In article ,
Omelet wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

well.... we have one sports car, one gas efficient mazda and a trailer for
when we
need to haul stuff instead of an SUV or van. we moved into the city and DH
is now 1
mile from work, I am 5 miles. no more big commutes. we shop locally and I
mostly
buy online so there arent a lot of shopping trips. we dont do "car"
vacations and
long trips. our gasoline needs have really dropped. Ingrid

I can't move closer to work. It's not practical so I use close to 2
gallons per day during my commute.

But I make sure that I do most of my shopping on the way home from work
as a slightly different route will pass me thru town on the way home,
and shopping trips to Austin are severely limited.

I'm on vacation this week and won't be going anywhere. I have too much
to do here anyway. ;-)

I also shop by phone somewhat before going out so I can make just one
trip to one store.

I don't like to shop on line as credit card interest rates are too high
so I limit their use to what I can pay off each month.

Get a debit card. No interest. We got one just for shopping online and
on ebay. (We don't believe in credit cards.)

Jan

--
Bedouin proverb: If you have no troubles, buy a goat.

In article ,
Jan Flora wrote:

I don't like to shop on line as credit card interest rates are too high
so I limit their use to what I can pay off each month.

Get a debit card. No interest. We got one just for shopping online and
on ebay. (We don't believe in credit cards.)

Jan

I do have a debit card.

It's not recommended that a debit card be used for on line purchases as
there is no way to recover the funds if there is a problem. Once the
money is gone, it's gone.

Credit card purchases have their own built in warantee.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet expounded:


I do have a debit card.

It's not recommended that a debit card be used for on line purchases as
there is no way to recover the funds if there is a problem. Once the
money is gone, it's gone.

Credit card purchases have their own built in warantee.

That depends. My debit card is a MasterCard, and it has all the
protection of a credit card. And I've had to use that protection in
the past, so I know it works.
--
Ann, gardening in Zone 6a
South of Boston, Massachusetts
e-mail address is not checked
******************************

In article ,
Ann wrote:

Omelet expounded:


I do have a debit card.

It's not recommended that a debit card be used for on line purchases as
there is no way to recover the funds if there is a problem. Once the
money is gone, it's gone.

Credit card purchases have their own built in warantee.

That depends. My debit card is a MasterCard, and it has all the
protection of a credit card. And I've had to use that protection in
the past, so I know it works.

Ok, that's good info, thanks!
My debit card is a visa.

I'll have to talk to my bank. I am new to debit cards.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Omelet" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Ann wrote:

Omelet expounded:


I do have a debit card.

It's not recommended that a debit card be used for on line purchases as
there is no way to recover the funds if there is a problem. Once the
money is gone, it's gone.

Credit card purchases have their own built in warantee.

That depends. My debit card is a MasterCard, and it has all the
protection of a credit card. And I've had to use that protection in
the past, so I know it works.

Ok, that's good info, thanks!
My debit card is a visa.

I'll have to talk to my bank. I am new to debit cards.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack
Nicholson

Mine is has the visa logo also. Any debit cards with a major credit card
logo have the same perks as a credit without all the downfalls. or that's
the way it works around here anyway. definitely check with your bank - but
if you have the logo - you should be fine.

rae

In article ,
"Rachael Simpson" wrote:

Mine is has the visa logo also. Any debit cards with a major credit card
logo have the same perks as a credit without all the downfalls. or that's
the way it works around here anyway. definitely check with your bank - but
if you have the logo - you should be fine.

rae

Thanks again. :-)

I have managed to pay off all of my credit card debt and am trying to
totally avoid using them at all. Interest rates are usery!
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:37 -0700, wrote:

the problem is, all carbon based fuels release CO2 when burned.

what we need is to break the hydrogen oxygen bond in water and then burn
the hydrogen
back to water. plants do this, they use solar energy to knock the
hydrogen off the
water, use the energy of the electrons to form a covalent bond (organic)
that stores
the energy (using CO2). That is really clean energy.

Ingrid


That sounds nice but it costs significantly more to extract hydrogen from
water then to produce it any other way. The most economical way at present
to produce hydrogen on a massive scale is steam reforming of the methane
in natural gas or coal gas in which the gas is combined with superheated
steam, releasing hydrogen and carbon dioxide. CH4+2H2O=4H2+CO2 if I got my
chemistry right. This is the Bush hydrogen initiative. No improvement in
carbon dioxide emissions, but it would be a boon for the natural gas and
coal industries. And that's the real point of it.

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is
to be controlled by all that the coward fears. To be led by a fool is to
be led by the opportunists who control the fool. To be led by a thief is
to offer up your most precious treasures to be stolen. To be led by a liar
is to ask to be lied to. To be led by a tyrant is to sell yourself and
those you love into slavery."
Octavia Butler

plants do it very economically. we just need to figure out how to
replicate it, probably using variations on the organic enzymes plants
use and do it in vitro. Ingrid

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 01:02:40 GMT, "Lorenzo L. Love"
wrote:

On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:37 -0700, wrote:

the problem is, all carbon based fuels release CO2 when burned.

what we need is to break the hydrogen oxygen bond in water and then burn
the hydrogen
back to water. plants do this, they use solar energy to knock the
hydrogen off the
water, use the energy of the electrons to form a covalent bond (organic)
that stores
the energy (using CO2). That is really clean energy.

Ingrid


That sounds nice but it costs significantly more to extract hydrogen from
water then to produce it any other way. The most economical way at present
to produce hydrogen on a massive scale is steam reforming of the methane
in natural gas or coal gas in which the gas is combined with superheated
steam, releasing hydrogen and carbon dioxide. CH4+2H2O=4H2+CO2 if I got my
chemistry right. This is the Bush hydrogen initiative. No improvement in
carbon dioxide emissions, but it would be a boon for the natural gas and
coal industries. And that's the real point of it.

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is
to be controlled by all that the coward fears. To be led by a fool is to
be led by the opportunists who control the fool. To be led by a thief is
to offer up your most precious treasures to be stolen. To be led by a liar
is to ask to be lied to. To be led by a tyrant is to sell yourself and
those you love into slavery."
Octavia Butler

In article ,
wrote:

plants do it very economically. we just need to figure out how to
replicate it, probably using variations on the organic enzymes plants
use and do it in vitro. Ingrid

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 01:02:40 GMT, "Lorenzo L. Love"
wrote:

On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:37 -0700, wrote:

the problem is, all carbon based fuels release CO2 when burned.

what we need is to break the hydrogen oxygen bond in water and then burn
the hydrogen
back to water. plants do this, they use solar energy to knock the
hydrogen off the
water, use the energy of the electrons to form a covalent bond (organic)
that stores
the energy (using CO2). That is really clean energy.

Ingrid


That sounds nice but it costs significantly more to extract hydrogen from
water then to produce it any other way. The most economical way at present
to produce hydrogen on a massive scale is steam reforming of the methane
in natural gas or coal gas in which the gas is combined with superheated
steam, releasing hydrogen and carbon dioxide. CH4+2H2O=4H2+CO2 if I got my
chemistry right. This is the Bush hydrogen initiative. No improvement in
carbon dioxide emissions, but it would be a boon for the natural gas and
coal industries. And that's the real point of it.

Lorenzo L. Love
http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove

"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is
to be controlled by all that the coward fears. To be led by a fool is to
be led by the opportunists who control the fool. To be led by a thief is
to offer up your most precious treasures to be stolen. To be led by a liar
is to ask to be lied to. To be led by a tyrant is to sell yourself and
those you love into slavery."
Octavia Butler

If you are planing on using the Citric Acid Cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle to power your car, you
can plan on zipping along at the speed of a growing plant. CO2 release
is only a problem if you add to the atmospheric load of CO2. CO2 already
exists in the atmosphere where it is part of the CO2 Cycle
http://www.google.com/search?q=CO2+c...aq=t&rls=org.m
ozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a . The Problem is in increasing
the amount of CO2 by the introduction of fossil fuels. Working within
the CO2 Cycle is a zero sum games with no CO2 increase.

H2 + O2 is a great source for energy but I don't think you want a
pressurized cylinder of it under the back seat of your car. If H2 could
be produced as needed, it may be safe (depending on the process).
Electric cars powered by central power stations across a grid would, to
me, make the most sense for daily needs. This would allow CO2 scrubbing
of smoke stacks to eliminate CO2 from being returned to the atmosphere
and allow the use of bio-mass for fuel.

Fossil fuel is the enemy.

- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

not citric acid, not electron transport. use first stage of light
reaction in photosynthesis. H2O + photon -2 H+ and electrons and O

I am thinking more about make the hydrogen as you go AND have some
kind of storage for the hydrogen that is more stable, like H2CO3 =
H+ and HCO3. The actual electrons are what fuels ATP production
during the light cycle so electrons can be stored.
Ingrid

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:10:13 -0700, Billy Rose
wrote:
If you are planing on using the Citric Acid Cycle
H2 + O2 is a great source for energy but I don't think you want a
pressurized cylinder of it under the back seat of your car.

In article ,
wrote:

not citric acid, not electron transport. use first stage of light
reaction in photosynthesis. H2O + photon -2 H+ and electrons and O

You mean
2 H2O + 2 NADP+ + 2 ADP + 2 Pi + light -- 2 NADPH + 2 H+ + 2 ATP + O2 ?
That is a mess of wet chemistry, you have in mind guy/girl.
Another way would be, by definition an acid releases H2 when it comes in
contact with a metal (yeah, there are a few exotics, but hyronium donors
do) but then there is the problem of all that acid sloshing around in
the vehicle. Seems to me, photovoltaic and a battery would be more
practical. Even more practical would be the electric plug in vehicle.
For the real hard core, we could go back to the Stanely Steamers. Then
Frag could just dry out some pasture pastries, toss 'em in the burner,
and sail off down the road. No fossil fuel. Might smell a little funky
though.

I think I have a recent article around here, some where, on H2 storage.
Lemme git back to ya.

- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)

I am thinking more about make the hydrogen as you go AND have some
kind of storage for the hydrogen that is more stable, like H2CO3 =
H+ and HCO3. The actual electrons are what fuels ATP production
during the light cycle so electrons can be stored.
Ingrid

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:10:13 -0700, Billy Rose
wrote:
If you are planing on using the Citric Acid Cycle
H2 + O2 is a great source for energy but I don't think you want a
pressurized cylinder of it under the back seat of your car.

electrical plugs just put off the problem. somebody somewhere gotta
burn something to make the electricity. if they are making hydrogen
from water, fine, if it is nuclear less than ideal.

platinum is typically used to catalyze the splitting of water, used
with an electrical current in an ionic but not necessarily acidic
environment. Ingrid

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:35:35 -0700, Billy Rose
wrote:
Even more practical would be the electric plug in vehicle.

In article ,
wrote:

electrical plugs just put off the problem. somebody somewhere gotta
burn something to make the electricity.

True, but then you can use bio-mass and your not burning fossil fuel.
Additionally, you have the option of scrubbing the smoke stack to
sequester the CO2 and reduce the over all amount in the atmosphere.

if they are making hydrogen from water, fine, if it is nuclear less than ideal.

About as far as you can get from ideal, IMHO. In 30 - 40 years, fusion
reactors should be viable with lots of safe, clean energy. Why mess up
the planet for a 40 year fix, when it creates more problems than it
solves?

platinum is typically used to catalyze the splitting of water, used
with an electrical current in an ionic but not necessarily acidic
environment.

The April '07 issue of Scientific American addresses the issue of
hydrogen storage. The choices are (1) compressed hyrdogen, (2) liquid
hydrogen (Ever see the demonstration where they dip a rose into liquid
helium? Same kinda deal) (3) reversible "hydrogen metal hydrides" (they
generate H+ in response to heat and a catalyst and, they need to be
removed to recharge) and (4) "hydrogen adsorbents" that work like
sponges (don't need to be removed to recharge but research just
beginning).

Unfortunately, the full article isn't available on line without a
subscription but you could find it at the library and, the graphics are
very helpful in helping understand the problems involved.

Ingrid

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:35:35 -0700, Billy Rose

- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)
wrote:
Even more practical would be the electric plug in vehicle.

Hmmm .... My 2 cents.

My thinking goes likes this.

I like my modern technological life. I like my computers, cars, lights,
HBO and modern medical techniques. I refuse to live in a cave. Street
maybe, if I keep spending the way I am

Solar and wind energy together is too expensive for the small amount of
electricity one receives. In order to get large amounts of energy one
has to destroy something to get it: be it coal, nuclear, Fusion is just
a dream a false hope, wood or any other agricultural source. If one (ok
the world) uses agricultural sources, bread will be twenty dollars a
loaf, greater starvation among the populated world.

Coal, CO2 scrubbers still leaves toxic waste in our land fills.
Hydrogen, needs electricity to extract from water. Bio-mass -
Agicultural, kiss all forest good-by, not just the rain forest.

If .... If and only if they can make them safe and put its waste in
outer space, are the breeder nuclear reactors. "The old saying - Is
anything safe? NO".

The only way to have a clean, healthy earth for everyone on this planet,
IS POPULATION REDUCTION. ie: make bombs not babies (ok, ok, forget the
reverse pun of the sixty's vietnam) just stop breeding like humans.

However, not sure of the future. My next truck will have an E85 engine.
I have read some where that all one has to do is combine 85 gallons of
ethanal with 15 gallons of regular gas. Buy a still, I have the 10 acres
of land to raise corn and have 6 acres of woods (energy source for the
still).

Its all about me, let the world starve. Conservation is a lost cause
without population reduction. I am single with no kids. With no social
life one has the time to do the things listed above.

So I agree with the original poster:
Home Gardening "is" Becoming Even More Imperative.

Enjoy Life ......... Dan.

In article
,
Billy Rose wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

electrical plugs just put off the problem. somebody somewhere gotta
burn something to make the electricity.

True, but then you can use bio-mass and your not burning fossil fuel.
Additionally, you have the option of scrubbing the smoke stack to
sequester the CO2 and reduce the over all amount in the atmosphere.

if they are making hydrogen from water, fine, if it is nuclear less than
ideal.

About as far as you can get from ideal, IMHO. In 30 - 40 years, fusion
reactors should be viable with lots of safe, clean energy. Why mess up
the planet for a 40 year fix, when it creates more problems than it
solves?

platinum is typically used to catalyze the splitting of water, used
with an electrical current in an ionic but not necessarily acidic
environment.

The April '07 issue of Scientific American addresses the issue of
hydrogen storage. The choices are (1) compressed hyrdogen, (2) liquid
hydrogen (Ever see the demonstration where they dip a rose into liquid
helium? Same kinda deal) (3) reversible "hydrogen metal hydrides" (they
generate H+ in response to heat and a catalyst and, they need to be
removed to recharge) and (4) "hydrogen adsorbents" that work like
sponges (don't need to be removed to recharge but research just
beginning).

Unfortunately, the full article isn't available on line without a
subscription but you could find it at the library and, the graphics are
very helpful in helping understand the problems involved.

Ingrid

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:35:35 -0700, Billy Rose

- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)
wrote:
Even more practical would be the electric plug in vehicle.


--
Email "dan lehr at comcast dot net". Text only or goes to trash automatically.

In article
,
"Dan L." wrote:

Hmmm .... My 2 cents.
Uh, nice string of pronouncements Dan. Usually it is nice if you can
give them a little authority, names, places, logic based on an
acceptable premise. You know, something like that would have been nice,
instead of coming down the mountain with your clay tablets. (Yeah, I
know, sarcastic, people have told me that.

My thinking goes likes this.

I like my modern technological life. I like my computers, cars, lights,
HBO and modern medical techniques. I refuse to live in a cave. Street
maybe, if I keep spending the way I am
Keep your technology but Americans presently use 25% of the worlds
energy. That will change. We can look forward to a diminished way of
life. Sorry Dave. (Jeeze, I sound like Hal, the computer) The
alternative is to send out the troops with bayonets fixed and subjugate
the world. Since we are not alone in the nuclear club, some of those
suckers may not want to go down easily. How do you feel about trying to
swim in the non-radioactive end of the pool?

Solar and wind energy together is too expensive for the small amount of
electricity one receives. In order to get large amounts of energy one
has to destroy something to get it: be it coal, nuclear, Fusion is just
a dream a false hope, wood or any other agricultural source. If one (ok
the world) uses agricultural sources, bread will be twenty dollars a
loaf, greater starvation among the populated world.

Presently, wind, photovoltaic, and hydro power (including tides) is too
little and more expensive than fossil fuel (if you don't count the
social impact of global warming i.e. our extinction). Someone must have
forgotten to tell the international consortium that is constructing a
fusion reactor in France that Dave said it couldn't be done. Scrubbing
smoke stacks with water and calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)2 gives you calcium
carbonate and water. Chalk, Dave, chalk doesn't sound so polluting, does
it?

We are already over producing food (look at you waistline) and
demographics say that the population of the planet should drop to
replacement levels by 2050. Western Europe has been encouraging it's
citizens to have more babies because the indigenous populations are
declining. Pretty much the same deal for all industrialized nations.

Coal, CO2 scrubbers still leaves toxic waste in our land fills.
Hydrogen, needs electricity to extract from water. Bio-mass -
Agicultural, kiss all forest good-by, not just the rain forest.
There is even a new nut being introduced into Africa as a crop that
grows well on dry marginally useful agricultural land that is 40% oil.
We can keep our forests. Need to plant more actually. Maybe you will
have to do without quite so much beef. That's all.

If .... If and only if they can make them safe and put its waste in
outer space, are the breeder nuclear reactors. "The old saying - Is
anything safe? NO".
Great way to live, with the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.
Thanks, but no. Fission can be buffed, tweaked, and polished but it is
just too freaking dangerous. That argument aside, how are you going to
transfer the energy down, by microwaves and fry migratory birds?

The only way to have a clean, healthy earth for everyone on this planet,
IS POPULATION REDUCTION. ie: make bombs not babies (ok, ok, forget the
reverse pun of the sixty's vietnam) just stop breeding like humans.
See above. Large families only make sense in in subsistence farming.

However, not sure of the future. My next truck will have an E85 engine.
I have read some where that all one has to do is combine 85 gallons of
ethanal with 15 gallons of regular gas. Buy a still, I have the 10 acres
of land to raise corn and have 6 acres of woods (energy source for the
still).
You haven't been reading this new group long, have you? Corn is grown
with natural gas and petroleum. It is not efficient unless you are an
oil company but not for consumers.

Its all about me, let the world starve. Conservation is a lost cause
without population reduction. I am single with no kids. With no social
life one has the time to do the things listed above.
A Cassandra in the wilderness, wandering in a hopeless quest, fade to
black, the lights come up and everybody stands and goes home. Quite a
martyr syndrome you have there Dave.

You really need to lighten up there Dave. Ya know. Girls really like
guys that can make them laugh.

So I agree with the original poster:
Home Gardening "is" Becoming Even More Imperative.

Enjoy Life ......... Dan.
I will. Thanks Dave. You really should read a book about this stuff some
day. Life is a tight rope, but it's doable.


In article
,
Billy Rose wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

electrical plugs just put off the problem. somebody somewhere gotta
burn something to make the electricity.

True, but then you can use bio-mass and your not burning fossil fuel.
Additionally, you have the option of scrubbing the smoke stack to
sequester the CO2 and reduce the over all amount in the atmosphere.

if they are making hydrogen from water, fine, if it is nuclear less than
ideal.

About as far as you can get from ideal, IMHO. In 30 - 40 years, fusion
reactors should be viable with lots of safe, clean energy. Why mess up
the planet for a 40 year fix, when it creates more problems than it
solves?

platinum is typically used to catalyze the splitting of water, used
with an electrical current in an ionic but not necessarily acidic
environment.

The April '07 issue of Scientific American addresses the issue of
hydrogen storage. The choices are (1) compressed hyrdogen, (2) liquid
hydrogen (Ever see the demonstration where they dip a rose into liquid
helium? Same kinda deal) (3) reversible "hydrogen metal hydrides" (they
generate H+ in response to heat and a catalyst and, they need to be
removed to recharge) and (4) "hydrogen adsorbents" that work like
sponges (don't need to be removed to recharge but research just
beginning).

Unfortunately, the full article isn't available on line without a
subscription but you could find it at the library and, the graphics are
very helpful in helping understand the problems involved.

Ingrid

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:35:35 -0700, Billy Rose

- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)