 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Destinations USA and CanadaEuropeAustralia and NZAsiaLatin AmericaCaribbean IslandsAfricaTravel Types Air TravelCruisesRV Travel |
Travel Forum / Travel Types / Air Travel / April 2008How To Prevent Destruction of Airline Industry: Non-Profit Vertical Oil Company
" Co-op Jet Fuel" The industry consists of all or any of the airlines in the U.S. and perhaps the world. The airline companies purchase partnerships or shares in the consortium. No one company is allowed to own more than 5 or 10 percent; No airline is allowed an advantage: Thus there would be some restraint. The non-profit consortium buys small refinery(ies), which currently are apparently generally hurting too, apparently because of the current high cost of raw oil. The airlines' respective countries' governments encourage this measure of govt intervention by the (non-market priced) subsidizing with some of their stored emergency raw oil. Hey, it's only a napkin dooodle idea, though something does need to be done in the public interest, as more bankruptcies will seemingly hurt the very competitive industry more. If they already are doing this in some countries, then everybody else should get a clue from such. > " Co-op Jet Fuel" > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > are apparently generally hurting too, apparently because of the > current high cost of raw oil. LOL...... How about this? 1. Oil is a commodity 2. If airlines can't make a profit due to the price of a commodity they need, perhaps they shouldn't be flying. Joe Touris is going to have to understand that you can't fly LAX to LHR on $200. > Hey, it's only a napkin dooodle idea, though something does need to be > done in the public interest, as more bankruptcies will seemingly hurt > the very competitive industry more. Why do they need to do this? In the first place, all airlines have to buy fuel as part of their operating cost. All they need to do is pass the cost on to their customers. The fact that the airlines aren't making money is simply that they all are charging too little for their services, not that fuel cost is high. Second, airlines already have the financial mechanism to control the price of fuel so it is predictable. It's called hedging. Southwest uses it to great advantage over its competitors. The others just haven't learned. > > Hey, it's only a napkin dooodle idea, though something does need to be > > done in the public interest, as more bankruptcies will seemingly hurt [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of fuel so it is predictable. It's called hedging. Southwest uses it to > great advantage over its competitors. The others just haven't learned. My Perceptions & Conjectures of why Uncle should intervene Flying is a choice or option for many of us. The passenger load or population or amount of air commerce thus seemingly diminshes as the fare price increases Certainly the leisure & tourist passenger population diminish Tourism is not an insignificant industry as it perhaps was 50+ years ago The airport of Atlanta is considered the important numero uno employer (as I've read) It's something of a "public utility" Business trips dimish less, particularly as they're expense write- offs, not out of pocket for many of the business passengers, though some companies would seemingly now cut some trips (thinking of that tv commercial about meeting the customer in person to retain loyalty) I concede the necessity case can be made by the important trucking industry too With the real estate/mortgage default debacle and the increasing/ doubling/tripling of fuel cost, there are destined bad economic times That Delta's stock price hasn't increased, the market considers fuel as biggest problem/hindrance Of course you guys are "right" > > > Hey, it's only a napkin dooodle idea, though something does need to be > > > done in the public interest, as more bankruptcies will seemingly hurt [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > - Show quoted text - re: This is what I tend to think, others are allowed under a decadent liberal interpretation of law to think whatever they wanna. Is this vacation trip necessary? Is visiting grandma and grandpa twice this year necessary? And on top of all the hassles, the fare isn't that cheap any more. >>Hey, it's only a napkin dooodle idea, though something does need to be >>done in the public interest, as more bankruptcies will seemingly hurt [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of fuel so it is predictable. It's called hedging. Southwest uses it to > great advantage over its competitors. The others just haven't learned. It isn't that they have to learn. The ability to hedge requires that the airline has a sound financial position. > It isn't that they have to learn. The ability to hedge requires that the > airline has a sound financial position. All it requires is that they spend the money. It is priority thing. >> The ability to hedge requires that the airline has a sound financial >> position. > > All it requires is that they spend the money. It is priority thing. Yes and no. He's right that a company has to be financially solvent to participate in the hedge market. It's one of the things that works against companies that are heading down the tubes. Contrary to popular belief, hedging isn't about gambling in the commodities market in the hopes of lowering future cost, but is instead about establishing a predictable price for the term of the hedge. Companies will often take out options on both sides of the market, thus whether the price of fuel goes up or down, they will have locked in a known price for the amount of fuel they have hedged. They do well if the market goes up, and poorly if the market goes down, but more importantly, they know what the price for their fuel will be, and can financially plan accordingly. This provides a more predictable financial picture for the company, and allows them to consistently meet their projected profitability. Predictability and delivering on promises are very important to the financial analysts. > >> The ability to hedge requires that the airline has a sound financial > >> position. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > participate in the hedge market. It's one of the things that works against > companies that are heading down the tubes. Again it is priority. They are losing money, but it then becomes what is more important to the airline's honchos. Especially when going down the tubes, they have to decide if short term is more important than long term. It is a decision they make, a priority they establish. > poorly if the market goes down, but more importantly, they know what the > price for their fuel will be, and can financially plan accordingly. Which should be (now whether or not it is another thread altogether) doubly important if you are going down the tubes. I mean planning for your single biggest or second biggest expense isn't important when times are rough? It is a non-sexy expense, so it goes by the wayside and then people get bit twice. >> It isn't that they have to learn. The ability to hedge requires that the >> airline has a sound financial position. > > All it requires is that they spend the money. It is priority thing. Which, of course, thet have loads of don't they? > >> It isn't that they have to learn. The ability to hedge requires that the > >> airline has a sound financial position. > > > > All it requires is that they spend the money. It is priority thing. > > Which, of course, thet have loads of don't they? Nope. But as I said, it seems logical to try and control that what is your first or second greatest expense. At least part of it. They had more cash when the cost of fuel went up? >> >> It isn't that they have to learn. The ability to hedge requires that the >> >> airline has a sound financial position. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >what is your first or second greatest expense. At least part of it. They >had more cash when the cost of fuel went up? Yes they did and, of course, that is exactly what they are all trying to do. > > Hey, it's only a napkin dooodle idea, though something does need to be > > done in the public interest, as more bankruptcies will seemingly hurt [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of fuel so it is predictable. It's called hedging. Southwest uses it to > great advantage over its competitors. The others just haven't learned. Or they just 'gambled' the wrong way. >>>Hey, it's only a napkin dooodle idea, though something does need to be >>>done in the public interest, as more bankruptcies will seemingly hurt [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Or they just 'gambled' the wrong way. That is an excellent way of putting it. >>>Second, airlines already have the financial mechanism to control the price >>>of fuel so it is predictable. It's called hedging. Southwest uses it to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That is an excellent way of putting it. Not quite. Hedging requires liquidity/credit in order to ensure that the airline will have the cash to buy the fuel at the contract price when the contract expires. Southwest has a great financial situation and it is easy for it to prove it will have sufficient cash reserves to cover its fuelk contracts 2 years down the road. (it currently has the majority of its fuel needs hedged at $55/barrel for the next couple of years). Alitalia cannot buy any hedges since it doesn't have enough cash and nobody would trust Alitalia to be in existance 3 months down the road let alone 2 years. UA, having emerged from bankrupcy, was able to start hedging but only a bit, and its hedges give it fuel at $85 barrel, but only for a small portion of its total fuel needs. The year before declaring bankrucpy, Delta sold its fuel hedges to Southwest (just before the price of fuel started to rocket past the $30 mark). Delta no longer had the liquidity to sustain those hedges amd needed the cash. (of course, this came back to haunt DL when the price of oil started its phenomenal rise past the $30 mark and beyond). If your financial condition isn't good, you cannot get hedges, and cannot necessarily hold the hedges you already have because they tie up cash you have. >>>>Second, airlines already have the financial mechanism to control the price >>>>of fuel so it is predictable. It's called hedging. Southwest uses it to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the airline will have the cash to buy the fuel at the contract price > when the contract expires. Yes, but what happens if the price drops? Wouldn't WN have lost money on the deal? > Yes, but what happens if the price drops? Wouldn't WN have lost money on > the deal? If they commit to buying 200 barrels of oil at $55 in 3 months, then in 3 months, they need to dish out $11,000 to buy those 200 barrels at $55 no matter what the price of oil is at that time. If the price of oil drops, then yeah, WN ends up paying more for its oil than airlines who have no edges. Not sure if that is considered "losing" money. The big advantage of hedging for airlines is that the price of tickets at the time of ticket purchase reflects the oil price that will be in effect at the time of the flight. If, today, you buy a ticket for summer travel, its prices assumes a barrel of oil at say $100. But when your day of travel arrives, should the price of oil have risen to $130, the airline will end up losing money because your ticket price doesn't reflect today's oil price. This is one big reason why airlines line Delta and Northwest declared billion dollar losses for a single quarter and Southwest is laughing all the way to the bank. Southwest can sell tickets in advance and know that its fuel costs will roughly be the same on the day you will travel. For Southwest, it also has an advantage that it doesn't really have "advance sales" like the legacy carriers. (people don't buy WN tickets 4 months in advance, whereas on legacy carriers, this is often the case, especially for overseas flights). >>Yes, but what happens if the price drops? Wouldn't WN have lost money on >>the deal? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > than airlines who have no edges. Not sure if that is considered "losing" > money. Well, they are spending more money. >>>>Hey, it's only a napkin dooodle idea, though something does need to be >>>>done in the public interest, as more bankruptcies will seemingly hurt [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >That is an excellent way of putting it. Which is exactly what hedging is. You look smart if you win and an idiot if you lose. Good management shouldn't be confused with good or bad luck. >>>> Second, airlines already have the financial mechanism to control the >>>> price of fuel so it is predictable. It's called hedging. Southwest [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > idiot if you lose. Good management shouldn't be confused with good or > bad luck. Hedging, if done properly, is not about luck, or winning or losing. It is about fixing stable prices for fuel, so company finances are more predictable. >>>>> Second, airlines already have the financial mechanism to control the >>>>> price of fuel so it is predictable. It's called hedging. Southwest [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >about fixing stable prices for fuel, so company finances are more >predictable. It's still about luck. If, say Southwest hedges at $55 a barrel, they look great if it goes to $118. If it falls to $30 then it doesn't look smart at all. >>>>>> Second, airlines already have the financial mechanism to control >>>>>> the price of fuel so it is predictable. It's called hedging. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > look great if it goes to $118. If it falls to $30 then it doesn't > look smart at all. No, properly done, they don't hedge at a single price. They get puts and takes, so they are protected in a narrow range. They then know what their fuel price will be, and can make confident projections about the business, and set a firm business plan. That makes them look smarter than scrambling around when the prices change unexpectedly. > No, properly done, they don't hedge at a single price. They get puts > and takes, so they are protected in a narrow range. Do you have evidence that WN did anything but bet the price would go up? >>>>>>> Second, airlines already have the financial mechanism to control >>>>>>> the price of fuel so it is predictable. It's called hedging. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >business, and set a firm business plan. That makes them look smarter >than scrambling around when the prices change unexpectedly. Let's just get this down to the nuts and bolts since we have a lot of people speculating on what hedging is, what it means, etc. Hedging, quite simply, is putting in a mechanism that protects you on both sides of a movement in the price of an underlying stock or commodity. It's most commonly done through an alternative-strategy, like options and futures contracts, that couple an underlying position. So, for example, if crude is currently $60 a barrel and I want to make sure that it doesn't get any worse for me, I'll buy options contracts that give me the right to purchase a pre-determined amount of the underlying commodity at that price. If the commodity goes in the other direction, it's not as if I've lost all my money because -- ideally -- I won't be getting all of the underlying commodity through the use of hedges. Rather, I'll be in a position to shift so that I'll be getting more of it from the spot market as the price goes down. I'll still be obligated to fulfill those future contracts, or trade them, but if it's not all my demand, it's a smart way to use money. You can, and most people do, use futures and options contracts as tradeable investments; in other words, they buy them without ever intending to actually own the underlying stock or commodity. As long as you get out of your position before the contract expires, then you're free to do what you want. Nobody does as the other suggestion implies, which is buying puts and calls in opposite directions. That's just a bad use of money, period. There are other strategies, such as covered puts and calls, but stuff like that is beyond the scope of this forum. >>>>>Second, airlines already have the financial mechanism to control the >>>>>price of fuel so it is predictable. It's called hedging. Southwest [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > about fixing stable prices for fuel, so company finances are more > predictable. That's not what WN did. They bet the price was going up. They didn't buy options speculating the price was going down. >>>>>Hey, it's only a napkin dooodle idea, though something does need to be >>>>>done in the public interest, as more bankruptcies will seemingly hurt [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > idiot if you lose. Good management shouldn't be confused with good or > bad luck. Yes, but like buying put and call stock options, it requires money to start. Airlines with financial issues don't have the financial ability to hedge. >> Which is exactly what hedging is. You look smart if you win and an >> idiot if you lose. Good management shouldn't be confused with good or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >start. Airlines with financial issues don't have the financial ability >to hedge. Yes, it does which is why not everyone has hedged to the extent SW did. > >> Which is exactly what hedging is. You look smart if you win and an > >> idiot if you lose. Good management shouldn't be confused with good or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yes, it does which is why not everyone has hedged to the extent SW > did. Familiar with the term "penny wise and pound foolish?" >> Yes, it does which is why not everyone has hedged to the extent SW The problem is that once your financial condition deteriorates, you no longer have the option to buy hedges and rising price of oil makes your financial condition even worse. And airlines that are in bankrupcy protection can't really enter into hedging contracts because all credit is frozen. Since emerging from bankrupcy, United has purchased some hedges, but they are only for a fairly small proportion of its fuel needs because that is all it can afford. In a "survival of the fittest" scenario, you let Southwest win and the others falter because WN was smart and had sufficient cash to play the fuel hedging game VERY well. In a scenario where a country wants competition, the government might have to intervene and provide cash garantees that would enable all alrilnes to play the hedging game so that they could continue to compete against Southwest and the few others who have good hedging. > >> Yes, it does which is why not everyone has hedged to the extent SW > > The problem is that once your financial condition deteriorates, you no > longer have the option to buy hedges and rising price of oil makes your > financial condition even worse. I did not write the above. How does it? You write the option and you pay the vig or commission or whatever you want to call it. Management needs to look at expenses and everything, so why ignore your second or (in many cases any more) your highest single cost. Investopia (and a little, albeit very little, personal experience) would tend to argue against that. "In real life, the ****actual delivery rate*** of the underlying goods specified in futures contracts is very low. This is a result of the fact that the hedging or speculating benefits of the contracts can be had largely without actually holding the contract until expiry and delivering the good(s). For example, if you were long in a futures contract, you could go short the same type of contract to offset your position. This serves to exit your position, much like selling a stock in the equity markets would close a trade." Also you go the options route, you have the right to buy, but no obligation. > And airlines that are in bankrupcy protection can't really enter into > hedging contracts because all credit is frozen. Since emerging from > bankrupcy, United has purchased some hedges, but they are only for a > fairly small proportion of its fuel needs because that is all it can afford. Actually all old credit is frozen. New financing (debtor-in-possession) is instituted. YOu have to have the okay from the Courts to buy them, probably a rather hard row to hoe given that it isn't a "traditional" expense. Maybe it should be and the airline could use WN's experience as evidence. It is all they have decided to afford. Again, I would argue penny wise and pound foolish if you don't use any > In a scenario where a country wants competition, the government might > have to intervene and provide cash garantees that would enable all > alrilnes to play the hedging game so that they could continue to compete > against Southwest and the few others who have good hedging. Yeha, lets continue our long-standing tradition to bail out bad managers and punish the good ones. > " Co-op Jet Fuel" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The airline companies purchase partnerships or shares in the > consortium. Why bother with oil? How about a truly alternative approach? Like, for instance, the consortium enterw into contracts to exploit Montana's coal reserves, and build Fischer-Tropsch-style processing plants to convert the coal into jet-compatible fuel? This can be blended with petroleum-based jet fuel if need be, but maybe the airlines could have a way to step away from the oil stream entirely ... ?  Signaturedgs > > " Co-op Jet Fuel" > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > dgs I recall a boast that Jet Blue is involved with researching fuel from coal, which is nothing new since this has been done by necessity by Germany and possibly by South Africa during their infamous crises in the 20th century My totally irrational politically know nuthin prejudiced opinion: The U.S. govt under Bush II is not going to take any oil market away from the oil industry. Maybe Hillary, Barack, and McCain would, while McCain thinks ethanol a boondoggle (and he's probably accurate). If they'd make the mentanol-ethanol from kudzu and some other weeds and waste, I'd certainly be gungho for it. But there are food riots on-going now, which is a predictable result but damn awful thing. Coal-->fuels is an obvious thing, and I suppose private industry would bring it about if, say, the airlines and/or trucking companies, assured the industry of buyers for the seemingly higher priced "coal derived fuels." When the production of coal fuel is massive, the price is market- lowered and via economy of scales. "Filler-up with kudzu" is my first preference, though coal seems to me to be alreadty be historically proven. Steam a la Stanley Steamer (1920s car and name of a rug cleaning franchise) is my preference after garbage, chicken and pig waste. Wouldn't millions of steam vehicles do in the atmosphere/ionsphere a la global warming. > > > " Co-op Jet Fuel" > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The culprit for the starvation is ethanol as explained: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/22/food.program.cutback/index.html?eref= rss_topstories > Wouldn't millions of steam vehicles do in the atmosphere/ionsphere a > la global warming. What fuel would they use to make the steam? The problem is that we can save oil in other ways, without killing the airlines. Ethanol is an issue because it competes with the global food supply Gasoline is a problem because it increases the price of oil for industries that REALLY need it, like airlines. Electrical energy for cars, homes, and businesses would dramatically reduce our dependence on oil. However, in the US this is problem, because fossil fuels are being used to get electricity. What we need are more nuclear power plants. In fact, burning coal sends more radioactive waste into our atmosphere than nuclear power plants would. > Ethanol is an issue because it competes with the global food supply I am quite suspect of what is going on now. How come the price of food is shooting up all of a sudden, without warning and "they" blame it on ethanol ???? I suspect the oil industry, wanbting to protecttheir turf, may have managed this PR campaign to discredit bio-fuels. There is no way that ethanol production would have suddently increased so dramatically that the stuff used for it would have resulted in the cost of rice in thailand to skyrocket. (ethanol uses corn in USA, sugar beets in Brazil). Not sure about wheat being used for biofuel. BTW, watch for beer prices to rise. > Electrical energy for cars, homes, and businesses would dramatically > reduce our dependence on oil. I think americans greatly understimate what their dependance on oil and wallmart is causing. This didn't mkake much of the news n the USA, but it was an arab government fund that bailed out Citigroup over a weekend some months ago. They now own a big chunk of that bank. It was a Singapore sovereign group that bailed out another USA bank (don'tremember its name), and the chinese government fund that invested in another. The current consumption economy in the USA is causing cash to flow out of the USA in large quantities going to middle east, china, india etc. This not only makes the USA poorer internally (since money no longer flows back to americans), but also results in those sovereign funds buying USA assets and ending up controling an ever increasing chunk of the USA economy. And with the mismanaged USA government debt, it is now financed by china, middle east, singapore etc. And those countries now have some pull with the USA government. This is why you won't see the USA government criticising China *too much* because they cannot afford to have China dumping all the USA debt its owns onto the markets. In essence, the USA's dependance on oil and wallmart is causing the USA to loose control of itself. In trying to help the texas oil companies, the current government has made matters much worse. Increased in oil consumption has caused the increase in fuel prices which have made those foreign funds all the more richer and the USA poorer. Those USA airlines without significant fuel hedges are now hurting badly. UA just announced major losses and major layoffs. If airlines in the USA are to survive, they need the price of oil to come down. Southwest has a certain number of barrels hedged at $55.00. So if United were to shutdown tomorrow, Southwest would have to buy oil on the open markets if it wants to increase flights to take the slack from United. But as long as Southwest remains at the same size, it will benefit from its hedges and be able to provide tickets at prices that the other carriers cannot match at all. This is a serious problem. >> Ethanol is an issue because it competes with the global food supply > >I am quite suspect of what is going on now. How come the price of food >is shooting up all of a sudden, without warning and "they" blame it on >ethanol ???? I suspect the oil industry, wanbting to protecttheir turf, >may have managed this PR campaign to discredit bio-fuels. Bull. It's because corn is a basic food staple used in many products (like fructose for example in tons of food you consume) and because other crops like soy are dropped to produce the more artificially profitable corn causing them to go up in price because of shortages. The perfect solution dreamed up by moron politicians who have caused all this by subsidizing, mandating and promoting this idiotic so called solution at taxpayer's expense. Which it's not anyway because there is no way of producing enough ethanol this way to have much real dent anyway. Give a politician all the solutions and they will come up with the stupidest most expensive way to do something. >There is no way that ethanol production would have suddently increased >so dramatically that the stuff used for it would have resulted in the >cost of rice in thailand to skyrocket. (ethanol uses corn in USA, sugar >beets in Brazil). Not sure about wheat being used for biofuel. There sure is and this is exactly what has happened. The US is hardly the only one doing this. Europe has done it as well and the markets for commodities are worldwide. Brazil is the only country I know that has done it sensibly. >BTW, watch for beer prices to rise. Sure, for the same reason. Hardly in the same category as, say Mexico, where tortillas are a basic staple and the price of them there has gone up some 400% is it? >> Electrical energy for cars, homes, and businesses would dramatically >> reduce our dependence on oil. > >I think americans greatly understimate what their dependance on oil and >wallmart is causing. That part is true, though ignorance and bitching are hardly a substitute for an intelligent energy policy is it? >This didn't mkake much of the news n the USA, but it was an arab >government fund that bailed out Citigroup over a weekend some months >ago. They now own a big chunk of that bank. It was a Singapore sovereign >group that bailed out another USA bank (don'tremember its name), and the >chinese government fund that invested in another. So what? Did you expect horrible management to be rewarded? I didn't see any American investors jumping at the opportunity to invest in them. >The current consumption economy in the USA is causing cash to flow out >of the USA in large quantities going to middle east, china, india etc. >This not only makes the USA poorer internally (since money no longer >flows back to americans), but also results in those sovereign funds >buying USA assets and ending up controling an ever increasing chunk of >the USA economy. So? Get our massively stupid and incompetent politicians to do something about it then, Start by throwing them all out and starting again. >And with the mismanaged USA government debt, it is now financed by >china, middle east, singapore etc. And those countries now have some >pull with the USA government. This is why you won't see the USA >government criticising China *too much* because they cannot afford to >have China dumping all the USA debt its owns onto the markets. The debt isn't mismanaged. It's managed quite well, in fact. The problem is that it's ever increasing due to the usual stupid politicians putting us in a senseless, useless war that gobbles up billions upon billions all while increasing government spending all over the place and giving tax cuts to those that have no need for them. >In essence, the USA's dependance on oil and wallmart is causing the USA >to loose control of itself. You get what you do nothing about, >In trying to help the texas oil companies, the current government has >made matters much worse. Increased in oil consumption has caused the >increase in fuel prices which have made those foreign funds all the more >richer and the USA poorer. Which is entirely correctible if people would just get off their a.ses and do something about it instead of just bitching about it and doing the same old thing. >Those USA airlines without significant fuel hedges are now hurting >badly. UA just announced major losses and major layoffs. As if they have any real alternatives. >If airlines in the USA are to survive, they need the price of oil to >come down. Southwest has a certain number of barrels hedged at $55.00. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >This is a serious problem. No kidding. >>Ethanol is an issue because it competes with the global food supply > > I am quite suspect of what is going on now. How come the price of food > is shooting up all of a sudden, without warning and "they" blame it on > ethanol ???? I suspect the oil industry, wanbting to protecttheir turf, > may have managed this PR campaign to discredit bio-fuels. The price of food will "shoot up" for a variety of reasons 1. Higher prices for shipping, due to higher fuel prices 2. Use of some food products for fuel 3. More of the world can now afford to buy imported food and oil >> Ethanol is an issue because it competes with the global food supply > >I am quite suspect of what is going on now. How come the price of food >is shooting up all of a sudden, without warning and "they" blame it on >ethanol ???? I suspect the oil industry, wanbting to protecttheir turf, >may have managed this PR campaign to discredit bio-fuels. Because it's true. It costs a ton more money to feed cows to get them to the point of slaughter. Same is true for poultry, even though they require less food over their life. Corn-based ethanol is a DUMB, DUMB, DUMB idea that is nothing more than politicos pandering to the farmer. Dumber yet is the farmer is now corporations, not the guy Willie Nelson used to wax poetic about. >> Wouldn't millions of steam vehicles do in the atmosphere/ionsphere a >> la global warming. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The problem is that we can save oil in other ways, without killing the >airlines. True. The Nazis perfected it for coal during WWII. Not exactly new technology. Or nuclear, which the French have done extremely well. So well they have too much for their own use and export electricity to the rest of Europe. Solar, which the sunny states particularly can do. Wind, which anyone with enough can do. The Gulf Stream which flows some 8 billion gallons a second to be harnassed. Waves, which can similarly be harnassed. And on and on. We would rather feed the money to terrorists and screwballs like Chavez however. >Ethanol is an issue because it competes with the global food supply >Gasoline is a problem because it increases the price of oil for >industries that REALLY need it, like airlines. That's only corn based ethanol, not sugar based which Brazil produces and can't export to us because of ridiculous protective tariffs for our sugar growers. Of all things, we will have an energy crisis to produce those that produce a fattening non-nutritive crop like sugar. Ethanol is also an issue for corn because if you look at the entire production process, it pollutes more than the equivalent oil and produces some 30% less energy content so the price of the crap has to be 30% less than gas to be just edquivalent to it. Which can't be done without taxpayer subsidies, so, of course, that of all the solutions is the one our stupid politicians have chosen because they like to starve the poor of the world will making Iowa farmers fat and happy. >Electrical energy for cars, homes, and businesses would dramatically >reduce our dependence on oil. However, in the US this is problem, >because fossil fuels are being used to get electricity. >What we need are more nuclear power plants. >In fact, burning coal sends more radioactive waste into our atmosphere >than nuclear power plants would. Never heard this nuclear waste point. Where did you get it from? The problem with coal is co2 production which can now apparently be reinserted into the ground. > > Wouldn't millions of steam vehicles do in the atmosphere/ionsphere a > > la global warming. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > In fact, burning coal sends more radioactive waste into our atmosphere > than nuclear power plants would. WIKI has a nice write-up. Is if feasibe today? My opinion is I dunno, how much electrivity does it take to boil water? A vehicle produces/gives off/wastes so much heat that what if some clever engineers used some of that heat to boil the water? Two worries: "steam pollution" and riding in/on/near a tea kettle/pressure cooker contraption heat water by electricity off the wall: heat by nuclear cell nuke powerred vehicles, them thar elitist green eco totalitarian freaks etal aren't amused i presume >> " Co-op Jet Fuel" >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >petroleum-based jet fuel if need be, but maybe the airlines could have a >way to step away from the oil stream entirely ... ? Great idea but how do you plan to handle the environmentalists who won't let you do it? >>> " Co-op Jet Fuel" >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Great idea but how do you plan to handle the environmentalists who > won't let you do it? Put them on the "No Fly" list. >Put them on the "No Fly" list. They'll just use even more fuel by driving. >>Put them on the "No Fly" list. > > They'll just use even more fuel by driving. But they won't be able to run around the country delivering their message as easily. Many years ago, there was one of these ecoNazis who railled against the airlines for wasting fuel. He managed to get on the late night shows and I'll never forget how Johnny Carson cut him to ribbons. The ecoNazi said that it wasn't necessary for three airlines to run 5 flights a day from NY to LA and also 5 flights a day from NY to SF, most of which were less than half full. They should eliminate at least half the flights and fly NY to LA to SF or NY to SF to LA. He kept giving example after example like this. Johnny then sucked him in by telling the ecoNazi what a great idea he had and then calmly asked where in the last week he had talked about this great idea. The ecoNazi rattled off an impressive list of cities he had visited in the past week to give this "speech". Johnny then asked him how, if his idea had been implemented, he would have had the flexibility in airline flights to keep such a schedule. The ecoNazi literally freaked out and was unable to make any intelligible sounds for the rest of his interview. >>Put them on the "No Fly" list. > > They'll just use even more fuel by driving. Er, these are s'posed to be environmentalists opposed to pollution, so perhaps they won't drive either. Train, bus, or they won't be able to afford the gas for driving, and won't go at all. (Cue Andy Rooney's recent out-of-touch rant on 60 Minutes.) >> " Co-op Jet Fuel" >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >petroleum-based jet fuel if need be, but maybe the airlines could have a >way to step away from the oil stream entirely ... ? Why bother? Because F-T has not been proven to work at all. Most any use of coal still gets us worse in terms of greenhouse gases and everything else than our current situation. F-T has been around for ages, even when we were in the 70s oil crisis. It's no panacea for anything. What WOULD be a good idea is to shift away from the assinine use of corn-based ethanol, shifting more of our electricity production to nuclear and start using natural gas as a vehicle fuel source. This won't work for jets, obviously, but the fact that it will work in cars means it could dramatically alter the energy landscape. Corn-based ethanol is, quite simply, one of the dumbest things we've done in AGES. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.