Re: [biofuel] Digest Number 223
Thanks David My still column is 6.25 inch ID. I have Silicone rings used to join the tubing which I will attemp to use to seal around the rounds inside the tubing. I was toying with the idea of running a rod through I think 10 x 2 thick rounds with a large (perforated) washer top and bottom so I can draw the whole thing out of the column to pressure clean it when needed. On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 05:16:35 +1300 DAVID REID [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Re Still Packing John, How big a still ie. column size are you talking about here? Depending on size they would probably work ok. If the column was a reasonable size (large)used as random packing they should work well. If used as a packing cut to size,as I think you are suggesting, covering the diameter of the column, and stacked on top of one another they would also work well but in this later case they would need to be laser cut to fit well and to avoid channeling. What is important here is interfacial area. In this latter case they would probably cover columns from 3 to 12 in diam. Below this the fins are probably too widely spaced to allow proper separation to occur. Plasma cutting would splay the cut too much and you would end up with too many rough edges and gaps I believe. B.r., David Message: 9 Re: Yields I think a further point is the ease of harvesting in a low tech manner. I believe the majority of brazilian sugar cane is produced by small growers Sugar cane is fairly easy and quick to handle manually. while the harvesting of grain is pretty labour intensive without access to harvesting machinery. On :Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:56:24 +1300 DAVID REID [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrote Re: Yields People and Sam, A point that everyone might have missed from the table below that Sam posted earlier is that while this table shows the yield per ton it is based on the natural air weight of the product listed ie it includes water eg. wheat and corn both have approx water contents around 12% on average (and close on 75% carbohydrate levels) whereas potatoes and sugar have water contents quite often up in the high 80s %wise (and carbohydrate levels of 90% when the water is removed). This is a point that always has to be remembered when dealing with any plant product and calculating the conversion efficiency. If you leave the ethanol manufacturer out of it what it comes down to is the yield per acre as far as the grower goes and if you leave the grower out the yield per ton as far as the etahnol manufacturer goes. It really depends on which side of the fence you stand. B.r., David Message: 11 Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:02:34 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re Still Packing maybe rolls of them would work better. John Harris wrote: Has anybody any thoughts on how rounds the size of the column punched out of old car radiators would work as packing in a still. will try it out unless someone has tried and failed Thanks John How do you mean rolls ?? I think the vapour liquid flow still has to be through the fins in the same direction as airflow how do we achieve this with rolls? Thanks John -- eGroups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/837408/_/977152837/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [biofuel] Digest Number 223
John, Will probably work well on this size column. A few words of advice though and a few questions. Dont expect a long life out of the cores so dont spend a lot of money on them. I say this from experience as owning a number of old cars over the years and recoring the radiators because most of the motors have not been too brilliant and tend to run too hot, have found the recored radiators do not last too long with constant heat changes. Also modern cores arnt as good as older ones as everything is now made to a price and they arnt designed to last. If using pressure to clean these out use very low pressure or you will damage them and bend and distort the fins closing some of them up, and quickly causing channeling. Make sure you use insulation on the column at least. Good solid rubber underlay fixed with masking tape and/or danband (blue nylon strapping) and appropriate buckles pulled up tight do a good job and are cheap Rod through the centre and perforated plate washers (Approx 1/4 holes covering at least 1/3 of the area)at either end will help tremendously. Use threaded rod and put a nut either side of washer plate. Look through yellow pages and find radiator manufacturers and give them a call to source radiator core material. Try to use as good a core material as you can easily and cheaply get. Maybe you can even obtain new damaged cores to cut the rounds out of. (Will definitely last longer). Old ones are on the way out due to metal fatigue due to continuous temperature changes. Also try Holden as a likely source. Ring around the radiator rebuilders as a last resort Column should be at least 6' (72 or 1830mm) long minimum and preferably at least 9' (108 or 2750mm). A good rule of thumb and one the old timers used to use was 20 times the diameter for the length.( = approx 120 or say 3 M). Even at 15 times this equals 7'-4 (88 or say 2250mm). I dont know about your 10 x 2 This only equals 20 . More like 40 required I think although you may be able to cut the length and number down. Personally I wouldnt go below the 15 x figure for the length. Again as I said above make sure you insulate the column properly. A double layer will work even better minimising heat energy losses. The first layer insulates and holds the heat, the second stops it radiating it out How are you intending to heat the still by the way, electricity, gas, waste oil or wood? This is critical as it is this cost that will quickly determine wether the project is a success or failure. Also what are you using for your fermentation stock? I can probably sell you a very good, precise, and accurate controller shortly (probably about 5 to 6 weeks away) if you need one at realistic cost which we have just finished the design of for my own stills that I intend to put out shortly. (just in process of finishing and testing prototype). Good luck with your efforts . Again as previously mentioned I would use laser cutting for your discs. These are expensive machines so the price is likely to be expensive but it is the only thing that will do a good job. Do yourself a favour and ring around. Explain what you are trying to do and who knows at this time of year you might find someone who catches the xmas spirit and is prepared to help. If you need more help please ask. B.r., David -Original Message- From: John Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@egroups.com biofuel@egroups.com Date: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 4:20 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Digest Number 223 Thanks David My still column is 6.25 inch ID. I have Silicone rings used to join the tubing which I will attemp to use to seal around the rounds inside the tubing. I was toying with the idea of running a rod through I think 10 x 2 thick rounds with a large (perforated) washer top and bottom so I can draw the whole thing out of the column to pressure clean it when needed. On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 05:16:35 +1300 DAVID REID [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Re Still Packing John, How big a still ie. column size are you talking about here? Depending on size they would probably work ok. If the column was a reasonable size (large)used as random packing they should work well. If used as a packing cut to size,as I think you are suggesting, covering the diameter of the column, and stacked on top of one another they would also work well but in this later case they would need to be laser cut to fit well and to avoid channeling. What is important here is interfacial area. In this latter case they would probably cover columns from 3 to 12 in diam. Below this the fins are probably too widely spaced to allow proper separation to occur. Plasma cutting would splay the cut too much and you would end up with too many rough edges and gaps I believe. B.r., David Message: 9 Re: Yields I think a further point is the ease of harvesting in a low tech manner. I believe the majority of brazilian sugar cane is produced by small growers Sugar cane is fairly easy and quick to handle manually.
Re: [biofuel] Water content of ethanol
Ken, Your right. Ideally ethanol should be anhydrous when mixed with gasoline (likewise with ethanol by itself as a fuel) otherwise left to sit they will separate out over a period but in reality most cars if properly tuned will run better and slightly hotter (hence better firing) and also a lot more efficiently returning much better m.p.g. when a smaller % of water is present in the fuel. I have seen reports of cars running as low as 140 proof (70%) and even a report of a car still running at 130 (65%). I certainly would not try this though. I believe quite a lot of cars will run at 160 (80%) but even this is too low from what I know as the engine will still run too hot. (The hotter the engine the more the wear). If you want a good figure virtually all cars will run at although they still need to be tuned properly I suggest you start at 180 (90%). This is one that is relatively easy to achieve and should not cause too many problems. One still needs to start and stop on petrol to make starting easier. In the past most engine blocks and heads were made of cast iron which were also fairly temperature tolerant. Today most heads are made of aluminium which is more prone to distortion and it is a lot easier to blow a head gasket so I would attempt to increase that % by a further 2 or 3% to be on the safe side. Also in the past there were a number of additives available that tended to keep the water in suspension rather than letting it separate out. Some of these were dangerous chemicals that increased the contaminants and pollution and their use today is justifiably heavily frowned on. One of the ways I have always thought that cars that use a mixture of ethanol, water and gasonline could be improved is with a electro fuel pump that circulated the fuel in the tank at startup or the incorporation of some other mixing device. If you want to use ethanol and you are reasonably competent with your hands most of the changes required are relatively simple and you can easily do most of them yourself. Most large good city libraries if they have been in existence for some time will have one or two books on using ethanol and the changes required. As ethanol is a pretty good solvent when it comes to cellulose products and one or two plastics (most are pretty good) among the changes required are some hoses and paper gaskets (especially in the carburettor) and advancing the timing normally anywhere from 8 to 15% max with pure ethanol. As a general rule the older the car the easier the changes required. If you want to have no problems start at 190 proof (95%) and work backwards slowly making the minor adjustments and checking as you go so you have no problems. Ethanol can be mixed with gasoline anywhere from as low as 0.5% as an anti-knock compound at the bottom end up to 85% and even 100% as a fuel. Obviously the higher you go the more modifiacations and tuning required. B.r., David -Original Message- From: Ken Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@egroups.com biofuel@egroups.com Date: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 10:53 AM Subject: [biofuel] Water content of ethanol A question for the experts from a new guy -- I'm pretty sure ethanol has to be nearly absolute when you mix it with gasoline, or the EtOH and water separate out together. But it seems like if you're burning just ethanol in an internal combustion engine, it could have a lot more water in it. How much water is OK, both with and without gasoline in the picture? Thx, -K -- - | To be is to do. |\||/ | -Sartre |@@ | | (\/) | To do is to be. | () | -Spinoza |\ / | |/||\ | Do be do be do. | / \ | -Sinatra | - Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- eGroups Sponsor -~-~ eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/837408/_/977186886/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[biofuel] Water content of ethanol
A question for the experts from a new guy -- I'm pretty sure ethanol has to be nearly absolute when you mix it with gasoline, or the EtOH and water separate out together. But it seems like if you're burning just ethanol in an internal combustion engine, it could have a lot more water in it. How much water is OK, both with and without gasoline in the picture? Thx, -K -- - | To be is to do. |\||/ | -Sartre |@@ | | (\/) | To do is to be. | () | -Spinoza |\ / | |/||\ | Do be do be do. | / \ | -Sinatra | - -- eGroups Sponsor -~-~ eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/837408/_/977176326/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[biofuel] Fermentable grains
Skaar, As Geoff has pointed out they need to be broken down to simple sugars Yeast while they can even take in and absorb more complex sugars like dextrose (a dimer or two molecule sugar) in order to utilize sugars need these available in the form of glucose. With the process of photosynthesis plants produce glucose unitswhich are then linked together to form more complex sugars like detrose, dextrins (many dextrose units linked together), sucrose, fructose,cellulose, etc etc.Fermentation is normally done by acid or enzymatic hydrolysis action where the molecule normally takes the hydrogen atom from water (H2O)to make ethanol, and oxygen is combined with carbon atoms(CO2). Most grains are no longer simple mono sugars but lots of more complex sugars) starch in the form of amylose and amylopectin locked up in chains which needto be broken down first in order to be used. Only those plants that produce fruits where the sugars are generally left as simple sugars due to rapid ripening and growth as an attractant to animals and insects are generally fermentable without treatment (fruit itself or its juice). Those plants that grow and form slowly generally have their sugars in more complex form generally locked in place by such things as pectins lignans and cellulose. To make it easier to understand please find enclosed aSimple Sugar Primer I wrote a few months ago.. Tonyyou have my permission to put this on the site if you want. I believe it is already on Tonys site somewhere. B.r., David Sugar Primer as follows: Sugar molecules are formed from carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen by the process known as photosynthesis. Yeasts convert sugar molecules into alcohol and carbon dioxide (CO2) by means of a simple enzymatic action. There are many forms of sugar and the name the whole family is known under is saccharide. Under certain conditions sugar molecules have an attraction for one another and 2 small molecules combine and form a bigger molecule. Sometimes these molecules combine and then sometimes combine again etc creating complex saccharide molecules or chains. Small simple sugars are called monosaccharides, when 2 simple sugars combine they are called disaccharides, and when 3 or more combine they are called polysaccharides. Large polysaccharide molecules consist of thousands of small monosaccharidemolecules and pectin, gums, and cellulose are examples of these. Monosaccharides are simple sugars and there are many different kinds with each sugar molecule containing 3, 4, 5, or 6 carbon atoms with each being named after these number of carbon atoms eg. pentose = 5, hexose = 6. The two main sugars we are concerned withnamely glucose and fructose are hexose monosaccharides. Glucose is the sugar that provides the sugar for the human body. Fructose as well as being a component of sucrose is found in many different kinds of fruit and is the principle one in honey. Fructose is also sometimes known as levulose. Glucose is the main common simple sugar and is a part of many different disaccharides and polysaccharides eg. corn starch (most common source). Disaccharides are composed of 2 simple sugars combined together which can either be similar or dissimilar sugars eg. Maltose = 2 glucose molecules (dimer or double molecule of glucose), sugar or sucrose = 1 glucose + 1 fructose molecule. Normally disaccharide sugars must be hydrolyzed and split into their simple sugar components before they can be fermented. In the case of sucrose (sugar) they are split into equal numbers of glucose and fructose molecules. Glucose has a Relative Sweetness level of 70 while fructose hasdouble that level at 140. By switching a certain amount of glucose for sucrose it can be seen that it is relatively easy to adjust the Relative Sweetness level before one starts fermentation. Disaccharides are produced commercially by the incomplete hydrolysis of larger more complex polysaccharides ie. the hydrolysis process is halted prematurely rather than being taken to the final stage of being further split into glucose and the other components sugar/s. It can also be produced by combining 2 monosaccharide sugars by means of a condensation reaction to form disaccharide sugars. Microorganisms such as yeast produce enzymes that hydrolyze sucrose. Lactose is another disaccharide (milk sugar) and is only found in milk from mammals. It is made up of 1 glucose sugar and 1 galactose sugar molecule. In the case of NZ and Australiait is the major source ofcommercially available spirits. It is easily hydrolyzed and has practically no sweet taste having a Relative Sweetness of 40. It is therefore very easy to combinewith most spirit bases without changing the profile. To hydrolyse lactose you need the enzyme lactase which allows the feedstock to then be fermented by the common Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeasts. A principal source of lactase is the yeast Kluyveromyces fragilis which is more commonly
Re: [biofuel] Yields
my agreement jumps down from a balcony and sissy slaps you around(in other words, gotcha). are there any grains which are direct fermented? Geoff Pritchard wrote: > Also remember that in addition to the moisture content of the various > feedstocks, some of those (wheat, corn, other cereal grains) are not > DIRECTLY fermented. These are high starch materials that must first > be > broken down to simple sugars (via sprouting - like they do with > malting > barley prior to brewing OR with added enzymes). The point is (sorry) > that stocks with ample sugar like cane or beets do not require this > step > and may be cheaper/more cost efficient when producing ETOH. Just a > thought. > > Ciao, > > Geoff > > > DAVID REID wrote: > > > > People and Sam, > > A point that everyone might have missed > from the table below that Sam posted earlier is that while this table > shows the yield per ton it is based on the natural air weight of the > product listed ie it includes water eg. wheat and corn both have > approx water contents around 12% on average (and close on 75% > carbohydrate levels) whereas potatoes and sugar have water contents > quite often up in the high 80s %wise (and carbohydrate levels of 90% > when the water is removed). This is a point that always has to be > remembered when dealing with any plant product and calculating the > conversion efficiency. If you leave the ethanol manufacturer out of it > what it comes down to is the yield per acre as far as the grower goes > and if you leave the grower out the yield per ton as far as the > etahnol manufacturer goes. It really depends on which side of the > fence you stand. > > B.r., David > > > > > > > > Probable yeild from a ton of raw material based on the average > > fermentable sugar content(1): > > > > Material Gallons/Ton > > > > Wheat---all varieties 85.0 > > Corn 84.0 > > Buchwheat (OTAY PANKEE)83.4 > > Raisins81.4 > > Grain Sorghum 79.5 > > Rice, rough79.5 > > Barley 79.2 > > Dates, dry 79.0 > > Rye78.8 > > Prunes, dry72.0 > > Molasses, blackstrap 70.4 > > Sorghum Cane 70.4 > > Oats 63.6 > > Cellulose (approx.)62.0 > > Figs, dry 59.0 > > Sweet Potatoes 34.2 > > Yams 27.3 > > Potatoes 22.9 > > Sugar Beets22.1 > > Figs, fresh21.0 > > Jerusalem Artichokes 20.0 > > Pineapples 15.6 > > Sugar Cane 15.2 > > Grapes, all varieties 15.1 > > Apples 14.4 > > Apricots 13.6 > > Pears 11.5 > > Peaches11.5 > > Plums 10.9 > > Carrots 9.8 > > Cheese Whey--depends on sugar content > > > > eGroups Sponsor > > [Paid Net2phone Advertisement - Click Here!] > > Paid Net2phone Advertisement - Click Here! > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > eGroups Sponsor [Paid Net2phone Advertisement - Click Here!] Paid Net2phone Advertisement - Click Here! > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] my agreement jumps down from a balcony and sissy slaps you around(in other words, gotcha). are there any grains which are direct fermented? Geoff Pritchard wrote: Also remember that in addition to the moisture content of the various feedstocks, some of those (wheat, corn, other cereal grains) are not DIRECTLY fermented. These are high starch materials that must first be broken down to simple sugars (via sprouting - like they do with malting barley prior to brewing OR with added enzymes). The point is (sorry) that stocks with ample sugar like cane or beets do not require this step and may be cheaper/more cost efficient when producing ETOH. Just a thought. Ciao, Geoff > DAVID REID wrote: > > People and Sam, > A point that everyone might have missed from the table below that Sam posted earlier is that while this table shows the yield per ton it is based on the natural air weight of the product listed ie it includes water eg. wheat and corn both have approx
[biofuel] Re: Water content of ethanol
Ken Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A question for the experts from a new guy -- I'm pretty sure ethanol has to be nearly absolute when you mix it with gasoline, or the EtOH and water separate out together. But it seems like if you're burning just ethanol in an internal combustion engine, it could have a lot more water in it. How much water is OK, both with and without gasoline in the picture? Thx, -K With gasoline blends, no water. With no gasoline, as low as 160-proof (80%) ethanol is okay, and you gain the benefits of water injection. If you use an alcohol injection system, your mix can be as low as 50-50 (100-proof), so you can use a simple still. See The Manual for the Home and Farm Production of Alcohol Fuel by S.W. Mathewson, Chapters 2 and 3, for more info. http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library.html Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ -- eGroups Sponsor -~-~ eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/837408/_/977196695/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[biofuel] Car Makers Face Fuel Economy Fight
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20001218/bs/ye_autos_2.html Monday December 18 6:56 PM ET Car Makers Face Fuel Economy Fight By JUSTIN HYDE, AP Auto Writer DETROIT (AP) - After a year of touting their efforts to make cars and trucks more environmentally friendly, U.S. automakers will face two thorny disputes in 2001 - fuel economy and emissions - that could threaten their green credibility. This was the year that fuel economy got put on the table, said Jason Mark, transportation director for the Union of Concerned Scientists. The key question is how the auto industry deals with it in the coming year. Ford Motor Co. made a big splash in July when it announced a plan to improve the fuel economy of its sport utility vehicles by 25 percent over five years. Ford's claim riled executives at General Motors Corp. enough that the world's largest automaker came out a week later to say it too would improve the fuel economy of its SUVs. GM will be the leader in five years, or for 15 years or 20 years, vice chairman Harry Pearce said. We have spent years achieving this leadership position. And I think it's extremely important that when we talk about fuel economy, we talk about deeds, not words. GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler all announced plans to build trucks with hybrid electric power within a few years - Ford with its Escape small SUV, GM with a full-size pickup and DaimlerChrysler with its Dodge Durango SUV. And the Big Three all showed off prototypes of cars with mileage of 70 to 80 miles per gallon - at the same time, highlighting how far such exotic vehicles are from production. We really believe we can be good corporate citizens for the environment and give customers what they want, said Ford CEO Jacques Nasser earlier this month. But the companies also fought efforts to raise federal fuel economy standards that were last set in 1975. GM, Ford and the Chrysler side of DaimlerChrysler struggle to meet the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirement that their light-truck fleets average 20.7 miles per gallon because of the thirsty - and highly profitable - large pickups and SUVs. After years of banning consideration of higher standards, Congress approved a study of tougher fuel economy regulations by the National Academy of Science that is scheduled to be completed next year. Mark and other environmentalists said that study could open the door for an increase in fuel economy standards in a few years. I think the auto companies recognize that their days without improved CAFE standards are numbered, said Daniel Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming and energy programs. Maybe they bought some more time with a Bush administration, but that's not clear. The first deadline looming for the auto industry is Jan. 25, when the California Air Resources Board will consider changes in rules requiring that zero-emission vehicles make up 4 percent of annual sales by 2003. While automakers have touted hybrid vehicles powered by a gas engine and an electric motor, the board has ruled that only totally electric cars meet the zero-emission requirement. That would mean automakers would have to sell about 22,000 electric cars a year in California to meet the standards or face a $5,000 fine on every vehicle they sell there. Automakers have long contended there's no market for battery-powered cars - last year, they sold 1,277 nationwide. Environmentalists say automakers aren't making a real effort to sell and build electrics. The board's proposed changes would cut the number of zero-emissions vehicles required to about 4,650, and let automakers count hybrids toward the 4 percent goal. But the proposal has satisfied neither side. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry group composed of 13 manufacturers, has proposed a market test of electric vehicles in one city with the goal of measuring how much demand exists. Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the group, said the new proposals are slightly better, but also add pressure by lessening clean-air credits on some vehicles. The way we look at it, they have one foot on the brake and one on the accelerator, she said. Mark said CARB was wrong to back away from its mandates, and said the automakers would find a market for battery-powered vehicles if they built enough of them. Their posture on this is going to be important from an environmental perspective, he said. -- eGroups Sponsor -~-~ eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/837408/_/977201091/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[biofuel] Lawsuit Claims Execs Plotted To Drive Up Energy Prices
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/sddt/20001218/lo/lawsuit_claims_execs_plo tted_to_drive_up_energy_prices_1.html San Diego Daily Transcript Monday December 18 09:15 PM EST Lawsuit Claims Execs Plotted To Drive Up Energy Prices Charged with a massive conspiracy and the largest gouging of energy consumers in American history, a group of energy providers, including San Diego Gas Electric Co., became defendants in two class action lawsuits Monday for allegedly conspiring to keep California's deregulated gas and electric markets free of competition and artificially driving up costs for their customers. One lawsuit was filed on behalf of some 1,600 Southern California business and industrial natural gas users; the second lawsuit seeks relief for more than 1 million residential and business electricity purchasers not protected by a legislative retail rate freeze. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the lawsuits seek billions of dollars in damages, retribution and interest. The lawsuits charge top executives from Delaware-based El Paso Natural Gas Co., Southern California Gas Co. and San Diego Gas Electric with meeting in a Phoenix hotel room four years ago to hatch a conspiracy to dominate the unregulated aspects of the natural gas and electricity markets by working in concert to keep additional gas supplies from the region. Wishing to hold on to the monopolies they had when gas and electricity were regulated by the state, the companies agreed not to compete with one another, not to interfere with one another's economic interests, and to kill off bypass pipelines, the lawsuit alleges. The transportation constraints which the conspirators created eliminated competition from Canadian gas, radically drove up the price of gas, radically drove up the price of electricity, and discouraged the building of new electric generation plants to serve the California market, the complaint reads. In short, California's current 'energy crisis' ... (is) the direct result of the illegal anticompetitive acts and conspiracy of these corporate defendants in violation of their public trust, it continues. The executives allegedly first met at the Embassy Suites Hotel near Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix on or about Sept. 25, 1996, and continued to meet afterwards. As evidence of the initial meeting and its subject matter, the lawyers attached two exhibits with their lawsuits. Exhibit A is a copy of the agenda for that meeting that lists the attendees and four topics of discussion, including Discussion of Opportunities Resulting from Electric Industry Restructuring. Exhibit B is a copy of the notes taken by one of the meeting participants. In response to the litigation, Sempra Energy, which owns Southern California Gas Co. and SDGE, released a press release that said it and its two subsidiaries had not been served with the lawsuit and, as a result, couldn't comment on it. The release said, Any allegations that the company or its subsidiaries violated antitrust or other laws are completely false. It ended, On Dec. 7, SDGE filed for emergency relief from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission asking federal regulators to impose a price cap on natural gas transportation prices to the California border that, if approved, would lower costs for California gas customers. The two class action lawsuits are available online at oslaw.com/osnews/. They name SoCal Gas Co., SDGE, Sempra Energy, El Paso Natural Gas Co., El Paso Energy Corp., El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Co., El Paso Merchant Energy Co. and El Paso Merchant Energy-Gas LP as defendants. They were filed about a month after two other multibillion-dollar class action lawsuits that targeted energy generators and traders, alleging market manipulation for this summer's rate hikes. -- eGroups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/837408/_/977201090/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [biofuel] Car Makers Face Fuel Economy Fight
These carmakers are obviously in bed with the oil companies.. They make so few of these cars and price them so high only the rich can afford to go green. It is ridiculous... --Bryan - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@egroups.com Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:49 PM Subject: [biofuel] Car Makers Face Fuel Economy Fight http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20001218/bs/ye_autos_2.html Monday December 18 6:56 PM ET Car Makers Face Fuel Economy Fight By JUSTIN HYDE, AP Auto Writer DETROIT (AP) - After a year of touting their efforts to make cars and trucks more environmentally friendly, U.S. automakers will face two thorny disputes in 2001 - fuel economy and emissions - that could threaten their green credibility. This was the year that fuel economy got put on the table, said Jason Mark, transportation director for the Union of Concerned Scientists. The key question is how the auto industry deals with it in the coming year. Ford Motor Co. made a big splash in July when it announced a plan to improve the fuel economy of its sport utility vehicles by 25 percent over five years. Ford's claim riled executives at General Motors Corp. enough that the world's largest automaker came out a week later to say it too would improve the fuel economy of its SUVs. GM will be the leader in five years, or for 15 years or 20 years, vice chairman Harry Pearce said. We have spent years achieving this leadership position. And I think it's extremely important that when we talk about fuel economy, we talk about deeds, not words. GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler all announced plans to build trucks with hybrid electric power within a few years - Ford with its Escape small SUV, GM with a full-size pickup and DaimlerChrysler with its Dodge Durango SUV. And the Big Three all showed off prototypes of cars with mileage of 70 to 80 miles per gallon - at the same time, highlighting how far such exotic vehicles are from production. We really believe we can be good corporate citizens for the environment and give customers what they want, said Ford CEO Jacques Nasser earlier this month. But the companies also fought efforts to raise federal fuel economy standards that were last set in 1975. GM, Ford and the Chrysler side of DaimlerChrysler struggle to meet the Corporate Average Fuel Economy requirement that their light-truck fleets average 20.7 miles per gallon because of the thirsty - and highly profitable - large pickups and SUVs. After years of banning consideration of higher standards, Congress approved a study of tougher fuel economy regulations by the National Academy of Science that is scheduled to be completed next year. Mark and other environmentalists said that study could open the door for an increase in fuel economy standards in a few years. I think the auto companies recognize that their days without improved CAFE standards are numbered, said Daniel Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming and energy programs. Maybe they bought some more time with a Bush administration, but that's not clear. The first deadline looming for the auto industry is Jan. 25, when the California Air Resources Board will consider changes in rules requiring that zero-emission vehicles make up 4 percent of annual sales by 2003. While automakers have touted hybrid vehicles powered by a gas engine and an electric motor, the board has ruled that only totally electric cars meet the zero-emission requirement. That would mean automakers would have to sell about 22,000 electric cars a year in California to meet the standards or face a $5,000 fine on every vehicle they sell there. Automakers have long contended there's no market for battery-powered cars - last year, they sold 1,277 nationwide. Environmentalists say automakers aren't making a real effort to sell and build electrics. The board's proposed changes would cut the number of zero-emissions vehicles required to about 4,650, and let automakers count hybrids toward the 4 percent goal. But the proposal has satisfied neither side. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry group composed of 13 manufacturers, has proposed a market test of electric vehicles in one city with the goal of measuring how much demand exists. Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the group, said the new proposals are slightly better, but also add pressure by lessening clean-air credits on some vehicles. The way we look at it, they have one foot on the brake and one on the accelerator, she said. Mark said CARB was wrong to back away from its mandates, and said the automakers would find a market for battery-powered vehicles if they built enough of them. Their posture on this is going to be important from an environmental perspective, he said. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [biofuel] Yields
I can't think of any grains right off hand that don't store their NRG as starch. If you catch these grains before they're fully mature, then you may find some simple sugars present. But not for long. That's the story with sweet corn. Sweet=sugar ie. readily available and mobile NRG source but as soon as it looks like tough times (picked or end of season) sugars are converted to storage/starch for use later when the seed germinates (if someone doesn't eat it first). Hey, an inteeresting thought- those biodegradable packing peanuts are pretty much pure starch. Maybe NAH! Geoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: my agreement jumps down from a balcony and sissy slaps you around(in other words, gotcha). are there any grains which are direct fermented? Geoff Pritchard wrote: Also remember that in addition to the moisture content of the various feedstocks, some of those (wheat, corn, other cereal grains) are not DIRECTLY fermented. These are high starch materials that must first be broken down to simple sugars (via sprouting - like they do with malting barley prior to brewing OR with added enzymes). The point is (sorry) that stocks with ample sugar like cane or beets do not require this step and may be cheaper/more cost efficient when producing ETOH. Just a thought. Ciao, Geoff DAVID REID wrote: People and Sam, A point that everyone might have missed from the table below that Sam posted earlier is that while this table shows the yield per ton it is based on the natural air weight of the product listed ie it includes water eg. wheat and corn both have approx water contents around 12% on average (and close on 75% carbohydrate levels) whereas potatoes and sugar have water contents quite often up in the high 80s %wise (and carbohydrate levels of 90% when the water is removed). This is a point that always has to be remembered when dealing with any plant product and calculating the conversion efficiency. If you leave the ethanol manufacturer out of it what it comes down to is the yield per acre as far as the grower goes and if you leave the grower out the yield per ton as far as the etahnol manufacturer goes. It really depends on which side of the fence you stand. B.r., David Probable yeild from a ton of raw material based on the average fermentable sugar content(1): Material Gallons/Ton Wheat---all varieties 85.0 Corn 84.0 Buchwheat (OTAY PANKEE)83.4 Raisins81.4 Grain Sorghum 79.5 Rice, rough79.5 Barley 79.2 Dates, dry 79.0 Rye78.8 Prunes, dry72.0 Molasses, blackstrap 70.4 Sorghum Cane 70.4 Oats 63.6 Cellulose (approx.)62.0 Figs, dry 59.0 Sweet Potatoes 34.2 Yams 27.3 Potatoes 22.9 Sugar Beets22.1 Figs, fresh21.0 Jerusalem Artichokes 20.0 Pineapples 15.6 Sugar Cane 15.2 Grapes, all varieties 15.1 Apples 14.4 Apricots 13.6 Pears 11.5 Peaches11.5 Plums 10.9 Carrots 9.8 Cheese Whey--depends on sugar content eGroups Sponsor [Paid Net2phone Advertisement - Click Here!] Paid Net2phone Advertisement - Click Here! Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- eGroups Sponsor -~-~ eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/837408/_/977217772/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[biofuel] Re: Yields
I can't think of any grains right off hand that don't store their NRG as starch. If you catch these grains before they're fully mature, then you may find some simple sugars present. But not for long. That's the story with sweet corn. Sweet=sugar ie. readily available and mobile NRG source but as soon as it looks like tough times (picked or end of season) sugars are converted to storage/starch for use later when the seed germinates (if someone doesn't eat it first). Hey, an inteeresting thought- those biodegradable packing peanuts are pretty much pure starch. Maybe NAH! Geoff Why NAH, Geoff? It IS an interesting thought. Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ -- eGroups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/837408/_/977221268/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[biofuel] Australia Draws Energy, Carbon and Oil from Eucalyptus Trees
http://ens-news.com/ens/dec2000/2000L-12-15-01.html Environment News Service: Australia Draws Energy, Carbon and Oil from Eucalypt Trees Australia Draws Energy, Carbon and Oil from Eucalyptus Trees PERTH, Australia, December 15, 2000 (ENS) - A unique process of biomass energy production will be used in a demonstration plant planned for Western Australia. The facility will turn a variety of eucalyptus trees known as mallee trees into energy, high value activated carbon and eucalyptus oil. As they grow, the trees will alleviate water and salinity management problems and absorb the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. The Integrated Wood Processor will be built by Western Power, the largest electric utility in Western Australia, at a site in Narrogin, south of Perth. The plant will generate electricity and produce activated carbon using a process developed by the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the Australian government's research branch. Western Australia's Energy Minister Colin Barnett (Photo courtesy government of Western Australia) The full scale demonstration plant, equipped to handle 20,000 tons a year of whole mallee trees, will be built next year. It will produce 700 tons of activated carbon and 200 tons of eucalyptus oil annually, and have an electrical generation capacity of about one megawatt, said Western Australia's Energy Minister Colin Barnett. The CSIRO technology uses special fluidised bed burners which partially burn wood producing charcoal, explains CSIRO's Paul Fung. This releases more than half the energy originally in the wood and provides steam that will power electricity generation. Steam activation technology then converts the charcoal to activated carbon. The project involves mass planting of mallee eucalypt trees to help solve the wheatbelt's large and rapidly growing salinity problem by lowering the water table. Extensive work has already been done by the Department of Conservation Land Management and the Oil Mallee Company of Australia to develop mallee tree planting and harvesting to meet requirements of the IWP plant. We are pleased that this technology is to be used in this important renewable energy project, explains Colin Stucley of Enecon, the company licensed to develop applications for the technology. This new IWP industry has great potential to contribute simultaneously to the solution of several major environmental and greenhouse issues while creating a valuable new industry and employment in rural Western Australia. Mallee planting can be used to manage water and salinity, but large scale planting needs commercial outlets for the wood and leaves to be economically viable. Officials say the IWP plants employing the CSIRO/Enecon process will provide this control. Larger plants will have annual output of 3,500 tons of activated carbon products from 100,000 tons of whole mallee trees, and will supply five megawatts of electricity to the power grid. The original project will produce eucalyptus oil that will be distilled from the mallee leaves using steam produced during wood processing. A continuous distillation process has been developed by researchers at Curtin University. Rows of oil mallee trees grown with crops planted between the rows. (Photo courtesy CSIRO) Tests have shown these carbons are very effective in the removal of colour, taste, odour and other contaminants from Australian drinking water supplies, adds Fung, who says that work on mallee based activated carbon shows considerable potential. Application in water treatment both in Australia and in the large overseas markets is envisaged. Last year, the IWP process received an award from the international journal Chemical Engineer, which described the process as an elegant chemical engineering solution to a number of environmental problems in Australia and elsewhere. IWP received another energy and environment award in the 2000 Rabobank Agribusiness awards in Melbourne, Australia. The project has support from hundreds of wheatbelt farmers and the Western Australia Department of Conservation Land Management, which is developing special equipment to allow a harvest of the fast resprouting trees every few years once hedgerows are established. The Western Power utility is the major financial supporter of the project, assisted by the Australian Greenhouse Office and AusIndustry. While the above ground portion of the tree is harvested, the large root systems below ground continue to grow, store carbon and contribute to the long term survival of the trees. In addition to their water management and commercial uses, these sustainably managed mallee hedgerows will act as sinks for the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. © Environment News Service (ENS) 2000. -- eGroups Sponsor -~-~ eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
[biofuel] India - Emission check ultimatum may fail, again
http://www.indiaserver.com:80/thehindu/2000/12/18/stories/0418401s.htm The Hindu Monday, December 18, 2000 Emission check ultimatum may fail, again By N. Ravi Kumar CHENNAI, DEC. 17. City residents are inhaling poisonous levels of automotive emissions, but the scheme to get vehicles certified against pollution by the year-end, is again on the brink of collapse. The deadline for automobiles to get the Pollution Under Check certificate is less than a fortnight away, and as they spew pollutants into the city air, its quality has dropped to dangerously low levels. Areas like T. Nagar and Vallalar Nagar have been known to have high quantity of particulate matter, emitted largely by diesel vehicles round the year. Now, the sharp rise in the deadly Carbon Monoxide in Vallalar Nagar -- at 2,748 micrograms per cubic metre as against a permissible 2,000 mcg -- reveals the steady deterioration in the quality of city air. The Government is loath to take any strong measures against polluting vehicles at this stage, with the Assembly elections due in a few months, say officials. This is despite the strong statement by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in mid- October, that severe action would be taken against vehicles that do not conform to emission norms when the year 2001 begins. The average city resident is facing a dangerous situation as CO is a pollutant that inhibits the ability of the blood to carry oxygen to the heart and brain. Particulate matter enters the bloodstream through the lungs and can prove very harmful to people with asthma and heart problems. The possibility of extending the deadline, relaxing things for motorists but offering little comfort to the city residents, is real, officials say, despite the stand of the TNPCB officials that there would be no extensions. At present, the 65-odd functional emission centres have to contend with the lukewarm public response. From November 1 to 10, the centres conducted tests on 5,497 vehicles which dropped to 3,943 during the mid part of the month. Only 3,847 vehicles tested between November 18 and 24, while in the rest of the month, it was 3,767 more, says the Vehicle Emission Check Centres Association. The Transport Department has asked all RTOs not to register and issue Fitness Certificates to vehicles without valid certificate for pollution control. This however, does not take care of the problem to any significant degree, as vehicles have to go to the RTO rarely, with the motor vehicle tax converted to a lifetime levy. At present, just about 10 per cent of the automobile population of more than 11 lakhs are being checked for emission quality. There is also the question of genuineness of certificates being issued, considering that follow-up action for vehicles with bad emissions practically does not exist. There have also been cases of certificates being issued to vehicles that are not even checked, defeating the objective of the exercise. With the high price of fuel, the unresolved question of fare and the lax enforcement, adulterated petrol is used by large number of autorickshaws in Chennai, leading to poisoning of the air. The large number of poorly maintained MTC buses emitting thick smoke, add a substantial volume of particulate matter that is breathed in by all. -- eGroups Sponsor -~-~ Big News - eGroups is becoming Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details: http://click.egroups.com/1/10801/0/_/837408/_/977228252/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[biofuel] Sweet Deal Mirrors Australia's Changing Fuel Policy
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/dec2000/2000L-12-15-10.html Environment News Service: Sweet Deal Mirrors Australia's Changing Fuel Policy Sweet Deal Mirrors Australia's Changing Fuel Policy SYDNEY, Australia, December 15, 2000 (ENS) - Australia has finally caught up with the rest of the developed world by introducing the country's first mandatory, national fuel quality standards. And in the southern city of Melbourne, 200,000 commuters have begun using buses powered by pure ethanol produced from sugar cane waste. Parliamentary Secretary, Dr. Sharman Stone. (Photo courtesy Environment Australia) The Fuel Quality Standards Bill passed this week, replaces emissions laws equivalent to the United States standard in 1981. We had fallen 20 years behind the rest of the developed world in diesel and petrol quality, refined in Australia or allowed to be imported and sold here, said Dr. Sharman Stone, Parliamentary Secretary to Environment Minister Robert Hill. In European countries there are many smaller cars on the roads, which have highly efficient motors driven by the cleaner, better quality fuel, said Stone. These smaller cars go further on a liter of fuel and they have less effect on the air quality. Australia has one of the world's highest rates of asthma per head of population, and pollution in some Australian cities often exceeds the pollution of London, Toronto and other North American cities. The transport sector is the largest single contributor to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for almost 16 percent of the 72.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide pumped into the environment every year. The new rules will mean higher octane, lower sulfur content fuel. This should help reduce pollution as well as cut greenhouse gas emissions. Australia is struggling to meet international commitments to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other climate warming gases to eight percent of 1990 levels. Such emissions have actually grown by 16 percent. The Fuel Quality Standards Bill forms part of the Australian government's A$1 billion (US$540,000) greenhouse plan known as Measures for a Better Environment package. The new law will introduce tougher penalties to protect consumers from fuel substitution. We are very serious about protecting Australians from unclean, impure fuel, said Stone. People found guilty of supplying fuel that does not meet the new standards, altering fuel or using prohibited additives will face fines of up to A$50,000 [US$27,132]. Corporations face penalties of up to A$500,000 [US$271,324]. Ventura Bus Line's fleet now includes vehicles powered by ethanol produced from sugarcane waste. (Photo courtesy Ventura Bus Lines) The law will also harmonize regulations that used to vary significantly between Australia's states and territories. This will lower the cost of doing business for Australian producers who will no longer need to deal with different laws in different jurisdictions - a barrier to cheaper fuel, said Stone. Sugarcane power Stone was in the southern city of Melbourne earlier this month to launch a bus service powered by ethanol produced from Australian sugarcane waste. Ventura Bus Lines ethanol powered bus service transports 200,000 commuters in Melbourne's eastern and southeastern suburbs. They are Australia's first pure ethanol fueled buses, and are expected to have a positive effect on rural sugar belt communities that produce 110 million liters of ethanol annually. When ignited in the purpose built Scania engines, greenhouse emissions from ethanol are substantially less than from petrol or diesel. In addition, ethanol, unlike fossil fuels, is totally renewable. Ethanol fuel is made from molasses, a byproduct of sugar milling, and is used extensively in Europe to fuel large vehicles. With the average bus consuming 60,000 liters of fuel a year, these new services are going a long way toward reducing pollution and greenhouse emissions in the city and giving Australian farmers a boost as well, said Stone. © Environment News Service (ENS) 2000. -- eGroups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/837408/_/977228249/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[biofuel] Website Helps Diesel Truck, Bus Fleets Run Cleaner
http://ens-news.com/ens/dec2000/2000L-12-18-09.html Environment News Service: AmeriScan: December 18, 2000 Website Helps Diesel Truck, Bus Fleets Run Cleaner WASHINGTON, DC, December 18, 2000 (ENS) - A new website from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit - provides information on retrofitting diesel vehicles to help fleets run more cleanly. Nationwide, heavy duty diesel vehicles contribute 15 percent of the nation's emissions of smog causing nitrogen oxides and 22 percent of particulate matter, or soot, emissions. In urban areas, their contribution to air pollution can be even greater. An older, dirtier diesel truck or bus can emit almost eight tons of pollution in a year, which amounts to 160 to 240 tons of pollution over the life of an engine. To address the need for cleaner diesel vehicles, EPA created the Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program to match fleet operators, engine manufacturers, local governments with those who can provide the appropriate technology and resources in cleaning up dirty trucks, buses and construction equipment. The website also provides information to help manufacturers have their retrofit technologies verified by EPA for appropriate use, and shows state officials how to incorporate diesel retrofits into their air quality plans. EPA has already obtained commitments from fleet operators to retrofit more than 5,000 diesel vehicles. EPA will address emissions from new heavy duty vehicles and engines through a two part regulatory strategy, beginning with 2004 models. In other automotive news, the EPA said Friday that the average fuel economy of new model year 2000 vehicles is 24.0 miles per gallon (mpg), the lowest as it has been since 1980. Fuel economy remains at a 20 year low because light trucks - including sport utility vehicles, vans, minivans and pickup trucks - are less fuel efficient and make up almost half of the U.S. light vehicle market. More information is available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fetrends.htm. * -- eGroups Sponsor -~-~ eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/0/_/837408/_/977228256/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [biofuel] Re: half brained idea
Hi Keith and All, If you want a drag racer you need light weight. Start with the lightest vehicle you can . Use a 10 -20 hp biodiesel gen to charge a 196 vdc optima or hawker battery pack . 1 or 2 adc 9 or Ge motors to the rear diff controlled by a DCP1200 or 2. Axe the 4x4 drive because of weight. If you keep it you'll never be fast. Large drive train losses from 4 wh drives don't help either. Choose an early mini- pickup with rear wh drive if you need a truck. Wheel motors, no diff, have problems with control in marginal conditions such as rain , ice, gravel, ect . The wheel without traction will start spinning faster and faster then it catches traction causing bad handling problems. Traction control is mandatory. A better biodiesel demo would be a 100 mpg 4 seat car with a 10 hp biodiesel gen and a kick ass electric drive turning 13 second 1/4 mile times. This will cost 1/2 as much and perform much better. Keith, thanks for the info on methanol toxicity. I knew about the toxic effects of methanol but not that ethanol was the medical treatment. Don't forget that DD and producer gas, fires , things you smoke all produce methanol as does Nutra- Sweet type sweetners who's metabalites are methanol . Pilots are advised not to use them. Hope this helps, jerry dycus --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: May I make a proposal? Let's go back to Steve's original half-brained idea (biodiesel65 is Steve Spence, by the way, in one of his several current email personas). __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ -- eGroups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/0/_/837408/_/977231666/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
