Slashdot Mirror
Helium Leads to Geothermal Energy Resources
Roland Piquepaille writes "When we think about alternative sources of energy, we often forget the potential of geothermal energy resources. In fact, it has been estimated that accessible geothermal energy in the U.S. represents 90 quadrillion kilowatt-hours or 3,000 times the country's total annual energy consumption. So far, it has been difficult and expensive to locate good sources of geothermal energy. But now, two U.S. researchers have found a new method which doesn't require drilling. They are using the ratio of helium isotopes in surface waters to point to the best sources of geothermal energy."
...since pretty much all of Earth's helium results from alpha decay of radioactive metals.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
It'd be a good thing to not depend on Middle Eastern energy resources. I think more than just purely economic pressures should bring such a change. Maybe that's naive though.
it's not in iceland as one might guess, it's in the philippines
on leyte, near lake danao above ormoc city, called tongonan geothermal field, run by calenergy
it's a pretty weird place: gorgeous virgin mountain forest, everything is muddy and foggy and it rains all the time there, as it's basically nothing but humongous turbines plopped right over steam vents coming right out of the ground. there are communist NPA guerrillas in the area and the security of the place is pretty important, so there are guys with submachine guns at checkpoints everywhere too
but, notably, some of the streams running off from the area are a brilliant cobalt blue
so just a reality check: some of the problems associated with mining will be found with geothermal sources. mining often churns up lots of unhealthy metals from the earth, artificially. well, geothermal is basically that same process, but completely natural. so whereever you have geothermal energy sources, you have the potential to stir up nasty metals and deposit them on the surface, with or without man's involvement
not my blog, but some good pics and summary
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Actually Canada is the number one supplier of Oil to the U.S.
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Energy Information Administration: Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
Isn't Yellowstone park just one great big fuck off source of hot water?
liqbase
It relies on the heat signature of the surface waters. Any surface waters hotter than 200F are probably indicative of geothermal energy sources.
Once upon a time links in Roland stories would direct you to his own blog where you could find a link to the real story. His blog has some ads so this was seen as profit-mongering. This hasn't been done for a long time but apparently some people never forgive.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Where could he be going with this: personal experiences? A joking suggestion? or are you attempting to alienate ~90% of the world population. Except that doesn't work. *I see you've chosen the alienation route... it's not too late, you can still recover. I suggest making a joke here.
...and before you mod that down as flamebait (I know you will), ask yourself: Do YOU think it would work? *ooh, the "don't mark me flaimbait" tactic, the serious route will be a tough one at this point.at least you still have your atheist readers on your side. Superstition is crap. Science works, bitches. *ahh, strike three. You've just finished by alienating everybody. Even your atheist buddies are afraid to look you in the eye now.
Too bad this time. While you will be enjoying a flaimbait moderation from almost everyone in the world, I hope you tune in next time to...
The Slashdot Moderation Game!
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
Yeah. It's pretty unstable, though. There are earthquakes, some of them severe in recent memory, such as the mag. 7.5 quake of 1959... Doesn't seem like a really great idea to site a bunch of generators in such a place.
We've got hot springs in the NE portion of Montana in areas that haven't seen serious quake or volcanic activity in tens of thousands of years. That's the kind of place you want to look for the helium isotope, because if you find it, you've got a decent chance of the plant lasting more than a few decades. This stuff is expensive to build, and to wire.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
As a non-expert (see entire scope of knowledge about the field is based on wikipedia, cursory google search, and tv documentaries), is finding sources the major roadblock to widespread geothermal use? I would think so upon my basic knowledge.
a). It is eco-friendly, in that there are no toxic wastes or atmospheric wastes to speak of. Reduction in greenhouse gases is a plus. So there are no environmentalists protesting geothermal expansions like nuclear ones.
b). It is not as conditional as other eco-friendly power sources. With wind and tide power you are at the mercy of the conditions which is a major drawback considering the instancy with which grid fluctuations occur. Granted it is conditional upon the temperature of the earth, but geologic time scales are much more gradual than say meteorological time scales with wind.
c). Plants are fairly efficient. There is very little ancillary equipment needed, because the dynamo system usually runs off steam directly from the ground. Other forms of power, eg nuclear, coal, and oil, are ways of producing heat. With geothermal, the earth is already producing the heat for us. We are essentially utilizing energy that is produced no matter what, but would otherwise be lost.
I have come to see geothermal power as being a major possibility to easing our energy problems, especially upon news of this. I would be all too happy to see this overtake nuclear power as the solution to our energy problems. Now before I get a hundred posts about "if you're not serious about nuclear, then you aren't serious about energy reform," I understand nuclear's potential, vastly under-utilized potential, I think geothermal would be a much more optimal solution. Geothermal requires no mining, no relying on finite resources of naturally fissile material, and it produces no nasty radioactive waste.
I hope that this paves the way to a major increase in geothermal generation. I think it would be the most ideal solution we have available.
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, and I do expect a ton of pro-nuclear flamage, which I hope I don't deserve, but I might.
I got a catholic block.
Even your atheist buddies are afraid to look you in the eye now.
Why would you presume to know how atheists would react to his post? Does your superstition preclude a sense of humor?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power
Of course, to completely replace oil, we would have to be able to use this energy for transportation. So, we still have some problems. Even so, if we drill ten miles deep almost anywhere, we will get useful geothermal energy. That means that we could use existing power plants because their generators are usually steam driven, or could be. We could get rid of our dependance on middle-east energy relatively fast. Canada could supply enough oil for our transportation needs until we can perfect the battery powered semi-trailer truck.
Articles from Roland used to go straight to his blog, which was usually a slightly summarised version of the article. As people can see however, these days you get a link direct to the article and you only go to his blog if you click on his name... which is reasonable enough.
The tag ought to be dropped, but if not, it's meaning will inevitably become less serious and more of an ironic "Oh no!"
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Additionally ggpp lacked any form of humor that I could detect.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
If our politicians had any sense they would come up with a national energy program that helps cultivate our own renewable energy sources. Geothermal is probably one of our best bets. Clean renewable cheap energy would be a boon to this country. Just think of how much of our own money would stay in this country instead of being sent to questionable regimes around the world. Of course a national energy program should also promote things such as power saving technologies.
Now for the bad news. Entrenched companies that make billions every year off of scarce resources have every reason to subvert any effort to make themselves obsolete. Think about it. If your one of these companies why not just buy up all the good ideas that might compete with you and sit on them. I guarantee you some of these companies have enough money to do it.
I think oil, gas, and coal business are scared of the concept of energy produced by non scarce resources that cannot be cornered and manipulated. I would love to see that day.
There are dozens of great alternative energy resources requiring millions in start-up money that are perfectly viable as far as the experts are concerned. Solar thermal has worked perfectly well and very large wind generators can convert great quantities of power like the enormous design we saw last week with the magnetic bearing. There are several fusion experiments that look quite promising and orbital solar is no fantasy. Geothermal is merely another one of these many very promising alternatives that is no doubt quite technically feasible and potentially disruptive but therein lies the rub. These things all require large-scale investments and the organizations that are in position to make those large-scale financial commitments have no real motivation to do so.
This is why low-cost solar panels are so intriguing. It's not because they represent the best alternative energy conversion technology. In fact, they're quite lame in many respects. Nonethless it's the most likely technology that can be implemented in a way similar to the way the internet was built: inward from the edge rather than outward from the center. That's what makes solar the center of attention and the only genuinely likely candidate for a disruptive alternative energy technology.
No doubt geo is good to go. No doubt indeed. My personal favorite fantasy geothermal solution has been to go into Utah and just burn/dig an enormous hole through the coal into the depths. I mean like a hole you can drive huge trucks down into corkscrew like around the edges spiraling into the darkness. Once you've excavated all the coal down to a few miles, you can tap the geothermal energy at the bottom of the pit. You could build a whole community into the walls of the place. Yeah, geothermal is cool. Anybody want to front me some cash to make it happen?
Well, there was also the fact that his stories tended to be hype-filled press-release copy-paste jobs with sensationalized headlines but little real information, while the subject matter was typically mundane vaporware products or crackpot science. And yet somehow, his stories were accepted at an alarming rate. To his credit, lately they have been better. (Note that while his main story links are now direct, he still links to his blog from his name).
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
So?Most helium in the crust has escaped to space. The helium profile in the crust is dominated by steady-state production of helium-4 by alpha decay. This is mostly the case in the mantle as well but the mantle has some reserves of primordial helium which never escaped to space because it's buried more deeply, and that helium has an isotopic signature that includes helium-3 (the new helium from radioactivity is all helium-4). They're looking for the helium-3 using the helium-4 as a baseline.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I always wondered if it was possible to use the heat energy from active but somewhat stable volcanos. You would have a platform submerged in the lava pit and set up a system to run water through it to make steam and run the turbines. Is that feasible? What are the problems? I am guessing maybe the equipment might melt?
They must have weapons of mass destruction.
Celine Dion?
home
The (unstable) Yellowstone caldera is actually one of the largest Super Volcanos in the world... and due for an eruption. Probably NOT the place I would mess with... the whole mass-extinction level eruption thing and all...
Good thought though.
The problem I have is regardless of this research, "we" already have mapped plenty of areas to provide the US and plenty more places) with geothermal power (plenty of geological surveys on the subject already... a bunch of sites even got listed in a recent US News magazine)... for some reason though, we just havent tapped them yet.... maybe something to do with the fact that our fossil fuel based economy would be destroyed... tax revenues and corporate investments and corporation financial collapse and all.
There are more than one viable fossil fuel alternative already... geothermal is only one. New solar collectors developed by a Google owned company are another (which are being built in California - to be shipped and used in Europe - but for some reason (a) not here, and (b) not available for consumers to buy here). They cost 1/10th the cost of traditional panels, are easier to maintain and install (flexible sheets - not heavy glass and metal panels) and produce the same power.
The research means nothing when there aren't companies set up to implement them for actual use - and I dont know of any company that could afford to beat out the fossil fuel companies to do so.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Little point looking into geothermal environmentalists will just shut it down.
They have shut down wind farms (Nantucket Sound ala Ted Kennedy, and Walter Cronkite)
They are trying to reverse hydro-power (dam removal in the northwest)
They have killed off nuclear (oh, just pick one)
At some point you just give up and keep buying oil.
Really I don't think the environmentalists (a) believe what they say, and (b) actually want to solve anything.
Most of their actions are either just about narcissism and having something to bitch about (usually yelling at society when they really want to yell at their Dad).
If I thought they actually cared and were working to get things done, I'd be more supportive, but close interaction which the people has turned me very very off to their message.
Why is it that every single Slashdot discussion sooner or later brings forth a reference to the Goatse?
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Wait, you're suggesting by "I dont know of any company that could afford to beat out the fossil fuel companies to do so." that there aren't companies in the US trying to make money off alternative energy? Further, lots of state governments are actively trying to promote alternative energy, which undermines the theory that the government is afraid of a tax revenue collapse. State governments are subsidizing alternative energy using those very tax revenues, in the hopes that home-grown alternative energy producers will create even more tax revenue in the future.
I hate to sound like a slashvertisement, but I think the following US companies and groups would all disagree with you:
Evergreen Solar (producer based in Mass.)
Heliodyne (producer based in California)
Google (installing panels on its roof)
Solar Energy Industry Association (US trade group)
Tesla Motors) (selling 100% electric cars in the US)
List of solar manufacturers in the US
US solar power installations increase 33% year-to-year
The New York Times has a story about this issue: "Venture Capital Rushes into Alternate Energy" suggesting that $1.5 billion in VC money was invested in 2006 alone in new companies who hope to profit from overthrowing the energy status quo. If you add private equity money then there was $18.1 billion in dealflow in 2006 in the alternate energy sector. Or listen to a 2004 story about the same issue.
It's nice to think that there's some great conspiracy against alternate energy, but the simple truth is that there is a lot of market action in the field and nothing stopping people from making money in it. There is a HUGE amount of money to be made from alternate energy and plenty of people are trying to make it.
Geothermal will be used to generate electricity, not power transportation. Less than 1% of US electric generation comes from Oil. Increasing the price of oil has essentially zero effect on electric generation. Using Geothermal in the US will have zero effect on Oil imports.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Please... feel free to take this post out of context too...
Not one of them is offering power to the masses (as a Power Company) or providing an affordable alternative off-grid power option for consumers... I think I spelled that out clearly... so... now evaluate the statement I made that you quoted out of context.
Explain to me why Google is able to produce solar panels at 1/10th the power - but isnt selling them to consumers - much less anyone in the US - even though they are made here.
Explain to me which company is big enough to implement a geothermal solution for a big portion of the power grid... the power is available (ie: plenty of geothermal in this country to power the world thousands of times over), but there is NO company that can set up the power plants or power grid to deliver it - EXCEPT for the fossil fuel based power companies already in existence.
It's not a conspiracy. Why would a fossil fuel company want to go geothermal when they already have so much invested in their infrastructure, and their profits would decrease due to lower costs? Just good business sense that they only adopt such methods as quickly as is required of them.
As for government *credits* for installing solar, etc... the cost is so prohibitive for most people, that the government can afford to look quite generous with it's incentives - because almost no one can afford it (check how many installations there really are...).
As for other incentives... did you know there was a law passed in Baltimore almost a decade ago that stated BGE had to reimburse people who were generating excess power and feeding it back into the grid? Guess how many got money or a credit? None. Why? According to BGE *AND* the state, because no law has been passed stating HOW or HOW MUCH money the people are entitled to... so... legally they are entitled to SOMETHING... but until a law is written saying how much, they will never see the money... maybe they should wait another decade for that law to be written? Or maybe *AVAILABLE* off-grid power is soo expensive (even though there are solutions like Google's that aren't) that there arent enough people to complain that they arent getting paid for generating excess power back into the grid.
And here's a little something to add to that... if everyone could either (a) generate their own power, or (b) buy it very cheaply from an electric company that used cheaper non-fossil fuel methods, how do you think that would effect the gas car market? I know *I* would own an electric car - since other than maintenance, it would cost me nothing to drive it. Many states LIVE off the tax revenues from gasoline... maybe it's just coincidence, but plenty of govt watchdogs (heck even the govt itself) have stated or speculated that is part of the reason for slow adoption of other power sources...
Now perhaps you understand what I am saying?
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
I'll address just part -- There's no alternate energy grid because building a second, redundant power grid would be about the most ironic wasteful use of resources imaginable. Instead, power gets fed into one big grid from "clean" and "dirty" sources. Power distribution companies (the ones with their name on your electricity bill) buy power from other companies, both clean and dirty. The way to get clean energy into your home isn't to buy directly from the producer--almost nobody does that--but to buy through the distributor. The distributor owns the copper, there's no reason to build a second set of copper.
I can't tell you why nanosolar isn't selling to the public yet, but it sure sounds like they've been selling to large projects in the US. And, to be clear, Google has not invested in Nanosolar. The Google founders have invested their own personal money in the company. There's a big difference. Reading their press makes it sound like manufacturing is just ramping up with the new manufacturing facility opening in November (last entry). Contrary to popular belief, it takes time to build manufacturing facilities -- if they opened the plant in November then it's understandable that on December 2 they might not be ready yet.
I have no doubt that Exxon-Mobil has little interest in alternate energy. The good news is that they don't have to; Nanosolar is perfectly happy to take up the slack, and the local power distributor is perfectly happy to distribute power from whatever source it comes from.
Why can't we all use solar? Because the sun is dark at night and batteries are expensive. It's not clear that, even if the actual panels cost 1/10th the amount it costs to run a generator that the resulting power will be 1/10th the cost. First, the claims of Nanosolar are likely inflated puffery; no Version 1.0 product in tech ever works as well as claimed. Second, we still need the old power grid for night time and cloudy days (or to build expensive batteries or hydro-electric storage facilities). Third, we still have problems with maintenance, and need to rent a large amount of land to put the things on. Those costs can drive the price up significantly. I'm sure it'll make a difference, but it's not going to slash prices on energy by 90% overnight--if it could then Nanosolar (in this for the profit) would just raise prices on the solar panels until the price was just pennies below traditional energy.
I have no idea why Baltimore sucks, but it sounds like a regulatory battle that has nothing to do with the vast multi-national oil companies headquartered in Baltimore. Mainly because there aren't any. Baltimore should get on it and fix the poorly-written law, or the local distributor should explain why it isn't able to effectively utilize the reverse current (does it come at the wrong time or day or in an unpredictable fashion?). Fully agreed that the problem there should be fixed.
The other reason is that often Roland gets something spectacularly wrong and announces some well known thing as an enormous breakthrough with impossible consequences. Take his articles with simple thermodynamics, chemistry and electromagnetism in mind and be sure to go for the source article and not the Roland or Zonk summary.
That's pretty short-sighted. With more abundant electricity available other options become more feasible like electric trams for mass transit in addition to electric cars. Picture induction on all our roads to keep the things powered. If we can generate enough electricity then our oil imports will indeed fall. Of course plastics are still a big problem but not as toxic as burning fossil fuels.
I'll also add that all forms of energy production used today have their raw materials shipped to them either by truck or train and there the price of oil does have a rather immediate impact.
Why would there be a tax collapse anyway? Is somebody going to suddenly start giving away power for free?
Let's say Nanosolar's claims are accurate - and as they are already making sales, I would think they would know... so... now, solar setups for a home are available at 1/10th the cost that it used to be (well, if they would sell them to consumers). All electric vehicles now are more enticing. Why? Because it costs nothing to run them (after the initial, far cheaper outlay for solar for your house). So... if solar is now affordable, and more people consider electric vehicles, gas tax revenue starts to decline...
Many states' major tax income is from the gas tax. Many states are barely keeping afloat (financially)...
Now... add to that... you are no longer paying tax on the oil/coal/whatever fossil fuel that the electric company uses to create power because you are no longer using their power - again, less taxes going to states that depend on those taxes. (Whether you pay a tax or surcharge on your bill or not, a tax on the fuel IS being paid to the state).
Then add to that, with a decent solar setup (and there are a bunch online where people are doing this) properly set up, can be feeding power back into the grid... that means perhaps your neighbor's house (or portion thereof) is not being powered by fossil fuels either... again less tax revenue.
Then consider that since you are creating your own "free" electric, why bother having a gas/oil/propane water heater or dryer or home heater? Do it all electric... ooops... more lost tax revenues.
This hasnt been an issue because solar has been too expensive. But if panels are now 1/10th the cost, it's really easy and relatively cheap to set up a solar unit that will both power your own house and send power back into the grid, meaning you are making money every month... starts getting really attractive to a lot more people who wouldnt even consider it at this time. More contractors realize that it is a market they can get into to make more money (installations in new houses, retrofitting old houses to run off-grid, etc)... and start marketing it as well, increasing public awareness...
The snowball starts rolling down the mountain... how long before it triggers that avalanche?
Solar is expensive and can't be built (on a large scale) just anywhere.
Solar WAS expensive. Here, it still is expensive... but Nanosolar's claims (which again, since they already seem to have sold them, I'd assume they know the cost) are that it is now 1/10th the cost for the same amount of power. That means solar WAS expensive (at least in the places Nanosolar is choosing to sell the panels), and solar WAS difficult to install (while now you can just unroll the solar sheets, plug them in to your storage/inverter setup and be done).
Wind is somewhat less expensive, but also needs a special site, and unreliable to boot. Geothermal tends to be best in remote areas -- hard to build and staff the power plant, and you lose a lot of power sending it over the wires to the cities.
Perhaps, but according to the USGS's data on the matter, most of the geothermal sites they have mapped are in the "not that remote" category... for instance, on the east coast, there are a number of sites far closer to NYC than Niagra Falls... and on the west coast, there are tons of sites up and down it - with "remote" locations in that mix that would be ideal for a geothermal plant - that is with in a couple hundred miles of multiple major metro areas.
Not that it's impossible, but it's not quite the cakewalk/slam dunk (except for the conspiracy) that the grandparent would have us believe.
I dont think there is a conspiracy involved. As another /.er and I were discussing back and forth, what sense would it make for a "big oil" company to invest in geothermal? Why spend a lot of money investing in something that
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
We don't want Bush starting any plans on Canada to distract you guys from Iraq.
To Bush & Co.
Just because the majority of Canadians are unahappy about and dislike the current leader, please do not feel the need to liberate us nor give us your brand of democracy.
Thanks,
Canada
If anyone ever invades we'll turn her up to full power. Nothing would survive (except, perhaps, Celine herself, and cockroaches, and those tube worms that grow at the bottom of the ocean). So next time you foreigners think of invading, just imagine the horror and the agony of dying to the theme to Titanic...
Also she knows the brown note, but that's more of a tactical use whereas I'm talking about strategic deployment.
We're not going to replace our current energy infrastructure with renewable sources overnight. For now, to paraphrase Franklin, a gigawatt saved is indeed a gigawatt earned.
In fact, *saving* power is better than *producing* power. It pollutes less (heat is a form of pollution) and it costs less (less infrastructure and maintenance).
If energy consumption was dramatically reduced, higher prices would make many renewable sources of energy economically feasible while not costing consumers any more than they pay today. Win/win.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
If we can generate enough electricity then our oil imports will indeed fall. Of course plastics are still a big problem
Actually plastic can be made without petroleum oil. Prior to 1934, when DuPont was given a patent on making plastic from oil, plastic was made from cellulose. Ever hear of Cellophane, the plastic wraps for food? As it's name suggest it was originally from plant cellulose. Thing is is DuPont was the US's first producer of cellophane. Another big company that made and used cellulose based plastic, cellulose acetate, was Kodak.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"CEO Martin Roscheisen claims that once full production starts early next year [2008], it will create 430 megawatts' worth of solar cells a year--more than the combined total of every other solar plant in the U.S. The first 100,000 cells will be shipped to Europe, where a consortium will be building a 1.4-megawatt power plant next year."
I didn't read anything about them not wanting/being able to sell to the American market, it's just that their first order was placed by a European company. Unfortunately I didn't really further research this since I have a Histology exam in 2hrs and I should probably make my way over to campus.
The only consistency in life is the lack thereof
If solar starts making significant inroads then the states will probably switch from a fuel tax to a road tax as their primary income (i.e. a cost for owning a car, possibly tied to the number of miles you drive every year). Of course, they won't cut the tax on fuel either, which will make electric cars even more attractive since you'll only be paying tax once with them and twice with a fossil fuel vehicle.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Dead right.
It's totally unglamorous, but relatively easy. I managed to cut our home (and home-office) consumption from 33kWh/day (very high, from powering lots of Internet-facing servers) to 7kWh/day (fairly low: typical for a UK household is between 11kWh/day and 20kWh/dayt depending on whose figures you use) without any significant pain or loss of services etc.
http://www.earth.org.uk/saving-electricity.html
Most people could make significant cuts in their own consumption at home and work with zero or minimal spend and without giving up anything they currently do if they (a) wanted to (b) had the information. That's much better than technical fixes alone. One result of a US-based utility study was that simply telling people what they were using when and what it cost to generate helped cut their consumption 10%--15%. (And 78.35435102% of all such stats are hotly contested, natch...)
And there are slightly smarter things than just saving power and money that you can do if you feel inclined, which cost you nothing at all and make a disproportionate saving in CO2 and an improvement in grid stability, eg don't run big appliances at peak demand if you can easily avoid it.
For example, peak demand in the UK is in winter from 4pm to 8pm. At home we're avoiding running our washing machine and dishwasher in that 4 hour window since providing power to us (and everyone else then) is probably the dirtiest and most carbon-intense and expensive of the whole year, and with the biggest losses and strain in the distribution network. We're not sitting in the dark and cold humming whalesong: we just put off running the dishwasher for an hour or two. No one will ever notice, and our electricity bill will be just the same, so I want my medal now, of course! B^>
Rgds
Damon
http://m.earth.org.uk/