[Vo]:Re: Driving the Wind
Full res version here, found via the wikipedia land sailing article: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Simon_Stevins_zeilwagen_voor_Prins_Maurits_1649.jpg (click image with zoom tool for full details, if you don't you get a nice illustration of the aliasing phenomenon :-) Michel - Original Message - From: Mark Goldes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Driving the Wind Michael, That is a great picture! Thanks! Mark Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nice! As a historical note, land sailing has been practiced for quite some time over here, see attached picture. Michel - Original Message - From: Mark Goldes Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 1:33 AM Subject: [Vo]:Driving the Wind http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/story?id=52068
[Vo]:Energy Conversation announcement
We are very pleased to announce the launch of our beta site for the Energy Conversation http://www.energyconversation.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=31qid=355www.energyconversation.org. We appreciate you sticking with us through the many stages. Your recommendations have been enormously helpful and are always welcome. We began this effort over two years ago, operating off an excel spreadsheet with about a hundred names on it. We now have over 3,100 people engaged in the Energy Conversation and continue to grow. The site will serve to: · Provide a nexus portal as we continue to develop all aspects of the Energy Conversation · Invite you to register for this monthâs Energy Conversation Seminar · Archive slides, mp3s, video, transcripts, handouts and more - generated from two years of Energy Conversation Seminars · Attract media attention to energy programs · Showcase all i mportant energy events in the calendar · Highlight energy news in Defense and throughout the Federal Government · Engage and inform others of our efforts in continuing outreach You will not need a username and password to access information or to register for events. However, if you would like to streamline the registration process you can create a username and password. Instructions are on the website. If you have any problems we have support ready to help. Our next Energy Conversation will feature Lester Brown on April 28th. Feel free to register now on the site. A formal invitation will follow. Many thanks, The Energy Conversation Team The Energy Conversation is a Defense Department led coalition of twenty-six federal Departments and Agencies working together as Energy Smart advocates to inform, educate and communicate with the American people on how to build a sustainable energy future. 4825 Mark Center Drive Alexandrea, 22311
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
Harry Veeder wrote: I think the situation with BLP is very different from that of the Wright Brothers. As far as I know, BLP is the only group actively researching hydrinos, whereas the Wrights were not alone in their quest to develop controlled powered flight. There is no doubt that BLP is in a unique position! However, from 1900 to 1904 the Wrights were pretty much alone. As Crouch said, the field was moribund. Others had been killed or had given up. Maxim was the last serious contender and he gave up in 1894. Langley tried to launch twice in 1903 but his design was hopeless. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Energy Conversation announcement
I don't know anything about this Energy Conversation other than what is in the announcement and web site. It does not seem like a very professional organization, since they misspelled Alexandria. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
Mike Carrell wrote: . . . I have made it clear that I have no interest in their scientific claims (or any scientific claims), but I fully recognize the technological implications. Jed, it did not seem so from the tenor of your comments. Well, you can ignore the tenor of the comments and take it from me directly: I do fully recognize the importance of the claims. I will not get excited about them until I hear they have been independently replicated. Jed, on a number of occasions you have not seemed to grasp BLP's situation. I think I grasp BPL's situation better than they themselves do. Perhaps I am wrong, but their situation seems dire and it is their own fault. They have spent huge sums and 20 years with nothing to show for it (so far anyway). They gone in many directions at once without completing any task. They have no credibility with the public or the scientific community. All of these problems could have been avoided, in my opinion. This part means little to me, and most physicists would say it is gibberish: And you still say you understand? And are sure that others would say it is gibberish? Quite sure. I have heard many of them say it. Perhaps they are wrong. I cannot judge this issue. Does experimental evidence confirms mean nothing? I cannot evaluate the experimental evidence for the theory. I can evaluate evidence for excess heat production. That's a different story. If your position is that no statement is meaningful until confirmed, this is perfectly safe. That's true too. Does the term energy balance mean nothing to you? It means for a given weight of hydrogen the energy yield is 1000 times the energy yield of the same weight of the most energetic fuel known. I know what it means. When I see the experimental details I may be able to judge whether the claim has merit. I doubt that I will be able to judge whether this energy comes from shrinking hydrogen or not -- and as I said, I don't give a hoot where it comes from. This would include rocket propellants and explosives. Are you saying this is fiction, or gibberish, or what? The theory is gibberish according to most physicists. Whether they are right or wrong I cannot judge and I do not care. Of course. What has held up BLP demonstrations, etc., was inability to use water as a fuel and produce useful output while supporting internal needs. What does that mean? What are internal needs? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word
One key detail which is the basis for Halliburton's technology (and much of their wealth)- although it is not widely appreciated outside the industry, is that in the last decade, in addition to traditional oil exploration, they have looked specifically for deep *coal*. Look instead of drill is the operative word. Coal? you say, why coal? Traditional natural gas deposits, per se, are not found in the same formations as coal. Nowadays you often must drill in 1000 feet of ocean to find new natural gas, since those deposits are found in salt domes in what was once geologically deep ocean... whereas coal beds were more often formed in bogs or shallow land seas, which is now under dry land. To find these prime deep coal locations, if one is secretive enough, one does even have to drill, at least not always- and need only to search through the archived records of past drilling, which every state requires to be kept in official records. There is a long history of drilling in the USA in almost every state. Some states have over one million wells which have been drilled over the past 150 years. Most of the efforts turn out to be dry but many old bore holes hit deep coal Useless (heretofore). Before perfecting the fracture drilling method(s), some of which are trade secrets, not patented, and cannot be used in the USA, due to risks and laws, Halliburton was able to get hold of the mineral rights for many of these deep coal seams - for cheap, for course ... since deep coal was deemed to be of little commercial value. Outside of Russia and S.Africa, you cannot find many miners willing to do the dangerous work of mining deep coal. Subterranean coal seams contain substantial quantities of methane. This has been a hazard of deep coal mining for centuries. This is especially true of Eastern USA coal. Thousands of coal miners have died as a result of this. Conventional natural gas reservoir store methane as a free gas under pressure, often in a domed salt formation, which seal-in the gas. Coal's unique structure allows it to store the gas through direct adsorption onto its carbon surface. According to the patents, methane adsorbs into micropores on the surface of coal- 10 to 100 square meters of surface area per gram of coal, giving coal beds the capacity to adsorb significant amounts of gas, often more than the same volume of traditional salt domes. It is released by hydraulic fracturing of plate boundaries. Halliburton previously (under Cheney's reign) had bought-up, some say stole the intellectual property, but then was able to perfect most of the patents and IP related to this technology into a robust technique. The beauty of this process for deep beds is that once some of the layers in the coal seam (usually a horizontal stratus) is fractured, and part of the gas has been released, then the compression-structure of the bed will further micro-fracture under the billion ton weight of the overburden, and more and more gas is released. It is an unexpected synergy. That is the better known part of the story, related to US production of gas from deep coal beds. Fracture drilling has other uses as well but none compare to this technology, in terms of ROI. In areas in the rest of the world, especially deserts, where the drilling restrictions are non-existent or more lax (i.e. the 'mordida' in Latin countries) there is much more going on than we know about. Halliburton has about the same level of secrecy (and use of strong arm tactics) as the CIA. Why do you think Halliburton is moving to Dubai? (besides the possibility of having all of their assets seized, if the Dem-wits should win the White House)? Well, in one hypothesis, some of that rationale might have direct relevance to CANR! As Paul Harvey would say, stay tuned for the rest of the story ... (teaser: page 2 will be the CANR connection to the advance extraction of deep oil and gas from otherwise dry deposits) Jones
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell Good reply from Jed. As far as the gibberish factor re Mills, the same can be said of all the attempts to find a theory for LENR to stand on. Both are outside of the realm of conventional physics. Therefore one must pay attention to the experiments, and I don't think Jed has done this as carefully as with LENR. I avoid theory quarrels with BLP critics and concentrate on the experiments. On the current website only a fraction of the experimental papers are available for download, as most of the significant ones are now controlled by journal copyrights. a) The research reactors operate at about 1 Torr and power is needed to maintainthe vacuum b)Microwave excited research reactors use an inefficient RF power supply. c)The gas mixtures are predominantly catalyst, which has to be recycled or it becomes a consumable d)Energy output from the reaction is in the deep UV, which is converted to heat and a wasteful thermal cycle e)Water is electrolyzed to provide a source on hydrogen These are internal support items requiring energy before any is left over for external use. The new reactor has sufficient energy outout to be self sustaining with water as an external fuel. Nothing in the LENR world approaches this. Yet. Stay tuned. Mike Carrell Mike Carrell wrote: . . . I have made it clear that I have no interest in their scientific claims (or any scientific claims), but I fully recognize the technological implications. Jed, it did not seem so from the tenor of your comments. Well, you can ignore the tenor of the comments and take it from me directly: I do fully recognize the importance of the claims. I will not get excited about them until I hear they have been independently replicated. Jed, on a number of occasions you have not seemed to grasp BLP's situation. I think I grasp BPL's situation better than they themselves do. Perhaps I am wrong, but their situation seems dire and it is their own fault. They have spent huge sums and 20 years with nothing to show for it (so far anyway). They gone in many directions at once without completing any task. They have no credibility with the public or the scientific community. All of these problems could have been avoided, in my opinion. This part means little to me, and most physicists would say it is gibberish: And you still say you understand? And are sure that others would say it is gibberish? Quite sure. I have heard many of them say it. Perhaps they are wrong. I cannot judge this issue. Does experimental evidence confirms mean nothing? I cannot evaluate the experimental evidence for the theory. I can evaluate evidence for excess heat production. That's a different story. If your position is that no statement is meaningful until confirmed, this is perfectly safe. That's true too. Does the term energy balance mean nothing to you? It means for a given weight of hydrogen the energy yield is 1000 times the energy yield of the same weight of the most energetic fuel known. I know what it means. When I see the experimental details I may be able to judge whether the claim has merit. I doubt that I will be able to judge whether this energy comes from shrinking hydrogen or not -- and as I said, I don't give a hoot where it comes from. This would include rocket propellants and explosives. Are you saying this is fiction, or gibberish, or what? The theory is gibberish according to most physicists. Whether they are right or wrong I cannot judge and I do not care. Of course. What has held up BLP demonstrations, etc., was inability to use water as a fuel and produce useful output while supporting internal needs. What does that mean? What are internal needs? - Jed This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
Jed Rothwell wrote: Mike Carrell wrote: ... The new reactor has sufficient energy outout to be self sustaining with water as an external fuel. I gather this means: The new reactor produces enough heat with enough Carnot efficiency to run a conventional small steam turbine generator. (Not that it actually does run a generator, but it could.) This generator would produce enough electricity to operate the RF power supply and electrolysis. It would thus be a self-sustaining reaction. I assume you mean a steam generator rather than, say, a thermoelectric generator, which is less efficient. Didn't someone donate a Stirling engine to the BLP cause awhile ago? I wonder if that setup could be used to increase efficiency. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
OrionWorks wrote: I assume you mean a steam generator rather than, say, a thermoelectric generator, which is less efficient. Didn't someone donate a Stirling engine to the BLP cause awhile ago? I wonder if that setup could be used to increase efficiency. Stirling engines are inefficient. All small engines are, but as far as I know, conventional steam turbines are the best. I don't know what the smallest one is. The Chinese make many small water turbine generators that produce a few hundred watts I think. They are about the size of a coffee pot. They are used in remote villages to power LCD televisions and satellite dishes, so that Chinese people everywhere can watch government propaganda. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
- Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip Didn't someone donate a Stirling engine to the BLP cause awhile ago? I wonder if that setup could be used to increase efficiency. A Stirning engine pix shows up in slideshows. I don't know who owns it. Efficiency in a thermal system is ultimately a matter of temperature difference. The Stirling engine can operate with small temperature differences, like the warmth of your palm. The website shows a pix of a red-hot object, possibly a BLP solid fuel. As a boiler, that can give you superheated steam running a turbine with good Carnot effciency. I think BLP was showing the Stirling engine to show that could use low grade heat and relativly simple heat exchanger to couple the enegine to the reactor. Very ad-hoc demo, not promising for product development. There will be many variations. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Carrell wrote: As far as the gibberish factor re Mills, the same can be said of all the attempts to find a theory for LENR to stand on. That is true. If LENR were based on the theories that have devised up until now, instead of experimental observations, I would not believe a word of it. Both are outside of the realm of conventional physics. I do not think that has been confirmed. Cold fusion might have a conventional explanation. I don't know about the BLP effect. In his book, Ed Storms summarized the various LENR phenomena and the candidate theories, all wanting. A deeper understanding is needed which may embrace what is known, as relativity embraces Newton. Mills now claims a Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics -- bypassing quantum mechanics. Therefore one must pay attention to the experiments, and I don't think Jed has done this as carefully as with LENR. No, I have not. Not at all. I have not seen much hands-on information on BLP, but tons about cold fusion. Also, I have visited labs to cold fusion experiments in person, and I have spoken with hundreds of cold fusion researchers, but I have only spoken with Mills a few times, briefly. I attended a lecture by his co-worker at MIT in 1992. It was impressive, but there has been no follow-up. This makes a lot of difference. a) The research reactors operate at about 1 Torr and power is needed to maintainthe vacuum b)Microwave excited research reactors use an inefficient RF power supply. c)The gas mixtures are predominantly catalyst, which has to be recycled or it becomes a consumable d)Energy output from the reaction is in the deep UV, which is converted to heat and a wasteful thermal cycle e)Water is electrolyzed to provide a source on hydrogen These are internal support items requiring energy before any is left over for external use. The new reactor has sufficient energy outout to be self sustaining with water as an external fuel. I gather this means: The new reactor produces enough heat with enough Carnot efficiency to run a conventional small steam turbine generator. (Not that it actually does run a generator, but it could.) This generator would produce enough electricity to operate the RF power supply and electrolysis. It would thus be a self-sustaining reaction. That is the necessity before you have a product. Although not explicity stated, the new configuration does not seem to need a vacuum. The atomic H and catalyst are produced from the solid surface, presumeably in proximity so they can react immediately and in high density. So, scratch the microwave generator and vacuum pump. The animation suggests that the reaction produces H(1/4), which yields lots of energy. The process of regenerating the solid fuel is unstated, but it is stated that sufficient energy is available. I assume you mean a steam generator rather than, say, a thermoelectric generator, which is less efficient. Also, the absolute power output is high enough for a real steam turbine, not something like a toy that produces a fraction of a watt. By the way, I own a toy piston steam engine, a 40-year-old version of the D6 model shown here: The system is stated as scalable. I expect the entrepreneural ingenuity will find myriad variations as the reality of BLP becomes known. At present, only heat is useable. There will be incentive to find a way to use PV cells to tap the energy directly. There is work on thermoelectric cells to capture low grade heat. All that will come in time. Mike Carrell http://www.neatstuff.net/engines/dry-spirit.html You can hook a toy generator to this. - Jed This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
From Jed: Didn't someone donate a Stirling engine to the BLP cause awhile ago? I wonder if that setup could be used to increase efficiency. Stirling engines are inefficient. All small engines are, but as far as I know, conventional steam turbines are the best. I don't know what the smallest one is. The Chinese make many small water turbine generators that produce a few hundred watts I think. They are about the size of a coffee pot. They are used in remote villages to power LCD televisions and satellite dishes, so that Chinese people everywhere can watch government propaganda. - Jed Fired by communist coal I would imagine. For a few hundred watts, I wonder if in some of those villages a moderate sized communist solar dish could work in heating up a communist boiler during the daytime. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
OrionWorks wrote: The Chinese make many small water turbine generators that produce a few hundred watts I think. . . Fired by communist coal I would imagine. No, they are water turbines: small scale hydroelectricity. Very small; a stream falling 10 or 20 meters is enough as I recall. A garden hose is enough. This is easy to arrange in hilly country. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Jed's misunderstanding of BLP
I wrote: Very small; a stream falling 10 or 20 meters is enough as I recall. A garden hose is enough. This is easy to arrange in hilly country. Not a garden hose. 1 PVC piping. You see it all over the place in Japanese farms, for gravity fed irrigation from cisterns. They also use it for running water in farmhouses (from an spring uphill). You don't have to go far up the hill to get pressure enough for hundreds of watts mechanical. Hydro is the oldest and still the best source of energy. Before electricity was invented, Charles Babbage proposed using small water-pressure driven engines in houses, where today we use electric motors, because you can turn the power on and off instantly. Elevators using water as a counterweight were developed in the late 19th century, and some were still running in the mid 20th century. Air-driven pneumatic engines, hammers and the like are still widely used. I just used one today, on my remodeling project. - Jed
[Vo]:Recent Papers Update
Recent Papers Update http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/SelectedPapers.htm Meeting Report Srinivasan, M., Energy concepts for the 21st century, Current Science, Vol. 94, No. 7, p. 842-843 (April 10, 2008) Review Paper Krivit, S.B. Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Research Global Scenario, Current Science, Vol. 94, No. 7, p. 854-857 (April 10, 2008)
Re: [Vo]:Recent Papers Update
Thanks Steven, I appreciate the method used to format the updates. It makes it easy to transmit to persons of interest. Richard Recent Papers Update http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/SelectedPapers.htm Meeting Report Srinivasan, M., Energy concepts for the 21st century, Current Science, Vol. 94, No. 7, p. 842-843 (April 10, 2008) Review Paper Krivit, S.B. Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Research - Global Scenario, Current Science, Vol. 94, No. 7, p. 854-857 (April 10, 2008)
Re: [Vo]:Energy Conversation announcement
Howdy Jed, Todd Hathaway is listed which may mean an affiliation with the Maryland group that has organized to delve into funding energy research as discussed in past posts on vortex. Richard - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Energy Conversation announcement I don't know anything about this Energy Conversation other than what is in the announcement and web site. It does not seem like a very professional organization, since they misspelled Alexandria. - Jed -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.11/1368 - Release Date: 4/9/2008 4:20 PM
Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word
Howdy Jones, My ! ,What big eyes you got grandma.. as little red said to the big badwolf. Last week a 3.5 earthquake occurred, located 1,5 miles deep near Falls City Texas, just south of San Antonio. The news reported it likely resulted from oil and gas production in the area... hmmm. The geology around Falls City is interesting to say the least. Domestic water wells produce 130F water. A type of geology belt traversing from East TexasKilgore to Laredo some 50 miles wide sweep across Falls City. Lignite coal, gas, oil. H2S, CO2 and Yellow Cake are produced along and within this belt. For years Halliburton was known for it's fracturing services. They started in Duncan Okla servicing Phillips and wound up in Dubai as a strange hybrid oil and gas/ defense contractor/ black ops/ go between with an uncanny ability to morph. Dick Chaney was right at home running them outa Dallas.. maybe he got his ques and best material from watching the sitcom where the script is only for the gripper. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word
--- R C Macaulay wrote: Halliburton ... wound up in Dubai as a strange hybrid oil and gas/ defense contractor/ black ops/ go between with an uncanny ability to morph. Speaking of morphing - or maybe it is more like shedding some ugly stinkin' fat, they just unloaded (at least they did it for 'show' i.e. - on the public record) one of their biggest black ops moneymakers: KBR http://danmuji.ddart.net/science/physics/physics_tutorial/Class/sound/U11L5d.html Kellogg Brown Root, was a subsidiary of Halliburton until 2007, when bad publicity and civil and possible criminal indictments forced Halliburton to sell. IOW they did not want to follow KBR into bankruptcy when some 'liberal' jury awards one of the plaintiffs more than the net worth of the company - and that could happen. Another reason why Dubai is a highly favorable locale for the now slimmed-down version of Halliburton. According to the site above, KBR financed Lyndon Johnson from the 1940s and into the Vice Presidential position, was rewarded after Kennedys assassination with lucrative contracts in the escalated Vietnam War. Given the sleaze with which they have operated since the sixties, and most recently in Iraq, it causes one to wonder, was KBR actually involved in the JFK assassination? I have never heard that possibility suggested, even from the nuttiest Conspiracy Theorists, but has it been ruled out? Jones
[Vo]:Burning our food for fuel
Quite some time back someone on this list -- Jed, maybe, or maybe it was actually several people -- opined that alternative biofuels which require arable land to grow could plausibly be viewed as, at least, fundamentally stupid, or at worst as a crime against humanity. Recently I've noticed an interesting trend: In the context of articles on inflation and world food supplies, alternative fuels are now coming up time and again as one of the main causes of rising food prices. Just as one trivial example, here's an excerpt from today's Wall Street Journal, which happened to have a story on rising inflation: But the fact that inflation is rising almost everywhere suggests some of its causes are global. As crops are sold for alternative-energy production, food prices have soared: The price of rice, the staple for billions of Asians, is up 147% over the past year. Obviously there's more than just alternative fuel production at work in Asia -- to name one thing, China is also turning over more land (and more grain) to beef production as they shift to a more Western diet -- but none the less it's interesting that yet again, in an article which had nothing to do with energy production, this issue came up; the impact of biofuels on food prices is now treated as a given by the mainstream press. It seems that we are, indeed, moving to a mode where we burn our food in our cars. (Original link to the full article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120778643316903397.html?mod=hps_us_pageone but it may be subscribers-only.)
Re: [Vo]:Fracture drilling and the N word
Howdy Jones, KBR ( Kellogg/Brown and Root) was once two respected engineering constructors. MW Kellogg started along with Bechtel, Kaiser and boys building the Hoover dam . Brown Root started in Texas as a road builder and grew and grew.. closely connected to Texas politics ( LBJ) That's how business was done.. but.. they never confused politics with getting the job done.. BR and Kellogg were once great companies. Back in the 50's I worked with many of their engineers.. super people. same for Kellogg. It wasn't until after LBJ and the Browns passed on that they forgot who they were and what they did best.. They bought a pig with the baggage carried by acquiring the rights to be sued by the asbestos lawyers. Probably why they turned rogue.. it happens. Richard --- R C Macaulay wrote: Halliburton ... wound up in Dubai as a strange hybrid oil and gas/ defense contractor/ black ops/ go between with an uncanny ability to morph. Speaking of morphing - or maybe it is more like shedding some ugly stinkin' fat, they just unloaded (at least they did it for 'show' i.e. - on the public record) one of their biggest black ops moneymakers: KBR http://danmuji.ddart.net/science/physics/physics_tutorial/Class/sound/U11L5d.html Kellogg Brown Root, was a subsidiary of Halliburton until 2007, when bad publicity and civil and possible criminal indictments forced Halliburton to sell. IOW they did not want to follow KBR into bankruptcy when some 'liberal' jury awards one of the plaintiffs more than the net worth of the company - and that could happen. Another reason why Dubai is a highly favorable locale for the now slimmed-down version of Halliburton. According to the site above, KBR financed Lyndon Johnson from the 1940s and into the Vice Presidential position, was rewarded after Kennedy's assassination with lucrative contracts in the escalated Vietnam War. Given the sleaze with which they have operated since the sixties, and most recently in Iraq, it causes one to wonder, was KBR actually involved in the JFK assassination? I have never heard that possibility suggested, even from the nuttiest Conspiracy Theorists, but has it been ruled out? Jones -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.11/1368 - Release Date: 4/9/2008 4:20 PM
Re: [Vo]:Burning our food for fuel
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:14:13 -0400: Hi, [snip] Quite some time back someone on this list -- Jed, maybe, or maybe it was actually several people -- opined that alternative biofuels which require arable land to grow could plausibly be viewed as, at least, fundamentally stupid, or at worst as a crime against humanity. Recently I've noticed an interesting trend: In the context of articles on inflation and world food supplies, alternative fuels are now coming up time and again as one of the main causes of rising food prices. Just as one trivial example, here's an excerpt from today's Wall Street Journal, which happened to have a story on rising inflation: But the fact that inflation is rising almost everywhere suggests some of its causes are global. As crops are sold for alternative-energy production, food prices have soared: The price of rice, the staple for billions of Asians, is up 147% over the past year. This is not all that surprising. In a world where we only just produce enough food to support the population, even slight reductions in the supply result in a gap between demand and supply, and the price rises until it reduces the demand to the point where it matches supply. This need not be in the same sort of food either, since if one sort is in short supply, people will buy something else, thus producing a shortage therein as well. Hence a shortage in corn can easily result in increasing prices for rice. Furthermore, the percentage increase in cost can be exorbitant at times, particularly if there is a large proportion of the population that has a considerable buffer between their income and what they spend on food. They will basically continue to buy what they want, irrespective of the price hike, thus driving the price way up. The reduction in demand comes from those countries that have no discretionary spending to sacrifice. They just go hungry and die. In short, while we burn food for fuel, and continue to buy food to eat, the third world starves to death. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Burning our food for fuel
Burning stuff for power is so archaic. harry On 10/4/2008 10:14 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Quite some time back someone on this list -- Jed, maybe, or maybe it was actually several people -- opined that alternative biofuels which require arable land to grow could plausibly be viewed as, at least, fundamentally stupid, or at worst as a crime against humanity. Recently I've noticed an interesting trend: In the context of articles on inflation and world food supplies, alternative fuels are now coming up time and again as one of the main causes of rising food prices. Just as one trivial example, here's an excerpt from today's Wall Street Journal, which happened to have a story on rising inflation: But the fact that inflation is rising almost everywhere suggests some of its causes are global. As crops are sold for alternative-energy production, food prices have soared: The price of rice, the staple for billions of Asians, is up 147% over the past year. Obviously there's more than just alternative fuel production at work in Asia -- to name one thing, China is also turning over more land (and more grain) to beef production as they shift to a more Western diet -- but none the less it's interesting that yet again, in an article which had nothing to do with energy production, this issue came up; the impact of biofuels on food prices is now treated as a given by the mainstream press. It seems that we are, indeed, moving to a mode where we burn our food in our cars. (Original link to the full article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120778643316903397.html?mod=hps_us_pageone but it may be subscribers-only.)
