Avgas Where is the ceiling?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:38:12 -0400, "Juan Jimenez"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
roups.com...
There is no limit really. Name something else you can put in a tank and
burn that is less expensive. Alchohol? Biodiesel? Electric? Right now,
all of those are more. There is a pretty good chance it will go back
down, SOME. But I doubt we will ever see it under $2 again.

That's what they were saying in the 70's during the oil embargo... It will
come down.

This is a whole different set of conditions than what we saw in the
70's
..
Yes, the price will cycle through the seasons, but more than likely
the low is going to be at least $2.75 and more likely $3.00 with the
increasing demand. Remember that when inflation is taken into account
we are only paying a few % more than we were back in the early 70's.

*Only* and I emphasize "only", if we reduce the amount we use and keep
it there will prices come down. However it is in the best interests
of both the environmental and industrial groups to see the price go to
$3.50 and stay there. That is where alternative and environmentally
friendly fuels become economically competitive on a large, or nation
wide scale.

IF people would change their driving habits so they use 1/3 less fuel
we wouldn't even need to import the stuff to make gas for cars.
Currently, if I recall correctly, the overall MPG average is about
21. If the average were raised by 7 MPG we'd have reached that goal
and it could be done easily. IF people only used cars and trucks
(that includes pick-ups and SUVs) the size they *need* we'd be there.

*Most* people can cut their driving far more than they say they can.
They can car pool, and not make 5 trips a day into town for the kids
basket ball, base ball, hockey, soccer, dance, gymnastics and what
have you by planning.

BUT people are going to continue to drive monster trucks, SUVs and
Hummers because they want big and powerful even when they don't need
it. Unfortunately most of those driving the status symbols can afford
the higher prices. People are only going to cut back on their driving
where it is convenient. They aren't going to car pool, or set up
scheduling to get the kids to practice unless it is convenient, or
unless they are forced to do so by high prices or availability.

Back in the 70's we ended up with a very good start toward conserving
energy. Smaller cars (mostly imports to begin), car pooling, mass
transit were actually working, but then gas became plentiful and the
price went down and here we are.,

Taking inflation into account, the vast subsidies to industry and I
see gas prices cycling but with an ever increasing average.

I think Canada may be headed in the right direction with the Hemp
approach as it is far more energy efficient than producing alcohol
from corn. It costs considerably less to produce and makes about twice
as much alcohol. Sounds like a winner to me and currently most of my
farm is corn although I just rent it out.

What happens to gas prices if we have another hurricane season like
last year with the gulf and gulf coast getting badly beat up?
I'd bet that sooner or later they are going to have to move the
refineries that are now on the gulf coast to better locations. They
may have to move them just to keep them on the coast.

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


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 05:27:20 GMT,
wrote:


On 20-Apr-2006, "Doug" wrote:

There is no limit really. Name something else you can put in a tank and
burn that is less expensive. Alchohol? Biodiesel? Electric? Right now,
all of those are more. There is a pretty good chance it will go back
down, SOME. But I doubt we will ever see it under $2 again.


I doubt it, too. BUT, there are practical limits to prices for crude oil
and the distillates derived from it. One is the cost of producing
alternative sources of energy. If, instead of wasting hundreds of billions
of dollars in Iraq, we spent those sums on alternative energy R&D I am
convinced the US would gain energy independence within a decade.

The unique needs of aviation will continue to require high grade liquid
fuels (i.e. gasoline or kerosene). But many other applications, including

And that may shift to biodesiel for some. We are going to see the
demand for high grade avgas drop to the point where it will become
unavailable. Then we'll have to find gas without alcohol and
additives so we can burn it in the high compression engines.

ground transportation, could be met with such alternatives as hydrogen fuel

Hydrogen, when looked at on a large scale, makes all this other stuff
look cheap.

or ethanol. That would dramatically reduce demand for oil and bring
gasoline and kerosene prices down. Of course, such a situation will also go
a long ways toward averting a global warming catastrophe.

They are talking 5 to 9 degrees over the next century. If it goes to
5 or 6 degrees, it is going to drastically alter some coast lines and
economies. If it really does go to 9 degrees some one needs to read up
on the "Permian Extension" (SP?)

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



-Elliott Drucker

In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
in, save your ass, and go home.

If only that were true during all of our history, rather than the two World
Wars. Because Native Americans may tend to disagree with both your
statements:

Sorry. I should have specified that America hasn't conquered and
occupied territory in modern times.

Of course, "Native Americans" (whatever *that* is -- how does one
qualify as "native" nowadays?) currently have every opportunity that
the rest of us have, in this land of opportunity that they are wont to
call "theirs". In some important ways, they have *more* opportunities.
(Just ask what will happen to me if I, as a German-American, try to
open a casino inside my own hotel... :-)

As "conquered peoples" go, "Native Americans" have come out pretty
well. Certainly better than MY ancestors.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:59:33 GMT, ktbr wrote:

Matt Barrow wrote:
Last I heard, the US was a "democracy" (ie, representatives were elected),
so if there's a problem, thank your friednds and neighbors.

Actually, its supposed to be a representative republic not a true
deomocracy. But anyway, I'm not convinced that the average voter

Actually the US is a Republic that is governed as a representative
democracy.

today has necessary economic education to fully understand the issues

I would say, "most voters", not the average voter does not have either
the information or the ability to use it to the point of being able to
make an intelligent choice.

facing this country. An ever growing majority seem to be more
interested in how many entitlements some politician promises to
provide for them.

OTOH, both major parties here in the US keep putting up candidates
that no intelligent, informed voter could vote for and keep a clear
conscience.

The result being that both parties are becoming more polarized and
move farther apart which means the conditions are not likely to get
better any time soon.

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

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 14:59:44 GMT, ktbr wrote:

IS User wrote:
That's _make_, not pump and refine.

Eventually you will see more of this type of processing waste
into energy. But you must realize that it would take a massive

But this is a very limited resource.

contruction effort to build enough of these plants to make even
a small dent in the total oil needs of the United States.

By the time you have enough to make a small dent the raw materials
will become scarce and expensive.


There are infastructure issues to be dealt with as well such as
the collection and transportation of all of this waste to get
to these facilities. Thinking that "making" oil iright around
the corner and so there is no further need to explore and produce
additional oil reserves for the country's needs is pure ignorance.

Right around the corner works on this particular stuff, but not on a
wide scale as there just isn't enough to use on a large scale.

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

On 22-Apr-2006, Roger wrote:

We are going to see the
demand for high grade avgas drop to the point where it will become
unavailable. Then we'll have to find gas without alcohol and
additives so we can burn it in the high compression engines.


I think that there will still be enough demand for a suitable high octane
aviation gasoline that it will be made available -- at some price. The real
key is that Continental and Lycoming need to get to work on building engines
(and airframe manufacturers need to make fuel tanks and lines) that work
with premium mogas, including those with ethanol. Otherwise, the future for
light GA aircraft will be diesel


Hydrogen, when looked at on a large scale, makes all this other stuff
look cheap.

Depends on the original energy source. Right now, photovoltaic systems can
be constructed for about $1 per delivered watt, or $1 million per megawatt,
and prices are coming down. Vast photoelectric farms in the desert could
produce copious amounts of cheap, environmentally innocuous electricity.
But how to transform that electric energy to a form that can readily be used
for highway transportation? Hydrogen from water dissociation.


They are talking 5 to 9 degrees over the next century. If it goes to
5 or 6 degrees, it is going to drastically alter some coast lines and
economies. If it really does go to 9 degrees some one needs to read up
on the "Permian Extension" (SP?)

Yes, we simply have to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, the leading
source of the greenhouse gas CO2. Burning biodiesel and ethanol also
produces CO2, of course, but growing the chlorophyll-based plants from which
these fuels are derived absorbs as much CO2 as is produced when they are
burned. No net add of CO2 to the atmosphere. Hydrogen/water cycle
generates zero greenhouse gases or any other pollutant.

-Elliott Drucker

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:11:53 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

abroad, where else. better to destroy their country than mine.
but this doesn't solve the root cause why the war started.

complain to the people who started the war.

which country started the last significant war?

people, not country.

if you mean 9/11: this was a terrorist attack. simple as that, cruel and
not something to apologize. but this gave you (the USA as a nation) the
right to invade 2 sovereign nations?

Do you need it spelled out for you?

you should help out Spain to invade a sovereign country, too.

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html

On 22 Apr 2006 13:24:52 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

*pffffrt* but it is not english, either. And I'd bet they'd rather learn
German than English ...

In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
in, save your ass, and go home.

and this was related how to the above said?

Another thing you may not have noticed: Many in the U.S. would balk at
EVER raising arms to save the French...again.

IBTD. well, there will be _many_, I tend to agree there.

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html

On 22 Apr 2006 13:29:45 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

Give everybody his fair share? You're an idiot.

well, what are the alternatives? fighting those wars until some wacko hits
the red button and fires all those nukes (even firing one is enough)?
what's next? get a broader view, please.

The alternative is certainly not "giving everyone his fair
share"...whatever THAT is.

So, what ARE the altervnatives?

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
In case you haven't noticed, America doesn't conquer people. We come
in, save your ass, and go home.

If only that were true during all of our history, rather than the two
World
Wars. Because Native Americans may tend to disagree with both your
statements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Wars

And the U.S. took the area encompassing California and New Mexico as a
result of the Mexican-American war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_American_War

Likewise, Puerto Rico and the Philipines were territorial conquests
resulting from the Spanish-American war in which the U.S. "didn't go
home":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico

The U.S. did its best to not "go home" which was evident during the
Philipine-American war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipine-American_War

Lastly, the War of 1812 involved a failed attempt by the U.S. to take
Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasio...ada_%281812%29

Great tool, Wikipedia....make it up as you go along!! No credentials, just a
web browser....