Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

UA furlough numbers released

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
10, 20 30 years or whatever. Oil will run out. It is a finite resource.

Clean burning, safe, alternative energy is the answer. quote]

But yet you fly an airplane that burns about 1000 gallons an hour. You had better look in the mirror.
 
Why do people keep referring to nuclear as a way to reduce our dependence on oil?

Only 3 % of our electricity is produced by oil fired plants.

Should be 0% for sure, but nuclear, wind, solar ect.. will not reduce our dependence on oil. Try not to confuse the issue.

Heyas,

True, but I LOVE it when uninformed greenies start spouting off about the "hydrogen economy".

It usually starts off like this:

Them: We should mandate that cars run on hydrogen

Me: Ok, lets assume for a second all of the considerable engineering (IE cryo storage) and infrastructure (fueling stations) problems were solved tomorrow. Where do we get the hydrogen from?

Them: We get it from water! Duh!

Me: Any idea how much power that takes? And where do we get the power from?

Them: err, power plants.

Me: Any idea what those powerplants run on? Here's a guess...nuclear?

Them: AHHH! Nuclear is BAD!

Me: So what's left? Hmmm, I know, lets mine this magical black rock that seems to be in abundance and burn it.

Them: AHHH! That's coal! Thats BAD!

Me: OK, so what you're saying is that you just want to dig a hole in the ground, and have this magical liquid come bubbling up that has excellent thermodynamic characteristics due to a favorable, high energy molecular structure and is easy to handle, and we can all run our cars on it. Hmmm, I think I'll call your magic liquid "oil".

Them: Fcuk you!

Me: Yea, typical hippie. Instead of going out and learning chemistry, engineering, thermodynamics or, you know, anything that might actually help SOLVE the problem, you'd rather just get your smelly a$$ stoned and chant with you're hairy girlfriend. Now get your busted a$$ 1979 Honda off my lawn.


The moral of this story is that we obey the laws of theromodynamics on this planet. The juice HAS to come from somewhere, and chances are, it's GOING to be in your backyard.

Nu
 
10, 20 30 years or whatever. Oil will run out. It is a finite resource.

Clean burning, safe, alternative energy is the answer. quote]

But yet you fly an airplane that burns about 1000 gallons an hour. You had better look in the mirror.

I LOVE flying with people who say this.

"hmmmm, don't quite have the faith of your convictions there, huh greenie? Maybe instead of spreading CO2 and other hydrocarbon waste into the upper atmosphere you should be spending your days planting trees or something. Seems to me you're part of the problem".

Them: Fcuk you! I need to feed my family!

Me: Yup, and so do 6.3 BILLION other people. Go be a forest ranger or something, but stop hassling me about your environmental quackery.

Nu
 
I think the military can help the airlines quite a bit if they decide to push their own alternative fuels program faster. There is quite a bit of easily available coal that can be converted to a liquid jet fuel in mass quantities (like Germany did in WWII). It costs a lot to get the plants built and the process started (I believe the article I read said the government was paying well over $20 a gallon for their test fuels), but the price will come down well below current jet fuel once the plants are built and humming along. It may not be a "green" way of doing things, but it may be a way that the government could help to save the airlines by green lighting the military to use mostly alternate fuel ASAP and getting the FAA to green light the fuel for the airlines also. With demand comes the plants to supply it. Good luck United.
 
Yes, thanks for mentioning that. The airlines don't come CLOSE to the fuel usage that the Military uses. And much of that wasted. Practice refueling, filing up airplanes full and dumping what's not needed on fighter sorties, afterburning when not needed, long-haul flights just to fulfill "training requirements..." it goes on and on. Anybody who has a military background has seen unbelievable fuel waste.
 
I LOVE flying with people who say this.

"hmmmm, don't quite have the faith of your convictions there, huh greenie? Maybe instead of spreading CO2 and other hydrocarbon waste into the upper atmosphere you should be spending your days planting trees or something. Seems to me you're part of the problem".

Them: Fcuk you! I need to feed my family!

Me: Yup, and so do 6.3 BILLION other people. Go be a forest ranger or something, but stop hassling me about your environmental quackery.

Nu


If I quit flying my Airbus, then someone else would. It would make no difference. However, I can make choices that make a difference. From what car (if any) to buy, to recycling, to who I vote for. I find no hypocrisy in that. On a per-seat basis, it's more carbon friendly for me to fly 150 people from NY to CA than have then all drive.

Why don't you lock yourself in your garage with you car running and see what clean air means to you.
 
10, 20 30 years or whatever. Oil will run out. It is a finite resource.

Clean burning, safe, alternative energy is the answer. It is what environmentalists have been clamouring for how many years now? Yet Big Oil and Republican corruption have stifled numerous attempts to rid us of oil dependency. End of story.

You are incorrect. As I have already stated, the Governor of Montana has stated that they have 800 BILLION barrels worth of oil in the form of shale in Montana alone, and it can be produced into the liquid form for about $50 a barrel. We supposedly import 4 Billion barrels of oil a year, and the 800 billion in Montana alone could supply us for 200 years. The people who are against this right now are the oil companies. The Governor of Montana is for it. Do you know anyone else how uses shale for oil? Canada, right above Montana.....


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top