Environmental Issues and our Airplanes

One common thing I have found with most RV owners and builders is an interest in recycling, economy, and environmental respsonsibility. I have spoken with several of my neighbors in regard to feeling some guilt about burning up hundreds of gallons of fossil fuels a year with our machines just for the fun of it. It is very arguable that for a "real" trip, there is nothing more efficient from point a to b than an RV. It is also arguable that the total environmental "footprint" we as a group are is small related to the overall polution problem.
I would like to hear from others on this topic and how they feel about their responsibility, technologies now, or up and coming, that can improve our machines signature on the environment, and any other issues or comments related to this topic.

You can always burn ethanol like these guys - or make up for it in other ways like putting solar or wind power on your house. I've got 3 kilowatts of solar on the roof - my electric meter is running backwards right now and my summer monthly electric bill is around $5...

Where?

Hi Kai,
Very interesting get together. Any idea where/when it was? Are they running Lyco's?

Pierre

If this is the same group that I am thinking about, they are a group of RV flyers out of the Dakotas (not sure if South or North). I saw the group last year at Oshkosh.

Ethanol powered RV 3's

Here's the link:

http://www.ethanolairshows.com/index.html

Pierre

pierre smith said:

Hi Kai,
Very interesting get together. Any idea where/when it was? Are they running Lyco's?

Pierre

Click to expand...

Off the shelf Lyco's - just jetted differently for the fuel. Simple modification really. Hey - if Indy cars can run on the stuff at the extreme end of their power band, why not us?

Rubber o-rings

Kai,
As I recall, this issue has been discussed and it seems that Methanol will ruin some rubber gaskets/ o-rings, etc, so there may be a lot more modifying than just re-jetting.

Regards,
Pierre

I am not a fan of ethanol.

It raised the cost of my Captain Morgan's!

CJ

It's raised the cost of a lot for a minimal gain.

The latest news reports indicate it has raised the price of beef, corn, grain, and, horror of horrors..especially....
BEER..
I like to do my part with my 50mpg VW diesel and keep cheap beer..

pierre smith said:

Kai,
As I recall, this issue has been discussed and it seems that Methanol will ruin some rubber gaskets/ o-rings, etc, so there may be a lot more modifying than just re-jetting.

Regards,
Pierre

Click to expand...

Methanol has an unfortunate appetite for aluminum as well unless it's anodized.
Wonderful race fuel but you'll need to carry nearly twice as much for a given mission. Also hard to get engines started on straight methanol when temps get below 40F or so.

Methanol/Ethanol

Some might be confused - these are two different types of alcohol. Ethanol is what is made from corn and is in your whiskey. Methanol is used in race cars, and wouldn't be advisable to drink as you would croak. The RV's that fly on ethanol burn quite a few more gph than with avgas, as do the E85 cars showing up nowadays.

There is not room on VAF's servers to really have a discussion about the merits of ethanol in the big scheme of energy and alternative energy.

The original poster of this thread asked a question, and I'll give my two cents' worth. I would think that any true believer in the doctrine of only using the energy that is absolutely necessary would not be involved in aviation at all. Of course, "absolutely necessary" is a grey scale. We really only need about 100 square feet of living space to heat/cool, right? Or do we need an 1800 sq. ft. home? See what I mean? Who should get to decide if it isn't each one of us?

Turbo Diesel Technology

I would bet that the next development for a more efficent more environmental friendly technology will be a turbo diesel engine that runs on Jet A. Should be able to make them 15-30% more efficient than todays Lycoming.

Looks like some companies are getting closer with this technology.

Right now I get around 15 miles per gallon in my RV-10 which I know is not great but could be closer to 20 miles per gallon when turbo diesel techology comes around.

For me now, I bought a four seater to be more enviornmentally friendly. Shame on all you 2 seat flyers. I burn 11.5 gph while the 2 seaters are burning 7. Therefore I burn 2.86 gph/person while the 2 seaters burn 3.5 gph/person. That is a 22% increase in fuel burn per person. How do you live with yourselves. I won't even mention the Rocket boys! hahahahaha

AlexPeterson said:

There is not room on VAF's servers to really have a discussion about the merits of ethanol in the big scheme of energy and alternative energy.

Click to expand...

Sure there is.

Octane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

Pretty much the main merit of ethanol.

The rest is a lot of smoke and mirrors, and a small amount of fact.

Now if you wanted to discuss the problems, and misrepresentations---------whoa there, bandwith problems now surface.

TANSTAAFL.

Mike

largely irrelevant

while it is incumbant upon everyone to practice appropriate environmental stewardship (recycle used oil, don't leave the water run while you brush your teeth, etc) and be sensible about how we live, in the big scheme of things it makes not much difference. the chinese communists and most other 3rd world countries have minimal (if any) environmental regulations. the former soviet block nations have massive eco-catastrophes as the result of their former military bases, etc. how much fuel does the 'average' rv burn in 1 year? how much fuel does the average range rover on hilton head island burn in 1 year? what is the difference?

one rv @ 100 hours annually @ 10 GPH = 1000 gallons

one range rover/hummer @ 12,000 miles annually @ 12mpg = 1000 gallons

maybe not exact numbers, but good enough for discussion purposes. now. . what is the ratio of 12 mpg vehicles to rv?

I have spoken with several of my neighbors in regard to feeling some guilt about burning up hundreds of gallons of fossil fuels a year with our machines just for the fun of it.

Click to expand...

Wow! And I thought all we had to worry about was what kind of primer to use, tip-up or slider, and whether or not our airplane will end up on its back!!!

Life is getting complicated........

ScottSchmidt said:

I burn 2.86 gph/person while the 2 seaters burn 3.5 gph/person. That is a 22% increase in fuel burn per person. How do you live with yourselves. I won't even mention the Rocket boys! hahahahaha

Click to expand...

This is true only when all 4 seats are occupied! On most 4-seaters this is a very small percentage of the time.

I have considered this issue myself, but I can honestly say that if I weren't involved in this hobby I'd have a fast boat or race car or some such thing. Perhaps to save the environment I could take up a more energy-friendly hobby like scuba diving or paragliding. Now how the heck will I get to Belize or up to some mountain top? When those neighbors of yours go surfing or skiing or just plain ol' vacationing they use plenty of fuel to get there. I don't -- I stay home in a boiling hot garage shooting rivets.

In the early '90s I was an avionics tech (actually did almost everything) on F/A-18s in the Navy at Cecil Field in Florida. With a centerline tank we would top them off with 12,400 lbs of jet fuel (over 2000 gallons). They would burn through that in an hour - including takeoff and landing.

Click to expand...

The quote above was from another forum, but if a Blackhawk chopper is burning 2000 gallons per hour, doesn't make me feel so bad about what are little planes burn.

Here is a little calculation I just did. I found on airliners.net that a 747 will burn 7.89 gallons/mile. If the average speed is 500 miles per hour, then the fuel burn rate will be 3945 gallons per hour. The average number of seats on a 747 is 416. Therefore the fuel burn per hour per person is 9.48 gallons/hour/person. That is almost 3 times that burn rate of what an RV does. This calculation does not include the fuel burned in takeoff and landing which is huge. (I love how you can make numbers do anything you want to get a point across, this is how the politicians do it)

Quit feeling guilty about flying the RV and start feeling guity about flying airliners.

Ooh. Fun topic.

Interestingly enough, in my CEE/Environmental coursework aviation had never really come up as a environmentally detrimental industry. Not saying that it isn't of course, just not the biggest fish to fry when you compare it to the rest of the transportation/power/manufacturing industries. Think about it - by decreasing pollution in aviation even a modest percent, the overall impact it would have is negligent - unlike the automobile industry. Personally, you could never make me feel guilty about fly my airplane. I think the general feeling is that in the coming years, oil is a resource that is going to regulate/price itself out of transportation anyway (even in my lifetime).

Engineers who study energy and alternative fuels would consequently be the first to tell you also that corn will not be the only primary source of ethanol in the near future. Breakthroughs in ethanol derived from cellulose (using genetically modified yeasts) will become the industry standard (Google "ethanol from cellulose"). Additionally corn prices are expected to drop since planting this year has increased almost 200% nationwide. The reason we don't do sugar ethanol (like Brazil) is that sugar cane is much harder and more expensive to grow in non-tropical climates. In Brazil, its pretty easy.

Secondly those engineers would probably mention something about methane hydrates (gas hydrates) being a fuel source with MUCH greater potential than ethanol - although not considered renewable. I won't attempt to explain said potential, rather I'll leave it to you to read up. (Google "methane hydrates").

Mel said:

This is true only when all 4 seats are occupied! On most 4-seaters this is a very small percentage of the time.

Click to expand...

I realize this, just trying to justify my gas guzzling flying machine.

This is kinda like the arguement I have with all my teen friends about snowboarding vs. skiing. I always say 4 edges are better than two!

I totally understand. We all have to "justify" things to our "financial administrator" at times.

<<I burn 2.86 gph/person while the 2 seaters burn 3.5 gph/person. That is a 22% increase in fuel burn per person. How do you live with yourselves.>>

Can you say "loop" and "roll"?

No guilt here. Global warming is a crock.

Scarry stuff

methane hydrate-----------read "Fire Ice" by Clive Cussler.

Yes, it is fiction, but Cussler does a lot of research----------

Also take a look at http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1070889.htm

This has been the subject of some really interesting research about the Bermuda triangle disappearances.

Mike

DanH said:

Can you say "loop" and "roll"?

No guilt here. Global warming is a crock.

Click to expand...

My official response is "no comment"
I've heard that the RV-10, while not the rolling machine of an -4,-6,or -7, rolls very very nicely. OK, you probably got me on the loop...Hoover could do it!

Mike S said:

methane hydrate-----------read "Fire Ice" by Clive Cussler.

Yes, it is fiction, but Cussler does a lot of research----------

Also take a look at http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1070889.htm

This has been the subject of some really interesting research about the Bermuda triangle disappearances.

Mike

Click to expand...

I just saw a show on Discovery about this stuff - super interesting! I guess there is enough methane ice on the ocean bottom to run the country completely for hundreds of years. They just have to figure out how to get it out economically.

They're called clathrates. The problem with mining those is that they're extremelly dangerous. There's a high potential to lose life and limb during methane extraction. The first person to develop a mining techniquie would put Bill Gates to shame monetarily. I know that several oil rigs have been destroyed due to clathrates. As for global warming, I also believe it's a crock. Do a youtube search for "The great global warming swindle". As far as eth....I dont even want to go there.

ice ages

Right now is just time between ice ages. **** yeah the earth is getting warmer as it has forever. Global warming is pure BS.
No doubt we are a wasteful bunch. (People in general) but I imagine we'll meet some demise and it wont be from using to much avgas. As far as Al Gore and the eco footprint, his light bill is more than the mortgage on my 2500sq.ft house that is less than 7 years old.on a 15 years note. not to mention he'll burn more jp4-5 globetrotting in a week then most all of us put together in a year. please have your pets spayed and nuetered.

Pierre Smith

Late response to your question for Kai. Picture was at Oshkosh this year and they run on ethanol and have since 1993. All four RV-3's have IO-320's and the RV-8 in back ground has an IO-360.

JonJay said:

One common thing I have found with most RV owners and builders is an interest in recycling, economy, and environmental respsonsibility. I have spoken with several of my neighbors in regard to feeling some guilt about burning up hundreds of gallons of fossil fuels a year with our machines just for the fun of it. It is very arguable that for a "real" trip, there is nothing more efficient from point a to b than an RV. It is also arguable that the total environmental "footprint" we as a group are is small related to the overall polution problem.
I would like to hear from others on this topic and how they feel about their responsibility, technologies now, or up and coming, that can improve our machines signature on the environment, and any other issues or comments related to this topic.

Click to expand...

This topic usually makes me laugh when somebody brings it up. I'm not trying to be rude, but if we are down to the last 36 gallons of gas on earth and I can get a hold of it the full load will be going into my airplane.

Best,

Bryan Wood said:

if we are down to the last 36 gallons of gas on earth and I can get a hold of it the full load will be going into my airplane.

Click to expand...

I do hope this was said in jest. It's just this "give me mine and the heck with you" attitude that personifies the worst aspects of our society.

We already have a good fuel that we can mix from 1% to 99% with biofuels, is a "lower grade" fuel that is easier to make more of from a single barrel of crude, is easy to store, and our fuel infrastructure is ready to handle it. It's called Jet-A.

Yes, the current Jet-A piston / diesel-cycle engines are heavy and not 100% worked out, but, IMHO, they are going to get there. There are a lot of reasons to use Jet-A, although there are a lot of reasons to keep using 100LL. However, I think we (mostly) all agree that the days of 100LL are going to come to a close within this generation.

One thing that few people talk about with diesel-cycle aircraft engines is how efficient they are at partial load. The BSFC goes down when you get away from peak power. This is why, for example, the DA42 is able to cuise at about 145kt on 8 gph (total) or 170kt at 12.5 gph.

Ethanol has some good things going for it as a fuel. However, I don't see any compelling reason to use it over either unleaded MoGas that is blended for airplane use or Jet-A.

Just my $0.02.

TODR

Scott,
A few years back we did some ciphering and guzintas while on an ONT to Honolulu leg in the 747-200. We figured, IF we had 400 folks back there (we had none, they were all boxes, and not one complained about the landing..<BG>) we were getting about 50 seat miles per gallon. Can't remember all the numbers , but do remember being amazed for a brief while... FWIW
Dennis

ScottSchmidt said:

The quote above was from another forum, but if a Blackhawk chopper is burning 2000 gallons per hour, doesn't make me feel so bad about what are little planes burn.

Here is a little calculation I just did. I found on airliners.net that a 747 will burn 7.89 gallons/mile. If the average speed is 500 miles per hour, then the fuel burn rate will be 3945 gallons per hour. The average number of seats on a 747 is 416. Therefore the fuel burn per hour per person is 9.48 gallons/hour/person. That is almost 3 times that burn rate of what an RV does. This calculation does not include the fuel burned in takeoff and landing which is huge. (I love how you can make numbers do anything you want to get a point across, this is how the politicians do it)

Quit feeling guilty about flying the RV and start feeling guity about flying airliners.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that ethanol or E85 could be the only choice when oil goes through 200$ per barrel. Right now the cost of a Thielert just doesn't make sence if you only fly 50-100 hr/year, and Jet-A will also follow the oil price.

A two stroke diesel able to run biodiesel, (auto)diesel, kerosene or Jet-A would be perfect regarding weight/performance, vibrations, overall cost and availability of fuel. There are several prototypes in existence, but none of them seem to be going very far from the prototype stage. Anyone have an idea why? and does anyone know what happended to Wilksch ?

I rarely get into on-line debates on opinion issues, but my hot button has been pressed.

The debate about global warming and what to do about it is like trying to explain evolution to a religious fundamentalist. No matter how much logic or reason is applied, the mullahs of climate change will explain every enviromental issue in the world as the fault of our lifestyle, whether or not it is true. Climate change is a religion, and the science has been distorted to support this religion at every turn. Profiteers such as the corn lobby have gleefully jumped aboard.

However, there is no doubt that we are consuming too much and polluting too much. Let's look at why this is so:

1) Overpopulation
2) Immigration
3) Cheap foreign labour

I don't want to debate the issues of overpopulation or immigration because these are politically charged. However, the issue of cheap foreign products is something we can all change.

When you purchase a consumer item these days, it is probably made in China because it's too expensive to make elsewhere. When it breaks, you throw it away and it goes into the landfill, or can recycle portions of it if you are lucky. There are no provisions for repair or servicing-- it's too cheap to replace.

China is the world's largest emitter of CO2. Their environmental standards are poor, and they don't have the political will to become better. They are buying a lot of oil and using it to help build cheap throw away (and sometimes poisonous) products sell to the rest of the world.

The only solution to this is to buy first-world manufactured and supported products, and repair them when they break. Of course, you will pay a lot more but you will end up reducing consumption and your environmental footprint. Too bad most of the domestic manufacturers are out of business due to cheap foreign competition.

Those of us who fly airplanes are actually GOOD examples of this model. We fly aircraft that can reasonably last 50 or more years, that can be repaired by readily available parts and have a network of skilled persons who can do this (including ourselves).

Our engines are rebuilt rather than thrown away or melted down. Our avionics and airframes are repaired rather than crushed and recycled. We employ persons who drive automobiles that have ultra-low tailpipe emissions. Our total contribution to CO2 emissions from avgas are offset by the efficiency of our repair/reuse business model.

When your neighbour complains about the environmental footprint of airplanes, tell them about how we don't junk them or throw them away like we do cars or old computers. We fix them, use them in a responsible fashion and our total environment footprint is low because of that.

In fact, the aviation industry is a model of how we should be building all products: Build them to last in environmentally clean, efficient factories, make them easy to repair and provide support for decades, not years.

In the long run, we have to buy all of our products from sources that are environmentally sound. Right now, we don't have that choice.

Vern

Red Voodoo said:

I do hope this was said in jest. It's just this "give me mine and the heck with you" attitude that personifies the worst aspects of our society.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I disagree. We all have something in common when we finish our planes. They need gas and apparently we are able to put our feelings aside and stick that gas pump nozzle into our tanks and filler up. I'm not going to stop because somebody else feels badly about it. And I don't have the "Heck with you attitude," in fact I'll wait patiently in line at the pump if you beat me there to fill your airplane. I won't even try to make you feel guilty about ruining the planet while I watch those gallons click off.

SvingenB said:

It seems to me that ethanol or E85 could be the only choice when oil goes through 200$ per barrel. Right now the cost of a Thielert just doesn't make sence if you only fly 50-100 hr/year, and Jet-A will also follow the oil price.

Click to expand...

EtOH is competitive with gasoline only because of tax subsidies. I can't imagine they'll last for long. Not like we have a budget surplus or anything....

TODR

ScottSchmidt said:

Here is a little calculation I just did. I found on airliners.net that a 747 will burn 7.89 gallons/mile. If the average speed is 500 miles per hour, then the fuel burn rate will be 3945 gallons per hour. The average number of seats on a 747 is 416. Therefore the fuel burn per hour per person is 9.48 gallons/hour/person. That is almost 3 times that burn rate of what an RV does. This calculation does not include the fuel burned in takeoff and landing which is huge. (I love how you can make numbers do anything you want to get a point across, this is how the politicians do it)

Click to expand...

I understand your post is partially in jest. But if the burn per HOUR is 3X on the 747.....and the 747 is 3X as fast......... Then it works out to be the same.

Make hay....

I fall into the category of those who feel a little guilty when I go 'fun flying' in my plane. I continue to do it because:

- It's what I love
- I believe that it's something that I'll only be able to do for a finite period of time.

Now, I may be forced to stop by failing my medical, I might just get priced out of the hobby or GA itself may be banned (don't laugh - did you ever think all aviation would be grounded prior to 9/11?).

So in the mean time I push the guilt aside and hit that starter switch. I fully expect that my grandchildren will not believe me when I tell them stories of flying my own personal airplane to Oshkosh.

Jim

vlittle said:

I rarely get into on-line debates on opinion issues, but my hot button has been pressed.

The debate about global warming and what to do about it is like trying to explain evolution to a religious fundamentalist. No matter how much logic or reason is applied, the mullahs of climate change will explain every enviromental issue in the world as the fault of our lifestyle, whether or not it is true. Climate change is a religion, and the science has been distorted to support this religion at every turn. Profiteers such as the corn lobby have gleefully jumped aboard.

Vern

Click to expand...

Hmmm, I don't get it. Are you comparing the science that supports evolution to climate change? Or are you saying a the religious person who doesn't believe evolution is like the people who support climate change?

I ask because like evolution, there is a massive amount of scientific evidence that backs up climate change. I don't get why the people who seem to fight climate change don't even look at any of the research. VERY FEW people deny that the climate is warming, even the video mentioned earlier (the global warming swindle) acknowledges the climate is warming. The place where a small minority of scientists disagree is what is forcing the change.

To say climate change is a religion is like saying believing in the tides is a religion (we have some good scientific ideas on the physics behind tides, but like climate change and evolution, we must believe in the science and data because it is hard to show what causes tides). There is endless evidence that the climate changes over time (look at tree rings up there in British Columbia, they show it). Again, some people who don't believe in science disagree in what the cause of the climate change is, but few disagree that it is changing.

I personally used to work as a scientist and not only researched tree rings going back more than 1,000 years in Washington and BC, I also drilled, processed and analyzed ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. My team analyzed oxygen isotopes that are a proxy for temperature, and guess what??? The data shows in those locations as well as thousands of other locations that the climate is warming. Of course some of the change is attributed to the fact that we're still warming from the last ice age, so yes the debate over how much and how fast the human activity is contributing is still being investigated.

I urge those who say things like 'climate change is a religion' to first actually read before they type. And read broadly, I can point you to many scientists (accredited, published and working) who still say the earth is flat, but most look at the scientific evidence that says other wise and agree that it probably is shaped more like a ball (even though there is no way to actually prove this by looking at it).

Sorry for the rant, I'm just tired of people speaking without knowing, and just quoting something that fits their personal bias and beliefs.

Off topic but fun

The climate change debate is still going on, but my biggest objection is either side selectively taking data and saying it proves things completely, or distorting the data. I think Al Gore did more harm than good to his cause with his movie.

If we assume man is causing a portion of the warming, then we should weigh the costs of different actions (like caps and carbon taxes) with the benefits. One of the most cogent researcher/writer/speaker on this subject is Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called "The Skeptical Environmentalist." He has a lot of common sense things in it. For instance, some people are concerned about protecting the polar bear population since they purportedly are drowning due to retreating ice. There was a proposal to spend millions to protect them, but hunters legally kill about 1000 each year. (don't quote me on the numbers - I don't have the book in front of me.) Instead of spending money to protect them, why not first cut down the number of polar bear hunting licenses issued?

We also need to take environmental issue in the context of other problems. Is warming a bigger problem than the starving people of the world or terrorism?

In the big picture not flying our little airplanes or even reducing how much we drive will not change the rate of change one iota. We need broad changes like shifting to nuclear power. we would be better off spending our eneregy on changing the view of nuclear power and promoting it's use than reducing our "carbon footprint." As someone else talked about in this thread, we should cut down consumption and recycle and not be wasteful of resources.

Follow the money. Those that are touting Man made global warming are usually funded by those that have a stake in the outcome. Can you say George Soros?
I do agree that our energy policy of the past 30 years has been sabotaged by the greenies. We have missed the nuclear boat and may not be able to catch up even if we want to now.
I say drill, drill, drill. Most of the rest of the world hates us for various reasons that we can do little about. They are revelling in our destruction from within about stupid stuff like "global warming". Quit feeling guilty and fly while you can. Amen and pass the ammunition.

hibeam said:

Follow the money. Those that are touting Man made global warming are usually funded by those that have a stake in the outcome. Can you say George Soros?
I do agree that our energy policy of the past 30 years has been sabotaged by the greenies. We have missed the nuclear boat and may not be able to catch up even if we want to now.
I say drill, drill, drill. Most of the rest of the world hates us for various reasons that we can do little about. They are revelling in our destruction from within about stupid stuff like "global warming". Quit feeling guilty and fly while you can. Amen and pass the ammunition.

Click to expand...

I have refrained from commenting but finally I cannot withstand the urge any longer. I do not think the rest of the world is "reveling in our destruction. . ." because of "stupid stuff like 'golbal warming'". They are reveling in our destruction because of "stupid stuff" like our arrogant attitude. The rest of the world observes our cultural and individual greed and our insistence that we Americans are the only ones who really know how everyone else should live and behave and feel it is our responsibility to enforce these notions.

The "stupid stuff" is not whether we believe or do not believe in global warming. It is our inherent attitude we display to the rest of the world. Those outside the US see our behavior as repulsive and unacceptable. When we act as if we are going to do everything in our power to make sure "I get my share" no matter what, we are not making any new friends.

The study of global warming (or the lack of that study) is not the "stupid stuff" the rest of the world sees in America. No, they are looking at the attitudes of privilege and greed that we portray. Whether it be envy or just pure disdain or whether it is founded in truth or not, the reality is, it is their perception and that perception becomes their reality.

With both sides accusing the other of "fuzzy science"... it is hard to know who to believe. If we look at who their supporters are... or better yet... what is their financial stake... "follow the money" points fingers (no... flashing neon signs) at BIG OIL. Has anyone been paying attention to the BILLIONS in profits they have made over the past few years?

I don't know the answers... but I look at it this way:

If global warming is a farce... and we clean up our act... the only "harm" done is a cleaner, healthier planet. If Mr. Gore and his scientists are RIGHT... and we stick our heads in the sand and have the cocky, IGM (I Got Mine) attitude - heaven help us and our kids in the future.

To bring the topic back to the original post... should we give up flying? I don't know. I guess it all goes to your personal beliefs and commitments. I think that taking non-essential flights out would have such a minimal global impact when compared to so many other changes society needs to make that it definitely isn't the first place I am looking. Well... at least that is how I justify it to myself for now.

JMHO

DJ

Steve - well written. I just read after posting... I think we were writing at the same time.

I'm not a defender of Big Oil, but look at their profits over many years and sometimes they win and sometimes they loose. I don't hear people feeling sorry for them or offering handouts when they loose money, so lay off when they make money. Also, if you look at the % profit, not the $ it is in line with many businesses. Also remember profits go to stock holders, of which I'll bet many people who own RVs are, and we aren't turning down dividend checks or selling stock because we don't want our stock value to go up from all those profits! Oh, and least I forget all the pension plans who have investments and the employees who get paid and who have made a good living, and the billions in taxes that are paid when you count payroll, property, inventory, income etc.

Let's stop demonizing companies and people because they are successful. If they weren't successful they'd go bankrupt and get out of business and then there'd be less supply and prices would be higher!

One other thing, not everybody in the rest of the world hates America. Read President Sarkozy of France's recent statements, or the comments from German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Go to India or China and talk to people, which I have. They may be jealous or envious but many of them think that overall America has been a good thing for the world.

Look, America is good and bad, oil companies are both good and bad, but painting with a broad brush is always inaccurate.

I'd be more accomodating of global warming alarmists if they had a good plan for slowing or reversing the trend, but generally their plan is to scr** the US, and their methods will not cause any meaningful change. Accrding to several sources including the UN panel, adopting the entire Kyoto protocol immediately would only delay the expected temperature rise inyear 2100 to year 2105. That's not solving the problem.

Hey Hibeam - I liked your comments!

RVbySDI said:

The study of global warming (or the lack of that study) is not the "stupid stuff" the rest of the world sees in America. No, they are looking at the attitudes of privilege and greed that we portray. Whether it be envy or just pure disdain or whether it is founded in truth or not, the reality is, it is their perception and that perception becomes their reality.

Click to expand...

As a non-american I must say it is much simpler and much more down to earth than that. Consider the world as a large park. Most people like the park to be nice and tidy and help keeping it that way by depositing their garbage at the right places, cleaning up after themselves and so on. They like to walk, to be in shape, in good health. Americans are the lazy fat ones that just don't care, instead of walking to stay fit, they drive around in four wheelers destroying the grass while eating hamburgers, throwing garbage all over the place.

As for the global warming thing, it is a religion in my opinion. The main purpose of all the "solutions" is not to do something that really work, but to make us feel good about ourselves, to clare our conciense.

Dan, Shut this post down, please...

This has really drifted a long way off of my original intent of the post. Everybody go out and buy enough "carbon credits" to offset your flying.

END......

It's up to us to forge a solution to this issue

Today, the leader of Venezuela threatened to raise the price of a barrel of oil to $200 if Bush attacked Iran. At that price, it's unlikely anyone will be flying for a hamburger.

Between threats like this and the issue of global warming, one would hope that someone in charge would launch Manhattan Project II to wean America off fossil fuel, but the deep pockets of the oil company make that unlikely.

Therefore, it falls upon the user community to embrace the challenge and learn ways to adapt our airplanes so we can use innovative energy sources.

I'd rather fly slower because the "fuel de jour" is not as powerful as AV Gas than be grounded entirely.

FYI, my next project (as soon as this 9 is done) is an electric car like the EV1. With solar panels on my roof and batteries in my car, Exxon and the politicians they own can kiss my tailwheel.

Barry
Tucson

It's simple take the polititans, big oil board members and lobbyists and lock them in disneyland and let them live out their twisted fantasies. The rest of us can bring back America and live free again.


By the way I heard the republicans won't pull out of enchanted castle until they control all the pixie dust and the democrats want cotton candy for everone at a 20% tax increase.

We just can't get ahead until we get our country back. Just to many greedy crooks.

GTechRV said:

Ooh. Fun topic.

Interestingly enough, in my CEE/Environmental coursework aviation had never really come up as a environmentally detrimental industry. Not saying that it isn't of course, just not the biggest fish to fry when you compare it to the rest of the transportation/power/manufacturing industries. Think about it - by decreasing pollution in aviation even a modest percent, the overall impact it would have is negligent - unlike the automobile industry. Personally, you could never make me feel guilty about fly my airplane. I think the general feeling is that in the coming years, oil is a resource that is going to regulate/price itself out of transportation anyway (even in my lifetime).

Engineers who study energy and alternative fuels would consequently be the first to tell you also that corn will not be the only primary source of ethanol in the near future. Breakthroughs in ethanol derived from cellulose (using genetically modified yeasts) will become the industry standard (Google "ethanol from cellulose"). Additionally corn prices are expected to drop since planting this year has increased almost 200% nationwide. The reason we don't do sugar ethanol (like Brazil) is that sugar cane is much harder and more expensive to grow in non-tropical climates. In Brazil, its pretty easy.

Secondly those engineers would probably mention something about methane hydrates (gas hydrates) being a fuel source with MUCH greater potential than ethanol - although not considered renewable. I won't attempt to explain said potential, rather I'll leave it to you to read up. (Google "methane hydrates").

Click to expand...

I happen to be a corn and soy bean farmer and I like the price of corn. I doubt if many people think that ethanol is the replacement for gas. but it might help a little. about corn acres planted being up 200% just where do these people think the farm land came from to plant these many more acres? Corn acres were up 15 to 20 %.

First let me say that I’m no fanatical environmentalist and many of those who think they’re changing the world by buying a hybrid or asking for paper bags at the grocery store ‘to reduce their carbon footprint’ are just kidding themselves. Most don’t realize just how small a drop in the global bucket all their efforts are when you understand how the horrendous growth of China and the third world negates almost all their efforts. As far as I’m concerned the 800 pound gorilla in the room that everyone ignores is the world’s population. People are worried about the availability of gas and oil, but we’re also running out of water and conserving that can only go so far.

I feel no guilt whatsoever when flying my plane. I drive less than 9k miles every year and my plane gets 20 mpg. That said, I like others here have had my buttons pressed, so I have to throw in my 2 cents also...

Originally Posted by vlittle
…The debate about global warming and what to do about it is like trying to explain evolution to a religious fundamentalist. No matter how much logic or reason is applied, the mullahs of climate change will explain every enviromental issue in the world as the fault of our lifestyle, whether or not it is true. Climate change is a religion, and the science has been distorted to support this religion at every turn…

I couldn’t agree more with your first sentence, but I find it ironic that the same religious fundamentalists you cite call the science of evolution a religion. The science of global warming is no more a religion than the science of evolution.


Originally Posted by hibeam
Follow the money. Those that are touting Man made global warming are usually funded by those that have a stake in the outcome. Can you say George Soros?...

… Most of the rest of the world hates us for various reasons that we can do little about...

I agree, follow the money. But if you believe Soros’ money has more influence than the combined resources of the world’s oil industries, I’ve got a bridge to sell you…

Riiiight, they hate us for our freedom and all those things we just can’t control like our blind support of Israel, stationing our troops in Saudi Arabia, invading Muslim countries, etc., etc.


Originally Posted by Phyrcooler
With both sides accusing the other of "fuzzy science"... it is hard to know who to believe…

The vast majority of the world’s scientists who work for governments, universities and other publicly funded institutions come down on one side, and the ones who work for the oil industry come down on the other. Tough call


Originally Posted by MrNomad
…Between threats like this and the issue of global warming, one would hope that someone in charge would launch Manhattan Project II to wean America off fossil fuel, but the deep pockets of the oil company make that unlikely…

I agree and I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for any initiative to come from an administration whose leaders and supporters are attached at the hip to the oil industry.