113 gallons per hour...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
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!!

specially that Woodstock. All those heathen rock and rollers and galactic
rulers.

I know it is a different Woodstock, but does not matter.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:04:18 -0500, Dan intrceptor@gmaildotcom
wrote:

Large boats with smaller engines would burn less fuel per hour, but the
MPG would be worse since they have to run the same distance, dummy.

In actual practice it does not work out that way. It takes a huge
increase in fuel consumption to run a large boat on plane. The same
boat run at something like 1.2 times the SQRT of waterline length will
average much less on a per mile basis. That's why people buy
trawlers.

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:14:36 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Navistar is developing a very interesting diesel/electric hybrid lift
truck for utility companies. According to them, in tests, they are
achieving fuel reductions of 50/60% over normal lift truck operations.

It's only a matter of time until that gets to larger boats.

The strength of hybrids comes from good acceleration with a relatively
small engine. That does not compute for constant speed/constant power
applications like a boat.

113 gallons per hour...
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"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.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22. Smoking is
declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten the decline as will
the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch

113 gallons per hour...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"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.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22. Smoking
is declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten the decline as
will the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch


Boaters. :)

113 gallons per hour...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:57:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:14:36 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Navistar is developing a very interesting diesel/electric hybrid lift
truck for utility companies. According to them, in tests, they are
achieving fuel reductions of 50/60% over normal lift truck operations.

It's only a matter of time until that gets to larger boats.

The strength of hybrids comes from good acceleration with a relatively
small engine. That does not compute for constant speed/constant power
applications like a boat.

I'm not at all sure about that.

I read somewhere recently that the new diesel/electric hybrid freight
train engines are so damn efficient it's scary. I think, and I can't
remember the exact figures (maybe somebody who can make Google sing
can find it please?), it was 480 tons for 30 miles on one gallon of
diesel.

Again, that's the way I remember it - it was on Discovery one evening
and I was half paying attention, but I think that's pretty close to
what they said.

And diesel/electric submarines are pretty damn efficient.

113 gallons per hour...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:57:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:14:36 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Navistar is developing a very interesting diesel/electric hybrid lift
truck for utility companies. According to them, in tests, they are
achieving fuel reductions of 50/60% over normal lift truck operations.

It's only a matter of time until that gets to larger boats.

The strength of hybrids comes from good acceleration with a relatively
small engine. That does not compute for constant speed/constant power
applications like a boat.

I'm not at all sure about that.

I read somewhere recently that the new diesel/electric hybrid freight
train engines are so damn efficient it's scary. I think, and I can't
remember the exact figures (maybe somebody who can make Google sing
can find it please?), it was 480 tons for 30 miles on one gallon of
diesel.

Again, that's the way I remember it - it was on Discovery one evening
and I was half paying attention, but I think that's pretty close to
what they said.

And diesel/electric submarines are pretty damn efficient.

If the setup allows the diesel engine to run at a constant, optimum RPM,
regardless of vehicle speed (as diesels are really designed to do) there
will be a gain in efficiency.

Eisboch

113 gallons per hour...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"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.

Paying for long term programs with tobacco taxes is a Catch 22. Smoking is
declining and additional taxes will only serve to hasten the decline as will
the decline of revenues generated by the tax.

If everyone in the US quit smoking tomorrow, new taxes would spring up
somewhere else to make up the tax deficit. Who's next?

Eisboch



The benefit of the tabacco tax is it will encourage smokers to quit. We
all pay for the increased health cost related to smoking.

I am sure there are some who would prefer that all rec. boating be
outlawed as it is waste of limited resources. I guess we can all buy
sailboats w/o a iron gennie.

113 gallons per hour...
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:43:57 -0500, HK wrote:

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.

You seem bitter about something, Harry. Are the guys with the big
boats catching all your fish?


Isn't it amazing, Wayne, that when I put up a post about boating that is
even slightly controversial, it provokes lots of boating-related
discussion?

Have a nice day.

113 gallons per hour...
 

HK wrote:


Isn't it amazing, Wayne, that when I put up a post about boating that is
even slightly controversial, it provokes lots of boating-related
discussion?

Have a nice day.

Actually, this was a great thread, because it did encourage lots of
boating related discussion. The problem with your surtax is it would
not be any real impact on our national consumption of fuel. The only
way to do that is to substantially increase the tax all fuel to
encourage new technology for alternative energy and the use of fuel
efficient cars. Your surcharge on boating related fuel, at best, would
put small boat mfg'ers out of business. These are the same ones you
wish would stay in business.

I do agree with Eisboch, that the government has consistently proven to
be the least effective way to encourage innovation and effective
research to solve complex problems. I would use the tax to encourage
private businesses to find solutions, via tax incentives to those who
are able to find effective solutions.

It does seem that your surcharge on fuel is like everyone's tax
recommendations, they want the next guy to pay the tax, and not them.
Your tax would not really provide a solution, but seemed to be designed
to punish those who have a bigger boat just because they have a bigger
boat.