"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

I could live with that as neither of my boats burn anything close to
that. But there are others that would complain because offshore fishing
is what they do for recreation and they probably have a lot invested in
it.




Let them complain.

And you can just complain when something you like is taxed to excess. The
Govenator's new universal health plan for children in California is to be
paid for by tobacco taxes. What a crock. If it is a good thing to have
cheap universal insurance, then let everyone pay for it.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:10:59 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:54:00 -0500, HK wrote:

Chuck Gould wrote:

At one time, Harry, you were very proud to own a Hatteras. That boat
had to burn one heck of a lot of fuel at any sort of speed. What
happened to change your attitude over the last 7-10 years?

What happened? You haven't read a newspaper or seen a TV news show in
the last 15 years?

Watched Fox News with Brit Hume Thursday.
He noted that although oil almost hit $100 a barrel, energy is still
cheaper than in 1974.
Made my day.

I love this "adjusted for inflation" crap.

It's nonsense.

Why? Between the Dems and Repubs overspending, the dollar is very inflated.
Probably 20% of the stock market is inflation at minimum.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:58:04 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.

But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Who gets the money? Exxon?

Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations
set up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve
the public's trust.

Harry, you're talking a dream world. We know nuclear energy works. Hell,
the French taught us. Brian Williams did a special on it the other night.
Of course, his emphasis was on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which I
couldn't understand. There seems to be a certain crowd of people who are
against any workable alternatives, but want to raise taxes to study them.

Nonsense.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:24:00 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .

I have two concerns with nuclear.

1) We need a better alternative to the fate of spent fuel than
sweeping it under the rug.

2) It isn't cheap. I pay one utility bill to a fossil fuel(coal)
electric company and another to a nuclear fuel company. The nuclear
kwh is about 30% higher in cost than the fossil fuel.

It is a tough question, but one we are going to have to come to terms
with... I'm damn near willing to do anything to remove us from the
teat of arab oil.....


I am for nuclear power, but I am not sure I understand how it will help in
getting us off of oil.
Nuc power will reduce fossil fuel use but it is primarily coal I think.

Eisboch

Plentiful nuke electricity should make electric commuter cars more
viable than they currently are. I don't have figures, but I'll bet
that most gasoline goes to commuting/grocery-getting/short trips.
Don't know how much home/plant heating is done with oil, but that
can go electric.
Here I heat with NG. That is already becoming near as expensive as
electric. Some power companies are using NG to generate electricity,
increasing gas costs even more.
Coal is filthy and probably causes more death and destruction every
few years as Hiroshima, Nagasaki, TMI and Chernoybyl combined.
It could be burned cleaner, but scrubbing the gases would probably
make it more expensive than nukes.
Nukes are the future. Or dirty air, cold houses and very expensive
locomotion fuel. That's how I see it, anyway.
Save most of the gas/deisel for trucks, airplanes and boats.
And my car, of course. A few will of us will keep gas cars.

--Vic

HK wrote:
Jim wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it.
It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.


Just for information, I just tried searching for a breakdown of fuel
usage in the US, comparing gallons used in automobiles and gallons
used for recreational boating. I haven't found the answer yet, but
obviously the auto number will be much higher.

I *did* find one interesting statistic for New Jersey. It is an old
data (1997) but was still revealing. In that year a total of 30
million gallons of fuel was used for recreational boating. 20
million gallons of that was in outboard engine powered boats.

So, at least in 1997, the big boats weren't using the most fuel.

Eisboch

That's still not the point. It's the matter of one guy using too much
of a dwindling natural resource. There's no possible justification
for burning 50 to 100 gallons of fuel an hour for kicks.

How many GPH of fuel burn is justifiable, by HK standards, for "just
for kicks" boat useage? And please let us know how you arrived at your
conclusion.


Less than 40 gph at cruise, with that number diminishing every couple of
years, so that eventually we end up with smaller boats burning a lot
less fuel or large boats with smaller engines.

How did you come up with the 40 gph number?

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it.
It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.



But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like
yours, being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large
sportsfishing boat designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing
for bigger fish. Are you suggesting that offshore fishing be
eliminated because the boats are bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Harry,
Why should one boat get a tax break and another one support someone
else's habit? Tax them all, and let God sort them out.

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations set
up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve the
public's trust.

Good grief Harry, haven't you learned by now that government distributed
funds (usually grants) for more research and development of anything rarely
yields anything? Boondoogles mostly.

Real advancements will come from private industry when there is a financial
reward or return for the investment cost and effort.

Eisboch



There are ways to have foundation-managed research without having the
crooks of the oil industry involved.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it.
It is a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for
"fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to
Hawaii, Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747
uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch

There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common
carrier air transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.



But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like
yours, being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large
sportsfishing boat designed for use 40 or more miles offshore,
fishing for bigger fish. Are you suggesting that offshore fishing be
eliminated because the boats are bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say,
40 gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.

Harry,
Why should one boat get a tax break and another one support someone
else's habit? Tax them all, and let God sort them out.



We should be encouraging more economical use of resources by taxing the
big users into boats with smaller engines.

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:58:04 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.
But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
Who gets the money? Exxon?
Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations
set up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve
the public's trust.

Harry, you're talking a dream world. We know nuclear energy works. Hell,
the French taught us. Brian Williams did a special on it the other night.
Of course, his emphasis was on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which I
couldn't understand. There seems to be a certain crowd of people who are
against any workable alternatives, but want to raise taxes to study them.

Nonsense.


I support properly built and managed nuke plants. I live close to one.
Further, I believe the spent fuel rods should be stored in places like
Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, where the locals know no better.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:34:29 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:58:04 -0500, HK wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:28:29 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

You just don't seem to get it. It isn't a matter of affording it. It is
a matter of wasting huge amounts of dwindling resources for "fun."
Harry, you should then consider giving up your airplane trips to Hawaii,
Costa Rica or any other non-essential trips. A Boeing 747 uses
approximately 1 gallon of fuel every second.

Eisboch
There's a bit of a difference when 300 people are on a common carrier air
transport and four guys are out on a gas hog sportfish.
But there is also a difference between the purpose of a boat like yours,
being a near shore or coastal fishing boat versus a large sportsfishing boat
designed for use 40 or more miles offshore, fishing for bigger fish. Are
you suggesting that offshore fishing be eliminated because the boats are
bigger and use more fuel?

Eisboch


Not at all. As I stated many posts ago, a fuel usage surcharge tax for
boats burning more than X gallons an hour at cruise would be sufficient.
Let's say diesel/gas is $3.00 at the dock...you burn more than, say, 40
gallons an hour at cruise, you pay $6.00 or $9.00 a gallon.
Who gets the money? Exxon?
Nope. The money goes into funds to provide more research and development
money for non-carbon based energy sources, and specifically excludes any
corporations or subsidiaries of corporations or "shadow" corporations
set up by the oil companies. They've already proved they don't deserve
the public's trust.

Harry, you're talking a dream world. We know nuclear energy works. Hell,
the French taught us. Brian Williams did a special on it the other night.
Of course, his emphasis was on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which I
couldn't understand. There seems to be a certain crowd of people who are
against any workable alternatives, but want to raise taxes to study them.

Nonsense.

I support properly built and managed nuke plants. I live close to one.
Further, I believe the spent fuel rods should be stored in places like
Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, where the locals know no better.

I support nukes too.

Nuke everything!!