Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fuel from coal

Expand Messages
  • Richard Risemberg
    ... This is the elephant lurking outside the bedroom: liquid fuel from coal, which could mean continued support of car-dominated lifestyles and an appalling
    Message 1 of 8 , May 13, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/us/14fuel.html?
      > ei=5094&en=f8857655ffb8a285&hp=&ex=1147579200&partner=homepage&pagewan
      > ted=print
      This is the elephant lurking outside the bedroom: liquid fuel from
      coal, which could mean continued support of car-dominated lifestyles
      and an appalling increase in environmental degradation.

      We pretty much knew it would come to this. More than ever, it's
      important to market carfreedom on its personal human benefits.

      > WASHINGTON, May 13 — When an F-16 lights up its afterburners, it
      > consumes nearly 28 gallons of fuel per minute. No wonder, then,
      > that of all the fuel the United States government uses each year,
      > the Air Force accounts for more than half. The Air Force may not be
      > in any danger of suffering inconveniences from scarce or expensive
      > fuel, but it has begun looking for a way to power its jets on
      > something besides conventional fuel.
      >
      > In a series of tests — first on engines mounted on blocks and then
      > with B-52's in flight — the Air Force will try to prove that the
      > American military can fly its aircraft by blending traditional
      > crude-oil-based jet fuel with a synthetic liquid made first from
      > natural gas and, eventually, from coal, which is plentiful and
      > cheaper.
      >
      > While the military has been a leader in adopting some technologies
      > — light but strong metals, radar-evading stealth designs and fire-
      > retardant flight suits, for example — any effort to hit a miles-per-
      > gallon fuel efficiency rating has taken a back seat when the
      > mission is to haul bombs farther and faster or push 70-ton tanks
      > across a desert to topple an adversary. (The Abrams tank, for
      > example, gets less than a mile per gallon under certain combat
      > conditions.)
      >
      > "Energy is a national security issue," said Michael A. Aimone, the
      > Air Force assistant deputy chief of staff for logistics.
      >
      > The United States is unlikely ever to become fully independent of
      > foreign oil, Mr. Aimone said, but the intent of the Air Force
      > project is "to develop enough independence to have assured domestic
      > supplies for aviation purposes."
      >
      > By late this summer, on the hard lake beds of the Mojave Desert,
      > where the Air Force tests its most secret and high-performance
      > aircraft, a lumbering B-52 is scheduled to take off in an
      > experiment in which two of the giant bomber's engines will burn jet
      > fuel produced not from crude oil but from natural gas. The plane's
      > six other engines will burn traditional jet fuel — just in case.
      >
      > The Air Force consumed 3.2 billion gallons of aviation fuel in
      > fiscal year 2005, which was 52.5 percent of all fossil fuel used by
      > the government, Pentagon statistics show. The total Air Force bill
      > for jet fuel last year topped $4.7 billion.
      >
      > Although the share of national energy consumption by the federal
      > government and the military is just 1.7 percent, every increase of
      > $10 per barrel of oil drives up Air Force fuel costs by $600
      > million per year.
      >
      > Mr. Aimone said that if the synthetic blend worked, plans called
      > for increasing its use in Air Force planes to 100 million gallons
      > in the next two years.
      >
      > Air Force and industry officials say that oil prices above $40 to
      > $45 per barrel make a blend with synthetic fuels a cost-effective
      > alternative to oil-based jet fuel.
      >
      > Fuel costs have doubled since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and
      > crude oil prices since Hurricane Katrina have remained above $60 a
      > barrel.
      >
      > The Air Force effort falls under a directive from Defense Secretary
      > Donald H. Rumsfeld to explore alternative fuel sources. Under the
      > plan, the Air Force has been authorized to buy 100,000 gallons of
      > synthetic fuel.
      >
      > Ground experiments are scheduled to begin in coming weeks at Wright-
      > Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, followed by test flights at
      > Edwards Air Force Base in California.
      >
      > Although the Air Force is leading the project, it is working with
      > the Automotive Tank Command of the Army, in Detroit, and the Naval
      > Fuels Laboratory, at Patuxent River, Md.
      >
      > The research and tests on synthetic fuel would ultimately produce a
      > common fuel for the entire military, Air Force officials said.
      >
      > The initial contract for unconventional fuel for the tests will be
      > signed with Syntroleum Corporation of Tulsa, Okla., which has
      > provided synthetic fuel for testing by the Departments of Energy,
      > Transportation and Defense since 1998.
      >
      > John B. Holmes Jr., Syntroleum's president and chief executive
      > officer, said his firm would sell the Air Force its synthetic fuel
      > for testing "at our cost, and we may be losing a little bit."
      >
      > Neither Mr. Holmes nor the Air Force would provide cost estimates
      > for the experimental fuel deal in advance of signing a final
      > contract, expected in coming days.
      >
      > Air Force officials have acknowledged, however, that the cost per
      > gallon of the test fuel will be expensive.
      >
      > Syntroleum can produce 42 gallons of synthetic fuel from 10,000
      > cubic feet of natural gas. The raw materials cost about $70.
      >
      > If the military moves ahead with using the synthetic fuels, the
      > Syntroleum technology could be used by factories elsewhere to
      > produce the same 42 gallons of fuel from just $10 worth of coal,
      > Mr. Holmes said.
      >
      > "The United States is essentially the Saudi Arabia of coal," Mr.
      > Holmes said. "It can be mined relatively inexpensively. We really
      > believe that one of the things we can do to help our country's
      > energy needs is to use the abundance of coal reserves."
      >
      > Mr. Aimone said the large plants needed to produce nonconventional
      > fuels did not exist and would have to be designed and built by the
      > industry.
      >
      > But he added: "We believe there are economic incentives as we
      > invest in this, and invest with the industry at large, because
      > there are vast coal reserves in this country. The economic
      > pressures of rising oil prices can be moderated by the price of coal."

      --
      Richard Risemberg
      http://www.rickrise.com
      http://www.newcolonist.com
      http://www.living-room.org
    • J.H. Crawford
      ... It IS worth remembering that coal is the worst fossil fuel there is in terms of global warming emissions. ... J.H. Crawford
      Message 2 of 8 , May 14, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        >We pretty much knew it would come to this. More than ever, it's
        >important to market carfreedom on its personal human benefits.

        It IS worth remembering that coal is the worst fossil fuel
        there is in terms of global warming emissions.



        ----- ### -----
        J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
        mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
      • Todd Edelman
        ... YES, but we dont have to use only that. There is also huge amount of internalisation of costs for road transport which needs to happen, involving things
        Message 3 of 8 , May 14, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Richard Risemberg wrote:

          > We pretty much knew it would come to this. More than ever, it's
          > important to market carfreedom on its personal human benefits.

          YES, but we dont have to use only that. There is also huge amount of
          internalisation of costs for road transport which needs to happen,
          involving things besides air emissions.

          Also, assuming this Synfuel thing can get to the point of having a
          Coal-to-Liquid fuel facility operating in a "normal" fashion, it will be
          many, many, many years before enough of them are built to replace the
          current petroleum refining system -- that is to say that it wont fill the
          growing vacuum of post-peak oil right away. AND there will be I think a
          fair amount of pressure to keep it "clean" (relatively speaking) which
          means lots of "delays", too. There will also be lengthy legal battles
          about re-opening coal mines and especially starting new ones.

          So... as I have mentioned before... I think there will be a problem in 5
          to 10 years when petroleum-based fuel will be too expensive for too many
          people to use it for their cars (and airplanes).... and not enough public
          transport or cycling or non-petrofuelled-transport options
          (densification/pedestrian-oriented development, working at home, virtual
          conferencing) to come close to replacing automobiles (and airplanes)... so
          the question is: "How much chaos can we handle?". We need to mimimize
          future chaos by investing in much more PT, NMT and transport replacement
          now.

          ------------------------------------------------------

          Todd Edelman
          International Coordinator
          On the Train Towards the Future!

          Green Idea Factory
          Laubova 5
          CZ-13000 Praha 3

          ++420 605 915 970

          edelman@...
          http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

          Green Idea Factory,
          a member of World Carfree Network
        • Sean Brooks
          It s amazing how fast humans can adapt to change when they have to. I preface everything by mentioning that I wholeheartedly agree with Joel, coal is the worst
          Message 4 of 8 , May 14, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            It's amazing how fast humans can adapt to change when they have to.

            I preface everything by mentioning that I wholeheartedly agree with Joel,
            coal is the worst form of energy available to us. I'd rather we didn't use
            it. I'm almost positive we will, if only because the US has a lot of it.

            Over the course of two years in the early 40's, a country that lost their
            supply of oil converted largely to liquid fuel from coal via the
            Fischer-Tropsh process. They did this while being bombed nightly.
            Fortunately for the rest of us, this experience wasn't successful for the
            Nazis.

            Over the course of 15 years, the world built several hundred nuclear plants,
            at a time when coal was incredibly cheap.

            How fast did the telegraph spread around the world?

            How fast did semiconductors 'take over the world'?

            Sean


            >From: "Todd Edelman" <edelman@...>
            >Reply-To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
            >To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
            >Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Fuel from coal
            >Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:07:39 +0200 (CEST)
            >
            >Richard Risemberg wrote:
            >
            > > We pretty much knew it would come to this. More than ever, it's
            > > important to market carfreedom on its personal human benefits.
            >
            >YES, but we dont have to use only that. There is also huge amount of
            >internalisation of costs for road transport which needs to happen,
            >involving things besides air emissions.
            >
            >Also, assuming this Synfuel thing can get to the point of having a
            >Coal-to-Liquid fuel facility operating in a "normal" fashion, it will be
            >many, many, many years before enough of them are built to replace the
            >current petroleum refining system -- that is to say that it wont fill the
            >growing vacuum of post-peak oil right away. AND there will be I think a
            >fair amount of pressure to keep it "clean" (relatively speaking) which
            >means lots of "delays", too. There will also be lengthy legal battles
            >about re-opening coal mines and especially starting new ones.
            >
            >So... as I have mentioned before... I think there will be a problem in 5
            >to 10 years when petroleum-based fuel will be too expensive for too many
            >people to use it for their cars (and airplanes).... and not enough public
            >transport or cycling or non-petrofuelled-transport options
            >(densification/pedestrian-oriented development, working at home, virtual
            >conferencing) to come close to replacing automobiles (and airplanes)... so
            >the question is: "How much chaos can we handle?". We need to mimimize
            >future chaos by investing in much more PT, NMT and transport replacement
            >now.
            >
            >------------------------------------------------------
            >
            >Todd Edelman
            >International Coordinator
            >On the Train Towards the Future!
            >
            >Green Idea Factory
            >Laubova 5
            >CZ-13000 Praha 3
            >
            >++420 605 915 970
            >
            >edelman@...
            >http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain
            >
            >Green Idea Factory,
            >a member of World Carfree Network
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Richard Risemberg
            ... True, but bear in mind that coal gasification system were routine in most cities before natural gas became prevalent. Natural gas is called that to
            Message 5 of 8 , May 14, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On May 14, 2006, at 6:07 AM, Todd Edelman wrote:

              > Richard Risemberg wrote:
              >
              >> We pretty much knew it would come to this. More than ever, it's
              >> important to market carfreedom on its personal human benefits.
              >
              > YES, but we dont have to use only that. There is also huge amount of
              > internalisation of costs for road transport which needs to happen,
              > involving things besides air emissions.
              >
              > Also, assuming this Synfuel thing can get to the point of having a
              > Coal-to-Liquid fuel facility operating in a "normal" fashion, it
              > will be
              > many, many, many years before enough of them are built to replace the
              > current petroleum refining system -
              True, but bear in mind that coal gasification system were routine in
              most cities before "natural gas" became prevalent. Natural gas is
              called that to distinguish it from the previous coal gas, so this
              particular synthesizing technology has a history stretching back
              before the oil era.

              Internalizing costs is hugely important--and the "full-cost
              accounting" folks are natural allies for us--but unless we can sell
              civil cities, carfree cities, on their personal benefits, most people
              will grumble about putting money into alternatives no matter how much
              fuel costs them personally.

              They'll certainly ask for more money to be put into fuel tech than
              into metros and trams in the next fewf years, I'll bet.

              Rick
            • Todd Edelman
              ... I REALIZE that - and on the way up of the oil era Hitler had the need to make synthetic fuels, too - BUT the difference now is we have you and me, Joel,
              Message 6 of 8 , May 14, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                >> Richard Risemberg wrote:
                >>
                > True, but bear in mind that coal gasification system were routine in
                > most cities before "natural gas" became prevalent. Natural gas is
                > called that to distinguish it from the previous coal gas, so this
                > particular synthesizing technology has a history stretching back
                > before the oil era.

                I REALIZE that - and on the "way up" of the oil era Hitler had the need to
                make synthetic fuels, too - BUT the difference now is we have you and me,
                Joel, and several billion other people to make a point about emissions
                which wasnt made "pre-oil".

                ----


                >
                > Internalizing costs is hugely important--and the "full-cost
                > accounting" folks are natural allies for us--but unless we can sell
                > civil cities, carfree cities, on their personal benefits, most people
                > will grumble about putting money into alternatives no matter how much
                > fuel costs them personally.

                WELL, I am really getting into this "raise fuel taxes, lower income taxes"
                thing. It should not be oversimplified but in a way it will seems like
                magic for many people who dont drive at all and perhaps even so for people
                who do, as their overall tax rate stays the same. I also want to stop
                calling it "alternative" but instead, Conservative, Democratic and
                Christian, to name a few examples. Arent those terms accurate?
                >
                > They'll certainly ask for more money to be put into fuel tech than
                > into metros and trams in the next fewf years, I'll bet.

                THE good research and pilot projects can be done with public transport,
                too. Ideally, the efficiency/energy return and environmental acceptability
                of the "new" fuels will be decent for PT but... sorry!... not quite good
                enough for individually operated cars. I realise this might be quite naive
                but I am not surrendering just yet.

                T

                ------------------------------------------------------

                Todd Edelman
                International Coordinator
                On the Train Towards the Future!

                Green Idea Factory
                Laubova 5
                CZ-13000 Praha 3

                ++420 605 915 970

                edelman@...
                http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

                Green Idea Factory,
                a member of World Carfree Network
              • Todd Edelman
                ... YES ... YES ... WELL, this synfuel was beaten by oil + carbo-energy (Soviet and other soldiers), hydroelectric power (US airplanes) and finally a crude
                Message 7 of 8 , May 14, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  > It's amazing how fast humans can adapt to change when they have to.
                  YES

                  > I preface everything by mentioning that I wholeheartedly agree with Joel,
                  > coal is the worst form of energy available to us. I'd rather we didn't
                  > use
                  > it. I'm almost positive we will, if only because the US has a lot of it.
                  YES

                  > Over the course of two years in the early 40's, a country that lost their
                  > supply of oil converted largely to liquid fuel from coal via the
                  > Fischer-Tropsh process. They did this while being bombed nightly.
                  > Fortunately for the rest of us, this experience wasn't successful for the
                  > Nazis.

                  WELL, this synfuel was beaten by oil + carbo-energy (Soviet and other
                  soldiers), hydroelectric power (US airplanes) and finally a crude version
                  of nuclear power.

                  ---
                  >
                  > Over the course of 15 years, the world built several hundred nuclear
                  > plants,
                  > at a time when coal was incredibly cheap.
                  >
                  > How fast did the telegraph spread around the world?
                  >
                  > How fast did semiconductors 'take over the world'?

                  KEEP in mind that VERY many people in the world dont have communications
                  or computer equipment.

                  I see another disadvantage to centralised coal-based fuel: Just like many
                  other fuels, it wont be available to people in the developing world.

                  People in oil-rich Nigeria are already putting holes into pipelines and
                  "stealing" fuel, at extreme risk to their own lives.

                  Something like half the people in the world still use solid fuel for
                  cooking. Inside homes this is dangerous.

                  Fuel for public transport or cars etc is not even an issue.

                  I wonder how many micro biogas reactors or solar panels you can buy for
                  the price of one jet engine?

                  T


                  >
                  > Sean
                  >
                  >
                  >>From: "Todd Edelman" <edelman@...>
                  >>Reply-To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                  >>To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                  >>Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Fuel from coal
                  >>Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:07:39 +0200 (CEST)
                  >>
                  >>Richard Risemberg wrote:
                  >>
                  >> > We pretty much knew it would come to this. More than ever, it's
                  >> > important to market carfreedom on its personal human benefits.
                  >>
                  >>YES, but we dont have to use only that. There is also huge amount of
                  >>internalisation of costs for road transport which needs to happen,
                  >>involving things besides air emissions.
                  >>
                  >>Also, assuming this Synfuel thing can get to the point of having a
                  >>Coal-to-Liquid fuel facility operating in a "normal" fashion, it will be
                  >>many, many, many years before enough of them are built to replace the
                  >>current petroleum refining system -- that is to say that it wont fill the
                  >>growing vacuum of post-peak oil right away. AND there will be I think a
                  >>fair amount of pressure to keep it "clean" (relatively speaking) which
                  >>means lots of "delays", too. There will also be lengthy legal battles
                  >>about re-opening coal mines and especially starting new ones.
                  >>
                  >>So... as I have mentioned before... I think there will be a problem in 5
                  >>to 10 years when petroleum-based fuel will be too expensive for too many
                  >>people to use it for their cars (and airplanes).... and not enough public
                  >>transport or cycling or non-petrofuelled-transport options
                  >>(densification/pedestrian-oriented development, working at home, virtual
                  >>conferencing) to come close to replacing automobiles (and airplanes)...
                  >> so
                  >>the question is: "How much chaos can we handle?". We need to mimimize
                  >>future chaos by investing in much more PT, NMT and transport replacement
                  >>now.
                  >>
                  >>------------------------------------------------------
                  >>
                  >>Todd Edelman
                  >>International Coordinator
                  >>On the Train Towards the Future!
                  >>
                  >>Green Idea Factory
                  >>Laubova 5
                  >>CZ-13000 Praha 3
                  >>
                  >>++420 605 915 970
                  >>
                  >>edelman@...
                  >>http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain
                  >>
                  >>Green Idea Factory,
                  >>a member of World Carfree Network
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  ------------------------------------------------------

                  Todd Edelman
                  International Coordinator
                  On the Train Towards the Future!

                  Green Idea Factory
                  Laubova 5
                  CZ-13000 Praha 3

                  ++420 605 915 970

                  edelman@...
                  http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

                  Green Idea Factory,
                  a member of World Carfree Network
                • Gregorio Villacorta Alegria
                  Hallo Tod I have read your messages about Coal , chaos in the future and engine jet costs to use in micro gas. I would like to know How are oriented the
                  Message 8 of 8 , May 14, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hallo Tod

                    I have read your messages about Coal , chaos in the future and engine jet costs to use in micro gas.

                    I would like to know

                    How are oriented the transport ? to what kind of fuel or energy ?

                    Gas ? , solar power ?

                    Our actual systems of transport in developing countries are based in petroleum and gas , but how time will be able this fuel ?

                    there are some pronostics ?

                    Sorry my bad english.

                    I am from Peru.

                    Regards

                    Gregorio


                    Todd Edelman <edelman@...> escribió:
                    > It's amazing how fast humans can adapt to change when they have to.
                    YES

                    > I preface everything by mentioning that I wholeheartedly agree with Joel,
                    > coal is the worst form of energy available to us. I'd rather we didn't
                    > use
                    > it. I'm almost positive we will, if only because the US has a lot of it.
                    YES

                    > Over the course of two years in the early 40's, a country that lost their
                    > supply of oil converted largely to liquid fuel from coal via the
                    > Fischer-Tropsh process. They did this while being bombed nightly.
                    > Fortunately for the rest of us, this experience wasn't successful for the
                    > Nazis.

                    WELL, this synfuel was beaten by oil + carbo-energy (Soviet and other
                    soldiers), hydroelectric power (US airplanes) and finally a crude version
                    of nuclear power.

                    ---
                    >
                    > Over the course of 15 years, the world built several hundred nuclear
                    > plants,
                    > at a time when coal was incredibly cheap.
                    >
                    > How fast did the telegraph spread around the world?
                    >
                    > How fast did semiconductors 'take over the world'?

                    KEEP in mind that VERY many people in the world dont have communications
                    or computer equipment.

                    I see another disadvantage to centralised coal-based fuel: Just like many
                    other fuels, it wont be available to people in the developing world.

                    People in oil-rich Nigeria are already putting holes into pipelines and
                    "stealing" fuel, at extreme risk to their own lives.

                    Something like half the people in the world still use solid fuel for
                    cooking. Inside homes this is dangerous.

                    Fuel for public transport or cars etc is not even an issue.

                    I wonder how many micro biogas reactors or solar panels you can buy for
                    the price of one jet engine?

                    T


                    >
                    > Sean
                    >
                    >
                    >>From: "Todd Edelman"
                    >>Reply-To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                    >>To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
                    >>Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Fuel from coal
                    >>Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:07:39 +0200 (CEST)
                    >>
                    >>Richard Risemberg wrote:
                    >>
                    >> > We pretty much knew it would come to this. More than ever, it's
                    >> > important to market carfreedom on its personal human benefits.
                    >>
                    >>YES, but we dont have to use only that. There is also huge amount of
                    >>internalisation of costs for road transport which needs to happen,
                    >>involving things besides air emissions.
                    >>
                    >>Also, assuming this Synfuel thing can get to the point of having a
                    >>Coal-to-Liquid fuel facility operating in a "normal" fashion, it will be
                    >>many, many, many years before enough of them are built to replace the
                    >>current petroleum refining system -- that is to say that it wont fill the
                    >>growing vacuum of post-peak oil right away. AND there will be I think a
                    >>fair amount of pressure to keep it "clean" (relatively speaking) which
                    >>means lots of "delays", too. There will also be lengthy legal battles
                    >>about re-opening coal mines and especially starting new ones.
                    >>
                    >>So... as I have mentioned before... I think there will be a problem in 5
                    >>to 10 years when petroleum-based fuel will be too expensive for too many
                    >>people to use it for their cars (and airplanes).... and not enough public
                    >>transport or cycling or non-petrofuelled-transport options
                    >>(densification/pedestrian-oriented development, working at home, virtual
                    >>conferencing) to come close to replacing automobiles (and airplanes)...
                    >> so
                    >>the question is: "How much chaos can we handle?". We need to mimimize
                    >>future chaos by investing in much more PT, NMT and transport replacement
                    >>now.
                    >>
                    >>------------------------------------------------------
                    >>
                    >>Todd Edelman
                    >>International Coordinator
                    >>On the Train Towards the Future!
                    >>
                    >>Green Idea Factory
                    >>Laubova 5
                    >>CZ-13000 Praha 3
                    >>
                    >>++420 605 915 970
                    >>
                    >>edelman@...
                    >>http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain
                    >>
                    >>Green Idea Factory,
                    >>a member of World Carfree Network
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    ------------------------------------------------------

                    Todd Edelman
                    International Coordinator
                    On the Train Towards the Future!

                    Green Idea Factory
                    Laubova 5
                    CZ-13000 Praha 3

                    ++420 605 915 970

                    edelman@...
                    http://www.worldcarfree.net/onthetrain

                    Green Idea Factory,
                    a member of World Carfree Network




                    Yahoo! Groups Links










                    ---------------------------------

                    LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.
                    Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto.
                    http://es.voice.yahoo.com

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.