20% Wall Tax

Art VanDelay said:
The accident occurred because you had two people that were allowed to rapidly advance to a part 121 cockpit without ever building a solid foundation. The system has it was then was flawed.
Click to expand...

Both of them had hours well in excess of the new requirements. It's not like the new rules require X number of approaches in known icing or any other qualification related to the accident. You can still get all your tickets and build time in sunny AZ without ever touching a cloud.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Problem with nuclear is every reactor out there comes with 10 mile and 50 mile evacuation plans if the plant melts down. We have had 3 meltdowns in 60 years (if you count 3 mile island also). That is one meltdown every 20 years.

If someone can come up with a nuclear reactor that does not require evacuation in a worse case scenario, we have a solution! And it might be possible!

The nuclear waste can be stored, forever, in an underground tunnel. Biggest problem is transporting it, but it can be done. No one wants that tunnel anywhere near them, but really, it is safe storage. Stuff isn't going to do anything except sit there--forever. Big political problem but not a technical impossibility.
Click to expand...

Says easier than it does. If you see "containment" scheduled in you market, it's really worth watching. For instance, let's say there is some sort of Armageddon. How do you warn possible future civilizations of the deadly, toxic nature of whats buried? We're talking 250,000 years in the future. Better to make the investments required to safely reprocess it into fuel, IMHO.

Funny you should mention meltdown-proofing. There is work going on right now at MIT that is essentially a self-regulating reactor core. Current problem is it uses salt as the regulating medium, and it's too corrosive for the current materials used for contructing reactor plumbing. Who knows if it's a technically solvable problem, but the point is the concept is being explored. It's called a molten salt fast reactor, and the Chinese may have a prototype before we do. How 'bout that....
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
'levelized' is the mechanism you have to retreat to when actual cost wouldn't support your point.
...
Levelized is somewhat interesting whe it comes time for a generator or utility to decide on installing new generation capacity, to decide which plants to run to keep the lights on at the best price it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ok but without levelized, the cost of PV approaches zero, which would also not be right. But sure, the net cost would need to be considered if a plant still has operational life left. I was just talking about new installations.

weilke said:
Other sources like the EIA disagree with the numbers in the paper you cited.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/Levelizedgraph2.gif
Click to expand...

This seems to be a document dating from 2009 of a 2012 outlook of a 2017 estimate using 2010 dollars (wth?). Things have drastically changed since then. Avg. PV LCOE is now about 1/6th of what it used to be in 2009. That has changed some of the economics (and only very recently).
 
deonb said:
Yeah, ok but without levelized, the cost of PV approaches zero, which would also not be right.
Click to expand...

Actually it wouldn't. It would mostly be cost of capital and depreciation of the plant. 20 years from now, when you are down to pure operating cost, solar will get cheap. Right now it is not, and 'levelizing' is a way to hide that fact.

EIA, in a ideology driven move has stopped reporting cost for conventional coal altogether*. Of course, if you don't report a number, nobody can use it for comparison, problem solved ;-)




* the last time they did report in 2015 they had coal at 95 and PV at 125. Considering that PV is not 'dispatchable', that's a lot of money for power that you still need to double-up with conventional gas plants for night and low radiation days.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
We obviously disagree about the rule but my point it that it should not have been legislated by Congress. At the minimum it should have gone through the normal rulemaking process involving people in the aviation industry.

The worst part of the rule is this part, which requires this training even if the person may never fly an airplane over 40,000 lbs., yet their job still requires an ATP.
Click to expand...
Training is a good thing - if it weren't mandated do you think the airlines would even bother with it ?
 
Art VanDelay said:
Training is a good thing - if it weren't mandated do you think the airlines would even bother with it ?
Click to expand...
I think most would. I always invested a lot in training in my small business and it paid off. For an airline, the risk/reward of training vs not training is much bigger.
But notice I said "most". Of course there would be some cost cutters that would wind up ruining it for everyone. In fact, that is probably why we have as many rules as we do.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Training is a good thing - if it weren't mandated do you think the airlines would even bother with it ?
Click to expand...
If it was not mandated, companies that fly airplanes under 40,000 lbs. would not need to send their pilots to expensive training that may be somewhat useful but mostly irrelevant. If you're working for an airline that flies airplanes over 40,000 lbs. you would get that training anyway. It doesn't need to be mandated.
 
weilke said:
Both of them had hours well in excess of the new requirements. It's not like the new rules require X number of approaches in known icing or any other qualification related to the accident. You can still get all your tickets and build time in sunny AZ without ever touching a cloud.
Click to expand...
Yes, you could but you are statistically more likely to be exposed to more aviation irregularities when you do something 1500 times vs. 250. It is from these aviation irregularities that we grow as aviators. Additionally and most likely a prospective airline pilot will have to gain a CFI in order to build those 1500 hours. Ask anyone to compare the level of difficulty between their Commercial ride and their CFI ride and they'll tell you it was quite a leap. IIRC neither of Colgan pilots had ever attained a CFI rating.

You can't teach basic airmanship over and over again without knowing a little bit about it yourself. You can however climb the ratings ladder pretty easily up to the commercial level by going thru a pilot mill type school.

As for the fact that they had time in excess of the 1500 hours it doesn't matter because they VERY obviously never learned the basics or established a solid foundation. I could in short order teach a 7/11 clerk how to operate the autopilot on a 777. That same store clerk could successfully operate the autopilot for several thousand hours as long nothing unusual were to happen. Throw in an abnormal situation that calls for basic airmanship and he's in a world of hurt.
 
Everskyward said:
If it was not mandated, companies that fly airplanes under 40,000 lbs. would not need to send their pilots to expensive training that may be somewhat useful but mostly irrelevant. If you're working for an airline that flies airplanes over 40,000 lbs. you would get that training anyway. It doesn't need to be mandated.
Click to expand...

You've obviously never worked for a Major Airline. The bean counters absolutely cannot digest paying a pilot his hourly rate to operate something that does not generate revenue in return.

We had one training department manager that was famous for looking at the other airline's training program and just arbitrarily cutting three days or ten hours off our same training just to make himself look good and our program look cheaper.
 
Art VanDelay said:
You've obviously never worked for a Major Airline. The bean counters absolutely cannot digest paying a pilot his hourly rate to operate something that does not generate revenue in return.

We had one training department manager that was famous for looking at the other airline's training program and just arbitrarily cutting three days or ten hours off our same training just to make himself look good and our program look cheaper.
Click to expand...
You need six hours in a sim representing an airplane over 40,000 lbs. Are you telling me that airline training programs don't provide this much sim time?
 
Art VanDelay said:
Yes, you could but you are statistically more likely to be exposed to more aviation irregularities when you do something 1500 times vs. 250. It is from these aviation irregularities that we grow as aviators. Additionally and most likely a prospective airline pilot will have to gain a CFI in order to build those 1500 hours. Ask anyone to compare the level of difficulty between their Commercial ride and their CFI ride and they'll tell you it was quite a leap. IIRC neither of Colgan pilots had ever attained a CFI rating.

You can't teach basic airmanship over and over again without knowing a little bit about it yourself. You can however climb the ratings ladder pretty easily up to the commercial level by going thru a pilot mill type school.

As for the fact that they had time in excess of the 1500 hours it doesn't matter because they VERY obviously never learned the basics or established a solid foundation. I could in short order teach a 7/11 clerk how to operate the autopilot on a 777. That same store clerk could successfully operate the autopilot for several thousand hours as long nothing unusual were to happen. Throw in an abnormal situation that calls for basic airmanship and he's in a world of hurt.
Click to expand...
That could all be fixed by proper screening and training. It doesn't need to be mandated by Congress.
 
When they first tried to reduce emissions in cars, people objected and said it would never work. There were problems, but smog is LESS now than in the early 1970's and we have a LOT more cars and drivers.

When they got rid of leaded gas people said engines would never make it to 100,000 miles anymore. Engines regularly make it to 200,000 miles now.

They said the freon problem was a hoax and the ozone hole was BS. But we got rid of that type of freon and the ozone hole problem has improved.

There might be some EPA regulations that don't make sense, but most of them do make sense. The ones that dont make sense can be repealed. Does it take money to accomplish them? Yes it does. Just like washing your body, dishes and clothes. Clean is not free...
 
Everskyward said:
If it was not mandated, companies that fly airplanes under 40,000 lbs. would not need to send their pilots to expensive training that may be somewhat useful but mostly irrelevant. If you're working for an airline that flies airplanes over 40,000 lbs. you would get that training anyway. It doesn't need to be mandated.
Click to expand...
Textbook example of thread drift. Or is it thread merge?
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Says easier than it does. If you see "containment" scheduled in you market, it's really worth watching. For instance, let's say there is some sort of Armageddon. How do you warn possible future civilizations of the deadly, toxic nature of whats buried? We're talking 250,000 years in the future. Better to make the investments required to safely reprocess it into fuel, IMHO.

Funny you should mention meltdown-proofing. There is work going on right now at MIT that is essentially a self-regulating reactor core. Current problem is it uses salt as the regulating medium, and it's too corrosive for the current materials used for contructing reactor plumbing. Who knows if it's a technically solvable problem, but the point is the concept is being explored. It's called a molten salt fast reactor, and the Chinese may have a prototype before we do. How 'bout that....
Click to expand...

I bet they will. Just so happens fast reactors produce some mighty fine weapons grade plutonium in the fuel cycle.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I bet they will. Just so happens fast reactors produce some mighty fine weapons grade plutonium in the fuel cycle.
Click to expand...

China is signatory to the NPT, which is supposed to prohibit transfer of fissionable nuclear material from civilian to military use. But, I guess since we're not big on treaty's anymore, I suspect neither will they be.
 
coloradobluesky said:
When they first tried to reduce emissions in cars, people objected and said it would never work. There were problems, but smog is LESS now than in the early 1970's and we have a LOT more cars and drivers.

When they got rid of leaded gas people said engines would never make it to 100,000 miles anymore. Engines regularly make it to 200,000 miles now.

They said the freon problem was a hoax and the ozone hole was BS. But we got rid of that type of freon and the ozone hole problem has improved.

There might be some EPA regulations that don't make sense, but most of them do make sense. The ones that dont make sense can be repealed. Does it take money to accomplish them? Yes it does. Just like washing your body, dishes and clothes. Clean is not free...
Click to expand...

What was this thread about again? Interesting and informative anyway.

All of you with the old R22 refrigerant in your HVAC systems, get ready to switch over to one of the LESS efficient refrigerants the next time you need it added or have to repair anything in the refrigerant circuit. Well, unless you want to pay $75/lb or more. Now I can carry four different jugs of refrigerant (R22, R410a, R407c and R422b) along with matching gage/hose sets, recovery cylinders and two oils (mineral and polyolester). Those last two refrigerants are just two of many replacements that we can choose from. I can hardly wait another 2-3 years when every other customer has a different refrigerant. None of them perform like R22, so I hope your system is not marginally sized. R134a in cars will soon be phased out and that refrigerant will go sky high too. What a mess. Now one would think that an equivalent refrigerant (singular) would have been developed before starting the phasing-out process.
 
I put in a new air conditioner in my house. It works great, better than the old one. Both of my cars air conditioners work just fine. Not sure what refrigerant they use, but whatever it is, it works!
 
coloradobluesky said:
I put in a new air conditioner in my house. It works great, better than the old one. Both of my cars air conditioners work just fine. Not sure what refrigerant they use, but whatever it is, it works!
Click to expand...
Most new systems since 2010 contain 410a. Yes, those work great. Those systems were designed for that refrigerant. The older R22 equipment was not designed for the numerous "drop-in" refrigerants that are on the market now.
 
Everskyward said:
You need six hours in a sim representing an airplane over 40,000 lbs. Are you telling me that airline training programs don't provide this much sim time?
Click to expand...

You don't get it do you ? If they could get away with ZERO they would ! The margins for profit are that slim. If there isn't a regulation saying they have to do something THEY DO NOT DO IT !
 
Everskyward said:
That could all be fixed by proper screening and training. It doesn't need to be mandated by Congress.
Click to expand...

I'm absolutely fine with it being mandated. It goes into effect much quicker that way. It also makes ATP rated pilots a more valuable commodity.
 
Art VanDelay said:
I'm absolutely fine with it being mandated. It goes into effect much quicker that way. It also makes ATP rated pilots a more valuable commodity.
Click to expand...
Of course you would be for it because it makes you more valuable to the company, and you're fine with it being mandated because you agree with it.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
I wouldn't suggest trying to sell it based on being good for the environment, that'd kill it for sure.
Click to expand...
Then you haven't been listening to Jim Hansen. ;)

The fact that greater reliance on nuclear is one piece of any currently feasible GHG emissions reduction scenario is an argument a number of clear-thinking environmental groups are making. The eco-modernist Breakthrough Institute is one such think tank that I believe is on the right track.
 
azure said:
Then you haven't been listening to Jim Hansen. ;)

The fact that greater reliance on nuclear is one piece of any currently feasible GHG emissions reduction scenario is an argument a number of clear-thinking environmental groups are making. The eco-modernist Breakthrough Institute is one such think tank that I believe is on the right track.
Click to expand...

That assumes you think MMGW is a reality...which of course, as we know, not everyone accepts....

But I was was trying to make a subtle funny in kind to Weilke's polar bears comment. In that vein it's probably not a good idea to use the word "science" either when applying for Federal a research grant these days.
 
Last edited:
Chip Sylverne said:
That assumes you think MMGW is a reality...which of course, as we know, not everyone accepts....
Click to expand...
Not everyone, true... but most scientists accept that the recent warming is at least partly due to human-emitted GHGs. There is a fair amount of disagreement about how much is human-caused, and over confidence levels for human vs natural contributions. There is also a quite a bit of disagreement over how much warming we can expect in the future as a function of atmospheric CO2 levels. Climate science is fraught with large uncertainties - which doesn't mean that anyone in the field believes we are not an important player.
But I was was trying to make a subtle funny in kind to Weilke's polar bears comment. In that vein it's probably not a good idea to use the word "science" either when applying for Federal a research grant these days.
Click to expand...
Yes. These are scary times for scientists dependent on federal funding. But we just don't know yet how Trump's policies on science will shake out.
 
azure said:
Yes. These are scary times for scientists dependent on federal funding. But we just don't know yet how Trump's policies on science will shake out.
Click to expand...

That says it all right there.
 
azure said:
Not everyone, true... but most scientists accept that the recent warming is at least partly due to human-emitted GHGs. There is a fair amount of disagreement about how much is human-caused, and over confidence levels for human vs natural contributions. There is also a quite a bit of disagreement over how much warming we can expect in the future as a function of atmospheric CO2 levels. Climate science is fraught with large uncertainties - which doesn't mean that anyone in the field believes we are not an important player.

Yes. These are scary times for scientists dependent on federal funding. But we just don't know yet how Trump's policies on science will shake out.
Click to expand...

And Governor Moonbeam wants to regulate cow farts. I guess with him MMGW is religion more than science.
 
Norman said:
And Governor Moonbeam wants to regulate cow farts. I guess with him MMGW is religion more than science.
Click to expand...
Stay away from partisan baiting or this thread will be closed. People have been pretty good up until now.
 
Norman said:
And Governor Moonbeam wants to regulate cow farts. I guess with him MMGW is religion more than science.
Click to expand...

Worldwide, methane and nitric oxide from agricultural sources is one of the biggest contributors to mmgw. There are management strategies, not so much for 'cow farts' but for the tratment of liquid manure. Imnho a completely legit issue to attack.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
That assumes you think MMGW is a reality...
Click to expand...

This is fairly irrelevant when it comes to nuclear policy. The against-MMGW croud is generally pro-nuclear anyway (or at least more so).

So you just have to sway the for-MMGW/anti-nuclear croud to have a win on nuclear policy.
 
deonb said:
This is fairly irrelevant when it comes to nuclear policy. The against-MMGW croud is generally pro-nuclear anyway (or at least more so).
Click to expand...

There are a couple of pockets of reason, but most of the MMGW crowd is against everything.
 
Man Made Global Warming relies on the belief that Global Warming exists.

Climatologists seem to agree that the average temperatures have increased and decreased over the eons. It's the causation where the disagreements occur. And the choice of cause is.... yah... you guessed it...
 
Art VanDelay said:
I'm absolutely fine with it being mandated. It goes into effect much quicker that way. It also makes ATP rated pilots a more valuable commodity.
Click to expand...
I'd rather mandates be placed in effect based on a real need and facts rather than a knee-jerk response to "do something". The FAA was capable of creating such a mandate. As EverSkyward mentioned, the people involved in the Colgan crash met the hours required by the mandate. So the mandate really didn't do anything useful. The accident would have still happened even if the mandate were in place prior to the accident.

I'm OK with laws and regulations if they actually do something useful.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I'd rather mandates be placed in effect based on a real need and facts rather than a knee-jerk response to "do something". The FAA was capable of creating such a mandate. As EverSkyward mentioned, the people involved in the Colgan crash met the hours required by the mandate. So the mandate really didn't do anything useful. The accident would have still happened even if the mandate were in place prior to the accident.

I'm OK with laws and regulations if they actually do something useful.
Click to expand...
 
There is no question that we are removing carbon-hydrogen energy sources (oil, coal, natural gas), burning them and releasing CO2 once trapped in earth into the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 has doubled in some from 200 parts per million to 400 parts per million. (400 ppm is 4/100ths of 1 percent, right?). This increase is a man made event.

What is questionable is, is this increase in CO2 causing global warming? The "concensus" of scientists say yes, with just enough saying no that there is still some dissent.

What is also questionable is can society do anything significant about reducing this? Or are we just going to have to adapt to it?

It's a lot bigger problem that acid rain or ozone depletion. Very frustrating to think about too. Just when mankind invents medical procedures to reduce pain and suffering and has within it's grasp the political and economic knowledge to cure poverty and give freedom to all, along comes environmental problems and overcrowding. Well, human society has never been trouble free, that's for sure.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top