I've been thinking. I really object to what Greta Thunberg has done but may ultimately thank her. Like Trump she is the extreme voice of her argument. Maybe only the extreme voices are listening to.
My plan is we should continue with air as kerosene. Shipping use diesel rather than the fuel they use now. Electric power for shipping might be possible with computer controlled sails. Gas heating for perhaps 15 years yet. 15 years is enough for a better plan. We have a responsibility to give the poorer countries a better life. African seems to be better than us in this epidemic.
My plan is we should continue with air as kerosene. Shipping use diesel rather than the fuel they use now. Electric power for shipping might be possible with computer controlled sails. Gas heating for perhaps 15 years yet. 15 years is enough for a better plan. We have a responsibility to give the poorer countries a better life. African seems to be better than us in this epidemic.
So I may be ignorant, what horror did Greta Thunberg do? All I know is that she sailed across the ocean and gave lectures saying don’t destroy the future. Her future. To hear you tell it, sounds like she did some horrible thing. Please explain and enlighten me. It seems like you agree that global warming is a “thing”.
Also as far as I know transportation, truck and rail, and ships only use diesel right now, and planes only kerosene right now. What are you suggesting changing?
Also as far as I know transportation, truck and rail, and ships only use diesel right now, and planes only kerosene right now. What are you suggesting changing?
The Media has exploited Greta Thunberg as a story. You could say fair enough. The problem is there isn't an easy route to the Utopia demanded. For example even if power stations could cope charging electric cars would not be easy. People who live in apartments have no easy options. As this crisis shows the smallest change is challenging. That's not an excuse not to do it. It needs something like the United Nations to help suggest the best way. Also countries like Russia are being condemned to povity as it'sa a major exporter of oil and gas. Whilst I don't have any love of the government there I respect their ability to be displeased.
You missed the point about fuels. The Media has talked about electric aircraft.The top speed of these would be 400 mph and range wouldn't be great. Kerosene has massive power per unit mass. For example 50 miles per passenger gallon is routine. That's 4.5 litres. Ships until recently burnt a lower grade of diesel. Whilst what they use as fuel cannot easily be changed the refinement can and is a product already used.
I think if ships and aircraft improved whilst using now technology they still could be part of sensible scientific solutions. Ideally as tested in Israel batteries on cars should be exchanged at the petrol station. It was proved it could be as fast as now to drive in and out.
To my mind sea level rise is a really terrible consiquence of global warming. I am sorry to say I think it's too late for that. Amplifying Greta Thunbergs thoughts might be an easy story. It is slightly irresponsible as it isn't a binary choice. For example making that many batteries might exhaust known reserves of lithium. 15 to 25 years to do this. As Ross Brown at Mercedes said. For China to go electric on cars could increase pollution as the generation is mostly coal. Whilst it could be a close run thing he is in spirit right.
737 Max is a brilliant reaction to the need for greater fuel efficiency using an existing design. Nearly all modern aircraft can not fly by hydraulics alone these days. The Max required much better fail safes. Who knows what it's future will be. A freighter?
You missed the point about fuels. The Media has talked about electric aircraft.The top speed of these would be 400 mph and range wouldn't be great. Kerosene has massive power per unit mass. For example 50 miles per passenger gallon is routine. That's 4.5 litres. Ships until recently burnt a lower grade of diesel. Whilst what they use as fuel cannot easily be changed the refinement can and is a product already used.
I think if ships and aircraft improved whilst using now technology they still could be part of sensible scientific solutions. Ideally as tested in Israel batteries on cars should be exchanged at the petrol station. It was proved it could be as fast as now to drive in and out.
To my mind sea level rise is a really terrible consiquence of global warming. I am sorry to say I think it's too late for that. Amplifying Greta Thunbergs thoughts might be an easy story. It is slightly irresponsible as it isn't a binary choice. For example making that many batteries might exhaust known reserves of lithium. 15 to 25 years to do this. As Ross Brown at Mercedes said. For China to go electric on cars could increase pollution as the generation is mostly coal. Whilst it could be a close run thing he is in spirit right.
737 Max is a brilliant reaction to the need for greater fuel efficiency using an existing design. Nearly all modern aircraft can not fly by hydraulics alone these days. The Max required much better fail safes. Who knows what it's future will be. A freighter?
Boeing will probably slash 787 production estimates by half today.
The problem that they are in with respect to government support to BA is that their employees get furlough benefits and unemployment compensation if they are laid off (voluntary layoffs) -- a week of pay for every year with the company up to 26 weeks, and BA will pay their COBRA.
My guess is that Boeing either does a rights offering (not often done in the US) or a $10bn Preffered stock issue.
In other company news, both NYTimes and WSJournal have reported that many laid off employees are making more from the stimulus plan than when they were working.
@Nigel -- don't forget to factor in that the lower price of oil and gas means that more heroic "engineering" measures can be taken to ameliorate the effects of pollution and CO2 production.
The problem that they are in with respect to government support to BA is that their employees get furlough benefits and unemployment compensation if they are laid off (voluntary layoffs) -- a week of pay for every year with the company up to 26 weeks, and BA will pay their COBRA.
My guess is that Boeing either does a rights offering (not often done in the US) or a $10bn Preffered stock issue.
In other company news, both NYTimes and WSJournal have reported that many laid off employees are making more from the stimulus plan than when they were working.
@Nigel -- don't forget to factor in that the lower price of oil and gas means that more heroic "engineering" measures can be taken to ameliorate the effects of pollution and CO2 production.
Last edited:
Well said. This is a trend in many industries. The only engineers they're interested in are financial engineers.
I read in the WSJournal that the new CEO is going to "change the corporate culture" by letting the engineers do their jobs without being bullied by corporate zombies. What a novel concept!
That tells us what happened to Boeing. They gambled with people's lives to boost their personal stock options a few pennies. This is pretty much the new norm. Look at how crappy most consumer stuff is now. It's buy, buy, buy and in a few years when it breaks buy some more. I swear my washing machine broke within 72 hours of its warranty expiration. Coincidence? No way. My microwave did better but it's screwing up too.
The workers might be making more from the stimulus plan, but of course they can’t work now in any case. And perhaps a lot of workers won’t quit their jobs, as they may like them and the amount they make over time by working.
So yeah, too bad they can’t just turn out those surplus workers onto the street, is that the analysis? Jack’s mention of the options the companies have is interesting though.
So yeah, too bad they can’t just turn out those surplus workers onto the street, is that the analysis? Jack’s mention of the options the companies have is interesting though.
The options that executives have encourage pump and dump strategies. That's what stock buybacks are all about. Companies buy their stock back, executives exercise their options at inflated prices, then the companies dump the stock when it starts to lose value. Rinse, lather, repeat; the executives get rich and the companies suffer from financial gyrations and strategies motivated by conflicts of interest.
Another sleight of hand that companies do with options is to issue options to laid off employees. They'll give them a nice fat bundle of options ( worth one! million! dollars!)knowing that they'll be worthless by the time they can be exercised. This is how you get rid of employees before you gut a company; it gives them a false sense of security. It constitutes de facto severance pay when in fact the only cost to the company is the paper and ink required to write the contracts. It's like musical chairs, and when the music stops there's no chairs.
This is financial engineering in the 21st century.
Did you pull that out of thin air? I can't find any post in this thread in which I referred to "options"
Next town over we have hundreds of folks who worked for Celgene and got options from their early involvement in the company. They traded low starting pay, much lower than Merck or JNJ, and are now playing golf at Sawgrass.
Bunker, Kerosene, Diesel, Gasoline are very nearly the same thing, work per pound.
Bunker has more Carbon and some more BTU/lb (mass, not gallon) to the point that it is too thick for most users. A ship can justify heaters and engine-tenders to thin it up, filters to catch the crud in the near-crude. While the energy is a hair high, the main thing is that it is (mostly) not a distillate but a left-behind so the price is low. While once burned under boilers like coal, HUGE Diesel engines were made to drink the stuff (with constant attention to viscosity and dirt).
Gasoline is much thinner so it can use simple carburation and ignition. It is higher in Hydrogen to make it light and thin. With more H it is Zippo Fuel.
Just now, here, Heating oil and Diesel are the same except the Road Tax and the dye to track the taxation. In recent years there has been much fuss about Sulfur in one or the other but recently they have quit shipping higher Sulfur oils for heat or engines, and both are well-filtered, so it is only the tax-dye.
Kerosene is the slice between Heating Oil/Diesel and Gasoline. (In fact what we called gasoline most of the 20th century was called "kerosene" before WWI; true gasoline is VERY volatile and a carb can be just a dish; but demand exceeded supply before 1917.) Presently Kerosene sells higher than Gasoline, even though there is a good market; I think the price is squeezed-up by demand for gasoline and oils.
You mentioned the stock market jockeys and I explained one of the methods these financial wizards use to manipulate money.
In other words, I agree with you.
In the money options on companies that are viable and not being milked or gutted are worth real money.
I understand options. I worked at the CBOT and CME for 25 years.
I use to live at Upper Heyford Oxfordshire. All generators at USAF Upper Heyford ran on kerosene which caused them to soot up. When I asked why the man said " We don't want diesel in F111s ". I was surprised it was not ideal for the generators.
I really hope to fly in a 737 Max. Surely it will be super safe once sorted. The De Havaland Comet when sorted out was reliable. My great regret never having been in one. One of the nicest I did was a Trident. The most bumpy landing a 707 in 1966. .
I really hope to fly in a 737 Max. Surely it will be super safe once sorted. The De Havaland Comet when sorted out was reliable. My great regret never having been in one. One of the nicest I did was a Trident. The most bumpy landing a 707 in 1966. .
I was NYSE ROP -- decades ago -- I had all the badges. I started when Filor Bullard & Smith was the major OTC options trading house! Wrote papers on options...
I was on an L1011 which blew an engine -- that was an exciting ride.
Last edited:
I just looked at the failure history -- since the plane made it to NY perhaps it was just an engine "fart" and a restart not worthy of mention -- all these had RR engines.
Also had a DC10 issue going out of PBI, and a 737 issue going out of Orlando.
Up until two years ago, I was indifferent as to Airbus or Boeing on transatlantic, but the Dreamliner is now the vehicle of choice.
RR has had significant engine problems recently. My vehicle of choice is now a Corolla.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.