Re: [biofuel] Re: gasahol
Hey All, Here's my 2 cents on ETOH fuel. Gas engines can run on straight ETOH with apparent minor alterations to motor (mostly carburation-change jet size) and the ethanol doesn't need to be anhydrous. From what I've read, can run 70% ethanol(no gas) to 90% (180 proof) with no prb. When mixing with gasoline, the problems with water arise. The downside to the gasahol thing is that it takes an incredible amount of energy (in relation to that needed to reach 80% ETOH) to drive off the last bit of water (~10%). So from an overall efficiency standpoint, gasahol exists as a sink for excess grain and allows the petroleum comps. to appear environmentally sensitive. I also seem to recall that the early auto engines (maybe early Ford) were available as either alcohol or gas burners. If this is true, those early guys (R. Diesel included) really had their ducks in a row in regards to the practical use and fueling of motor vehicles. Nobody would have believed the ludicrous measures we go through (drilling platforms in the North Sea... HA!) to fuel an engine. 'Nough said. Ciao, Geoff Keith Addison wrote: Lots of good info in the links and files from Journey to Forever. One major point to keep in mind if you're mixing this yourself is that you NEED to have anhydrous ethanol to mix with the gas. Otherwise, as I understand it, the alcohol and water separate from your gas and sit at the bottom of your tank with the gas on top...not good. I thought I had read somewhere that one could mix up to more like 20% without engine mods, but I don't have practical experience at this so I should probably shut my trap now and let someone who does help you further. -andrew --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], terry calmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know that most gasahol is made up of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline. Has any one ever used a higher ratio and to what extent? Were there any problems associated with this? Thank a bunch, Terry All Brazilian gasoline has a minimum of 24% anhydrous ethanol (v/v) content, and this will probably be upped to 26% in the near future. (Dick Carlstein) We STILL don't have good drying techniques. We've discussed lime, mol sieves, corn grits, wool, and now hydrosource. Does anyone have any actual results using any of these methods? Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/837408/_/981043300/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[biofuel] Diesel Forum Praises Massachusetts' New Truck And Bus Exhaust Smoke Testing Program
http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/Jan01/31Jan0105.html Diesel Forum Praises Massachusetts' New Truck And Bus Exhaust Smoke Testing Program BOSTON, MA January 31, -/E-Wire/-- A new Massachusetts truck and bus exhaust smoke testing program, which begins tomorrow, (2/1/01) has drawn support and praise from the Washington, DC - based Diesel Technology Forum, according to executive director Allen Schaeffer, who called the new regulation a proven method to help improve air quality within the region. The overwhelming majority of trucks and buses do not smoke, stated Schaeffer. Smoking vehicles are the exception, not the rule. This program will require the operators of smoking vehicles take the necessary steps to eliminate exhaust smoking. The regulations require that diesel trucks and buses undergo an annual smoke emissions inspection in conjunction with their required commercial vehicle safety checks. Excessive smoke is the exception and not the rule. It means there is a problem with the operation of the diesel engine-it is out of tune, needs maintenance, and not operating efficiently -- all which are not good for the operator. Smoke represents unburned fuel. That's operating dollars going right up the smokestack! Smoke testing programs are cost effective solutions that are good for the environment, for regulators, for truck and bus operators and the public. Massachusetts will join twelve other states which currently have programs to control excessive exhaust smoke. States adopting these programs can receive air quality credits toward meeting their clean air goals. Endorsed by the Federal EPA, the smoke testing programs have received encouragement and support from the Diesel Technology Forum. It is important to note that new clean diesel engines, those built since 1994, have been designed to be smoke-free, state Schaeffer. Industry has been working hard to comply with Federal clean air rules with today's modern diesel releasing only 1/8 of the level of emissions of those manufactured as recently as 1988. The diesel industry supports state-lead efforts to identify gross emitters of smoke. It is the Forum's position that buses and trucks should undergo a smoke emissions inspection on an annual basis - as passenger cars must -- to ensure proper maintenance and the lowest emissions possible. Massachusetts joins other states that have recently launched these programs including Maryland and New York. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the Registry of Motor Vehicles can be proud of their effort, stated Schaeffer. It's a win-win for everyone involved and it is part of the formula to improve air quality in the region. The Diesel Technology Forum brings together the diesel industry, the broad diesel user community, civic and public interest leaders, government regulators, academics, scientists, the petroleum industry, and public health researches, to encourage the exchange of information, ideas, scientific findings, and points-of-view to current and future uses of diesel power technology. For more information about the Forum, and additional data and graphics on smoke testing, visit our web site at www.dieselforum.org. SOURCE: Diesel Technology Forum -0- 01/31/01 /CONTACT: Ken Cynar, of Rowan Blewitt Incorporated New York, 516/741-8877 ext. 26 /Web site: www.dieselforum.org Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/837408/_/981050807/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[biofuel] Senate bill aims to cut US oil imports to 50 pct
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9665 Planet Ark Senate bill aims to cut US oil imports to 50 pct USA: January 31, 2001 WASHINGTON - US oil production would have to jump by several million barrels a day over the coming decade to meet a goal of Republican lawmakers to reduce foreign petroleum imports to just 50 percent of domestic supplies, according to draft legislation obtained by Reuters. The bill, which will be introduced next week, is expected to be a vehicle for much of President George W. Bush's broad plan to increase domestic energy supplies by opening up part of a pristine Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil and gas drilling. The bill also gives major oil companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico a break on the federal royalties they owe on oil and natural gas drilled in offshore waters. The legislation includes a variety of other provisions to boost production of renewable fuels, increase fuel standards for government-owned vehicles, and offer more assistance to poor families for paying energy bills. A draft copy of the 258-page bill was obtained by Reuters. The committee has kept the bill under close wraps and declined to comment on specific provisions, allowing only a few lawmakers and aides to see the draft version. The main goal of the legislation would be to slash US dependence on foreign imports of crude oil and refined products to 50 percent by 2010, according to the draft. Accomplishing that would require vast new supplies of US oil and natural gas as well as using more renewable energy sources like wind and solar, it said. The US Energy Department has estimated the United States imported 55 percent of its crude oil, gasoline and heating oil in 2000. The level of imports is expected to jump to 61 percent in 2010, according to the DOE forecasts. The draft legislation also directs the Energy Secretary to adopt interim goals to reduce US dependence on foreign oil to 54 percent by 2005 and to 52 percent by 2008. BOOSTING SUPPLIES SEEN DIFFICULT Whittling US oil imports back to 50 percent will be a daunting task, according to industry analysts and experts. The Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the DOE, has previously forecast the US market will consume 22.7 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil and refined products in 2010. Under the Republican legislation, that means US petroleum imports would have to be trimmed to about 11.4 million bpd in a decade. That is up from the 10 million bpd imported last year, but much lower than the 13.9 million barrel the EIA predicts will need to be imported each day by 2010. Assuming the EIA's demand forecast proves true, in order for imports to be cut to 50 percent by 2010, US oil production would have to soar by about 2.5 million bpd. It will be very difficult to reach that goal, said one EIA analyst, who asked not to be identified. Of course, oil output would not have to increase that much if there was higher energy production from renewable resources like solar, wind, hydroelectric and geothermal as the legislation seeks to do. The draft bill did not identify specific oil production or imports levels. ALL EYES ON ALASKA To increase domestic production, the Republican legislation would open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and natural gas drilling. Bush, a former Texas oilman, contends that advanced technology means the drilling would have little, if any, impact on the caribou, polar bears and other wildlife that live there. US environmental groups have vowed to fight any attempt to open the Alaskan refuge to oil drilling. The first lease sale, which could cover between 200,000 and 300,000 acres of the refuge's 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, would take place within 20 months after the legislation is signed into law. The entire refuge covers 19 million acres. A second lease sale would occur within two years of the first one. More sales would be conducted no later than 12 months after that as long as sufficient interest in development (of the refuge) exists, according to the draft bill. The US Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission would have 30 days after each lease sale to review which energy companies were awarded drilling tracts to prevent any antitrust violations. TAX BREAKS TO BOOST SUPPLIES The legislation would also provide a tax credit for owners of low-volume oil and natural gas wells, located mostly in the lower 48 states, to keep the wells operating when prices plunge. Well operators would receive a $3 tax credit on each barrel of oil when the crude price fell below $15 per barrel. Natural gas producers with the small wells would get a credit of 50 cents on each 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas production when gas prices dropped below $1.67 per thousand cubic feet. Major oil companies drilling in the Gulf of Mexico would also receive a reduction in royalty payments to the government when
[biofuel] Re: gasahol
Hi Geoff. Hey All, Here's my 2 cents on ETOH fuel. Gas engines can run on straight ETOH with apparent minor alterations to motor (mostly carburation-change jet size) and the ethanol doesn't need to be anhydrous. From what I've read, can run 70% ethanol(no gas) to 90% (180 proof) with no prb. Or 50% with alcohol injection. Then you're running on 50% water! Helps to raise the compression ratio a bit too. When mixing with gasoline, the problems with water arise. The downside to the gasahol thing is that it takes an incredible amount of energy (in relation to that needed to reach 80% ETOH) to drive off the last bit of water (~10%). 5%. I don't think it necessarily does take that much energy. Passing the vapour through a column of corn grits doesn't take much energy. So from an overall efficiency standpoint, gasahol exists as a sink for excess grain and allows the petroleum comps. to appear environmentally sensitive. I also seem to recall that the early auto engines (maybe early Ford) were available as either alcohol or gas burners. Henry designed the Model T to run on alcohol. He said it was the fuel of the future. If this is true, those early guys (R. Diesel included) really had their ducks in a row in regards to the practical use and fueling of motor vehicles. Nobody would have believed the ludicrous measures we go through (drilling platforms in the North Sea... HA!) to fuel an engine. 'Nough said. Yeah. Just saw an article on ENN on an Institute for Policy Studies report, Top 200: The Rise of Corporate Global Power, on how corporations are running the place these days. So what's new? Global economy: shifting the balance of power http://enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/01/01312001/economy_41639.asp Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ Ciao, Geoff Keith Addison wrote: Lots of good info in the links and files from Journey to Forever. One major point to keep in mind if you're mixing this yourself is that you NEED to have anhydrous ethanol to mix with the gas. Otherwise, as I understand it, the alcohol and water separate from your gas and sit at the bottom of your tank with the gas on top...not good. I thought I had read somewhere that one could mix up to more like 20% without engine mods, but I don't have practical experience at this so I should probably shut my trap now and let someone who does help you further. -andrew --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], terry calmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know that most gasahol is made up of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline. Has any one ever used a higher ratio and to what extent? Were there any problems associated with this? Thank a bunch, Terry All Brazilian gasoline has a minimum of 24% anhydrous ethanol (v/v) content, and this will probably be upped to 26% in the near future. (Dick Carlstein) We STILL don't have good drying techniques. We've discussed lime, mol sieves, corn grits, wool, and now hydrosource. Does anyone have any actual results using any of these methods? Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ 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] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/837408/_/981052323/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[biofuel] Re: ethanol as motor fuel
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a thought, if 90% ethanol was mixed with gasoline,and a water trap/filter such as on diesel engines, why would that not work? thanks gaw --- I doubt you would need a water trap, mix this up yourself, it should completely bled quite easily. Here in the UK, straight winter 95UL Gasoline can take 2%water v/v. With all that ethanol, I doubt it would be a problem. Richard Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/837408/_/981069833/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [biofuel] ethanol as motor fuel
Hi, --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a thought, if 90% ethanol was mixed with gasoline,and a water trap/filter such as on diesel engines, why would that not work? thanks gaw The water/alcohol and gas will seperate. The trap will overfill with al/ water then just pass the seperated al/ water and gasoline as they come from the intake. jerry dycus __ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/837408/_/981070236/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[biofuel] Ethanol not a renewable energy source?
Found this in a newsgroupcould someone verify it's accuracy? ENERGY AND DOLLAR COSTS OF ETHANOL PRODUCTION WITH CORN by David Pimentel Introduction Ethanol does not provide energy security for the future. It is not a renewable energy source, is costly in terms of production and subsidies, and its production causes serious environmental degradation (ERAB, 1980, 1981; Dorving, 1988; GAO, 1990; Pimentel, 1991; Sparks Commodities, 1990; Giampietro et al., 1997). Clearly, conclusions drawn about the benefits and costs of ethanol production will be incomplete or misleading if only a part of the total system is assessed (Giampietro et al., 1997). The objective of this analysis is to update and assess all the recognized factors that operate in the entire ethanol production system. These include direct and indirect costs in terms of fossil energy and dollars expended in producing the corn feedstock as well as in the fermentation and distillation processes. Energy Balance The conversion of corn and some other food/feed crops into ethanol by fermentation is a well known and established technology. In a large and efficient plant with economies of scale, the yield from a bushel of corn is about 2.5 gallons of ethanol. The production of corn in the United States requires significant energy and dollar inputs. Indeed, growing corn is a major energy and dollar cost of producing ethanol (Pimentel, 1991; Giampietro et al., 1997). For example, to produce an average of 120 bushels of corn per acre using conventional production technology requires more than 140 gallons of gasoline equivalents and costs about $280 (Pimentel, 1992). The major energy inputs in U.S. corn production are oil, natural gas, and/or other high grade fuels. Fertilizer production and fuels for mechanization account for about two-thirds of these energy inputs for corn production (Pimentel, 1991). HC#98/2-1-1 April 1998 Once corn is harvested, three additional energy expenditures contribute to the total costs in the conversion process. These include energy to transport the corn material to the ethanol plant, energy expended relating to capital equipment requirements for the plant, and energy expended in the plant operations for the fermentation and distillation processes. The average costs in terms of energy and dollars for a large modern ethanol plant (60-70 million gallon/yr) are listed in Table 1. The largest energy inputs are for corn production and fuel energy expended in the fermentation/distillation process. The total energy input to produce one gallon of ethanol is 129,600 BTU. However, one gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 76,000 BTU. Thus, a net energy loss of 53,600 BTU occurs for each gallon of ethanol produced. Put another way, about 71% more energy is required to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy that is contained in a gallon of ethanol (Table 1). About 63% of the cost of producing ethanol ($2.52 per gallon) in a large plant is for the corn feedstock itself (Table 1). This cost is offset, in part, by the by-product (dried-distillers grain) which is produced and can be fed to livestock. However, most of the cost contributions from by-products are negated by the costs of environmental pollution that result from the production processes. These are estimated to be $0.36 per gallon of ethanol produced (Pimentel, 1991; Giampietro et al., 1997). This shows that the environmental system in which corn is being produced is rapidly being degraded. Furthermore, it substantiates the finding that the U.S. corn production system is not sustainable unless major changes are made in the cultivation of this important food/feed crop. Hence, corn cannot be considered a renewable resource. Energy Inputs in Ethanol Production About 1 billion gallons of ethanol are currently produced in the United States each year (Peterson et al., 1995). This quantity of ethanol provides less than 1% of the fuel utilized by U.S. automobiles (USBC, 1996). The amount of cropland that is required to grow sufficient corn to fuel each automobile is a vital factor when considering the advisability of producing ethanol for automobiles. To clarify this problem, the amount of cropland needed to fuel one automobile with ethanol was calculated. An average U.S. car travels about 10,000 miles per year and uses about 520 gallons of gasoline. Although 120 bushels per acre of corn yield 300 gallons of ethanol, its energy equivalent to gasoline is only 190 gallons because ethanol has a much lower BTU content than gasoline (76,000 BTU versus 120,000 BTU for gasoline per gallon). As shown above, there is a significant net energy loss in producing ethanol. However, even assuming zero or no energy charge for the fermentation and distillation processes and charging only for the energy required to produce corn (Table 1), the net ethanol energy yield from one acre of corn is only 50 gallons (190 gallons minus 140 gallons). Therefore, to provide the
[biofuel] Re: Ethanol not a renewable energy source?
Hello Dragonfly, and welcome. Thanks for posting this. Found this in a newsgroupcould someone verify it's accuracy? Which newsgroup did you find it in? The link is to the M. King Hubbert Center for Petroleum Supply Studies. Mission: Assemble, study, and disseminate global petroleum supply data. One of the most controversial issues relating to ethanol is the question of what environmentalists call the net energy of ethanol production. Simply put, is more energy used to grow and process the raw material into ethanol than is contained in the ethanol itself? A US Department of Agriculture study concludes that ethanol contains 34% more energy than is used to grow and harvest the corn and distill it into ethanol. Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol, by Hosein Shapouri et al., US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Office of Energy and New Uses, Agricultural Economic Report No. 721, July 1995 -- Studies conducted since the late 1970s have estimated the net energy value of corn ethanol. However, variations in data and assumptions used among the studies have resulted in a wide range of estimates. This study identifies the factors causing this wide variation and develops a more consistent estimate... We show that corn ethanol is energy efficient as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24. http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm In How Much Energy Does It Take to Make a Gallon of Ethanol?, David Lorenz and David Morris of the Institute for Local-Self Reliance (ILSR) state: Using the best farming and production methods, the amount of energy contained in a gallon of ethanol is more than twice the energy used to grow the corn and convert it to ethanol. A 1992 ILSR study, based on actual energy consumption data from farmers and ethanol plant operators, found that the production of ethanol from corn is a positive net energy generator. In this updated paper the numbers look even more attractive: more energy is contained in the ethanol and the other by-products of corn processing than is used to grow the corn and convert it into ethanol and by-products. http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/ceic/library/admin/uploadedfiles/Ho w_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html Ethanol production is extremely energy efficient, with a positive energy balance of 125%, compared to 85% for gasoline. Ethanol production is by far the most efficient method of producing liquid transportation fuels. According to USDA, each BTU (British Thermal Unit, an energy measure) used to produce a BTU of gasoline could be used to produce 8 BTUs of ethanol. -- American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) http://www.ethanol.org/ethanol_info.html In fact it's a very theoretical question. A standard farming procedure is a myth, and even if it wasn't, what would that have to do with a homesteader with a good supply of waste wood to burn and no better way of using it, and a large supply of past-their-use-by cakes from a bread factory that he's rescuing from the waste stream? (An actual case.) The cakes could go to a pig farm instead, but they don't. There are many such niches -- spoiled fruit from farms that ought to have pigs but don't, and so on and on. Such factors never get calculated. Pimental's report is also very US-specific. Dick Carlstein has painted a quite different picture of ethanol production in Brazil, for instance. (Search the list archives for Brazil.) Once you start looking at the local level and at integrated approaches to crop production and wastes, and include energy production and use, a very different picture emerges that leaves these broad energy in/energy out generalisations without much meaning. There's yet another way of looking at it. This is from Offgrid-Online, April 5, 2000. http://www.offgridknowhow.com/ Will we get out more energy than we put in? Does it matter? Generally a scheme that did not create more energy than it consumed would be useless, but in this case we might have a different view. Since we are after a portable fuel, we might be willing to spend more energy to get it, so long as we used a non-portable fuel to do so. For example, suppose we use wood-fired heat to make alcohol. Wood is a poor fuel as far as portability in general is concerned and is nearly useless for internal combustion engines. So what if we have to spend 2 BTUs of wood heat for each BTU of alcohol fuel produced? That might still be a good deal if we had lots of wood and gasoline was (that is, continues to be) highly priced. http://www.homesteadtechnology.com/newsletters/2405.txt The Sierra Club in the US has a different objection to ethanol. They see the whole issue as clouded by the high levels of nitrogen fertilisers used to grow the maize, and the terrific eco-damage the N-runoff causes. But that's an objection to US factory farming, not to ethanol. In a more rational system there's no need for nitrogen fertilisers, and no loss of yield
[biofuel] Clean Diesel Power Key to Success of Maritime Industry
http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/Feb01/01Feb0104.html New Report Shows - Clean Diesel Power Key to Success of Maritime Industry WASHINGTON, DC, Feb. 1 -/E-Wire/-- Diesel powers the American economy- including almost the entire commercial maritime fleet. This is the conclusion of an extensive study conducted by Charles River Associates and released by the Washington based Diesel Technology Forum. In addition to cargo ships, tankers, tugs, and towboats, diesel powers 94% of all freight shipments, 85% of all public transit buses, two-thirds of all farm equipment, and all heavy construction equipment. Forum representatives are carrying this message to the Conference on Marine Vessels and Air Quality being held in San Francisco on February 1st and 2nd. Now, for the first time, we have a well documented and quantitative report, that defines diesel's critical role in the economic fabric of the nation and in the commercial marine industry in particular. The diesel impact is enormous, and in some cases irreplaceable, stated Allen Schaeffer, the Forum's executive director. The current success of the maritime industry, whether it be on the Great Lakes, rivers or the high seas, is tied to the increased use of modern diesel power. Diesel engines of all sizes are used for prime propulsion power, container cranes and lifts, loaders, pumps and other related machinery, both on vessels and land based support facilities. It is essential, as maritime leaders meet to discuss the impact of ship emissions on air quality that we understand the importance of the diesel engine to the maritime industry, stated Schaeffer. Because diesel engines are essential to cost-effective worldwide shipping, it is a technology worth investing in, he added. The Diesel Technology Forum members are among the leaders in the movement to reduce emissions from all types of diesel engines. Representatives of the international shipping industry are currently attending a conference in San Francisco, sponsored by the EPA and more than 20 governmental and maritime agencies and associations, to discuss the key issues of marine vessels and air quality. Modern diesel technology is poised to meet the clean air challenge and cooperation among all the stakeholders can bring about positive results said Schaeffer. Retrofitting marine engines with the latest pollution control devices is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency retrofit demonstration project. Tremendous advances are occurring in clean diesel technology each day that will provide an increasing number of solutions for marine operators. In 1997, 1,921 establishments were engaged primarily in maritime transportation. These entities employed 73,000 individuals and had a payroll of $2.8 billion. Water carriers moved 563 million tons of cargo worth $76 billion in single-mode movements and 113 million tons of intermodal freight worth $10 billion. Nearly all of the bulk carriers that transport oil, ore, wheat and other goods are diesel powered. So are the containerships that transport the majority of all manufactured imports and exports. These ships utilize the largest diesel engines made. The dominance of the diesel engine in powering ocean-going ships reflects improvements in the engines over the last few decades. In the 1970's a significant number of ships were powered by steam turbines. But during the 1980's and 1990's, diesel engines swept the field, because they permitted substantial savings in fuel costs. American President Lines next generation of containerships, the C-10's, are powered by diesels, and achieved a 60% savings in fuel use over the steam turbine-powered C-8's. The last edition of Containerisation International Yearbook, which lists all container vessels in commercial service or under construction, reveals that only several hundred of the over 7,000 containerships in service were powered by steam turbine engines. According to the Journal of Commerce the 25 largest importers of containerized goods ship approximately 1,103,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU's) each year. These companies include Wal-Mart, Dole, Chiquita Brands, Target and Bridgestone Firestone. Approximately, 8% of the country's total freight tonnage travels by barge through the 12,000 miles of inland waterways. A total of 650 million tons of freight including, 60% of the nation's grain exports, 24% of its chemical and petroleum shipments, and 20% of its domestic coal are moved through this network - all propelled by diesel power. The workhorse of the inland waterways is the diesel-powered towboat. These towboats are in essence a hull wrapped around one or more huge and extremely powerful diesel engines. The over 5,000 towboats in the towboat fleet generate a total of 9.4 million horsepower. For this application, there are no viable alternative power sources that provide the efficiency, fuel economy, and power as does the diesel engine. The
[biofuel] biofuels project
i am currently undertaking a research project on biofuels at the university of the west of England and i am stuck on where to get information. any ideas will be gratefully recieved,many thanks,rhysjones55. From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@egroups.com To: biofuel@egroups.com Subject: [biofuel] re: batteries and Fuel cells Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:29:41 +0900 Well, unsurprisingly, I've been speaking from the gut without all the facts. Thanks to all for the info on the state of batteries, and other angles on this topic. I have very strong feelings regarding IC's and their effect on our air and planet, and am all for making them as effecient and low emmisions as possible, but the dream of getting away from them completely is still a very real, and inticing carrot to me, over all efficiency be damned. I'll be mulling all this over for years to come I'm sure. Now I need to get out of this arm chair and start practicing what I preach (yes I'm guilty of this as well). -Andrew Hi Andrew Most of the world's transport is going to depend on diesels for years and probably for decades to come. It's by far the most economical power source with by far the widest user base, and it will take time to change that, no matter what brilliant, efficient and super-clean alternatives might present themselves. That's probably especially true for the poorer countries. That's no reason not to push for the alternatives, but what makes the best overall sense is to clean up the fuel. Best Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/837408/_/98816/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [biofuel] Re: Ethanol not a renewable energy source?
Dragonfly, Keith's comprehensive reply omitted the following authoritative British research report. It supports the claims of positive net energy balances obtained from farmed ethanol and biodiesel. It takes full account of farming inputs such as fertiliser, cultivation, packaging etc. and presents all figures net of the taxes/subsidies which are prone to cloud this issue in some sections of the media. http://www.biodiesel.co.uk/levington_tables.htm David Teal Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/837408/_/981112184/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [biofuel] Re: Ethanol not a renewable energy source?
Hi David and All, --- David Teal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dragonfly, Keith's comprehensive reply omitted the following authoritative British research report. It supports the claims of positive net energy balances obtained from farmed ethanol and biodiesel. It takes full account of farming inputs such as fertiliser, cultivation, packaging etc. and presents all figures net of the taxes/subsidies which are prone to cloud this issue in some sections of the media. http://www.biodiesel.co.uk/levington_tables.htm David Teal If you want to get the most from almost anything you have to work things as systems. Done right ethanol is just 1 product of the system. A good way would be if I was a farmer is to grow with self produced fertilizers, crop rotation, raised bed and enhancing the natural insectivores and pesticides. By not using synthetic pesticides the the insects are eaten by their natural enemies. This cuts cost and lowers energy use by 50% or more. So now the crop cost less and has a lower energy, cost hurdle to get over. Then you take the grain , fruit, ect and brew it. Using good practices just making and distilling alcohol would use 15- 20 % of the alcohol's energy if it came from there. But in a system it doesn't. Alcohol only needs low grade heat, under 200 F , that can come from many places. Now the leftover mash is even a better human or animal food because the yeast grown in the beer has a much higher food value than straight grain, ect. So now you have alcohol with the feedstock basicly for free. But it doesn't stop there. The stalks leftover have more energy than the grain,ect. These can be turned into methanol or natural gas for use or sale or turned into electricity for use and sale. The ash makes a good fertilizer back for the next crop. A farm run like this will make 3-5 times the profit with little outside input. I believe it's the future of farming. Or brew wastes, either way alcohol is viable as an eff source of energy. The petro industry has many PR co's and research flacks putting out disinformation. Reasonable priced petro fuels will be gone soon so line up another source of energy now to soften the blows, learn to use less energy or start making enough to sell for the big bucks. jerry dycus __ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/837408/_/981117805/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[biofuel] Re: Digital pH meters, and thanks!
5 to 10 is wide insofar as a fish is concerned! And as for cost, it works every time and does not require maintenance Terry :-) So try it first, and if you're not happy then go on to something more expensive. You should be working on micro-batches at first anyway so if it's a disaster you won't lose much. Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/837408/_/981119060/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[biofuel] Re: biofuels project
michael jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i am currently undertaking a research project on biofuels at the university of the west of England and i am stuck on where to get information. any ideas will be gratefully recieved,many thanks,rhysjones55. http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm http://www.biofuels.fsnet.co.uk/ Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/837408/_/981120246/ -_- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
