Fornits
General Interest => Tacitus' Realm => Topic started by: Anonymous on August 27, 2004, 02:00:00 PM
-
Sen. Kerry's plan makes a huge commitment to renewables and vegetation-based petroleum substitutes. The problem is that the laws of thermodynamics dictate that renewables have a net negative energy value relative to petroleum. It takes more energy to produce the renewable fuels than is generated by them. So even in the face of $45 oil, renewables will cost the consumer more at the pump and at home.
He is most confused about coal. Here it looks as if the environmental and energy advisors forgot to compare notes and both groups forgot to consult their high school chemistry books. Sen. Kerry is firmly committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Yet in his plan he says that coal is a central part of his 21st century energy solution. Problem is, when you burn coal you get carbon dioxide; it's in the textbooks. He can only have it both ways if Congress repeals the laws of chemistry.
-
On 2004-08-27 11:00:00, Anonymous wrote:
The problem is that the laws of thermodynamics dictate that renewables have a net negative energy value relative to petroleum. It takes more energy to produce the renewable fuels than is generated by them.
Citation, please?Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
--Friedrich Nietzsche
-
One opinion--
David Pimentel wrote a book called "Food, Energy, and Society":
(speaking of the U.S.) "... the total amount of solar energy harvested annually in the form of agricultural crops and forestry products is about
6.9 x 10E15 kcal (5.8 x 10E15 kcal net energy). This represents about 30 percent of the fossil energy consumption in the United States."
Oil is about 40% of our energy consumption, so the total biomass that Pimentel mentions is about 75% of our oil consumption.
If we made the (rash) assumption that we could sustainably allocate 10% of our crop and forest production to fuels, that would give us 7.5% of what we use now. Of course, things like Ethanol only get out about 25% more energy than you put into the production, so perhaps 2% or so of what we use now is a better guess!
More on Pimentel and biomass:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=U ... 2B+biomass (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22David+Pimentel%22+%2B+biomass)
-
Where I live, there's a whole lot of reasonably good farmland that goes fallow every year. And I know there's a whole lot of good farmland that we pay farmers to not farm. Then there's the subisdised sugar (to fuck w/ Castro) and subsidised tobacco (for reasons I've never been able to fathom)
In other words, the amount of land that is actually employed in farming has nothing to do w/ the amount of land that we could be farming.
I did a little looking into whatever I could find on the net about the cost/yield of biomass fuels. As it's done now, there's not much profit in it in competition w/ petroleum. However, what would it cost for a gallon of gas if the producers, instead of the tax payors, had to cover the cost of securing production sites and trade routes? If you look at it that way, even corn fuel is a great bargain!
There's one other factor that I looked for but didn't see addressed. What about crops that require very little in the way of fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation? Hemp is just such a crop. And my (ecconomically limping) region of the nation used to be prime hemp country. And we have hundreds of very nice manufacturing/processing sites sitting idle since Big Steel fled overseas.
I don't forsee the Federal government giving up and legalizing industrial hemp in this country any time soon. We're going to have to rebel. And we're going to have to do it pretty much the same way they did it in 1776; with the support and blessing of our governors, constablery and, most important, our grandparents.
Those who control the past, control the future; and those who control the present, control the past.
--George Orwell
-
***However, what would it cost for a gallon of gas if the producers, instead of the tax payors, had to cover the cost of securing production sites and trade routes?
Uh huh, like the cost of Shrub's 'war'?
http://www.costofwar.com/ (http://www.costofwar.com/)
Look's like it's costing American about $1,000 per second to secure the oil in Iraq.
How they arrived at that cost.
http://www.costofwar.com/numbers.html (http://www.costofwar.com/numbers.html)
$1,845 per household and over 1,000 human lives.
Even if the producers incured R&D expenses out-of-pocket, the consumer would ultimately pay those expenses with higher prices at the pump, because the producer is not going to compromise their profits.
-
On 2004-08-28 13:36:00, Deborah wrote:
Even if the producers incured R&D expenses out-of-pocket, the consumer would ultimately pay those expenses with higher prices at the pump, because the producer is not going to compromise their profits.
Now there's another factor that would be significantly impacted by a shift to a carbohydrate economy. The petroleum industry is highly enough regulated to ensure a virtual monopoly to a relatively small number of very powerful multinationals. They get to set the prices however they want because there is no competition.
This virtual monopoly can't persist when the means of production are distributed (not by regulation or force, but of necessity and spontaniously) accross the country. So the profit would be determined by the market. A 6% return on investment is considered typical for most industries. What's Occidental getting these days?
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
Andrew Tannenbaum
-
Bottomline, I don't think we're going to see any change until it becomes a necessity.
Bush stated in a state of the union address, while looking all proud as a peacock, that our children (or grandchildren-can't remember) would be driving vehicles powered by alternative energy. Whichever it was, I got the impression that it would be about 15-20 years before the government would support alternatives- about the time the last drop of oil will have been pumped out of the Earth. That will give the oil capitalists sufficient time to monopolize the markets associated with alternatives.
Just in my lifetime the price of gas has increased from .13/gal to 1.90. That's a hell of a lot of profit. I imagine it's going to get much worse as the impending, fabricated 'crisis' progresses.
Do we really want to deplete all the oil? I mean what will people do without their zip-loc bags and milk jugs and CDs and fast food containers and.....
-
On 2004-08-28 15:38:00, Deborah wrote:
"
Do we really want to deplete all the oil? I mean what will people do without their zip-loc bags and milk jugs and CDs and fast food containers and.....
We don't have to do w/o any of that. Anything that can be made from petroleum can be made from agricultural oils, and usually of higher quality and lower toxicity.
You have rights atecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.
John Adams
-
I didn't know that Ginger. I'll put it on my list to research.
Speaking of Peak Oil... An anon on the TH forum provided a link to a 911 conspiracy site this morning. He has a good rant on Peak Oil vs Deep Oil. It's a good read:
http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiraci ... _Main.html (http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiracies_Underdogs_Main.html)
I 'bout fell out of my chair laughing when I read this:
The arguments between the advocates of Peak Oil and Deep Oil is at the level of intelligence of a 12 year-old child. Furthermore, there are never any intelligent discussions on television, or among top government leaders. It is also difficult to find intelligent conversations at American universities.
"I think the human race encountered Peak Intelligence decades or centuries ago. The human race has been degrading into imbeciles ever since."~~Eric Hufschmid (A good one for the quote file Ginger)
Maybe pumping salt water into the idiots will help push their remaining intelligence to the top of their head. (That technique works with oil wells; why not idiots?)
-
Check out Ron Paul! (All good things come from Pittsburgh!)
August 30, 2004
Congressman Ron Paul was interviewed three days ago by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN about the 9/11 Commission report.
"A Texas Platform for the GOP" is Congressman Paul's column for this week.
Links to watch the interview and read the column are posted at http://www.thelibertycommittee.org (http://www.thelibertycommittee.org)
Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy
-
The Ticking Time Bomb Called Peak Oil
Source: PCC Courier
[Apr 29, 2005]
Posted by Tim
AustinTex
SYNOPSIS: If you think the estimated $3 a gallon this summer is going to be bad, just wait until oil is on a steady decline in the coming years, writes Justin Chapman.
There is a bombshell of a problem on its way. It is going to affect each and every one of us and change our very way of life. People will have to start growing their own food, stores will have to be closer and more centralized in suburbs, and transportation will have to be reinvented. That problem is Peak Oil, or energy resource depletion.
Cheap oil is a finite, non-renewable energy source that accounts for 90 percent of the world's transportation energy and 40 percent of its commercial energy. Different studies have predicted different times for the global oil peak, ranging from 'already peaked' to the wishful
2035. Several independent studies have been conducted, most notably Colin Campbell and the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas
(ASPO). Their latest 2004 model suggests a peak of conventional oil in 2005, and all oil and gas liquids in 2008. The United States peaked in
the 1970s and now produces less and less oil each year.
The consequences of inaction in the face of this global crisis are enormous. Geopolitics, lifestyle, agriculture, and economic stability
are all at risk. As energy prices skyrocket in the coming years, the people of suburbia need to react by demanding their government work on
solutions to this problem so they can prevent the collapse of their dream of living in a peaceful society or they will become the slums of
tomorrow.
Our national leaders are not at all uninformed about this subject. Their solution is to stabilize and control the part of the world that
contains two-thirds of the world's remaining oil supplies. Too bad that part of the world hates our guts. George Bush's desperate attempt to turn Iraq into a huge American police station in the Middle East is proving more expensive and difficult than he thought. Once we invade Iran, which we will, the result will exhaust and bankrupt us. We will be no match to China or India, both of which are growing at alarming
rates and will soon surpass America economically and militarily. The New York Times has reported in the past couple of weeks that we may see a shift in economic power between China and America now that the dollar is declining.
Researching and implementing alternative energy sources will require decades of investment. Cheap energy is already on the decline, and we haven't begun to seriously consider a solution. Even if we started right now, it wouldn't be possible to gather the amount of energy we are used to from renewable s ources. We will have to learn to live
with far less than we are used to, and so will our children and grandchildren.
On March 16 the Senate voted by a razor-thin margin to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling by sneaking a measure into
the budget bill. The huge issue of Peak Oil and climate change were ignored in this debate.
M. King Hubbert, a U.S. geologist working for Shell in the 1950s, was the first to predict that an oil peak would occur in 1970. His ideas,
which were made public in 1956, were ignored by the oil industry. But it turns out he was right. Last month, the Department of Energy released a report that officially acknowledged this crisis for the first time.
So if you think the estimated $3 a gallon this summer is going to be bad, just wait until oil is on a steady decline in the coming years. Enjoy it while it's here, because if somebody doesn't do something about this crisis soon, we're all going to be experiencing problems much worse than inflating gas prices.
--
-
WASHINGTON, DC-
President Bush unveiled an aggressive initiative Monday that would make the U.S. free of petroleum dependence by the year 4920, less than three
millennia from now.
"Our mission is clear," Bush said in a speech delivered at Fort Bragg
in North Carolina. "We must free ourselves from dependence on fossil fuels within 85 generations. A cleaner, safer America is my vision. And
it is our great, great-great-times-80 grandchildren who will realize that vision."
Bush promised a legislative package that would mandate severe cuts in oil-production subsidies and provide new funding for alternative-energy
research and development. According to the timetable he presented, these bills could be introduced as early as 3219, and U.S. energy
consumers could start to see radical changes by the early 42nd century.
"If we don't end our dependence on oil by 4920, when will we end it? 5580? By then, it may be too late," Bush said.
Bush called on both Democrats and Republicans living 1,200 years from now to work together to pass the program.
"It would be a shame if, by the 33rd century, these bills were still tied up in committee. I urge the 712th Congress to pass this legislation with minimal partisan gridlock," Bush said.
The president's science advisor, John Marburger, provided more details of the energy plan in a press release issued late Monday.
"It is the president's hope that hydrogen fuel cells, nanotechnology, or the recycling of human beings into fuel will hold the key," Marburger wrote. "Whatever the people of the 50th century feel is appropriate."
In a detailed policy statement, Bush elaborated on the plan, expressing the hope that a third party, perhaps one comprising robots or
super-intelligent, genetically engineered man-beasts, will help reduce America's dependence on fossil fuels.
"I am calling on the popularly elected cyborgs of tomorrow to support this sensible measure to ensure the security of the nation," Bush said.
Some industrialists, particularly major auto manufacturers, expressed reservation over Bush's initiative.
"As admirable as Mr. Bush's visionary pronouncement is, I worry that the timetable he proposes is far too ambitious," General Motors CEO Richard Wagoner Jr. said. "It is simply not realistic. The automotive industry would require an additional three or four thousand years to
develop engines that can run effectively on renewable or cleaner-burning fuels."
Exxon Mobil CEO Lee Raymond said the petroleum-producing company shares Bush's hopes for a cleaner environment "well before the sun turns into a red giant and dies."
"Mobil Oil has already made great strides in protecting the precious air and water within the television-commercial environment. And we plan
to golf closely with the U.S. Department of Energy and oil-industry lobbyists to ensure that President Bush's initiative comes to pass in
the unimaginably distant future."
Responding to reporters' questions, Bush admitted that our progeny could face challenges in pursuit of the goal, such as the earth's degrading orbit and eventual destruction of the moon by tidal force, or the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
"Our distant relations will have some hard work to do," Bush said. "But hard work is what built this nation, and I have every faith that they
will succeed."
The proclamation comes on the heels of Bush's plans to pay off the national debt by the early 6300s, and win the war on terror by 7450.
-
On 2005-08-19 13:03:00, Deborah wrote:
"WASHINGTON, DC-
President Bush unveiled an aggressive initiative Monday that would make the U.S. free of petroleum dependence by the year 4920, less than three
millennia from now.
"Our mission is clear," Bush said in a speech delivered at Fort Bragg
in North Carolina. "We must free ourselves from dependence on fossil fuels within 85 generations. A cleaner, safer America is my vision. And
it is our great, great-great-times-80 grandchildren who will realize that vision."
Bush promised a legislative package that would mandate severe cuts in oil-production subsidies and provide new funding for alternative-energy
research and development. According to the timetable he presented, these bills could be introduced as early as 3219, and U.S. energy
consumers could start to see radical changes by the early 42nd century.
"If we don't end our dependence on oil by 4920, when will we end it? 5580? By then, it may be too late," Bush said.
Bush called on both Democrats and Republicans living 1,200 years from now to work together to pass the program.
"It would be a shame if, by the 33rd century, these bills were still tied up in committee. I urge the 712th Congress to pass this legislation with minimal partisan gridlock," Bush said.
The president's science advisor, John Marburger, provided more details of the energy plan in a press release issued late Monday.
"It is the president's hope that hydrogen fuel cells, nanotechnology, or the recycling of human beings into fuel will hold the key," Marburger wrote. "Whatever the people of the 50th century feel is appropriate."
In a detailed policy statement, Bush elaborated on the plan, expressing the hope that a third party, perhaps one comprising robots or
super-intelligent, genetically engineered man-beasts, will help reduce America's dependence on fossil fuels.
"I am calling on the popularly elected cyborgs of tomorrow to support this sensible measure to ensure the security of the nation," Bush said.
Some industrialists, particularly major auto manufacturers, expressed reservation over Bush's initiative.
"As admirable as Mr. Bush's visionary pronouncement is, I worry that the timetable he proposes is far too ambitious," General Motors CEO Richard Wagoner Jr. said. "It is simply not realistic. The automotive industry would require an additional three or four thousand years to
develop engines that can run effectively on renewable or cleaner-burning fuels."
Exxon Mobil CEO Lee Raymond said the petroleum-producing company shares Bush's hopes for a cleaner environment "well before the sun turns into a red giant and dies."
"Mobil Oil has already made great strides in protecting the precious air and water within the television-commercial environment. And we plan
to golf closely with the U.S. Department of Energy and oil-industry lobbyists to ensure that President Bush's initiative comes to pass in
the unimaginably distant future."
Responding to reporters' questions, Bush admitted that our progeny could face challenges in pursuit of the goal, such as the earth's degrading orbit and eventual destruction of the moon by tidal force, or the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
"Our distant relations will have some hard work to do," Bush said. "But hard work is what built this nation, and I have every faith that they
will succeed."
The proclamation comes on the heels of Bush's plans to pay off the national debt by the early 6300s, and win the war on terror by 7450."
I about fell out of my chair when I read "85 generations". :lol: Hell we won't even have any oil by then. Why is this joker in office???? (I already know, but I just had to say it).
-
Please tell me this is satire!
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy
-
On 2005-08-19 17:46:00, Antigen wrote:
"Please tell me this is satire!Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy
"
Sadly, Bush's thinking is probably not too far from this hilarious story.
I'm impressed so many people are protesting in front of his ranch, but did anyone notice all the SUV's the protestors had parked on the side of the road????
-
Here is a very interesting solution for energy.
http://www.uh.edu/collegium/print/spr03/pages/moon.html (http://www.uh.edu/collegium/print/spr03/pages/moon.html)
-
We must as a world body get away from BURNING OIL for energy! There is a better way.
-
Look what these three Austin guys are doing!!!
Austin Biofuels created Texas' first Bio-filling station (shown below). This Biodiesel station began operation in January, 2004.
http://www.austinbiofuels.com/index.php ... sid/10.php (http://www.austinbiofuels.com/index.php/fuseaction/home/pid/18/sid/10.php)
-
Give me a fucking break, there is no oil shortage, crude is not fossil fuel it comes from too far deep in the earth to justify that. The only reason they lead you sheeple to believe that is to jack up the price and stick it in your ass. We will not run out of oil do a google on it or talk to any geologist its a fact and you guys are buying it hook line and sinker. We are not allowed to drill in the states, that keeps us dependent on the middle east.Its hype Mr. Dumbass Gore is full of it, even that arrogant fuck owns a SUV.
-
The two most promising stopgaps just now are Canadian tar sands and American Oil Shale. Both have huge amounts of hydrocarbon, IF it can be recovered economically. Canada is doing that now that the price of oil has made it worthwhile. Some new technology being developed may make shale oil feasible within twenty years.
There is also a huge quantity of methane trapped in "Clathrates" crystals of methanized ice, in the ocean floor. How to recover it is still being debated.
Here in PA, they're building a synthetic oil plant to make diesel fuel out of the millions of tons of waste coal lying around. It was originally envisioned as a way to help pay for cleaning up the mess, but now it's looking economic in and of itself. The technology is licensed from South Africa, and they've been using it there for years. The Nazis also produced a lot of synthetic oil from "brown coal."
However, none of these solutions address the issue of global warming. There is some reason to believe that the great Permian extinction of 250 Million years ago was caused partly by global warming, some of it cause by release of methane from clathrates.
The technology I'm looking at hopefully is a synthetic oil process developed by Changing World Technology. Instead of using coal, it uses any carbon-containing compounds. At the moment their pilot plant is processing oil from turkey guts out at a Con Agra turkey processing plant in Missouri. The advantage is that this does not add new carbon to the enviroment, it uses carbon that is already in circulation. Much better frmo a global warming perspective. Google "Changing World Technologies." And you'll find out all about it.
-
Subsidize the rich... they are our hope for a strong economy....
The Bush government, based on corporate welfare continues?even though it clearly doesn?t work and will lead to economic suicide?we go blindly on?
?As working families continue to pay $3 for a gallon of gas and brace for a spike in heating costs for the winter, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would give even more taxpayer financed subsidies to big oil companies. After Republicans extended the initial five-minute vote by an unprecedented additional forty minutes to persuade two moderate Republicans to change their votes, the bill passed 212-210-largely along party lines with twelve Republicans and one Independent voting with the unified Democratic Party against the bill.
?The deceptively named Gasoline for America's Security Act will do nothing to help lower record high gas prices or to relieve our perilous dependence on foreign oil. Instead, under the guise of hurricane relief, this new bill shamefully rolls back critical environmental protections, undermines state and local lawmakers, and even comes to the rescue of price gougers by limiting penalties that can be levied against those who take advantage of Americans at the pump.?
From Apollo Alliance?a group that supports energy diversification?.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel# ... _arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Efficiency_and_economic_arguments)
http://eroei.com/eval/net_energy_list.html (http://eroei.com/eval/net_energy_list.html)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... tions.html (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052703_9_questions.html)
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/)
Bio fuels (ethanol, bio-diesel, thermal depolorizatioin) aren't real replacements of petro fuels. Think about it, we use Natural gas based fertilizers to grow the corn (Fertilizers have doubled in price in 2004 and again in 2005 because Natrual gas peaked in North America in 2003), We use diesel driven machines to grow, harvest, and process the corn and then ship the fuel in diesel trucks. B20 and B100 fuels are more expensive than petro diesel and ALWAYS WILL BE, no matter how much diesel costs rise because the INPUTS of these fuels are on the rise, its forever a moving target. Likewise, you cannot separate the cost of building hybrid and electric cars, nuclear power plants, and wind turbines from the cost of oil. When Oil production peaks and the price sky rockets, so will the costs of building a Prius, a Wind Turbine, a dam, the costs of mining coal, our Food, and most other goods and services.
-
Tar sands, shale oil, and synfuel made from domestic coal is like getting an ATM card for a bank account you didn't know you had. Massive amounts of fuel right in our backyard! So with this ATM card, you have $2 million dollars in the bank but there's only one small problem: you can only withdraw $15/day and you currently have a $200/day spending habit. The key point to understanding Peak oil is not to ask "how much oil is left and how long will we be pumping it?" but rather to ask "How much oil can we produce on a per day or per year basis?" Although the Canadian tar sands possibly have a trillion barrells, it is unlikely that production levels, once massive infastructure is in place, will ever surpass 2 million barrells a day, certainly not enough to meet our energy needs. This is why this energy source will likely last us 200 years.
-
San Francisco Hopes To Harness Power Of Dog Doo
Animals Produce 6,500 Tons Of Waste Each Year
POSTED: 12:35 pm EST February 22, 2006
UPDATED: 12:45 pm EST February 22, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO -- Officials in San Francisco are stepping into something new -- recycling doggie doo to generate power.
Norcal Waste, a garbage hauling company, will collect droppings from a popular dog park.
The droppings will go into a machine called a methane digester -- a tank in which bacteria feed on feces to create methane gas.
That gas could then be piped directly to a gas stove, heater or anything else powered by natural gas. It can also be used to generate electricity.
The technology is already used on chicken, hog and dairy farms.
San Francisco has plenty raw material for poo power.
Residents of the city own an estimated 240,000 dogs and cats.
City officials said Rover, Tabby and their pals produce about 6,500 tons of doo a year.
Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
-
Bush and Kerry are distant cousins and also skull and bones members
there was no real choice in the elections
both candidates are extensions of the global elite
-
Here are links to some of the more plausible alternate energy concepts that I follow. There are a couple of synthetic fuel technologies, a guy who wants to extract oil from algae, and a guy who wants to use recombinant DNA technology to create energy-producing microbes. There's also an outfit that has a design for a more efficient and practical wind-power technology.
About bio-fuels, two comments: A Canadian outfit has an enzyme that can break down cellulose into sugar for fermentation into alcohol. This changes the equation concerning energy in vs energy out. Now biofuel can be made from crop wastes instead of corn. And a plant called switchgrass may become the ideal feedstock for biofuel production, since it grows in wretched soil with little or no cultivation.
I also once talked to a guy who claimed he could build a 200 mile horizontal pipe that tapered, and which would extract energy from differences in barometric pressure. Supposedly the air would come out of the exhaust end at supersonic speeds. He would never identify the scientists who he claimed had verified his concept, and his successors in interest have also declined to do so. I've pretty well lost faith on that one.
The Cold fusionists are still trying. An outfit called Black Light claims to be near to marketing a device. Their theory is one that came out of Cold Fusion research, but the mainstream physicists insist that it's bogus.
My own theory is that the "Cold Fusion" phenomenon actually taps energy from neutrinos. I published a couple of articles about it, and I have a very encouraging letter from Arthur C. Clarke framed on the wall in front of me.
http://www.changingworldtech.com/ (http://www.changingworldtech.com/)
http://www.magoi.de/en/home/index.php?s ... 9bce92c890 (http://www.magoi.de/en/home/index.php?session=1aceb7e967b99222d42e4a9bce92c890)
http://www.greenfuelonline.com/ (http://www.greenfuelonline.com/)
http://www.safehydrogen.com/ (http://www.safehydrogen.com/)
http://www.fgenterprises.net/index.php (http://www.fgenterprises.net/index.php)
http://www.syngasinternational.com/ (http://www.syngasinternational.com/)
http://tmawind.com/index.htm (http://tmawind.com/index.htm)