[biofuels-biz] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
MM wrote: Did I read correctly somewhere in one of these conversations: it will be 2007 before we have low-sulfur diesel fuel? Or is that a state-to-state issue? IIRC new EPA requirements for low-sulfur diesel (cutting sulfur by 97%) come into effect in 2007. If so, that is *way* too long and is the Oil-lobby-at-its-best-in-delaying-things. Yes - yesterday would be better. Seen it with the EV situation, seen it with the California ethanol situation. When you think you've beaten them, that usually means you've lost. They are that good. Never mind, we'll kill 'em anyway! :-) We might as well say that for diesel powered vehicles to be make a significant reduction in fossil fuel emissions, we need first for diesel fuel to not only be largely biodiesel, but for that biodiesel to be made by certified sustainable low-CO2 producing sources, and then we can put the diesel engines out there to use it. Yes, putting diesels on the road would accomplish some CO2 reductions, evidently, but the bigger reductions will come with the added biodiesel angle. Should we wait? Hell no. No problem producing CO2-free biofuels. I've often said this, I have wide personal experience of these production systems to base it on, and it's very well corroborated by field results and research all over the world, dating back many decades - nothing new here. This is from the latest report I've received (I get something like this every few days). Some of these tests may have used fossil fuels for tractors etc, but not for fertilizers. The tractor fuel is easily replaced by on-farm produced ethanol, biodiesel or SVO. Note that the best improvements come from Third World countries (in fact organics was mostly developed in Third World countries). A lot of people think organics is just farming without chemicals (organics by neglect), or substituting organic-origin chemicals for synthetic ones (organics by substitution), generally low-input low-output, but well-managed organic systems (organics by management) are low-input high-output. This report is from ISIS in the UK: Another experiment examined organic and conventional potatoes and sweet corn over three years. Results showed that yield and vitamin C content of potatoes were not affected by the two different regimes. While one variety of conventional corn out-produced the organic, there was no difference between the two in yield of another variety or the vitamin C or E contents. Results indicate that long-term application of composts is producing higher soil fertility and comparable plant growth. A review of replicated research results in seven different US Universities and from Rodale Research Center, Pennsylvania and the Michael Fields Center, Wisconsin over the past 10 years showed that organic farming systems resulted in yields comparable to industrial, high input agriculture. Corn: With 69 total cropping seasons, organic yields were 94% of conventionally produced corn. Soybeans: Data from five states over 55 growing seasons showed organic yields were 94% of conventional yields. Wheat: Two institutions with 16 cropping year experiments showed that organic wheat produced 97% of the conventional yields. Tomatoes: 14 years of comparative research on tomatoes showed no yield differences. The most remarkable results of organic farming, however, have come from small farmers in developing countries. Case studies of organic practices show dramatic increases in yields as well as benefits to soil quality, reduction in pests and diseases and general improvement in taste and nutritional content. For example, in Brazil the use of green manures and cover crops increased maize yields by between 20% and 250%; in Tigray, Ethiopia, yields of crops from composted plots were 3-5 times higher than those treated only with chemicals; yield increases of 175% have been reported from farms in Nepal adopting agro-ecological practices; and in Peru the restoration of traditional Incan terracing has led to increases of 150% for a range of upland crops. Projects in Senegal involving 2000 farmers promoted stall-fed livestock, composting systems, use of green manures, water harvesting systems and rock phosphate. Yields of millet and peanuts increased dramatically, by 75-195% and 75-165% respectively. Because the soils have greater water retaining capacity, fluctuations in yields are less pronounced between high and low rainfall years. A project in Honduras, which emphasized soil conservation practices and organic fertilisers, saw a tripling or quadrupling of yields. In Santa Catarina, Brazil, focus has been placed on soil and water conservation, using contour grass barriers, contour ploughing and green manures. Some 60 different crop species, leguminous and non-leguminous, have been inter-cropped or planted during fallow periods. These have had major impacts on yields, soil quality, levels of biological activity and water-retaining capacity. Yields
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
So, no problem producing the crops for ethanol, SVO or biodiesel, and the entire operation can easily be powered on biofuels or by-products. That would include such integrated prodedures as using the DDG from ethanol production as livestock feed, the livestock manure producing biogas for process heat, the residue subjected to aerobic composting for recycling to the soil - with the aerobic composting a constant and free source of heat for hot water (60 deg C+), also useful for process heat. Burning glyc (safely) and recovered FFAs offer further such options. Easy. Ok, so the use of non-sustainable fossil fuels can be eliminated from fertilizer and the like, and with a better integrated system, sustainable biofuels could be used in the machines which are used in the production of the bioproducts used to make biofuels. I think I've always assumed that this was possible, and not that much of an issue (never mind the Cornell Professors of the world), but I must admit that what I do question would be to get a handle, down the road, as to how *much* fuel this whole system could sustain over a very long period of time, in conjunction with healthy sustainable food production. As a matter of degree, the concepts of sustainable healthy agriculture making both food and fuels... how big of an economy can they serve? There are several important concerns here, not least of which is avoiding setting us all up for a bit of starvation. I do not mean to imply that I've calculated that it would lead to that. I mean only that it seems logical to me to give consideration to these matters. Now, you may have given consideration to these matters to the nth degree, publicly and privately, and be weary of it, but anyway: I really honestly do regret lashing out at Todd that way, now that I realize he had something different in mind. But to take an additional lesson from it: he was attempting to express weariness with going over the same topics over and over again. Ok, so that's something you've also alluded to in your own way, say when someone asks you to repeat yourself, where a topic has been covered several times recently or in easily accessible archives. And it is in the nature of these forums of our day that, perhaps since archives can be somewhat laborious, and perhaps also to human-nature-laziness and perhaps just due to the need to continually chew things over, we go over and over certain things, perhaps making some different points each time. What I want to add here is that I was thinking about your Sierra Club observations, and about the enlightening things I've learned recently about the energy efficiency advantages of diesel-engine processes, and I think for better or worse, it is in the nature of these public debates that progress can really depend not only on being right, or partly right, but on going over things again and again until the point connects with enough targets. I've communicated with and dealt with activists who were mature enough to disagree with me about this or that and yet maintain the conversation over the years until we could, by reasoning things out, both decide who might have the better side of it. And I'd bet some work that the Sierra Club folks, or folks similar to them on what is apparently the wrong side of the diesel debate, have not quite gotten what has been said about diesel, and *bio*-diesel. Part of this is I think perhaps due to the subtlety of the argument that one needs put into place engine technologies that inherently can give consumers the power to choose nonfossil fuels for the first time in a century choice (diesel leading to choosing diesel or biodiesel, batteries leading to choosing different derivations of electricity, some hybrids leading to a variety of choices). And part of this is simply that they haven't given much thought at all to Diesel issues. And part of this is that they have some legitimate points to make about the CO2 emissions when taken before the net considerations we discussed above. But overall, I think there's some ripe room there for them to be somewhat swayed, given a bit more lobbying, just as I have been. This is not to say an expert technician like Todd or whoever need weary himself over-much with going over and over things, since that may not be their bag. But those who are more on the politico-economic side of things will I guess continue to run into this work that needs doing, even if it is understandable that some of them are just sick of it and won't do it. I do think that given a bit more intellectual ammo, Kerry might continue to try to come through, to the best of his abilities. As for Dingle, he does what Detroit, particularly Union Leaders and Auto Industry Lobbyists, tells him to do, in my opinion, without deviation. As for the auto executives, now I am the one who is weary not from repetitiveness exactly, but when the topic at hand involves analyzing folks whose logic and thinking is particularly
Re: [biofuel] Re: [biofuels-biz] The Debate Over Diesel
If you, or someone else, has some real-world data on your mileage using some well-defined mainstream sort of biodiesel, then I'd like to look at including it, if the data is well-kept. We'd need to have a good idea of the MJ/gallon of that particular type of biodiesel, so as to calculate MJ/mile or mile/MJ. Then, if the data is kept on a car that has a standardized original engine for which there is EPA data for the whole system we could also post that data next to it, and make a note that, regardless of which is more energy efficient, the biodiesel is of a far more sustainable approach, has lower net CO2 emissions, amounts to recycling of waste in some cases, maybe with a link for where folks can buy some and have it delivered, etc. Automotive gasoline has an energy density of 34.2 MJ/liter, while automotive diesel fuel is 38.6 MJ/liter. There are 3.78541 liters per gallon, so gasoline's energy density is 129.46 MJ/gallon, while diesel's is 146.12 MJ/gallon. So, with the TDI engine, you can go 50 miles (highway) on 146.12 MJ, so you use 2.922 MJ/mile. With the gasoline engine, it's 30 miles (highway) on 129.46 MJ, so that's 4.315 MJ/mile. So, with the diesel engine in that car, you are using 32% less energy per mile. Hm, looks more efficient to me. So, measuring efficiency on miles per unit energy (actually, I calculated energy/mile, but same thing, just flip it over), diesels (at least the TDI) are a good deal more efficient. The fact is, gasoline engines are around 25-30% efficient. Modern diesel engines are in the 50%+ range in use, with some research programs getting efficiencies up to 65% on new engines under development. And when you factor in that diesels can run on biodiesel so there is no net CO2 emission, it's a HUGE difference in terms of pollution/mile. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] Iodine Values
This link to The Australian Greenhouse Office report was posted on the biodiesel.infopop.net forum by Ewan, I hadn't seen it before although it has been on line for a while now. http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/alternative_fuel.html Being a SVO head I only looked at the Canola sections. In this respect the report draws heavily from the Calais Clark report http://www.shortcircuit.com.au/warfa/paper/paper.htm and appears to use (along with 'expert' advice) the issue of the drying properties of oils to dismiss the fuel as a viable alternative although they do briefly mention European SVO converters and Elsbett. Unfortunately none of the foresight of the EU report http://www.folkecenter.dk/plant-oil/news/PPOnews_04072002.htm Clearly the Calais/Clark report is a great piece of work. The findings with regard to oils Iodine Value are often quoted as a problem with SVO use, the report finding only coconut oil suitable in an UNMODIFIED ENGINE. People running SVO use all types of oil, I doubt often coconut, and the expected problems with polymerised oils are not often reported. In view of this it appears heating the oil, as is necessary in a reliable SVO system, must effect the polymerisation of the oils in the engine. Anybody able to shed any light on what is going on with respect to this (Tony)? Also when was 'Waste Vegetable Oil As A Diesel Replacement Fuel' Phillip Calais and AR (Tony) Clark published? Darren www.vegburner.co.uk Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] How much fuel can we grow? - was Re: The Debate Over Diesel
A bit more on this, following my previous post (relevant bits below). I said it was a meaningless question whether we could grow enough biofuel, and that the figures don't make a lot of sense. Consider it from another point of view, for an idea of how little sense the official macro-level calculations make. Illegal crops are pretty interesting, if you're into agricultural development, and seldom considered from this aspect - a complete alternative system to serve as a comparison. I'm sure there are those among us who think they're pretty interesting in their own right, and, at least as far as marijuana is concerned, they're not a small minority. I haven't followed it much in the US, but I did have quite a close look at it in Holland some years ago, when I was working for a Third World development institute there, so when I see something about it I probably take note. Still, my numbers could be wrong, or at least out of date, but the principle still applies. What I recall seeing is that 32 million Americans smoke marijuana, and 3 million smoke it every day. If that's on official figure it'll be on the shy side, but at any rate that's a hell of a lot of marijuana, though I can't translate it into an acreage, and that probably wouldn't make any sense anyway. I think most of it is homegrown these days. A study I handled of primary health care in Colombia in the early 80s, in the outlying areas round Medellin (doctoral thesis), mainly concerned poverty stricken peasants who'd been growing marijuana for the US market until the supply and quality of US homegrown left them without a market (so, a bit later, they took to cocaine). Anyway, what we have here is a major agricultural industry, complete in all its aspects, from provision of inputs, seeds, equipment, technology, production, harvest, processing, distribution, and it's completely invisible. Now how do you account for that? Growing a crop for 32 million people and it's invisible? No extension agencies, no subsidies, no bureaucrats, no chemical corporations with their sales campaigns, and in the face of enemy action from the law enforcement agencies. And clearly it's unstoppable. It's the same everywhere. In Holland it's illegal but decriminalized, people smoke it openly in the cafes, but the industry itself is invisible. Very many people there smoke it, in that crowded little country, and there's no trace to be seen of the production system. Which, by the way, includes things like some really brilliant crop improvement, the Dutch only grow improved varieties these days. I think that applies in the US too. It's a bit like us. Biodieselers in the US must be costing Big Oil millions of dollars a year already, and they haven't even noticed it yet. An average motorist uses 600 gallons a year, @ $1.40 = $840 x 1190 users = $1m/year. There are far more than 1,190 biodieselers in the US. We don't even know how many ourselves. Marijuana growing seems to be like that. In Holland, it happens in backyards, on balconies, in cellars, even in wardrobes fitted with gro-lights. It doesn't impinge on agricultural land at all, yet it produces a major crop. This is true micro-level production, and it never gets accounted for in all the macro-level figuring. It becomes possible when you decentralize energy production - when you decentralize anything, wrest it free of the corporations and bureaucrats. What would be the effect of planting a small-town's streets with jatropha trees, for instance? Consider also that city farming is now responsible for feeding many millions of people who might otherwise go hungry, and that too is often in the face of enemy action on the part of wrong-headed municipal authorities. This too is large-scale food-crop production that never sees the light of day in the official figures, but it's most significant all the same, and growing fast. http://journeytoforever.org/cityfarm.html City farms So let's not bother about it, let's just do it. Best wishes Keith MM wrote: I think I've always assumed that this was possible, and not that much of an issue (never mind the Cornell Professors of the world), but I must admit that what I do question would be to get a handle, down the road, as to how *much* fuel this whole system could sustain over a very long period of time, in conjunction with healthy sustainable food production. As a matter of degree, the concepts of sustainable healthy agriculture making both food and fuels... how big of an economy can they serve? There are several important concerns here, not least of which is avoiding setting us all up for a bit of starvation. I do not mean to imply that I've calculated that it would lead to that. I mean only that it seems logical to me to give consideration to these matters. It seems kind of obvious that farms would grow food, but they don't, for the most part. They produce agricultural commodities, a different matter. This leaves
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
Hello MM 'So, no problem producing the crops for ethanol, SVO or biodiesel, and the entire operation can easily be powered on biofuels or by-products. That would include such integrated prodedures as using the DDG from ethanol production as livestock feed, the livestock manure producing biogas for process heat, the residue subjected to aerobic composting for recycling to the soil - with the aerobic composting a constant and free source of heat for hot water (60 deg C+), also useful for process heat. Burning glyc (safely) and recovered FFAs offer further such options. Easy. Ok, so the use of non-sustainable fossil fuels can be eliminated from fertilizer and the like, and with a better integrated system, sustainable biofuels could be used in the machines which are used in the production of the bioproducts used to make biofuels. I think I've always assumed that this was possible, and not that much of an issue (never mind the Cornell Professors of the world), but I must admit that what I do question would be to get a handle, down the road, as to how *much* fuel this whole system could sustain over a very long period of time, in conjunction with healthy sustainable food production. As a matter of degree, the concepts of sustainable healthy agriculture making both food and fuels... how big of an economy can they serve? There are several important concerns here, not least of which is avoiding setting us all up for a bit of starvation. I do not mean to imply that I've calculated that it would lead to that. I mean only that it seems logical to me to give consideration to these matters. It seems kind of obvious that farms would grow food, but they don't, for the most part. They produce agricultural commodities, a different matter. This leaves the US with massive unsaleable surpluses of corn, soy, whatever, and at the same time the US is the world's biggest-ever food importer. The other OECD countries are similar. There's a lot of background on this here: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html Biofuels - Food or Fuel? And here: http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html Is ethanol energy-efficient? And probably elsewhere at Journey to Forever. The major problem of agriculture is, and has long been, surplus. Glut, not dearth. So the industrialized nation agriculture systems are designed (badly) to reduce glut - concentrate carbohydrates (crops) into proteins (livestock). The stuff isn't food, it's feed. If it's dearth you're worried about then it's the current production system that should be bothering you, no way is it sustainable, from any number of different points of view. Sustainable production systems are just that, sustainable. Can you see the implications of low-input high-output? Different ballgame, and infinitely more sane. So there's no problem of growing both food (real food) and fuel sustainably, and there's no danger of starvation. Everybody benefits - farmers, local communities, consumers, society, the environment. With the current system, there's not only the danger of starvation, but the reality of it - it's part and parcel of the inequitable economic system that goes with industrialized agriculture, among other things, even in the US, which has the highest levels of hunger in the OECD, and where the numbers of the hungry and poor are growing rapidly. It's not sustainable in terms of its high fossil-fuel use, industrial agriculture is a major CO2 producer, a major polluter, a major topsoil destroyer. Nobody benefits from this shit. Get rid of it. Let's do it properly at last. As for what proportion of energy could be produced by biofuels, who can say? None of the figures make much sense. If you took it down to micro-levels (which sustainable agriculture automatically does do anyway) local people would exploit local niches which don't even get counted now but might make a major overall difference. On integrated farms a lot of fuel can be produced as a by-product. A more relevant question would be the extent that current levels could be reduced, and how much more efficiently energy could be used. It's the kind of stultifying, argument-killing question you don't like, and neither do I - it'll have to be done anyway, so let's not delay any longer arguing about rather meaningless questions like that. Now, you may have given consideration to these matters to the nth degree, publicly and privately, and be weary of it, but anyway: I really honestly do regret lashing out at Todd that way, now that I realize he had something different in mind. It seems there was a misunderstanding, but I don't think you over-reacted. It was a very rude post, whichever way you look at it. But to take an additional lesson from it: he was attempting to express weariness with going over the same topics over and over again. Ok, so that's something you've also alluded to in your own way, say when someone asks you to repeat yourself, where a topic has been
Re: [biofuels-biz] Iodine Values
This link to The Australian Greenhouse Office report was posted on the biodiesel.infopop.net forum by Ewan, I hadn't seen it before although it has been on line for a while now. http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/alternative_fuel.html That's the CSIRO study - thankyou, I've had it for quite a long time, interesting study, lots of info, but the link I had for it died. Glad to have a new link. Sorry, can't help with the iodine question. regards Keith Being a SVO head I only looked at the Canola sections. In this respect the report draws heavily from the Calais Clark report http://www.shortcircuit.com.au/warfa/paper/paper.htm and appears to use (along with 'expert' advice) the issue of the drying properties of oils to dismiss the fuel as a viable alternative although they do briefly mention European SVO converters and Elsbett. Unfortunately none of the foresight of the EU report http://www.folkecenter.dk/plant-oil/news/PPOnews_04072002.htm Clearly the Calais/Clark report is a great piece of work. The findings with regard to oils Iodine Value are often quoted as a problem with SVO use, the report finding only coconut oil suitable in an UNMODIFIED ENGINE. People running SVO use all types of oil, I doubt often coconut, and the expected problems with polymerised oils are not often reported. In view of this it appears heating the oil, as is necessary in a reliable SVO system, must effect the polymerisation of the oils in the engine. Anybody able to shed any light on what is going on with respect to this (Tony)? Also when was 'Waste Vegetable Oil As A Diesel Replacement Fuel' Phillip Calais and AR (Tony) Clark published? Darren www.vegburner.co.uk Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 360
Two questions: 1. Does anyone know any details about the workshop titled: Business Management for Biodiesel Producers, Oct. 23-25, part of the Biodiesel Workshop Series at the Biomass Energy CONversion facility (BECON) in Nevada, Iowa? Does this look to be a worthwhile workshop? 2. Keith, do you have any references for the nasty things the Sierra Club has said about biodiesel? It doesn't surprise me, as the SC (and I say this as a long-time member and local activist) strikes me as an organization in which the left hand often doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Basically, I am just interested in the specific arguments that such groups are using against biodiesel. thanks all, thor skov = Grants Manager Stillaguamish Tribe Of Indians 3439 Stoluckquamish Lane P.O. Box 277 Arlington, WA 98223-0277 (360) 652-7362 Ext 284 __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel in the US
... refiners need four years' notice to begin production preparations. May 9, 2001 The Energy Information Administration released a report Monday that shows the possibility for a tight diesel fuel market in 2006, the year new sulfur requirements are to be phased in through a regulation adopted in the final days of the Clinton presidency and later endorsed by President Bush. The report, called for last summer by then House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), discusses the implications of the new regulation for vehicle fuel efficiency and examines the technology, production, distribution and cost implications of supplying diesel fuel to meet the new standard. Both short and mid-term effects are calculated, a first of its kind analysis in examining data year by year from 2006 to 2015, said James Kendell, the director of EIA's oil and gas division and the study's manager. To meet the new standards by 2006, the report says on the supply side that some of the current ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) producers would need to expand production while at least one refinery not currently producing the fuel would also need to enter the market. On the price side, the 2006 scenario says some refiners may be able to produce the fuel at a cost of an additional 2.5 cents per gallon, however at the volumes needed to meet demand, costs are estimated to be between 5.4 and 6.8 cents per gallon higher. Costs could be greater if the supply falls short of demand and consumers start bidding up the price. Between 2007 and 2010, the report shows prices rising an average of 6.8 cents per gallon. Prices will still be higher between 2011 and 2015, though at a slightly lesser average of 5.4 cents per gallon. The diesel rule requires a 97 percent reduction in sulfur content in fuels sold for heavy duty trucks and buses, decreasing the pollutant's levels from 500 parts per million (ppm) to 15 ppm. The ULSD fuel must be retailed by June 1, 2006. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, implementing the rule would annually reduce 2.6 million tons of smog-causing nitrogen oxide emissions and 110,000 tons of soot, or particulate matter. It would also prevent an estimated 8,300 premature deaths, 5,500 cases of chronic bronchitis and 17,600 cases of acute bronchitis in children each year. A coalition of environmental, state and industry groups has supported the rule, including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, American Lung Association, Clean Air Network, International Truck and Engine Corp., Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators. Oil company BP Corp., which has been marketing low-sulfur diesel in the United States since the summer of 1999, has also pledged its support for the rule. But there has also been criticism. The National Petrochemical Refineries Association, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Convenience Stores, Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers and the technology group ANTEK all filed suit against the rule earlier this year in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Bob Slaughter of NPRA said his organization objects to the costs that will come in complying with the rule as well as the time frame required for implementation. The uncertainty which the EIA report refers to is a point we've been making during the regulatory process and since the rule was made final, he said. Slaughter said EPA insufficiently studied the costs before adopting the rule and that there is still an opportunity for the agency to reconsider the standard by allowing a third party, such as the National Academy of Sciences, to conduct its own independent review. Such a study must be done expeditiously, Slaughter added, because refiners need four years' notice to begin production preparations. Meanwhile, Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust, said he is concerned the EIA study will serve as ammunition for industry groups, as well as the Bush administration, to undo the rule. Pointing to past EIA reports cited by President Bush and Vice President Cheney in their decisions to exclude carbon dioxide in any mandatory emission caps for power plants and a recent call for a massive expansion of energy production facilities, O'Donnell said, It raises real doubts about the Bush administration's intentions about the clean diesel standards. Will this lead to yet another flip-flop? Greg Dana, vice president for environmental affairs at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said the diesel rule should not be delayed. Instead, he said his group is petitioning EPA to move up the start date for ULSD to 2004, because the fuel allows newly created technologies to be used at their cleanest and most efficient. Specifically, he said the clean fuel is needed for implementation of Tier II
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel in the US
Greg Dana, vice president for environmental affairs at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said the diesel rule should not be delayed. Instead, he said his group is petitioning EPA to move up the start date for ULSD to 2004, because the fuel allows newly created technologies to be used at their cleanest and most efficient. Specifically, he said the clean fuel is needed for implementation of Tier II standards for light duty trucks and buses. Further evidence that Detroit Auto seems behind some diesel expansion in US. In addition to this and Dingel's apparent support, let us remember that their PNGV efforts I think mostly involved Diesel engines. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 360
Hello Thor snip 2. Keith, do you have any references for the nasty things the Sierra Club has said about biodiesel? It doesn't surprise me, as the SC (and I say this as a long-time member and local activist) strikes me as an organization in which the left hand often doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Yes, and kind of corporate with it. Well, that IS kind of corporate. It applies to this issue. They make press statements like this: Biodiesel is ever so slightly less polluting as regular diesel, but it's nowhere near as clean as natural gas, said Dan Becker, a spokesman for the Sierra Club. http://www.soyatech.com/bluebook/news/viewarticle.ldml?article=20010501-9 But if you go their their website and do a search for biodiesel you'll find this, among other things: Biodiesel at concentrations of 20% or higher also results in significant reductions of harmful emissions. Under the Clean Air Act Section 211(b) biodiesels were subjected to emissions testing. The following is a summary of emissions results. Emission Type B100 B20 Total Unburned Hydrocarbons -93% -30% Carbon Monoxide-50% -20% Particulate Matter -30% -22% Nitrogen Oxides +13% +2% Sulfates -100% -20% PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) -80% -13% nPAH (nitrated PAH) -90% -50% Ozone potential of hydrocarbons -50% -10% http://minnesota.sierraclub.org/ggi_vehicles__clean_fuels.htm http://www.sierraclub.org/ They discount biodiesel whenever possible, and so many reporters use them as talking heads. I think they're so knee-jerk anti-diesel they can't bear to acknowledge anything that might make them seem better. They're generally against biofuels, they love knocking ethanol, and they get the science wrong. Do a search of the Biofuel list archives for more info: http://archive.nnytech.net/ This is a typical anti-diesel statement: Daniel Becker, director of the global-warming program at the Sierra Club also doubts whether modern diesel technology will be clean enough for U.S. consumers. Diesel certainly has a past, he said. Whether it should have a future is a big question. http://www.auto.com/industry/diesel5_20020305.htm I think it's a real pity big groups like the Sierra Club divert so much money from small, local environmental groups. Best Keith Basically, I am just interested in the specific arguments that such groups are using against biodiesel. thanks all, thor skov = Grants Manager Stillaguamish Tribe Of Indians 3439 Stoluckquamish Lane P.O. Box 277 Arlington, WA 98223-0277 (360) 652-7362 Ext 284 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] dynamotive news
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/021002/20456_1.html Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/9bTolB/TM -~- Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
MM wrote: Did I read correctly somewhere in one of these conversations: it will be 2007 before we have low-sulfur diesel fuel? Or is that a state-to-state issue? IIRC new EPA requirements for low-sulfur diesel (cutting sulfur by 97%) come into effect in 2007. If so, that is *way* too long and is the Oil-lobby-at-its-best-in-delaying-things. Yes - yesterday would be better. Seen it with the EV situation, seen it with the California ethanol situation. When you think you've beaten them, that usually means you've lost. They are that good. Never mind, we'll kill 'em anyway! :-) We might as well say that for diesel powered vehicles to be make a significant reduction in fossil fuel emissions, we need first for diesel fuel to not only be largely biodiesel, but for that biodiesel to be made by certified sustainable low-CO2 producing sources, and then we can put the diesel engines out there to use it. Yes, putting diesels on the road would accomplish some CO2 reductions, evidently, but the bigger reductions will come with the added biodiesel angle. Should we wait? Hell no. No problem producing CO2-free biofuels. I've often said this, I have wide personal experience of these production systems to base it on, and it's very well corroborated by field results and research all over the world, dating back many decades - nothing new here. This is from the latest report I've received (I get something like this every few days). Some of these tests may have used fossil fuels for tractors etc, but not for fertilizers. The tractor fuel is easily replaced by on-farm produced ethanol, biodiesel or SVO. Note that the best improvements come from Third World countries (in fact organics was mostly developed in Third World countries). A lot of people think organics is just farming without chemicals (organics by neglect), or substituting organic-origin chemicals for synthetic ones (organics by substitution), generally low-input low-output, but well-managed organic systems (organics by management) are low-input high-output. This report is from ISIS in the UK: Another experiment examined organic and conventional potatoes and sweet corn over three years. Results showed that yield and vitamin C content of potatoes were not affected by the two different regimes. While one variety of conventional corn out-produced the organic, there was no difference between the two in yield of another variety or the vitamin C or E contents. Results indicate that long-term application of composts is producing higher soil fertility and comparable plant growth. A review of replicated research results in seven different US Universities and from Rodale Research Center, Pennsylvania and the Michael Fields Center, Wisconsin over the past 10 years showed that organic farming systems resulted in yields comparable to industrial, high input agriculture. Corn: With 69 total cropping seasons, organic yields were 94% of conventionally produced corn. Soybeans: Data from five states over 55 growing seasons showed organic yields were 94% of conventional yields. Wheat: Two institutions with 16 cropping year experiments showed that organic wheat produced 97% of the conventional yields. Tomatoes: 14 years of comparative research on tomatoes showed no yield differences. The most remarkable results of organic farming, however, have come from small farmers in developing countries. Case studies of organic practices show dramatic increases in yields as well as benefits to soil quality, reduction in pests and diseases and general improvement in taste and nutritional content. For example, in Brazil the use of green manures and cover crops increased maize yields by between 20% and 250%; in Tigray, Ethiopia, yields of crops from composted plots were 3-5 times higher than those treated only with chemicals; yield increases of 175% have been reported from farms in Nepal adopting agro-ecological practices; and in Peru the restoration of traditional Incan terracing has led to increases of 150% for a range of upland crops. Projects in Senegal involving 2000 farmers promoted stall-fed livestock, composting systems, use of green manures, water harvesting systems and rock phosphate. Yields of millet and peanuts increased dramatically, by 75-195% and 75-165% respectively. Because the soils have greater water retaining capacity, fluctuations in yields are less pronounced between high and low rainfall years. A project in Honduras, which emphasized soil conservation practices and organic fertilisers, saw a tripling or quadrupling of yields. In Santa Catarina, Brazil, focus has been placed on soil and water conservation, using contour grass barriers, contour ploughing and green manures. Some 60 different crop species, leguminous and non-leguminous, have been inter-cropped or planted during fallow periods. These have had major impacts on yields, soil quality, levels of biological activity and water-retaining capacity. Yields
Re: [biofuel] The Debate Over Diesel
Hi Keith, On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: Most US automakers currently do make some nice diesel engines - but they only sell them in Europe. Yes, eg Ford with Peugeot. And don't forget Diamler-Chrysler. The Mercedes division makes some very nice diesel engines (it still feels wierd to consider Mercedes and Chrysler as one entity. I have such opposing views of the two companies. My first two cars were chryslers, and total pieces of c**p :). Part of that is simply because many americans still picture diesels as noisy, dirty engines that won't work at all in cold weather. Do they though? I'm sure many do, but according to Kurt Liedtke of Bosch in that article I posted, it might be more the motor companies who think that's what they think. Diesels Are Ready. Why Aren't We? http://www.dieselforum.org/inthenews/boschspeech_080702.html In my experience, many people do. Whenever I'd mention to anyone that I bought/was buying a diesel, and mention the great gas mileage and such, they'd make comments like that's pretty good, but it's too bad diesels are so noisy, or dirty, or don't work in cold weather, etc.. One problem with that could be that unless it has a big black cloud they won't realize it's a diesel they're following. It'll take time. The Sierra Club et al are a major obstacle. Yup. Too many environmental groups have policies that actually hurt the environment more than they help it (i.e. opposing hydroelectric plants, wind farms, diesels, etc.). Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
So, no problem producing the crops for ethanol, SVO or biodiesel, and the entire operation can easily be powered on biofuels or by-products. That would include such integrated prodedures as using the DDG from ethanol production as livestock feed, the livestock manure producing biogas for process heat, the residue subjected to aerobic composting for recycling to the soil - with the aerobic composting a constant and free source of heat for hot water (60 deg C+), also useful for process heat. Burning glyc (safely) and recovered FFAs offer further such options. Easy. Ok, so the use of non-sustainable fossil fuels can be eliminated from fertilizer and the like, and with a better integrated system, sustainable biofuels could be used in the machines which are used in the production of the bioproducts used to make biofuels. I think I've always assumed that this was possible, and not that much of an issue (never mind the Cornell Professors of the world), but I must admit that what I do question would be to get a handle, down the road, as to how *much* fuel this whole system could sustain over a very long period of time, in conjunction with healthy sustainable food production. As a matter of degree, the concepts of sustainable healthy agriculture making both food and fuels... how big of an economy can they serve? There are several important concerns here, not least of which is avoiding setting us all up for a bit of starvation. I do not mean to imply that I've calculated that it would lead to that. I mean only that it seems logical to me to give consideration to these matters. Now, you may have given consideration to these matters to the nth degree, publicly and privately, and be weary of it, but anyway: I really honestly do regret lashing out at Todd that way, now that I realize he had something different in mind. But to take an additional lesson from it: he was attempting to express weariness with going over the same topics over and over again. Ok, so that's something you've also alluded to in your own way, say when someone asks you to repeat yourself, where a topic has been covered several times recently or in easily accessible archives. And it is in the nature of these forums of our day that, perhaps since archives can be somewhat laborious, and perhaps also to human-nature-laziness and perhaps just due to the need to continually chew things over, we go over and over certain things, perhaps making some different points each time. What I want to add here is that I was thinking about your Sierra Club observations, and about the enlightening things I've learned recently about the energy efficiency advantages of diesel-engine processes, and I think for better or worse, it is in the nature of these public debates that progress can really depend not only on being right, or partly right, but on going over things again and again until the point connects with enough targets. I've communicated with and dealt with activists who were mature enough to disagree with me about this or that and yet maintain the conversation over the years until we could, by reasoning things out, both decide who might have the better side of it. And I'd bet some work that the Sierra Club folks, or folks similar to them on what is apparently the wrong side of the diesel debate, have not quite gotten what has been said about diesel, and *bio*-diesel. Part of this is I think perhaps due to the subtlety of the argument that one needs put into place engine technologies that inherently can give consumers the power to choose nonfossil fuels for the first time in a century choice (diesel leading to choosing diesel or biodiesel, batteries leading to choosing different derivations of electricity, some hybrids leading to a variety of choices). And part of this is simply that they haven't given much thought at all to Diesel issues. And part of this is that they have some legitimate points to make about the CO2 emissions when taken before the net considerations we discussed above. But overall, I think there's some ripe room there for them to be somewhat swayed, given a bit more lobbying, just as I have been. This is not to say an expert technician like Todd or whoever need weary himself over-much with going over and over things, since that may not be their bag. But those who are more on the politico-economic side of things will I guess continue to run into this work that needs doing, even if it is understandable that some of them are just sick of it and won't do it. I do think that given a bit more intellectual ammo, Kerry might continue to try to come through, to the best of his abilities. As for Dingle, he does what Detroit, particularly Union Leaders and Auto Industry Lobbyists, tells him to do, in my opinion, without deviation. As for the auto executives, now I am the one who is weary not from repetitiveness exactly, but when the topic at hand involves analyzing folks whose logic and thinking is particularly
[biofuel] Iodine Values
This link to The Australian Greenhouse Office report was posted on the biodiesel.infopop.net forum by Ewan, I hadn't seen it before although it has been on line for a while now. http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/alternative_fuel.html Being a SVO head I only looked at the Canola sections. In this respect the report draws heavily from the Calais Clark report http://www.shortcircuit.com.au/warfa/paper/paper.htm and appears to use (along with 'expert' advice) the issue of the drying properties of oils to dismiss the fuel as a viable alternative although they do briefly mention European SVO converters and Elsbett. Unfortunately none of the foresight of the EU report http://www.folkecenter.dk/plant-oil/news/PPOnews_04072002.htm Clearly the Calais/Clark report is a great piece of work. The findings with regard to oils Iodine Value are often quoted as a problem with SVO use, the report finding only coconut oil suitable in an UNMODIFIED ENGINE. People running SVO use all types of oil, I doubt often coconut, and the expected problems with polymerised oils are not often reported. In view of this it appears heating the oil, as is necessary in a reliable SVO system, must effect the polymerisation of the oils in the engine. Anybody able to shed any light on what is going on with respect to this (Tony)? Also when was 'Waste Vegetable Oil As A Diesel Replacement Fuel' Phillip Calais and AR (Tony) Clark published? Darren www.vegburner.co.uk Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] cold weather
Yes I've owned a number of Perkins engines equipped with these as a starting aid. The fuel feed was from the filter on the engines I have owned, two 4236's and 4 litre Phaser Turbo all engines came from Renault/Dodge 50 series trucks in the UK. Recently scrapped an inlet manifold with such a device fitted. Should have had it out may have been useful in an SVO conversion. Darren www.vegburner.co.uk -Original Message- From: Ken Basterfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 October 2002 21:24 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] cold weather The device is called a 'Flame start' and is fitted in the inlet manifold. It was made by Lucas, and may still well be for all I know. I have used them on perkins engines and once on a reluctant L/rover diesel. Very efficient! The device is a 12 volt heater coil much like a car cigar lighter and oil from the injector leak off line is allowed to dribble through when it is powered up. The hot element ignites the diesel fuel with a 'woompf' and cranking will then draw flame heated air into the cylinders to aid starting. Might be able to find a part number if necessary. sincerely Ken B - Original Message - From: Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: 01 October 2002 17:06 Subject: Re: [biofuel] cold weather I've never heard of such a thing, were did you get this info.? Greg H. - Original Message - From: John Venema [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 15:48 Subject: Re: [biofuel] cold weather An other thing I recently discovered was a kind of flamethrower which will warm the airintake to the cylinder using diesel. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: 1. Since 1991, we have been flying missions over the no-fly zone to keep Saddam from using his military to slaughter Kurds and Shiite muslims as he has done numerous times in the past. The US didn't mind when he did that when he was a US puppet. He was never a US puppet. We sold him some weapons during his war on Iran, after Iran attacked Kuwaiti oil tankers (so yes, our involvement was motivated by oil), after the war had been going on for 7 years. How does that make him our puppet? The amount of weapons we sold him was tiny compared to several other countries, most noticably France and the former Soviet Union. So - how was he our puppet? We sold him weapons, and we never should have done that (as I said before, our leaders have made the mistake of choosing to sell weapons to the perceived lesser of two evils). But, the UN, and in particular the neighboring Arab nations were opposed to that (because a regime change has such a nasty feeling apparently. They'd prefer to just kill the pawns controlled by the evil dictator, than kill the evil dictator himself. And the Arab countries probably don't want any democracies taking a foothold in the region, as it would start making their own tyranical regimes look even worse than they already do). And who exactly is it that's been propping up these same tyrannical regimes and helping them suppress any attempt at democracy? Most of the world. What would Iran be like now, and through the last 25 years or so, but for the CIA-backed coup against Mossadeq in 1953 that put the Shah back in power (along with Big Oil)? Britain was the country primarily in favor of overthrowing Mossadeq. The CIA helped out, and it was a horrible thing to do. That was never a policy of the US government itself, but rather an act carried out by idiots who abused their power. What would Saudi Arabia be like now had the US not actively supported the royal tyranny there for decades, and its suppression of anything democratic (on behalf of Big Oil)? Most of the rest of the world supports the royal tyranny of Saudi Arabia - why do you single out the US as being the one responsible? It's like people who criticize the US because slavery was allowed in our country up until about 120 years ago - they seem to ignore the fact that we were one of the first countries in the world to outlaw slavery, guarantee civil rights for all of its citizens, and there are still many countries around the world that practice slavery. Yes, the Saudi royal tyranny has been aided quite by doing a lot of business with the US - and the rest of the world. We finally have leaders saying that we should not be supporting Saudi Arabia, and they're getting criticized as being hypocrites because past US leaders supported the Saudis. So yes, supporting ANY dictatorship is a mistake, as I've said before. What would the whole region be like now had the US not poured billions upon billions of military and other aid into Israel? Most likely Israel would not exist as they would have all been killed in 1948 immediately after being acknowledged as a country by the UN. Immediately after Israel declared itself a democratic state under the UN's resolution (181, separating the area into Israel, a Palestine state, and the city of Jerusalem), Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan invaded Israel. Should we have just let the Israelis be killed? The US chose to support the country that had/has a democratic government and guarantees basic civil rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc.) to all its residents. What does that have to do with oil? If our motivation was oil, we would have sided with the countries invading Israel, since the invaders produced far more oil than Israel ever has. If throughout this period, up to now and beyond, it hadn't been virtually impossible to distinguish US policy from Big Oil interests? Why is it that you continue to identify Big Oil interests only with the US? ALL developed nations have been basing their foreign policies on oil for decades. The main reason why Russia currently does not want a regime change in Iraq is becuase of oil (Russia is relying very heavily on oil sales to help its poor economy. Iraq currently does not export much oil. If a democracy is instituted in place of Saddam, the amount of oil they export would likely shoot way up, and the price of oil per barrel would drop considerably - having a rather bad impact on Russia's economy). I don't deny that oil has been a big factor in US foreign policy for decades - I just completely disagree with the notion that the US is different from the rest of the world in this way. Most of Europe criticizes the US for basing its policies partially on oil interests, yet they do exactly the same. There's no turning the clock back, but it's no use pretending these things haven't happened, and grossly skewed everything that's happened there, and everything that's
RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, kirk wrote: ARGH! U238 is not U235 and weapons grade is 60%U235 minimum. 15% is reactor fuel. The initial report I had read stated that they thought it was enriched to 15%. My mistake. Of course, the report now is that it was not uranium at all. See http://www.boston.com/dailynews/273/world/Turkish_atomic_energy_institut:.shtml Also, the weight initially given was wrong - the media had reported the mass of the entire package, which was primarily a lead container, as 35 pounds. The actual item inside which was first believed to be enriched uranium was only 5 ounces. Shielding is expressed in % attenuation. Gamma is not Alpha or Beta. How thick a layer to drop gamma fluence to what level? You are making assertions without factual data. U238 goes by the monniker depleted uranium-- for a reason. Depleted uranium is almost entirely U-238 (U-235's natural occurence is 0.7% of uranium in the ground. Depleted uranium has less U-235 than that. Anything with greater than 0.7% U-235 is enriched). The initial report I had read called it enriched uranium, not weapons grade. If you continue to think Arabs are brain dead twits anxious to enter paradise with the first suicide mission at hand they are going to eat your lunch. Keep thinking happy thoughts if that's what it takes--but it will cost you. Oh well. I don't think all Arabs are brain dead twits anxious to do a suicide run - but I'm not ignorant enough to pretend that there aren't radical extremists that are quite eager to do so. As for me just believing what I'm told - nothing could be further from the truth. But, I also don't instantly disbelieve everything the government says, which you apparently do. My point with this thread was to dispute your claim that there's no way someone could be carrying uranium in their car under the seat, not to say that well since the media reported it it must be true. Let me guess - you also agree with those who claim that there's no way a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/02, and that the US government staged the entire thing? Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
Let me guess - you also agree with those who claim that there's no way a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/02, and that the US government staged the entire thing? You lose your guess. But if you think our hands are clean you are are mistaken. I don't think you realize how structured the world already is. Of course, the report now is that it was not uranium at all. LOL-- yes, once it was pointed out by many the story was BS the handlers revised it. What's the saying? Let's run it up the flag pole and see if they salute it Next justification will be we have it on good authority he has suitcase nukes and we had best invade and remove them. I notice you didn't defend ANFO cutting pillars. Perhaps you know something about explosives and brisance. Invasion of pipelineistan soon. What a circus. Kirk -Original Message- From: Michael S Briggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:54 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, kirk wrote: ARGH! U238 is not U235 and weapons grade is 60%U235 minimum. 15% is reactor fuel. The initial report I had read stated that they thought it was enriched to 15%. My mistake. Of course, the report now is that it was not uranium at all. See http://www.boston.com/dailynews/273/world/Turkish_atomic_energy_institut:.sh tml Also, the weight initially given was wrong - the media had reported the mass of the entire package, which was primarily a lead container, as 35 pounds. The actual item inside which was first believed to be enriched uranium was only 5 ounces. Shielding is expressed in % attenuation. Gamma is not Alpha or Beta. How thick a layer to drop gamma fluence to what level? You are making assertions without factual data. U238 goes by the monniker depleted uranium-- for a reason. Depleted uranium is almost entirely U-238 (U-235's natural occurence is 0.7% of uranium in the ground. Depleted uranium has less U-235 than that. Anything with greater than 0.7% U-235 is enriched). The initial report I had read called it enriched uranium, not weapons grade. If you continue to think Arabs are brain dead twits anxious to enter paradise with the first suicide mission at hand they are going to eat your lunch. Keep thinking happy thoughts if that's what it takes--but it will cost you. Oh well. I don't think all Arabs are brain dead twits anxious to do a suicide run - but I'm not ignorant enough to pretend that there aren't radical extremists that are quite eager to do so. As for me just believing what I'm told - nothing could be further from the truth. But, I also don't instantly disbelieve everything the government says, which you apparently do. My point with this thread was to dispute your claim that there's no way someone could be carrying uranium in their car under the seat, not to say that well since the media reported it it must be true. Let me guess - you also agree with those who claim that there's no way a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/02, and that the US government staged the entire thing? Mike Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.393 / Virus Database: 223 - Release Date: 9/30/2002 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] What would you do??? Was: The BBC has been fooled...
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Curtis Sakima wrote: It always puzzled me ... why it's always portrayed as so h .. a ... o sensational that anti-aircraft guns are firing at our planes. I mean, try turning the tables around ... what would WE do if planes from a foreign country were flying around New York and California enforcing some sort of a No Fly Zone?? WE are there on THEIR soil (well, their airspace to be exact). What do we expect any (even half) self-respecting country to do?? True, but we are in their airspace as part of a UN agreement because they (well, Saddam) couldn't resist attacking neighbors. To say that they have a right to shoot at us for that is sort of like saying a convicted murderer has a right to attack prison guards because they are violating his civil rights by keeping him locked in a cell. Saddam violated several international laws, and part of his punishment from the UN is to have US planes patrol the no-fly zones to make sure he doesn't send his military in to attack Kurdish or Shiite villages, or wander into other countries. Sort of like being on parole. You could question whether the UN has the right to institute such policies, or whether someone like Saddam should have to follow international law. Personally, I think that without the UN, the world would be a much worse place. Of course, if the UN continues to allow a dictator to violate its resolutions without any reprisal, then the UN will essentially become meaningless. Second, why do we always seem to carry the banner of GOD,TRUTH RIGHT wherever we go?? I'm not so sure that all our (US) motivations are so godly, charity and altruistic Oh I agree. Particularly in the middle east where oil is involved. But, the same is true of every other country on the planet. Personally, I don't think the US or Europe should engage in ANY business with countries that deny basic civil rights to all of their people - unfortunately, that would exclude every country in the middle east (with the possible exception of Israel. Israel's constitution guarantees those basic civil rights (including freedom of religion), but many Israeli leaders have not followed that constitution in that regard. Of course, considering that they were attacked right after the founding of the country, with little rest since, it's hard to blame them too much. The purpose of the UN SHOULD be to act as an international peacekeeper/police. The problem though is that most countries of the UN don't want to get involved in military affairs unless there is an economic reason for it (this includes the US about half the time). Are we (today) falling into the same trap as they (the Nazi-public) did?? Now, before a flame war starts, I'm NOT comparing the US and Nazi govts. I'm comparing the two MEDIA'S. On a what's really going on vs. how truthfully it's reported basis. The difference is that we have freedom of speech in this country. The government may not always tell us the truth, but the media has the right to find out the truth and report it. And for the most part, they do a decent job of it - although of course there are many media sources that are biased (i.e. some ultra liberal sources, some ultra conservative, etc.). Lastly, I wonder about the word Weapons of Mass Destruction. Aren't we in the US supposed to have the largest nuclear arsenal in the WORLD?? The largest stockpile of ahem Weapons of Mass Destruction. Or is a nuclear ordinance/arsenal NOT a weapon of mass destruction?? I've seen old footage of American nuclear tests ... and the destruction look awefully mass-ive to me. So who really has the WoMD?? Yes, we have them, along with several other countries (China, Russia, India, France, Germany, UK, India, Pakistan (most recently joined the nuke club), Israel, etc.). While there has been saber-rattling among some of these groups, so far they/we have all proven that we can avoid using them, and just have them as a form of deterrent. The most dangerous saber rattling has been between India and Pakistan. THe problem is that some countries simply cannot be trusted with WOMD. The fact that Saddam has used chemical (and possibly biological) weapons on several occasions is a pretty good indication that he fits into the group of cannot be trusted with WOMD. Many people for some reason believe that the US (and all other countries that currently have nukes) should destroy them (i.e. glassify the nuclear material). That's simply absurd. We do that, and of course several countries would not do it, so then they'd feel comfortable using them with relative impunity. As for why some countries should not be allowed to have WOMD, have a look at http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/landesman.htm This has an interview of the man who used to be the chief of Pakistan's military intelligence (the interview starts about halfway down). Rather distubring how he calmly states
[biofuels-biz] Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
Hello MM 'So, no problem producing the crops for ethanol, SVO or biodiesel, and the entire operation can easily be powered on biofuels or by-products. That would include such integrated prodedures as using the DDG from ethanol production as livestock feed, the livestock manure producing biogas for process heat, the residue subjected to aerobic composting for recycling to the soil - with the aerobic composting a constant and free source of heat for hot water (60 deg C+), also useful for process heat. Burning glyc (safely) and recovered FFAs offer further such options. Easy. Ok, so the use of non-sustainable fossil fuels can be eliminated from fertilizer and the like, and with a better integrated system, sustainable biofuels could be used in the machines which are used in the production of the bioproducts used to make biofuels. I think I've always assumed that this was possible, and not that much of an issue (never mind the Cornell Professors of the world), but I must admit that what I do question would be to get a handle, down the road, as to how *much* fuel this whole system could sustain over a very long period of time, in conjunction with healthy sustainable food production. As a matter of degree, the concepts of sustainable healthy agriculture making both food and fuels... how big of an economy can they serve? There are several important concerns here, not least of which is avoiding setting us all up for a bit of starvation. I do not mean to imply that I've calculated that it would lead to that. I mean only that it seems logical to me to give consideration to these matters. It seems kind of obvious that farms would grow food, but they don't, for the most part. They produce agricultural commodities, a different matter. This leaves the US with massive unsaleable surpluses of corn, soy, whatever, and at the same time the US is the world's biggest-ever food importer. The other OECD countries are similar. There's a lot of background on this here: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html Biofuels - Food or Fuel? And here: http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html Is ethanol energy-efficient? And probably elsewhere at Journey to Forever. The major problem of agriculture is, and has long been, surplus. Glut, not dearth. So the industrialized nation agriculture systems are designed (badly) to reduce glut - concentrate carbohydrates (crops) into proteins (livestock). The stuff isn't food, it's feed. If it's dearth you're worried about then it's the current production system that should be bothering you, no way is it sustainable, from any number of different points of view. Sustainable production systems are just that, sustainable. Can you see the implications of low-input high-output? Different ballgame, and infinitely more sane. So there's no problem of growing both food (real food) and fuel sustainably, and there's no danger of starvation. Everybody benefits - farmers, local communities, consumers, society, the environment. With the current system, there's not only the danger of starvation, but the reality of it - it's part and parcel of the inequitable economic system that goes with industrialized agriculture, among other things, even in the US, which has the highest levels of hunger in the OECD, and where the numbers of the hungry and poor are growing rapidly. It's not sustainable in terms of its high fossil-fuel use, industrial agriculture is a major CO2 producer, a major polluter, a major topsoil destroyer. Nobody benefits from this shit. Get rid of it. Let's do it properly at last. As for what proportion of energy could be produced by biofuels, who can say? None of the figures make much sense. If you took it down to micro-levels (which sustainable agriculture automatically does do anyway) local people would exploit local niches which don't even get counted now but might make a major overall difference. On integrated farms a lot of fuel can be produced as a by-product. A more relevant question would be the extent that current levels could be reduced, and how much more efficiently energy could be used. It's the kind of stultifying, argument-killing question you don't like, and neither do I - it'll have to be done anyway, so let's not delay any longer arguing about rather meaningless questions like that. Now, you may have given consideration to these matters to the nth degree, publicly and privately, and be weary of it, but anyway: I really honestly do regret lashing out at Todd that way, now that I realize he had something different in mind. It seems there was a misunderstanding, but I don't think you over-reacted. It was a very rude post, whichever way you look at it. But to take an additional lesson from it: he was attempting to express weariness with going over the same topics over and over again. Ok, so that's something you've also alluded to in your own way, say when someone asks you to repeat yourself, where a topic has been
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
I'm not going to argue with you any more Mike, no point. You've swallowed the party line, and the hook and the sinker too, and, as always, it'll be others who'll choke on it. I disagree with everything you say, and I could certainly weigh the whole list down and you with supportive references, I do know what I'm talking about, I have been a Middle East correspondent, among other things, I know the history, and the situation. But it wouldn't do any good, you just won't see it. I talked about your impenetrable shield of rationalization, I've tried the rational approach, it bounces off, you're determined to mkiss the wood for the trees. Too bad. Curtis talks much more sound sense, so do very many others. Keith On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: snip Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] How much fuel can we grow? - was Re: The Debate Over Diesel
Anyway, what we have here is a major agricultural industry, complete in all its aspects, from provision of inputs, seeds, equipment, technology, production, harvest, processing, distribution, and it's completely invisible. Now how do you account for that? Growing a crop for 32 million people and it's invisible? No extension agencies, no subsidies, no bureaucrats, no chemical corporations with their sales campaigns, and in the face of enemy action from the law enforcement agencies. And clearly it's unstoppable. I wonder what percentage is grown indoors. Around here when the cops want to make a bust I think one tool is just to check electric bills (meth is also not uncommon around here, in fact this particular area is one of the major decades-old areas for it because of Hells Angels Presence.) When it's grown indoors, that's a twisted but interesting energy chain sun-to-(fuel formation process such as hydro or coal)-to-power plant-to grid-to-closetted plant growth. I also wonder what results have occurred when biofuels have been used to make electricity. Have they been tried in fuel cells? Conventional portable generators? Larger? It's the same everywhere. In Holland it's illegal but decriminalized, people smoke it openly in the cafes, but the industry itself is invisible. Very many people there smoke it, in that crowded little country, and there's no trace to be seen of the production system. Which, by the way, includes things like some really brilliant crop improvement, the Dutch only grow improved varieties these days. I think that applies in the US too. It's a bit like us. Biodieselers in the US must be costing Big Oil millions of dollars a year already, and they haven't even noticed it yet. An average motorist uses 600 gallons a year, @ $1.40 = $840 x 1190 users = $1m/year. There are far more than 1,190 biodieselers in the US. We don't even know how many ourselves. Marijuana growing seems to be like that. In Holland, it happens in backyards, on balconies, in cellars, even in wardrobes fitted with gro-lights. It doesn't impinge on agricultural land at all, yet it produces a major crop. This is true micro-level production, and it never gets accounted for in all the macro-level figuring. It becomes possible when you decentralize energy production - when you decentralize anything, wrest it free of the corporations and bureaucrats. What would be the effect of planting a small-town's streets with jatropha trees, for instance? Consider also that city farming is now responsible for feeding many millions of people who might otherwise go hungry, and that too is often in the face of enemy action on the part of wrong-headed municipal authorities. This too is large-scale food-crop production that never sees the light of day in the official figures, but it's most significant all the same, and growing fast. http://journeytoforever.org/cityfarm.html City farms So let's not bother about it, let's just do it. Best wishes Keith MM wrote: I think I've always assumed that this was possible, and not that much of an issue (never mind the Cornell Professors of the world), but I must admit that what I do question would be to get a handle, down the road, as to how *much* fuel this whole system could sustain over a very long period of time, in conjunction with healthy sustainable food production. As a matter of degree, the concepts of sustainable healthy agriculture making both food and fuels... how big of an economy can they serve? There are several important concerns here, not least of which is avoiding setting us all up for a bit of starvation. I do not mean to imply that I've calculated that it would lead to that. I mean only that it seems logical to me to give consideration to these matters. It seems kind of obvious that farms would grow food, but they don't, for the most part. They produce agricultural commodities, a different matter. This leaves the US with massive unsaleable surpluses of corn, soy, whatever, and at the same time the US is the world's biggest-ever food importer. The other OECD countries are similar. There's a lot of background on this here: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_food.html Biofuels - Food or Fuel? And here: http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html Is ethanol energy-efficient? And probably elsewhere at Journey to Forever. The major problem of agriculture is, and has long been, surplus. Glut, not dearth. So the industrialized nation agriculture systems are designed (badly) to reduce glut - concentrate carbohydrates (crops) into proteins (livestock). The stuff isn't food, it's feed. If it's dearth you're worried about then it's the current production system that should be bothering you, no way is it sustainable, from any number of different points of view. Sustainable production systems are just that, sustainable. Can you see the implications of low-input high-output? Different ballgame, and infinitely more sane. So
Re: [biofuel] How much fuel can we grow? Diesel
It always amuses me to see objections to renewable sources couched in terms of how well could (solar, wind, waves, algae, whatever) supply today's consumption of (fuel, plastics, tires, whatever)? Not only are today's sources unsustainable, today's consumption is unsustainable. There is no need for renewable sources to match present consumption -- part of the solution will HAVE to be a radical change in consumption and lifestyle. You don't hear that much, tho, maybe cuz it's not a very popular notion among those who benefit from the status quo. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: So what? There are Americans who would like to overthrow the Bush regime too, and by force, and with the same stated aims. The difference is that the majority of Iraqis want Hussein out. Again, how do you know that? It's nothing but hearsay. Check with the numerous groups started by Iraqis aimed at bringing a real democracy to the country. And even if they did, what does that have to do with the US? It's simply none of your business. So, we should have intervened in Tibet, but we shouldn't intervene in Iraq? Why? When should the rest of the world intervene when a dictator is allowing people within his own country to starve to death, killing those who disagree with them, and could pose a threat to the rest of the world? Should we never intervene? Then, should we also not send millions of tons of food to people starving around the world? None of our business, right? It's one way or the other - isolationism, or being involved in world affairs. The western world has screwed up in the past - primarily from allowing tyrants to come to power, or stay in power. My feeling is that the UN should act together to help bring democracy to the entire world, using force to overthrow tyrants when necessary. We shouldn't just say it's none of our business if he wants to kill his own people. I agree - I don't think we should ever give any aid to any country that doesn't guarantee all of its citizens basic civil/human rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc.). We have made huge mistakes in our dealings in the middle east. We supported Hussein in his war on Iran because we decided Iran was the lesser of two evils - primarily because Iran attacked Kuwaiti oil tankers. Supporting someone because they are slightly less evil than someone else is ridiculous. I don't think evil has anything to do with it either way, it's entirely pragmatic who gets supported and who doesn't. I doubt Big Oil saw the loss of Kuwaiti oil tankers in terms of evil, nor anything to do with such issues as civil/human rights, freedom of speech and religion. Didn't make for nice numbers. The coup against Mossadeq also had nothing to do with those things, just numbers, and billions of barrels. As I've said, I agree that oil interests have played too large a role in the international policies of essentially ALL first world countries - including the US, but also pretty much all of Europe, Asia, etc. But, we have also been actively involved when oil was not at all involved. As for Iraq, Saddam was never a puppet of the US, as other countries (especially France and the USSR) played a far greater role in supporting him against Iran. Did we come to the aid of South Korea because of oil? Did we come to the aid of Vietnam because of oil? How much oil do we get by giving millions of tons of food to starving people around the world? As for getting involved in Iraq in 1991 - had the UN not booted Iraq out of Kuwait, it's not inconceivable that Saddam would have sent his forces into Saudi Arabia. He takes over Saudi Arabia, and suddenly he's in control of about 2/3 of the world's oil supplies. You can pretend that the only reason we didn't want that to happen was to protect Big Oil's interests, but that is a huge oversimplification. Letting one tyrant be in control of the majority of the world's oil would be a VERY bad thing, particularly when that tyrant is someone who has shown he likes dropping chemical weapons on villages of people he doesn't like. A big reason why oil has played a large role in the international affairs of EVERY developed nation (not just the US) is because of its strategic importance. As long as essentially all of our cars, trucks, planes, etc. run on oil, that is going to be the case. If you think it's just about protecting the money of oil companies, then you are ignoring the more important issue. But, at the same time, when the leader of a country effectively declares war on Americans, and offers rewards to anyone who kills an American, it would be ridiculous to just pretend he'll leave us alone if we leave him alone. Live and let live only works when BOTH groups involved use that approach. But you haven't, have you? How many Middle Easterners would think the US has ever shown that attitude there? In some countries not many, because they're subjected to anti-US, anti-Israel propaganda from their state run media. If you put your faith in media that labels all jews as monkeys and all americans as infidels, that's the view you're going to end up with. I have a friend who works for an international aid organization removing landmines from countries. He recently spent almost a month in Afghanistan, removing landmines from previous wars. Almost all of the populace there is VERY pro-US, because they're incredibly thankful that we booted the Taliban out. Of course, the rest of the middle east (and muc of the world) calls us
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Bush Administration's lack of urgent action on a dozen fronts on reducing foreign petroleum dependencies, insofar as it is an obvious and critical economic and military strategic issue, is *stunning*. It is unethical. It is a political advantage over him waiting to be exploited. Yup, I agree. What's particularly surprising about that is that he has a large house in Texas that is entirely powered by alternative energy (solar). Some head officials (Rumsfeld in particular, and I beleieve also Powell) have said that we need to find other sources of energy. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be focusing much on that. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, motie_d wrote: And if Bush would take that initiative, the Dems would be all over him for the slightest failure of any one of the proposed programs as a waste of taxpayer money, and a favor to his rich buddies in Detroit, whether he has any or not. Liberal College Professors would be demanding years of research grants to study each of the proposals before they could ever be implemented. We have a very serious problem with gridlock because of all of the regulations that need to be addressed, and permissions granted. Good points. A huge problem with our political system right now is the partisan politics. The Democrats and Republicans don't want to make any significant changes, because if they don't pan out, they'll be continually lambasted for it by the other party. Also, if one party introduces an idea/bill that could benefit the country, often the other party will try to shoot it down so that that party can't take credit for it (for example, when Clinton introduced a health care bill, Democrats were for it, and Republicans against it. Bush introduced an almost identical bill, and Republicans were for it, and Democrats against it). Partisan politics is an excellent way of preventing progress. I've been 'involved' locally with net-metering and grid interties. I don't see any bright prospects there, unless you just ignore all the regs and just hook up quietly without permissions. Try not to feed back much more than whatever increased amounts you can use. Keep your Net monthly usage about the same, or they will come checking. Personally, I think one thing we should do is have graduated electric rates. When electricity is cheap, the problem becomes that people get even more inefficient - leave TVs on all day, don't bother with compact fluorescent lights, etc. etc.. Either graduated electric rates (i.e. the first 500 kWhrs per month might be fairly cheap, but then it goes up for the next 250, more for the next 200, etc.), or an inefficiency tax for using a high amount of electricity. I never did see a total committment to the War. I saw a bunch of Politicians trying to blame each other for any shortcomings, and using the defensive posture that if you don't do anything, you can't be critisized for making any mistakes. It's all just a blame-game being played by Eunuchs! Yup. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] How much fuel can we grow? Diesel
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:53:28 -0700, you wrote: It always amuses me to see objections to renewable sources couched in terms of how well could (solar, wind, waves, algae, whatever) supply today's consumption of (fuel, plastics, tires, whatever)? Not only are today's sources unsustainable, today's consumption is unsustainable. There is no need for renewable sources to match present consumption -- part of the solution will HAVE to be a radical change in consumption and lifestyle. You don't hear that much, tho, maybe cuz it's not a very popular notion among those who benefit from the status quo. I don't think there's such a thing as a proposed sustainable source which could singled-handedly supply all of our needs without having some massive environmental drawback and I think that it's a pity these objections are used as conversation stoppers. I ask about biofuels' limitations to solve all of our needs, in the present or as should be lessened by conversation, because I think it just has to be asked, and not because I want to forestall conversation or ignore the need to look at consumption and discuss it, but I agree with you, there is a pattern there of failure to discussion conservation. I think the question of why one doesn't hear more about conservation from some folks is worth discussing. It's hard for me to answer. To force someone to conserve you have to violate their rights, or at least I think you do, so I am less inclined to think about it. Maybe the other way, in a market system, is to raise prices (which would mean forcing the supplier to do so? or identifying and removing artificial supports from the supplier?) and get each individual consumer and company to start to see very clearly that they need to consume less, if only from a microecomic point of view. There are many other issues there, such as finding other ways for particularly hazardous environmental impacts to be reflected in the price of a good, but anyway, those are some thoughts for now. I have to agree that we have a major problem, in a present semi-broken system, with the suspension of clearly-in-need-of-addressing over-consumption of very limited resources problems, in the name of letting the system take care of it. But that hasn't happened quickly enough to forestall problems, it seems. I think, one thing is we need to stop thinking that laissez-faire means do-nothing, as a political-economic system. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] The Debate Over Diesel and a Patented Lipases BD production
Hello Juan Hello Keith. You and MM are right on the point. Thankyou! In fact, we don't think biodiesel is the most important part of our project, we're more interested in organic farming in Third World countries. There's a lot of information at Journey to Forever on organic growing. Have a look at the Small Farms section, also Compost, and Organic Gardening, if you're interested. Also a Small Farms online library. In Paraguay organic agriculture, because its prime prices, now is supporting some of our old sugar mills and hand labor sugar cane production. My tiny country has become among the first in organic sugar exports. Usually organic production requires not only aminal powered plogh, hand labor collection (to avoid greases from machinery) but a pesticide free produc and soil where the plant grows. The farmer do not use hight tech methods of US, this is because there is almost no cheap money for producers (interst rates here are over 36% annual at the bank, in local currency) and they have to avoid the ever incresing price of imported chemical fertilizers or pest control agents that eat their earnings, poison their lungs and land, instead they use direct sowing techniques, leguminous beans with rhizobium bacteria to fix nitrogen and they bury previous year stubble to feed earth worms instead of heavy ploughing that destroys the land's rich vegetal cover and later it is exposed to heavy tropical rain fall with erosion carring the land to the rivers (polluting them) and transforming green pastures or forest into desert lands. That's totally right, yes. Have you seen the studies by Jules Pretty at the University of Essex on the growth of sustainable agriculture in the Third World? Very interesting. Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/SAFEWexecsummfinalreport.htm See: 47 Portraits of Sustainable Agriculture Projects and Initiatives Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/SAFEW47casessusag.htm By the way, do you know if Paraguay is sending a delegation to the 1st. International Organic Conference Opportunities and challenges in a global world, at Oaxaca in MÂŽxico on 24-25 October? Midori, my wife, and partner in Journey to Forever, will be there as Japan's representative, making a presentation and so on, and she's looking to make friends among organics people in Latin America. Japan is a huge market for organic food imports, though not an easy one to get into. As Keith wrote: Done this way, biodiesel can be ethyl esters as the oil is virgin, a stable supply with constant characteristics, and can be suitably deacidified first (FFAs from acidulated soapstock providing further process fuel). Such stable feedstock means that if using pure ethanol in transesterification is troublesome, other methods such as enzyme catalysis can be used (where ethanol works better than methanol anyway). It's also worth experimenting with ethanol with acid-base processes, perhaps under pressure. In the case of Biodiesel form SVO, to make it competitive agains petroleum diesel, one economic option locally, it is to use a 100% ethanol because its price is US $ 0.35/litre compared to methanol at US $ 1.4/litre for the Do It Yourself. Cheaper, interesting - because of local production from sugar? Is anyone doing this there Juan? About a method as enzyme catalysis as you metion, it is an interesting way to produce BD using ethanol and lipases, if they are not very expensive and they could be used in small amounts. Yes, there are advantages and disadvantages. There's a lot in the archives about it, and a while back a separate group was set up from this list to investigate it for small-scale use, but it was mismanaged and didn't come to anything beyond gathering information. We still have all the information, and I've kept it updated. I'd planned to set up a new group and do it properly, but I didn't want to set up any new groups until I'd found a viable alternative to Yahoo for this group and our other group, Biofuels-biz. And that continues to be a very troublesome matter, ridiculous really. :-( The Foglia paper is good, thankyou. One problem was finding a source of lipase, Novozyme is very uncooperative, but we did eventually find a source. Best wishes Keith About this method using lipases, ethanol and other alcohols for BD production, I found a patented process that could be a reference or a starting point for newer developments, please check it at: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office http://www.uspto.gov/patft/ Patent Number Search United States Patent 5,713,965 Foglia, et al.February 3, 1998 Production of biodiesel, lubricants and fuel and lubricant additives Abstract A method is described which utilizes lipases to transesterify triglyceride-containing substances and
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Kris Book wrote: Since Hiroshima, war has become obsolete. This world would be a lot better off with about 1000 little nations all agreeing to disagree. With honest and fair treatment for every citizen of the world. Education and communication, tempered with respect is the only chance for mankind. We are currently in grave danger, read your Constitution and demand that It be upheld, before it's too late. Unfortunately, not all of the world agrees that war is obsolete. It only takes one side to have a war (if someone attacks, you're at war, whether you like it or not). To have peace, every side has to want peace. Since there are extremists in the world who want to kill people because they don't like other people having a different religion, or being a different color, etc., there are always going to be conflicts. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] An interesting thought Was: The BBC has been fooled...
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Curtis Sakima wrote: Any of you every experienced a so-called Christian missionary?? The kind that preaches that God wants all of us to respect each others feelings ... opinions ... and points of view. And then, when you say you busy ... proceeds to INSIST his message is important ... blocking your door from closing. Proceeding to ... ahem ... RAM his PREACHING down your throat. Ever experience that kind of person?? VERY few Christians do that. And for the few that do - that's still a lot better than killing someone because they don't agree with your beliefs. Personally, I believe that the first step in being ... ahem ... Christian ... is to ACT it. As an EXAMPLE. First of all ... by LIVING what you preach ... and not RAMMING anything down ANYONE'S throat. The same thing I feel about our US constitution. The Constitution implies the that other countries have a right to run their Government as they see fit. To give each government a right to exist the same as we demand our Government the right to exist. No, the Constitution does not imply that. The Declaration of Independence might, but not the Constitution. So, are you in favor of allowing dictators to kill everyone in their country that they don't like? Nowhere in our Constitution does it say we should allow that. And as for sending my children to Iraq over a few barrels of oil well ... to me, the US military is showing to me to only be security guard service .. found in the Yellow Pages next to A-1 securities INC. Hired by Oilies INC ... as a corporate property security service. To guard THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY. Except SUBSIDIZED by tax payer's money. Please. If you think oil is only important to oil companies, you are simply wrong. Right now, without oil, our economy collapses. We wouldn't be able to grow crops. We wouldn't be able to transport whatever small amount of crops we could grow, or whatever other products we might try to make. We wouldn't be able to operate a military. That's why, as Rumsfeld said, we need to switch to using other fuels. We are capable of doing it (except that our political system is incapable of making any progress). But in the meantime, our economy and military (and most of the world's) would collapse without oil. That's the main reason why many world leaders are opposed to invading Iraq - they're worried that it would have bad consequences on oil supplies. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Fwd: titration with acid for testing of finished product pH?
Hi folks, Poking around on the internet this morning (good day for that, I'm way, way sick with some superflu after talking biodiesel at people for 16 hours at the Biodiesel Intensive Workshop last weekend). I found a little bit more testing info that seems somehow relevant. Supposedly there's a way to check for extra leftover catalyst by doing a titration on some settled biodiesel, using an acid (I couldn't find more details on which acid, whether it matters which acid, or any more detailed info for that matter). This would possibly get around the issue of it being difficult to use some pH test equipment on the stuff, no? I'm actually more worried about soaps than about residual catalyst, as it's easier to wash out the catalyst, I think, than the soaps. I'm doing pH testing partly to figure out when to stop washing, as well as for the initial 'look' at what I've made in additin to several other tests. Can someone think of how to run this titration to give meaningful results (ie what pH should one look for, and what does it reference?), or is anyone out there already doing something like this? I'm lacking in a chemistry background so there's probably some really standard stuff I'm just unaware of. Is there anything about the presence of soaps that would throw off a titration like this? Girl Mark Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Saddam unpopular? LOL unless you believe those that want to overthrow him.
Google Saddam +popularity. His unpopularity is more political BS. Even the ekurd site admits he is popular. The Israelis are concerned at his popularity. Michael--you are a true believer. http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html You need to read Eric Hoffer's book and set yourself free. Kirk The Israelis are concerned at Saddam's popularity. The deputy defence minister, Ephraim Sneh, said yesterday: His stance on our conflict with the Palestinians is extreme, and could have influence in the near term. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/19/wirq119.xml Almost all Arab newspapers, particularly in Syria and Egypt (countries whose armies were once members of the anti-Iraqi coalition) have now turned Saddam Hussein into the contemporary hero of the Arab world. Some went so far as to crown him the new Nasser, on his way to coalescing the prevailing manifestations of pan-Arab passion. http://www.emergency.com/iraqusa.htm Saddam's popularity has already soared among his people and the U.S. has made his position secure by their public anti-Iraq postures. http://www.dwcw.org/cgi/wwwbbs.cgi?Other86 In reality few people see Saddam Hussein as any sort of loser. Indeed, in many quarters his popularity has never been stronger. http://www.mideastnews.com/sad0301.html 10 years after the Gulf war Saddam is still on power, it is hard to say that he has lost the support and popularity from his people. http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/fruhani/removesaddam.htm Today I see that Saddam is offering to let in inspectors. Iraqi opposition leaders who want to overthrow him have been telling US officials that Saddam's popularity in Iraq is very low. I would like to believe that is true. http://pub90.ezboard.com/fwop51393frm2.showMessage?topicID=908.topic -Original Message- From: Michael S Briggs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:12 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: So what? There are Americans who would like to overthrow the Bush regime too, and by force, and with the same stated aims. The difference is that the majority of Iraqis want Hussein out. Again, how do you know that? It's nothing but hearsay. Check with the numerous groups started by Iraqis aimed at bringing a real democracy to the country. And even if they did, what does that have to do with the US? It's simply none of your business. So, we should have intervened in Tibet, but we shouldn't intervene in Iraq? Why? When should the rest of the world intervene when a dictator is allowing people within his own country to starve to death, killing those who disagree with them, and could pose a threat to the rest of the world? Should we never intervene? Then, should we also not send millions of tons of food to people starving around the world? None of our business, right? It's one way or the other - isolationism, or being involved in world affairs. The western world has screwed up in the past - primarily from allowing tyrants to come to power, or stay in power. My feeling is that the UN should act together to help bring democracy to the entire world, using force to overthrow tyrants when necessary. We shouldn't just say it's none of our business if he wants to kill his own people. I agree - I don't think we should ever give any aid to any country that doesn't guarantee all of its citizens basic civil/human rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc.). We have made huge mistakes in our dealings in the middle east. We supported Hussein in his war on Iran because we decided Iran was the lesser of two evils - primarily because Iran attacked Kuwaiti oil tankers. Supporting someone because they are slightly less evil than someone else is ridiculous. I don't think evil has anything to do with it either way, it's entirely pragmatic who gets supported and who doesn't. I doubt Big Oil saw the loss of Kuwaiti oil tankers in terms of evil, nor anything to do with such issues as civil/human rights, freedom of speech and religion. Didn't make for nice numbers. The coup against Mossadeq also had nothing to do with those things, just numbers, and billions of barrels. As I've said, I agree that oil interests have played too large a role in the international policies of essentially ALL first world countries - including the US, but also pretty much all of Europe, Asia, etc. But, we have also been actively involved when oil was not at all involved. As for Iraq, Saddam was never a puppet of the US, as other countries (especially France and the USSR) played a far greater role in supporting him against Iran. Did we come to the aid of South Korea because of oil? Did we come to the aid of Vietnam because of oil? How much oil do we get by giving millions of tons of food to starving people around the world? As for getting involved in Iraq in 1991 - had the UN not
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
I've been 'involved' locally with net-metering and grid interties. I don't see any bright prospects there, unless you just ignore all the regs and just hook up quietly without permissions. Try not to feed back much more than whatever increased amounts you can use. Keep your Net monthly usage about the same, or they will come checking. Personally, I think one thing we should do is have graduated electric rates. When electricity is cheap, the problem becomes that people get even more inefficient - leave TVs on all day, don't bother with compact fluorescent lights, etc. etc.. Either graduated electric rates (i.e. the first 500 kWhrs per month might be fairly cheap, but then it goes up for the next 250, more for the next 200, etc.), or an inefficiency tax for using a high amount of electricity. In addition, I think we need to have more-transparent up-to-the-minute in-your-face devices available to consumers so that they can see their usage and the amounts they're spending more clearly. I've seen and experienced this in some of the hybrid cars (the Civic for example) where the dashboard is designed so that it makes it *fun* to drive in a way that conserves energy. At present, it seems like most electric metering is in a closet out-of-sight-out-of-mind somewhere so that conservation efforts are more haphazard. I doubt the electric companies mind that much. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fwd: titration with acid for testing of finished product pH?
Just add a few drops of the phenolphthalein that you use in your original oil titration to a few ml of your biodiesel. Warning -- either soap or alkali will turn it pink, since pure soap is itself alkaline. I don't know exactly the pH at which the pink happens, perhaps some chemist here knows the pKb of this indicator. If too high, there are others-K Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Is your business paying to much? Affordable insurance and benefits packages for Less. http://us.click.yahoo.com/jCP0DB/E.mEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] How much fuel can we grow? Diesel
Hello MM On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:53:28 -0700, you wrote: It always amuses me to see objections to renewable sources couched in terms of how well could (solar, wind, waves, algae, whatever) supply today's consumption of (fuel, plastics, tires, whatever)? Not only are today's sources unsustainable, today's consumption is unsustainable. There is no need for renewable sources to match present consumption -- part of the solution will HAVE to be a radical change in consumption and lifestyle. You don't hear that much, tho, maybe cuz it's not a very popular notion among those who benefit from the status quo. I fully agree with you Ken. I think, or I hope, all of us here know that though, but elsewhere it does seem to be rather a novel concept. Often see well-meaning people talking about simple replacement. No way. I don't think there's such a thing as a proposed sustainable source which could singled-handedly supply all of our needs without having some massive environmental drawback and I think that it's a pity these objections are used as conversation stoppers. It needs a whole palette of sustainable methods, once again applied on the micro-scale, fitted in as and where each fits best. Along with a general sort of negawatts approach. I ask about biofuels' limitations to solve all of our needs, in the present or as should be lessened by conversation, because I think it just has to be asked, and not because I want to forestall conversation or ignore the need to look at consumption and discuss it, but I agree with you, there is a pattern there of failure to discussion conservation. I think the question of why one doesn't hear more about conservation from some folks is worth discussing. It's hard for me to answer. To force someone to conserve you have to violate their rights, or at least I think you do, so I am less inclined to think about it. Isn't subjecting them to an incessant mind-numbing $135 billion a year (for starters) barrage of persuasion to buy-buy-buy, need-need-need, want-want-want, and consume ever more and more perhaps a slight violation of their rights? Buy Nothing Day - November 29, 2002 http://adbusters.org/campaigns/bnd/ Adbusters: Buy Nothing Day Maybe the other way, in a market system, is to raise prices (which would mean forcing the supplier to do so? or identifying and removing artificial supports from the supplier?) and get each individual consumer and company to start to see very clearly that they need to consume less, if only from a microecomic point of view. There are many other issues there, such as finding other ways for particularly hazardous environmental impacts to be reflected in the price of a good, but anyway, those are some thoughts for now. Environmental cost accounting's here to stay, I reckon. Not a very great impact yet, but it'll grow steadily, and it won't go away. It has a good partner in the Polluter Pays principle. Externalizing all this stuff's getting more and more difficult. The true cost of a barrel of oil is said to be $100. What would it be if you applied real environmental cost accounting and the Polluter Pays principle? Aren't current practices short of this a violation of everyone's rights? I have to agree that we have a major problem, in a present semi-broken system, with the suspension of clearly-in-need-of-addressing over-consumption of very limited resources problems, in the name of letting the system take care of it. But that hasn't happened quickly enough to forestall problems, it seems. I think, one thing is we need to stop thinking that laissez-faire means do-nothing, as a political-economic system. It means letting the rich and powerful do whatever they like, while tugging our forelocks respectfully. Best Keith Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SNIP If petro diesel and gasoline cost $3 a gallon, then more people wouldn't mind paying the $2.20 or so a gallon to buy biodiesel made from soy. Hopefully then more companies would start making biodiesel, and in particular using oils other than soy (such as canola), since soybeans don't yield very much oil per acre. Mike I am in total agreement about using nearly anything else in place of Soy for Oil, and Corn for Ethanol. However, in the current situation, it is better to make Etahnol and Oil from them instead of leaving them to rot for lack of market. It's kind of like recycling a 'waste' product from overproduction. If farmers want to grow 'energy crops', Canola and Sugar Beets and Jerusalem Artichokes should be much more productive. There are also some people studying Cattails as an energy crop. I am currently working on a proposal to use Rye and Barley in a crop rotation plan with Suger Beets, with Canola/Rape seed on the side. Primary products to be Ethanol and Canola oil with a distinct possibilty of Ethyl Ester Biodiesel. Marketable by-products would be DDG and Oilseed cakes. Process energy (electric and steam) to be provided by a gasifier running on wood waste from local sawmills. I have someone working on the details of putting this together as a Co-operative, with the suppliers (farmers and sawmill owners) being the owners. It's still pretty tentative, but I have 2 sites located, and support (at least interest) from the Mayors/County Board members. Motie Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
Motie writes: I am currently working on a proposal to use Rye and Barley in a crop rotation plan with Suger Beets, with Canola/Rape seed on the side. Primary products to be Ethanol and Canola oil with a distinct possibilty of Ethyl Ester Biodiesel. Marketable by-products would be DDG and Oilseed cakes. Process energy (electric and steam) to be provided by a gasifier running on wood waste from local sawmills. I have someone working on the details of putting this together as a Co-operative, with the suppliers (farmers and sawmill owners) being the owners. It's still pretty tentative, but I have 2 sites located, and support (at least interest) from the Mayors/County Board members. What a great idea! That rotation could probably include even more oilseeds. I'm looking hard at safflower. Canola is nice oil for biodiesel, but the plant itself may be sort of a sensitive bugger -- kinda the Toy French Poodle of the Brassica family! Where is this coop gonna be located, BTW? I'd love to come check em out when they're running (maybe I'll bring a rÂŽsumÂŽ :-)) You probably know this already, but a great structure for such a coop would be an LLC, (limited liability company???). I looked into em a bit when I wanted to set up a joint beverage alcohol recycling/ waste grease recycling plant, also to make ethyl biodiesel. Good luck! Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ken Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What a great idea! That rotation could probably include even more oilseeds. I'm looking hard at safflower. Canola is nice oil for biodiesel, but the plant itself may be sort of a sensitive bugger -- kinda the Toy French Poodle of the Brassica family! Where is this coop gonna be located, BTW? I'd love to come check em out when they're running (maybe I'll bring a rÂŽsumÂŽ :-)) You probably know this already, but a great structure for such a coop would be an LLC, (limited liability company???). I looked into em a bit when I wanted to set up a joint beverage alcohol recycling/ waste grease recycling plant, also to make ethyl biodiesel. Good luck! Ken, The most promising site is located at Bagley, Mn US. Feel free to call the Mayor and discuss the idea. He is NOT a typical politician. He owns the local Pharmacy, and is capable of understanding/following conversations, which is a BIG plus. I HATE that glazed-eyes look when attempting to explain something. An LLC has been discussed. I'm leaving that to others who are more expert on the subject to make recommendations. I am not going to finance the project. For it to be successful, it needs local support and input. I have determined that the best way to get involement, is to have the locals put up the money, and own the facility. Final determination on the Legal Structure will be made by those who put up their money/assetts. (Golden Rule!) He who puts up the Gold, makes the Rules. My role is to make sure it is an INFORMED decision, by making sure the various options are accurately understood. At this time, I am working Pro Bono, including expenses entailed. Motie Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Fwd: titration with acid for testing of finished product pH?
- Original Message - From: girl mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip I'm actually more worried about soaps than about residual catalyst, as it's easier to wash out the catalyst, I think, than the soaps. I'm doing pH testing partly to figure out when to stop washing, as well as for the initial 'look' at what I've made in additin to several other tests. Can someone think of how to run this titration to give meaningful results (ie what pH should one look for, and what does it reference?), or is anyone out there already doing something like this? I'm lacking in a chemistry background so there's probably some really standard stuff I'm just unaware of. Is there anything about the presence of soaps that would throw off a titration like this? Girl Mark, pH of final wash water is a good guide. A couple of drops of universal indicator in a sample of the wash water will quickly tell the story. I aim for neutral which is a green colour. Universal indicator is a mixture of various indicators and changes colour from red through to purple over a wide pH range. Much easier than test strips pH meters etc Regards Paul Gobert. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] An interesting thought Was: The BBC has been fooled...
um, that's not a christian missionary, that's a jehovah witness. big difference. My parents are Christian Missionaries. They walk the walk, and talk the talk. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology: http://www.green-trust.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Curtis Sakima [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:07 PM Subject: [biofuel] An interesting thought Was: The BBC has been fooled... Any of you every experienced a so-called Christian missionary?? The kind that preaches that God wants all of us to respect each others feelings ... opinions ... and points of view. And then, when you say you busy ... proceeds to INSIST his message is important ... blocking your door from closing. Proceeding to ... ahem ... RAM his PREACHING down your throat. Ever experience that kind of person?? Personally, I believe that the first step in being ... ahem ... Christian ... is to ACT it. As an EXAMPLE. First of all ... by LIVING what you preach ... and not RAMMING anything down ANYONE'S throat. The same thing I feel about our US constitution. The Constitution implies the that other countries have a right to run their Government as they see fit. To give each government a right to exist the same as we demand our Government the right to exist. WE MUST SHOW THE VIRTUES OF OUR CONSTITUTION ... BY ACTING CONSTITUTIONALLY TO THEM!! And as for sending my children to Iraq over a few barrels of oil well ... to me, the US military is showing to me to only be security guard service .. found in the Yellow Pages next to A-1 securities INC. Hired by Oilies INC ... as a corporate property security service. To guard THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY. Except SUBSIDIZED by tax payer's money. I'm sorry to be so hard on my own country but I can't help but feel that way. Curtis --- Kris Book [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For some reason that I cannot understand, these same folks feel that the U.S. has a right to administer ultimatums to other sovereign nations, which do not fall within the frame work of our Constitution. --snip-- So please, first ask yourself if you would want to send your own son to Iraq over a few barrels of oil. -snip-- We are currently in grave danger, read your Constitution and demand that It be upheld, before it's too late. = Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: cold weather
indeed, ether can be bad. we used it on F model macks, as that was the only way to get them going in the cold Adirondack February mornings. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology: http://www.green-trust.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: rpg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:33 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: cold weather - Original Message - From: Steve Spence [EMAIL PROTECTED] spray some ether into the intake and you don't need to warm it. also be careful .. Steve Spence Steve have had bad experiences with ether for starting diesels. The stuff ignites before TDC causing all sorts of mechanical stresses on the motor. Origional motor in Toyota lasted 200,000km, it had been started on a few occasions on ether. By this time the rings were so shot that the engine was often running out of control on crankcase fumes. (the brand of oil could have been helping too. Engine was reconditioned, no ether used this time and ran for another 360,000km, using very little oil, until No. 3 bigend picked up. Most of my winter start problems (read occasional frosts for this part of Australia) were caused by a smokey engine, carbon coated glowplugs, no heat to precombustion chambers. Better solution clean glowplugs before winter. Even better solution run on BD instead of Distillate. Haven't had a problem for some years now. Regards, Paul Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] fuel line
Since we already have so many people experimenting with biodiesel/SVO/WVO, does anyone know a good source for a roll of 3/8 fuel line? Jesse Parris | studio53 | graphics / web design | stamford, ct | 203.324.4371 www.jesseparris.com/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Clarifying what I mean Was:The BBC has been fooled...
Perhaps, I get that idea from the ones I've run into back home and over here where I currently reside. Notice I mean Christian missionaries as oppose to Christian Missionaries (without the quotes). Meaning only carrying the name. As for your parents ... and all other people (not only Christians, mind you) ... who have DYNAMITE CARING/LOVING creeds and beliefs ... AND LIVE them in their daily life RIGHT ON!!! The world needs more of 'em. Curtis --- Steve Spence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My parents are Christian Missionaries. They walk the walk, and talk the talk. = Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
50,000 dead first? - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled... Bryan Fullerton wrote: The problem is that some threats are best dealt with before their fruits are realized.. Guilty until proven innocent? Trust me. if you in your little scenario had included that you just came from an alqaida(spell) training camp they probably would have arrested you on less evidence then that. Intelligence missed these guys on sept 11. there is no way they want that to happen again. Okay, but I wonder if they're any more efficient now than they were then. Saddam is sucha lunatic if he had nuke capability he would use it. Of course he would use it onl his own people first. He used chemical weapons on Iran with great success 20,000 dead from it. The US believes that he will be the next great supporter of infiltration into the US of terrorists.. Personally i dont see what the difference is in defending ourselves and or defending the 100 or 200,000 of his people that he wants to slaughter. This is complete nonsense. Saddam Hussein is not a lunatic, he's much too smart to nuke anybody, the US is doing just the right thing if it want to ensure an endless stream of anti-US terrorists, no need for any help from Saddam Hussein, and the US itself has been not been averse to such mass-slaughters in the past, when it saw its interests served. And no I'm not anti-US. I'm just anti-nonsense. And nonsense such as this is quite well known for getting folks killed - other folks, far away. Keith - Original Message - From: Curtis Sakima [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:16 AM Subject: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled... I dunno, I've been hearing a lot about this Saddam Hussein/Iraq thing ... and it annoys me that here we are ... threatening to bomb Iraq. And I can't figure out what Iraq's ever done to us first. I mean, have Iraqi planes ever flown over the U.S.?? Dropping BOMBS?? Have any missiles with Iraqi serial numbers on it ever hit any US targets?? All I keep on hearing ... is that Saddam is such a threat. That we must bomb Saddam because he is such a threat. No act yet .. but he is such a threat. I thought America was the land of prosecute the act. Not prosecute cause we think maybe ... he might In the news tonight, Police broke down the door of Curtis Sakima. Just because on one side of his house was found smokeless powder (for my rifles .. legal) and on the other side of his house was found plumbing pips (from a recent home upgrade). Police are arresting him on the POSSIBILITY that he MIGHT be manufacturing WEAPONS OF LOUD PERCUSSION (pipe bombs) and have him in custody, demanding him to defend himself and prove otherwise. Golly, I can see it now. Curtis --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip-- What the document entirely fails to do - and possibly could never have done - is show that Saddam Hussein is a current threat, or what his future intentions are... snip-- Now what does all that remind me of? Weak. If there were a smoking gun we'd definitely know all about it beyond any doubt. Just oil. And politics. The two hopelessly confused as ever, when it comes to the US. Keith Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
We also have vegetable oil, available at most restaurants just outside the back door. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology: http://www.green-trust.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, motie_d wrote: Just my personal opinion, but I think Diesels will become much more acceptable when we have better fuel to run in them. We do - biodiesel. :) Unfortuntely, it's not available at pumps in many places, so those of us who want to use it have to either make our own or buy large quantities of it to store. Biodiesel is gaining popularity though, and actual biodiesel pumps are gradually springing up around the country. I don't know what incentive may be needed to get that to happen. Heavy trucks are using all that the refineries can produce now. There is no incentive to clean up the fuel and expand the demand for it, unless there is an acceptably higher price to be made from it. It all comes down to money! I agree. Petroleum fuels are simply way too cheap in the US. They should cost twice what they do (in reality, the true cost we pay is probably somewhere around twice the sticker price, if you factor in things like subsidies to oil companies, and military/economic involvement in other countries). But, since the subsidies and other things are paid for with taxes, people don't think they're really paying all that much for petroleum fuels. Double the price of petroleum fuels, and people would stop buying SUVs that get 12 mpg, instead looking at more fuel efficient vehicles, including VW's TDI (which is already selling incredibly well). Eventually, the other automakers would take notice, and start selling their diesels here as well. If petro diesel and gasoline cost $3 a gallon, then more people wouldn't mind paying the $2.20 or so a gallon to buy biodiesel made from soy. Hopefully then more companies would start making biodiesel, and in particular using oils other than soy (such as canola), since soybeans don't yield very much oil per acre. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Let's tread lightly!! Was: Saddam unpopular?
Please, let's not go that far ... please. It's spooking da-hell out of me. Doesn't everyone realize what the statement below is saying?? Try using your imagination!! And notice how the statement below could be re-stated. My feeling is that the UN should stop pussy-footing around to help bring a common-form of government (properly stamped democracy) to the entire world. We could even connect them all together. Yes, let's do that!! That would effectively form one (big) government. Under the UN. A ... let's see ... a GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!! And using force to overthrow people who stand in the way (first demonized as tyrants ... of course) when necessary. I would advise all to be VERY careful. Such a scenario is only a hop-skip-andajump away. I really believe in the concept of the Sovereign Nation. Curtis --can't figure out who, but someone wrote:-- My feeling is that the UN should act together to help bring democracy to the entire world, using force to overthrow tyrants when necessary. We shouldn't just say it's none of our business if he wants to kill his own people. = Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
I thought that the modern free, democratic societies was based on a sense of justice and law. Maybe Plato had all the rights to disbelief the democracy when Socrates was sentenced to death by the lynch style democracy. I am sorry, he could not know that it was a lynching. The word lynching came much later, after a famous American judge Lynch. I hope that we do not need to change the meaning of the word bushing. This with preemptive strikes is so dangerous for the whole world, that I sincerely hope that it does not happens. It will change international law and behavior in a way that could have enormous consequences. If we ever are going the improve the world, we have to nurture and protect institutions like UN. If US take unilateral actions outside the vulnerable and in some senses imperfect, but only, international institution that we have, the damage can be disastrous for all of us and for many generations to come. Hakan At 04:45 PM 10/2/2002 -0700, you wrote: 50,000 dead first? - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled... Bryan Fullerton wrote: The problem is that some threats are best dealt with before their fruits are realized.. Guilty until proven innocent? Trust me. if you in your little scenario had included that you just came from an alqaida(spell) training camp they probably would have arrested you on less evidence then that. Intelligence missed these guys on sept 11. there is no way they want that to happen again. Okay, but I wonder if they're any more efficient now than they were then. Saddam is sucha lunatic if he had nuke capability he would use it. Of course he would use it onl his own people first. He used chemical weapons on Iran with great success 20,000 dead from it. The US believes that he will be the next great supporter of infiltration into the US of terrorists.. Personally i dont see what the difference is in defending ourselves and or defending the 100 or 200,000 of his people that he wants to slaughter. This is complete nonsense. Saddam Hussein is not a lunatic, he's much too smart to nuke anybody, the US is doing just the right thing if it want to ensure an endless stream of anti-US terrorists, no need for any help from Saddam Hussein, and the US itself has been not been averse to such mass-slaughters in the past, when it saw its interests served. And no I'm not anti-US. I'm just anti-nonsense. And nonsense such as this is quite well known for getting folks killed - other folks, far away. Keith - Original Message - From: Curtis Sakima [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:16 AM Subject: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled... I dunno, I've been hearing a lot about this Saddam Hussein/Iraq thing ... and it annoys me that here we are ... threatening to bomb Iraq. And I can't figure out what Iraq's ever done to us first. I mean, have Iraqi planes ever flown over the U.S.?? Dropping BOMBS?? Have any missiles with Iraqi serial numbers on it ever hit any US targets?? All I keep on hearing ... is that Saddam is such a threat. That we must bomb Saddam because he is such a threat. No act yet .. but he is such a threat. I thought America was the land of prosecute the act. Not prosecute cause we think maybe ... he might In the news tonight, Police broke down the door of Curtis Sakima. Just because on one side of his house was found smokeless powder (for my rifles .. legal) and on the other side of his house was found plumbing pips (from a recent home upgrade). Police are arresting him on the POSSIBILITY that he MIGHT be manufacturing WEAPONS OF LOUD PERCUSSION (pipe bombs) and have him in custody, demanding him to defend himself and prove otherwise. Golly, I can see it now. Curtis --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip-- What the document entirely fails to do - and possibly could never have done - is show that Saddam Hussein is a current threat, or what his future intentions are... snip-- Now what does all that remind me of? Weak. If there were a smoking gun we'd definitely know all about it beyond any doubt. Just oil. And politics. The two hopelessly confused as ever, when it comes to the US. Keith Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, murdoch wrote: but I must admit that what I do question would be to get a handle, down the road, as to how *much* fuel this whole system could sustain over a very long period of time, in conjunction with healthy sustainable food production. As a matter of degree, the concepts of sustainable healthy agriculture making both food and fuels... how big of an economy can they serve? That's why we'll eventually need to primarily use oils from algaes for making biodiesel (and some from WVO, but that won't account for much). The beauty of algaes is that not only can they produce in the neighborhood of 400 times as much oil per acre as crops like soybeans, but also that they are ideally grown in climates that are not suitable for food crops. Algaes are ideally grown in shallow saltwater pools in hot climates (i.e. states like Arizona would be ideal, as well as Mexico). Aglae pools in desert regions would not displace food crops at all. As for Dingle, he does what Detroit, particularly Union Leaders and Auto Industry Lobbyists, tells him to do, in my opinion, without deviation. Not entirely. His recent support of diesels does not seem to be what Detroit would want. Yes, Ford and Chrysler do make small quantities of diesels for the European market - but other automakers are far ahead of them. Ford's best diesel is a small version of the Focus (I think) that gets around 40 mpg. Compare that to VW's Lupo TDI that gets close to 100 mpg, or Audi's larger diesel hybrid that gets around 87 mpg. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] I'm not sure you'd like the results Was: What would you do???
Or in other words, The purpose of the UN SHOULD be to act as a federal government on top of all countries' governments (state governments) and the whole thing hooked together into one big global government system. I don't think you realize what you are saying. Or maybe I should say, you don't realize what would be created ... if what you are proposing came true. I'm also proposing ... that if what YOU are proposing came true AND what I've stated becomes another way of saying what you've just said (global government ... with UN on top ... accountable to no-one being at the top) you would not like the results. Curtis --- Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The purpose of the UN SHOULD be to act as an international peacekeeper/police. = Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: [biofuels-biz] The Debate Over Diesel
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, murdoch wrote: If you, or someone else, has some real-world data on your mileage using some well-defined mainstream sort of biodiesel, then I'd like to look at including it, if the data is well-kept. We'd need to have a good idea of the MJ/gallon of that particular type of biodiesel, so as to I can't offer my own data yet, but here's a few others who can: http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=217 For energy density, see http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/renewable_diesel.html DOE says 121,000 Btu (per liter? doesn't say) for biodiesel, compared to 135,000 for typical #2 petro diesel (about 10% less for biodiesel). That pts biodiesel pretty close to gasoline in terms of energy density (per volume). That DOE page says people should expect engine performance (fuel economy, torque, and power) to decrease from 8-15% when using biodiesel, but I strongly disagree with that. The fuel is 10% less energy dense, but the higher lubricity of biodiesel offsets that a little bit. For most people, engine performance on biodiesel seems to drop by around 3-8%. a far more sustainable approach, has lower net CO2 emissions, amounts to recycling of waste in some cases, maybe with a link for where folks can buy some and have it delivered, etc. www.burkeoil.com and www.solarmarket.com here in the northeastern US. The main manufacturer of biodiesel in the US is World Energy, located in Chelsea, MA. They only sell in large (500 gallon+) quantities though. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled by a CIA set up...NOT
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, kirk wrote: Of course, the report now is that it was not uranium at all. LOL-- yes, once it was pointed out by many the story was BS the handlers revised it. What's the saying? Let's run it up the flag pole and see if they salute it Next justification will be we have it on good authority he has suitcase nukes and we had best invade and remove them. No, what it's saying is that the media can't report things properly, and/or the officials in Turkey who initially reported it to the media didn't know what they're talking about. Just take a look at some of the initial reports that came out on 9/28, http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/28/turkey.uranium/index.html (this is the one that I first read, and was why I wasn't thinking weapons grade uranium. It clearly says: Turkish officials said they did not know whether the uranium was refined weapons-grade material or naturally occurring uranium, which would have to be refined before it could be used in a weapon. However, they said they did not believe the material posed a radiation danger. Of course, most of the rest of the media ignored that and just started claiming it was weapons grade uranium. Or, the initial BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2286597.stm Which initially said: At first officers announced gave the quantity as 15 kilograms (34.5 pounds) but later explained that this included the weight of a lead container., and gave the actual weight of the suspect material as 100 grams (of course, this report left out the statement by the Turkish officials that they weren't sure yet if it was weapons grade or what). As the story spread from newspaper to newspaper, TV, etc., the fact that the initial weight given (15 kg) included the lead container, and the statement by the Turkish officials that they didn't know if it was weapons grade uranium or what, were left out. The media not being smart enough to get things straight does not add up to a conspiracy. I notice you didn't defend ANFO cutting pillars. Perhaps you know something about explosives and brisance. I've never looked into the Oklahoma City bombing. It's entirely possible that explosives were also put on the columns. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I don't believe that JFK was killed by one gunmen. That doesn't mean there aren't people trying to smuggle radioactive material to make nuclear weapons to use in acts of terrorism. Invasion of pipelineistan soon. What a circus. Go to Afghanistan and see what the average citizen there thinks of the US. Despite the anti-US propaganda, Afghanis like us, because we have helped them far more than all those who claim that the US is a bully for what we have done there. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: The Debate Over Diesel
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, motie_d wrote: I am in total agreement about using nearly anything else in place of Soy for Oil, and Corn for Ethanol. However, in the current situation, it is better to make Etahnol and Oil from them instead of leaving them to rot for lack of market. It's kind of like recycling a 'waste' product from overproduction. Very true. Even though there are other crops that would be much better for making ethanol (and hopefully someday we'll get most of our ethanol for making biodiesel from them), we'll still always get a fair amount from corn. Why? Because after making ethanol from corn, it then leaves a nice high protein feed for animals. Similarly, while other crops would be much better for producing oil for biodiesel, we'll still always get some from soy. I am currently working on a proposal to use Rye and Barley in a crop rotation plan with Suger Beets, with Canola/Rape seed on the side. Primary products to be Ethanol and Canola oil with a distinct possibilty of Ethyl Ester Biodiesel. Marketable by-products would be DDG and Oilseed cakes. Process energy (electric and steam) to be provided by a gasifier running on wood waste from local sawmills. One of our chemical engineering professors here at UNH recently completed a project on making (what he calls) bio-oil from wood waste, for home heating in the New England area. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Let's tread lightly!! Was: Saddam unpopular?
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Curtis Sakima wrote: Doesn't everyone realize what the statement below is saying?? Try using your imagination!! And notice how the statement below could be re-stated. Re-stating the statement changes its meaning entirely. My feeling is that the UN should stop pussy-footing around to help bring a common-form of government (properly stamped democracy) to the entire world. We could even connect them all together. Yes, let's do that!! That would effectively form one (big) government. Under the UN. A ... let's see ... a GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!! And using force to overthrow people who stand in the way (first demonized as tyrants ... of course) when necessary. I would advise all to be VERY careful. Such a scenario is only a hop-skip-andajump away. I really believe in the concept of the Sovereign Nation. If you read my statement completely, you'll notice that it's aimed at tyrants who wantonly kill people within their own country, a la Hitler. Does your concept of the Sovereign Nation go so far as to include that if Hitler had not attacked neighboring countries, but had just stuck with tossing all the Jews in his own country into gas chambers, that the rest of Europe should have just said okee-doke? Note the last line of my statement: We shouldn't just say it's none of our business if he wants to kill his own people. If we do not want to interfere with other countries, should we then also stop sending all the food to countries where people are starving? What's more important - protecting the sovereignity of a dictatorship, or saving people's lives? Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] fuel line
Jesse, Home Depot sells a braid-reinforced clear PVC in 1/4 and 3/8 ID (and larger sizes) and it will stand up to diesel, biodiesel and SVO/WVO. Charlie Anderson of Greasel Conversions has used it on many conversions and claims it does fine, doesn't get brittle or hard, and will take the heat that SVO/WVO in a heated tank will contain. I just converted a 6.9 Ford F250 and replumbed both supply and return lines to both existing tanks with the stuff, and I used a heat gun to allow me to shove the 1/4 ID stuff over the various steel, brass, ABS and PVC fittings - sometimes lubing them with bioD - and it's very impressive stuff. Wall thickness of over 1/8, and having clear line on everything makes it very easy to track flow and any air in the system. I used the type of hose clamp that isn't cut all the way through - it's easier on the hose - but frankly, the PVC fit all the fitting so tightly that I think they're redundant (not that I wouldn't use them.) For the Land Rover Defender I'm converting, I'm using Earl's stainless braid-protected hose - aircraft and auto racing stuff, with all the trick fittings - but it's a lot more expensive and takes a *lot* longer to assemble the components. Craig studio53 wrote: Since we already have so many people experimenting with biodiesel/SVO/WVO, does anyone know a good source for a roll of 3/8 fuel line? Jesse Parris | studio53 | graphics / web design | stamford, ct | 203.324.4371 www.jesseparris.com/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Hakan Falk wrote: This with preemptive strikes is so dangerous for the whole world, that I sincerely hope that it does not happens. I agree - I hope that we don't attack Iraq. I hope that the small democratic governments that the Kurds have been forming in northern Iraq (where the UN is in direct supervision, and Saddam's military is not allowed) spread to the rest of Iraq. But, I doubt it will happen. It will change international law and behavior in a way that could have enormous consequences. If we ever are going the improve the world, we have to nurture and protect institutions like UN. That's just the point - the members of the UN are making the institution meaningless. The UN makes an attempt to establish international law. When someone continually violates those laws for 10+ years, and the UN does nothing about it, then the UN gradually becomes ineffective. It would be like having laws in our country, but the police refusing to do anything to people who broke them. If US take unilateral actions outside the vulnerable and in some senses imperfect, but only, international institution that we have, the damage can be disastrous for all of us and for many generations to come. I agree - I hope it never comes to that. But, the UN refusing to do anything to enforce its attempt at creating international laws is making the UN become meaningless. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- 4 DVDs Free +sp Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] I'm not sure you'd like the results Was: What would you do???
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Curtis Sakima wrote: I'm also proposing ... that if what YOU are proposing came true AND what I've stated becomes another way of saying what you've just said (global government ... with UN on top ... accountable to no-one being at the top) The UN would be (and is) accountable to the countries within the UN, just as in a democracy the government is accountable to the people. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Returning to our Founder's principles Was: The BBC has been fooled...
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Curtis Sakima wrote: If one were to read the Constitution ... I think we would find that a very core belief in the American Founder's thought pattern was the concept of Private Property. Which meant that ... so long that what one person did on his property .. did not directly wreak lives on our property ... it was his business what he did on his property. That is to say, that if he started launching model rockets on his property ... so long as they did not land on my property ... it was his business. It did not matter whether I thought launching rockets was a waste of time or was stupid because it might set fire to his grass. It was his property. So, if I want to produce some anthrax in my basement, I have that right? That would be news to me. Same thing with Kids. Let's say I hear crying. Followed by mean spanking sounds. The way that our forefather's looked at it (in the Constitution writing days) ... was that a man's children were HIS responsibility. That he was responsible for upbringing them PLUS ... be responsible for the result of his upbringing methods. His Kids would either be his pride and joy ... or end up being his worst nightmare. Either way ... he reaped what he sowed. It was His business ... and also his joy/problem as to the outcome. So if your neighbor decides to kill his children, that would be okay with you? I look a Saddam Hussein as (on a global scale) as a Daddy (leader) of his family (country) ... on his private property (Iraq). And how Saddam and his children relate to each other (government) is their business. Now, do I agree with his methods?? No, I do not. The same way I don't agree with excessive spanking. Saddam has used chemical weapons to kill entire villages of Kurds. Do you think your neighbor is allowed by the Constitution to kill his kids with sarin and mustard gas? However I remind myself it's that families' business. Because to violate their right of private property (by either coming into a house with cops/guns or bombing in the case of Iraq) ... would violate such higher principles principles that are at the VERY FABRIC of our Republic ... for which it stands that I believe we'll win the battle ... but lose the war. No, a person does not have the right to do whatever he wants on his property. The Constitution guarantees Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, not the right to do what you want on your property. Taking someone's life (i.e. dropping sarin gas on them) would be a violation of the very first one of those guarantees - Life. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: I'm not going to argue with you any more Mike, no point. I agree - no point in arguing further. You've swallowed the party line, and the hook and the sinker too, and, as always, it'll be others who'll choke on it. You have the right to believe that. I disagree with everything you say, and I could certainly weigh the whole list down and you with supportive references, I do know what I'm talking about, I have been a Middle East correspondent, among other things, I know the history, and the situation. But it wouldn't do any good, you just won't see it. I talked about your impenetrable shield of rationalization, I've tried the rational approach, it bounces off, you're determined to mkiss the wood for the trees. Likewise, I tried the rational approach, and it bounced off your own rationalizations. It's interesting how you assumed that I'm a typical American who only knows what he's fed by the media. I was born in Adana, Turkey. I won't bother going into my family's history travelling throughout the world, including the middle east. It's just easier to let you continue to believe that I'm just an ignorant American who just swallows the party line. Too bad. Ditto. Too bad. Curtis talks much more sound sense, so do very many others. Funny how we always beleive that those who agree with us make more sense. Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel in the US
... refiners need four years' notice to begin production preparations. May 9, 2001 The Energy Information Administration released a report Monday that shows the possibility for a tight diesel fuel market in 2006, the year new sulfur requirements are to be phased in through a regulation adopted in the final days of the Clinton presidency and later endorsed by President Bush. The report, called for last summer by then House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), discusses the implications of the new regulation for vehicle fuel efficiency and examines the technology, production, distribution and cost implications of supplying diesel fuel to meet the new standard. Both short and mid-term effects are calculated, a first of its kind analysis in examining data year by year from 2006 to 2015, said James Kendell, the director of EIA's oil and gas division and the study's manager. To meet the new standards by 2006, the report says on the supply side that some of the current ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) producers would need to expand production while at least one refinery not currently producing the fuel would also need to enter the market. On the price side, the 2006 scenario says some refiners may be able to produce the fuel at a cost of an additional 2.5 cents per gallon, however at the volumes needed to meet demand, costs are estimated to be between 5.4 and 6.8 cents per gallon higher. Costs could be greater if the supply falls short of demand and consumers start bidding up the price. Between 2007 and 2010, the report shows prices rising an average of 6.8 cents per gallon. Prices will still be higher between 2011 and 2015, though at a slightly lesser average of 5.4 cents per gallon. The diesel rule requires a 97 percent reduction in sulfur content in fuels sold for heavy duty trucks and buses, decreasing the pollutant's levels from 500 parts per million (ppm) to 15 ppm. The ULSD fuel must be retailed by June 1, 2006. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, implementing the rule would annually reduce 2.6 million tons of smog-causing nitrogen oxide emissions and 110,000 tons of soot, or particulate matter. It would also prevent an estimated 8,300 premature deaths, 5,500 cases of chronic bronchitis and 17,600 cases of acute bronchitis in children each year. A coalition of environmental, state and industry groups has supported the rule, including the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, American Lung Association, Clean Air Network, International Truck and Engine Corp., Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators. Oil company BP Corp., which has been marketing low-sulfur diesel in the United States since the summer of 1999, has also pledged its support for the rule. But there has also been criticism. The National Petrochemical Refineries Association, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Convenience Stores, Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers and the technology group ANTEK all filed suit against the rule earlier this year in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Bob Slaughter of NPRA said his organization objects to the costs that will come in complying with the rule as well as the time frame required for implementation. The uncertainty which the EIA report refers to is a point we've been making during the regulatory process and since the rule was made final, he said. Slaughter said EPA insufficiently studied the costs before adopting the rule and that there is still an opportunity for the agency to reconsider the standard by allowing a third party, such as the National Academy of Sciences, to conduct its own independent review. Such a study must be done expeditiously, Slaughter added, because refiners need four years' notice to begin production preparations. Meanwhile, Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust, said he is concerned the EIA study will serve as ammunition for industry groups, as well as the Bush administration, to undo the rule. Pointing to past EIA reports cited by President Bush and Vice President Cheney in their decisions to exclude carbon dioxide in any mandatory emission caps for power plants and a recent call for a massive expansion of energy production facilities, O'Donnell said, It raises real doubts about the Bush administration's intentions about the clean diesel standards. Will this lead to yet another flip-flop? Greg Dana, vice president for environmental affairs at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said the diesel rule should not be delayed. Instead, he said his group is petitioning EPA to move up the start date for ULSD to 2004, because the fuel allows newly created technologies to be used at their cleanest and most efficient. Specifically, he said the clean fuel is needed for implementation of Tier II
Re: [biofuel] Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel in the US
Greg Dana, vice president for environmental affairs at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said the diesel rule should not be delayed. Instead, he said his group is petitioning EPA to move up the start date for ULSD to 2004, because the fuel allows newly created technologies to be used at their cleanest and most efficient. Specifically, he said the clean fuel is needed for implementation of Tier II standards for light duty trucks and buses. Further evidence that Detroit Auto seems behind some diesel expansion in US. In addition to this and Dingel's apparent support, let us remember that their PNGV efforts I think mostly involved Diesel engines. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] OT: Think EV protest in San Francisco
The information is below. Now before everyone gets all riled up against me for bringing EV info to this group, please let me say that I have no desire to pass this on to people not interested in EV's, except that I was thinking about this, and some here, if they live in the Bay area and are into alt-fuel issues, might be interested in what happens there. Further, Th!nk city Drivers and EV1 drivers, who are having their cars forcibly taken away at the end of leases (that description would be disputed by the companies, but that is how I would put it) may be an open-minded cross-section of folks for an interim vehicle until they can get an EV. Some may be interested to learn of a high-mileage biodiesel powered vehicle (although others might be very negative to diesels). I learned a lot here in SD when a local high school guy arrived in a Volvo Biodiesel project he'd worked on with his kids, even though there were fancier more-expensive EV's present. MM San Francisco Bay Area Think City drivers have organized a demonstration protesting Ford's decision to kill the Think City. Join us to demand U.S. auto makers market their electric cars. Keep the EV1 and Think City on the road! 12 noon Thursday October 10, 2002 S C Ford Dolores at Market St. San Francisco info at: www.ThinkElectric.org Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Saddam unpopular? LOL unless you believe those that want to overthrow him.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, kirk wrote: Google Saddam +popularity. His unpopularity is more political BS. Even the ekurd site admits he is popular. The ekurd site says he's popular with his people, meaning the Sunni muslims. The Kurds and Shiite Muslims do not like him. The Baath party was popular throughout the 70's in most of Iraq. But after Saddam came to power in '79, popularity started to wane - at least among non-Sunnis. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in the war on Iran that Saddam started just after seizing power. That, combined with Saddam using chemical weapons and other military force to kill Kurds and Shiites who began to express disfavor of him, made him strongly disliked by almost all non-Sunnis in Iraq. Yes, his people (Sunni muslims) like him. They constitute the minority of the Iraqi population, however. The Israelis are concerned at his popularity. Michael--you are a true believer. The Israelis are concerned primarily about his popularity with other Arab nations. Because of the general dislike of the US (it's hard not to hate someone when you're constantly being fed propaganda teaching you to hate them), many Arabs like Saddam because he has stood up to the great infidels, and lived to tell about it. http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html You need to read Eric Hoffer's book and set yourself free. You need to visit Iraq and talk to some non-Sunni muslims. Almost all Arab newspapers, particularly in Syria and Egypt (countries whose armies were once members of the anti-Iraqi coalition) have now turned Saddam Hussein into the contemporary hero of the Arab world. Some went so far as to crown him the new Nasser, on his way to coalescing the prevailing manifestations of pan-Arab passion. Well duh. The state run media of most Arab countries constantly preaches anti-US propaganda. As I said above, they have made Hussein out to be a hero because he fought the great infidels, and is still alive. And he's popular among radical Palestinians because he hands out large amounts of money to the families of suicide bombers. Saddam's popularity has already soared among his people and the U.S. has made his position secure by their public anti-Iraq postures. http://www.dwcw.org/cgi/wwwbbs.cgi?Other86 Again, his people. You need to think about who that is referring to. The same article says Were it not for Saddam, the Kurdish north and the Shia south would peel away from the Sunni Iraq. Saddam has continually crushed any rebellion by the Kurds and Shiites, who make up the majority of the population. That is not popularity. 10 years after the Gulf war Saddam is still on power, it is hard to say that he has lost the support and popularity from his people. http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/fruhani/removesaddam.htm Again, he's popular among the Sunnis. As I've said all along, he's popular with the small portion of the populon that he supports. The only popularity surveys that have been done have been within the center of Iraq (and primarily in Baghdad), which is almost entirely Sunni, and largely Baath party. That would be like judging president Bush's popularity based entirely on a survey of conservative Republicans in the US. Further, the Kurds in northern Iraq have been prospering greatly because of direct UN intervention, overseeing the oil-for-food program, and the patrolling of the no-fly-zones, keeping Saddam from attacking them at his whim. Democracy is starting to flourish there. They've gotten a taste of it, and want it to spread to the entire country. Just read the rest of the ekurd article. Since we're posting little clips, here's a little blurb you might find interesting, from http://newsbatch.com/iraq.htm It is clear that Saddam Hussein has no respect for human life, most particularly the lives of Iraqi citizens. He also supports terrorism. How can a man like this remain in power? To a certain extent, his repressive regime and the military arsenal he has managed to retain discourages internal dissension in Iraq. It also has effectively prevented coup attempts facilitated by foreign covert activity. But his main protection is the reluctance of all nations to interfere with another nation's sovereignty even when such sovereignty is manifested by horribly irresponsible oppression. But I'd recommend not believing that - since apparently if you believe anything that isn't strictly anti-US, then you're a true believer who just swallows lies, hook line and sinker. ;-) Today I see that Saddam is offering to let in inspectors. With conditions (places that cannot be inspected, he must be given notification well ahead of time of where they want to inspect, etc.). That's meaningless. If the UN thinks that inspections under those conditions will do anything, they're idiots. That would be like a judge issuing a search warrant to police to search someone's home for a murder weapon, and the judge putting on the condition that the police have to give advance notice
[biofuel] dynamotive news
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/021002/20456_1.html Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: I'm not going to argue with you any more Mike, no point. I agree - no point in arguing further. You've swallowed the party line, and the hook and the sinker too, and, as always, it'll be others who'll choke on it. You have the right to believe that. I try not to believe things, all it means is a lack of information, and that's not the case here, you've provided more than enough to justify that conclusion. I disagree with everything you say, and I could certainly weigh the whole list down and you with supportive references, I do know what I'm talking about, I have been a Middle East correspondent, among other things, I know the history, and the situation. But it wouldn't do any good, you just won't see it. I talked about your impenetrable shield of rationalization, I've tried the rational approach, it bounces off, you're determined to mkiss the wood for the trees. Likewise, I tried the rational approach, and it bounced off your own rationalizations. You have the right to believe that. It's interesting how you assumed that I'm a typical American who only knows what he's fed by the media. I didn't assume that. I'm very unlikely to make such assumptions, not myself having any particular nationality, country or home. But you've certainly swallowed the party line. I don't have a party line. I'm a Third Worlder, basically, from and of the South, but I'm usually taken as a Westerner, and I've lived for long periods in various Western countries, so I know Western views very well, while not subscribing to them. And you're firmly locked into a particular American viewpoint on international issues. For instance, this: If we do not want to interfere with other countries, should we then also stop sending all the food to countries where people are starving? What's more important - protecting the sovereignity of a dictatorship, or saving people's lives? The main reason they're starving is that the US and the other OECD countries are interfering with them in the first place, directly and via corporate efforts. Wealth extraction, poverty creation. Those countries nearly all had healthy economies at the start of the colonial era, which steadily declined through that era, took a plunge in the post-colonial period, and have sagged to their current disastrous levels in the last 20 years of OECD imposed corporate globalization. In no way is the US and OECD relationship with those countries equitable. Wow, I bet you'll just love that! Your attitude to Zambia's having your unsaleable GMOs shoved down their throats is also very predictable, very much the same American viewpoint. As for sovereignty and saving lives, you show the same lack of even-handedness as over Tibet and East Timor, and many other places, in many cases backing the dictatorships while they're at it. It applies very well to East Timor - not only did the US not hasten to intervene, but played a most shabby role in turning a blind eye, and discouraging any other attitude, while providing Suharto with all the military aid he could want, and military training. The US trains and equips a lot of genocidal killers, and terrorists. Our terrorists. Just doing business I suppose. No Mike, you're the rationalizer. I was born in Adana, Turkey. I won't bother going into my family's history travelling throughout the world, including the middle east. Travelling or living there? Anyway, never mind. It's just easier to let you continue to believe that I'm just an ignorant American who just swallows the party line. Not belief, you demonstrate it loud and clear. I didn't say you're ignorant, nor imply it. Just determinedly wrong-headed. Too bad. Ditto. Too bad. Curtis talks much more sound sense, so do very many others. Funny how we always beleive that those who agree with us make more sense. No belief - you're really into stuff like belief where facts are more than adequate, and concepts such as evil to justify mere pragmatism. Yet you excuse foreign adventurism and downright meddling as doing business. Toppling Allende was just doing business? Maybe ITT thought so, though I doubt it. Propping up people like Mobutu, and Savimbi in a murderous 27-year civil war that otherwise would have fizzled out in months was just doing business? Etc etc etc ad infinitum. But it'll bounce off you, never mind. And no, I don't necessarily think people who agree with me make more sense. I wouldn't have got very far if that were my attitude, that's not a good survival strategy for a journalist, especially not for one who's mostly been a freelancer. Keith Mike Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels
Re: [biofuel] OT: Think EV protest in San Francisco
The information is below. Now before everyone gets all riled up against me for bringing EV info to this group, There's nothing to stop you discussing EVs. please let me say that I have no desire to pass this on to people not interested in EV's, except that I was thinking about this, and some here, if they live in the Bay area and are into alt-fuel issues, might be interested in what happens there. Further, Th!nk city Drivers and EV1 drivers, who are having their cars forcibly taken away at the end of leases (that description would be disputed by the companies, but that is how I would put it) may be an open-minded cross-section of folks for an interim vehicle until they can get an EV. Some may be interested to learn of a high-mileage biodiesel powered vehicle (although others might be very negative to diesels). I learned a lot here in SD when a local high school guy arrived in a Volvo Biodiesel project he'd worked on with his kids, even though there were fancier more-expensive EV's present. Quite. Keith MM San Francisco Bay Area Think City drivers have organized a demonstration protesting Ford's decision to kill the Think City. Join us to demand U.S. auto makers market their electric cars. Keep the EV1 and Think City on the road! 12 noon Thursday October 10, 2002 S C Ford Dolores at Market St. San Francisco info at: www.ThinkElectric.org Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] What's missing today Was: Returning to our Founder's principles
Believe or not Mike, in my opinion, you ask VERY good questions!! Because through those questions, we dissect this very animal called America. In fact, if you did not bring up these issues ... I'd think you as a little strange. :) First, let's take this thing about making anthrax ... and the neighbor killing his children. Believe it or not ... you HAVE the right to do these things!! REALLY!! In the Constitution days, however, something a little strange happened. It was the teaching of correct principles. From the time kids were born, they were taught those strange concepts of ... of COURSE .. you take that candy, you pay for it. Or, you hurt somebody .. you DESERVED to be punched back. You've been given great service son WHAT DO YOU SAY??. Thank you. We knew basic concepts of right and wrong. So even though ... yes ... we have the right to make anthrax ... or kill our kids why would we?? We loved our neighbors ... so why would we risk hurting them with anthrax?? In other words, because we loved our neighbor ... we took the time ... studying the wind. Checking launch angles. Making DAMN sure our rocket would not land in our neighbors yard. SELF-GOVERNANCE Mike ... THAT was the law. Knowing right from wrong ... caring internally about other ... passing these concepts on to our children. Starting it young. That's what missing in society today Mike. And FOOLISHLY , we're replacing it with guns ... cops ... wildly strict laws ... stupidly complicated business contracts ... the UN ... international laws ... and bombs. As the saying goes, Love cannot be legislated. To solve most of our problems here Mike ... we must start at the beginning. Where the problem all started. For each parent ... to look into themselves. To look past the hatred, the prejudice, the propaganda, etc ... etc. And to pass these basic concepts ... to our children. To take PARENTAL right and responsibility in teaching each our own children ... these principles. Take the Constitutions ... but also take the Bible ... the Quoran ... all the doctrinal stuff in each society. And you will find that, after you cut away all the BS ... each teach a very similar love thy neighbor theme. Hope this answer your question about having the right to do things. Having the right to own a gun ... does not automatically mean therefore I will go buy gun/go to liquor store/kill clerk. Curtis --- Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, if I want to produce some anthrax in my basement, I have that right? That would be news to me. So if your neighbor decides to kill his children, that would be okay with you? Saddam has used chemical weapons to kill entire villages of Kurds. Do you think your neighbor is allowed by the Constitution to kill his kids with sarin and mustard gas? No, a person does not have the right to do whatever he wants on his property. The Constitution guarantees Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, not the right to do what you want on your property. Taking someone's life (i.e. dropping sarin gas on them) would be a violation of the very first one of those guarantees - Life. = Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The BBC has been fooled...
Keith, I'm almost afraid to ask ... what do ya think about me?? (LOL) I will admit, I certainly lack the travel-the-world experience that you have. My experience mainly stems from my observations ... then striving to think on my own. Hope I've been doing (at least) OK. Curtis --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't assume that. I'm very unlikely to make such assumptions, not myself having any particular nationality, country or home. But you've certainly swallowed the party line. and I've lived for long periods in various Western countries, so I know Western views very well, while not subscribing to them. And you're firmly locked into a particular American viewpoint on international issues. = Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Saddam unpopular? LOL unless you believe those that want to overthrow him.
Michael S Briggs wrote: On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, kirk wrote: Google Saddam +popularity. His unpopularity is more political BS. Even the ekurd site admits he is popular. The ekurd site says he's popular with his people, meaning the Sunni muslims. The Kurds and Shiite Muslims do not like him. The Baath party was popular throughout the 70's in most of Iraq. But after Saddam came to power in '79, popularity started to wane - at least among non-Sunnis. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in the war on Iran that Saddam started just after seizing power. That, combined with Saddam using chemical weapons and other military force to kill Kurds and Shiites who began to express disfavor of him, made him strongly disliked by almost all non-Sunnis in Iraq. Yes, his people (Sunni muslims) like him. They constitute the minority of the Iraqi population, however. The Israelis are concerned at his popularity. Michael--you are a true believer. The Israelis are concerned primarily about his popularity with other Arab nations. Because of the general dislike of the US (it's hard not to hate someone when you're constantly being fed propaganda teaching you to hate them Yes, isn't it Michael? ), many Arabs like Saddam because he has stood up to the great infidels, and lived to tell about it. That's right, that's a major reason they like him. Not just the Arabs. It doesn't take a state-run media spewing propaganda to achieve that, as you imply below, nor payoffs to suicide bombers. They like him. US propaganda is pretty effective in the US ($180 billion a year on PR and advertising), but a hopeless failure outside the US, where actions speak louder than words - louder even than Disneyland and Hollywood. The US just employed a PR agency to try to fix it a bit, some hope. Saddam does a much better job, and the US can't seem to help playing right into his hands. And into all your enemies' hands in the region when it comes to PR, including those of Al Qaida. PR won't fix anything. A change of attitude might, a real change of heart. That has been happening in the US, especially since Sept. 11, maybe as much as all the jingoism, and it could prove to have more momentum. That really is the only solution. http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html You need to read Eric Hoffer's book and set yourself free. You need to visit Iraq and talk to some non-Sunni muslims. Almost all Arab newspapers, particularly in Syria and Egypt (countries whose armies were once members of the anti-Iraqi coalition) have now turned Saddam Hussein into the contemporary hero of the Arab world. Some went so far as to crown him the new Nasser, on his way to coalescing the prevailing manifestations of pan-Arab passion. Well duh. The state run media of most Arab countries constantly preaches anti-US propaganda. As I said above, they have made Hussein out to be a hero because he fought the great infidels, and is still alive. And he's popular among radical Palestinians because he hands out large amounts of money to the families of suicide bombers. Saddam's popularity has already soared among his people and the U.S. has made his position secure by their public anti-Iraq postures. http://www.dwcw.org/cgi/wwwbbs.cgi?Other86 Again, his people. You need to think about who that is referring to. The same article says Were it not for Saddam, the Kurdish north and the Shia south would peel away from the Sunni Iraq. Saddam has continually crushed any rebellion by the Kurds and Shiites, who make up the majority of the population. That is not popularity. 10 years after the Gulf war Saddam is still on power, it is hard to say that he has lost the support and popularity from his people. http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/fruhani/removesaddam.htm Again, he's popular among the Sunnis. As I've said all along, he's popular with the small portion of the populon that he supports. The only popularity surveys that have been done have been within the center of Iraq (and primarily in Baghdad), which is almost entirely Sunni, and largely Baath party. That would be like judging president Bush's popularity based entirely on a survey of conservative Republicans in the US. Further, the Kurds in northern Iraq have been prospering greatly because of direct UN intervention, overseeing the oil-for-food program, and the patrolling of the no-fly-zones, keeping Saddam from attacking them at his whim. Democracy is starting to flourish there. They've gotten a taste of it, and want it to spread to the entire country. Just read the rest of the ekurd article. Since we're posting little clips, here's a little blurb you might find interesting, from http://newsbatch.com/iraq.htm It is clear that Saddam Hussein has no respect for human life, most particularly the lives of Iraqi citizens. He also supports terrorism. How can a man like this remain in power? To a certain extent, his repressive regime and the military arsenal he has managed to
[biofuel] Who defines it?? Was: Saddam unpopular?
Well, the problem you run into is that ... who defines tyrant?? In most cases, it's the media. Why is it that our media is referred to as the media ... while other countries' media is often referred to as so-and-so's PROPAGANDA MACHINE?? Curtis --- Michael S Briggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you read my statement completely, you'll notice that it's aimed at tyrants who wantonly kill people within their own country, a la Hitler. = Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
