Avgas Where is the ceiling?

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-04-24, Roger wrote:
both with the latter being the most likely. I think though that the
bio fuels will probably outdo the Hydrogen overall in the big
picture.. It's easier to increase trucking incrementally than it is to
increase the power grid.

I think a lot of the hydrogen advocates are missing the massive change
to infrastructure needed - we would need:

- new cars

Average turnover is five years.

- new filling stations

Like when we went to unleaded from Regular and "Hi Test"?

- new transport
- new ways of storage (I'm sure keeping hydrogen as a cryogenic liquid
is just not gonna work for everyday cars and trucks)

Like when we went from coal to whale oil to petro-based oils...?


For biodiesels (some forms of algae can be used to make 10,000 US
gallons of biofuel per acre, and it can be done in a more closed system
to keep evaporation of water losses to a minimum) you don't need to
change the infrastructure. Biodiesel will work in existing diesel trucks
and cars, and the same filling stations can be used, and the same
tankers can be used as is for conventional dino-diesel.

Isn't it great, the inventiveness and creativity of the unfettered human
mind?

Of course, the problem to be solved is that it might be Halliburton that
comes up with the solution. Can't have that now, right?

Also, whoever solves the problem will become fabulously rich and foster
untold envy.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Now, do I really think that this guy EARNED that much money? Nope --
not by a long shot.

He charged what the market would bear for his services -- that's how the
free market worked

For HIM it's a "free market' -- but the health care market is far from
free.

In a true free market, a department head wouldn't be paid such an
exorbitant sum. Our health care "system" (really a giant, entangled
mess of regulations and interlinked government programs) has distorted
the market to the point where this guy is paid primarily to fleece the
system -- not to help provide health care.

To truly appreciate how f*cked up our health care system is, you need
to note: The hospital this doctor works for is a NON-PROFIT
organization.

Think about it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Roger writes:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:53:00 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

"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:

Although that is the politically correct term there is no such thing
as Native Americans. Those called that merely got here before we did
although that does nothing to the fact that we took the land away from
them by armed force.

Well, "Indians" sure isn't a sensible term for them!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

Bob Noel writes:

In article ,
Roger wrote:

Although that is the politically correct term there is no such thing
as Native Americans. Those called that merely got here before we did
although that does nothing to the fact that we took the land away from
them by armed force.

But who is this "we"? I'm part Sioux. Does this mean I took land away
from myself?

Quite possibly; or at least from other tribes. I know the Lakota were
relative newcomers in this part of the country when we came along and
displaced them.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"Matt Barrow" writes:

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-04-24, Roger wrote:
both with the latter being the most likely. I think though that the
bio fuels will probably outdo the Hydrogen overall in the big
picture.. It's easier to increase trucking incrementally than it is to
increase the power grid.

I think a lot of the hydrogen advocates are missing the massive change
to infrastructure needed - we would need:

- new cars

Average turnover is five years.

Maybe, but those 5-year-old cars aren't junked, they're bought and
driven for another 5 years by less wealthy people.

- new filling stations

Like when we went to unleaded from Regular and "Hi Test"?

No; hydrogen gas takes very different handling than gasoline, whereas
leaded gas could go through the same pumps just fine (we decided to
make them change the nozzles to prevent mistakes that would ruin the
catalytic converters).

- new transport
- new ways of storage (I'm sure keeping hydrogen as a cryogenic liquid
is just not gonna work for everyday cars and trucks)

Like when we went from coal to whale oil to petro-based oils...?

I don't think whale oil replaced coal for much of anything.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

But who is this "we"? I'm part Sioux. Does this mean I took land away
from myself?

Quite possibly; or at least from other tribes. I know the Lakota were
relative newcomers in this part of the country when we came along and
displaced them.

well, actually, no. Not one person alive today took land belonging
to any "native american" alive today.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" writes:

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-04-24, Roger wrote:
both with the latter being the most likely. I think though that the
bio fuels will probably outdo the Hydrogen overall in the big
picture.. It's easier to increase trucking incrementally than it is to
increase the power grid.

I think a lot of the hydrogen advocates are missing the massive change
to infrastructure needed - we would need:

- new cars

Average turnover is five years.

Maybe, but those 5-year-old cars aren't junked, they're bought and
driven for another 5 years by less wealthy people.

Yes...so? The point is for the majority of vehicles, not a complete purging
of the inventory.



- new filling stations

Like when we went to unleaded from Regular and "Hi Test"?

No; hydrogen gas takes very different handling than gasoline, whereas
leaded gas could go through the same pumps just fine (we decided to
make them change the nozzles to prevent mistakes that would ruin the
catalytic converters).

Wanna guess how many filling stations add that capability (especially when
it becomes pretty much mandatory) versus how many are built from scratch?


- new transport
- new ways of storage (I'm sure keeping hydrogen as a cryogenic liquid
is just not gonna work for everyday cars and trucks)

Like when we went from coal to whale oil to petro-based oils...?

I don't think whale oil replaced coal for much of anything.

Wow! Trivia pursuit champion.

Now try "Innovation Therapy".

Oh, hell...keep your high gas prices and stunted economies heading for the
trash bin...

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
Roger writes:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 22:53:00 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

"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:

Although that is the politically correct term there is no such thing
as Native Americans. Those called that merely got here before we did
although that does nothing to the fact that we took the land away from
them by armed force.

Well, "Indians" sure isn't a sensible term for them!

They haven't been called "Indians" since John Wayne movies.

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
Bob Noel writes:

In article ,
Roger wrote:

Although that is the politically correct term there is no such thing
as Native Americans. Those called that merely got here before we did
although that does nothing to the fact that we took the land away from
them by armed force.

But who is this "we"? I'm part Sioux. Does this mean I took land away
from myself?

Quite possibly; or at least from other tribes. I know the Lakota were
relative newcomers in this part of the country when we came along and
displaced them.

Who did they (the Lakota) displace?

Matt Barrow wrote:


Well, "Indians" sure isn't a sensible term for them!


They haven't been called "Indians" since John Wayne movies.

They are Indians today. They call themselves that. What's the problem?