Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Ultralight aircraft 2 strokes to be banned

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Ultralight aircraft 2 strokes to be banned

Old 14th Sep 2017, 03:04
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: with the other ex-CX pond scum (a zoologist was once head of Flight Ops)
Posts: 0
---which will take (I understand) some 12 years to repay the energy to mine and produce the materials, make, transport and erect these monsters (and guess where that energy comes from), then maybe another 8 years producing power (when the wind blows at the right speed), with ongoing servicing and the killing of birds and bats, then at the end of life, rinse and repeat. So inefficient they have to be subsidised by the long-suffering tax payer.

A scam, abetted by the 'useful idiot' greens and socialists.

Last edited by Captain Dart; 14th Sep 2017 at 03:14.
Captain Dart is online now  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 12:02
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
---which will take (I understand) some 12 years to repay the energy to mine and produce the materials, make, transport and erect these monsters (and guess where that energy comes from), then maybe another 8 years producing power (when the wind blows at the right speed), with ongoing servicing and the killing of birds and bats, then at the end of life, rinse and repeat. So inefficient they have to be subsidised by the long-suffering tax payer.
Capt Dart with all due respect you need to get your head out of the cockpit a bit more often and do a bit more reading. (Reading or listening to coal spokesman Andrew Bolt does not equate to the acquisition of knowledge)

Closing Liddell power station is supposed to leave the grid 1,000 M/Vs short.
Last year Mr Adani put up a 648 M/V solar power station in southern India in 8 months for about $888 million AUD. That would make a 1,000 M/V about $1.5 billion AUD (The panels were all made in China)
If they build a new 70% dirty coal fired station of similar size it would cost over $2 billion and about $100 million per year to feed it coal for the rest of it's life- assuming they can obtain quality coal for $40 per ton. If it had a 40 year life that's $4 billion. You could buy a lot of pumped hydro storage or even better ammonia storage for that money. Solar is looking good both environmentally and cost wise. As a bonus I've never heard of a human or a bat or a bird getting black lung from solar panels.
rutan around is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 12:19
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,797
Neatly sidestepped Dart's wind comments there, Rootan.

And remind me how much that 1gw battery is going to cost so we've got the power available when there's no sun?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 14:49
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 14
If we remove the exports we nothing.
That may well be correct.

But I think the answer is Vickers Viscounts. As a young lad at Essendon aerodrome I loved the whistle of the RR Darts, not that I knew then what they were. Why did we ever bother developing aircraft after they were invented?

Because people back then had imagination.

Renewables can't do baseload? Wait a while, they will. Renewables not as cheap as coal? Wait a (short) while, they will be, if not already.

Climate change is bullsh1t, therefore fossil fuels are infinite? Mmmmm, don't think so.

Maybe replacing fossil fuels on the ground will keep them available for use in the air a bit longer.

Don't care because you will be dead by then? Mmmm, selfish?
AnotherRedWineThanks is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 15:10
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Richmond NSW
Posts: 1,222
Originally Posted by Old Fella View Post
riding horses
Don't those emit a greenhouse gas known as methane?
gerry111 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 15:36
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 14
Neatly sidestepped Dart's wind comments there, Rootan [sic].
Not at all:
You could buy a lot of pumped hydro storage or even better ammonia storage for that money.
The clue is in the word 'storage'.

And
how much that 1gw battery is going to cost
?? Cheaper every day. An old mate bought a VHS recorder for $1200 because he was an early adopter, and didn't regret it, because he had a VHS recorder and we didn't. Same with 1 GW batteries. My guess is that they will follow the same price path as hard discs. That's what seems to be happening already. once again I ask, why didn't we stick with Vickers Viscounts?
AnotherRedWineThanks is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 18:52
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
how much that 1gw battery is going to cost
Who cares. With pumped hydro and or ammonia to store surplus energy they would not be needed. Just as fossil gases are used now when power is needed quickly so stored ammonia could be used instead either directly or just the hydrogen component.

Neatly sidestepped Dart's wind comments there, Rootan [sic]
Red Wine fan thank goodness someone understands what I'm on about. I haven't got the time or inclination to rebuff every fact free argument put up by the likes of Capt Dart . However re wind turbines they recoup their energy input costs in months not years. He also conveniently forgets the amount of money and energy needed to build his dirty coal fired power station before it even makes one watt. He then ignores it's life long dependence on expensive coal while spewing crap into the air. I don't know what part of free energy in the form of wind and sunshine he doesn't understand.
rutan around is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 22:12
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gods Country
Age: 49
Posts: 180
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi View Post
Outboards ?

Evinrude are 2 stroke engines, likely burn less fuel then a 4 stroke of equivalent torque, and they offer a full 10 year warranty on the engine..





.
Nah they dont at all. 7yrs of an ETEC and can tell you not great on fuel compared to 4stroke and 10 Year warranty?? I wish or I wouldnt be getting rid of mine, they can fix it, again!!!
Lancair70 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 23:49
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: South of YSSY
Age: 68
Posts: 437
I have well over a thousand hours behind two-stroke Rotax aircraft engines, and although they are reliable and cheap, they are simply no longer acceptable as an aeroplane powerplant when compared to the Rotax 912-family of engines.

My advice to anyone still flying a two-stroke powered aeroplane is fly it until the engine is worn out and then scrap the entire machine and embrace the world of four-stroke powered aeroplanes. You'll wonder why you persisted with the two-stroke for so long.
criticalmass is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2017, 05:22
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 1,349
Methane Gas

Originally Posted by gerry111 View Post
Don't those emit a greenhouse gas known as methane?
I guess they do Gerry, but how many Global Warming believers would be riding them? Not many I think. See you a the 2018 reunion I hope.
Old Fella is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2017, 14:18
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by gerry111 View Post
Don't those emit a greenhouse gas known as methane?
Methane actually comes with bull s....kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2017, 17:05
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 934
@Flying Binghi - can't you find another forum for your climate change skeptic fruit cake rants?
I am another climate change sceptic.

That said, I am an environmentalist, on the lower scale.

Peter can you show us the studies that compare the environmental impact of Coal/Gas emissions Vs Renewable Energy technology?

That would be, 3 fold.
Environmental Impact at...
1 Production
2. lifespan
3. end of life

#3 is VERY important

My understanding from the few studies so far conducted, that the end of life impact of renewables (solar panels, batteries and the like) with a ten year life span, is greater than the emissions of a coal fired power plant with a 40 year life span, over the whole course of the power plant life!
jas24zzk is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2017, 21:15
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
My understanding from the few studies so far conducted, that the end of life impact of renewables (solar panels, batteries and the like) with a ten year life span, is greater than the emissions of a coal fired power plant with a 40 year life span, over the whole course of the power plant life!
jaz24zzk please post just a couple of sources you used to arrive at your understanding. I'm sure others besides me would be interested to see them.
rutan around is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2017, 01:55
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by jas24zzk View Post
I am another climate change sceptic.

That said, I am an environmentalist, on the lower scale.

Peter can you show us the studies that compare the environmental impact of Coal/Gas emissions Vs Renewable Energy technology?

That would be, 3 fold.
Environmental Impact at...
1 Production
2. lifespan
3. end of life

#3 is VERY important

My understanding from the few studies so far conducted, that the end of life impact of renewables (solar panels, batteries and the like) with a ten year life span, is greater than the emissions of a coal fired power plant with a 40 year life span, over the whole course of the power plant life!
Hi Jas

PV cells are already being recycled in Australia and their numbers, like those of deep storage batteries, will undoubtedly grow exponentially over the next 2-3 decades (both have long expected lives)

Both are already being recycled in small numbers and the industry will grow.

PV panels and batteries both need to be added to the list of regulated e-waste to ensure that both manufacturers and purchasers dispose of them responsibility.

https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/...es-be-recycled

Solar panel recycler leads Australia in emerging industry - The Lead SA

Best thing I've ever done apart from buying my AUSTER was installing solar panels on my house. My winter energy bill for the last 3 months is less than $110.

Kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2017, 08:03
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: perth
Posts: 65
That's great Kaz. Did you pay full price for the panels, or were they subsidised?
How much do you get paid for the power they put into the grid? And how much do you pay for the power taken from the grid?
bolthead is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2017, 09:54
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
A post appears to have been withdrawn where somebody suggested that all government subsidies be withdrawn from renewables and let the best man win in the battle between new expensive dirty coal power and new expensive clean power. The writer must have felt a bit of a hypocrite when he realized that most if not all 24 coal power stations were built with government money. It gets worse. After the gov got their money back from the sale of electricity to the taxpayers one would think they would then be able to sell the power at the cost to run and maintain the now paid for station. But no. They then sell or lease it to some big company who just loves a lucrative monopoly and that big company then pays for it all over again by charging whatever they can get away with. Don't give me sob stories about subsidies.
rutan around is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2017, 12:47
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: perth
Posts: 65
That's a difficult choice. A choice between new dirty expensive coal power that works all the time, and new expensive renewable power that works some of the time.
In the 'Aus' newspaper a week or so ago was an article about a guy who had installed a $30,000 battery ( AGL I think ) that cost him $5,000. Hmmmm I wonder who's paying the rest?
During the next SA blackout, If he thinks all the power in that battery is his to use, then I've got news for him, and it's all bad.
By the way, it was only a month or two old and was going to be replaced.
bolthead is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2017, 13:34
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
That's a difficult choice. A choice between new dirty expensive coal power that works all the time, and new expensive renewable power that works some of the time.
There are lots of things lots of things that we need that don't work or produce all the time. Water is a good example. In Australia it doesn't rain every day or indeed every year in some places. So when it rains we store enough to see us through to when it next rains. Wheat and other foods are handled the same way.

Why is everyone getting their knickers in a knot about intermittent electricity? The technology is there to store enough electricity/energy to see us through the longest recorded no light no wind period for a particular area. What this discussion is about is finding the most effective , economical method known to date for storing power.

I happen to support ammonia for numerous reasons but would drop it in an instant if a superior system came to light.

One thing for sure is that it is a waste of time and intellectual resources to argue that we can keep pumping 50 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year without repercussions.
Clean energy however we choose to do it is our only choice.

Last edited by rutan around; 16th Sep 2017 at 13:37. Reason: clarification
rutan around is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2017, 06:05
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: perth
Posts: 65
Hey Rutan, I'm no scientist, but I like to try to sort out the wheat from the chaff. But inconvenient things keep on popping up - in favour of both sides. But I don't think people types like Al Gore or Michael Moore help your cause. They seem to think it is their duty ( and make lots of money in the process ) to scare the bejesus out of everyone with overblown rhetoric. Or our very own Tim.

There is a receding glacier somewhere ( Alaska I think - reported and pictured recently ) that is revealling 2,000 year old trees trunks. I bet that didn't make it into Al Gore's latest movie.
bolthead is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2017, 08:17
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
But inconvenient things keep on popping up - in favour of both sides.
Bolthead it seems to me that a good indication that a theory is correct is when its predictions come true. Climate scientists have been warning for a long time that uncontrolled releasing of CO2 and other green house gasses into the atmosphere would lead to global warming causing ice to melt and sea levels to rise.

Well each one of the last three years has seen the hottest global average temperatures ever recorded, ice is melting ( your glacier somewhere , ships passing through the Arctic Ocean in summer) and sea levels rising partly through seawater expanding as it warms and partly through ice melting.

Those who don't want to believe our climatologists instruments keep changing their position. One faulty instrument out of thousands is faulty so they must all be wrong. Our earth orbit has moved closer to the sun without a skerrick of evidence that this has happened and even if it did move by the amount they say, the effect would be tiny. They also say climate change has occurred before, when man could not have affected it, so it's not man driven now.

Something drives climate change. Abnormal volcanic activity, a collision with a large meteorite or a near miss with a planet sized object are some things that could cause warming without mans involvement.

As none of these has happened since the industrial age started it's a pretty good bet that we have something to do with the rising temperatures.

There is a receding glacier somewhere ( Alaska I think - reported and pictured recently ) that is revealling 2,000 year old trees trunks. I bet that didn't make it into Al Gore's latest movie.
Why not? It seems to indicate that it is now the hottest it has been for 2,000 years and that is why the ice has melted exposing the trees.
rutan around is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.