Re: [biofuel] OT: Perspective on US Oil Dependencies
Murdoch, I do not think that it is a theory, you are describing the current US situation quite well. The problem in US, is the inability to think in longer term than quarters. Since the depression, when the quarterly reporting and planning was mandated, the US is fixated on current and next quarter. You find analyzers and prognostics and they will speculate about the longer term future, typically one or two years ahead. Bush and Cheney will of course think about this presidential period and maybe some plans for next. They are not particularly interested of what happens beyond that. As all politicians, they will avoid controversial matters and especially the ones that will introduce austerity and hardships. This is especially true for a first presidential period, when they still have to think about reelection and contributions. It is very unique if an American President would deal with controversial questions during the first period and it has been very common that the second presidential period is much more productive. Maybe we will be surprised, because it does not take much of brain cells to recognize the situation, even I can do it and the US President is supposed to be smarter than me. Hakan At 11:21 PM 12/30/2002 -0800, you wrote: The only road to continuing development is aggressive energy conservation and alternative energy sources. The successes are gong to be measured in how fast the can develop oil independence. For what it's worth, I have a theory (and it is only a hazy sort of thing) as to what is deemed acceptable, and not, in the rhetoric of this President and his Vice President and team. It is that it is more or less ok for them to suggest, on occassion, under duress, that we can diversify some of our oil sources. They may not suggest that we can make a serious dent in our overall oil dependency. Hence, the over-focus on the assinine ANWR drilling debate etc. Neither energy conservation nor alternative energy are really that much on the table for President Bush or Vice President Cheney. Minor pieces of evidence: Vice President Cheney visited Avista Labs during the campaign, as a sop to the alternative energy concept, because they do fuel cells, and praised the ideas, *specifically saying* that they were good because they use hydrocarbons. Vice President left alternative energy virtually entirely out of his speech to Congress when he concluded his investigations. He mentioned Wind Energy and basically slandered it by minimizing its potential contributions. I do not recall him mentioning solar energy by name, though he may have. This is the second time I have heard President Bush mention that we need to address our foreign oil dependencies, and mention that we are dependent on folks who don't like us very much. I'm not sure, but I think both times he has not suggested getting rid of our HC addiction so much as diversifying our dealers. I believe he is on record as saying alternative energy proposals, while well-intended, are not realistic. Vice President Cheney's infamous statement during the campaign voicing derision and disdain for certain folks, saying that folks who were into driving EVs and had solar panels on their roofs should probably not vote for them. Anyway, all I'm saying is, I think it's permitted of President Bush that he voice some desire to do what's right for the U.S. and diversify our sourcing of energy, but only insofar as he not aggressively suggest moving away from our present Hydrocarbon paradigm. I'm not sure what I mean by permitted except that he obviously has people who fund him (such as by propping him up in business and contributing to his campaign). I don't hate hydrocarbons, and don't have all the solutions to our energy issues, but I think a partial solution would involve better thinking, better energy policy planning and a better policy will clearly include a much better effort at real alternative energy. Alternative Energy generators will *not* solve all of our energy problems, but they can (obviously) will provide *some* partial answers. In the meantime, it is a pity that such a great country, with so many great hard-working too-little-time-to-waste-worrying-about-national-political-nonsense people are saddled with leaders who are not willing to take even basic steps to cease this decades-long capitulation as to energy issues. It is digusting that we have to wait two more years for President Bush to be voted out of office in order to get anything resembling a good National Energy Policy and that if he is voted into office for a second term we can pretty much forget about the U.S. having anything but a permanently damaged economy and future from such a concerted mediocre half-hearted anti-technological anti-progressive anti-rational anti-competitive anti-American National Energy Policy. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do
[biofuel] using Bio D in space heaters
Hi All, Has there been anyone who has used bio D in portable space heaters that usually use kerosene? Does Bio D burn clean enough? I saw some kerosene additives at Wal-Mart that had perfume to reduce (cover) the burned kerosene smell. Would Bio D 100% or mixed with kerosene burn better with less odor? T Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] RE: [a-w-h]Static charge POWER FENCE
If you use the numbers from Alvin Marks -- a mile of 500 foot high fence in a 25mph wind generating 40 megawatts appears to me to break down as follows 5280 feet (1 mile) times 500 feet = 2,640,000 square feet 40 million / 264 = 15.15 watts per sq ft. Not a lot but I am under the impression it is silent and doesn't have the problems of rotating machinery. Has its own set of problems to be sure but I can't speak as to them. At 15.15 watts per square foot A 10 foot high fence 40 feet long would generate over 6 kilowatts. Probably too tall for the neighbors dog to jump over too. :) Kirk -Original Message- From: garciah [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; RVD Subject: Re: [a-w-h]Static charge POWER FENCE The static electricity, per se, is modest energy and it will require a humongous equipment to collect and the efficiency is to poor, therefore no dice. - Original Message - From: RVD [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [a-w-h]Static charge POWER FENCE Thanks Nando, Does anyone know more about the efficiency of creating a charge from friction? What are the most efficient materials to use for this? High speed friction or low speed? If a charge can be created in a mass, how can it be transferred to the power grid for use by humans? Well, it seems to me, as someone stated in this list, that to use more energy from the wind-more turbulence will be created. The Betz principle says 1/3 speed in the wake. If the wind was dead stopped, then more energy converted? Ross again ;p Ross: The earth is a big capacitor and between the earth ( ground ) and the space ( around 100K feet) there is about 160,000 or more Volts. Years ago, A research was done in the Pacific area, by the USA with a small radio controlled airplane that had in the tips of the wings and in the tail voltage detectors, capable of detecting just a few millivolts differential between the three voltmeters to control the plane's yaw and pitch to make it to fly automatically even for long distances keeping the plane stable, the only problem was, that it has to follow the voltage contour of the flying area and it the plane was in a mountainous region the plane may try to fly up the slope of the mountain to follow the mountain voltage gradients. The idea of an aerosol is to present a current gradient between the two wires to pick up the energy available in that area ( it is about the same energy that a lightening has but instead of been released suddenly, it is released slowly )-- this is more or less the theory but I do not know if that is the true reality. Regards Nando - Original Message - From: RVD [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 11:20 AM Subject: Re: Sv: [a-w-h] MULTI BLADED WIND TURBINE Kirk: Thank you for such interesting URL. I have been looking for this for a long time Thanks again Nando --- Yes, interesting. Can someone explain how this charged aerosol fence works ? Ross -- No, a former post -- I thought I made to this list. If I am having an oldtimers moment here it is again Alvin Marks invented the Power Fence to generate electricity from the wind by means of a charged aerosol which was dispersed from microscopic holes in the tubing of the fence. Marks calculated that if the wind averaged 25 mph, a mile of fence would generate about 40 megawatts. The towers would be 500 feet high, strung with a grid of steel bars in a rectangular array, subdivided into a lattice of 4-inch squares. The squares are divided by a mesh of perforated tubules through which the water flows. MarksÕ patent states that the system can be used to modify weather and to clear fog. (11, 12) (11) Lemonick, Michael: Science Digest (August 1984); The Power Fence (12) Marks, Alvin: USP 4,206,396;ibid., USP 3,417,267 http://www.rexresearch.com/airwells/airwells.htm Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Muscle Power
[Received this in the mail thought it interesting for the average person or engineers] When the oil runs low, there's always Muscle Power. The March 2002 Issue of Natural History had an article based on the book Prime Mover: A Natural History of Muscle by Steven Vogel. This is a brief review of the article (and book): About 4000 years ago, in the Middle East or India, people discovered animals could do many chores by turning wheels fixed in place. In a time when the only non-muscular sources of energy were wind and water wheels, this was no small matter. The first use of animals was (and still is) lifting water with a bucket chain. There were three major designs used to harness the muscle power of animals and humans: 1) A horizontal bar jutting out from a vertical shaft. A circling animal attached to the bar did the work of bringing water from the well. 2) a human or a domestic animal worked within a huge hollow wheel, like a hamster in an exercise wheel. The motor thus climbed rather than pulled. A greater load on the wheel meant a greater resistance to its being turned, and this meant that the living motor had to climb farther up the inside of the wheel to keep it going. The increasing slope gave the wheel a neatly self-regulating character: the motor's output was automatically matched with the load. 3) The treadmill -- this makes an animal climb a sloped platform. Making these devices work is difficult: The platform has to support the weight of the animal, the impact of it's feet, and be built well and flexibly enough to go around revolving drums. Some uses of muscle-driven engines: - pumping water out of the hulls of wooden ships - Medieval Europe: sawmills, pile drivers, dough-kneading machines, dockside cranes, bellows, and a dog-powered roasting spit - Cage Wheels: building cathedrals - oars for when the wind dies out or in battle situations - In eastern North America, horse-powered teamboats served as ferries across waterways such as New York's Hudson River. They were less expensive than steam, more reliable - 40-horse combines that reaped and threshed wheat - agricultural treadmills that could be connected to various machines to do such chores such as sawing logs or churning butter (the manufacturer of the latter said that dogs, goats, sheep or children could power it). - Prisoners at Bellevue Penitentiary worked at a sustained output of 90 watts. A similar output was demanded of nineteenth-century Australian convicts, who worked up to twelve hours per day; some said they'd rather hang than work their mill. Since only one quarter of the energy in food is useful towards mechanical work, sustaining 90 watts for 10 hours would require 3,000 calories, double the normal intake. Strength and power of muscle tissue vary little from animal to animal, and mammals all have about the same amount of muscle: about 40 percent of body weight. But larger creatures spend relatively less energy on basic body functions, and this increases the fraction of their food that can be appropriated for labor--so forget battalions of wheel-turning rodents... Few if any tractable animals come close to the mechanical versatility of agile humans. Before you go buy an elephant (larger animals being more powerful on the whole), be sure Dumbo won't have to go up any slopes. The larger the animal, the harder it is for them to lift their own mass against gravity. Some more quotes: Muscle does just one task: It makes the chemical fuel that originally came from our food produce force and motion. It does neither more nor less than what we ask of the combustion engines of our cars and airplanes. In power efficiency--how much work it can do for a given amount of fuel--muscle differs little from those combustion engines. In weight efficiency--how much work a given weight of muscle can do in a given time--it compares well with automobile engines but suffers badly when put up against a good jet turbine. Power Output, Engine Watts per Pound --- Muscle90 Early steam pump 50 Electric motor 100 Automobile engine 200 Motorcycle engine 500 Aircraft engine, piston 700 Aircraft engine, turbine 2,500 Today we have machines for making people move in place: run, walk uphill, push pedals back and forth or up and down, row, ski, or even climb a never-ending staircase. Machines that are designed to waste energy and that usually rely on still more energy, in the form of electricity, to run-who would have anticipated their popularity? Thanks to the ingenuity of these contraptions' designers and purveyors (people who, one might say, live off the fat of the land), the toils of Sisyphus have
Re: [biofuel] A Potentially Perfect Energy Source!
Very interesting James, thx for mentioning it. I had never thought of that specifically. A lot of these sources of energy can, I think, be grouped loosely according to trying to tap some ambient energy in our solar system, whether it is beamed directly to us via photons or whether it is a result of earth-interaction of daily dosage of energy from the sun. It's not possible for me to say how the Earth would interact with the tapping of these energy sources, most of which are generally considered sustainable. Since there is *no such thing* as an infinitely sustainable energy source, it would be fun for me if I could hash out approximately how sustainable these sources are, by various definitions. Solar and wind energy are at the front of the line for decent-sized contributions, going forward, in our worlwide energy needs, and it would be good if we could be innovative and attempt some slight exercise of the precautionary principle before a decent portion of the earth's daily electricity use is derived from these sources. As to Wind, I particularly wonder about that, as it might involve some inter-action with the earth's momentum, but I don't know. It seems potentially complex to me, with warming of this and that air space, huge free amounts of energy from the sun replenishing things (so, for example, maybe it doesn't matter if the rotational momentum of the earth is minutely depleted, if it can be minutely replenished by interaction with the Sun's forces... I doubt it but just to give an example of the complexity of it?) MM On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 07:49:21 -0800 (PST), you wrote: You should see some of the ion harnessing stuff that NASA has come up with, it would just blow your mind that they are even thinking of it. James Slayden On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, murdoch wrote: On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 15:56:08 -0500, you wrote: Good way to decay our orbit and drop us into the sun Yes, that, unfortunately, is my concern. At least, that is one scenario. Or, it could be something less predictable like slightly altering our orbit with the net result of going into a different path that hasn't been as cleared out of this or that oncoming meteor. In any case, I agree with your gut-initial-exercise of the precautionary principle, and I was just thinking today that I've never found a context in which to voice a real concern I have about a related matter: Tidal Energy. This is already being exploited on a small scale througout the planet, and I wonder what it will do (if anything) to the Moon's rotation or orbit, and-or the Earth's. If it is ever exploited on a much larger scale (and I think there's a tendency historically to ramp up some forms of energy unless or until we see the problems, though I could be mistaken about the history of the matter), then I wonder if this could really cause a problem, a problem that could potentially end life as we know it. Worth chewing over anyway, IMO. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Simple economics Was: Fish Farms Become Feedlots of the Sea 12-28-02
These reminded me of what was always a bad moment for me in listening to Ronald Reagan. Not that it's that relevant, but as a matter of Politics and Rhetoric and Economics: His America Is Back speech, sort of a triumphant decleration where our Economy had improved from some Carter-year doldrums (it was claimed). My reaction: Well yes, let me borrow *trillions* (not billions) of dollars against the earnings of children not yet born and go out and party and party and I too will be *delighted* to get on international TV and declare that I'm back, and, with those amounts of money, it will be a long time before it will come back looking bad. On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 15:46:34 -0600, you wrote: Hey, come to think of it ... yes I do remember someone mentioning that. That the problem lies in (whoevers) draining the principal of nature's assets ... instead of leaving the principal alone and living off of the interest (dividends) as our savage ancestors had done in earlier times. Something like that anyways. Curtis responding to Keith Well, what a big surprise - you blow all the savings and the insurance too in a mad gambling spree and then complain that there's no money. No big deal, there's still time to change. Just stop doing it that way, easy. Learn some basic economics. Eco-nomics. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Happiest of New Years
Keith, thanks for your great information site, we read and we learn! Good will to all. Kim, Hakan, Steve, Mark, Darryl, I feel practically like I know you. Dear Biofuelers! The new year looks very bright and we hope to progress. In fact, we assume progress. See the headline on the Globe today? Oil Prices Up, Get Used to It (paraphrase) Hoho. Cheers, OilyWomen, Ontario's own wannabee's, Slowed by Climate But Not By Intention (SBCBNBI) Jesse and Emma -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] A Potentially Perfect Energy Source!
Good way to decay our orbit and drop us into the sun What if any is the relationship between orbit and rotation? I am just going by my seat-of-the-pants understanding of physics, but I'm inclined to at least entertain the notion that if one deliberately reduces rotational momentum, this could affect an orbit. However, I'd need to look at it, see what some scientists have to say, etc. In saying I'd have to see what some scientists have to say, this involves a lot, such as steeling myself against their nearly inevitable pomposity, genuine know-it-all blinder-induced stupidity, etc. But in the end, I might get a useful answer. - Note that, starting here, you are quoting neither me nor Steve but Kirk. I'm not sure how the quotation marks were worked out, but that's to whom you are responding. Instead of a day being the current 86400 seconds, it would then be 86401 seconds long, an absolutely unnoticeable effect. The kinetic energy Absolutely? The thing weighs 5.98x10^24 kilograms, and a mere 1/86400th of that is about 70 quadrillion tons, which, travelling at about 1000mph at the circumference, would not have an absolutely unnoticeable momentum, and removing that momentum would probably not have an absolutely unnoticeable effect. (I think.) just that single second, an unnoticeable effect, and one with no consequences whatever, ... other than the not very unnoticeable nor inconsequential effect of supplying all the electricity needed for all American homes for 2.7 million years, for one. But just that, no other noticeable effects. Hm. (I guess I'm not the only non-American who got a laugh out of that. Maybe Americans also got a laugh out of it.) It inspired me more with fear than laughter, but anyway... I don't think Kirk was out of line to get enthusiastic about the idea, as others have done, over the years, and I'm glad he brought it up. But we live on a crowded planet with billions of energy-users and if we implement ideas like this, it could well mean the death of us all, if we fail to anticipate and account for the side-effects. If those effects are great enough, we should not move at all to implement ideas like this. By talking things out ahead of time, I think we can know, at least underground, whether there is a good chance of such a side-effect occurring. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] OT: Perspective on US Oil Dependencies
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:15:21 +0100, you wrote: I wrote the following for publication at Energy Saving Now, please look, comment, correct and suggest a good heading, I took the heading for this discussion as a temporary one and maybe it is the best. I would also be happy if Keith could look at the language. One other thing for now. I see a lot of folks discussing whether reducing U.S. oil dependencies on some countries might help make the U.S. less combative. I see less discussion of whether the U.S. has been enriching the folks whose economies include the folks who are now at war with the U.S. and its allies. That is, when you're at war, or claim to be, it is not appropriate to ignore the opportunity to cut your enemy off from sources of funding. The U.S. has been in a state of conflict, and now is in full nearly-declared war with some terrorists, many of whom are funded, third-hand, via nations whose source of wealth is Oil. Much of the reason Oil is valuable on world markets is that it is valuable in the Internal-Combustion-Engine transportation paradigm the U.S. helped invent. By refusing over many decades even to *discuss* its dependencies, the U.S. has blithely sent hundreds of billions of dollars oversease, and continues to do so, some of which makes it into the very hands that now act to seek weapons of mass destruction and use them against U.S. citizens and soldiers and against other world citizens. It is arguable that cessation of trade in Oil by the U.S. would do more to stem the flow of money to its claimed enemies, and more to weaken them, than some of the bombs and battle plans which it now puts forward. I do not suggest the War On Terrorism is winnable without violent conflict, but it is also totally incumbent in a war, or even in the events leading up to it, for a good country to seek every possible way to weaken its enemy. The much-admired WWII generation of the U.S. would *never* have allowed for this silent complete betrayal, during their wartime. Sure, they fought imperfectly, as all must. But I'm sure they sought to reduce the flow of wealth to their enemies. When have we done so? Blocking illegal bank accounts is *not* what I'm talking about. Violent confirmed active wartime enemies of the U.S. are enriched, at this point, every time one fills a gas tank in the U.S. This has been somewhat true for several decades. It is now simply very clear, and we are at a crossroads where even the most blind can no longer ignore it. It is doing damage to the war effort, in my view. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] A Potentially Perfect Energy Source!
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 15:56:08 -0500, you wrote: Good way to decay our orbit and drop us into the sun What if any is the relationship between orbit and rotation? Yes, that, unfortunately, is my concern. At least, that is one scenario. Or, it could be something less predictable Yes... Everything (not in itself an easy concept) would have to be predicted, proven and demonstrated (how?) beyond any of the usual unfortunate and unforeseen side-effects and subsequent Of course we know now's. like slightly altering our orbit with the net result of going into a different path that hasn't been as cleared out of this or that oncoming meteor. Or short of any orbital effects, one wonders about such things as tides and ocean currents, the system of typhoons, hurricanes and whatevers that transfer energy from the equator to the poles, which maybe shouldn't be meddled with short of full understanding... and much besides. Instead of a day being the current 86400 seconds, it would then be 86401 seconds long, an absolutely unnoticeable effect. The kinetic energy Absolutely? The thing weighs 5.98x10^24 kilograms, and a mere 1/86400th of that is about 70 quadrillion tons, which, travelling at about 1000mph at the circumference, would not have an absolutely unnoticeable momentum, and removing that momentum would probably not have an absolutely unnoticeable effect. (I think.) just that single second, an unnoticeable effect, and one with no consequences whatever, ... other than the not very unnoticeable nor inconsequential effect of supplying all the electricity needed for all American homes for 2.7 million years, for one. But just that, no other noticeable effects. Hm. (I guess I'm not the only non-American who got a laugh out of that. Maybe Americans also got a laugh out of it.) Now maybe if the Americans cut out all the energy they waste, that's about half of it, bringing it down to European and Japanese levels, and then started reducing the levels of energy they actually use rather than waste outright, as the Europeans and Japanese will also have to do, perhaps by developing a more rational transport system, a more sustainable farming system that's less dependent on fossil fuels and less generally toxic and damaging, and a more sustainable lifestyle in general, and then very much improved the energy efficiency of what's left, so that Americans, with 4% of the world's population, used 4% of the world's energy supply instead of 25%, this one-second planetary generator could provide enough energy to last American homes 16.2 million years, and they'd all live happily ever after. But probably the currently available alternatives could do that anyway, so why bother? And without even having to go and bomb other people's countries to steal their oil supplies. Quite apart from just how you'd slow the whole rock down, even short of the precautionary principle. Might be simpler just to get rational about energy use. Sorry to be so lacking in, um, vision. That's what you have to tell a heroin addict too, no vision, just cold turkey. In any case, I agree with your gut-initial-exercise of the precautionary principle, Yes!! and I was just thinking today that I've never found a context in which to voice a real concern I have about a related matter: Tidal Energy. This is already being exploited on a small scale througout the planet, and I wonder what it will do (if anything) to the Moon's rotation or orbit, and-or the Earth's. If it is ever exploited on a much larger scale (and I think there's a tendency historically to ramp up some forms of energy unless or until we see the problems, though I could be mistaken about the history of the matter), then I wonder if this could really cause a problem, a problem that could potentially end life as we know it. Worth chewing over anyway, IMO. I don't know much about this, but does tapping tidal power interfere with the tides? It might interfere with some of the effects of tides, but maybe not with the tides themselves. Some shorelines are steeper than others, doesn't it just amount to the equivalent of making a few shorelines a bit steeper? That won't stop or change the tides. Shorelines change all the time, that doesn't strike me as some sort of subtle gaia activity that's part of complex overall balances, easily upset. Deliberately changing shorelines can have other effects which might have an eventual indirect knock-on, but I can't see how. After all, most of Holland is just a changed shoreline. Isn't this a bit like thinking that a micro-hydro set-up might somehow dry up the source of the stream? It might have some ecological effects downstream, which could I suppose have further indirect effects that might eventually change the tree cover higher up, and thus water run-off, but that seems a bit far-fetched. Could be wrong though, as ever. Best Keith Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
Re: [biofuel] Happiest of New Years
Keith, thanks for your great information site, we read and we learn! Good will to all. Kim, Hakan, Steve, Mark, Darryl, I feel practically like I know you. Dear Biofuelers! The new year looks very bright and we hope to progress. In fact, we assume progress. See the headline on the Globe today? Oil Prices Up, Get Used to It (paraphrase) Hoho. Cheers, OilyWomen, Ontario's own wannabee's, Slowed by Climate But Not By Intention (SBCBNBI) Jesse and Emma -- Thankyou! And the same to you, and to everyone - may all your watts be green ones. Best wishes, and thanks to all Keith and Midori Journey to Forever Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
