Will Bicycle Theft Increase? - Page 3

"Jack Dingler" <jdingler4@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:21bb06de.0302210755.71375eed@posting.google.com...
> Making bio-diesel is low tech, that I doubt that economies of scale produce significant cost
> savings.

Especially when we consider other factors into the equation. Water is a prime example. Right now 70%
of worldwide water consumption is used for irrigation. In the U.S., the amount used for irrigation
is over 80%. In Texas, over 80% of the agricultural production comes from the panhandle - one of the
driest parts of the state. It was originally concentrated around the southern tip and the
"breadbasket" - a strip of central Texas that follows I-35 from Oklahoma down to Austin. Now it is
mostly urban.

Those who talk of biofuels need to consider these important factors before they proclaim biofuels to
be the answer to our woes. We would have to increase agricultural output and those increases would
likely occur in areas which require additional irrigation which would have significant impacts on
our water supplies which are already running thin in most parts of our nation. If you think
California is crazy for depending on imported energy, they are even more dependent upon imported
water. Texas is now dealing with water rights issues because some parts of the state are outgrowing
their water supplies. It's a trend that will continue over the western 2/3rds of the U.S.,
especially if we have to literally grow our new fuel source.

-Buck

"Matt O'Toole" <matt@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:nDv5a.18792$0L3.7241005@news2.news.adelphia.net...
|
| "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote in message
| news:eBu5a.28362$DV.915432@twister.austin.rr.com...
|
| > Especially when we consider other factors into the
| equation. Water is a
| > prime example. Right now 70% of worldwide water
| consumption is used for
| > irrigation. In the U.S., the amount used for irrigation is
| over 80%. In
| > Texas, over 80% of the agricultural production comes from
| the panhandle -
| > one of the driest parts of the state. It was originally
| concentrated around
| > the southern tip and the "breadbasket" - a strip of
| central Texas that
| > follows I-35 from Oklahoma down to Austin. Now it is
| mostly urban.
| >
| > Those who talk of biofuels need to consider these
| important factors before
| > they proclaim biofuels to be the answer to our woes. We
| would have to
| > increase agricultural output and those increases would
| likely occur in areas
| > which require additional irrigation which would have
| significant impacts on
| > our water supplies which are already running thin in most
| parts of our
| > nation. If you think California is crazy for depending on
| imported energy,
| > they are even more dependent upon imported water. Texas is
| now dealing with
| > water rights issues because some parts of the state are
| outgrowing their
| > water supplies. It's a trend that will continue over the
| western 2/3rds of
| > the U.S., especially if we have to literally grow our new
| fuel source.
|
| This is true.
|
| What's worse, CA is importing all that water, but wasting their own to grow *rice* in the middle
| of a desert. And I'll be damned if I'm going to take 3 minute showers so Donald Bren can build
| another golf course.
|
| Most of the scientist/pundit types I know seem to think WW3 will be fought 50-100 years from now,
| and over water, not oil.
|
| Matt O.
|
Who do you expect, will fight whom for water?

ED3

"Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote in message
news:eBu5a.28362$DV.915432@twister.austin.rr.com...

> Especially when we consider other factors into the
equation. Water is a
> prime example. Right now 70% of worldwide water
consumption is used for
> irrigation. In the U.S., the amount used for irrigation is
over 80%. In
> Texas, over 80% of the agricultural production comes from
the panhandle -
> one of the driest parts of the state. It was originally
concentrated around
> the southern tip and the "breadbasket" - a strip of
central Texas that
> follows I-35 from Oklahoma down to Austin. Now it is
mostly urban.
>
> Those who talk of biofuels need to consider these
important factors before
> they proclaim biofuels to be the answer to our woes. We
would have to
> increase agricultural output and those increases would
likely occur in areas
> which require additional irrigation which would have
significant impacts on
> our water supplies which are already running thin in most
parts of our
> nation. If you think California is crazy for depending on
imported energy,
> they are even more dependent upon imported water. Texas is
now dealing with
> water rights issues because some parts of the state are
outgrowing their
> water supplies. It's a trend that will continue over the
western 2/3rds of
> the U.S., especially if we have to literally grow our new
fuel source.

This is true.

What's worse, CA is importing all that water, but wasting their own to grow *rice* in the middle of
a desert. And I'll be damned if I'm going to take 3 minute showers so Donald Bren can build another
golf course.

Most of the scientist/pundit types I know seem to think WW3 will be fought 50-100 years from now,
and over water, not oil.

Matt O.

Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:15:37 -0600, <wLv5a.92$zV1.39960@news.uswest.net>, "Edward Dike, III"
<edd3remove_removes@qwestion.net> wrote:

>| Most of the scientist/pundit types I know seem to think WW3 will be fought 50-100 years from now,
>| and over water, not oil.
>|
>| Matt O.
>|
>Who do you expect, will fight whom for water?
>
>ED3

The IMF and World Bank cronies against everybody else.
--
zk

Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in news:3e589bef.12083827@public-news.look.ca:

> Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:15:37 -0600, <wLv5a.92$zV1.39960@news.uswest.net>, "Edward Dike, III"
> <edd3remove_removes@qwestion.net> wrote:
>
>>| Most of the scientist/pundit types I know seem to think WW3 will be fought 50-100 years from
>>| now, and over water, not oil.
>>|
>>| Matt O.
>>|
>>Who do you expect, will fight whom for water?
>>
>>ED3
>
> The IMF and World Bank cronies against everybody else.

What Zoot you get this kind of nonsence at the CM rides or did you just figure it all by yourself?

"Mike Latondresse" <mikelat@nospamshaw.ca> wrote in message

> What Zoot you get this kind of nonsence at the CM rides or did you just figure it all by yourself?

I image the coversation after one of his 'bike polo' games would be in that catorgory as well.

Sat, 22 Feb 2003 01:02:13 GMT, <Xns9329ADB1897Cshawca@24.69.255.211>, Mike Latondresse
<mikelat@nospamshaw.ca> wrote:

>>>| Most of the scientist/pundit types I know seem to think WW3 will be fought 50-100 years from
>>>| now, and over water, not oil.
>>>|
>>>| Matt O.
>>>|
>>>Who do you expect, will fight whom for water?
>>>
>>>ED3
>>
>> The IMF and World Bank cronies against everybody else.
>
>What Zoot you get this kind of nonsence at the CM rides or did you just figure it all by yourself?

Tank Girl clued me.

Actually, you just have to plug _water war_ into Google and those are the most powerful and
pervasively recurring players in hydro-strategic machinations.

The privatisation of our water is the tip of the wedge and should be recognised as an attack on all
life by the greed mongers.
--
zk

Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in news:3e5cd2ec.26162682@public-news.look.ca:

>
> The privatisation of our water is the tip of the wedge and should be recognised as an attack on
> all life by the greed mongers.

Zoot my water is always private unless I am on a long ride and then I look for some bushes. On the
other hand Fab can probably go underway.

In article <eBu5a.28362$DV.915432@twister.austin.rr.com>, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o
r p . c o m> writes:

> Those who talk of biofuels need to consider these important factors before they proclaim biofuels
> to be the answer to our woes.

Here's a li'l excerpt of a propagandum from those who talk of biofuels:
http://www.whybiotech.com/index.asp?id=2213

"Higher Corn Yields are Making Ethanol More Energy Efficient

A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture study found that ethanol production is becoming more
energy-efficient all the time because corn yields are rising, less energy is required to grow
it, and ethanol conversion technologies are becoming more efficient.1

While the August 2002 study -- The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An Update -- did not
specifically mention biotechnology, a co-author of the report says an updated version of the
study will likely include references to biotechnology and other innovations that have led to
greater yields, which have made ethanol conversion even more efficient.

My guess is that when we review the new data from 2000 and 2001 we?ll see higher yields, and
maybe some of that is attributable to biotech corn,? said James Duffield, an economist with the
USDA?s Office of the Chief Economist."

> We would have to increase agricultural output and those increases would likely occur in areas
> which require additional irrigation which would have significant impacts on our water supplies
> which are already running thin in most parts of our nation.

Who says it must be domestically produced? My [unsubstantiated] guess is that it would be quite easy
for certain multinational corporations to "persuade" less well-to-do nations in, say, Africa, to
forego growing their traditional crops, in favour of biofuel-producing biomass -- possibly
genetically engineered to thrive in drier climates, and to produce high yields. The stuff would of
course be licensable as intellectual property, so the growers would have to meet certain commitments
for the priviledge to be exploi-... er ... to grow it. (Okay, I admit I've become a bit of a
Rifkinite.)

So, I'm skeptical of biofuel as an alternative fuel -- not only because of its possible
socio/political implications; I also sense it's too much of a stop-gap measure that distracts from
the quest for a cleaner and more abundant energy source.

But just to play devil's advocate: the existing fossil fuel- powered technology would readily be
adaptable as legacy technology for biofuel. And cleaner, less GHG-emitting[*], or resource-consuming
production methods *might* be discovered. But then, a hog might jump outa my butt one day, too.

cheers, Tom
[*] I understand one of the attractions of biofuel is that biomass, as it grows, is supposed to
"re-consume" GHGs. emitted from previous use. But I believe current production methods actually
contribute more GHGs on top of those produced by just using the fuel. There's stuff on the good ol'
"dependable" ;-) WWWeb to that effect, anyway.

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca

"Mike Latondresse" <mikelat@nospamshaw.ca> wrote in message
>
> Zoot my water is always private unless I am on a long ride and then I look for some bushes. On the
> other hand Fab can probably go underway.
>
I don't do it underway, but a good roadie never has to get out of sight in the bushes just to
relieve himself. Just do it fast and get it over with and don't worry about the general public,
unless they happen to pull over and ask for directions while you're still at it.

Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:

> "Mike Latondresse" <mikelat@nospamshaw.ca> wrote in message
> >
> > Zoot my water is always private unless I am on a long ride and then I look for some bushes. On
> > the other hand Fab can probably go underway.
> >
> I don't do it underway, but a good roadie never has to get out of sight in the bushes just to
> relieve himself. Just do it fast and get it over with and don't worry about the general public,
> unless they happen to pull over and ask for directions while you're still at it.

I hate when that happens! :-)

Sat, 22 Feb 2003 19:26:52 -0800, <3E583F7C.B5DDDD7B@direct.ca>, Bernie <bmcilvan@direct.ca> wrote:
>Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:
>
>> "Mike Latondresse" <mikelat@nospamshaw.ca> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Zoot my water is always private unless I am on a long ride and then I look for some bushes. On
>> > the other hand Fab can probably go underway.
>> >
>> I don't do it underway, but a good roadie never has to get out of sight in the bushes just to
>> relieve himself. Just do it fast and get it over with and don't worry about the general public,
>> unless they happen to pull over and ask for directions while you're still at it.
>
>I hate when that happens! :-)

I've found that you can dampen their curiosity by simply turning to answer them. They usually don't
hang around for the answer.
--
zk