 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / BMW Cars / July 2008Water as fuel for cars by 2010
Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move only with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel cell" automobile produce the energy needed to move… http://cooldreamcars.googlepages.com/water_fuel_cars_2010 > Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move only > with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel > cell" automobile produce the energy needed to move… > http://cooldreamcars.googlepages.com/water_fuel_cars_2010 This process to move to "Hydrogen fuel cells" is a sham, fuel cells do not "produce" energy they convert it. Where will all this hydrogen come from? There is not enough "renewables" on the electric grid to produce even the electricity we are utilizing today so if we have a large increase in demand it will surely come from fossil fuels. Don't be sucked in by all the hype! Think through the process from end to end. --- Rant off --- Back to regular lurking mode.... > This process to move to "Hydrogen fuel cells" is a sham, fuel cells do > not "produce" energy they convert it. Where will all this hydrogen come > from? There is not enough "renewables" on the electric grid to produce > even the electricity we are utilizing today so if we have a large > increase in demand it will surely come from fossil fuels. > Don't be sucked in by all the hype! Think through the process from end > to end. Agreed. The only way to do it properly is increase the nuclear / wind / wave power sector.  SignatureWho needs a life when you've got Unix? :-) Email: john@unixnerd.demon.co.uk, John G.Burns B.Eng, Bonny Scotland Web : http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk - The Ultimate BMW Homepage! Need Sun or HP Unix kit? http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk/unix.html www.Strathspey.co.uk - Quality Binoculars at a Sensible price >> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move only >> with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > --- Rant off --- Back to regular lurking mode.... I do not know the molecular science involved in stripping out the hydrogen from pretty much anything, but Fuel Cells are coming. Honda already has a fuel cell car. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the known universe, so our ability to use it all up is very slim. We once said that about petroleum, but I digress. Hydrogen is found in natural gas, and more than half of American households have natural gas being fed directly into the home, so there is a significant distribution system in place already. This is a plus. Hydrogen is also 66% of water, and everybody has water at home. Again, the distribtion network is largely in place -- assuming a device is needed to separate the hydrogen and oxygen before putting it into the car. If water can be put into a car, and the hydrogen can be separated "on the fly" onboard the car, then the distribution network is done. As a practical matter, I predict fuel cell technology being employed in a residential setting. It is clean and renewable. It is also well suited for a static load. The standard maximum load for a residence is about 15kW when everything is on. It would be a relatively simple matter to design a fuel cell with that capacity, and when the load is below that, the excess energy could be pumped out to the grid where it is then distributed to business and industry where they have a hard time to generate sufficient electricity for their operations. Homeowners get energy credits for the energy the pump out, and then draw the credits down when they place demands that exceed the capacity of the system they have -- which should be a very rare event. >>> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move only >>> with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >credits down when they place demands that exceed the capacity of the system >they have -- which should be a very rare event. Household gas does indeed contain hydrogen, but as a compound with carbon. In fact, so does petrol/gasoline. They're both hydrocarbons. The pollution problem isn't with the burning of the hydrogen, that just results in water. The problem is the carbon. The carbon that has been safely locked away under the surface of the planet for a million years. When you burn that, you get carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide if you don't have enough oxygen about). The usual source of the pure hydrogen fuel that fuel cell vehicles require is water. It can be fresh water, or sea water, take your pick. The basic process is electrolysis, where you have two electrically conductive plates immersed in the liquid, and then you apply an electrical charge to them. This in effect rips the oxygen and hydrogen atoms apart from each other, oxygen heads to one plate, hydrogen to the other, and up they both bubble. To be honest the process is so simple you could so it at home. The trick is to arrange the plates so you keep the gasses separate. The last thing you want to store is a perfect 2:1 hydrogen:oxygen mixture! (Perfect explosive mixture, just add a spark!). The problem is the electricity required to pull the hydrogen free from the oxygen, you've got to get it from somewhere! If that somewhere happens to be a gas, oil or coal power station, you haven't actually reduced any pollution, you've just moved it down to the other end of the power cable! The same is true of purely electric cars, the owners might be sitting there feeling smug, but I doubt they've thought for two seconds where electricity comes from. Only when you know your electricity has come from a green source such as solar, wind, hydro or wave, can you feel completely smug and green. I haven't included nuclear, as although it doesn't pump out tons of CO2, it does produce some pretty nasty waste! End of science lesson. Dodgy. SignatureMUSHROOMS ARE THE OPIATE OF THE MOOSES >> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move only >> with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel >> cell" automobile produce the energy needed to move > > This process to move to "Hydrogen fuel cells" is a sham, fuel cells do > not "produce" energy they convert it. Uh... everything converts energy rather than produce it. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Don't take that as an endorsement of the article... using water for fuel is idiotic unless you can find a cheap and easy way to produce water. Signature"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!" >>> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move only >>> with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Don't take that as an endorsement of the article... using water for fuel >is idiotic unless you can find a cheap and easy way to produce water. Surely you mean cheap and easy way to produce hydrogen? They exist, you can do it with a couple of paperclips, a glass of water and a 9v battery... The problem is the electricity required to do it. If you did mean water, then maybe as a Brit I cannot comprehend your problem, we're surrounded by the stuff! Dodgy. SignatureMUSHROOMS ARE THE OPIATE OF THE MOOSES >>>> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move only >>>> with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Surely you mean cheap and easy way to produce hydrogen? No... the article is about getting hydrogen from water, so I'm talking about water. An alternative method of producing hydrogen would make the water unnecessary. > They exist, you can do it with a couple of paperclips, a glass of water > and a 9v battery... The problem is the electricity required to do it. > > If you did mean water, then maybe as a Brit I cannot comprehend your > problem, we're surrounded by the stuff! Humans need fresh water to live, if we're "burning" it in fuel cells and spraying it all over the highways then it's a pretty rare commodity. Signature"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!" >>>>> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move only >>>>> with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Humans need fresh water to live, if we're "burning" it in fuel cells and >spraying it all over the highways then it's a pretty rare commodity. Surely you must know that fuel cells don't burn water but rather produce it. Fuel cells combine H2 and O2 into H2O over an electrode, in one simple step, generating water and electricity. They are the most efficient devices to convert chemical energy into electrical energy (least amount of energy loss; dG=dH-TdS remember?) If you make H2 and O2 from water (the most obvious way to do it) to only recombine it back into H2O using a fuel cell, you are only getting back a part of the original energy it required to convert the water into oxygen and hydrogen. The rest is lost to entropy. But you are getting more energy out of that conversion as compared to producing electricity from another chemical source such as burning a fossil fuel, converting the heat into mechanical energy then subsequently converting that mechanical energy into electric energy. The cheapest way to make electricity is through a nuclear fusion process, followed by nuclear fission as a second method to do it. Which is also the only available nuclear process at this moment (there are no controlled fusion reactors yet available, only fusion bombs, which are a bit, well let's just say more "uncontrolled" nuclear reactions. Each process has its "issues". With fuel cells it is currently the storage of the hydrogen and the weight of the fuel cells themselves. Also the high costs of the fuel cell membranes and their usable life span. But great progress has been made in recent years. It's quite possible that in the very near future your cell phones and such gizmos will be fuel cell powered (I've seen the prototypes already where I work). The cells needed to power a car are a bit further down the road. But that same was said when people went from horses to the first motor engines. >>>>>> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move only >>>>>> with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Surely you must know that fuel cells don't burn water but rather produce > it. That's why it says "burning" in quotes. And fuel cells DO NOT produce water. The oxygen and hydrogen in water are separated and them recombined... energy is being released by the separation. But, as of yet, there is no closed system fuel cell technology for cars so water is exhausted by the vehicle out the tail pipe onto the road... therefore the water is essentially lost. Signature"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!" >>>>>>> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move only >>>>>>> with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >water is exhausted by the vehicle out the tail pipe onto the road... >therefore the water is essentially lost. I think you should look up the actual design of a fuel cell. You might be surprized. Or enlightened. Or both. Here's a good start for you: http://wapedia.mobi/en/Fuel_cell There you will learn that fuel cells don't separate O and H from water and recombine it, as you seem to think. You might learn that in a hydrogen fuel cell, oxygen and hydrogen are combined to produce water protons and electrons. You need to have a supply of both O2 and H2. Happy reading! If you are interested, I have a few patents on the design of the polymer membranes that are used in these. One of them is US 7,074,841 for your reference, in case you want to read that as well. You can get a copy at uspto.gov. >>>>>>>> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move >>>>>>>> only with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > I think you should look up the actual design of a fuel cell. You might > be surprized. Or enlightened. Or both. I think you should read the OP and stay on topic. A fuel cell that runs on gas isn't a water powered fuel cell. If you'd like to discuss the current hydrogen fuel cell technology I'd be glad to but that has nothing to do with the topic. As far as I know the OP is talking about technology that doesn't exist yet.. or is at most in the highly experimental stages... where it will probably stay since it would appear to violate the laws of thermodynamics. None the less... water is not a very reasonable alternative fuel source. Signature"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!" >>>>>>>>> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move >>>>>>>>> only with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > >None the less... water is not a very reasonable alternative fuel source. I think you should heed your own advice in your sig, and "remain calm...we're here to help you" You made some pretty bizarre statements in your posts. And if you think that "energy is being released by the separation", as you posted above, that violates more then a few laws of thermodynamics in itself. And no, I don't think it would be a good use of my time to discuss fuel cell technology with somebody who obviously has no clue about what he's mumbling about. >>>>>>>>>> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move >>>>>>>>>> only with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > I think you should heed your own advice in your sig, and "remain > calm...we're here to help you" If you can't have a discussion without being an arrogant, condescending prick when you're not even staying on subject you can go f.ck yourself. > You made some pretty bizarre statements in your posts. And if you think > that "energy is being released by the separation", as you posted above, > that violates more then a few laws of thermodynamics in itself. And no, > I don't think it would be a good use of my time to discuss fuel cell > technology with somebody who obviously has no clue about what he's > mumbling about. The fuel cell the OP is talking about is a design claimed to work by a few people that can't possibly work. This discussion wasn't about real fuel cells in the first place. So, you know what? If you're not going to read the source material in the OP then STFU. Signature"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!" [...] >> Surely you must know that fuel cells don't burn water but rather produce >> it. > >That's why it says "burning" in quotes. And fuel cells DO NOT produce >water. The oxygen and hydrogen in water are separated and them >recombined... energy is being released by the separation. That's totally incorrect, the inputs to a fuel cell are Hydrogen Gas and Oxygen Gas - not water. Water is a byproduct, not the energy source. The energy produced by a hydrogen fuel cell occurs by separating protons and electrons from hydrogen (gas) molecules in the presence of an oxygen (gas) enhanced catalyst. These electrons are then routed through a power producing device (read: motor), after which they are returned to the cell and recombined with the protons . Water is a convenient byproduct of this process - convenient in the sense that there is an electrolytic membrane that needs to stay "wet" for the fuel cell to function. Here's a quicky tutorial on the topic - so you won't make so many glaring mistakes in the future... http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell2.htm hth ;-) >[...] >>> Surely you must know that fuel cells don't burn water but rather produce [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >hth ;-) Absolutely. It's also interesting to see how Ivan seems to think that the "energy is released by the separation". It's an actually energy consuming, not energy producing process to separate H2 and O2 from water. Thank God for that! Imagine if the separation of water into O2 and H2 would actually be an exothermic process! Life would surely become very interesting on this planet. It would be a very risky proposal to drop something in the ocean, and catalyze that exothermic "separation"....Just one nasty fart in my canoe could set off the cataclysm! My wife seems to think my farts can set off anything combustible, but by Jolly, even she wouldn't believe I could be that nasty and burn water... LOL >>[...] >>>> Surely you must know that fuel cells don't burn water but rather produce [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > combustible, but by Jolly, even she wouldn't believe I could be that > nasty and burn water... Do you enjoy being a smart a.s when we aren't even talking about the same thing? Arrogant and stupid are always an interesting combination. Signature"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!" >>>[...] >>>>> Surely you must know that fuel cells don't burn water but rather produce [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >Arrogant and stupid are always an interesting combination. I've been accused of being arrogant before. But being stupid? I just leave that to yourself. You are obviously doing a fine job of it so far. At least I know how a fuel cell works. And I have the credentials to prove it. Where are yours? >>>>[...] >>>>>> Surely you must know that fuel cells don't burn water but rather [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > At least I know how a fuel cell works. And I have the credentials to > prove it. Where are yours? Nothing in this thread had anything to do with real hydrogen fuel cells and the workings of the design I was talking about is claimed to work exactly as I described it. It's always a sign of great intelligence when someone has to change what an argument is about in order to win it. Signature"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!" >>>>>[...] >>>>>>> Surely you must know that fuel cells don't burn water but rather [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >It's always a sign of great intelligence when someone has to change what >an argument is about in order to win it. Nice try, but you're wrong again. Re-read the originally linked article upon which this thread is based (an article that appears to be a poor translation - beginning with the title - from another language, perhaps German) and you *might* realize there was absolutely nothing in there that claimed a water-as-fuel fuel cell could or would exist... http://cooldreamcars.googlepages.com/water_fuel_cars_2010 Go ahead - read it again - and stop making a fuel of yourself ;-) >Nothing in this thread had anything to do with real hydrogen fuel cells >and the workings of the design I was talking about is claimed to work >exactly as I described it. > >It's always a sign of great intelligence when someone has to change what >an argument is about in order to win it. Whatever. You show your limited mental capacity with this statement you made: "The oxygen and hydrogen in water are separated and them recombined... energy is being released by the separation." Where, exactly, is net energy (to move the car) extracted from the above process? >>>>>[...] >>>>>>> Surely you must know that fuel cells don't burn water but rather [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >It's always a sign of great intelligence when someone has to change what >an argument is about in order to win it. I didn't change any argument. I just tried to point you to some reference material that might help you understand how fuel cells work, as you so obviously have no clue. You stated: "And fuel cells DO NOT produce water. The oxygen and hydrogen in water are separated and them recombined... energy is being released by the separation." Now that's some seriously bizarre and totally out of whack statement that clearly illustrates you have no clue what you are talking about. Your attempt to correct me by uttering the above is akin to claiming gravity pulls upward, instead of down. I will waste no more time with you, and you now happily can reside in my killfilter. Water has been used for many years - I know of a Stanley Steamer still running and in the UK there are still a few traction engines running on water. SignatureSir Hugh of Bognor The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys. Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it! Hugh Gundersen hsg@h-gee.co.uk Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:53:11 +0100, hsg wrote: > Water has been used for many years - I know of a Stanley Steamer still running > and in the UK there are still a few traction engines running on water. Prove it. Signature"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!" >On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:53:11 +0100, hsg wrote: > >> Water has been used for many years - I know of a Stanley Steamer still running >> and in the UK there are still a few traction engines running on water. > >Prove it. www.uksteam.info has details. I got a chance to ride on the 6024 once and I can attest that it is actually real. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:53:11 +0100, hsg wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > www.uksteam.info has details. I got a chance to ride on the 6024 once > and I can attest that it is actually real. --scott That's steam, not water. Steam is a gas. Signature"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!" >>>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:53:11 +0100, hsg wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's steam, not water. Steam is a gas. ...and for that matter steam isn't even the fuel in this case, whatever is heating the water is the fuel. Signature"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!" >>> www.uksteam.info has details. I got a chance to ride on the 6024 once >>> and I can attest that it is actually real. >> >...and for that matter steam isn't even the fuel in this case, whatever is >heating the water is the fuel. It's true that the Watt Cycle Engine uses water only as a working fluid and not as a fuel. How about the big turbines up at Niagra, then? They use water as a fuel. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>>> www.uksteam.info has details. I got a chance to ride on the 6024 >>>> once and I can attest that it is actually real. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How about the big turbines up at Niagra, then? They use water as a > fuel. No... they use gravity as fuel. If the water wasn't already moving they would get nothing from it. Signature"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!" >>>>> www.uksteam.info has details. I got a chance to ride on the 6024 >>>>> once and I can attest that it is actually real. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >No... they use gravity as fuel. If the water wasn't already moving they >would get nothing from it. If you take that argument to the extreme, then you have to say that gasoline-powered vehicles use sunlight as a fuel, since the original energy to grow the plants that made the petroleum came from the sun. In the end, ALL of these systems are basically energy-carriers rather than energy sources. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>>>>> www.uksteam.info has details. I got a chance to ride on the 6024 >>>>>> once and I can attest that it is actually real. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > gasoline-powered vehicles use sunlight as a fuel, since the original > energy to grow the plants that made the petroleum came from the sun. Or you could be ridiculous and go all the way back to the big bang, but since we're talking about closed systems let's stick to the nearest actual fuel source in that system... which isn't water. > In the end, ALL of these systems are basically energy-carriers rather > than energy sources. Except that in the cases mentioned water isn't acting as fuel, it's acting as a medium to push mechanical parts. Is a piston rod in an internal combustion engine fuel? Clearly it isn't. Signature"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!" >Except that in the cases mentioned water isn't acting as fuel, it's acting >as a medium to push mechanical parts. Is a piston rod in an internal >combustion engine fuel? Clearly it isn't. I once had a Toyota that used its exhaust valves for fuel.... --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>Except that in the cases mentioned water isn't acting as fuel, it's >>acting as a medium to push mechanical parts. Is a piston rod in an >>internal combustion engine fuel? Clearly it isn't. > > I once had a Toyota that used its exhaust valves for fuel.... Ha! I had an '85 T-Bird that did the same thing. Signature"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!" >>>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:53:11 +0100, hsg wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >That's steam, not water. Steam is a gas. Steam is not a gas Steam is hot water Oxygen and Hydrogen are gasses not water. Water is a fuel after being heated it powers the vehicle. However if you are saying by direct link water is a fuel its only a fuel for living organisms whereas the fuel you are implying that is water is really hydrogen gas which is NOT water only a part of water. So suck on that. SignatureSir Hugh of Bognor The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys. Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it! Hugh Gundersen hsg@h-gee.co.uk Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:51:44 +0100, hsg wrote: >>>>On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:53:11 +0100, hsg wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Steam is hot water I assure you steam is a gas. > Oxygen and Hydrogen are gasses not water. Oxygen and Hydrogen are atoms. Both can be in a gaseous, liquid or solid state. > Water is a fuel after being heated it powers the vehicle. No. Steam, heated by a burning fuel is used to push pistons just as the hydraulic fluid in a hydraulic system is not fuel. > However if you are saying by direct link water is a fuel its only a fuel > for living organisms whereas the fuel you are implying that is water is > really hydrogen gas which is NOT water only a part of water. > > So suck on that. That was some seriously ignorant stuff you just spewed. Signature"Remain calm, we're here to protect you!" > On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:51:44 +0100, hsg wrote: >> Steam is hot water > > I assure you steam is a gas. Agreed. Steam is the gaseous form of H2O. >> Oxygen and Hydrogen are gasses not water. > > Oxygen and Hydrogen are atoms. Both can be in a gaseous, liquid or solid > state. In the free state, Hydrogen and Oxygen are almost always found in their Molecular form of H2 and O2. Just trying to be precise, here. Pedantically yours, FloydR > Water has been used for many years - I know of a Stanley Steamer still running > and in the UK there are still a few traction engines running on water. The Stanley Steamer burns something to heat that water. Water does not act as fuel. >> Water has been used for many years - I know of a Stanley Steamer still running >> and in the UK there are still a few traction engines running on water. > >The Stanley Steamer burns something to heat that water. Water does not >act as fuel. Water doesn't make a very good fuel. You can burn it, but it takes energy to do so. Consequently burning water is not a very useful process by itself (although German submarines used hydrogen peroxide, which is the end product of burning water, as a fuel). --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>> Water has been used for many years - I know of a Stanley Steamer still running >>> and in the UK there are still a few traction engines running on water. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >end product of burning water, as a fuel). >--scott And most either use it to clean the lavatory / toilet or to bleach hair and I've known it to be used to soften the rubber on dragster slicks to increase grip . SignatureSir Hugh of Bognor The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys. Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it! Hugh Gundersen hsg@h-gee.co.uk Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK >> Water has been used for many years - I know of a Stanley Steamer still running >> and in the UK there are still a few traction engines running on water. > >The Stanley Steamer burns something to heat that water. Water does not >act as fuel. As I have previously said the FUEL you and others are talking about is HYDROGEN not WATER. SignatureSir Hugh of Bognor The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys. Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it! Hugh Gundersen hsg@h-gee.co.uk Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK >>> Vehicles of 2010 will depend less on fossil fuels and may move only >>> with hydrogen, which transformed into water in the so-called "fuel [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Don't take that as an endorsement of the article... using water for fuel >is idiotic unless you can find a cheap and easy way to produce water. I heard that. Here in Florida, the local governments have started a move to outlaw (in effect) St Augustine grass lawns in new subdivisions and are looking at ways to convince people with existing lawns to move to a more water independent grass. St Augustine makes for a beautiful lawn but it does require a certain amount of irrigation and that is why the local governments are looking to eliminate it, to save water. Forget the fact that they are apporving LARGE new subdivisions to be built every day, they apparently aren't going to be a strain on our already strained water supply. I'll bet it's a similiar situation a lot of other places... I agree with this subject. I have the same idea with you. Here is somethin similar with the topic. Search to http://offto.net/Fuelplus_2 Thank you. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.