A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Powell on the National Guard



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old February 23rd 04, 01:12 AM
Kenneth Chiu
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Pete wrote:

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Leslie Swartz wrote:
Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh
gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the

"top
off" electricity to the vehicle


You mean like the Toyota Prius? The mileage figures include the
gas required to generate the electricity.


The comparisons are even worse that that.

The extra price with hybrids makes up for a LOT of gas.

Using figures from edmunds.com:
A Honda Hybrid retails for $20,650, a regular LX Sedan for $16,160

highway mileage:
Hybrid = 47, Sedan = 38.

At $1.60 for gas, that extra $4000+ buys 1/2 million miles of gas at the
9mpg difference.
Even at $2.50/gal, it doesn't equal out til 300,000+ miles.

Using City mileage figures, it evens out at 200,000 miles.

Now...factor in the fuel and chemicals used to make that bigass battery
pack.
Now...factor in the maintenance and environmental price for the expected
battery replacement/disposal at 100-150,000 miles.

Is the Hybrid 'better'? Yes, if gas mileage is the only factor you're
looking at.


I'm only pointing out that _if_ the OP is talking about cars
like the Prius, he is mistaken if he thinks the mileage
figures do not include the gas to generate the electricity.
  #62  
Old February 23rd 04, 02:50 AM
Leslie Swartz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hey Kenneth:

That's a moot point. You only includes the gas burned by the *onboard* ICE.
I specifically said "topoff electricity" which most certainly is NOT
included in the mpg figure. The mpg figure is worthless anyhow, as others
pointed out. The energy required to *make* the vehicle and vehicle systems
above and beyond a comparable vehicle (delta energy, not net energy) makes
the Prius a loser.

OBTW, if you are comparing the price of the Prius to the LX sedan, try
$37,000+ which is the true price of the Prius (before the jackbooted thugs
et al subsidize the vehicle at someone else's expense).

Steve Swartz


"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Pete wrote:

"Kenneth Chiu" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Leslie Swartz wrote:
Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh
gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get

the
"top
off" electricity to the vehicle

You mean like the Toyota Prius? The mileage figures include the
gas required to generate the electricity.


The comparisons are even worse that that.

The extra price with hybrids makes up for a LOT of gas.

Using figures from edmunds.com:
A Honda Hybrid retails for $20,650, a regular LX Sedan for $16,160

highway mileage:
Hybrid = 47, Sedan = 38.

At $1.60 for gas, that extra $4000+ buys 1/2 million miles of gas at the
9mpg difference.
Even at $2.50/gal, it doesn't equal out til 300,000+ miles.

Using City mileage figures, it evens out at 200,000 miles.

Now...factor in the fuel and chemicals used to make that bigass battery
pack.
Now...factor in the maintenance and environmental price for the expected
battery replacement/disposal at 100-150,000 miles.

Is the Hybrid 'better'? Yes, if gas mileage is the only factor you're
looking at.


I'm only pointing out that _if_ the OP is talking about cars
like the Prius, he is mistaken if he thinks the mileage
figures do not include the gas to generate the electricity.



  #63  
Old February 23rd 04, 02:56 AM
Leslie Swartz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Glad to see you gave up on characterizing the Moon as a "worthless" trip.

Now- would you be willing to let your tax dollars go to Big Oil to help
payoff the startup costs of private-sector harvesting of lunar He3?

How about tax dollars to develop the technology (not invent the process, but
develop the existing technology) for He-3 fusion reactors here on earth?

The alternative is to wait until this becomes economically feasible, and
rely on the private sector 100% for start-up capital.

Remember, that won't happen until the oil begins to run out . . . if you
want to support the cleanest, most abundant source of energy for the future,
you must either cough up the tax dollars or go buy the biggest SUV you can
find.

Steve Swartz

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:MM7_b.9908$Ru5.9336@okepread03...
"George Z. Bush" wrote

...and if the stuff is made of surplus corn not otherwise needed to

nourish
human beings,


Whoa now!

This isn't surplus corn. The corn is a contract to the government. The

farmers
sell it to the buyer, and the buyer sells it to the distiller. The

buyer and
the
distiller are then subsidized by Congress. There is no Capitalism

involved.

Hold it just a minute, please. You lost me there. I know you'll

straighten me
out if I have it wrong, but I thought that the way it worked was that the
government established a production level for corn and, for whatever

amount
above that level that was produced, the government bought it up at a set

price
in order to keep it off the market, thereby maintaining the price on corn

at a
level that would keep the farmers economically viable.

I thought that the stuff the government bought and kept in silos against

the day
when the annual supply might drop below the level needed to satisfy demand
without resulting in raised prices is what I called surplus. That corn

was
bought and paid for by the taxpayer and intentionally withhelf drom the

market
against the day when what was produced wouldn't be enough to satisfy

public
demand.

I think one of us must have the process wrong.

This may answer your other questions. The cost of manufacturing Ethanol

is
wired-in to the taxes you pay to the Revenue Service. The Revenue

Service
puts it in the general fund, and no accountant on Earth can decode it

for at
least 10 years, in which case a completely different administration is

in
power, and the previous ones are millionairs on retirement.


Here, too, I think it works another way. I thought that the way it worked

was
that the government owned corn was sold to a distiller for a mutually

agreed
upon price and, from that point on, the corn was in the capitalist system
pipeline. It belonged to the distiller, who processed it into ethanol,

did his
cost accounting to establish his costs, and distributed it into the

gasoline
distribution net to be retailed, presumably at a profit of some sort at

every
level where it was handled before it ended up in somebody's gas tank. Not

so?

Bottom line, oil is in depletion until alternatives (Capitalist ones)

reach
the
break-even price, and then oil reserves (while still in depletion) will

last
for
centuries longer. Conservation is one-half of the equation, if you want

to
play with that equation. Many of us want our Revenue spent on an
alternative engine, or an alternative fuel, and not get Ethanol and a

God
Damned trip to Mars for no purpose.

It may come as a shock to you, but here I agree with you, from top to

bottom.
There's a helluva lot more we can do with our money, much less than that

we'd
have to borrow from banks, than to pour it into a relatively useless trip

to
Mars at our expense while we have so many unfulfilled needs in our own

country.
First things ought to come first, and Mars will be near the bottom of the

list,
where it belongs.

George Z.




  #64  
Old February 23rd 04, 04:39 AM
D. Strang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"George Z. Bush" wrote

Hold it just a minute, please. You lost me there. I know you'll straighten me
out if I have it wrong, but I thought that the way it worked was that the
government established a production level for corn...


It's way more complicated than that, and not really worth the energy to type my
reply. Here's a funnier scam:

"Dealing with California's water shortage can be solved by growing more orange
trees in the desert and then distilling the water out of the orange juice."

First we need a tax incentive to the farmers, and then the middlemen, and then
we will be water independent. We won't even need snow anymore...


  #65  
Old February 23rd 04, 06:54 AM
George Z. Bush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:BBe_b.9947$Ru5.7935@okepread03...
"George Z. Bush" wrote

Hold it just a minute, please. You lost me there. I know you'll straighten

me
out if I have it wrong, but I thought that the way it worked was that the
government established a production level for corn...


It's way more complicated than that, and not really worth the energy to type

my
reply. Here's a funnier scam:

"Dealing with California's water shortage can be solved by growing more orange
trees in the desert and then distilling the water out of the orange juice."

First we need a tax incentive to the farmers, and then the middlemen, and then
we will be water independent. We won't even need snow anymore...


OK! OK! The horse is obviously dead, so we can stop kicking it. Thanks for
your water shortage cure.....imaginative as well as amusing. (*-*)))

George Z.




  #66  
Old February 23rd 04, 11:38 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


One of the Wall Street Journa'ls pet peeves is corporate welfare for
Archer Daniels Midland through the ethanol subsidies. That ought to
tell you something.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #67  
Old February 23rd 04, 11:39 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


First we need a tax incentive to the farmers, and then the middlemen, and then
we will be water independent. We won't even need snow anymore...


Unfortunately, you'll have to subsidize snowmaking for the ski resorts
in that case.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #68  
Old February 23rd 04, 11:42 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh
gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the "top
off" electricity to the vehicle and the extra energy required to manufacture
the hybrid side of the vehicle in the first place. Well, o.k., the newest
hybrids are probably right at break even now.


I understand that the battery bank in the gas-electrics like the Civic
have to be replaced at five years, so that's a measure of what the
hybrid side costs. (The car itself is really rather inexpensive.)

Could it possibly be true that it's not worth doubling your gas
mileage for five years at the expense of a battery bank? (Perhaps it
is. Math was never my strong point.)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #69  
Old February 23rd 04, 11:47 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Yes we had barely enough. And it taxed the manpower. Now we
have that mission, Bosnia and Iraq. Plus a potential war with
China in the near future for control of the far East.


Well, we could shuck Bosnia any day. We don't have a dog in that
fight.

And we can't prepare for a war with China. We could not prevail in
such a war. In this respect, it is the United States that is the
second-rate nation. We must get along with China, and China to prosper
must get along with the U.S. Fortunately both countries seem to
understand that.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at
www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
  #70  
Old February 23rd 04, 03:52 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Yes we had barely enough. And it taxed the manpower. Now we
have that mission, Bosnia and Iraq. Plus a potential war with
China in the near future for control of the far East.


Well, we could shuck Bosnia any day. We don't have a dog in that
fight.

And we can't prepare for a war with China. We could not prevail in
such a war.


Really? While I agree the likelihood of such a conflict is not that great at
present (provided the PRC does not go stupid over Taiwan), I don't really
see how we "could not prevail" in a military conflict with the PRC. It is
not as if prevailing requires us to to put boots-on-the-ground in Beijing.
The PRC is quickly growing to rather like its foreign trade, and its people
are becoming more and more enamored of materialistic possessions. Turning
off their power grid, chunking up their communications systems, and denying
them any viable foreign trade (i.e., naval blockade) would seem to offer a
reasonable chance for us to "prevail" against them. I don't think the PRC
cares to risk finding out the hard way.

In this respect, it is the United States that is the
second-rate nation.


I don't think so. Remaining bound to the Lanchesterian attrition model is
not a very good basis for assessing the capabilities of the modern US
military. China's PLA indeed has oodles of men with rifles; unfortunately,
it has yet to demonstrate a keen ability to operate as an effective joint
combat force, their PLAAF (despite its gain of some Su-27 and Su-30 mounts)
is nowhere near being able to confidently confront US airpower, they are
newcomers to the field of using space operations as a source of leverage in
military operations, and their PLAN would provide little more than target
practice for the USN.

We must get along with China, and China to prosper
must get along with the U.S. Fortunately both countries seem to
understand that.


I like the view posited by some national security wonk a couple of years
back: he described our strategy vis a vis the PRC as "congagement", with us
both containing and engaging the PRC. Engagement generally seems to be
working, but if the PRC *really* thought that the US could not confront them
militarily all bets would be off and they'd be a lot more antagonistic to
their neighbors.

Brooks


all the best -- Dan Ford



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN ChuckSlusarczyk Home Built 105 October 8th 04 12:38 AM
Bush's guard record JDKAHN Home Built 13 October 3rd 04 09:38 PM
GWB and the Air Guard JD Military Aviation 77 March 17th 04 11:52 AM
Colin Powell on National Guard ArtKramr Military Aviation 12 February 23rd 04 02:26 AM
bush rules! Be Kind Military Aviation 53 February 14th 04 05:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.