Re: [biofuel] Millennium Cell

[jerry dycus]

  Hi Tim and All,
--- Tim Castleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.millenniumcell.com 
> "Millennium Cell is a development stage company
> focused on the generation of a new, clean, abundant
> and renewable source of energy. Millennium Cell's
> patented boron-based energy technology delivers a
> hydrogen fuel that is safe, clean and easily
> transported, without the need for compression or
> liquefaction. In addition, we are developing
> longer-life batteries based on boron
> electrochemistry."
> 
> Have you folks heard of this before? I guess not
> actually a biofuel, but seems very relevant. 
 If true could be good. 
  But even if true you still need to make H2 to
store. Then you still need something to use the H2.
  The good thing for us is it's easy to make H2 by
heating most biomass to 1600F turns it to H2 and CO,
syn-gas.
  Also isn't boron deadly? What about boron salts?
Are they stable enough to keep boron safe?  Are they
safe? 
 jerry dycus
> 
> Tim


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] RE: air car's indirect pollution vs EV's

[Alan S. Petrillo]

"doctor who" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> My point is that when you wrap a EV around a tree or have a serious accident 
> there is the potential for a Hazmat situation (drip or no drip it's still 
> acid and hydrogen),

You only really have to worry about hydrogen buildup while charging, and
then only if your ventilation is inadequate.  Most modern batteries have
a catalyst grid in their tops that recombines the majority of the oxygen
and hydrogen before it escapes the battery case.  

> electrocution or electrical fire. 

Those are the real worries with EV's.  

> Whereas compressed air 
> is just that. Sweep up the pieces and go.

Even if the pieces are 3 blocks away.  
 
> I'm still looking for some life span studies on batteries as compared to 
> compressed air. 

The folks over at Home Power Magazine can help you there.  In home power
stations old fashioned wet cell lead acid batteries if properly
maintained last 10 years, and many last 20.  

In one of their experimental installations they're testing some wet cell
nicads, and I remember reading that they had one cell which was 50
(fifty!) years old and still producing its rated capacity.  

> I cannot believe that the manufacture, maintenance and 
> disposal cost for batteries is lower than that of compressed air systems. 

Disposal cost is a nonissue.  There are recyclers out there that will
pay you for your old batteries.  They won't pay you _much_, but the lead
and plastic in the batteries are valuable.  

> If 
> so I better go replace my pnuematic jackhammer with one of those battery 
> operated rigs.

Nah.  When it comes to impact force pneumatics beat everything else
except explosives.  That's why jackhammers and impact drills were some
of the first uses for industrial compressed air systems.  

> So what exactly is the volt/amp conversion to psi? My ratchet wrench at 
> 60psi is far more efficient than my 3/8" cordless 18volt drill. 

I doubt that, but don't have any figures to argue with.  But be careful
about demanding too much torque from one of those little ratchet
wrenches.  It's just a little turbine and little gears.  If you demand
too much torque out of them you'll wear out the gears.  

In the shop environment, where the air tools really shine is in safety. 
Since they don't throw any sparks they're a lot less likely to start
fires, particularly when you have flamable fumes around.  Also, you
don't have to have extension cords around, just hoses, which are less
likely to break.  As an added bonus, hoses don't suffer from the same
kind of power losses with length that extension cords do.  An important
consideration if your worksite is a hundred feet away from your nearest
source of power.  

> So I am 
> assuming since it takes far less energy [electric energy utilized by the 
> compressor] from the pnuematic ratchet wrench to do the same amount of 
> torqued turning.  This is based on similar RPM's/torque ranges.

The same amount of torqued turning will take the same amount of energy
at the tool tip.  Any more or less energy will be taken up in internal
losses, not just in the tool, but in whatever powers it.  

> It takes 
> approximatly an hours worth of energy to recharge the battery for an hours 
> usage. 

At a couple of hundred milliamps on the AC side.  

> While it is low voltage DC, alot of energy is wasted off as heat. 

Not as much as you might think.  Cooling off hot compressed air wastes a
lot more.  

> The 
> compressor takes five minutes of AC voltage to charge the tank for the same 
> amount of usage. 

At about 20~30 amps.  

An hour at an amp, or 15 minutes for 20 amps.  You do the math.  

> Granted its low pressure compressor but even using a 
> 4500psi tank regulated down I can go all day on one tank. 

4500 psi is not low pressure.  

> My battery tools 
> do not compare.

Then either get more batteries, or bigger batteries.  

> By weight my air tools are much lighter than my equivilantly powered 
> electric tools (battery weight included). 

Are you including the weight of the tank in the weight of your air
tools?  

> So if I apply the eqivilant 
> weights to a vehicle one could figure that a compressed air vehicle would 
> weigh signifigantly less than a high torque electric motor, battery bay and 
> the 4 miles of heavy gauge copper wire. Electric vehicles need the extra 
> power of batteries to propulse the added weight.

Where do you get that 4 mile figure?  Granted my direct experience with
EV's is limited to golf carts, but I never saw anything like that much
wire in them.  I can't imagine that larger EV's take much more heavy
guage wire than the golf carts, given its purpose.  Granted we are
talking an order of magnitude difference in the power required.  Even
reading the parts lists of some of the electric Rabbit conversions I
didn't see anywhere near that length of wire.  

> On another note what is to stop someone from adding a generator/alternator 
> to one of the drag wheels to power a high e

[biofuel] acrolein--propenol as a substitute for methanol?

[gjkimlin]

Acrolein is the alcohol of propene (ie propanol with a carbon double 
bond) and is the breakdown product of glycerol as you distill it at 
290C. Addition of  acid(Conc. H2SO4) to glycerol may accellerate the 
break-down. The acrolein can be retrieved with the same reflux still 
used to reclaim unused methanol or ethanol. I'm pretty sure that I 
already have been collecting acrolein when I accidentally leave the 
still attached as I heat the oil to 120C to dry it.
Do any of the chemists out there know if acrolein can be substituted 
for the methanol or ethanol used to transesterify the veggy oil?
Regards from Harry. 


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuels-biz] Re: Biodiesel Production

[gjkimlin]

I become concerned when a plant manufacturer says that their plant 
can make biodiesel from tallow. The methyl ester that I have made 
from tallow has a melting point over 22degrees-too high for fuel. 
When mixed with diesel the tallow FAME still solidifies. Does anyone 
have a use for tallow FAME? 

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Peter
> 
> There's been some discussion on the Biofuels list about why your 
> company has to use a free web hosting service like Geocities, with 
> it's annoying banner ads and so on - not something to inspire 
> confidence among would-be clients, one would have thought.
> 
> Also, I've found that Ocean Air Environmental / NOPEC doesn't 
respond 
> to email enquiries. I contacted your company about its change of 
name 
> some months ago when I was told about it by World Energy 
> Alternatives, asking for further information so I could update your 
> details at our (very popular) Biofuels Supplies and Suppliers page, 
> but never got a reply.
> 
> You have two entries, if you want to check - under Biodiesel 
> suppliers and Biodiesel technology:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_supply.html
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Keith Addison
> Journey to Forever
> Handmade Projects
> Tokyo
> http://journeytoforever.org/
> 
>  
> 
> >Ocean Air Environmental formally NOPEC owns the Lakeland Florida
> >facility the largest Biodiesel refinery in the world (methyl ester)
> >our existing capacity exceeds 10,000,000 gallons per year, with the
> >ability to increase capacity to 18,000,000 per year.
> >
> >Visit our Biodiesel Website: www.oceanairenvironmental.com
> >http://www.oceanairenvironmental.com
> >THIS SITE IS UNDER RE-DEVELOPMENT
> >
> >Ocean Air provides engineering and technology licensing rights /
> >PROVEN KNOW HOW to several international entities some of which are
> >based in the following countries: Poland, Spain, Thailand... with
> >additional facilities under development throughout the United 
States.
> >
> >It should be noted, that the unique nature of ocean air's proven
> >technology affords the refiner the ability to produce (methyl 
ester)
> >biodiesel from many different sources of feedstock (OAE Biodiesel 
can
> >be produced from recycled oils (yellow grease) and animal fats
> >(tallow, lard, poultry fat).  OAE Biodiesel can also be produced 
from
> >virgin grade vegetable oils (soybean, canola, rapeseed, safflower
> >etc).   Therefore, the refinery is able to utilize the least
> >expensive source of feedstock in order to optimize profits for the
> >refinery owner.
> >
> >Ocean Air Environmental is currently in negotiation for exclusive
> >territorial rights throughout many additional international
> >territories Therefore, please review the following information and
> >let me know if you would like to proceed to the next step.
> >
> >
> >DETAILS:
> >1.  Minimum size production plant for economical operation is 3
> >million gallons/yr (12 million liters/yr), which would need an
> >investment of approx. $5 million
> >
> >2.  If the market dictates, we recommend a plant size of 10 million
> >gallons/yr (40 million liters/yr), which would need an investment 
of
> >$10-12 million
> >
> >3.  The unique aspect of Ocean Air proprietary technology Biodiesel
> >can be produced from recycled oils (yellow grease) and animal fats
> >(tallow, lard, poultry fat).  OAE Biodiesel can also be produced 
from
> >virgin grade vegetable oils (soybean, canola, rapeseed, safflower
> >etc).
> >
> >Regarding our overseas licensing and plant construction, our 
thoughts
> >are as follows:
> >
> >Minimum size biodiesel production plant for profitable operation is
> >10,000 m3/yr or 2.75 million gallons/yr.  Our production facility 
in
> >Florida is 10 million gallons/yr.  The cost of 2.75 million gallons
> >facility would be around $3-4 million.  The cost of 10.0-million
> >gallons/yr facility will be around $10-12 million. We will buy the
> >glycerin byproduct for refining in our plant.  The feedstock for 
this
> >plant can be animal fats (poultry or beef byproduct fat); used
> >cooking oils form restaurants (yellow grease), or virgin vegetable
> >oils (rapeseed, soybean, corn, safflower, cotton seed, canola etc).
> >We provide license and engineering service for the plant.
> >
> >Engineering services for overseas plants typically include front
> >engineering package that contains site analysis, plot plants, 
process
> >flow diagrams, material balances, utility balances, equipment 
sizing,
> >and equipment specification.  The host country typically does the
> >detailed engineering using our front-end engineering package.  We
> >provide continuing support however as needed. The construction also
> >is done by local contractor with us being the advisor as needed.  
We
> >will also provide plant-commissioning support.  The engineering
> >services are provided on a time and material basis at a billing 
rate
> >of $150/hr plus out of pocket expenses.
> >
> >Plant

Re: [biofuel] Nuclear

[monteoro]

Marc, Matti,

Thats right, why don't they... and when the reactor is old and unusable
already they can just fill it up with molten glass and let it stand there
buried.  Nice disposal technique ofcourse its location would have to be in
granite or a place far away from ground water sources.  

Ken C.


At 12:30 AM 7/24/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Mark,
>
>But can these reactors withstand terrorist attacks
>with modern anti-tank missiles?  Or attacks with 
>nuclear missiles?
>I have always wondered why nuclear powerplants are not
>built deep under the ground, lets say, in the depth of
>ca 200 meters or so.
>That would prevent the harm from potential missile
>attacks by terrorist groups.
>
>Mati Kokk  
>
>--- "F. Marc de Piolenc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I realize this is a largely anti-nuclear forum, so
>> I'll say all this
>> quickly and only once, and only because somebody
>> else brought it up.
>> 
>> The low-dose rate danger is a myth based on junk
>> science, carefully
>> fostered by the anti-nuke movement over decades.
>> 
>> If it were true, it would be impossible for nuclear
>> workers to get life
>> or health insurance without subsidy and aviators
>> (who get cosmic-ray
>> exposure that is significantly higher than the dose
>> rate allowed by NRC
>> regulations) would be dying like flies of
>> radiation-related diseases. It
>> just ain't so.
>> 
>> Re long-lived nuclear waste - the longer the life,
>> THE LOWER THE LEVEL
>> OF RADIOACTIVITY. It's the short-lived stuff that is
>> dangerous - and if
>> the nuclear industry were allowed to reprocess
>> "spent" fuel (which for
>> safety reasons is only allowed to go to 5% burnup),
>> the low volume, high
>> flux waste would be segregated and stored for the
>> several half-lives
>> required to drop to background at very low cost,
>> because it decays VERY
>> FAST. The remaining low level waste would be stored
>> in long term
>> facilities, but with a hazard protection level
>> commensurate with the
>> much lower risk. The anti-nuclear crowd demonstrates
>> either dishonesty
>> or ignorance by quoting radiation fluxes taken from
>> the highly
>> radioactive waste and lifetimes that pertain to the
>> low-rad waste. And
>> they're the same people who are responsible for
>> eliminating
>> reprocessing, thus guaranteeing that 90% of the fuel
>> value, plus all the
>> high-level waste, plus all the low-level waste, ALL
>> HAVE TO BE DISPOSED
>> OF TOGETHER, thus ensuring that nuclear power is
>> "unsafe" and
>> uneconomical. Talk about self-fulfilling prophesies!
>> 
>> As for reactor safety, it is possible to make
>> reactors that are
>> inherently safe against core meltdown - that is
>> reactors that will do no
>> damage outside of their containment structure even
>> in the worst case -
>> total primary coolant loss, total failure of all
>> redundant engineered
>> backups and total failure of control-rod and
>> safety-rod actuation
>> mechanisms in the full-open position. One example is
>> the Modular High
>> Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor advocated by General
>> Atomics. There are
>> disadvantages to inherently safe reactors, however -
>> typically they are
>> size limited (MHTGR grosses 40 MWth, I think) so
>> large outputs mean
>> several reactors in a rather large complex - one
>> that allows each
>> reactor the heat dissipation radius it needs to
>> fulfill the promise of
>> inherent safety. The real estate required may not be
>> a problem, but to
>> achieve economies of scale requires true mass
>> production of reactor
>> modules, not custom jobs like most current nuclear
>> reactors. Another
>> difficulty of the MHTGR is that it requires enriched
>> fuel - about 30% -
>> and very demanding fuel pellet processing, which
>> complicates
>> reprocessing. On the other hand, burnup is higher...
>> 
>> Marc de Piolenc
>> Philippines
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>__
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
>http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
-
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo

[biofuel] Millennium Cell

[Tim Castleman]

http://www.millenniumcell.com 
"Millennium Cell is a development stage company focused on the generation of a 
new, clean, abundant and renewable source of energy. Millennium Cell's patented 
boron-based energy technology delivers a hydrogen fuel that is safe, clean and 
easily transported, without the need for compression or liquefaction. In 
addition, we are developing longer-life batteries based on boron 
electrochemistry."

Have you folks heard of this before? I guess not actually a biofuel, but seems 
very relevant. 

Tim





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Where direct the money

[Keith Addison]

Hi Jerry

> Hi Keith and All,
>--- Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > "Have we a response for this problem ??. For
> > sure, it´s the question of
> > >the
> > > > future of biofuels"
> > >
> > >Aye. I agree with Pedro. The money will go to the
> > most effective lobbying ,
> > >more dedicated to nuclear means less for renewables
> > research. Nuclear has
> > >had its  chance, and share of the public treasury
> > for decades. Time to shift
> > >to renewables.
> > >
> > >"Who cares"? On this point, at least, we should.
> > And the response is clear.
> > >Don't let the $ go there.
> > >
> > >Ed B.
> > >www.biofuels.ca
> >
> > Yea, I'll second that (third it?). Maybe we can
> > shift this discussion
> > from the pros and cons of nukes to how best to
> > accomplish such an aim.
>There should be no subsidies for any nukes, coal
>or fossil fuels, that is how we got into this energy
>mess in the first place.
> If there were no subsidies for them, biofuels
>would be cheaper than them, thus used now. Oil is said
>to be over $100 a barrel ( Wall Street Journal) if the
>subsidies were not there.  I'd guess it's about $60 to
>$80 a barrel.

That $100 includes the military costs of defending the Gulf etc., but 
I'd agree it's a subsidy. I think the nuke power subsidies also had a 
lot to do with military issues, the Cold War nuke build-up etc. After 
the Berlin Wall came down, IIRC, there were a lot of revelations 
about hidden subsidies and how very much less cheap nuke power was 
than had been hitherto alleged.

But in both cases, with fossils and nukes, you're dealing with deeply 
entrenched interests that have had the time to penetrate (and skew) 
just about every aspect of life in the industrialised countries. 
Especially fossils.

>  Biodiesel and other biofuels only cost under $50
>a barrel now, if the true cost of petroleum was
>charged the world would be a better place.

Indeed!

>Not to mention the increased number of jobs, less
>pollution, better balance of payments, national
>security and decentralization of energy sources.
>  I support only a temporary subsidy for RE's to
>catch up and removal of the present fossil fuel
>subsidies.

The second one's the hard bit. Especially right now that Big Oil 
seems to have taken up residence in the White House. But maybe the 
sheer brazenness of it could work to its disadvantage in the end.

>  I've been in contact with my and other
>congressmen, no women yet in my area, about RE and
>stopping corporate welfare, subsidies to the fossil
>fuel, corporate farms and other industries.
>  In the US it only take a couple of hundred of
>phone calls, letters to impress politicians enough to
>do something. They don't get many.

Good for you! Don't stop!

>   I am sorry I posted about nukes and will not do it
>again. I didn't think it would take up this much
>bandwidth.

Really no need to apologise. You can say whatever you like here. 
Well, almost. :-)

Best

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Tokyo
http://journeytoforever.org/

 

>Thanks,
> jerry dycus
> >
> > Keith Addison


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] G8 Renewable Energy report

[Ed Beggs]

Uh...good point.  I think PV is sort of inferior, anyway, to growing some
biofuel and running the old Lister/Perkins/Series/Rabbit or whatever on it
for another 100 years.

Ed



> From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:27:21 +0900
> To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [biofuel] G8 Renewable Energy report
> 
>> They plan to sell photovoltaics to an identified 1 billion customers who
>> currently do not have electricity, want it, and currently pay for kerosene
>> or diesel at the same monthly price Shell Renewables will charge them for a
>> solar PV system on their roof. They make PV systems affordable by billing in
>> payments, like an electric utility.
>> 
>> Ed B.
>> www.biofuels.ca
> 
> Whoops! - all those dead batteries lying around all over the Third
> World where there are NO arrangements for recycling them. Have they
> thought of that I wonder?
> 
> Best
> 
> Keith Addison
> Journey to Forever
> Handmade Projects
> Tokyo
> http://journeytoforever.org/
> 
> 
> 
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Pedro M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: 
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 2:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: [biofuel] G8 Renewable Energy report
>> 
>> 
>>> What«s the politic of Shell relationg Renowable energy ( biodiesel ) .
>> Does
>>> it sell biodiesel in its fuel-stations ???'.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: 
>>> Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:32 PM
>>> Subject: [biofuel] G8 Renewable Energy report
>>> 
>>> 
 http://www.renewabletaskforce.org/default.asp
 G8 Renewable Energy Taskforce Homepage
 
>>> The Task Force is chaired by Dr Corrado Clini (Director General,
>> Department
>>> of Environment, Italy) and Sir Mark Moody Stuart (Shell).
> 
> 
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] G8 Renewable Energy report

[Keith Addison]

>They plan to sell photovoltaics to an identified 1 billion customers who
>currently do not have electricity, want it, and currently pay for kerosene
>or diesel at the same monthly price Shell Renewables will charge them for a
>solar PV system on their roof. They make PV systems affordable by billing in
>payments, like an electric utility.
>
>Ed B.
>www.biofuels.ca

Whoops! - all those dead batteries lying around all over the Third 
World where there are NO arrangements for recycling them. Have they 
thought of that I wonder?

Best

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Tokyo
http://journeytoforever.org/

 

>- Original Message -
>From: "Pedro M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 2:56 PM
>Subject: Re: [biofuel] G8 Renewable Energy report
>
>
> > What«s the politic of Shell relationg Renowable energy ( biodiesel ) .
>Does
> > it sell biodiesel in its fuel-stations ???'.
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:32 PM
> > Subject: [biofuel] G8 Renewable Energy report
> >
> >
> > > http://www.renewabletaskforce.org/default.asp
> > > G8 Renewable Energy Taskforce Homepage
> > >
> > The Task Force is chaired by Dr Corrado Clini (Director General,
>Department
> > of Environment, Italy) and Sir Mark Moody Stuart (Shell).


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Where direct the money

[Keith Addison]

Hi Pedro

>That«s for sure, I will do. But, think for a moment, that you are  the
>President of the U.S. and  your ideas are help the nuclear-fossil
>industries, like you said in you plans. And that you recieve a suggestion
>like the send here, from the Forum of Nuclear Industry, that could give
>money for the elections ..
>
>Which one do you prefer ???.
>
>For sure, the second.
>
>How can you deciede select the first one. Only if the people ask it to you
>clearly and you have no another remedy ;)

Or if the first guy pays more. So ask clearly already. :-)

Here's what an American on another list just said about Washington:
"I like to point the finger to the only people who could create a 
large shift to decentralization of energy production -- Washington 
Republican and Democrat idiots, but it is impossible to substitute 
people of intelligence -- we elect them for their ability to raise 
campaign funds, not for their wisdom or integrity. The only ability 
really required is the ability to raise a massive amount of money to 
swamp the opponent with advertising -- not much correlation between 
that ability and the ability to run a country."

They respond to polls, up to a point.

"Know your enemy", it's said. Chairman Mao (Chairperson Mao?) said 
"My enemy's enemy is my friend." I find that obnoxious, but it 
probably works okay. You say "nuclear-fossil industries", but are 
they really that close? I don't know if they are or not.

Mark Moody Stuart, CEO of Shell, is a main mover behind the G8 
Renewables initiative (which I think Bush has opposed). Shell, and 
BP, have both been investing heavily in renewables (though with much 
associated greenwash), mostly PVs. Shell's also been getting into 
biomass energy in Latin America (tree plantations). BP boss Sir John 
Browne would probably back the G8 Renewables initiative. I can't see 
the nuclear industry backing it. Big Oil can diversify a lot, the 
nuclear industry can't. Big Oil mostly supports (or says it supports) 
cutting carbon emissions (with the exception of Exxon). The nuke 
industry doesn't make such a big noise about it, but likes to claim 
it's carbon-free, advertising campaigns and so on. Are Big Oil and 
nukes really such good friends? I don't think they have such a lot in 
common. Though, as Todd pointed out, the nuclear industry is a heavy 
user of fossil energy (and thus isn't at all carbon-free).

It should be possible to get some support for the idea of a UN 
Renewable Energy Agency, get a campaign going. Saying (as you did) 
that there's already an Atomic Energy Agency is a good argument for 
it. Hard work though.

Best

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Tokyo
http://journeytoforever.org/



>All the best.
>- Original Message -
>From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:32 PM
>Subject: Re: [biofuel] Where direct the money
>
>
> > Hi Pedro
> >
> > Suggestion. See "G8 Renewable Energy report". Go to the link, answer
> > the 10 questions, and tell 'em we need a UN Renewable Energy Agency.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Keith Addison
> > Journey to Forever
> > Handmade Projects
> > Tokyo
> > http://journeytoforever.org/
> >
> > "Pedro M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Where direct the money and the public resources, to nuclear-fossil energy
>or
> > >to renowable biofuels ???.
> > >
> > >This is the kernel of the problem, in Europe ( Loyola de Palacio,
> > >Comissioner of the EU), United States ( Bush Plan ), and so on.
> > >
> > >Have we a response for this problem ??. For sure, it«s the question of
>the
> > >future of biofuels
> > >
> > >
> > >- Original Message -
> > >From: "steve spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: 
> > >Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 12:16 PM
> > >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Nuclear
> > >
> > >
> > > > who cares. this is not a anti nuclear forum. it's a biofuels forum.
>enough
> > > > already.
> > > >
> > > > Steve Spence
> >
> >
> >
> > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe,

Re: [biofuel] Nuclear

[Martin Klingensmith]

Why is it that most things American on this list are automatically named as
'EVIL'? American's can produce good cars, as others have said it is the subsidy
and corporate welfare that keeps fuel so cheap, I know fuel price increases
would aggravate me and everyone else in the US but it's the only way a more
fuel efficient car would be accepted. Does this mean the US can only produce
"BAD" cars? As for roads, where does this statement come from? Tell me of a
country that has more 4 lane interstate highway miles to drive on as related to
total land mass. There isn't a comparison. 

--- Harmon Seaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  Maybe so, maybe not, but it's irrelevant --- the basic problem with
> nukes as far as I can see, and the reason I will *always* absolutely oppose
> all of them, no matter what the design, is the human factor. Someone else
> mentioned the terrorist problem, which is a a growing threat, but the bottom
> line is this: American workers and industry cannot even produce a decent
> car, or decent roads to drive them on --- the worker sabotage and
> carelessness, and the official and industrial corruption are such that they
> never, ever will. And the same is true of the nuclear industry --- there
> will never, ever, at any time be a safe nuclear plant built in this country.
> I've worked both in construction and also in auto plants -- sabotage and
> absurd design are a given and always will be.
> 


=
http://devzero.ath.cx/
Visit the Systems Information Database
Have some interesting information? Put it up on the SID.
-Martin Klingensmith

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] RE: air car's indirect pollution vs EV's

[jerry dycus]

 Hi Cordain and All,
--- doctor who <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My point is that when you wrap a EV around a tree or
> have a serious accident 
> there is the potential for a Hazmat situation (drip
> or no drip it's still 
> acid and hydrogen), electrocution or electrical
> fire. Whereas compressed air 
> is just that. Sweep up the pieces and go.
 There is little acid or H2 in lead batteries. The
acid nowdays will only hurt your clothes unless left
on for a while. Gasoline on your skin will burn it a
lot faster. These or electrocution hasn't happened in
any of the EV's that have crashed. These are not
problems in real life. Get over it.  
> 
> I'm still looking for some life span studies on
> batteries as compared to 
> compressed air. I cannot believe that the
> manufacture, maintenance and 
> disposal cost for batteries is lower than that of
> compressed air systems. If 
> so I better go replace my pnuematic jackhammer with
> one of those battery 
> operated rigs.
 I'm running Flooded Ni-cads in my E-bike that are
over 25 years old and still put out more than rated
power. How long do you want them to last?
 If you include energy per mile Ev's will beat air
by several times over 10 years.
 Let's stop the unrelated comparisions, OK? They
only show how desperate you are to prove your point.
> On another note what is to stop someone from adding
> a generator/alternator 
> to one of the drag wheels to power a high efficiency
> compressor? As long as 
> you dont exceed the maximum recovery rate of the
> compressor, your station 
> refills could be limited to the occasional pressure
> top off for those heavy 
> loads.
This shows you really don't understand energy eff.
 Join the free energy list.
>errands. You will never see a 
> practical EV long haul tractor trailer. And I have
Unlike cars, tractor-trailers run at max power all
the time making them eff. But even there hybird
electric is about 25% better. 
> yet to see any EV that 
> will drive straight thru from Virginia to Florida at
> highway speeds. I like 
> to get there without 8 hour layovers for the car to
> charge.
 I've never seen a car that can do it either. Ev's
can charge in 15 minutes . They do it all the time at
LAX in their airport limo's. They run 24 hr a day just
recharging while loading up new passengers. 
 I would like to see your working example of an
air car doing the same?  Where are they?
 They don't exist, do they? Until you can show a
real working example you are just hot air. So put up
or be quite.
> 
> Compressed air technology has the advantage of
> substituting liquid gas for 
> compresssed gases for the purpose of increasing the
> ranges.
No they don't. Again this shows you don't know
what you are talking about. Just how is liquid air
going to increase your range? While it sounds good it
has the problem that you have to put energy into it to
turn it back into pressure. How you liquidfy air is
you take all the energy out of it.
Using the heat of the air to reexpand it thru heat
exchangers will just clog the HE with ice. Will not
work at all in winter. The only other way is to burn
fuel to reheat it.
> EV's stay 
> relativly constant with the amount of charge they
> will contain and last time 
> I checked they still take several hours to gain a
> full range charge. Another 
 Apparently you haven't checked around much.

> advantage is the wasted energy from gas expansion is
> used to the cool the 
> vehilce. Do they make EV's with AC?
Now there is one advantage of air power.
 And yes they make EV's with AC's.
> 
> Sure it takes energy to power the compressors. I'd
> love to see a high 
> compression plant powered by alternative energies.
> If that where to be the 
> case than IMHO the EV car theory would be put aside
> as the antiquated 
> technology it is.
But you can still go 3 or 4 times as far on the
same energy with an EV than an Air car. How eco is
that?
   Please learn some before talking about things
you obviously know little about. Take a science
course.
   Good Luck, you'll need it,
 jerry dycus

> 
> Respectfully,
> Cordain
> Dulles, VA
> 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Burning graphite

[F. Marc de Piolenc]

Kirk wrote:

"Carbon or graphite moderated cores have a fatal flaw. If it catches
fire you
are in deep do do."

This rather begs the question, doesn't it? If the graphite burns, it's
because air has entered the core - and if that has happened you ALREADY
have a far more serious problem than a burning moderator. So how would
that have happened? For plants with a "fatal flaw," the Magnox and other
graphite moderated reactors have an awfully good safety record. "Fatal
flaw" my foot! - it's like saying that cooking with gas has a fatal flaw
because if all the gas in the tank were to spontaneously mix with air
and ignite the building would be destroyed, without explaining how the
gas would mix with air in the first place.
 
"The plant that burned on the coast of England was graphite moderated.
Permanently poisoned a large area."

Which plant? What area? When?

Marc de Piolenc
Philippines



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Antitank missile vs. nuclear reactor

[F. Marc de Piolenc]

Mati Kokk wrote:

"But can these reactors withstand terrorist attacks
with modern anti-tank missiles?  Or attacks with 
nuclear missiles?"

Bring on all the antitank missiles you want - several meters of
steel-reinforced, prestressed concrete containment, plus several inches
of high-grade steel, plus an airgap can easily withstand any number of
them. You would have equal success with a popgun, and it would be
cheaper.

As for nuclear missiles, a direct hit with a big enough one would of
course be fatal, but let's put this in perspective - if you already have
a nuke, why bother targeting a nuclear reactor? The resulting damage
will only be imperceptibly increased by involving the reactor core, and
as nuclear reactor sites are generally as remote as possible you will
produce very few casualties compared to dropping the same nuke on a
populated area. Which target will a terrorist prefer?

The only value that a nuclear reactor might have to a terrorist is to
magnify the damage that he does. It isn't suitable for that purpose, so
no such attacks have materialized. Nor will they.

"I have always wondered why nuclear powerplants are not
built deep under the ground, lets say, in the depth of
ca 200 meters or so."

Because excavation is extremely expensive, so it isn't done if it is not
needed.

Marc de Piolenc



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Re: Microprocessing of soybean oil to biodiesel

[Christopher S. Weller]

  Sorry for all the questions I'm an engineer not a farmer. I'm trying to gain 
  a better understanding of the governments role in preventing food surplus 
  and trying not to affect gross market value in the process.

  Cheers,
  Cordain
  Dulles, VA

  Okay I'm stupid but with people starving how can we have a food surplus?
  presumably you are referring to a marketing surplus of food which drives the 
prices down.
  Christopher S Weller
  Norfolk VA


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Where direct the money

[jerry dycus]

 Hi Keith and All,
--- Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Have we a response for this problem ??. For
> sure, it´s the question of
> >the
> > > future of biofuels"
> >
> >Aye. I agree with Pedro. The money will go to the
> most effective lobbying ,
> >more dedicated to nuclear means less for renewables
> research. Nuclear has
> >had its  chance, and share of the public treasury
> for decades. Time to shift
> >to renewables.
> >
> >"Who cares"? On this point, at least, we should.
> And the response is clear.
> >Don't let the $ go there.
> >
> >Ed B.
> >www.biofuels.ca
> 
> Yea, I'll second that (third it?). Maybe we can
> shift this discussion 
> from the pros and cons of nukes to how best to
> accomplish such an aim.
There should be no subsidies for any nukes, coal
or fossil fuels, that is how we got into this energy
mess in the first place.
 If there were no subsidies for them, biofuels
would be cheaper than them, thus used now. Oil is said
to be over $100 a barrel ( Wall Street Journal) if the
subsidies were not there.  I'd guess it's about $60 to
$80 a barrel.
  Biodiesel and other biofuels only cost under $50
a barrel now, if the true cost of petroleum was
charged the world would be a better place.
Not to mention the increased number of jobs, less
pollution, better balance of payments, national
security and decentralization of energy sources. 
  I support only a temporary subsidy for RE's to
catch up and removal of the present fossil fuel
subsidies.
  I've been in contact with my and other
congressmen, no women yet in my area, about RE and
stopping corporate welfare, subsidies to the fossil
fuel, corporate farms and other industries.
  In the US it only take a couple of hundred of
phone calls, letters to impress politicians enough to
do something. They don't get many. 
   I am sorry I posted about nukes and will not do it
again. I didn't think it would take up this much
bandwidth. 
Thanks, 
 jerry dycus  
> 
> Keith Addison


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Nuclear

[Harmon Seaver]

 Maybe so, maybe not, but it's irrelevant --- the basic problem with
nukes as far as I can see, and the reason I will *always* absolutely oppose
all of them, no matter what the design, is the human factor. Someone else
mentioned the terrorist problem, which is a a growing threat, but the bottom
line is this: American workers and industry cannot even produce a decent
car, or decent roads to drive them on --- the worker sabotage and
carelessness, and the official and industrial corruption are such that they
never, ever will. And the same is true of the nuclear industry --- there
will never, ever, at any time be a safe nuclear plant built in this country.
I've worked both in construction and also in auto plants -- sabotage and
absurd design are a given and always will be.

"F. Marc de Piolenc" wrote:

> I realize this is a largely anti-nuclear forum, so I'll say all this
> quickly and only once, and only because somebody else brought it up.
>
> The low-dose rate danger is a myth based on junk science, carefully
> fostered by the anti-nuke movement over decades.
>
> If it were true, it would be impossible for nuclear workers to get life
> or health insurance without subsidy and aviators (who get cosmic-ray
> exposure that is significantly higher than the dose rate allowed by NRC
> regulations) would be dying like flies of radiation-related diseases. It
> just ain't so.
>
> Re long-lived nuclear waste - the longer the life, THE LOWER THE LEVEL
> OF RADIOACTIVITY. It's the short-lived stuff that is dangerous - and if
> the nuclear industry were allowed to reprocess "spent" fuel (which for
> safety reasons is only allowed to go to 5% burnup), the low volume, high
> flux waste would be segregated and stored for the several half-lives
> required to drop to background at very low cost, because it decays VERY
> FAST. The remaining low level waste would be stored in long term
> facilities, but with a hazard protection level commensurate with the
> much lower risk. The anti-nuclear crowd demonstrates either dishonesty
> or ignorance by quoting radiation fluxes taken from the highly
> radioactive waste and lifetimes that pertain to the low-rad waste. And
> they're the same people who are responsible for eliminating
> reprocessing, thus guaranteeing that 90% of the fuel value, plus all the
> high-level waste, plus all the low-level waste, ALL HAVE TO BE DISPOSED
> OF TOGETHER, thus ensuring that nuclear power is "unsafe" and
> uneconomical. Talk about self-fulfilling prophesies!
>
> As for reactor safety, it is possible to make reactors that are
> inherently safe against core meltdown - that is reactors that will do no
> damage outside of their containment structure even in the worst case -
> total primary coolant loss, total failure of all redundant engineered
> backups and total failure of control-rod and safety-rod actuation
> mechanisms in the full-open position. One example is the Modular High
> Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor advocated by General Atomics. There are
> disadvantages to inherently safe reactors, however - typically they are
> size limited (MHTGR grosses 40 MWth, I think) so large outputs mean
> several reactors in a rather large complex - one that allows each
> reactor the heat dissipation radius it needs to fulfill the promise of
> inherent safety. The real estate required may not be a problem, but to
> achieve economies of scale requires true mass production of reactor
> modules, not custom jobs like most current nuclear reactors. Another
> difficulty of the MHTGR is that it requires enriched fuel - about 30% -
> and very demanding fuel pellet processing, which complicates
> reprocessing. On the other hand, burnup is higher...
>

--
Harmon Seaver, MLIS
CyberShamanix
Work 920-203-9633   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home 920-233-5820 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] RE: air car's indirect pollution vs EV's

[doctor who]

My point is that when you wrap a EV around a tree or have a serious accident 
there is the potential for a Hazmat situation (drip or no drip it's still 
acid and hydrogen), electrocution or electrical fire. Whereas compressed air 
is just that. Sweep up the pieces and go.

I'm still looking for some life span studies on batteries as compared to 
compressed air. I cannot believe that the manufacture, maintenance and 
disposal cost for batteries is lower than that of compressed air systems. If 
so I better go replace my pnuematic jackhammer with one of those battery 
operated rigs.

So what exactly is the volt/amp conversion to psi? My ratchet wrench at 
60psi is far more efficient than my 3/8" cordless 18volt drill. So I am 
assuming since it takes far less energy [electric energy utilized by the 
compressor] from the pnuematic ratchet wrench to do the same amount of 
torqued turning. This is based on similar RPM's/torque ranges. It takes 
approximatly an hours worth of energy to recharge the battery for an hours 
usage. While it is low voltage DC, alot of energy is wasted off as heat. The 
compressor takes five minutes of AC voltage to charge the tank for the same 
amount of usage. Granted its low pressure compressor but even using a 
4500psi tank regulated down I can go all day on one tank. My battery tools 
do not compare.

By weight my air tools are much lighter than my equivilantly powered 
electric tools (battery weight included). So if I apply the eqivilant 
weights to a vehicle one could figure that a compressed air vehicle would 
weigh signifigantly less than a high torque electric motor, battery bay and 
the 4 miles of heavy gauge copper wire. Electric vehicles need the extra 
power of batteries to propulse the added weight.

On another note what is to stop someone from adding a generator/alternator 
to one of the drag wheels to power a high efficiency compressor? As long as 
you dont exceed the maximum recovery rate of the compressor, your station 
refills could be limited to the occasional pressure top off for those heavy 
loads.

EV's compared to dino burners are signifigant improvement over belching out 
clouds of thick black carbon. However they are no where near as clean as a 
bicycle. (Since we are comparing apples and oranges). While EV's are an 
improvement over the combustion engine they just are not practical for 
anything over a trip to the grocery store or errands. You will never see a 
practical EV long haul tractor trailer. And I have yet to see any EV that 
will drive straight thru from Virginia to Florida at highway speeds. I like 
to get there without 8 hour layovers for the car to charge.

Compressed air technology has the advantage of substituting liquid gas for 
compresssed gases for the purpose of increasing the ranges. EV's stay 
relativly constant with the amount of charge they will contain and last time 
I checked they still take several hours to gain a full range charge. Another 
advantage is the wasted energy from gas expansion is used to the cool the 
vehilce. Do they make EV's with AC?

Sure it takes energy to power the compressors. I'd love to see a high 
compression plant powered by alternative energies. If that where to be the 
case than IMHO the EV car theory would be put aside as the antiquated 
technology it is.

While most EV'ers are responsible eco-minded folks as hybrids become common 
place and EV's see higher implementation you will find more battery bays 
sitting in trash piles on backroads, along with tires and other "valuable" 
recyclable trash. Ultimatly the cost of getting rid of used batteries [will 
rest on the consumer], and will send more to the dumps/landfills/trashpiles. 
It's human nature to be wastefull.

In my mind the most eco-friendly vehicle is one that does not create 
hazardous waste in unfavourable conditions. (being your typical junkyard or 
trashpile at the end of the vehicles usefull life, how many ppl are going to 
pay to pull the batteries out before they junk these cars?) There are ppl in 
this country who pay for oil changes, you can forget about these folks 
pulling a few hundred pounds of corroded batteries out so they can take it 
to the retailer/recycler.

For me EV's just havent met my low impact standards yet. Regardless of 
wether an air car cleans the air or not, if it has a nuetral enviromental 
impact. It has one leg up on EV vehicles. In any case I havent seen solid 
figures for the air car yet so I'm going to end my theoretical jousting on 
that note.

Respectfully,
Cordain
Dulles, VA

From: "steve spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com


newer lead acids used a starved electrolyte scheme, where there is no acid
to drip, even when cracked open. today's lead acids are easily and cheaply
recycled, you just take the battery back to the place you purchased it from,
and they are responsible for returning it to a recycler.

a battery still produces more of your original input of energy than
compressed 

[biofuel] RE: air car's indirect pollution vs EV's

[Alan S. Petrillo]

"doctor who" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> High pressure tanks do not fail randomly. A negelected or non-annually 
> inspected tank will fail at random. This is the fault of the operator not 
> the tank. A regularly inspected properly functioning tank (relief valve or 
> relief tube functioning) has a really low probability of failure during it's 
> *expected* service life. 

This is true.  But look around at the cars you see on the road.  How
many of them get regular inspections?  Some people have to be beaten
about the head and shoulders to get their cars into the shop when things
break, let alone for service and inspections.  What do _you_ think would
happen if high pressure tanks hit the mass market in vehicles?  

> I know I strap one to my back and walk into fires.

And you have my respect for doing it, sir.  Unlike most of the drivers I
see around here I -=*ALWAYS*=- yield to fire/rescue vehicles.  

[Scott Air blown tank]
> The explosion tube contained all the "shrapnel" 
> allowing only the gas to escape.

Even that pressure wave can do a lot of damage.  When the high pressure
tank blew in the scuba shop the shrapnel damage was limited to the shop.
 The pressure wave broke windows for 3 blocks.  

> Fiberglass or expoy wrapped tanks are not only incredibly safe, but when 
> properly maintaned and inspected are much safer than half a ton of battery 
> acid.  If I were in a car that had flipped several times and I was trapped 
> inside I would rather be in a air powered car rather than half a tonn of 
> battery acid dripping on me.

So design the EV batteries with gelled or solid electrolyte.  Anything
that's going to be in a vehicle needs to be crashworthy.  

> According to the air car website the valves on this tank are mounted on the 
> side of the cylinders (as oppossed to the ends), so the "missle" or "rocket" 
> effect is minimal to none.

Good idea, that.  
 
> High pressure containers are safe. They do not just suddenly fail with out 
> provocation. Telling me stories of a failed "surplus" mil. container does 
> not surprise me. It is surplus for a reason. 

Yep.  A reason like the unit that once owned it has drawn down, cased
its colors, and doesn't exist anymore.  The tank in question was in
hydro, and had not passed its design life.  The design maximum pressure
was 6000 psi and they were only being charged to 5000.  The
investigation found a cause, but I don't remember what it was.  Being
government surplus, the words "lowest bidder" come to mind.  

> Also the story of a heated 
> scuba tank that failed in the trunk is another one of many Boiling Liquid 
> Expanding Vapour Explosions (BLEVE)stories. These type of explosions are 
> known are not uncommon on equipment with failed or non-functioning safety 
> relief valves/tabs.

A point _against_ high pressure tanks, I believe.  If we start putting
thousands of air powered cars on the road how long do you think it'll be
before one of them has a relief valve fail and just the wrong time and
pops?  

> You are already surrounded by high pressure tanks. They are on numerous bbq 
> grills, attached to trailers. 

Propane storage does not require thousands of psi, but merely hundreds.  

> A vital part of the braking systems on heavy 
> duty vehicles. 

Again, hundreds.  

> On HVAC systems to power thermostats.

I can't speak to this on thermostats, but most of the ones I've seen
have little tubes on them that I doubt could hold as much as a hundred
psi.  The high pressure in HVAC systems is in the refrigerant loops,
anyway.  And again, hundreds.  

> Attached to your refigerator, your vehicles A/C system. 

350psi on the high side, or so my guage tells me.  

> On the backs of 
> several million firefighters in this country. etc...etc...

Don't forget the scuba divers, both professional and amateur.  

And all of the airplanes that cary high pressure oxygen cylinders.  

> While they do contain an incredible amount of energy so does an electric 
> vehicle. There are millions more high pressure tanks in this country than 
> EV's. 

That's an apples and oranges comparison.  A better comparison would be
high pressure tanks to _batteries_.  There may be millions of high
pressure tanks in the world, but there are also millions of _batteries_.
 And there are fewer high pressure air powered vehicles than EV's.  

> An EV's has a far greater potential to leak acid or short and make the 
> vehicle into a rolling welder or elephant sized cattle prod. 

Gelled or solid electrolytes can solve this problem.  

> (I can provide  pictures at request)

Please.  

> Every kind of vehilce has some sort of danger to it. It requires a great 
> deal of energy to propulse a vehicle. Wether that stored energy be air or 
> electricity either can can kill you easily if it malfunctions. 

This is true.  

> Personally I 
> find compressed air technology far more exciting than electric vehicles. 
> Sadly I do not believe this technology will be accepted here in the

[biofuel] Shell - South Africa PV pilot

[Edward Beggs]

http://www.shell.com/rw-br/content/0,6126,38123-63479,00.html


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Shell Renewables

[Edward Beggs]

http://www.shell.com/rw-br/0,6124,,00.html


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] G8 Renewable Energy report

[Edward Beggs]

They plan to sell photovoltaics to an identified 1 billion customers who
currently do not have electricity, want it, and currently pay for kerosene
or diesel at the same monthly price Shell Renewables will charge them for a
solar PV system on their roof. They make PV systems affordable by billing in
payments, like an electric utility.

Ed B.
www.biofuels.ca




- Original Message -
From: "Pedro M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] G8 Renewable Energy report


> What«s the politic of Shell relationg Renowable energy ( biodiesel ) .
Does
> it sell biodiesel in its fuel-stations ???'.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:32 PM
> Subject: [biofuel] G8 Renewable Energy report
>
>
> > http://www.renewabletaskforce.org/default.asp
> > G8 Renewable Energy Taskforce Homepage
> >
> The Task Force is chaired by Dr Corrado Clini (Director General,
Department
> of Environment, Italy) and Sir Mark Moody Stuart (Shell).
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] G8 Renewable Energy report

[Pedro M.]

What«s the politic of Shell relationg Renowable energy ( biodiesel ) . Does
it sell biodiesel in its fuel-stations ???'.


- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:32 PM
Subject: [biofuel] G8 Renewable Energy report


> http://www.renewabletaskforce.org/default.asp
> G8 Renewable Energy Taskforce Homepage
>
The Task Force is chaired by Dr Corrado Clini (Director General, Department
of Environment, Italy) and Sir Mark Moody Stuart (Shell).


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Where direct the money

[Pedro M.]

That«s for sure, I will do. But, think for a moment, that you are  the
President of the U.S. and  your ideas are help the nuclear-fossil
industries, like you said in you plans. And that you recieve a suggestion
like the send here, from the Forum of Nuclear Industry, that could give
money for the elections ..

Which one do you prefer ???.

For sure, the second.

How can you deciede select the first one. Only if the people ask it to you
clearly and you have no another remedy ;)

All the best.
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Where direct the money


> Hi Pedro
>
> Suggestion. See "G8 Renewable Energy report". Go to the link, answer
> the 10 questions, and tell 'em we need a UN Renewable Energy Agency.
>
> Best
>
> Keith Addison
> Journey to Forever
> Handmade Projects
> Tokyo
> http://journeytoforever.org/
>
> "Pedro M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Where direct the money and the public resources, to nuclear-fossil energy
or
> >to renowable biofuels ???.
> >
> >This is the kernel of the problem, in Europe ( Loyola de Palacio,
> >Comissioner of the EU), United States ( Bush Plan ), and so on.
> >
> >Have we a response for this problem ??. For sure, it«s the question of
the
> >future of biofuels
> >
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "steve spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 12:16 PM
> >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Nuclear
> >
> >
> > > who cares. this is not a anti nuclear forum. it's a biofuels forum.
enough
> > > already.
> > >
> > > Steve Spence
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Where direct the money

[Keith Addison]

> > "Have we a response for this problem ??. For sure, it«s the question of
>the
> > future of biofuels"
>
>Aye. I agree with Pedro. The money will go to the most effective lobbying ,
>more dedicated to nuclear means less for renewables research. Nuclear has
>had its  chance, and share of the public treasury for decades. Time to shift
>to renewables.
>
>"Who cares"? On this point, at least, we should. And the response is clear.
>Don't let the $ go there.
>
>Ed B.
>www.biofuels.ca

Yea, I'll second that (third it?). Maybe we can shift this discussion 
from the pros and cons of nukes to how best to accomplish such an aim.

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Tokyo
http://journeytoforever.org/

 


>---
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Pedro M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:53 AM
>Subject: [biofuel] Where direct the money
>
>
> > Where direct the money and the public resources, to nuclear-fossil energy
>or
> > to renowable biofuels ???.
> >
> > This is the kernel of the problem, in Europe ( Loyola de Palacio,
> > Comissioner of the EU), United States ( Bush Plan ), and so on.
> >
>
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "steve spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 12:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [biofuel] Nuclear
> >
> >
> > > who cares. this is not a anti nuclear forum. it's a biofuels forum.
>enough
> > > already.
> > >
> > > Steve Spence


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Where direct the money

[Keith Addison]

Hi Pedro

Suggestion. See "G8 Renewable Energy report". Go to the link, answer 
the 10 questions, and tell 'em we need a UN Renewable Energy Agency.

Best

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Tokyo
http://journeytoforever.org/

"Pedro M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Where direct the money and the public resources, to nuclear-fossil energy or
>to renowable biofuels ???.
>
>This is the kernel of the problem, in Europe ( Loyola de Palacio,
>Comissioner of the EU), United States ( Bush Plan ), and so on.
>
>Have we a response for this problem ??. For sure, it«s the question of the
>future of biofuels
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "steve spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 12:16 PM
>Subject: Re: [biofuel] Nuclear
>
>
> > who cares. this is not a anti nuclear forum. it's a biofuels forum. enough
> > already.
> >
> > Steve Spence


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] G8 Renewable Energy report

[Keith Addison]

http://www.renewabletaskforce.org/default.asp
G8 Renewable Energy Taskforce Homepage

http://www.renewabletaskforce.org/report.asp
Report download

We would be most interested to hear any comments you have about the 
report, please do so by going to the Notice Board page.

The Notice Board page has the list of 10 questions that we posed to 
readers of this web site. Your answers were sought to provide a wide 
reaching input to the report and we thank you for that valuable input.

After these 10 questions there is a place where you can submit your 
comments and view those of others.

http://www.renewabletaskforce.org/NB.asp

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuels-biz] G8 Renewable Energy report

[Keith Addison]

http://www.renewabletaskforce.org/default.asp
G8 Renewable Energy Taskforce Homepage

http://www.renewabletaskforce.org/report.asp
Report download

We would be most interested to hear any comments you have about the 
report, please do so by going to the Notice Board page.

The Notice Board page has the list of 10 questions that we posed to 
readers of this web site. Your answers were sought to provide a wide 
reaching input to the report and we thank you for that valuable input.

After these 10 questions there is a place where you can submit your 
comments and view those of others.

http://www.renewabletaskforce.org/NB.asp

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

Biofuels at Journey to Forever
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel at WebConX
http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Where direct the money

[Edward Beggs]

> "Have we a response for this problem ??. For sure, it«s the question of
the
> future of biofuels"

Aye. I agree with Pedro. The money will go to the most effective lobbying ,
more dedicated to nuclear means less for renewables research. Nuclear has
had its  chance, and share of the public treasury for decades. Time to shift
to renewables.

"Who cares"? On this point, at least, we should. And the response is clear.
Don't let the $ go there.

Ed B.
www.biofuels.ca

---


- Original Message -
From: "Pedro M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 11:53 AM
Subject: [biofuel] Where direct the money


> Where direct the money and the public resources, to nuclear-fossil energy
or
> to renowable biofuels ???.
>
> This is the kernel of the problem, in Europe ( Loyola de Palacio,
> Comissioner of the EU), United States ( Bush Plan ), and so on.
>

>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "steve spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [biofuel] Nuclear
>
>
> > who cares. this is not a anti nuclear forum. it's a biofuels forum.
enough
> > already.
> >
> > Steve Spence



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Re: Microprocessing of soybean oil to biodiesel

[Steven Hobbs]

Cordain, yes I have thought of the idea of having seed "toll pressed" or on
contract if you would prefer. The main problems are
1)tonnage, I've approached a mill and they suggested a parcel between 5000 to
10,000 tonnes!
2)There aren't many extraction mills to choose from in Australia and seen to
have contractual obligations to meet first (regular customers)
3)There is a solvent recovery system involved with most of them
4) My supply of seed to be crushed has to be freighted 6 hours to a mill and the
oil has to be freighted back before conversion. Added cost.
5) Availability of oil is in the hands of my processor (eg I can't do anything
untill he does!)
6) A mobile extractor is a good idea but is it possible? I have been through an
oil mill and I'm not sure you could possibly fit a boiler, roller mill, seed
conditioner, presses, cooker, fines recovery system, settling tanks, and
centrifical seperator on the back of a truck!

Cordain, in Australia farmers production is not controlled by the Government
through Quotas and set aside. You can grow as much of anything as you like as
long as you can pay the bills and sell it! The two crops I would consider would
be Canola and Safflower. Canola because there is a lot grown in the immediate
area and farmers are familiar with growing it and grow it well, and Safflower,
because (even though I have been told I'm mad because it is a fantastic high
value oil - dosn't matter that no-one wants to buy it!) if my historical
rainfall data is correct, global warming I suspect is having an effect on my
rainfall. I have noticed an average decrease in the last two decades of
approximately 40mm of rainfall per decades for the last two decades, and
safflower is an oil crop that has its breeding from semi-arid regions of the
world.  I'm not sure of the value of Saff meal. I can't seem to unearth any
information in the relation to the value of saff meal.
But finally Cordain, I have the freedom to choose wether the crop is used for
food or oil and I can produced what I like. Another advantage of growing your
own crop and processing it is that regardless of the international price of vege
oil if a farmer is prepared to grow a given acreage solely for the purpose of
diesel replacement the cost of growing that oil is only 32cents per litre!
Thanks for your suggestions,
regards
Steven
doctor who wrote:

> Steve how much soy/other crops per year are you allowed to produce? Out of
> that amount if it is not a food crop how much would you be allowed to
> produce? Finally if your crops had a higher resale value as a fuel producing
> crop versus food producing crop how much of your total yields would you be
> willing to dedicate to fuel production?
>
> Also if you where approached by a company that offered to turn your oil
> crops into fuel for a flat fee by volume, would you be interested in
> something like that. (Something along the lines of a mobile extruder/fuel
> conversion plant that sets up on site, you pay for the gross conversion fees
> and you keep the fuel/oil for either resale to a distributor or usage in
> your vehicles). The idea being saving initial startup cost on a plant that
> will only be in production for harvestime. With the fuel oil having a higher
> resale value as oppossed to raw feedstock.
>
> Sorry for all the questions I'm an engineer not a farmer. I'm trying to gain
> a better understanding of the governments role in preventing food surplus
> and trying not to affect gross market value in the process.
>
> Cheers,
> Cordain
> Dulles, VA
>
> From: Steven Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Microprocessing of soybean oil to biodiesel
>
> Thanks for your reply. I am a farmer who is thinking seriously about the
> prospect
> of growing, pressing and producing bio-diesel. I have a few neighbours who
> are
> "interested" by the concept and we would be looking at replacing 10%-25% of
> our
> current petroleum derived diesel fuel bill with a renewable fuel. Exciting
> ,eh!
> I am interested in also trying be able to trade our carbon credit to give an
> added incentive to farmers. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make
> him
> drink!
> Animal feed stuffs (eg meal) is also up my alley. We run prime
> lambs(possibility
> of feed lotting) and there are a few cattle feed lots within a 10km radius
> of
> me.I am very interested in what you are doing
> Regards
> Steven
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  > In a message dated 7/23/2001 3:26:33 AM Central Daylight Time,
>  > biofuel@yahoogroups.com writes:
>  >
>  > <
>  >  Subject: Re: RE:  Microprocessing of soybean oil to biodiesel
>  >
>  >  Cornelius, your extraction plant sounds very interesting. Could you
> please
>  > email
>  >  your information to me. My address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >  A couple of questions to throw open
>  >  1) Does cold pressed oil need to be degummed prior to react

[biofuel] Why biofuels ???

[Pedro M.]

It has just been created nuclear-fossil-dangers in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nuclear-fossil-dangers where we can send post
about the new energy politics and their dangers, like a base for an
alternative answer : the biofuels, biodiesel and renowable energy.

A place for deep questions ;)

All the best.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Where direct the money

[Pedro M.]

Where direct the money and the public resources, to nuclear-fossil energy or
to renowable biofuels ???.

This is the kernel of the problem, in Europe ( Loyola de Palacio,
Comissioner of the EU), United States ( Bush Plan ), and so on.

Have we a response for this problem ??. For sure, it«s the question of the
future of biofuels


- Original Message -
From: "steve spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Nuclear


> who cares. this is not a anti nuclear forum. it's a biofuels forum. enough
> already.
>
> Steve Spence
> Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter:
> http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm
>
> Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com
> Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm
> X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax
> We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
> we borrow it from our children.
> --
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "F. Marc de Piolenc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 2:44 AM
> Subject: [biofuel] Nuclear
>
>
> > I realize this is a largely anti-nuclear forum, so I'll say all this
> > quickly and only once, and only because somebody else brought it up.
> >
> > The low-dose rate danger is a myth based on junk science, carefully
> > fostered by the anti-nuke movement over decades.
> >
> > If it were true, it would be impossible for nuclear workers to get life
> > or health insurance without subsidy and aviators (who get cosmic-ray
> > exposure that is significantly higher than the dose rate allowed by NRC
> > regulations) would be dying like flies of radiation-related diseases. It
> > just ain't so.
> >
> > Re long-lived nuclear waste - the longer the life, THE LOWER THE LEVEL
> > OF RADIOACTIVITY. It's the short-lived stuff that is dangerous - and if
> > the nuclear industry were allowed to reprocess "spent" fuel (which for
> > safety reasons is only allowed to go to 5% burnup), the low volume, high
> > flux waste would be segregated and stored for the several half-lives
> > required to drop to background at very low cost, because it decays VERY
> > FAST. The remaining low level waste would be stored in long term
> > facilities, but with a hazard protection level commensurate with the
> > much lower risk. The anti-nuclear crowd demonstrates either dishonesty
> > or ignorance by quoting radiation fluxes taken from the highly
> > radioactive waste and lifetimes that pertain to the low-rad waste. And
> > they're the same people who are responsible for eliminating
> > reprocessing, thus guaranteeing that 90% of the fuel value, plus all the
> > high-level waste, plus all the low-level waste, ALL HAVE TO BE DISPOSED
> > OF TOGETHER, thus ensuring that nuclear power is "unsafe" and
> > uneconomical. Talk about self-fulfilling prophesies!
> >
> > As for reactor safety, it is possible to make reactors that are
> > inherently safe against core meltdown - that is reactors that will do no
> > damage outside of their containment structure even in the worst case -
> > total primary coolant loss, total failure of all redundant engineered
> > backups and total failure of control-rod and safety-rod actuation
> > mechanisms in the full-open position. One example is the Modular High
> > Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor advocated by General Atomics. There are
> > disadvantages to inherently safe reactors, however - typically they are
> > size limited (MHTGR grosses 40 MWth, I think) so large outputs mean
> > several reactors in a rather large complex - one that allows each
> > reactor the heat dissipation radius it needs to fulfill the promise of
> > inherent safety. The real estate required may not be a problem, but to
> > achieve economies of scale requires true mass production of reactor
> > modules, not custom jobs like most current nuclear reactors. Another
> > difficulty of the MHTGR is that it requires enriched fuel - about 30% -
> > and very demanding fuel pellet processing, which complicates
> > reprocessing. On the other hand, burnup is higher...
> >
> > Marc de Piolenc
> > Philippines
> >
> >
> >
> > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> > Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/T

Re: [biofuel] RE: air car's indirect pollution vs EV's

[Pat McCotter]

cordain,

Thank you for that post on the comparative safety. The Scott air packs are a 
very safe item.

Yes, I would like the air powered car, also. Because the technology is not 
available at this time, though, I am at present putting aside money for my 
EV conversion. For the very reasons you put forth in your post, my battery 
of choice will be the Optima 'Yellow-Tops'. They are not liquid acid filled. 
Yes, they are three times the price of regular lead-acid. I would like them 
to be cheaper, but I am willing to pay that for my safety and, if I should 
get into an accident, the safety of those working on the accident scene. 
(They are also purported to last longer than the regular lead-acid.)

The design of the EV will include proper safety disconnects that will be 
noticeable to any emergency workers as such. The local fire department will 
get a look at the vehicle when it is completed.

Pat McCotter

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuels-biz] Biodiesel Production

[Keith Addison]

Hello Peter

There's been some discussion on the Biofuels list about why your 
company has to use a free web hosting service like Geocities, with 
it's annoying banner ads and so on - not something to inspire 
confidence among would-be clients, one would have thought.

Also, I've found that Ocean Air Environmental / NOPEC doesn't respond 
to email enquiries. I contacted your company about its change of name 
some months ago when I was told about it by World Energy 
Alternatives, asking for further information so I could update your 
details at our (very popular) Biofuels Supplies and Suppliers page, 
but never got a reply.

You have two entries, if you want to check - under Biodiesel 
suppliers and Biodiesel technology:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_supply.html

Best wishes

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Tokyo
http://journeytoforever.org/

 

>Ocean Air Environmental formally NOPEC owns the Lakeland Florida
>facility the largest Biodiesel refinery in the world (methyl ester)
>our existing capacity exceeds 10,000,000 gallons per year, with the
>ability to increase capacity to 18,000,000 per year.
>
>Visit our Biodiesel Website: www.oceanairenvironmental.com
>http://www.oceanairenvironmental.com
>THIS SITE IS UNDER RE-DEVELOPMENT
>
>Ocean Air provides engineering and technology licensing rights /
>PROVEN KNOW HOW to several international entities some of which are
>based in the following countries: Poland, Spain, Thailand... with
>additional facilities under development throughout the United States.
>
>It should be noted, that the unique nature of ocean air's proven
>technology affords the refiner the ability to produce (methyl ester)
>biodiesel from many different sources of feedstock (OAE Biodiesel can
>be produced from recycled oils (yellow grease) and animal fats
>(tallow, lard, poultry fat).  OAE Biodiesel can also be produced from
>virgin grade vegetable oils (soybean, canola, rapeseed, safflower
>etc).   Therefore, the refinery is able to utilize the least
>expensive source of feedstock in order to optimize profits for the
>refinery owner.
>
>Ocean Air Environmental is currently in negotiation for exclusive
>territorial rights throughout many additional international
>territories Therefore, please review the following information and
>let me know if you would like to proceed to the next step.
>
>
>DETAILS:
>1.  Minimum size production plant for economical operation is 3
>million gallons/yr (12 million liters/yr), which would need an
>investment of approx. $5 million
>
>2.  If the market dictates, we recommend a plant size of 10 million
>gallons/yr (40 million liters/yr), which would need an investment of
>$10-12 million
>
>3.  The unique aspect of Ocean Air proprietary technology Biodiesel
>can be produced from recycled oils (yellow grease) and animal fats
>(tallow, lard, poultry fat).  OAE Biodiesel can also be produced from
>virgin grade vegetable oils (soybean, canola, rapeseed, safflower
>etc).
>
>Regarding our overseas licensing and plant construction, our thoughts
>are as follows:
>
>Minimum size biodiesel production plant for profitable operation is
>10,000 m3/yr or 2.75 million gallons/yr.  Our production facility in
>Florida is 10 million gallons/yr.  The cost of 2.75 million gallons
>facility would be around $3-4 million.  The cost of 10.0-million
>gallons/yr facility will be around $10-12 million. We will buy the
>glycerin byproduct for refining in our plant.  The feedstock for this
>plant can be animal fats (poultry or beef byproduct fat); used
>cooking oils form restaurants (yellow grease), or virgin vegetable
>oils (rapeseed, soybean, corn, safflower, cotton seed, canola etc).
>We provide license and engineering service for the plant.
>
>Engineering services for overseas plants typically include front
>engineering package that contains site analysis, plot plants, process
>flow diagrams, material balances, utility balances, equipment sizing,
>and equipment specification.  The host country typically does the
>detailed engineering using our front-end engineering package.  We
>provide continuing support however as needed. The construction also
>is done by local contractor with us being the advisor as needed.  We
>will also provide plant-commissioning support.  The engineering
>services are provided on a time and material basis at a billing rate
>of $150/hr plus out of pocket expenses.
>
>Plant license involves a small upfront fee and an ongoing royalty
>that includes a limited yearly technical support.  If this structure
>interests you, we can proceed further.  We are currently involved in
>large licensed plants in Europe and Southeast Asia.
>
>
>Once a firm interest is developed between the two parties, we will
>provide additional details pursuant to an agreement.  The plot size
>is approx. 2-3 acres (a acre=4046 sq meter) depending upon the plant
>production capacity.
>
>We look forward to your response.
>
>Regards,
>
>Peter S. Krasinski
>International Developme

[biofuel] Clear Energy

[Pedro M.]

Biodiesel it«s not a clear energy. Nuclear it«s.

Santiago Alonso, Director of the Forum of the Nuclear Industry of Spain, has
said that the nuclear energy industries doesn«t agree with the treatment of
the Nuclear Energy in the Bonn Climate Conference, because all the clear
energies, that don«t pollution with gases,  weren«t treated in the same way.

The nuclear energy it«s CLEAR, SAFE and don«t pollution the atmosfere with
gases that  heat of the planet and because of this, it«s not very reasonable
exclude it from the Clear Instrument stablished in the Kioto Protocol (
 ).

Because of this, it«s very important have the IDEAS clear ;) The use of
nuclear-fossil  energy or not, it«s  the base for the use or not of the
biofuels.

We  need RENOWABLE energy like a first step to use a more natural energy
than petrol.

In the future, we can use clear renowable energies, like sollar energy,
compressed air and so , like final step for a better air.

The only clean air that nuclear can create, for sure, it«s the nuclear cloud
that appeared over Chernobyl ;)

All the best.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuels-biz] Biodiesel Production

[pkrasinski]

Ocean Air Environmental formally NOPEC owns the Lakeland Florida 
facility the largest Biodiesel refinery in the world (methyl ester) 
our existing capacity exceeds 10,000,000 gallons per year, with the 
ability to increase capacity to 18,000,000 per year. 

Visit our Biodiesel Website: www.oceanairenvironmental.com 
http://www.oceanairenvironmental.com  
THIS SITE IS UNDER RE-DEVELOPMENT

Ocean Air provides engineering and technology licensing rights / 
PROVEN KNOW HOW to several international entities some of which are 
based in the following countries: Poland, Spain, Thailand... with 
additional facilities under development throughout the United States. 

It should be noted, that the unique nature of ocean air's proven 
technology affords the refiner the ability to produce (methyl ester) 
biodiesel from many different sources of feedstock (OAE Biodiesel can 
be produced from recycled oils (yellow grease) and animal fats 
(tallow, lard, poultry fat).  OAE Biodiesel can also be produced from 
virgin grade vegetable oils (soybean, canola, rapeseed, safflower 
etc).   Therefore, the refinery is able to utilize the least 
expensive source of feedstock in order to optimize profits for the 
refinery owner.

Ocean Air Environmental is currently in negotiation for exclusive 
territorial rights throughout many additional international 
territories Therefore, please review the following information and 
let me know if you would like to proceed to the next step.

  
DETAILS:
1.  Minimum size production plant for economical operation is 3 
million gallons/yr (12 million liters/yr), which would need an 
investment of approx. $5 million
 
2.  If the market dictates, we recommend a plant size of 10 million 
gallons/yr (40 million liters/yr), which would need an investment of 
$10-12 million
 
3.  The unique aspect of Ocean Air proprietary technology Biodiesel 
can be produced from recycled oils (yellow grease) and animal fats 
(tallow, lard, poultry fat).  OAE Biodiesel can also be produced from 
virgin grade vegetable oils (soybean, canola, rapeseed, safflower 
etc).  
 
Regarding our overseas licensing and plant construction, our thoughts 
are as follows:
 
Minimum size biodiesel production plant for profitable operation is 
10,000 m3/yr or 2.75 million gallons/yr.  Our production facility in 
Florida is 10 million gallons/yr.  The cost of 2.75 million gallons 
facility would be around $3-4 million.  The cost of 10.0-million 
gallons/yr facility will be around $10-12 million. We will buy the 
glycerin byproduct for refining in our plant.  The feedstock for this 
plant can be animal fats (poultry or beef byproduct fat); used 
cooking oils form restaurants (yellow grease), or virgin vegetable 
oils (rapeseed, soybean, corn, safflower, cotton seed, canola etc). 
We provide license and engineering service for the plant.
 
Engineering services for overseas plants typically include front 
engineering package that contains site analysis, plot plants, process 
flow diagrams, material balances, utility balances, equipment sizing, 
and equipment specification.  The host country typically does the 
detailed engineering using our front-end engineering package.  We 
provide continuing support however as needed. The construction also 
is done by local contractor with us being the advisor as needed.  We 
will also provide plant-commissioning support.  The engineering 
services are provided on a time and material basis at a billing rate 
of $150/hr plus out of pocket expenses.  
 
Plant license involves a small upfront fee and an ongoing royalty 
that includes a limited yearly technical support.  If this structure 
interests you, we can proceed further.  We are currently involved in 
large licensed plants in Europe and Southeast Asia.  
 

Once a firm interest is developed between the two parties, we will 
provide additional details pursuant to an agreement.  The plot size 
is approx. 2-3 acres (a acre=4046 sq meter) depending upon the plant 
production capacity.

We look forward to your response.

Regards,

Peter S. Krasinski
International Development
Ocean Air Environmental

Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think! 
http://promo2.yahoo.com/sbin/Yahoo!_BusinessNewsletter/survey.cgi
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

Biofuels at Journey to Forever
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel at WebConX
http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuels-biz] Seattle aims to beat the Kyoto requirements

[david_design]

Looks like Seattle is an ideal place to set up a US biodiesel 
business.

See this from Planet Ark
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=11717


Biofuels at Journey to Forever
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel at WebConX
http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: New Paint - Same Nukes was Re: [biofuel] Nuclear

[Pat McCotter]

The other nuclear reactors not operated by humans:

Oklo, Gabon.

http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO/index.shtml


>From: "bob golding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
>To: 
>Subject: Re: New Paint - Same Nukes was Re: [biofuel] Nuclear
>Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 12:29:31 +0100
>
>You wouldn't think so from the publicity that BNFL puts out. Come and see
>how safe Windscale/Sellafield (change the name get rid of the problem) is.
>You can eat your tea off the floor,or at least off the glossy brochure. 
>That
>reactor was the same design as Chernobyl. The only safe nuclear reactor is
>one not operated by humans. I would place it about 93,000,000 miles
>away,they lye back and enjoy it.
>
>bob golding


_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/