[biofuels-biz] MIT: Hydrogen Car No Better than Diesel Hybrid
http://lfee.mit.edu/features/hydrogen_vehicles Laboratory For Energy and the Environment Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle won't reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020; diesel and gasoline hybrids are a better bet, concludes an MIT study Published in MIT Tech Talk, March 5, 2003. Even with aggressive research, the hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle will not be better than the diesel hybrid (a vehicle powered by a conventional engine supplemented by an electric motor) in terms of total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, says a study recently released by the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (LFEE). And while hybrid vehicles are already appearing on the roads, adoption of the hydrogen-based vehicle will require major infrastructure changes to make compressed hydrogen available. If we need to curb greenhouse gases within the next 20 years, improving mainstream gasoline and diesel engines and transmissions and expanding the use of hybrids is the way to go. These results come from a systematic and comprehensive assessment of a variety of engine and fuel technologies as they are likely to be in 2020 with intense research but no real breakthroughs. The assessment was led by Malcolm A. Weiss, LFEE senior research staff member, and John B. Heywood, the Sun Jae Professor of Mechanical Engineering and director of MIT's Laboratory for 21st-Century Energy. Release of the study comes just a month after the Bush administration announced a billion-dollar initiative to develop commercially viable hydrogen fuel cells and a year after establishment of the government-industry program to develop the hydrogen fuel-cell-powered FreedomCar. The new assessment is an extension of a study done in 2000, which likewise concluded that the much-touted hydrogen fuel cell was not a clear winner. This time, the MIT researchers used optimistic fuel-cell performance assumptions cited by some fuel-cell advocates, and the conclusion remained the same. The hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle has low emissions and energy use on the road--but converting a hydrocarbon fuel such as natural gas or gasoline into hydrogen to fuel this vehicle uses substantial energy and emits greenhouse gases. Ignoring the emissions and energy use involved in making and delivering the fuel and manufacturing the vehicle gives a misleading impression, said Weiss. However, the researchers do not recommend stopping work on the hydrogen fuel cell. If auto systems with significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions are required in, say, 30 to 50 years, hydrogen is the only major fuel option identified to date, said Heywood. The hydrogen must, of course, be produced without making greenhouse gas emissions, hence from a non-carbon source such as solar energy or from conventional fuels while sequestering the carbon emissions. The assessment highlights the advantages of the hybrid, a highly efficient approach that combines an engine (or a fuel cell) with a battery and an electric motor. Continuing to work on today's gasoline engine and its fuel will bring major improvements by 2020, cutting energy use and emissions by a third compared to today's vehicles. But aggressive research on a hybrid with a diesel engine could yield a 2020 vehicle that is twice as efficient and half as polluting as that evolved technology, and future gasoline engine hybrids will not be far behind, the study says. Other researchers on the study were Andreas Schafer, principal research engineer in the Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development, and Vinod K. Natarajan (S.M. 2002). The new report and the original On the Road in 2020 study from 2000 are available at http://lfee.mit.edu/publications under Reports (or see below). CONTACT: Nancy Stauffer Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (617) 253-3405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reports * Comparative Assessment of Fuel Cell Cars (2003), by Malcolm A. Weiss, John B. Heywood, Andreas Schafer, and Vinod K. Natarajan. PDF Document http://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/LFEE_2003-001_RP.pdf * On the Road in 2020: A Life-cycle Analysis of New Automobile Technologies (2000), by Malcolm A. Weiss, John B. Heywood, Elisabeth M. Drake, Andreas Schafer, and Felix F. AuYeung. PDF Document http://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/el00-003.pdf Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying! http://us.click.yahoo.com/KXUxcA/fNtFAA/uetFAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] MIT: Hydrogen Car No Better than Diesel Hybrid
Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Description: HTML bush and the current admin are pushing for the hydrogen cars because they want to revive the nuclear power industry...they see us using nukes to crack water and make hydrogen...what does everyone think about this? kn sac, ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/05/03 10:34AM http://lfee.mit.edu/features/hydrogen_vehiclesLaboratory For Energy and the EnvironmentHydrogen fuel-cell vehicle won't reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020; diesel and gasoline hybrids are a better bet, concludes an MIT studyPublished in MIT Tech Talk, March 5, 2003.Even with aggressive research, the hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle will not be better than the diesel hybrid (a vehicle powered by a conventional engine supplemented by an electric motor) in terms of total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, says a study recently released by the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (LFEE).And while hybrid vehicles are already appearing on the roads, adoption of the hydrogen-based vehicle will require major infrastructure changes to make compressed hydrogen available. If we need to curb greenhouse gases within the next 20 years, improving mainstream gasoline and diesel engines and transmissions and expanding the use of hybrids is the way to go.These results come from a systematic and comprehensive assessment of a variety of engine and fuel technologies as they are likely to be in 2020 with intense research but no real "breakthroughs." The assessment was led by Malcolm A. Weiss, LFEE senior research staff member, and John B. Heywood, the Sun Jae Professor of Mechanical Engineering and director of MIT's Laboratory for 21st-Century Energy.Release of the study comes just a month after the Bush administration announced a billion-dollar initiative to develop commercially viable hydrogen fuel cells and a year after establishment of the government-industry program to develop the hydrogen fuel-cell-powered "FreedomCar."The new assessment is an extension of a study done in 2000, which likewise concluded that the much-touted hydrogen fuel cell was not a clear winner. This time, the MIT researchers used optimistic fuel-cell performance assumptions cited by some fuel-cell advocates, and the conclusion remained the same.The hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle has low emissions and energy use on the road--but converting a hydrocarbon fuel such as natural gas or gasoline into hydrogen to fuel this vehicle uses substantial energy and emits greenhouse gases."Ignoring the emissions and energy use involved in making and delivering the fuel and manufacturing the vehicle gives a misleading impression," said Weiss.However, the researchers do not recommend stopping work on the hydrogen fuel cell. "If auto systems with significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions are required in, say, 30 to 50 years, hydrogen is the only major fuel option identified to date," said Heywood. The hydrogen must, of course, be produced without making greenhouse gas emissions, hence from a non-carbon source such as solar energy or from conventional fuels while sequestering the carbon emissions.The assessment highlights the advantages of the hybrid, a highly efficient approach that combines an engine (or a fuel cell) with a battery and an electric motor. Continuing to work on today's gasoline engine and its fuel will bring major improvements by 2020, cutting energy use and emissions by a third compared to today's vehicles. But aggressive research on a hybrid with a diesel engine could yield a 2020 vehicle that is twice as efficient and half as polluting as that "evolved" technology, and future gasoline engine hybrids will not be far behind, the study says.Other researchers on the study were Andreas Schafer, principal research engineer in the Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development, and Vinod K. Natarajan (S.M. 2002). The new report and the original "On the Road in 2020" study from 2000 are available at http://lfee.mit.edu/publications under "Reports" (or see below).CONTACT:Nancy StaufferLaboratory for Energy and the Environment(617) 253-3405[EMAIL PROTECTED]Reports* Comparative Assessment of Fuel Cell Cars (2003), by Malcolm A. Weiss, John B. Heywood, Andreas Schafer, and Vinod K. Natarajan. PDF Documenthttp://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/LFEE_2003-001_RP.pdf* On the Road in 2020: A Life-cycle Analysis of New Automobile Technologies (2000), by Malcolm A. Weiss, John B. Heywood, Elisabeth M. Drake, Andreas Schafer, and Felix F. AuYeung. PDF Documenthttp://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/el00-003.pdf Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying!http://us.click.yahoo.com/KXUxcA/fNtFAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM-~-Biofuel at Journey to
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] MIT: Hydrogen Car No Better than Diesel Hybrid
bush and the current admin are pushing for the hydrogen cars because they want to revive the nuclear power industry...they see us using nukes to crack water and make hydrogen...what does everyone think about this? kn sac, ca Nukes and fossil-fuels both I'd say. This just in on nukes: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nuke4may04,1,5129372.story May 4, 2003 THE NATION Nuclear Energy Industry Sees Its Fortunes Turning in Capital By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON - The U.S. nuclear power industry - at a virtual standstill for more than 20 years and looking particularly bleak after Sept. 11, 2001 - could be on the threshold of a comeback. Since 1973, no company has ordered a nuclear plant that it eventually completed. Now, energy legislation expected to clear the Senate within the next few weeks would provide federal loan guarantees for up to half the cost of building as many as six new nuclear power plants. The federal loan guarantees would be just one part - although an important one - of a complicated economic and political puzzle that would need to be assembled before any nuclear plants are built. Wall Street still must be convinced of the economic viability of constructing such plants. And nuclear power remains controversial, with critics charging that the benefits aren't worth the risks of a catastrophic accident. Security concerns spiked after Sept. 11. Doomsday scenarios envisioned a hijacked plane crashing into one of the nation's 103 commercial nuclear power plants, potentially causing radiation leaks. Government officials beefed up security at plants and distributed nearly 10 million potassium iodide pills, which can help protect the thyroid in case of an emergency, to residents near plants. Supporters of nuclear power believe it is important that the industry move forward again. The industry's fortunes have improved under President Bush, who has made expansion of nuclear power a prime goal of his energy policy. They brightened more after Republicans gained control of both chambers of Congress in last year's elections and Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) became chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Domenici, whose home state was the site of the first test of an atomic bomb in 1945 and today is where two national nuclear laboratories operate, is the author of the Senate legislation. He is confident about the prospects for the measure, citing congressional approval last year for designating Nevada's Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository. Along with the loan guarantees, the Senate bill would authorize $1 billion for building an advanced nuclear reactor in Idaho that would produce hydrogen, a fuel that Bush has championed for cars. If the demonstration [project] succeeds, it could well initiate a major nuclear reactor renaissance, said Jay E. Silberg, a Washington lawyer for nuclear utilities. The Senate legislation and an energy bill approved by the House last month would extend a cap on the nuclear industry's liability in case of an accident. And both measures would authorize millions of dollars for nuclear research. Although the House energy bill does not include the loan guarantees, the issue is likely to be on the table when House and Senate negotiators draw up a final measure. Suffice to say America needs a strong nuclear power industry if we're going to meet our energy needs in the 21st century, said Ken Johnson, a spokesman for W.J. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Today, nuclear power generates about one-fifth of the nation's electricity. But high construction costs, as well as public protests after the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania, stopped the industry's growth. Domenici has touted nuclear energy as a cleaner alternative to coal and oil. And he has argued that nuclear power is necessary to prevent the supply shortages and price spikes that occur from too much reliance on a single energy source. Domenici has been one of the top recipients of campaign contributions from the nuclear power industry, receiving more than $67,000 from January 2001 through early 2002 in individual and political action committee donations from companies that own or build nuclear power plants, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a political watchdog group. The industry gave nearly $9 million overall to congressional candidates and political parties, almost two-thirds of it to Republicans. But the industry's expansion still faces political opposition. Until there's a [resolution] of the nuclear waste issue, it's ridiculous to even talk about expanding nuclear power, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said. For instance, legal challenges to the use of Yucca Mountain for waste disposal are pending. Additionally, he said, the public remains scared to death about nuclear power.
Re: [biofuel] NESEA's Tour de Sol
snip If it reduces gasoline and oil use, you will see it at the Tour de Sol. There will be over 50 exhibits from bicycles to buses and more. Food. Fun stuff for kids. Visit with vehicle manufacturers and owners. Talk with hundreds of students and visionaries about their one-of-a-kind Earth-friendly concept vehicles competing in the 2003 Tour de Sol race for a sustainable future. Join us and learn how you can be part of the solution. (Drop the Join sentence, or how about Join us and embrace green transportation??). Oops! :-) You're supposed to cut the editing suggestions before rushing into print. On this list the first option, drop it, would have been more apt - I think we're at least as much part of the solution as you are. Perhaps you'd like to explain just how Tour de Sol is part of the solution? How many or how few of these one-of-a-kind Earth-friendly concept vehicles ever make it any further than the Tour de Sol itself to reduce gasoline and oil use in real life? We take a broad view of biofuels and energy issues here, it's a forward-looking list with a lot of interest in and discussion of future potentials, but the list as a whole is fairly clear on the idea that it's only ready-to-use technologies that can make any real difference in the real-world race for a sustainable future. Implementation of other technologies will take decades to make a difference, and there aren't any decades to spare in this issue. That DOESN'T mean that we're against development of new approaches, quite the opposite, but it does mean we're not deluded about it either. In fact there's no shortage of solutions, it's getting them applied that's the problem, and we seem to be rather successful at that, along with many others working on biofuels issues. So do you think Tour de Sol really is part of the solution as you claim, or just useful publicity and promotion of sustainable concepts? Best Keith It's Free! For festival directions and more visit www.TourdeSol.org. We're looking forward to seeing you. Nancy Hazard, Tour de Sol Director Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] SUCCESS!!
Well!! Did my first opil test this morning and then made a perfect one litre batch. Will pour that in the good ols Vanagon tomorrow and make the BIGGY - a 45 gallon batch. Will keep you all posted - Have learned a LOT so far. Bill in Az. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying! http://us.click.yahoo.com/KXUxcA/fNtFAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: glycerin
--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, brent3369 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, reheated the glycerin I got from my first batch. It looks very rich. It is thinner than molasses at room temp. Why would it remain so thin? The information I have found suggests that it should be solid, or close to it, at room temp. Glycerine will have different consistencies depending in how heavily used the oil was and maybe what type of oil it is. Part or all (not sure which) of the gel is soap- that's what your lye turned into during the reaction. I rarely get solid glycerine because I use lightly used, high-quality oil to begin with. If you're heating the glycerine byproduct be aware it vents lots of methanol- don't breathe it. The diesel itself has a ph of 8.5, so I will bubble wash it and see what happens. you will probably find it harder to test the pH of the biodiesel as it approaches 'washed' than when it is unwashed. Look here for some troubleshooting info if you have trouble in the wash process: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/message/21049 good luck, mark Brent Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/cjB9SD/od7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Ethanol production from oats
Pham writes: I am doing a project about ethyl lactate production which needs ethanol as an intermediate product. After considering raw material prices as well as conversion factor, me and my friends shoot for oats for raw material. But my professor raised the question why not corn but oats while everybody produces ethanol from corn? Is it because common sense tell us to use corn or any other reason behind? From my days as a homebrewer (ales), I seem to remember lots of oats in the mash (eg, oatmeal stouts) can run the risk of a stuck mash, where the grain gets so gummed up with that soluble fiber that oats has, that you can't get the liquid out of the grain. Also, oats are pretty high in fat -- might make some weird additions to the mix if used in high percentage. Just guessing. Out of curiosity, what are you doing with ethyl lactate? I was interested in it myself once, as a possible fuel.-K Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Rent DVDs from home. Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE! http://us.click.yahoo.com/BVVfoB/hP.FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] glycerin
The glycerin layer is not just glycerin, nor is it primarily glycerin. The rule of thumb is ~79 mililiters of glycerin for every liter of feedstock. This actually makes the glycerin layer more of a soap layer than anything else, at least if you name something by its highest constituent volume or weight. The glycerin layer is a combination of alcohol, soap and glycerin. The more alcohol you use in your process, the less viscous the layer will be. If you use potassium hydroxide rather than sodium hydroxide, the layer will be slightly less viscous. (Potassium hydroxide is generally used to make liquid soaps, while sodium hydroxide is generally used to make bar soaps.) The more FFAs in the parent oil the more viscous the layer will be, as the ratio of soap increases relative to the amount of glycerin and excess alcohol. And the type of FFAs and their ratio to each other will determine how hard or thin the glycerin layer stays. A feedstock high in palmitic and stearic acids will yield a harder soap (or more viscous glycerin layer) than a feedstock with lower ratios. Eeach feedstock will give you a byproduct of different physical properties. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: brent3369 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 3:59 PM Subject: [biofuel] glycerin Ok, reheated the glycerin I got from my first batch. It looks very rich. It is thinner than molasses at room temp. Why would it remain so thin? The information I have found suggests that it should be solid, or close to it, at room temp. The diesel itself has a ph of 8.5, so I will bubble wash it and see what happens. Brent Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Rent DVDs from home. Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE! http://us.click.yahoo.com/BVVfoB/hP.FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] land rover diesel conversion
The hardest part will probably be attaching the transmission to the transfer case. Check out www.advanceadapters.com http://www.advanceadapters.com/ If they don't have (or can't make) what you need they can probably suggest something that will work. Good luck. -BRAH -Original Message- From: Josh Cohen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 11:45 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: [biofuel] land rover diesel conversion hi all, so just as i give up on my hunt for a diesel engine for my 97 land rover d-90, i come across a 86 Iveco liquid cooled Fiat, direct injected, turbo diesel from an 1986 iveco truck for 1000 bucks. It is in good condition complete with injection pump, turbo, and starter ready to run. The transmission is a Chrysler 727 automatic that Iveco used in the trucks. will this be a match for my vehicle?i was hoping for a 300 tdi which would require some major modifications of my car, and i am wondering if this engine and trasmission would be a good fit as well and will i need to add a ton of other parts? anyone have any ideas? (im this close just leaving the rover alone for a while and getting a commuter diesel that i can convert to svo). josh [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor http://rd.yahoo.com/M=232617.3212172.4524785.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705 083269:HM/A=1555962/R=0/*http:/shop.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?1800fl owers2+shopping:dmad/M=232617.3212172.4524785.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705 083269:HM/A=1555962/R=1/1051767608+http://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http://ww w.1800flowers.com/rmi-framed-url/http://www.1800flowers.com/cgi-bin/flow ers/product.pl/MD01e84aF3GROUPSHMYH/1202 http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=232617.3212172.4524785.1261774/D=egrou pmail/S=:HM/A=1555962/rand=957426775 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles. No Late Fees Free Shipping. Try Netflix for FREE! http://us.click.yahoo.com/YoVfrB/XP.FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] 42,850 Traffic Deaths in 2002
This report has something to say about travel in the US - whatever happened to the old WWII fuel-saving slogan Is your journey really necessary? Just how often, or how seldom, is the answer really yes? Chuck in the food miles issue (food travels an average 1,500 miles to reach US supermarket shelves) and all the other unnecessary miles and it all adds up not only to huge amounts of wasted energy (and wars, no less, to secure the supplies so you can waste yet more) but to needless deaths. --- U.S. workers are playing musical chairs with their jobs at the price of less productivity and more congestion and pollution, according to new census data released this week. For example, take Arlington County, Va., where 70 percent of resident workers leave the county every day for jobs elsewhere -- and an even greater number of people stream into the county to work. Unfortunately, Arlington County isn't an exception: Around the country, 17 counties export and import at least half their workforce every weekday. And many more are following a similar pattern, with 23 percent of Americans working outside their county of residence in 2000. Jobs and workers are increasingly ending up far apart from each other, which is one reason for the nation's huge increase in travel time, according to Phillip Salopek of the population division of the U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0307/p02s01-ussc.html March 07, 2003 edition Even with jobs in suburbs, commutes get longer More counties have a large share of imported workers and 'bedroom' residents. By Laurent Belsie | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Every weekday morning, Arlington County, Va., wakes up to a grinding form of musical chairs. Some 70 percent of its resident workforce leaves the county to work somewhere else. Meanwhile, an even bigger phalanx of nonresidents come in to the county to do their jobs. The excess congestion, pollution, and lost productivity makes smart-growth advocates say: Isn't there a better way to handle sprawl than to swap suburban populations during the day? Arlington can't be written off as a fluke. Gilpin County, just outside Denver, sends out nearly as great a share of workers as Arlington and gets a bigger share back. West Baton Rouge Parish in Louisiana sends out 60 percent of its workers and imports 60 percent more to do its work. In all, 17 counties from Florida to Massachusetts to Colorado export and import at least half their workforce on a typical weekday. And scores more counties are moving toward that dubious distinction, according to new census figures released this week. Even though jobs are following Americans out of the cities and into the suburbs, it seems the exoduses still don't line up. Indeed, jobs and workers often end up far apart. That's a major factor behind the three-minute increase in the nation's average commute during the 1990s. And it explains why a growing share of Americans are crossing county lines to reach their jobs. 'A huge increase' We certainly see a huge increase in travel time, says Phillip Salopek, a demographer in the population division of the US Census Bureau in Suitland, Md. Jobs move out to the suburbs, and employees move to exurbs. The new data suggest that in the vast majority of counties - rural as well as urban - an increasing share of employees is crossing county lines to get to work. Nationally, 23 percent of Americans worked outside their county of residence in 2000 - up from 20 percent in 1990 and 18 percent in 1980. While much of this rise comes from workers' desire to live in less congested places, other factors also play a role. Take housing prices. Some residential markets have gotten so pricey workers can't afford to live near their work. San Francisco County, Calif. - one of the nation's most expensive housing markets - imports nearly half its workforce. Geography also plays a role. Because counties are smaller in the East, workers are more likely to cross them than workers in the West. Thus, the census county data underestimate the amount of commuting in the West. Workers' skills and needs can also affect commuting. Arlington County, the home of the Pentagon, attracts highly skilled workers who may choose to live in more exclusive areas. At the same time, its housing may prove too costly for the people who staff the county's low-end service jobs, suggests Alan Pisarski, an independent travel-behavior consultant in Falls Church, Va., and author of Commuting in America. He adds that since three-quarters of workers live in households with another worker, locating near one person's job may mean a long commute for another. Busy rural roads Interestingly, the growth in rural commuting seems just as strong as metro-area travel. For example, seven of the 17 musical-chair counties don't fall within a metropolitan area. And in five of those, most of the jobs for which workers are
[biofuel] MIT: Hydrogen Car No Better than Diesel Hybrid
http://lfee.mit.edu/features/hydrogen_vehicles Laboratory For Energy and the Environment Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle won't reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020; diesel and gasoline hybrids are a better bet, concludes an MIT study Published in MIT Tech Talk, March 5, 2003. Even with aggressive research, the hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle will not be better than the diesel hybrid (a vehicle powered by a conventional engine supplemented by an electric motor) in terms of total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, says a study recently released by the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (LFEE). And while hybrid vehicles are already appearing on the roads, adoption of the hydrogen-based vehicle will require major infrastructure changes to make compressed hydrogen available. If we need to curb greenhouse gases within the next 20 years, improving mainstream gasoline and diesel engines and transmissions and expanding the use of hybrids is the way to go. These results come from a systematic and comprehensive assessment of a variety of engine and fuel technologies as they are likely to be in 2020 with intense research but no real breakthroughs. The assessment was led by Malcolm A. Weiss, LFEE senior research staff member, and John B. Heywood, the Sun Jae Professor of Mechanical Engineering and director of MIT's Laboratory for 21st-Century Energy. Release of the study comes just a month after the Bush administration announced a billion-dollar initiative to develop commercially viable hydrogen fuel cells and a year after establishment of the government-industry program to develop the hydrogen fuel-cell-powered FreedomCar. The new assessment is an extension of a study done in 2000, which likewise concluded that the much-touted hydrogen fuel cell was not a clear winner. This time, the MIT researchers used optimistic fuel-cell performance assumptions cited by some fuel-cell advocates, and the conclusion remained the same. The hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle has low emissions and energy use on the road--but converting a hydrocarbon fuel such as natural gas or gasoline into hydrogen to fuel this vehicle uses substantial energy and emits greenhouse gases. Ignoring the emissions and energy use involved in making and delivering the fuel and manufacturing the vehicle gives a misleading impression, said Weiss. However, the researchers do not recommend stopping work on the hydrogen fuel cell. If auto systems with significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions are required in, say, 30 to 50 years, hydrogen is the only major fuel option identified to date, said Heywood. The hydrogen must, of course, be produced without making greenhouse gas emissions, hence from a non-carbon source such as solar energy or from conventional fuels while sequestering the carbon emissions. The assessment highlights the advantages of the hybrid, a highly efficient approach that combines an engine (or a fuel cell) with a battery and an electric motor. Continuing to work on today's gasoline engine and its fuel will bring major improvements by 2020, cutting energy use and emissions by a third compared to today's vehicles. But aggressive research on a hybrid with a diesel engine could yield a 2020 vehicle that is twice as efficient and half as polluting as that evolved technology, and future gasoline engine hybrids will not be far behind, the study says. Other researchers on the study were Andreas Schafer, principal research engineer in the Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development, and Vinod K. Natarajan (S.M. 2002). The new report and the original On the Road in 2020 study from 2000 are available at http://lfee.mit.edu/publications under Reports (or see below). CONTACT: Nancy Stauffer Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (617) 253-3405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reports * Comparative Assessment of Fuel Cell Cars (2003), by Malcolm A. Weiss, John B. Heywood, Andreas Schafer, and Vinod K. Natarajan. PDF Document http://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/LFEE_2003-001_RP.pdf * On the Road in 2020: A Life-cycle Analysis of New Automobile Technologies (2000), by Malcolm A. Weiss, John B. Heywood, Elisabeth M. Drake, Andreas Schafer, and Felix F. AuYeung. PDF Document http://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/el00-003.pdf Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying! http://us.click.yahoo.com/KXUxcA/fNtFAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Two Futures, and a Choice
A couple of months old, but some interesting info nonetheless. Keith http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0303choice.html Foreign Policy In Focus | Global Affairs Commentary Two Futures, and a Choice By Tom Athanasiou March 6, 2003 Editor: John Gershman, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) Editor's Note: This piece was commissioned under the auspices of the Project Against the Present Danger. Whether to invade Iraq, and whether to act aggressively to prevent catastrophic climate change may seem to be two separate decisions, but in fact they represent a single fateful choice about the future. The war, it seems, is now all but inevitable. The Bush people are committed, and so too, inescapably, are we. For despite all we know about bombings and bitterness, and all we can safely predict about unintended consequences, the lock is in. The problem now is to compose a decent protest sign. The climatic future, for its part, is still open, but it's closing in significant ways, and more rapidly than most people realize. And this despite the fact that 2002, for all its other grim distinctions, was also the year in which the greenhouse skeptics were finally recognized as the spiritual cousins of tobacco company PR men. Let one fact stand for them all: the Arctic ice is melting, fast; before the end of the century, polar bears will be extinct outside of zoos. Furthermore, the climate negotiations are in trouble. And, frankly, it's looking less and less likely that we're going to be able to make it down into the soft landing corridor, to arrive, shaken but alive, somewhere this side of climate catastrophe. The problem has a million faces, but the U.S. effort to destroy the Kyoto Protocol certainly looms large among them. It comes to this: we Americans are only 4% of the world's population, but we emit 25% of its greenhouse gases. Moreover, we claim this vast atmospheric space as if it were our birthright. We won't pay for it--which is ultimately what the climate negotiations demand--and, indeed, our government seems increasingly willing to use force to protect our access to the cheap oil that, burned in the bellies of SUVs, rises again as carbon dioxide, and engenders floods, droughts, famines, and extinctions around the world. One recent protest sign asked Just war or just oil? Alas, we know the answer all too well. The administration's view, after all, is available for all to read in the May 2001 report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, better known as the Cheney Report. Here we learn that the vice president expects U.S. oil imports to rise from 52% of total consumption in 1999 to over 70% percent in 2020, and that because total oil use will also rise, the U.S. will have to import 60% more oil in 2020 than it does today; Cheney's team sees U.S. oil imports rising from the current 10.4 million barrels per day to an estimated 16.7 million barrels per day in 2020. These are, of course, badly cooked numbers, relying on strangely low projections of domestic oil production, and linear extrapolations of oil consumption. Cheney didn't say that oil consumption will rise, but rather that it would have to grow. As in To meet U.S. oil demand [in 2020] oil and product imports would have to grow by a combined 7.5 million barrels per day. It's a big difference: not a statement of fact, but a choice of a future. But many analysts, including those at the Department of Energy's own National Laboratories and Boston's Tellus Institute, have shown that there is another future, a cleaner but not poorer future in which oil imports can be reduced without drilling in America's remaining wilderness areas. The DOE's Clean Energy Futures study shows that U.S. oil consumption can remain near 2000 levels through 2020--a 21% reduction below their own business as usual projections and more than 30% below Cheney's inflated numbers--without harming the economy one whit. And Tellus' 2001 report, The American Way to the Kyoto Protocol, goes further, projecting even greater reductions in both energy use and greenhouse pollution at a net savings of $50 billion per year. None of these scenarios eliminate U.S. oil imports completely; nor do they reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to a long-term, sustainable per capita level. But they show that policies and technologies available today can put us on a new path--a path to both a cleaner environment and real global cooperation. That path, of course, would be a long one, and full of surprises. But unlike the path that the Cheney team would have us think inevitable, it would open into a future worth having. And it's there to be taken. (Tom Athanasiou [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the co-author of Dead Heat: Global Justice and Global Warming and a regular contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org).) Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Make Money Online Auctions! Make
Re: [biofuel] 1.9 vw diesel without turbo
--- Stanley Baer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remember someone asking about putting a VW diesel engine in a Japanese pickup. That was me and I put a 1.6 litre diesel out of a 86 Golf in a 92 Isuzu 4X4 pickup. My problem is that the thing is terribly underpowered, I can't get it over a 100 km/hour on a flat road. Hills are a big problem. The swap does not allow for a turbo because it would interfere with the Isuzu starter. Would a 1.9 TD without the turbo work and how much power would it have? Stan You make no mention of other modifications, which leads me to believe you are thinking of just doing without the turbo. Here are a couple of things that would be taken into account when an engine is at the design stage. Air is about 23% oxygen, the rest being mostly nitrogen and trace gases (as this concerns combustion, the rest doesnt matter). At sea level, 1 cubic foot of air weighs around 0.076 lb (0.034kg) @ 60° F (15.55° C). In order to efficiently burn 1 lb (0.45 kg) of diesel oil, 3.33 lbs (1.51kg) of oxygen is required. As air is 23% oxygen (by weight 21% by volume) to burn 1 US gal (3.78 lts) of diesel at sea level will take about 1,500 cubic ft (42.47 cubic m) of air @ 60°F and more will be needed at higher altitude and temperatures. As the flow of air is critical, an engine designed to be turbocharged needs a turbo to provide enough air to run at optimum efficiency. Hope this is of use to you, William. Ps I took the above figures from Marine Diesel Engines by Nigel Calder __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles. No Late Fees Free Shipping. Try Netflix for FREE! http://us.click.yahoo.com/YoVfrB/XP.FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] FLUID PUMP , METAL PREFILTER , MICRON SIZE FILTER ,BALL , WVO BURNER
Dear professor Kwang, I am interested in your complete set or pieces. please send info/foto's and prices. best regards karel vertommen --- albert_kwong2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have designed and test proved and currently in use of above items for my Biodiesel making (AC-DC Converter, hose, small fluid pumps , hose, metal Prefilter , and micron size filter , small perfect drillable metal ball, 0.01 inch drill bit, for fuel and WVO and Barbington test ) and find it very handy and successful , all at a very affordable price and save you a lot of time trying to locate it and piece meal it yourself with no fun at all. I have surplus here in my lab, If anyone interested to buy a set or individual pieces, I can send pictures and mail it .. all items are new and in original package unwrapped. Hope this helps all. Prof. Albert Kwong __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Rent DVDs from home. Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE! http://us.click.yahoo.com/BVVfoB/hP.FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] MIT: Hydrogen Car No Better than Diesel Hybrid
bush and the current admin are pushing for the hydrogen cars because they want to revive the nuclear power industry...they see us using nukes to crack water and make hydrogen...what does everyone think about this? kn sac, ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/05/03 10:34AM http://lfee.mit.edu/features/hydrogen_vehicles Laboratory For Energy and the Environment Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle won't reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020; diesel and gasoline hybrids are a better bet, concludes an MIT study Published in MIT Tech Talk, March 5, 2003. Even with aggressive research, the hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle will not be better than the diesel hybrid (a vehicle powered by a conventional engine supplemented by an electric motor) in terms of total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, says a study recently released by the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (LFEE). And while hybrid vehicles are already appearing on the roads, adoption of the hydrogen-based vehicle will require major infrastructure changes to make compressed hydrogen available. If we need to curb greenhouse gases within the next 20 years, improving mainstream gasoline and diesel engines and transmissions and expanding the use of hybrids is the way to go. These results come from a systematic and comprehensive assessment of a variety of engine and fuel technologies as they are likely to be in 2020 with intense research but no real breakthroughs. The assessment was led by Malcolm A. Weiss, LFEE senior research staff member, and John B. Heywood, the Sun Jae Professor of Mechanical Engineering and director of MIT's Laboratory for 21st-Century Energy. Release of the study comes just a month after the Bush administration announced a billion-dollar initiative to develop commercially viable hydrogen fuel cells and a year after establishment of the government-industry program to develop the hydrogen fuel-cell-powered FreedomCar. The new assessment is an extension of a study done in 2000, which likewise concluded that the much-touted hydrogen fuel cell was not a clear winner. This time, the MIT researchers used optimistic fuel-cell performance assumptions cited by some fuel-cell advocates, and the conclusion remained the same. The hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle has low emissions and energy use on the road--but converting a hydrocarbon fuel such as natural gas or gasoline into hydrogen to fuel this vehicle uses substantial energy and emits greenhouse gases. Ignoring the emissions and energy use involved in making and delivering the fuel and manufacturing the vehicle gives a misleading impression, said Weiss. However, the researchers do not recommend stopping work on the hydrogen fuel cell. If auto systems with significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions are required in, say, 30 to 50 years, hydrogen is the only major fuel option identified to date, said Heywood. The hydrogen must, of course, be produced without making greenhouse gas emissions, hence from a non-carbon source such as solar energy or from conventional fuels while sequestering the carbon emissions. The assessment highlights the advantages of the hybrid, a highly efficient approach that combines an engine (or a fuel cell) with a battery and an electric motor. Continuing to work on today's gasoline engine and its fuel will bring major improvements by 2020, cutting energy use and emissions by a third compared to today's vehicles. But aggressive research on a hybrid with a diesel engine could yield a 2020 vehicle that is twice as efficient and half as polluting as that evolved technology, and future gasoline engine hybrids will not be far behind, the study says. Other researchers on the study were Andreas Schafer, principal research engineer in the Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development, and Vinod K. Natarajan (S.M. 2002). The new report and the original On the Road in 2020 study from 2000 are available at http://lfee.mit.edu/publications under Reports (or see below). CONTACT: Nancy Stauffer Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (617) 253-3405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reports * Comparative Assessment of Fuel Cell Cars (2003), by Malcolm A. Weiss, John B. Heywood, Andreas Schafer, and Vinod K. Natarajan. PDF Document http://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/LFEE_2003-001_RP.pdf * On the Road in 2020: A Life-cycle Analysis of New Automobile Technologies (2000), by Malcolm A. Weiss, John B. Heywood, Elisabeth M. Drake, Andreas Schafer, and Felix F. AuYeung. PDF Document http://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/el00-003.pdf Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [biofuel] 1.9 vw diesel without turbo
Hi STan - This may seem like a silly question - but why are your running an Izusu starter on a VW engine ? You can ad a turbo to the engine you have - if you construct your exhaust properly. The most important thing is to size the turbo compressor and turbine wheels and their respective housings appropriately. This is the most important issue to reduce turbo lag and have the turbo kick in when you need it. Also - try to get a water cooled turbo housing - it will keep the bearings from cooking. I highly recommend the book Turbochargers by Hugh McInnes- very straightforward, easy to understand and implement concepts and ideas. Also- try calling Turbo City in California (L.A ? ) They have been around for years and know their business. Finally - the 1.9 L is not quite 20% bigger than your current engine - Have you actually checked with VW to see if the Hp is 20 greater than waht you have now? Perhaps you should check out some VW enthusiast sites to get some ideas. YOu've already done one swap and it's not what you want - get the facts on your new idea before you have to do the job twice...Ed [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Rent DVDs from home. Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE! http://us.click.yahoo.com/BVVfoB/hP.FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] eBay item 2320591442 (Ends May-10-03 132010 PDT ) - Grow ur own~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Button mushrooms. Don't need a greenhouse for this. Turn paper and straw into food. What's left makes good mulch. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2320591442category=3185 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying! http://us.click.yahoo.com/KXUxcA/fNtFAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] The Secrets of September 11
The Secrets of September 11 The White House is battling to keep a report on the terror attacks secret. Does the 2004 election have anything to do with it? NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE http://www.msnbc.com/news/907379.asp April 30, 2003 ÷ Even as White House political aides plot a 2004 campaign plan designed to capitalize on the emotions and issues raised by the September 11 terror attacks, administration officials are waging a behind-the-scenes battle to restrict public disclosure of key events relating to the attacks. AT THE CENTER of the dispute is a more-than-800-page secret report prepared by a joint congressional inquiry detailing the intelligence and law-enforcement failures that preceded the attacks÷including provocative, if unheeded warnings, given President Bush and his top advisers during the summer of 2001. The report was completed last December; only a bare-bones list of ãfindingsä with virtually no details was made public. But nearly six months later, a ãworking groupä of Bush administration intelligence officials assigned to review the document has taken a hard line against further public disclosure. By refusing to declassify many of its most significant conclusions, the administration has essentially thwarted congressional plans to release the report by the end of this month, congressional and administration sources tell NEWSWEEK. In some cases, these sources say, the administration has even sought to ãreclassifyä some material that was already discussed in public testimony÷a move one Senate staffer described as ãludicrous.ä The administrationâs stand has infuriated the two members of Congress who oversaw the report÷Democratic Sen. Bob Graham and Republican Rep. Porter Goss. The two are now preparing a letter of complaint to Vice President Dick Cheney. Graham is ãincreasingly frustratedä by the administrationâs ãunwillingness to release what he regards as important information the public should have about 9-11,ä a spokesman said. In Grahamâs view, the Bush administration isnât protecting legitimate issues of national security but information that could be a political ãembarrassment,ä the aide said. Graham, who last year served as Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, recently told NEWSWEEK: ãThere has been a cover-up of this.ä Grahamâs stand may not be terribly surprising, given that the Florida Democrat is running for president and is seeking to use the issue himself politically. But he has found a strong ally in House Intelligence Committee Chairman Goss, a staunch Republican (and former CIA officer) who in the past has consistently defended the administrationâs handling of 9-11 issues and is considered especially close to Cheney. ãI find this process horrendously frustrating,ä Goss said in an interview. He was particularly piqued that the administration was refusing to declassify material that top intelligence officials had already testified about. ãSenior intelligence officials said things in public hearings that they [administration officials] donât want us to put in the report,ä said Goss. ãThatâs not something I can rationally accept without further public explanation.ä Unlike Graham, Goss insists there are no political ãgotchasä in the report, only a large volume of important information about the performance and shortcomings of U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies prior to September 11. And even congressional staffers close to the process say it is unclear whether the administrationâs resistance to public disclosure reflects fear of political damage or simply an ingrained ãculture of secrecyä that permeates the intelligence community÷and has strong proponents at the highest levels of the White House. The mammoth report reflects nearly 10 months of investigative work by a special staff hired jointly by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and overseen by Eleanor Hill, a former federal prosecutor and Pentagon inspector general. Hillâs team got access to hundreds of thousands of pages of classified documents from the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and other executive-branch agencies. The staff also conducted scores of interviews with senior officials, field agents and intelligence officers. (They were not, however, given access to some top White House aides, such as national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice or other principals like Secretary of State Colin Powell or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.) The teamâs report was approved by the two intelligence committees last Dec. 10. But because the document relied so heavily on secret material, the administration ãworking group,ä overseen by CIA director George Tenet, had to first ãscrubä the document and determine which portions could be declassified. More than two months later, the
Re: [biofuel] MIT: Hydrogen Car No Better than Diesel Hybrid
Once somewhat involved in the design and building of the last reactors in Sweden, I am not a starch opponent of nuclear one pass power. It is the enrichment of several passes and the massive amount of enriched material it results in, that make me a very strong opponent to nuclear power. Without several passes, we only have fuel for 60 years more and it will be better to not use it at all, than produce a world that have so much enriched material that it will be impossible to control. I also think that Bush Co are looking very much to the large US coal reserves, when they talking about hydrogen. It does not make sense to look at oil products for the US independence, when the US R/P is only 11,7 years for its own resources. The coal with over 200 years R/P makes more sense for independence, but a disaster for environment. The President who takes this route will kill his own people, for the interest of corporate profits. My opinion is that a maximizing of energy saving, combined with good biofuel production is the only short term ready for use technologies. Solar and wind products are today commodities and give some more legs to stand on. For developing countries, this might be the only path to the future. For US also, but first they have to give up the idea of corporate energy control and a silver bullet solution, that process could be very difficult. It is also boring hard work that has to be done and that is not really the American way of life. Hakan At 11:47 AM 5/6/2003 +0900, you wrote: bush and the current admin are pushing for the hydrogen cars because they want to revive the nuclear power industry...they see us using nukes to crack water and make hydrogen...what does everyone think about this? kn sac, ca Nukes and fossil-fuels both I'd say. This just in on nukes: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nuke4may04,1,5129372.story May 4, 2003 THE NATION Nuclear Energy Industry Sees Its Fortunes Turning in Capital By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON - The U.S. nuclear power industry - at a virtual standstill for more than 20 years and looking particularly bleak after Sept. 11, 2001 - could be on the threshold of a comeback. Since 1973, no company has ordered a nuclear plant that it eventually completed. Now, energy legislation expected to clear the Senate within the next few weeks would provide federal loan guarantees for up to half the cost of building as many as six new nuclear power plants. The federal loan guarantees would be just one part - although an important one - of a complicated economic and political puzzle that would need to be assembled before any nuclear plants are built. Wall Street still must be convinced of the economic viability of constructing such plants. And nuclear power remains controversial, with critics charging that the benefits aren't worth the risks of a catastrophic accident. Security concerns spiked after Sept. 11. Doomsday scenarios envisioned a hijacked plane crashing into one of the nation's 103 commercial nuclear power plants, potentially causing radiation leaks. Government officials beefed up security at plants and distributed nearly 10 million potassium iodide pills, which can help protect the thyroid in case of an emergency, to residents near plants. Supporters of nuclear power believe it is important that the industry move forward again. The industry's fortunes have improved under President Bush, who has made expansion of nuclear power a prime goal of his energy policy. They brightened more after Republicans gained control of both chambers of Congress in last year's elections and Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) became chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Domenici, whose home state was the site of the first test of an atomic bomb in 1945 and today is where two national nuclear laboratories operate, is the author of the Senate legislation. He is confident about the prospects for the measure, citing congressional approval last year for designating Nevada's Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository. Along with the loan guarantees, the Senate bill would authorize $1 billion for building an advanced nuclear reactor in Idaho that would produce hydrogen, a fuel that Bush has championed for cars. If the demonstration [project] succeeds, it could well initiate a major nuclear reactor renaissance, said Jay E. Silberg, a Washington lawyer for nuclear utilities. The Senate legislation and an energy bill approved by the House last month would extend a cap on the nuclear industry's liability in case of an accident. And both measures would authorize millions of dollars for nuclear research. Although the House energy bill does not include the loan guarantees, the issue is likely to be on the table when House and Senate negotiators draw up a final measure. Suffice to say America needs a strong nuclear power industry if we're going to meet our energy needs in the 21st century, said Ken
[biofuel] Re: Here's the proof: was, I think Bush pressed the button
Icarus Solem wrote: Yes, it seems true. There is a guy named Chris Floyd on the web who has been writing about that for some time. Apparently, the fossil fuel lobby is behind all these people (even the Gore family has $500,000 + in Occidental Petroleum stock), and the Bush Administration Cheney-Halliburton, Rice-Chevron, Whitman-Amoco, Bush-Harken (use their full names,now) reads like a who's-who - not even bothering to use proxy politicians anymore - of the 'Seven Sisters' of Standard Oil. Don't forget Rumsfeld: http://www.TomPaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7577 Rumsfeld's Old Flame Everyone's heard of Vice President Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton, a company standing on the brink of a bonanza as the government doles out post-war reconstruction dollars. But not enough has been revealed about Bechtel, a reported finalist for the first round of contracts, and its connections to another of the war's architects: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It's a sordid little tale, and one that calls into question the depth of Rumsfeld's virtuous claims about his intentions to liberate the Iraqis. [more] In Crude Vision: How Oil Interests Obscured US Government Focus On Chemical Weapons Use by Saddam Hussein the Institute for Policy Studies reveals that the diplomatic pressure from Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration happened during and despite Hussein's use of chemical weapons. Behind the scenes, these officials worked for two years attempting to secure the billion dollar pipeline scheme for the Bechtel corporation. The Bush/Cheney administration now eyes Bechtel as a primary contractor for the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure. - From: Rumsfeld Ignored Weapons Of Mass Destruction In Pursuit Of Oil Pipeline http://www.seen.org/pages/reports/crude.shtml http://www.ips-dc.org/crudevision/crude_vision.pdf It is the old game of global domination and control, based on the world trade in fossil fuels, backed up the fact that oil must be traded in dollars. Who pays the price? The people of Argentina, the Middle East, Columbia, Venezuela, California, etc. Closely tied to the military... I've been watching this unfolding since the 70s, especially after the fall of the Shah of Iran, with the sneaky step-by-step back-door moves of what was then called the Rapid Deployment Force to station US troops in Saudi Arabia, finally accomplished with Gulf War v1, and, I'm certain, a, or even the, major goal of Gulf War v1. Horrific consequences have been predicted for 25 years, including by me. Sept 11 fits the bill pretty well. How much simpler it would have been just to have dealt honestly and honorably with Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s in the first place, instead of a sleazy CIA-backed coup to salve the paranoias of the Seven Sisters. And what a sad and futile path we've all travelled since then, and still travel now, because of these blind, arrogant, murderous and downright insane fools. Christians they call themselves, huh. Three blind monkeys they worship - greed, fear and hatred. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/ma_273_01.html MotherJones.com | News The Thirty-Year Itch Three decades ago, in the throes of the energy crisis, Washington's hawks conceived of a strategy for US control of the Persian Gulf's oil. Now, with the same strategists firmly in control of the White House, the Bush administration is playing out their script for global dominance. By Robert Dreyfuss March/April 2003 Issue P L U S : Oil and Arms: An In-Depth Look If you were to spin the globe and look for real estate critical to building an American empire, your first stop would have to be the Persian Gulf. The desert sands of this region hold two of every three barrels of oil in the world -- Iraq's reserves alone are equal, by some estimates, to those of Russia, the United States, China, and Mexico combined. For the past 30 years, the Gulf has been in the crosshairs of an influential group of Washington foreign-policy strategists, who believe that in order to ensure its global dominance, the United States must seize control of the region and its oil. Born during the energy crisis of the 1970s and refined since then by a generation of policymakers, this approach is finding its boldest expression yet in the Bush administration -- which, with its plan to invade Iraq and install a regime beholden to Washington, has moved closer than any of its predecessors to transforming the Gulf into an American protectorate. [more] Sometimes two plus two does add up to four. Unfortunately, people with ties to the US economic system can't seem to think beyond the amount of cash in their pockets. The double-blind system, where individuals see their 'fund performance' and funds see their 'companies performance' and CEO's serve their shareholders first, and their upper management second, and their lower-level staff and communities last...well, this 'double blind' means that the average citizen
