go up. At least we won't be
as
regulated as in Europe, and we will on average have higher incomes to
afford
it. But much like the dying days of the Old West, it seems like the glory
days of GA lie behind us, and our best hope of keeping flying accessible
to
a maximum number of people will in fact be LSAs, in other words, the
European solution.

Best,
-cwk.