Ultralight aircraft 2 strokes to be banned
 

That's just for starters...

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph






.

The lunatic fringe is becoming less of a fringe!! :{

No more flushing the 140 in the driveway then...

Yep. They want to ban them so we can meet our CO2 targets... or to atone to the climate gods. Pick one, the're both just as silly.:hmm:

...anyway, the CO2 output of all them Oz two strokes combined would likely be the same amount as put out in a few seconds by a coal fired power station. And yet around the world there are 621 new coal fired power stations being built right now according to information given to Australian senator Williams.

No Cookies | Herald Sun






.

Before anyone else wastes 10 seconds of their life be warned the previous post takes you straight to the BBS.*

*Bolt Bulls#*t Show

Makes sense to me.

What's your position on two-strokes, Rutan?

Very good purgatives if you fly behind one.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif

Also old mate seems to get 3 times the distance on a tank of fuel since he changed to a 4 stroke outboard.

Why on earth would anyone use a two stroke anything these days. Horrible noisy things that are hard to start, you have to mix the oil/fuel just right, then when finished what you are doing, you smell like an oil refinery. Electric rechargeable is the way to go.

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..:hmm:





.

I were looking at them battery chainsaws a few months back. Something to leave behind the seat of the ute for those times when yer find a tree across the track. Advise i received from an elec saw owner were to stick with me 2 stroke Sthil for a while longer yet.

Meanwhile, back with pax carrying aircraft. When battery/elec powered aircraft can be built that match fuel powered aircraft in the cost and operational areas I'd say they'd take off. Long way off yet.





.

@Flying Binghi - can't you find another forum for your climate change skeptic fruit cake rants?

He writes this stuff on another forum already... he just needs to spare this one of such posts :-)

Co2 Emissions
 

This sort of comment is a bit like some of those associated with the SSM Survey. Last time I checked we were supposed to live in a democracy and have the right to free speech, unless of course we oppose SSM or the notion of Global Warming. We are sitting back happily watching the Global Warming believers destroy our economy and yet we contribute less than 2% of global emissions. To me that simply means that we could shut down each and every Co2 emitting item in Australia and our contribution at very best would be a less than 2% reduction in Global Emissions. When the Global Warming believers all start using sailing ships instead of aircraft, riding horses instead of driving powered vehicles and living in mud brick houses I might even start believing them.

stihl chainsaw, cold dead hands.

lying Binghi,
Your mate is spot on, electric chain saws just don't have the grunt, although I must admit that my 12" bar battery saw is convenient for light ppruning --- of the garden variety, of course.
Tootle pip!!

Yeah, suppose there comes a time in every ones life when its an electric chain saw and an electric mobility scooter to help carry the saw to the job..:p





.

Havin a look-see at yer old posts there peterc005 and found this jem:

"...P.S. I like Julia Gillard and think she is a fine person doing a good job..."

From the thread: http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...tion-fuel.html



And reading all those easily debunked claims of peterc005 reminded me of...

Via Garth Paltridge, Atmospheric physicist and former Chief Research Scientist CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research -

"...There is a fair amount of reasonable science behind the global warming debate, but in general, and give or take a religion or two, never has quite so much rubbish been espoused by so many on so little evidence. One wonders why..."


Mr Paltridge wrote an excellent book called The Climate Caper





.

Funny if it wasnt so serious.

A few weeks ago i had to go down to the big smoke. To to left of me where coal trains going to the largest coal export port in the world. To right of me were components going to the latest wind turbine farm in the north new england.

So we not allowed to use coal here in Australia but are allowed to export the stuff. We export the high quality coal and we use the the lower quality here.

Yesterday we were told we are 1.27 % of the worlds co2 emiters. Remember that what we export and what that country burns is place on Australia co2 emmision. A country of 25 million.

So if you think that if we stop exporting how long do you think it would take mmm lets say china to come down and just take it.

Mean while we now pay the highest power rates in the world pay high personal tax while we export or country away and get nothing for it.

6 billoin australian $$$$ this year alone will go overseas in goverment subitites to support wind turbines.

The idea that is irrelevant.

Pilots on an A380 are less than 1.27% of the people on board, so does that make them not worth considering when discussing aviation safety?

I find it odd that some pilots seem not to be able to grasp the concept of leadership.

Yes you must be a pilot that cant think or read. If we remove the exports we nothing. Why are we being being used for the over peoples useage.

Worlds population approx 7.5 billion. Australian population 25 million. Do you really think we make a difference. If we all stoped tomorrow we make not a difference. Even the chief scientist was ask can we make a difference if we stoped 100& of emisions he said no. Then ask what if we go to 50% emision stopage. He said i think ive already answered that question. For every $1 extra that spent on electricity bills it $1 less that spent to give my kids your kids ypur family work. We now going to be held to ransom by AGL as predicted some time back. To put wind turbines up to comply withe liddel removal will take a min of 2400 3mgw turbines. But will provide not 1 watt of base load power.

---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.

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.

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?

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?

Don't those emit a greenhouse gas known as methane? :=

Not at all: The clue is in the word 'storage'.

And ?? 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?

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.

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.

:= 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!!!

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.

Methane Gas
 

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.

Methane actually comes with bull s....kaz

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!

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.