[biofuel] Re: Back Online

[motie_d]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Only in America!!!
> 
> I was not aware of that US made pallets of hardwood and did not 
think that 
> it could ever be a stupid luxury consumption like this. I can see 
reason 
> for some pallets to be made of hardwood, but they should be guarded 
and 
> reused. But this irresponsible behavior cannot be excused. Six 
pallets of 
> hardwood per American in land fills, give me a break!
> 

 Hi Hakan,
 I suspect the actual number may be even higher. Truckers seem to get 
stuck with many of them. The problem is that so much stuff gets 
shipped on pallets, and receivers have huge piles of them on hand. 
They don't want any more, and require delivery trucks to take the 
pallets away when a delivery is made. Truckers have no need for them, 
and for a time were dumping them in the back lots of Truckstops, to 
such an extent that Truckstop Owenrs now hire Security Guards to 
prevent it.
 The cost to ship pallets back to the shipper is higher than the cost 
to produce new pallets.
 There is some effort in the Trucking industry to attempt to 
standardize the size of pallets to make them more reusable. Too many 
shippers have their own unique size and shape requirements.


http://www.banditchippers.com/model_grinder3680.asp
The solution for now, if a market can be found for the chips.

Motie


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 haze questions

[girl mark]

I've read some stuff on Maui about Neutral talking about post- wash 
settling in an open container exposed to open air being some important part 
of the picture for him. I don't always agree with Neutral's conclusions, 
though, and I don't remember why he though that air movement over the 
surface of the fuel was important to him. (and I thought that bubbledrying 
might accomplish this as well)

  ANy ideas? is this what you mean by 'letting it sit outside'? also what 
effect does temperature, either heat or cold (Ive heard that cold has an 
effect) have on clearing biodiesel?

Ken, are you talking about 18 hours of bubbling as the total time for the 
wash, or something like 18 hours for a final wash?
also, Ken, you've talked about clumping catlitter being a water scavenger 
for drying oil (for use in ethanol biodiesel). Any ideas on using this in 
the same application?

Mark


At 07:52 PM 11/24/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >I am somewhat unclear on what the factors are that influence fuel haze.
> >Could someone post info about it? Fuel haze is of course water in the fuel,
> >but it seems that it takes a differing amount of time for haze to clear-
> >are there different chemical factors that cause biodiesel to hold on to
> >  water for differing amounts of time?
>
>My biodiesel remains cloudy through all washing steps until it's been
>bubble washed for 18 hours or more. That gets it almost clear. After
>then letting it sit for a couple nights outside (to drop out any stearate,
>AKA "tallow esters"), I filter through cotton cloth a few times and it
>comes out crystal-clear. Maybe the cotton scavenges the last of the
>water -- I don't know, but it works-K
>
>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.


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


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: [biofuels-biz] (unknown)

[Appal Energy]

Clean biodiesel is clean biodiesel - no matter who manufactures
it, micro- or macro.

The problems don't lay with the fuel but with the fossil fuel
that preceeded it and with those vendors who are irresponsible
enough as to not continually inform their clientele as to the
problems posed by switching to a better grade of fuel after years
of using varnish.

If biodiesel's reputation is besmirched, it almost certainly
isn't the fuel's fault, as evidenced by commercially vended fuel
to Ohio DOT this year which gave rise to clogged arteries on
dozens of field tractors.

The vendor (one of those "responsible," "more capable than thou"
commercial types) neglected to take the pains to ensure that the
importance of the information as to fuel system "de-sludging" was
ingrained indelibly into the customer's psyche.

"Gee! Is that fuel supposed to be rust orange?"

Pretty damned sad when it's the field hands that find out what
the cause is and remedies are over Friday night beers and take
the information back to outpost mechanics and managers. But then
again, most of the world's best work is accomplished from the
"bottom" up, rather than the top down.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: alexlandels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 2:01 PM
Subject: [biofuels-biz] (unknown)


> hello;
>
> I think Steve is correct re detergent effect.
>
> It is not unusal to have problems when switching to a different
fuel
> or oil ( see Amsoil site at
>
http://www.bestsyntheticoil.com/members/amsoil/1mrtruck/index.sht
ml ).
>
> Since these types of problems are fairly well known it is
possible
> that misinformation is being generated to ensure that 'big'
> producers, of whatever discription, can or will dominate a
possibly
> lucrative venture.
>
>
>
> Alex Landels
>
>
>
> Biofuels at Journey to Forever
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> Biofuel at WebConX
> http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
> List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Share the magic of Harry Potter with Yahoo! Messenger
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4Q_cgB/JmBFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

Biofuels at Journey to Forever
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel at WebConX
http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

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

Re: [biofuel] Timber species

[Neil and Adele Craven]

Sadly no, I teach woodwork for a living to high school children, the majority 
of whom merely waste the resource and I recycle it into firewood, and have no 
knowledge of the person you are refering to.  Sorry.

Neil
Canberra
Australia
  - Original Message - 
  From: Hakan Falk 
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:31 AM
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Timber species



  I agree with you and my comment about teak was more of an attempt to joke, 
  than a serious suggestion. Stupid joke that I regret when I read it after 
  the posting. You have several slow growing softwood trees, but hardly fast 
  growing hardwood.

  Since you know a lot about wood management, maybe you can help me with one 
  thing that irritates me. I can not remember the name of the German around 
  200 years ago, who developed the embryo to the modern sustainable forest 
  management. I read some 120 year old  books about it on my mothers family 
  estate around 30 years ago. It was very interesting and the start of the 
  Swedish sustainable forest management around  150 years ago. I have seen 
  his name at a later occasion but cannot remember it.

  I guess that you studied the subject and maybe know his name.

  Hakan


  At 08:26 AM 11/25/2002 +1100, you wrote:
  >I merely make the point to clarify timber species, however huon pine is a 
  >Gymnosperm ie a softwood but is an incredibly slow growing tree.  My point 
  >was that the fact that they make a tree faster growing does not change its 
  >botanical class.  BTW I am in Australia and we are going to pine pallets 
  >here after many years using native Angiosperm timber.  Radiata pine a 
  >native of Canada is our preferred plantation timber, maturing in 30 yrs.
  >
  >Neil
  >Canberra
  >Australia
  >   - Original Message -
  >   From: Hakan Falk
  >   To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
  >   Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 8:16 AM
  >   Subject: Re: [biofuel] Back Online
  >
  >
  >
  >   Niel,
  >
  >   I thought by translation from Swedish that it is usually direct related to
  >   the size of the yearly addition of thickness and the age of the tree. This
  >   does not necessary translates to the hardness of the wood, but in many
  >   cases it does. What it does translate to is the time it takes for the tree
  >   to grow. Teak, Oak, Jacaranda, Balsa, etc is hardwood and Pine is 
  > softwood.
  >   I doubt that the American pallets are made of Balsa, but if they are it is
  >   equally wrong and also totally useless. Maybe it is a translation error
  >   here and then I apologize.
  >
  >   The point was the time it takes to produce the wood, not the hardness. If
  >   American pallets are made of a fast growing hardwood, I must have made a
  >   mistake.
  >
  >   Hakan
  >
  >
  >   At 07:17 AM 11/25/2002 +1100, you wrote:
  >
  >   >   - Original Message -
  >   >   From: Hakan Falk
  >   >   To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
  >   >   Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:37 AM
  >   >   Subject: Re: [biofuel] Back Online
  >   >   
  >   >
  >   >
  >   >Even the fast growing teak, developed mainly in
  >   >   central and south America, takes at least 2-4 the time to mature as 
  > pine
  >   >   trees and it is questionable if it is still hardwood. The fast growing
  >   > teak
  >   >   is softer, but still have the natural defense against humidity and 
  > insects.
  >   >
  >   >   Hakan, hardness has nothing to do with whether a tree is a hardwood or
  >   > a softwood, this is really a misnomer.  Balsa wood is a hardwood.
  >   >   It is all related to whether the tree is pored or nonpored.  With
  >   > hardwoods being pored.  In fact the correct terminology is Angiosperm,
  >   > seeds in fruit, broadleaves, pored timber (hardwoods)  and Gymnosperms,
  >   > naked seeds in cones, usually narrow leaves, non pored timber 
(softwoods)
  >   >   Neil
  >   >   Canberra
  >   >
  >   >
  >   >   
  >   >
  >   >
  >   > 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.
  >   >
  >   >
  >   >
  >   >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >   >
  >   >
  >   >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 haze questions

[Ken Provost]

>I am somewhat unclear on what the factors are that influence fuel haze.
>Could someone post info about it? Fuel haze is of course water in the fuel,
>but it seems that it takes a differing amount of time for haze to clear-
>are there different chemical factors that cause biodiesel to hold on to
>  water for differing amounts of time?

My biodiesel remains cloudy through all washing steps until it's been
bubble washed for 18 hours or more. That gets it almost clear. After
then letting it sit for a couple nights outside (to drop out any stearate,
AKA "tallow esters"), I filter through cotton cloth a few times and it
comes out crystal-clear. Maybe the cotton scavenges the last of the
water -- I don't know, but it works-K

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
·FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/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 haze questions

[girl mark]

biofuelers, (and coop members and Todd Swearingen)

I am somewhat unclear on what the factors are that influence fuel haze. 
Could someone post info about it? Fuel haze is of course water in the fuel, 
but it seems that it takes a differing amount of time for haze to clear- 
are there different chemical factors that cause biodiesel to hold on to 
water for differing amounts of time? Todd suggested in the email I 
forwarded to biofuel that heating the fuel to 120F will make haze clear, 
etc... is this standard practice for anybody? I noticed that Aleks' first 
two-stage method, the base-base method, suggests heating the washed fuel to 
drop out water, but by the time he wrote up his second method he was no 
longer suggesting this. Also, I think I read in some University of Idaho 
paper that they used to bubble dry as well... is this anything homebrewers 
are doing? anybody tried it?

Mark


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
·FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/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: FW: green diesel

[Keith Addison]

Hi Jerry

>--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Jerry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Keith, I've corresponded with Jim Kliesch at ACEEE also as to
>the lack of recommendations and information on biodiesel in the
>green guide to vehicles.

Good!

>He does know his stuff, has looked into
>biodiesel extensively,

"Dedicated"? "Conventional diesel vehicles"? Well, maybe he knows the 
difference.

>and in the realm where he works, his
>portrayal of biodiesel and SVO as minor players is accurate.

Well, if only he'd portray even that much where he works, but that 
was just in an email response.

>That could all change, and I think Jim will start to report on it, if
>biodiesel production and use grows considerably in the next few
>years.

No doubt, but that's my point - that's not being forward-looking, 
which such a publication should be, it's waiting until you're safely 
one of the pack.

>Currently though, diesels are a tiny minority of the
>passenger vehicles sold and biodiesel is a tiny fraction of the
>amount of diesel used to fuel vehicles.

That diesels are a tiny minority is a problem he ought to be 
acknowledging and addressing, especially in view of the massive 
disparity with the EU. Biodiesel is a tiny fraction still, but the 
growth is spectacular, and again, he should be looking abroad and at 
the very visible indications that it will not continue to be tiny for 
long, and why that's a Good Thing.

Has he seen this stuff?
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_future.html
Do diesels have a future?

>By the way, do you know
>the source of this number I've heard, that if all the WVO in the US
>were used to fuel vehicles, it would supply no more than 10% of
>the current diesel vehicle use?

I think the source of it was me, I posted it here, saying it's a 
figure I've heard but can't find an attribution for, hoping someone 
else might be able to. You seem to think that's only a little, I 
think it's a very significant amount. That nearly that much WVO is 
currently going to waste, and into sewers and landfills, is also 
significant.

>I do agree that biofuels deserves a mention in the ACEEE book
>as a presently available alternative for those willing to spend
>considerably more time and/or money on a cleaner burning fuel.
>The biodiesel story convinced us not to buy a gas-fueled hybrid
>(if only they could be plugged in!).  And forward-thinking coverage
>of green options should include the obvious diesel/electric
>hybrid possibility, which would get my dollar.

Yes and yes, but I don't agree with the time and money bit. There are 
already other options (a growing number of coops for instance) and 
the cost-structure, based on soy, will change when it's finally seen 
to be an energy matter, not just another sop for Big Soy and the 
agribiz interests.

regards

Keith


>Jerry McIntire
>--- End forwarded message ---


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: Re: pH questions, somewhat urgent

[girl mark]

Hi all,

Keith asked me offlist for directions for the acid number determination.
Here's the info, forwarded from an offlist exchange I had with Todd 
Swearingen a few weeks ago, about this and other quality standards stuff...
Mark


>Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:55:01 -0400
>
>
>Maria,
>
>Looking at the ASTM standards as the benchmark for home brewers,
>most of the standards can be met simply by preparing and washing
>the fuel well.
>
>A) Flash point (130*C minimum) will be relatively consistent for
>all feedstocks, presuming reaction completion and the alcohol is
>removed. If the alcohol is distilled or washed out this is a
>non-problem.
>B) Water and sediment (0.050 maximum % by volume) are
>non-problems with adequate settling times, filtration and fuel
>reheating to ~120*F. (I don't suggest adding any acid to clear
>fuel haze, as this will increase the acid number.)
>C) Free glycerin (0.020 maximum % by mass)  is removed and is a
>non-problem with adequate settling time and washing.
>D) Total glycerin (0.240 maximum % by mass) is reduced to nil and
>is a non-problem if sufficient reaction time is permitted (mono-,
>di- and tri-glycerides are all cracked), sufficient caustic is
>used (not excess, as this can raise the acid number by cracking
>methyl esters back to FFAs) and sufficient settling time is
>given.
>E) Kinematic viscosity (1.9 - 6.0 mm2/s at 40*C) will also be a
>non-problem if the total glycerin content (Items C & D) has been
>resolved and the acid number is not elevated by imprudent use of
>caustic, causing back cracking of esters to FFAs (higher
>viscosity than B-100).
>F) Sulfated ash (0.020 % by mass) is a non-controllable when
>using straight base, as the only sulfur in the equation is
>derived from the parent feedstock. When using an acid/base
>process the sulfuric acid used in the esterification step is
>neutralized by the base. The resulting salt is soluble in the
>water wash and should be a non-problem with proper washing.
>G) Sulfur (0.05% maximum by mass) - see Item F.  B-100 is
>essentially sulfur free.
>H) Phosphorous content (0.001% maximum by mass) is a
>non-controllable relative to the parent animal or plant feedstock
>and is a non-problem beyond that as long as phosphoric acid is
>not used to clear fuel haze. Phosphoric acid can also increase
>the acid number (acid + FFAs). This is why either adequate
>settling times, and slightly warmed fuel are the better options
>for clearing fuel.
>I) Acid number (0.80 maximum milligrams of KOH per gram of fuel)
>will remain low if acids are not added to the fuel either pre,
>post or during washes (either to "ease washing"(?) or clear fuel
>haze) and if caustic is not used in excess, which causes higher
>numbers of esters to break down to FFAs.
>
>Other standards, such as distillation temperature, copper strip
>corrosion, cetane number and cloud point are for all practical
>intents and purposes properties that will fall within ASTM
>standard if the fuel is prepared and washes are conducted
>properly.
>
>As for a poor person's method of checking acid numberIt can
>be conducted in the exact same manner as the titration of the
>original feedstock, save for the substitution of biodiesel for
>oil. Keep in mind that the assay of the KOH being used will need
>to be taken into consideration. If the assay is 90% for example,
>the number of milligrams of KOH per gram of oil should be
>multiplied by the % purity.
>
>One can also assay the KOH themselves with an acid titration. But
>that's a bit out of the realm of probability for most shadetree
>biodieselers.
>
>The in house chemist (Ph.D. in chemistry) suggests that a careful
>titration using the same method as the original feedstock
>titration should get you within + or - 10%, perhaps + or - 5% if
>one is really precise.
>
>You could also use other indicators such as phenophtalein to
>titrate the fuel. This would reduce the margin for error from the
>"pH method," as pH is really designed for aqueous solutions.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Todd
>


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] WARNING! - enemy action by Yahoo

[Keith Addison]

Yahoo - Yahell! LOL! - is up to its less-than-charming bouncing 
tricks once again. There have been some viruses going about, and we 
don't get them here on these lists because they're set to text-only, 
no html, and no attachments. Which doesn't stop Yahoo doing it to us 
anyway. For the fifth time Yahoo has tried to send me a virus, my ISP 
quite correctly stopped it, so Yahoo then BOUNCED me because my email 
account "isn't working" - and THEN emailed me to tell me [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Grrr! grumble grumble...

So I went and unbounced myself. Which you can do here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/myprefs?edit=2

... IF, that is, you have your Yahoo ID and password to hand, AND 
have a bit of patience. But it can be done.

Nonetheless, I've just spent an hour up to my neck in flying adverts 
and treacle-like speed sending myself nearly 40 messages from the Web 
interface that Yahoo saw fit not to send me AFTER I'd unbounced. 
Sheesh! Including several from me!

So prepare to be bounced. If you're not getting emails from the lists 
check the url above. They just might also return a mail you try to 
send to you along with the advice that your email account "doesn't 
work" and therefore the message can't be delivered. PLEASE don't send 
"just testing" messages to the list to see if you're bouncing or not. 
And no, I don't believe those sweet folks at Yahoo do manage to get 
their trousers on the right way round in the morning any more than 
half the time.

By the way, some of these viruses steal senders' addresses out of 
people's mailboxes and send counterfeit messages with counterfeit 
subject-lines. They might thus appear to be coming from the lists, 
but they're not, they're counterfeits. In the past people haven't 
believed this and unsubbed, and still got the messages. So if you're 
getting viruses, you're NOT getting them from the Biofuel or 
Biofuels-biz list.

If you're a Windoze user with Outhouse Express and Internet Exploder 
and all that wondrous stuff, make sure your anti-virus gear is 
updated and in place. Or GET A MAC!!

Regards

Keith


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
·FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/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/ 

Fwd: Re: A response to ... eh-hem.... Big Industry? was Re: BIG

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Thor

Thanks for this contribution, positive and constructive, and what we
all should be doing.

I also hope Graham doesn't bow out. Though I must say that what his
"unique perspective" has mostly provided so far is a rather clear
picture of why biodieselers tend to distrust "industry", and why some
of us, including me, haven't got anywhere with trying to establish
some common ground with industry, or at least with some sectors of
it, though not others, and not for want of trying.

Graham has done little here to allay people's suspicions, rather the
opposite, as you can see. I'm sure his intentions are good, but
that's about where it ends, his ideas of collaboration are clueless -
laughable, as I said before, only it's not funny. He seems only to
accomplish the opposite of his intentions.

Currently there are two issues, both concerning him, and arriving
from different directions: the first being the rumours of homebrewed
BD causing widespread problems, presented as fact, and the second the
unidentifiable and perhaps equally mythical party in Maine who
allegedly got thumped for tax.

The problem here is what I can only call industry arrogance - again,
the fact that many (most?) in industry show no trace of this makes it
that much less excusable. Graham (and others) have sought to protect
and nurture biodiesel use and growth, all very laudable, and we do
the same, at least as effectively in our area - but his ill-informed
and prejudiced perception has been that what it needs protecting from
is us. "The big fear of the biodiesel industry is that homebrewers
are going to destroy the market." Hence all the warnings and
apocryphal myths about the so-called "Perils of Home Brew", and the
crashing failure to realize that, firstly, it's just not true, and
second, that it has the opposite to the desired effect, it's bad news
that travels far and doesn't die easily, as you point out, it gets
distorted in the retelling, and makes people wary of biodiesel in
general, from whatever source. This absolutely has to stop. IMO it
does as much damage or more as we could ever do even if we did make
crap fuel, which we don't. And it could almost be calculated to
create a deep rift between our two sectors, though we both have the
same aims and hopes. And that it has done. One (of several) reasons I
hope Graham doesn't bow out, or whatever, is that he's in a very good
position to try to repair some of this damage, if only he'll pause to
consider the essential mutuality of any real collaborative effort.
Obviously he wants to help, but he'll have to learn how, to reality
of biofuelers will not change simply to fit his misconceptions about
us, which in turn would do more harm than good anyway.

Your points about the NBB and the EPA and their attitude to small
producers, and the bureaucratic burden, are all very well-founded.
There are signs they're beginning to change their ways, under
pressure, but they need to do a lot more.

As well as that, to get back to this "Perils of Home Brew" nonsense,
it has rather a telling history. The original article was written by
Frank Legge in Australia and published in a Biodiesel Association of
Australia newsletter. They didn't send me that issue, though I
subscribed, and their website is a mess - it lists the newsletters
but the links are dead, as is the index of all articles in Biodiesel
News, and their search engine returns no hits. So I was unable to
find it there and didn't know Legge had written it.

Legge's headline on the piece was quite different: he'd called it
"Biodiesel Concerns", and he didn't at all approve of the new
headline given it apparently by the NBB, which for quite a long time
featured it on the front page of their website, without Legge's
signature. In this form it appeared to have been written by Werner
Koerbitz of the Austrian Biofuels Institute, which is perhaps the
EU's equivalent of the NBB, in a way. It was associated with a longer
piece by Koerbitz called "Why Standards are Important", with dire
warnings against, yes, the Perils of Home Brew. "Obviously every
country has to go through the phase of enthusiastic home-brewed
biodiesel." We're just an unfortunate phase, the sooner we grow out
of it and leave it to the Big Guys the better for everybody. (Though
we do have our uses.)

Both articles are still to be found at the NBB:
Why Standards are Important
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/gen-322.pdf
(Werner Korbitz's article slamming homebrewers)

Perils of Home Brew
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/gen-321.pdf
(Frank Legge's piece, unsigned)

Okay, so, in the interests of promoting and protecting the biodiesel
cause, of mutuality, collaboration and cooperation amongst all
interested parties, let's all now highlight it on our websites what a
useless bunch of wasters and ne'er-do-wells the NBB, the ABI and
industry are - plenty of good 

Fwd: Re: biodiesel tests, correction on James' post was Re: [biofuel] BIG INDUSTRY responds...

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], James Slayden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, I stand corrected.  Yes there was quite a lot going on   Sorry,
did not mean to cause any more confusion.  I was under the impression that
the Ecology Center's BD was from Yokayo, but your history of their
previous troubles helps to clarify. 

BTW, I was not intending to put anyones fuel down, other than to prove a
point that not necessarly commerce BD was all up to snuff.  And Lauries
fuel if washed would have been equal to World Energy's (take note here
Graham).

Actually I really do appreciate the correction as it clarified for me
which batches we had done what to.  We were so hot on doing a 2 stage acid
base and the day was getting long that I think I failed at memorizing the
batches and their states.  ;-)

Humbily,

James Slayden

On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, girl mark wrote:

> I've got some corrections on James' post:
>
> In the class yesterday we spent some time discussing homebrew quality
> control, and quality tests that can be done by homebrewers in the absence
> of gas chromotography, NIR, and other equipment. While these tests are
> not
> as accurate, and don't tell you as much as the lab testing available to
> big
> commercial producers, they are good enough to give you a VERY graphic and
> clear idea of fuel quality in several areas.
>
> In the class we weren't conducting very controlled experiments- I was too
> busy yakking about quality control, we were all asking and answering
> questions, and there was a subgroup of newbies who were working with my
> teaching assistant on basic blender batch stuff- so me and the TA had a
> lot
> to keep track of at once. Anyway, I do want to redo some of these tests
> on
> some more samples of the same fuel as we felt like we uncovered some
> interesting results.
>
> corrections on James' post are about the particular test and about whose
> fuel we were testing:
>
> one correction was that it was the U of Idaho wash test for
> emulsification-
> a very crude way to test for emulsification and cloudy (soapy?) water
> that
> gives you a simple 'thumbnail' sketch of how well a biodiesel sample has
> been washed, what emulsification-causing components it might contain, or
> how an unwashed sample will behave in the wash-
>
>
> and the other correction is about the specific commercial samples we
> tested:
>
> 1. -some of the WVO-derived fuel thatYokayo Biofuels brokers, it did
> excellent on reprocessing tests, though we didn't get a chance to test it
> for other stuff
>
> 2. -some commercial, wvo-derived fuel used by the Ecology Center in their
> trucks, it did SO terrible on all the tests that it was comparable to
> some
> problematic homebrew we also tested. We tested it for emulsification,
> acid
> number, pH,  reprocessing to test for incomplete conversion, and I think
> something else I don't remember.
>   (I feel like there might have been something wrong with the sample that
> they gave me- I was quite shocked to find how bad this stuff looked. They
> have had bacterial growth problems with their commercial fuel in storage-
> complicated story having more to do with conditions set up by the fleet
> operator than with the fuel to begin with- water got in it, and some
> other
> stuff happened- something that's been corrected since it happened, but I
> wondered if this sample was a recurrence of last year's bacterial growth
> issues.)
>
> 3. -a tiny sample of World Energy soy based biodiesel from the Olympian
> pump, I believe. We didn't have a big enough sample to do everything we
> wanted, and we just included it in the 'wash test races' to illustrate
> the
> point about washing, emulsification, etc. We didn't test for  conversion
> (by reprocessing) or for acid number.
>
> 4. a different sample of commercially produced wvo fuel from Yokayo from
> a
> few months past. It was a quite different color than the current batch,
> so
> it must have been from a different feedstock.
>
> the non-commercial, homebrew fuel was:
> 1. some unwashed homebrew made by Laurie Smith in Sonoma, which she had
> settled for two or three months but hadn't washed
>
> 2. washed problematic fuel from the biodiesel co-op, which emulsified a
> lot
> in the wash and was having trouble clearing after 10 days of post-wash
> settling time
>
> 3. very thoroughly washed fuel made by utter beginners at the co-op out
> of
> new oil a few months back
>
>
> Laurie's fuel and the older sample of YoKayo behaved very similarly in
> the
> wash test- ie  the commercial fuel hadn't been washed very thoroughly,
> yet
> her unwashed, settled homebrew was properly made AND the (impractically)
> long settling time had done a good job of dropping out some of the
> water-soluble nasties.
> The well-washed new oil-based fuel made by the coop beginners looked
> very
> similar to the World Energy soy-based fuel on the u of idaho wash tests.
> The commercial stuff that someone's selling to the Ecology Center did
> very
> poorly on several 

Fwd: biodiesel tests, correction on James' post was Re: [biofuel] BIG INDUSTRY responds...

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], girl mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've got some corrections on James' post:

In the class yesterday we spent some time discussing homebrew quality
control, and quality tests that can be done by homebrewers in the absence
of gas chromotography, NIR, and other equipment. While these tests are not
as accurate, and don't tell you as much as the lab testing available to big
commercial producers, they are good enough to give you a VERY graphic and
clear idea of fuel quality in several areas.

In the class we weren't conducting very controlled experiments- I was too
busy yakking about quality control, we were all asking and answering
questions, and there was a subgroup of newbies who were working with my
teaching assistant on basic blender batch stuff- so me and the TA had a lot
to keep track of at once. Anyway, I do want to redo some of these tests on
some more samples of the same fuel as we felt like we uncovered some
interesting results.

corrections on James' post are about the particular test and about whose
fuel we were testing:

one correction was that it was the U of Idaho wash test for emulsification-
a very crude way to test for emulsification and cloudy (soapy?) water that
gives you a simple 'thumbnail' sketch of how well a biodiesel sample has
been washed, what emulsification-causing components it might contain, or
how an unwashed sample will behave in the wash-


and the other correction is about the specific commercial samples we tested:

1. -some of the WVO-derived fuel thatYokayo Biofuels brokers, it did
excellent on reprocessing tests, though we didn't get a chance to test it
for other stuff

2. -some commercial, wvo-derived fuel used by the Ecology Center in their
trucks, it did SO terrible on all the tests that it was comparable to some
problematic homebrew we also tested. We tested it for emulsification, acid
number, pH,  reprocessing to test for incomplete conversion, and I think
something else I don't remember.
  (I feel like there might have been something wrong with the sample that
they gave me- I was quite shocked to find how bad this stuff looked. They
have had bacterial growth problems with their commercial fuel in storage-
complicated story having more to do with conditions set up by the fleet
operator than with the fuel to begin with- water got in it, and some other
stuff happened- something that's been corrected since it happened, but I
wondered if this sample was a recurrence of last year's bacterial growth
issues.)

3. -a tiny sample of World Energy soy based biodiesel from the Olympian
pump, I believe. We didn't have a big enough sample to do everything we
wanted, and we just included it in the 'wash test races' to illustrate the
point about washing, emulsification, etc. We didn't test for  conversion
(by reprocessing) or for acid number.

4. a different sample of commercially produced wvo fuel from Yokayo from a
few months past. It was a quite different color than the current batch, so
it must have been from a different feedstock.

the non-commercial, homebrew fuel was:
1. some unwashed homebrew made by Laurie Smith in Sonoma, which she had
settled for two or three months but hadn't washed

2. washed problematic fuel from the biodiesel co-op, which emulsified a lot
in the wash and was having trouble clearing after 10 days of post-wash
settling time

3. very thoroughly washed fuel made by utter beginners at the co-op out of
new oil a few months back


Laurie's fuel and the older sample of YoKayo behaved very similarly in the
wash test- ie  the commercial fuel hadn't been washed very thoroughly, yet
her unwashed, settled homebrew was properly made AND the (impractically)
long settling time had done a good job of dropping out some of the
water-soluble nasties.
The well-washed new oil-based fuel made by the coop beginners looked  very
similar to the World Energy soy-based fuel on the u of idaho wash tests.
The commercial stuff that someone's selling to the Ecology Center did very
poorly on several tests and was similar to some coop homebrew that we
already knew had problems.

Again, these were tests done in the chaos of a big group of people who were
all trying to wrap their minds around the chemistry involved, the
troubleshooting of the bad batches, etc. It's not a good testing environment.
AND, more importantly, we didn't do all of the same tests on all of the
samples- we did test all of it for U of Idaho Wash test, which is crude and
only tells you some of the info you need to know about fuel quality.

  But I'm going to try and run a repeat of some of this stuff under more
favorable conditions. Anybody got some different samples (1 1/2 liter) of
commercial fuel to send to me?

Mark



>Now, I am going to give World Energy some credit here.  You are very good
>business people.  And over this weekend I had a chance to test some of
>your fuel with the Iowa water method and you fuel is excellent, although
>it did smell of some residual alcohol.  I have p

Fwd: Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: A response to ... eh-hem.... Big Industry? was Re: BIG

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], girl mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Was Seattle Metro working with homebrew?
Mark




>I can give only a single anecdote from my own
>extremely limited experience, that may or may not
>count as it is coming second/third hand.  The owner of
>Fuelwerks, the place where I buy (World Energy)
>biodiesel in Seattle, told me that he had a bad
>experience with poor quality biodiesel from Portland,
>and that is why he is sticking with World Energy.  He
>also claimed that Seattle Metro (bus service) had a
>bad experience as well and consequently was now set
>against biodiesel.
--- End forwarded message ---

Fwd: Re: [biofuel] BIG INDUSTRY responds...

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], James Slayden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Graham,

I am starting to think that this isn't just a commerce vs. homebrew think,
but more of a east coast vs. left coast thing.  Here is the reason
why.  World Energy hasn't been inhibited in moving into the California
market for another reason than they are just slow to proceed.  Case in
point, Yokayo is brokering commerce BD as well as Southern States Power
Co., Pacific Biodiesel, and other various small brokers.  World Energy is
even is selling BD in the market as there is a pump located in San
Francisco (test case I suppose ).

Here is what I think.  I think that you folks fell beind on your marketing
and distibution channels, as well as getting government, state, county,
and fleet sales contracts in place and you need a scapegoat, ie.
homebrewers/small producers and their supposed lack of spec fuel.  Easy
enough to convince most fleet managers as they are afraid of anything new
and improved and hardly ever make a change unless forced to do so by
mandate.  Thus when World Energy gets their marketing and distribution
into place they will still have a viable customer base that has believed
that those evil homebrewers/small producers are to blame for all the
troubles and World Energy fuel is safe and consistant.  The fleet managers
turn will their backs on the small producers believing them to be
homebrewers and thus World Energy captures the market, with nary a fight. 
Very effective tool, as we have seen Microsoft do the very same thing in
the computer industry.

The problems are fictious.  If there is fuel being produced that is out of
spec, it is being produced by people probably not assiciated with this
list, and IMO hardly would be of interest to be concerned over other than
scapegoat value to besmerch homebrewers/small producers everywhere.

Now, I am going to give World Energy some credit here.  You are very good
business people.  And over this weekend I had a chance to test some of
your fuel with the Iowa water method and you fuel is excellent, although
it did smell of some residual alcohol.  I have pictures to prove it was
the best of the bunch we were testing.  Here is the punchline the commerce
BD that Yokayo brokers was the same quality as some "bad" Berkley Co-op
batches.  It just goes to show that even commerce BD isn't always there
yet.  Note that when we tested some "good" Co-op batch last weekend it was
awesome fuel.  Thank goodness that Mark is a stickler to her specs and
will not allow the bad batches to go out the door at the Co-op until
reprocessed and several tests run on it.

Here is my final word.  Get off the Soy bus.  There is great fuel being
made out of many different feedstocks by many different types of people,
small producers, and large producers.  Soy is lucky as they have a GMO oil
product as a bi-product of their overproduced feed business, and they
realized the capitalization of a market.  Again, just good business.

Graham, I think it would be great to work in the biofuels industry, but I
would not do it at a cost of GMO's, non-use of an appropiate renewable
feedstock, organic inputs, and the discounting of alternate methods of
diverse production.  I hope that you feel the urge to help reform "Big
Soy" although I'm sure you will find the task daunting.  I tip my hat if
you can make any dent into status quo.

Regards,

James Slayden


On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Graham Noyes wrote:

> I tried to bow out gracefully but the following was a bit much:
>
> (snip)
>
> > > Um, at the cost of having homebrewers dispensed with by means of a
> > > load of BS about us being nothing but a peril who'll bring it all to
> > > naught unless we're controlled? Or at least kept firmly in our place
> > > (our own backyards)? Though we can be useful... Check back and you'll
> > > see that that's basically what Mr Noyes of World Energy was saying.
> > > He was asked how many times? Three? Four? - to substantiate his
> > > claims that substandard-spec homebrew had caused widespread problems
> > > and industry had had to clean up the mess after us. He evaded the
> > > question each time. He can't substantiate it because it's BS. Not the
> > > only thing he evaded. If you think that will at least stop him making
> > > such unsubstantiated claims, even if he can't quite bring himself to
> > > withdraw them, don't hold your breath.
> > >
> > > Noyes, and others like him, couldn't cope with what we actually are
> > > and what we do, as opposed to his patronising idea of us. Have a look
> > > at how he handled the possibility of collaboration with us,
> > > laughable. It's on his terms or nothing, just like the other World
> > > Energy guy who wasted our time with this talk. We're more useful than
> > > these people, and it's them who make it an either-or question, not
> us.
> > >
> > > We're not against industry, that would be foolish, but there's
> > > industry and then there's industry. It's not a case of small vs
> > > la

Re: [biofuel] Re: A response to ... eh-hem.... Big Industry? was Re: BIG

[Keith Addison]

>Being the obsessed quality tests homebrewer, I've been looking into the
>Leonardo site (very useful!) and was obsessively bugging everyone I knew
>for a translation of the residual catalyst test kit they described.
>
> From what I could make out from the babelfish translation (the original
>German article is on the leonardo site and the babelfisth translation
>yields very amusing computer-mangled English!), it was a titration that
>used diethyl ether AND methanol as a solvent, and hydrochloric acid as a
>reagent to give you an approximate value for residual catalyst. Then the
>article went on to say that it is only an approximate test, just like the
>rest of our shadetree tests, most of which don't involve chemicals like this.
>
>If you want to go to all this trouble, you'll probably still find out that
>there is residual catalyst and soaps in unwashed homebrew, and that you
>therefore should wash your fuel. When I initially bugged Todd Swearingen
>and asked him to talk to his chemist about this test, he basically said,
>why bother? just wash your fuel. And now I'm starting to believe this. A
>simple pH test will also tell you that you need to wash your fuel.
>
>Mark

Hi Mark

I copied too much in there, sorry - it's the Transesterification 
Degree bit I was referring to, not Remains of catalyst or Flash 
Point: "the thinlayer-chromatographic determination of the 
transesterification-degree".

There's no direct url, it's all frames and pull-downs. Hit 
"Transesterification Degree" in the pull-down at the top-right. It's 
in English, more or less.

Dan, Todd's chemist, once said it wouldn't be too hard to rig up such 
a thin-layer chromatography test-kit and write instructions on using 
it. Aleks also tried to get hold of it, and failed. He thought there 
were such kits available in Austria, but couldn't find them.

Best

Keith



> >One thing that would be most useful is a simple and affordable
> >completion test, such as this:
> >http://koal.cop.fi/leonar 
>do/leonardo.htm
> >Select "Analysis", "Miscellaneous", "Test kit for Biodiesel"
> >Transesterification Degree,
> >Flash Point,
> >Remains of catalyst.
> >
> >Quite a few people have tried to track this down without success.
> >Wouldn't that be a useful thing to put only a very few of those soy
> >check-off dollars into? Do something constructive to help
> >biodieselers with their quality for a change instead of just
> >spreading counter-productive BS - the biodieselers would certainly
> >take it up, they're most interested in quality, and it would be
> >appreciated, build some bridges.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
·FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/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] ARGGGH, even more on quality testing stuf

[girl mark]

Arggh, I missed something else I was gonna write:


Acid number (titration with
>KOH, on washed fuel) will tell you about unreacted free fatty acids.
>Washing with vinegar or other acid in the wash water will throw off the
>ability of that test to tell you about your process.
>
>Mark


And like other quality tests, this can tell you to refine your process- the 
acid number test should tell you if you're using the correct base amount of 
lye (remember it varies from feedstock to feedstock, depends on the plant 
oil,and is not always being the magic 3.1-3.5 g, the exact info is on 
Journey to forever).



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


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
·FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/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] more on quality testing stuf

[girl mark]

I think my post below doesn't make something clear I do encourage everyone 
to do quality testing, as much of it as they can figure out (other than 
specific gravity or viscosity which I think are not useful tests, at least 
when performed on unwashed fuel) I just want to also make the point that 
quality testing of course helps you refine your process. as far as the 
German testkit we were talking about goes, just doing PH testing of your 
unwashed fuel will tell you about catalyst or soaps, and probably give you 
a good idea that you should wash the stuff. Acid number (titration with 
KOH, on washed fuel) will tell you about unreacted free fatty acids. 
Washing with vinegar or other acid in the wash water will throw off the 
ability of that test to tell you about your process.

Mark



>If you want to go to all this trouble, you'll probably still find out that
>there is residual catalyst and soaps in unwashed homebrew, and that you
>therefore should wash your fuel. When I initially bugged Todd Swearingen
>and asked him to talk to his chemist about this test, he basically said,
>why bother? just wash your fuel. And now I'm starting to believe this. A
>simple pH test will also tell you that you need to wash your fuel.
>
>Mark
>
>
>
>
> >One thing that would be most useful is a simple and affordable
> >completion test, such as this:
> ><http://koal.cop.fi/leonardo/le 
> onardo.htm>http://koal.cop.fi/leonardo/leonardo.htm
> >Select "Analysis", "Miscellaneous", "Test kit for Biodiesel"
> >Transesterification Degree,
> >Flash Point,
> >Remains of catalyst.
> >
> >Quite a few people have tried to track this down without success.
> >Wouldn't that be a useful thing to put only a very few of those soy
> >check-off dollars into? Do something constructive to help
> >biodieselers with their quality for a change instead of just
> >spreading counter-productive BS - the biodieselers would certainly
> >take it up, they're most interested in quality, and it would be
> >appreciated, build some bridges.
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>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.


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


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
·FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/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: A response to ... eh-hem.... Big Industry? was Re: BIG

[girl mark]

Being the obsessed quality tests homebrewer, I've been looking into the 
Leonardo site (very useful!) and was obsessively bugging everyone I knew 
for a translation of the residual catalyst test kit they described.

 From what I could make out from the babelfish translation (the original 
German article is on the leonardo site and the babelfisth translation 
yields very amusing computer-mangled English!), it was a titration that 
used diethyl ether AND methanol as a solvent, and hydrochloric acid as a 
reagent to give you an approximate value for residual catalyst. Then the 
article went on to say that it is only an approximate test, just like the 
rest of our shadetree tests, most of which don't involve chemicals like this.

If you want to go to all this trouble, you'll probably still find out that 
there is residual catalyst and soaps in unwashed homebrew, and that you 
therefore should wash your fuel. When I initially bugged Todd Swearingen 
and asked him to talk to his chemist about this test, he basically said, 
why bother? just wash your fuel. And now I'm starting to believe this. A 
simple pH test will also tell you that you need to wash your fuel.

Mark




>One thing that would be most useful is a simple and affordable
>completion test, such as this:
>http://koal.cop.fi/leonardo/leonardo.htm
>Select "Analysis", "Miscellaneous", "Test kit for Biodiesel"
>Transesterification Degree,
>Flash Point,
>Remains of catalyst.
>
>Quite a few people have tried to track this down without success.
>Wouldn't that be a useful thing to put only a very few of those soy
>check-off dollars into? Do something constructive to help
>biodieselers with their quality for a change instead of just
>spreading counter-productive BS - the biodieselers would certainly
>take it up, they're most interested in quality, and it would be
>appreciated, build some bridges.


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


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/ 

Fwd: Re: biodiesel tests, correction on James' post was Re: [biofuel] BIG INDUSTRY responds...

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], James Slayden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, I stand corrected.  Yes there was quite a lot going on   Sorry,
did not mean to cause any more confusion.  I was under the impression that
the Ecology Center's BD was from Yokayo, but your history of their
previous troubles helps to clarify. 

BTW, I was not intending to put anyones fuel down, other than to prove a
point that not necessarly commerce BD was all up to snuff.  And Lauries
fuel if washed would have been equal to World Energy's (take note here
Graham).

Actually I really do appreciate the correction as it clarified for me
which batches we had done what to.  We were so hot on doing a 2 stage acid
base and the day was getting long that I think I failed at memorizing the
batches and their states.  ;-)

Humbily,

James Slayden

On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, girl mark wrote:

> I've got some corrections on James' post:
>
> In the class yesterday we spent some time discussing homebrew quality
> control, and quality tests that can be done by homebrewers in the absence
> of gas chromotography, NIR, and other equipment. While these tests are
> not
> as accurate, and don't tell you as much as the lab testing available to
> big
> commercial producers, they are good enough to give you a VERY graphic and
> clear idea of fuel quality in several areas.
>
> In the class we weren't conducting very controlled experiments- I was too
> busy yakking about quality control, we were all asking and answering
> questions, and there was a subgroup of newbies who were working with my
> teaching assistant on basic blender batch stuff- so me and the TA had a
> lot
> to keep track of at once. Anyway, I do want to redo some of these tests
> on
> some more samples of the same fuel as we felt like we uncovered some
> interesting results.
>
> corrections on James' post are about the particular test and about whose
> fuel we were testing:
>
> one correction was that it was the U of Idaho wash test for
> emulsification-
> a very crude way to test for emulsification and cloudy (soapy?) water
> that
> gives you a simple 'thumbnail' sketch of how well a biodiesel sample has
> been washed, what emulsification-causing components it might contain, or
> how an unwashed sample will behave in the wash-
>
>
> and the other correction is about the specific commercial samples we
> tested:
>
> 1. -some of the WVO-derived fuel thatYokayo Biofuels brokers, it did
> excellent on reprocessing tests, though we didn't get a chance to test it
> for other stuff
>
> 2. -some commercial, wvo-derived fuel used by the Ecology Center in their
> trucks, it did SO terrible on all the tests that it was comparable to
> some
> problematic homebrew we also tested. We tested it for emulsification,
> acid
> number, pH,  reprocessing to test for incomplete conversion, and I think
> something else I don't remember.
>   (I feel like there might have been something wrong with the sample that
> they gave me- I was quite shocked to find how bad this stuff looked. They
> have had bacterial growth problems with their commercial fuel in storage-
> complicated story having more to do with conditions set up by the fleet
> operator than with the fuel to begin with- water got in it, and some
> other
> stuff happened- something that's been corrected since it happened, but I
> wondered if this sample was a recurrence of last year's bacterial growth
> issues.)
>
> 3. -a tiny sample of World Energy soy based biodiesel from the Olympian
> pump, I believe. We didn't have a big enough sample to do everything we
> wanted, and we just included it in the 'wash test races' to illustrate
> the
> point about washing, emulsification, etc. We didn't test for  conversion
> (by reprocessing) or for acid number.
>
> 4. a different sample of commercially produced wvo fuel from Yokayo from
> a
> few months past. It was a quite different color than the current batch,
> so
> it must have been from a different feedstock.
>
> the non-commercial, homebrew fuel was:
> 1. some unwashed homebrew made by Laurie Smith in Sonoma, which she had
> settled for two or three months but hadn't washed
>
> 2. washed problematic fuel from the biodiesel co-op, which emulsified a
> lot
> in the wash and was having trouble clearing after 10 days of post-wash
> settling time
>
> 3. very thoroughly washed fuel made by utter beginners at the co-op out
> of
> new oil a few months back
>
>
> Laurie's fuel and the older sample of YoKayo behaved very similarly in
> the
> wash test- ie  the commercial fuel hadn't been washed very thoroughly,
> yet
> her unwashed, settled homebrew was properly made AND the (impractically)
> long settling time had done a good job of dropping out some of the
> water-soluble nasties.
> The well-washed new oil-based fuel made by the coop beginners looked
> very
> similar to the World Energy soy-based fuel on the u of idaho wash tests.
> The commercial stuff that someone's selling to the Ecology Center did
> very
> poorly on several 

Fwd: Re: [biofuel] Excise tax on Biodiesel

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Since it is the owner of the car that is responsible to pay the tax, if
it is the same rules as Europe, it is in practise a tax exemption for
bio diesel. Especially for an owner of one or two Lupos.

Hakan


At 04:16 PM 11/24/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>hrmm, 1600 gallons per year   divide that by 52 weeks and you come out
>with 30.76 bla bla bla gallons per week.  So, one could say that a
>homebrewer is safe as long as they kept their miles down.  Better start
>looking into shipping a Lupo over here   ;-)
>
>And no wonder the "Big Vehicle" doesn't want to increase the CAFE
>standards 
>
>James Slayden
>
>On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Ken Provost wrote:
>
> > In case anyone hasn't been to the greascar site lately, they have
> > an interesting blurb that the IRS wrote back to a California
> > co-op about US Federal taxes. Here it is:
> >
> > No Federal Excise tax on biodiesel or SVO if you use less than
> > 400 gallons per quarter.
> >
> > State of California has no policy. No taxes due at this time.
> > Suggests you keep records :-).
> >
> > Details here:
> >
> > http://www.greasecar.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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
>
>
>
>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/
--- End forwarded message ---

Fwd: biodiesel tests, correction on James' post was Re: [biofuel] BIG INDUSTRY responds...

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], girl mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've got some corrections on James' post:

In the class yesterday we spent some time discussing homebrew quality
control, and quality tests that can be done by homebrewers in the absence
of gas chromotography, NIR, and other equipment. While these tests are not
as accurate, and don't tell you as much as the lab testing available to big
commercial producers, they are good enough to give you a VERY graphic and
clear idea of fuel quality in several areas.

In the class we weren't conducting very controlled experiments- I was too
busy yakking about quality control, we were all asking and answering
questions, and there was a subgroup of newbies who were working with my
teaching assistant on basic blender batch stuff- so me and the TA had a lot
to keep track of at once. Anyway, I do want to redo some of these tests on
some more samples of the same fuel as we felt like we uncovered some
interesting results.

corrections on James' post are about the particular test and about whose
fuel we were testing:

one correction was that it was the U of Idaho wash test for emulsification-
a very crude way to test for emulsification and cloudy (soapy?) water that
gives you a simple 'thumbnail' sketch of how well a biodiesel sample has
been washed, what emulsification-causing components it might contain, or
how an unwashed sample will behave in the wash-


and the other correction is about the specific commercial samples we tested:

1. -some of the WVO-derived fuel thatYokayo Biofuels brokers, it did
excellent on reprocessing tests, though we didn't get a chance to test it
for other stuff

2. -some commercial, wvo-derived fuel used by the Ecology Center in their
trucks, it did SO terrible on all the tests that it was comparable to some
problematic homebrew we also tested. We tested it for emulsification, acid
number, pH,  reprocessing to test for incomplete conversion, and I think
something else I don't remember.
  (I feel like there might have been something wrong with the sample that
they gave me- I was quite shocked to find how bad this stuff looked. They
have had bacterial growth problems with their commercial fuel in storage-
complicated story having more to do with conditions set up by the fleet
operator than with the fuel to begin with- water got in it, and some other
stuff happened- something that's been corrected since it happened, but I
wondered if this sample was a recurrence of last year's bacterial growth
issues.)

3. -a tiny sample of World Energy soy based biodiesel from the Olympian
pump, I believe. We didn't have a big enough sample to do everything we
wanted, and we just included it in the 'wash test races' to illustrate the
point about washing, emulsification, etc. We didn't test for  conversion
(by reprocessing) or for acid number.

4. a different sample of commercially produced wvo fuel from Yokayo from a
few months past. It was a quite different color than the current batch, so
it must have been from a different feedstock.

the non-commercial, homebrew fuel was:
1. some unwashed homebrew made by Laurie Smith in Sonoma, which she had
settled for two or three months but hadn't washed

2. washed problematic fuel from the biodiesel co-op, which emulsified a lot
in the wash and was having trouble clearing after 10 days of post-wash
settling time

3. very thoroughly washed fuel made by utter beginners at the co-op out of
new oil a few months back


Laurie's fuel and the older sample of YoKayo behaved very similarly in the
wash test- ie  the commercial fuel hadn't been washed very thoroughly, yet
her unwashed, settled homebrew was properly made AND the (impractically)
long settling time had done a good job of dropping out some of the
water-soluble nasties.
The well-washed new oil-based fuel made by the coop beginners looked  very
similar to the World Energy soy-based fuel on the u of idaho wash tests.
The commercial stuff that someone's selling to the Ecology Center did very
poorly on several tests and was similar to some coop homebrew that we
already knew had problems.

Again, these were tests done in the chaos of a big group of people who were
all trying to wrap their minds around the chemistry involved, the
troubleshooting of the bad batches, etc. It's not a good testing environment.
AND, more importantly, we didn't do all of the same tests on all of the
samples- we did test all of it for U of Idaho Wash test, which is crude and
only tells you some of the info you need to know about fuel quality.

  But I'm going to try and run a repeat of some of this stuff under more
favorable conditions. Anybody got some different samples (1 1/2 liter) of
commercial fuel to send to me?

Mark



>Now, I am going to give World Energy some credit here.  You are very good
>business people.  And over this weekend I had a chance to test some of
>your fuel with the Iowa water method and you fuel is excellent, although
>it did smell of some residual alcohol.  I have p

Fwd: RE: [biofuel] Back Online

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

James,

You are probably right :-(  . With current oil depletion it will be
very high value. No proof left of our generations stupid behavior.

Hakan

At 04:07 PM 11/24/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>I'm sure that reclaimation of the landfills will happen well before
>Archeologists have a chance to study it.  ;-)  Someone will realize that
>mining the landfills produces much wealth.
>
>James Slayden
>
>On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Hakan Falk wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear Harley,
> >
> > If you are right, I will sleep better. Knowing that the landfill now
> > is long life plastic pallets. At least it is dumped in American land
> > fills. Something for future Archeological excavations, if some one
> > is left to do such activities.
> >
> > Hakan
> >
> > At 03:32 PM 11/24/2002 -0600, you wrote:
> > >Dear Mr. Falk:
> > >
> > >Your information was exaggerated and dated.  The hardwood pallet made in
> > the
> > >U.S., are reused.  Most of the wood pallets have been replaced with a
> > longer
> > >life plastic pallets of one design or another.  When wood pallets where
> > in
> > >use, they where constantly reused, until breakage.  If broken they where
> > >rebuilt, and used again.  Until they where beyond repair.  Then usually
> > >someone would take them home, and burns them to heat their house.
> > >
> > >It was more cost effective to use a low quality hardwood for pallets
> > because
> > >they would last long than using a softwood.  It use to save money and
> > trees
> > >to use hardwoods in pallet construction. That is until a long life
> > plastic
> > >pallet became more cost affective.
> > >
> > >Only in America!
> > >
> > >Harley Fellion
> > >
> > >   -Original Message-
> > >   From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >   Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 10:38 AM
> > >   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >   Subject: Re: [biofuel] Back Online
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   Only in America!!!
> > >
> > >   I was not aware of that US made pallets of hardwood and did not think
> > that
> > >   it could ever be a stupid luxury consumption like this. I can see
> > reason
> > >   for some pallets to be made of hardwood, but they should be guarded
> > and
> > >   reused. But this irresponsible behavior cannot be excused. Six
> > pallets of
> > >   hardwood per American in land fills, give me a break!
> > >
> > >   I am of the opinion that it is almost a sin to use hardwood for
> > pallets in
> > >   the first place. How can you use types of trees that take 50 to 100
> > years
> > >   to mature for purposes like this. Hardwood is also very stupid to put
> > in
> > >   landfills, because of the long time it takes to disintegrate. If you
> > >really
> > >   need to waste hardwood, effective burning is probably the best.
> > Compared
> > >to
> > >   the pallets we mostly use in Europe, made of pine tree, hardwood take
> > 4-8
> > >   times longer to mature. Even the fast growing teak, developed mainly
> > in
> > >   central and south America, takes at least 2-4 the time to mature as
> > pine
> > >   trees and it is questionable if it is still hardwood. The fast
> > growing
> > >teak
> > >   is softer, but still have the natural defense against humidity and
> > >insects.
> > >
> > >   Hardwood is mostly a tropical or sub tropical tree and how can US use
> > this
> > >   for pallets and at the same time be upset about the deforestation of
> > the
> > >   remaining oxygen suppliers of the world. The hardwood of Europe was
> > by
> > >   tradition the property of the Kings, wherever it was rooted, because
> > of
> > >its
> > >   value for building ships and as structural building material. In this
> > case
> > >   oak was a strategic defense material. Oak used as structure for
> > buildings,
> > >   was inherited and reused for new buildings. The value of oak was
> > almost
> > >   comparable to gold a few hundred years ago.
> > >
> > >   Hakan
> > >
> > >
> > >   At 07:25 AM 11/24/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >   >Keith Addison wrote:
> > >   >
> > >   > > Re wasted wood, I picked this up somewhere or other, for the US,
> > not
> > >   > > Canada: "In 1999, for instance, 7.5 million tons of wooden
> > pallets -
> > >   > > platforms associated with shipping - went into the solid waste
> > >   > > stream, accounting for over 60 percent of all wood waste." And:
> > >   > > "There are an estimated 6 hardwood palletts in landfill for every
> > >   > > resident of the US."
> > >   > >
> > >   >
> > >   >
> > >   >
> > >   > Indeed!  I used to collect hardwood pallets, cut them up and
> > burn
> > >   >them.  Over the course of the "average" winter, my family burned 8
> > tons
> > >   >of wood like this.  We hadn't paid for heat in years!  Making the
> > leap
> > >   >back into fossil fueled residential heating was a hard decision for
> > me.
> > >   >I like the automaticity of our natural gas boiler, but we haven't
> > >   >received a bill yet . . .
> > >   >
> > >   >

Fwd: Re: [biofuel] Excise tax on Biodiesel

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], James Slayden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
hrmm, 1600 gallons per year   divide that by 52 weeks and you come out
with 30.76 bla bla bla gallons per week.  So, one could say that a
homebrewer is safe as long as they kept their miles down.  Better start
looking into shipping a Lupo over here   ;-)

And no wonder the "Big Vehicle" doesn't want to increase the CAFE
standards 

James Slayden

On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Ken Provost wrote:

> In case anyone hasn't been to the greascar site lately, they have
> an interesting blurb that the IRS wrote back to a California
> co-op about US Federal taxes. Here it is:
>
> No Federal Excise tax on biodiesel or SVO if you use less than
> 400 gallons per quarter.
>
> State of California has no policy. No taxes due at this time.
> Suggests you keep records :-).
>
> Details here:
>
> http://www.greasecar.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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
--- End forwarded message ---

Fwd: Excise tax on Biodiesel

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ken Provost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In case anyone hasn't been to the greascar site lately, they have
an interesting blurb that the IRS wrote back to a California
co-op about US Federal taxes. Here it is:

No Federal Excise tax on biodiesel or SVO if you use less than
400 gallons per quarter.

State of California has no policy. No taxes due at this time.
Suggests you keep records :-).

Details here:

http://www.greasecar.com/
--- End forwarded message ---

Fwd: RE: [biofuel] Back Online

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], James Slayden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm sure that reclaimation of the landfills will happen well before
Archeologists have a chance to study it.  ;-)  Someone will realize that
mining the landfills produces much wealth.

James Slayden

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Hakan Falk wrote:

>
> Dear Harley,
>
> If you are right, I will sleep better. Knowing that the landfill now
> is long life plastic pallets. At least it is dumped in American land
> fills. Something for future Archeological excavations, if some one
> is left to do such activities.
>
> Hakan
>
> At 03:32 PM 11/24/2002 -0600, you wrote:
> >Dear Mr. Falk:
> >
> >Your information was exaggerated and dated.  The hardwood pallet made in
> the
> >U.S., are reused.  Most of the wood pallets have been replaced with a
> longer
> >life plastic pallets of one design or another.  When wood pallets where
> in
> >use, they where constantly reused, until breakage.  If broken they where
> >rebuilt, and used again.  Until they where beyond repair.  Then usually
> >someone would take them home, and burns them to heat their house.
> >
> >It was more cost effective to use a low quality hardwood for pallets
> because
> >they would last long than using a softwood.  It use to save money and
> trees
> >to use hardwoods in pallet construction. That is until a long life
> plastic
> >pallet became more cost affective.
> >
> >Only in America!
> >
> >Harley Fellion
> >
> >   -Original Message-
> >   From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >   Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 10:38 AM
> >   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >   Subject: Re: [biofuel] Back Online
> >
> >
> >
> >   Only in America!!!
> >
> >   I was not aware of that US made pallets of hardwood and did not think
> that
> >   it could ever be a stupid luxury consumption like this. I can see
> reason
> >   for some pallets to be made of hardwood, but they should be guarded
> and
> >   reused. But this irresponsible behavior cannot be excused. Six
> pallets of
> >   hardwood per American in land fills, give me a break!
> >
> >   I am of the opinion that it is almost a sin to use hardwood for
> pallets in
> >   the first place. How can you use types of trees that take 50 to 100
> years
> >   to mature for purposes like this. Hardwood is also very stupid to put
> in
> >   landfills, because of the long time it takes to disintegrate. If you
> >really
> >   need to waste hardwood, effective burning is probably the best.
> Compared
> >to
> >   the pallets we mostly use in Europe, made of pine tree, hardwood take
> 4-8
> >   times longer to mature. Even the fast growing teak, developed mainly
> in
> >   central and south America, takes at least 2-4 the time to mature as
> pine
> >   trees and it is questionable if it is still hardwood. The fast
> growing
> >teak
> >   is softer, but still have the natural defense against humidity and
> >insects.
> >
> >   Hardwood is mostly a tropical or sub tropical tree and how can US use
> this
> >   for pallets and at the same time be upset about the deforestation of
> the
> >   remaining oxygen suppliers of the world. The hardwood of Europe was
> by
> >   tradition the property of the Kings, wherever it was rooted, because
> of
> >its
> >   value for building ships and as structural building material. In this
> case
> >   oak was a strategic defense material. Oak used as structure for
> buildings,
> >   was inherited and reused for new buildings. The value of oak was
> almost
> >   comparable to gold a few hundred years ago.
> >
> >   Hakan
> >
> >
> >   At 07:25 AM 11/24/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >   >Keith Addison wrote:
> >   >
> >   > > Re wasted wood, I picked this up somewhere or other, for the US,
> not
> >   > > Canada: "In 1999, for instance, 7.5 million tons of wooden
> pallets -
> >   > > platforms associated with shipping - went into the solid waste
> >   > > stream, accounting for over 60 percent of all wood waste." And:
> >   > > "There are an estimated 6 hardwood palletts in landfill for every
> >   > > resident of the US."
> >   > >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > Indeed!  I used to collect hardwood pallets, cut them up and
> burn
> >   >them.  Over the course of the "average" winter, my family burned 8
> tons
> >   >of wood like this.  We hadn't paid for heat in years!  Making the
> leap
> >   >back into fossil fueled residential heating was a hard decision for
> me.
> >   >I like the automaticity of our natural gas boiler, but we haven't
> >   >received a bill yet . . .
> >   >
> >   > >
> >   > > I just posted this somewhere else:
> >   > >
> >   > > "... the United States is now far from being a sustainable
> society,
> >   > > and in many respects is further away than it was at the time of
> the
> >   > > Earth Summit in 1992. Unlike many other developed countries, the
> >   > > United States has not used a strategic process to move the
> country
> >   > > toward a sustainable future and has not educated the American
> people

Fwd: Re: [biofuel] Back Online

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], James Slayden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Interesting I was just thinking about this while up in Berkley and seeing
all the lonely pallets just lying around.  It's a shame.  I don't know
home much of the industry still contiunes to use hardwood pallets, but
there is a growing number of softwood pallets that several of the
companies I have worked for seem to have shipped stuff on.  Anyway one
looks at it the pallets could be utilized for something other than being
thrown away.  I have 3 pallets framing my compost pile which is great
use.  I wonder if the folks at Arkenol have done some studys with old
pallets, or even Dynamotive.  Seems that the reclaimed pallet market would
be HUGE for making fuels!!

James Slayden

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Hakan Falk wrote:

>
> Robert,
>
> Keith talked about hardwood pallets in US land fills as six per American.
> This means nearly 2 billion hardwood pallets in land fills. The shear
> size
> of this made me quite upset. I know that the Americans are second best in
> the world after the Canadians, in wasting energy resources. But dumping
> 2 billion hardwood pallets in landfills takes the price.
>
> Here is at least one who see the light,
>
> Shawn Zenor from http://www.imua-tour.com , Hawaii wrote:
> 
> I reuse as many of them as I can for building furniture or small
> projects- I'm sorry to say that you really can find some fine woods in
> pallets- cedar, walnut, cherry, almost anything... it's crazy. I
> seeing a few businesses in New Mexico that used reclaimed pallet wood
> for furniture too.
> 
>
> Hakan
>
>
> At 03:25 PM 11/24/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
> >Hakan Falk wrote:
> >
> > > Only in America!!!
> >
> > Actually, I live in Canada. . .  The pallets I used to cut up and
> > burn came
> >from Quebec.  The hardwood baseboards we've just installed in our house
> came
> >from Chile.  It's not only a shame that hardwood is misused this way,
> but also
> >that it has to be shipped (at great energy cost) across the continent or
> the
> >oceans to get here.
> >
> > In defense of the industry, however, there are some pallets that
> require
> >hardwood because of the nature of the materials shipped upon them.  The
> >stuff I
> >used to collect for burning carried huge spools of aluminum that would
> break a
> >softwood pallet.  It's what we do with them afterwards that's a bigger
> shame.
> >
> >robert luis rabello
> >
> >
> >
> >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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
--- End forwarded message ---

Fwd: RE: [biofuel] Back Online

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Dear Harley,

If you are right, I will sleep better. Knowing that the landfill now
is long life plastic pallets. At least it is dumped in American land
fills. Something for future Archeological excavations, if some one
is left to do such activities.

Hakan

At 03:32 PM 11/24/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>Dear Mr. Falk:
>
>Your information was exaggerated and dated.  The hardwood pallet made in the
>U.S., are reused.  Most of the wood pallets have been replaced with a longer
>life plastic pallets of one design or another.  When wood pallets where in
>use, they where constantly reused, until breakage.  If broken they where
>rebuilt, and used again.  Until they where beyond repair.  Then usually
>someone would take them home, and burns them to heat their house.
>
>It was more cost effective to use a low quality hardwood for pallets because
>they would last long than using a softwood.  It use to save money and trees
>to use hardwoods in pallet construction. That is until a long life plastic
>pallet became more cost affective.
>
>Only in America!
>
>Harley Fellion
>
>   -Original Message-
>   From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 10:38 AM
>   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Subject: Re: [biofuel] Back Online
>
>
>
>   Only in America!!!
>
>   I was not aware of that US made pallets of hardwood and did not think that
>   it could ever be a stupid luxury consumption like this. I can see reason
>   for some pallets to be made of hardwood, but they should be guarded and
>   reused. But this irresponsible behavior cannot be excused. Six pallets of
>   hardwood per American in land fills, give me a break!
>
>   I am of the opinion that it is almost a sin to use hardwood for pallets in
>   the first place. How can you use types of trees that take 50 to 100 years
>   to mature for purposes like this. Hardwood is also very stupid to put in
>   landfills, because of the long time it takes to disintegrate. If you
>really
>   need to waste hardwood, effective burning is probably the best. Compared
>to
>   the pallets we mostly use in Europe, made of pine tree, hardwood take 4-8
>   times longer to mature. Even the fast growing teak, developed mainly in
>   central and south America, takes at least 2-4 the time to mature as pine
>   trees and it is questionable if it is still hardwood. The fast growing
>teak
>   is softer, but still have the natural defense against humidity and
>insects.
>
>   Hardwood is mostly a tropical or sub tropical tree and how can US use this
>   for pallets and at the same time be upset about the deforestation of the
>   remaining oxygen suppliers of the world. The hardwood of Europe was by
>   tradition the property of the Kings, wherever it was rooted, because of
>its
>   value for building ships and as structural building material. In this case
>   oak was a strategic defense material. Oak used as structure for buildings,
>   was inherited and reused for new buildings. The value of oak was almost
>   comparable to gold a few hundred years ago.
>
>   Hakan
>
>
>   At 07:25 AM 11/24/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>   >Keith Addison wrote:
>   >
>   > > Re wasted wood, I picked this up somewhere or other, for the US, not
>   > > Canada: "In 1999, for instance, 7.5 million tons of wooden pallets -
>   > > platforms associated with shipping - went into the solid waste
>   > > stream, accounting for over 60 percent of all wood waste." And:
>   > > "There are an estimated 6 hardwood palletts in landfill for every
>   > > resident of the US."
>   > >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > Indeed!  I used to collect hardwood pallets, cut them up and burn
>   >them.  Over the course of the "average" winter, my family burned 8 tons
>   >of wood like this.  We hadn't paid for heat in years!  Making the leap
>   >back into fossil fueled residential heating was a hard decision for me.
>   >I like the automaticity of our natural gas boiler, but we haven't
>   >received a bill yet . . .
>   >
>   > >
>   > > I just posted this somewhere else:
>   > >
>   > > "... the United States is now far from being a sustainable society,
>   > > and in many respects is further away than it was at the time of the
>   > > Earth Summit in 1992. Unlike many other developed countries, the
>   > > United States has not used a strategic process to move the country
>   > > toward a sustainable future and has not educated the American people
>   > > about the opportunities and challenges of sustainable development."
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > I've been lamenting about this for at least 30 years.  That's one of
>   >the reasons I'm here.
>   >
>   >robert luis rabello
>
>
>
> 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

Fwd: Re: [biofuel] Back Online

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Robert,

Keith talked about hardwood pallets in US land fills as six per American.
This means nearly 2 billion hardwood pallets in land fills. The shear size
of this made me quite upset. I know that the Americans are second best in
the world after the Canadians, in wasting energy resources. But dumping
2 billion hardwood pallets in landfills takes the price.

Here is at least one who see the light,

Shawn Zenor from http://www.imua-tour.com , Hawaii wrote:

I reuse as many of them as I can for building furniture or small
projects- I'm sorry to say that you really can find some fine woods in
pallets- cedar, walnut, cherry, almost anything... it's crazy. I
seeing a few businesses in New Mexico that used reclaimed pallet wood
for furniture too.


Hakan


At 03:25 PM 11/24/2002 -0800, you wrote:


>Hakan Falk wrote:
>
> > Only in America!!!
>
> Actually, I live in Canada. . .  The pallets I used to cut up and
> burn came
>from Quebec.  The hardwood baseboards we've just installed in our house came
>from Chile.  It's not only a shame that hardwood is misused this way, but also
>that it has to be shipped (at great energy cost) across the continent or the
>oceans to get here.
>
> In defense of the industry, however, there are some pallets that require
>hardwood because of the nature of the materials shipped upon them.  The
>stuff I
>used to collect for burning carried huge spools of aluminum that would break a
>softwood pallet.  It's what we do with them afterwards that's a bigger shame.
>
>robert luis rabello
>
>
>
>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/
--- End forwarded message ---

Fwd: Re: [biofuel] BIG INDUSTRY responds...

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], James Slayden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Graham,

I am starting to think that this isn't just a commerce vs. homebrew think,
but more of a east coast vs. left coast thing.  Here is the reason
why.  World Energy hasn't been inhibited in moving into the California
market for another reason than they are just slow to proceed.  Case in
point, Yokayo is brokering commerce BD as well as Southern States Power
Co., Pacific Biodiesel, and other various small brokers.  World Energy is
even is selling BD in the market as there is a pump located in San
Francisco (test case I suppose ).

Here is what I think.  I think that you folks fell beind on your marketing
and distibution channels, as well as getting government, state, county,
and fleet sales contracts in place and you need a scapegoat, ie.
homebrewers/small producers and their supposed lack of spec fuel.  Easy
enough to convince most fleet managers as they are afraid of anything new
and improved and hardly ever make a change unless forced to do so by
mandate.  Thus when World Energy gets their marketing and distribution
into place they will still have a viable customer base that has believed
that those evil homebrewers/small producers are to blame for all the
troubles and World Energy fuel is safe and consistant.  The fleet managers
turn will their backs on the small producers believing them to be
homebrewers and thus World Energy captures the market, with nary a fight. 
Very effective tool, as we have seen Microsoft do the very same thing in
the computer industry.

The problems are fictious.  If there is fuel being produced that is out of
spec, it is being produced by people probably not assiciated with this
list, and IMO hardly would be of interest to be concerned over other than
scapegoat value to besmerch homebrewers/small producers everywhere.

Now, I am going to give World Energy some credit here.  You are very good
business people.  And over this weekend I had a chance to test some of
your fuel with the Iowa water method and you fuel is excellent, although
it did smell of some residual alcohol.  I have pictures to prove it was
the best of the bunch we were testing.  Here is the punchline the commerce
BD that Yokayo brokers was the same quality as some "bad" Berkley Co-op
batches.  It just goes to show that even commerce BD isn't always there
yet.  Note that when we tested some "good" Co-op batch last weekend it was
awesome fuel.  Thank goodness that Mark is a stickler to her specs and
will not allow the bad batches to go out the door at the Co-op until
reprocessed and several tests run on it.

Here is my final word.  Get off the Soy bus.  There is great fuel being
made out of many different feedstocks by many different types of people,
small producers, and large producers.  Soy is lucky as they have a GMO oil
product as a bi-product of their overproduced feed business, and they
realized the capitalization of a market.  Again, just good business.

Graham, I think it would be great to work in the biofuels industry, but I
would not do it at a cost of GMO's, non-use of an appropiate renewable
feedstock, organic inputs, and the discounting of alternate methods of
diverse production.  I hope that you feel the urge to help reform "Big
Soy" although I'm sure you will find the task daunting.  I tip my hat if
you can make any dent into status quo.

Regards,

James Slayden


On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Graham Noyes wrote:

> I tried to bow out gracefully but the following was a bit much:
>
> (snip)
>
> > > Um, at the cost of having homebrewers dispensed with by means of a
> > > load of BS about us being nothing but a peril who'll bring it all to
> > > naught unless we're controlled? Or at least kept firmly in our place
> > > (our own backyards)? Though we can be useful... Check back and you'll
> > > see that that's basically what Mr Noyes of World Energy was saying.
> > > He was asked how many times? Three? Four? - to substantiate his
> > > claims that substandard-spec homebrew had caused widespread problems
> > > and industry had had to clean up the mess after us. He evaded the
> > > question each time. He can't substantiate it because it's BS. Not the
> > > only thing he evaded. If you think that will at least stop him making
> > > such unsubstantiated claims, even if he can't quite bring himself to
> > > withdraw them, don't hold your breath.
> > >
> > > Noyes, and others like him, couldn't cope with what we actually are
> > > and what we do, as opposed to his patronising idea of us. Have a look
> > > at how he handled the possibility of collaboration with us,
> > > laughable. It's on his terms or nothing, just like the other World
> > > Energy guy who wasted our time with this talk. We're more useful than
> > > these people, and it's them who make it an either-or question, not
> us.
> > >
> > > We're not against industry, that would be foolish, but there's
> > > industry and then there's industry. It's not a case of small vs
> > > la

Fwd: RE: [biofuel] Back Online

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "harley3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Mr. Falk:

Your information was exaggerated and dated.  The hardwood pallet made in the
U.S., are reused.  Most of the wood pallets have been replaced with a longer
life plastic pallets of one design or another.  When wood pallets where in
use, they where constantly reused, until breakage.  If broken they where
rebuilt, and used again.  Until they where beyond repair.  Then usually
someone would take them home, and burns them to heat their house.

It was more cost effective to use a low quality hardwood for pallets because
they would last long than using a softwood.  It use to save money and trees
to use hardwoods in pallet construction. That is until a long life plastic
pallet became more cost affective.

Only in America!

Harley Fellion

  -Original Message-
  From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 10:38 AM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Back Online



  Only in America!!!

  I was not aware of that US made pallets of hardwood and did not think that
  it could ever be a stupid luxury consumption like this. I can see reason
  for some pallets to be made of hardwood, but they should be guarded and
  reused. But this irresponsible behavior cannot be excused. Six pallets of
  hardwood per American in land fills, give me a break!

  I am of the opinion that it is almost a sin to use hardwood for pallets in
  the first place. How can you use types of trees that take 50 to 100 years
  to mature for purposes like this. Hardwood is also very stupid to put in
  landfills, because of the long time it takes to disintegrate. If you
really
  need to waste hardwood, effective burning is probably the best. Compared
to
  the pallets we mostly use in Europe, made of pine tree, hardwood take 4-8
  times longer to mature. Even the fast growing teak, developed mainly in
  central and south America, takes at least 2-4 the time to mature as pine
  trees and it is questionable if it is still hardwood. The fast growing
teak
  is softer, but still have the natural defense against humidity and
insects.

  Hardwood is mostly a tropical or sub tropical tree and how can US use this
  for pallets and at the same time be upset about the deforestation of the
  remaining oxygen suppliers of the world. The hardwood of Europe was by
  tradition the property of the Kings, wherever it was rooted, because of
its
  value for building ships and as structural building material. In this case
  oak was a strategic defense material. Oak used as structure for buildings,
  was inherited and reused for new buildings. The value of oak was almost
  comparable to gold a few hundred years ago.

  Hakan


  At 07:25 AM 11/24/2002 -0800, you wrote:


  >Keith Addison wrote:
  >
  > > Re wasted wood, I picked this up somewhere or other, for the US, not
  > > Canada: "In 1999, for instance, 7.5 million tons of wooden pallets -
  > > platforms associated with shipping - went into the solid waste
  > > stream, accounting for over 60 percent of all wood waste." And:
  > > "There are an estimated 6 hardwood palletts in landfill for every
  > > resident of the US."
  > >
  >
  >
  >
  > Indeed!  I used to collect hardwood pallets, cut them up and burn
  >them.  Over the course of the "average" winter, my family burned 8 tons
  >of wood like this.  We hadn't paid for heat in years!  Making the leap
  >back into fossil fueled residential heating was a hard decision for me.
  >I like the automaticity of our natural gas boiler, but we haven't
  >received a bill yet . . .
  >
  > >
  > > I just posted this somewhere else:
  > >
  > > "... the United States is now far from being a sustainable society,
  > > and in many respects is further away than it was at the time of the
  > > Earth Summit in 1992. Unlike many other developed countries, the
  > > United States has not used a strategic process to move the country
  > > toward a sustainable future and has not educated the American people
  > > about the opportunities and challenges of sustainable development."
  >
  >
  >
  > I've been lamenting about this for at least 30 years.  That's one of
  >the reasons I'm here.
  >
  >robert luis rabello



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.



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

Fwd: Re: [biofuel] Back Online

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Neoteric Biofuels Inc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There was a local guy recycling wood here for a while - he got some
great stuff from pallets. One was a valuable African hardwood, prized
by instrument makers. That one piece, from a pallet he got for free,
was worth a few hundred dollars to the right buyer. It was very dense
hardwood - can't recall the type. He was shocked and amazed at his find.

There is some pallet reuse  and recycling going on, but not enough. The
fellow I mention is out of business here,  and working in an oil
resource town now.


Edward Beggs

On Sunday, November 24, 2002, at 12:17 PM, Neil and Adele Craven wrote:

>
>   - Original Message -
>   From: Hakan Falk
>   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:37 AM
>   Subject: Re: [biofuel] Back Online
>   
>
>
>Even the fast growing teak, developed mainly in
>   central and south America, takes at least 2-4 the time to mature as
> pine
>   trees and it is questionable if it is still hardwood. The fast
> growing teak
>   is softer, but still have the natural defense against humidity and
> insects.
>
>   Hakan, hardness has nothing to do with whether a tree is a hardwood
> or a softwood, this is really a misnomer.  Balsa wood is a hardwood.
>   It is all related to whether the tree is pored or nonpored.  With
> hardwoods being pored.  In fact the correct terminology is Angiosperm,
> seeds in fruit, broadleaves, pored timber (hardwoods)  and
> Gymnosperms, naked seeds in cones, usually narrow leaves, non pored
> timber (softwoods)
>   Neil
>   Canberra
>
>
>   
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> 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/
>
>
--- End forwarded message ---

Fwd: Re: [biofuel] Back Online

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shawn Zenor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Sunday, November 24, 2002, at 06:37 AM, Hakan Falk wrote:

>
> Only in America!!!
>
> 
> Hardwood is mostly a tropical or sub tropical tree and how can US use
> this
> for pallets and at the same time be upset about the deforestation of
> the
> remaining oxygen suppliers of the world. The hardwood of Europe was by
> tradition the property of the Kings, wherever it was rooted, because
> of its
> value for building ships and as structural building material. In this
> case
> oak was a strategic defense material. Oak used as structure for
> buildings,
> was inherited and reused for new buildings. The value of oak was almost
> comparable to gold a few hundred years ago.
>
> Hakan

I reuse as many of them as I can for building furniture or small
projects- I'm sorry to say that you really can find some fine woods in
pallets- cedar, walnut, cherry, almost anything... it's crazy.  I
seeing a few businesses in New Mexico that used reclaimed pallet wood
for furniture too.

As far as Americans being concerned about deforestation- clearly they
are not.  Look who 'we' voted into the white house

Shawn (waiting for Hawai`i to secede)

Volkswagen camper rentals in Hawaii
Hawaii÷Oahu÷Maui

   Imua Camper Company
http://www.imua-tour.com
45 Shipman Street, Hilo HI 96720
   Reservations:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  -or-  1(877)773-4682
Hilo office (phone/fax)  1(808)935-6241



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

Fwd: Concrete alternative and wood waste (was Back Online)

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Darryl McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
robert luis rabello wrote:

 concrete manufacturing is VERY energy intensive
> and next time we'll have to be more careful about property selection. Any
> ideas about alternatives out there?

Several.
Pressure treated wood foundations - but these have their own issues, notably the
preservative chemicals used.

Papercrete.

Wood-fibre mixed with concrete (there is a tradename for this product, but I 
can't
recall it now).

Styrofoam hollow blocks that are interleaved and stacked, which reduces the 
amount
of concrete used, eliminates the need for forms, and provides integrated 
insulation
for the concrete.  There are at least two vendors for this type of product now.
>
> 2.  The amount of waste generated by a building is simply
> astonishing!

I keep a bit of a stash of such materials around for small projects.  If you can
find someone that does decorative painting, scrollsaw work, wood carving or some
other crafts, they may have a use for the scraps.  Not for serious wood 
sculptors,
who use more valuable woods or larger pieces.

Keith wrote subsequently about pallets going to landfill.

Hereabouts, it is common to stack surplus wood pallets and invite folks to take
them away.  These are almost always damaged, as good pallets are normally 
re-used. 
Not uncommon to see a flatbed trailer loaded with them going back to a plant 
for re-
use.  As for those being scrapped, they burn nicely to produce heat in wood
furnaces.  Have to break them up to use in a wood stove.  Leave a few nails in 
the
ashes, but they can be removed with a magnet if the ashes are going to be used
(e.g. as soil acidifier).



Darryl McMahon  48 Tarquin Crescent,
Econogics, Inc. Nepean, Ontario K2H 8J8
 It's your planet.  Voice: (613)784-0655
 If you won't look  Fax:   (613)828-3199
 after it, who will?http://www.econogics.com/
--- End forwarded message ---

Fwd: Re: [biofuel] Re: FW: green diesel

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Jerry,

I do not think that anyone suggest WVO as only source for
bio diesel should do the job, and 10% is a lot if you think
about the 90% use of diesel in train and heavy road transport.
You could run all current diesel automobiles on that 10%.

He pulled a fast one by talking about the minor automobile use
and then total vehicle use of diesel. I know since a correction
from a list member forced me to learn a little bit more about it.

10% is far more than I thought could come from a genius
waste management solution.

Diesel's first engine used SVO and Ford's Ethanol. Both
were talking about the fuel of the future. It took us 100 years
to understand what they said.

Maybe Jim Kliesch should look at EU directives and the
use of bio diesel in countries like Germany and France. That
might make ACEEE to give some more space for bio diesel
in the green guide.

Hakan


At 10:34 PM 11/24/2002 +, you wrote:
>Keith, I've corresponded with Jim Kliesch at ACEEE also as to
>the lack of recommendations and information on biodiesel in the
>green guide to vehicles.  He does know his stuff, has looked into
>biodiesel extensively, and in the realm where he works, his
>portrayal of biodiesel and SVO as minor players is accurate.
>That could all change, and I think Jim will start to report on it, if
>biodiesel production and use grows considerably in the next few
>years.  Currently though, diesels are a tiny minority of the
>passenger vehicles sold and biodiesel is a tiny fraction of the
>amount of diesel used to fuel vehicles.  By the way, do you know
>the source of this number I've heard, that if all the WVO in the US
>were used to fuel vehicles, it would supply no more than 10% of
>the current diesel vehicle use?
>
>I do agree that biofuels deserves a mention in the ACEEE book
>as a presently available alternative for those willing to spend
>considerably more time and/or money on a cleaner burning fuel.
>The biodiesel story convinced us not to buy a gas-fueled hybrid
>(if only they could be plugged in!).  And forward-thinking coverage
>of green options should include the obvious diesel/electric
>hybrid possibility, which would get my dollar.
>
>Jerry McIntire
--- End forwarded message ---

Fwd: new SVO fuels database

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "goat industries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kieth,
  Thanks for your support of the new database, apparently there was
some confusion about whether the German database included the use of
biodiesel methyl ester, or not, which creates too much uncertainty in the
stats. I've tried to make the questions very straight forward and
unambiguous. Also, we felt it necessary to have some email contact with
people posting their vehicles so that we could ask more detailed questions
eg. Why did your engine fail? In this way we would be able to determine
whether it failed due to the use of SVO or some other reason. Myths are
created through circulation of rumours and fragments of information - we
want some hard empirical evidience  Paddy
--- End forwarded message ---

Fwd: Re: [biofuel] Back Online

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], robert luis rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Hakan Falk wrote:

> Only in America!!!

Actually, I live in Canada. . .  The pallets I used to cut up and burn came
from Quebec.  The hardwood baseboards we've just installed in our house came
from Chile.  It's not only a shame that hardwood is misused this way, but also
that it has to be shipped (at great energy cost) across the continent or the
oceans to get here.

In defense of the industry, however, there are some pallets that require
hardwood because of the nature of the materials shipped upon them.  The stuff I
used to collect for burning carried huge spools of aluminum that would break a
softwood pallet.  It's what we do with them afterwards that's a bigger shame.

robert luis rabello
--- End forwarded message ---

Fwd: Re: [biofuel] Timber species

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I agree with you and my comment about teak was more of an attempt to joke,
than a serious suggestion. Stupid joke that I regret when I read it after
the posting. You have several slow growing softwood trees, but hardly fast
growing hardwood.

Since you know a lot about wood management, maybe you can help me with one
thing that irritates me. I can not remember the name of the German around
200 years ago, who developed the embryo to the modern sustainable forest
management. I read some 120 year old  books about it on my mothers family
estate around 30 years ago. It was very interesting and the start of the
Swedish sustainable forest management around  150 years ago. I have seen
his name at a later occasion but cannot remember it.

I guess that you studied the subject and maybe know his name.

Hakan


At 08:26 AM 11/25/2002 +1100, you wrote:
>I merely make the point to clarify timber species, however huon pine is a
>Gymnosperm ie a softwood but is an incredibly slow growing tree.  My point
>was that the fact that they make a tree faster growing does not change its
>botanical class.  BTW I am in Australia and we are going to pine pallets
>here after many years using native Angiosperm timber.  Radiata pine a
>native of Canada is our preferred plantation timber, maturing in 30 yrs.
>
>Neil
>Canberra
>Australia
>   - Original Message -
>   From: Hakan Falk
>   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 8:16 AM
>   Subject: Re: [biofuel] Back Online
>
>
>
>   Niel,
>
>   I thought by translation from Swedish that it is usually direct related to
>   the size of the yearly addition of thickness and the age of the tree. This
>   does not necessary translates to the hardness of the wood, but in many
>   cases it does. What it does translate to is the time it takes for the tree
>   to grow. Teak, Oak, Jacaranda, Balsa, etc is hardwood and Pine is
> softwood.
>   I doubt that the American pallets are made of Balsa, but if they are it is
>   equally wrong and also totally useless. Maybe it is a translation error
>   here and then I apologize.
>
>   The point was the time it takes to produce the wood, not the hardness. If
>   American pallets are made of a fast growing hardwood, I must have made a
>   mistake.
>
>   Hakan
>
>
>   At 07:17 AM 11/25/2002 +1100, you wrote:
>
>   >   - Original Message -
>   >   From: Hakan Falk
>   >   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   >   Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:37 AM
>   >   Subject: Re: [biofuel] Back Online
>   >   
>   >
>   >
>   >Even the fast growing teak, developed mainly in
>   >   central and south America, takes at least 2-4 the time to mature as
> pine
>   >   trees and it is questionable if it is still hardwood. The fast growing
>   > teak
>   >   is softer, but still have the natural defense against humidity and
> insects.
>   >
>   >   Hakan, hardness has nothing to do with whether a tree is a hardwood or
>   > a softwood, this is really a misnomer.  Balsa wood is a hardwood.
>   >   It is all related to whether the tree is pored or nonpored.  With
>   > hardwoods being pored.  In fact the correct terminology is Angiosperm,
>   > seeds in fruit, broadleaves, pored timber (hardwoods)  and Gymnosperms,
>   > naked seeds in cones, usually narrow leaves, non pored timber (softwoods)
>   >   Neil
>   >   Canberra
>   >
>   >
>   >   
>   >
>   >
>   > 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.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
>   >
>   >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
>   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.
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Biofuels list archives:
>http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
>Plea

Fwd: Timber species

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Neil and Adele Craven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I merely make the point to clarify timber species, however huon pine is a 
Gymnosperm ie a softwood but is an incredibly slow growing tree.  My point was 
that the fact that they make a tree faster growing does not change its 
botanical class.  BTW I am in Australia and we are going to pine pallets here 
after many years using native Angiosperm timber.  Radiata pine a native of 
Canada is our preferred plantation timber, maturing in 30 yrs.

Neil
Canberra
Australia
  - Original Message -
  From: Hakan Falk
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 8:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Back Online



  Niel,

  I thought by translation from Swedish that it is usually direct related to
  the size of the yearly addition of thickness and the age of the tree. This
  does not necessary translates to the hardness of the wood, but in many
  cases it does. What it does translate to is the time it takes for the tree
  to grow. Teak, Oak, Jacaranda, Balsa, etc is hardwood and Pine is softwood.
  I doubt that the American pallets are made of Balsa, but if they are it is
  equally wrong and also totally useless. Maybe it is a translation error
  here and then I apologize.

  The point was the time it takes to produce the wood, not the hardness. If
  American pallets are made of a fast growing hardwood, I must have made a
  mistake.

  Hakan


  At 07:17 AM 11/25/2002 +1100, you wrote:

  >   - Original Message -
  >   From: Hakan Falk
  >   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  >   Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:37 AM
  >   Subject: Re: [biofuel] Back Online
  >   
  >
  >
  >Even the fast growing teak, developed mainly in
  >   central and south America, takes at least 2-4 the time to mature as pine
  >   trees and it is questionable if it is still hardwood. The fast growing
  > teak
  >   is softer, but still have the natural defense against humidity and 
insects.
  >
  >   Hakan, hardness has nothing to do with whether a tree is a hardwood or
  > a softwood, this is really a misnomer.  Balsa wood is a hardwood.
  >   It is all related to whether the tree is pored or nonpored.  With
  > hardwoods being pored.  In fact the correct terminology is Angiosperm,
  > seeds in fruit, broadleaves, pored timber (hardwoods)  and Gymnosperms,
  > naked seeds in cones, usually narrow leaves, non pored timber (softwoods)
  >   Neil
  >   Canberra
  >
  >
  >   
  >
  >
  > 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.
  >
  >
  >
  >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >
  >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
  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.



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

[biofuel] Re: A response to ... eh-hem.... Big Industry? was Re: BIG

[Keith Addison]

Hello Thor

Thanks for this contribution, positive and constructive, and what we 
all should be doing.

I also hope Graham doesn't bow out. Though I must say that what his 
"unique perspective" has mostly provided so far is a rather clear 
picture of why biodieselers tend to distrust "industry", and why some 
of us, including me, haven't got anywhere with trying to establish 
some common ground with industry, or at least with some sectors of 
it, though not others, and not for want of trying.

Graham has done little here to allay people's suspicions, rather the 
opposite, as you can see. I'm sure his intentions are good, but 
that's about where it ends, his ideas of collaboration are clueless - 
laughable, as I said before, only it's not funny. He seems only to 
accomplish the opposite of his intentions.

Currently there are two issues, both concerning him, and arriving 
from different directions: the first being the rumours of homebrewed 
BD causing widespread problems, presented as fact, and the second the 
unidentifiable and perhaps equally mythical party in Maine who 
allegedly got thumped for tax.

The problem here is what I can only call industry arrogance - again, 
the fact that many (most?) in industry show no trace of this makes it 
that much less excusable. Graham (and others) have sought to protect 
and nurture biodiesel use and growth, all very laudable, and we do 
the same, at least as effectively in our area - but his ill-informed 
and prejudiced perception has been that what it needs protecting from 
is us. "The big fear of the biodiesel industry is that homebrewers 
are going to destroy the market." Hence all the warnings and 
apocryphal myths about the so-called "Perils of Home Brew", and the 
crashing failure to realize that, firstly, it's just not true, and 
second, that it has the opposite to the desired effect, it's bad news 
that travels far and doesn't die easily, as you point out, it gets 
distorted in the retelling, and makes people wary of biodiesel in 
general, from whatever source. This absolutely has to stop. IMO it 
does as much damage or more as we could ever do even if we did make 
crap fuel, which we don't. And it could almost be calculated to 
create a deep rift between our two sectors, though we both have the 
same aims and hopes. And that it has done. One (of several) reasons I 
hope Graham doesn't bow out, or whatever, is that he's in a very good 
position to try to repair some of this damage, if only he'll pause to 
consider the essential mutuality of any real collaborative effort. 
Obviously he wants to help, but he'll have to learn how, to reality 
of biofuelers will not change simply to fit his misconceptions about 
us, which in turn would do more harm than good anyway.

Your points about the NBB and the EPA and their attitude to small 
producers, and the bureaucratic burden, are all very well-founded. 
There are signs they're beginning to change their ways, under 
pressure, but they need to do a lot more.

As well as that, to get back to this "Perils of Home Brew" nonsense, 
it has rather a telling history. The original article was written by 
Frank Legge in Australia and published in a Biodiesel Association of 
Australia newsletter. They didn't send me that issue, though I 
subscribed, and their website is a mess - it lists the newsletters 
but the links are dead, as is the index of all articles in Biodiesel 
News, and their search engine returns no hits. So I was unable to 
find it there and didn't know Legge had written it.

Legge's headline on the piece was quite different: he'd called it 
"Biodiesel Concerns", and he didn't at all approve of the new 
headline given it apparently by the NBB, which for quite a long time 
featured it on the front page of their website, without Legge's 
signature. In this form it appeared to have been written by Werner 
Koerbitz of the Austrian Biofuels Institute, which is perhaps the 
EU's equivalent of the NBB, in a way. It was associated with a longer 
piece by Koerbitz called "Why Standards are Important", with dire 
warnings against, yes, the Perils of Home Brew. "Obviously every 
country has to go through the phase of enthusiastic home-brewed 
biodiesel." We're just an unfortunate phase, the sooner we grow out 
of it and leave it to the Big Guys the better for everybody. (Though 
we do have our uses.)

Both articles are still to be found at the NBB:
Why Standards are Important
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/gen-322.pdf
(Werner Korbitz's article slamming homebrewers)

Perils of Home Brew
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/gen-321.pdf
(Frank Legge's piece, unsigned)

Okay, so, in the interests of promoting and protecting the biodiesel 
cause, of mutuality, collaboration and cooperation amongst all 
interested parties, let's all now highlight it on our websites what a 
useless bunch of wasters and ne'er-do-wells the NBB, the ABI and 
industry are - plenty of good mate

Re: [biofuel] Excise tax on Biodiesel

[Hakan Falk]

http://www.greasecar.com/homedetail.cfm?ID=3

Hakan

At 05:35 PM 11/24/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>OK Ken I searched greasecar.com and it's an  interesting site but I
>can't find any reference IRS and Federal excise tax.  Can you give a
>more specific pointer?
>
>Kenneth
>
>Ken Provost wrote:
>
> >In case anyone hasn't been to the greascar site lately, they have
> >an interesting blurb that the IRS wrote back to a California
> >co-op about US Federal taxes. Here it is:
> >
> >No Federal Excise tax on biodiesel or SVO if you use less than
> >400 gallons per quarter.
> >
> >State of California has no policy. No taxes due at this time.
> >Suggests you keep records :-).
> >
> >Details here:
> >
> >http://www.greasecar.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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>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/ 

[biofuel] Pallet walls

[Neoteric Biofuels Inc]

>
>
>
> It has always seemed to me that there might be a way to use pallets, 
> stood vertically as a non-load bearing infill or curtain wall - as 
> infill between posts, filled with insulation, and a coating of 
> plaster/stucco/mud etc? They always reminds me of the old 
> lathe/plaster walls (complete with horse hair in the plaster!), and 
> they are not a bad thickness for this use.
>
> They'd take wind loads for sure - let the posts at 3' or 4' OC carry 
> the roof loads, set rafters or trusses right on the posts, at that 
> spacing. No plates needed when you do that.

>  Easy to fasten other materials inside and out, too (metal, drywall).
>
> Just a thought...
>
> Edward Beggs
>
>
> On Sunday, November 24, 2002, at 04:07 PM, James Slayden wrote:
>
>> I'm sure that reclaimation of the landfills will happen well before
>> Archeologists have a chance to study it.  ;-)  Someone will realize 
>> that
>> mining the landfills produces much wealth.
>>
>> James Slayden
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Hakan Falk wrote:
>>
>>>
>
>
>



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
·FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/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] [biofuels-biz] Re: A response to ... eh-hem.... Big Industry? was Re: BIG

[Thor Skov]

Graham, Keith, Tom, et. al.

Graham,

First, I sincerely hope that you do not bow out of
this discussion, as your participation does provide a
perspective that otherwise has been absent (in my
limited experience with this listserve).

I also want to thank Keith for his wonderful post a
while back on the issue of soybean subsidies.

Second, I think that there are some points to consider
in Graham's argument that all BDers should think
about.  It's true that we haven't seen any particulars
wrt actual failings of the product of small biodiesel
producers, and that it is certainly unfair of the NBB
to summarily dismiss small producers on the basis of
their product quality.  If the NBB were in fact really
interested in promoting small-scale production, it
would be suggesting ways to work with backyarders
rathe than simply suggesting that they bow out.

I can give only a single anecdote from my own
extremely limited experience, that may or may not
count as it is coming second/third hand.  The owner of
Fuelwerks, the place where I buy (World Energy)
biodiesel in Seattle, told me that he had a bad
experience with poor quality biodiesel from Portland,
and that is why he is sticking with World Energy.  He
also claimed that Seattle Metro (bus service) had a
bad experience as well and consequently was now set
against biodiesel.

Now I understand that the specifics in these stories
are missing, and so they don't weigh in as evidence
either for or against small producers.  That is the
point that has been made over and over.

A more significant point has been missed, however,
namely that regardless of the truth of a basis for
concern about the quality of backyard production, the
perception is equally important.

What we are trying to do is to (re)introduce a (old)
new technology.  The average driver, who knows nothing
of mechanics, fuel technology, and so on, is going to
be wary of sticking an unfamiliar substance in their
tank.  Doubly and triply so for the commercial or
government fleet manager.  We're talking about both
actual risk and the perception thereof.  We all know
that bad news travels further and faster than good
news, and so just one actual or perceived bad
experience by someone putting biodiesel in their tank
(regardless of whether the biodiesel was actually at
fault or was simply blamed for something else that
went wrong) can set back our mutual agenda.

We need a couple of things.  First, better public
information and more outreach, such as the Clean
Cities Coalition did with their biodiesel symposium in
Seattle in Sept 2001.  Second, more help / technical
assistance for small scale producers, in understanding
the regulations and tax implications.  What we get
instead are generally warnings and threats.  That
makes people, including me, just want to dig in our
heels and raise a middle finger.

Here are some specific actions.
1)  The NBB should make its Tier 1 testing results
available to any small producers who want them,
without having to submit to its fee structure that
discriminates against small producers OR it should
revise that fee structure to be fair to small
producers.  NBB has, unfortunately, decided it easier
simply to wave away all backyard biodiesel, a strategy
for which Graham is now receiving a lot of flak.
[As a side note, I don't think the NBB has a leg to
stand on anyway, as these results were paid for with
public money--soybean checkoff funds--and therefore
cannot be appropriated for private benefit.  But the
NBB evidently wants to make someone work to establish
that.  There are FOIA requirements at play here.]

2)  EPA and the IRS should publish specific, clear,
unambiguous guidelines with regard to taxation and
certification requirements for biodiesel, in plain
English and not lawyer-speak.  Having spent hours
wading through CFR and federal register announcements
about EPA regs for biodiesel and fuel testing, as well
as a lot of time on the phone with EPA, I have found
these rules abstruse and contradictory.  Even Joe
Sopata at EPA told me that their own regs didn't jibe
with the law.  Perhaps things have been clarified
recently, to the better.

3)  The fuel tax is fair and good, IMO.  It is a user
fee (and therefore relatively progressive as a tax),
and goes to pay for roads and transportation projects.
   But it is a lot of paperwork (at least in Washington
State) to go through:  you have to register as a fuel
dealer, submit a whole bunch of forms, and so on, even
if you are just producing for your own use and not for
sale.  I would like to see this process streamlined
and made more accessible.  At present, it seems to
encourage avoidance rather than participation.

4)  We need to agree on some kind of quality
standards.  Perhaps I am flogging a dead horse here,
but I haven't been able to read a consensus on this
forum about the feasibility of ASTM testing for small
producers.  Standards make the world go round, and
without them, car manufacturers and engine
manufacturers won't agre

Re: [biofuel] Excise tax on Biodiesel

[Ken Provost]

>OK Ken I searched greasecar.com and it's an  interesting site but I
>can't find any reference IRS and Federal excise tax.  Can you give a
>more specific pointer?
>

Scroll to the bottom of the page.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
·FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/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] Excise tax on Biodiesel

[Kenneth Kron]

OK Ken I searched greasecar.com and it's an  interesting site but I 
can't find any reference IRS and Federal excise tax.  Can you give a 
more specific pointer?

Kenneth

Ken Provost wrote:

>In case anyone hasn't been to the greascar site lately, they have
>an interesting blurb that the IRS wrote back to a California
>co-op about US Federal taxes. Here it is:
>
>No Federal Excise tax on biodiesel or SVO if you use less than
>400 gallons per quarter.
>
>State of California has no policy. No taxes due at this time.
>Suggests you keep records :-).
>
>Details here:
>
>http://www.greasecar.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 -~-->
áFREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/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] Back Online

[James Slayden]

Just went to the seminar with Ianto Evans promoting his book "The Hand
Sculpted House" and it was excellent.  He showed pics of what a stick
frame built house looks like after mother nature takes over and what a cob
structure looks like (very organic, mud back to mud).  I started reading
some of the book when I got home because his talk was so engaging.  A very
humane way to build!!  I am hoping to go to one of the workshops in the
future.

http://www.deatech.com/cobcottage/

http://www.deatech.com/cobcottage/handsculpt.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1890132349/002-7931199-6777645

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1890132349.01.LZZZ.jpg

I heard it noted recently that Californians spend almost 80% of their time
indoors.  Interesting since the climate out here is one of the best in the
US.

James Slayden


On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Kim & Garth Travis wrote:

> I have found statistics that say for every three new houses built, one
> goes in the landfill, labor being more expensive than materials.  This
> being true, many of us have figured out how to build with the landfill
> materials.  There is a list dedicated to this topic,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> One man has started a movement to use landfill rescue to build homes for
> low income working families using minimum wage help.  His crew are
> usually young men that were at risk and after a year or two with him,
> they get hired by the big contractors.  His web site is
> phoenixcommotion.com
> 
> Congratulations on trying to reduce the waste and build sensibly, not an
> easy task with building codes, banks and insurance companies involved.
> 
> Bright Blessings,
> Kim
> 
> robert luis rabello wrote:
> 
> > Hello Everyone!
> >
> > It's been five months since I've been able to post here.  My wife
> > and I have built a new house, and not only have I learned a lot about
> > the building process, I've been astonished at how much waste and
> > inefficiency goes into putting up a home.
> >
> > 1.  Builders love concrete.  We used WAY more concrete than I
> > believed we would when we first considered this project.  I'm not
> > certain we could have done much better than we did because our property
> > slopes considerably, but concrete manufacturing is VERY energy
> intensive
> > and next time we'll have to be more careful about property selection.
> > Any ideas about alternatives out there?
> >
> > 2.  The amount of waste generated by a building is simply
> > astonishing!  I own a Ford Ranger with a short wheelbase and a small
> > box.  I filled the thing 4 times with dimensional lumber cut too short
> > for use, and hauled all of it out to my father in law so that he could
> > mix it with his firewood this winter.  (Generally speaking, dimensional
> > lumber is so dry that it burns too quickly for a clean fire and
> > therefore produces excessive smoke.)  Surely gasification or clean
> > pyrolysis would be much better alternatives than the landfill, where
> all
> > of our oriented strand board, drywall, carpet scraps and other waste
> > ended up.  What's worse, is that our tradesmen kept saying that we
> > actually had very little waste. . .  Some of the houses going up around
> > here have huge dumpsters that get filled more than once during the
> > building!  (I had asked the architect who drew our plans to minimize
> > waste by making room sizes as close to standard dimensions as possible.
> > We ended up with a bigger house for less money that way.  Strange,
> isn't
> > it?)
> >
> > 3.  There's a certain "momentum" in doing things the "conventional"
> > way.  The lender at our credit union looked at me as if I was crazy
> when
> > I said I wanted solar hot water.  The builders simply didn't understand
> > why I was so particular about southern orientation, minimizing north
> > facing window sizes (our view is to the north, so I lost on that one. .
> > ..), and people scratched their heads when I specified a relatively
> small
> > electrical panel ("just" 100 amps of service!) and high efficiency
> > lighting.  We argued about extra insulation in the ceiling, heat in the
> > floor and the "tiny" size of our natural gas boiler.
> >
> > There's a lot of ignorance about energy issues out there.  I
> suppose
> > people in forums like this one have a LOT of educating to do. . .
> >
> > robert luis rabello
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > .
> 
> 
> 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 em

Fwd: Re: [biofuel] Re: FW: green diesel

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Steve Spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
only 10%? that's a significant percentage. all from a waste product. I'd be
happy with that number.


Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Jerry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 5:34 PM
Subject: [biofuel] Re: FW: green diesel


> Keith, I've corresponded with Jim Kliesch at ACEEE also as to
> the lack of recommendations and information on biodiesel in the
> green guide to vehicles.  He does know his stuff, has looked into
> biodiesel extensively, and in the realm where he works, his
> portrayal of biodiesel and SVO as minor players is accurate.
> That could all change, and I think Jim will start to report on it, if
> biodiesel production and use grows considerably in the next few
> years.  Currently though, diesels are a tiny minority of the
> passenger vehicles sold and biodiesel is a tiny fraction of the
> amount of diesel used to fuel vehicles.  By the way, do you know
> the source of this number I've heard, that if all the WVO in the US
> were used to fuel vehicles, it would supply no more than 10% of
> the current diesel vehicle use?
>
> I do agree that biofuels deserves a mention in the ACEEE book
> as a presently available alternative for those willing to spend
> considerably more time and/or money on a cleaner burning fuel.
> The biodiesel story convinced us not to buy a gas-fueled hybrid
> (if only they could be plugged in!).  And forward-thinking coverage
> of green options should include the obvious diesel/electric
> hybrid possibility, which would get my dollar.
>
> Jerry McIntire
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
--- End forwarded message ---

Fwd: Re: FW: green diesel

[Keith Addison]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Jerry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Keith, I've corresponded with Jim Kliesch at ACEEE also as to
the lack of recommendations and information on biodiesel in the
green guide to vehicles.  He does know his stuff, has looked into
biodiesel extensively, and in the realm where he works, his
portrayal of biodiesel and SVO as minor players is accurate. 
That could all change, and I think Jim will start to report on it, if
biodiesel production and use grows considerably in the next few
years.  Currently though, diesels are a tiny minority of the
passenger vehicles sold and biodiesel is a tiny fraction of the
amount of diesel used to fuel vehicles.  By the way, do you know
the source of this number I've heard, that if all the WVO in the US
were used to fuel vehicles, it would supply no more than 10% of
the current diesel vehicle use?

I do agree that biofuels deserves a mention in the ACEEE book
as a presently available alternative for those willing to spend
considerably more time and/or money on a cleaner burning fuel.
The biodiesel story convinced us not to buy a gas-fueled hybrid
(if only they could be plugged in!).  And forward-thinking coverage
of green options should include the obvious diesel/electric
hybrid possibility, which would get my dollar.

Jerry McIntire
--- End forwarded message ---

[biofuels-biz] (unknown)

[alexlandels]

hello;

I think Steve is correct re detergent effect.  

It is not unusal to have problems when switching to a different fuel 
or oil ( see Amsoil site at 
http://www.bestsyntheticoil.com/members/amsoil/1mrtruck/index.shtml ).

Since these types of problems are fairly well known it is possible 
that misinformation is being generated to ensure that 'big' 
producers, of whatever discription, can or will dominate a possibly 
lucrative venture.



Alex Landels



Biofuels at Journey to Forever
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel at WebConX
http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

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

Re: [biofuel] Back Online

[Hakan Falk]

Niel,

I thought by translation from Swedish that it is usually direct related to 
the size of the yearly addition of thickness and the age of the tree. This 
does not necessary translates to the hardness of the wood, but in many 
cases it does. What it does translate to is the time it takes for the tree 
to grow. Teak, Oak, Jacaranda, Balsa, etc is hardwood and Pine is softwood. 
I doubt that the American pallets are made of Balsa, but if they are it is 
equally wrong and also totally useless. Maybe it is a translation error 
here and then I apologize.

The point was the time it takes to produce the wood, not the hardness. If 
American pallets are made of a fast growing hardwood, I must have made a 
mistake.

Hakan


At 07:17 AM 11/25/2002 +1100, you wrote:

>   - Original Message -
>   From: Hakan Falk
>   To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:37 AM
>   Subject: Re: [biofuel] Back Online
>   
>
>
>Even the fast growing teak, developed mainly in
>   central and south America, takes at least 2-4 the time to mature as pine
>   trees and it is questionable if it is still hardwood. The fast growing 
> teak
>   is softer, but still have the natural defense against humidity and insects.
>
>   Hakan, hardness has nothing to do with whether a tree is a hardwood or 
> a softwood, this is really a misnomer.  Balsa wood is a hardwood.
>   It is all related to whether the tree is pored or nonpored.  With 
> hardwoods being pored.  In fact the correct terminology is Angiosperm, 
> seeds in fruit, broadleaves, pored timber (hardwoods)  and Gymnosperms, 
> naked seeds in cones, usually narrow leaves, non pored timber (softwoods)
>   Neil
>   Canberra
>
>
>   
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>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 -~-->
·FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/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] Back Online

[Neil and Adele Craven]

  - Original Message - 
  From: Hakan Falk 
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:37 AM
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Back Online
  


   Even the fast growing teak, developed mainly in 
  central and south America, takes at least 2-4 the time to mature as pine 
  trees and it is questionable if it is still hardwood. The fast growing teak 
  is softer, but still have the natural defense against humidity and insects.

  Hakan, hardness has nothing to do with whether a tree is a hardwood or a 
softwood, this is really a misnomer.  Balsa wood is a hardwood.  
  It is all related to whether the tree is pored or nonpored.  With hardwoods 
being pored.  In fact the correct terminology is Angiosperm, seeds in fruit, 
broadleaves, pored timber (hardwoods)  and Gymnosperms, naked seeds in cones, 
usually narrow leaves, non pored timber (softwoods)
  Neil
  Canberra


  


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. 



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


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: [biofuels-biz] [biofuel] Re: [renewable-energy] burning corn to heat houses

[Steve Spence]

Bosley whines and cries about a lot of things. Some make sense, many don't,
none of it is very interesting due to the delivery method he uses.

Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:10 PM
Subject: [biofuels-biz] [biofuel] Re: [renewable-energy] burning corn to
heat houses


> >Thanks, for some reason that part did not get through in the copy that
> >I read.
> >
> >MM
>
> Censored? What was censored? What is Bosley talking about? What student
report?
>
> I don't think Bosley knows very much about this issue. It's not
> "food" for a start. The energy inputs are well-studied and well-known
> - and contested by people like David Pimentel, knowingly using false
> data, in the corn ethanol fracas. As Motie said, and me, the stuff is
> there in vast quantities going to rot. What to do with it? Don't grow
> it in the first place, but that doesn't solve the immediate problem
> of the surplus. The waste that Bosley sees is not where he sees it,
> it's in the structure that goes on and on pouring scarce resources
> into this wasteful and damaging enterprise of surplus commodity
> production. He doesn't begin to suggest a remedy to such a vast
> problem, his view is superficial. Why doesn't he start slagging the
> biodiesel industry for turning surplus soy oil into biodiesel - aka
> heating oil? It's the same as burning surplus corn. Our cavil with
> that isn't at all that it's done, it's that the oil is so
> artificially expensive, although it's surplus (billions of gallons of
> it), and why further subsidies should be needed. Same issue with
> corn. At least the corn isn't that expensive. There's a case for
> better use of it maybe - why not extract the corn oil first and then
> burn the seedcake? As well as the corn oil in a diesel gennie or
> something? That might be a better community project than this rather
> silly silo.
>
> What does Bosley have to say about his strange statement that no-till
> is a "scam" because tillage is illegal?
>
> Keith
>
>
> >On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:47:31 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > >I think this was censored.
> >
> > >I don't have that kind of data of how much energy a corn kernel takes
to
> > >make.
> > >
> > >That sounds like a good student report.
> > >
> > >Remember, it is allot of gasoline and propane in a corn harvest.
> > >
> > >So, high quality energy goes into food. Plus energy input into
fertilizer.
> > >and lime..
> > >
> > >Knowing the USDA, they have studied energy inputs into corn down to a
nats
> > >ass.
> > >
> > >The corn cobs I guess have been used as fire wood.
> > >
> > >The corn pickers now leave the corn cobs in the field.
> > >
> > >Get the prison imamates to pick up the corn cobs to keep the prison
warm
> > >
> > >My best suggestion is to shoot all the deer that ate the other half+++
of
> > >the corn and dry and grind the deer up for stove pellets. ... after
eating
> > >the meat.
> > >
> > >
> > >Ken Bosley
> > >K.W. Bosley
> > >Wind Energy Consultant
> > >Wind Power and Utilities Litigation Services
> > >homepage:  > >21152  USA
>
>
>
> Biofuels at Journey to Forever
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> Biofuel at WebConX
> http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
> List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
áFREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

Biofuels at Journey to Forever
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel at WebConX
http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

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

Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: A response to ... eh-hem.... Big Industry? was Re: BIG

[Steve Spence]

I think that many forget that biodiesel is a great solvent. if your tank and
lines are full of gunk, biodiesel will loosen it up, clogging your filter.
This may be the source of the "bad experiences" with biodiesel. Once the
system is cleaned out from the biodiesel, no more problems. Would have
happened no matter who's biodiesel you put in the tank. That's why a
sacrificial filter is important for the first few tankfuls.


Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Thor Skov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 1:28 PM
Subject: [biofuels-biz] Re: A response to ... eh-hem Big Industry? was
Re: BIG


> Graham, Keith, Tom, et. al.
>
> Graham,
>
> First, I sincerely hope that you do not bow out of
> this discussion, as your participation does provide a
> perspective that otherwise has been absent (in my
> limited experience with this listserve).
>
> I also want to thank Keith for his wonderful post a
> while back on the issue of soybean subsidies.
>
> Second, I think that there are some points to consider
> in Graham's argument that all BDers should think
> about.  It's true that we haven't seen any particulars
> wrt actual failings of the product of small biodiesel
> producers, and that it is certainly unfair of the NBB
> to summarily dismiss small producers on the basis of
> their product quality.  If the NBB were in fact really
> interested in promoting small-scale production, it
> would be suggesting ways to work with backyarders
> rathe than simply suggesting that they bow out.
>
> I can give only a single anecdote from my own
> extremely limited experience, that may or may not
> count as it is coming second/third hand.  The owner of
> Fuelwerks, the place where I buy (World Energy)
> biodiesel in Seattle, told me that he had a bad
> experience with poor quality biodiesel from Portland,
> and that is why he is sticking with World Energy.  He
> also claimed that Seattle Metro (bus service) had a
> bad experience as well and consequently was now set
> against biodiesel.
>
> Now I understand that the specifics in these stories
> are missing, and so they don't weigh in as evidence
> either for or against small producers.  That is the
> point that has been made over and over.
>
> A more significant point has been missed, however,
> namely that regardless of the truth of a basis for
> concern about the quality of backyard production, the
> perception is equally important.
>
> What we are trying to do is to (re)introduce a (old)
> new technology.  The average driver, who knows nothing
> of mechanics, fuel technology, and so on, is going to
> be wary of sticking an unfamiliar substance in their
> tank.  Doubly and triply so for the commercial or
> government fleet manager.  We're talking about both
> actual risk and the perception thereof.  We all know
> that bad news travels further and faster than good
> news, and so just one actual or perceived bad
> experience by someone putting biodiesel in their tank
> (regardless of whether the biodiesel was actually at
> fault or was simply blamed for something else that
> went wrong) can set back our mutual agenda.
>
> We need a couple of things.  First, better public
> information and more outreach, such as the Clean
> Cities Coalition did with their biodiesel symposium in
> Seattle in Sept 2001.  Second, more help / technical
> assistance for small scale producers, in understanding
> the regulations and tax implications.  What we get
> instead are generally warnings and threats.  That
> makes people, including me, just want to dig in our
> heels and raise a middle finger.
>
> Here are some specific actions.
> 1)  The NBB should make its Tier 1 testing results
> available to any small producers who want them,
> without having to submit to its fee structure that
> discriminates against small producers OR it should
> revise that fee structure to be fair to small
> producers.  NBB has, unfortunately, decided it easier
> simply to wave away all backyard biodiesel, a strategy
> for which Graham is now receiving a lot of flak.
> [As a side note, I don't think the NBB has a leg to
> stand on anyway, as these results were paid for with
> public money--soybean checkoff funds--and therefore
> cannot be appropriated for private benefit.  But the
> NBB evidently wants to make someone work to establish
> that.  There are FOIA requirements at play here.]
>
> 2)  EPA and the IRS should publish specific, clear,
> unambiguous guidelines with regard to taxation and
> certification requirements for biodiesel, in plain
> English and not lawyer-speak.  Having spent hours
> wading through CFR and federal register announcements
> about EPA regs for biodiesel and fuel testing, as well
> as a lot of time on the phone with EPA, I have found
> these rules abstruse and contradictory.  Even Joe
> Sopata at EPA told me that 

[biofuels-biz] Re: A response to ... eh-hem.... Big Industry? was Re: BIG

[Thor Skov]

Graham, Keith, Tom, et. al.

Graham, 

First, I sincerely hope that you do not bow out of
this discussion, as your participation does provide a
perspective that otherwise has been absent (in my
limited experience with this listserve).

I also want to thank Keith for his wonderful post a
while back on the issue of soybean subsidies.

Second, I think that there are some points to consider
in Graham's argument that all BDers should think
about.  It's true that we haven't seen any particulars
wrt actual failings of the product of small biodiesel
producers, and that it is certainly unfair of the NBB
to summarily dismiss small producers on the basis of
their product quality.  If the NBB were in fact really
interested in promoting small-scale production, it
would be suggesting ways to work with backyarders
rathe than simply suggesting that they bow out.

I can give only a single anecdote from my own
extremely limited experience, that may or may not
count as it is coming second/third hand.  The owner of
Fuelwerks, the place where I buy (World Energy)
biodiesel in Seattle, told me that he had a bad
experience with poor quality biodiesel from Portland,
and that is why he is sticking with World Energy.  He
also claimed that Seattle Metro (bus service) had a
bad experience as well and consequently was now set
against biodiesel.

Now I understand that the specifics in these stories
are missing, and so they don't weigh in as evidence
either for or against small producers.  That is the
point that has been made over and over.

A more significant point has been missed, however,
namely that regardless of the truth of a basis for
concern about the quality of backyard production, the
perception is equally important.

What we are trying to do is to (re)introduce a (old)
new technology.  The average driver, who knows nothing
of mechanics, fuel technology, and so on, is going to
be wary of sticking an unfamiliar substance in their
tank.  Doubly and triply so for the commercial or
government fleet manager.  We're talking about both
actual risk and the perception thereof.  We all know
that bad news travels further and faster than good
news, and so just one actual or perceived bad
experience by someone putting biodiesel in their tank
(regardless of whether the biodiesel was actually at
fault or was simply blamed for something else that
went wrong) can set back our mutual agenda.

We need a couple of things.  First, better public
information and more outreach, such as the Clean
Cities Coalition did with their biodiesel symposium in
Seattle in Sept 2001.  Second, more help / technical
assistance for small scale producers, in understanding
the regulations and tax implications.  What we get
instead are generally warnings and threats.  That
makes people, including me, just want to dig in our
heels and raise a middle finger.

Here are some specific actions.
1)  The NBB should make its Tier 1 testing results
available to any small producers who want them,
without having to submit to its fee structure that
discriminates against small producers OR it should
revise that fee structure to be fair to small
producers.  NBB has, unfortunately, decided it easier
simply to wave away all backyard biodiesel, a strategy
for which Graham is now receiving a lot of flak.  
[As a side note, I don't think the NBB has a leg to
stand on anyway, as these results were paid for with
public money--soybean checkoff funds--and therefore
cannot be appropriated for private benefit.  But the
NBB evidently wants to make someone work to establish
that.  There are FOIA requirements at play here.]

2)  EPA and the IRS should publish specific, clear,
unambiguous guidelines with regard to taxation and
certification requirements for biodiesel, in plain
English and not lawyer-speak.  Having spent hours
wading through CFR and federal register announcements
about EPA regs for biodiesel and fuel testing, as well
as a lot of time on the phone with EPA, I have found
these rules abstruse and contradictory.  Even Joe
Sopata at EPA told me that their own regs didn't jibe
with the law.  Perhaps things have been clarified
recently, to the better.

3)  The fuel tax is fair and good, IMO.  It is a user
fee (and therefore relatively progressive as a tax),
and goes to pay for roads and transportation projects.
  But it is a lot of paperwork (at least in Washington
State) to go through:  you have to register as a fuel
dealer, submit a whole bunch of forms, and so on, even
if you are just producing for your own use and not for
sale.  I would like to see this process streamlined
and made more accessible.  At present, it seems to
encourage avoidance rather than participation.

4)  We need to agree on some kind of quality
standards.  Perhaps I am flogging a dead horse here,
but I haven't been able to read a consensus on this
forum about the feasibility of ASTM testing for small
producers.  Standards make the world go round, and
without them, car manufacturers and engine
manufacturers won't ag

Re: [biofuel] Back Online

[Hakan Falk]

Only in America!!!

I was not aware of that US made pallets of hardwood and did not think that 
it could ever be a stupid luxury consumption like this. I can see reason 
for some pallets to be made of hardwood, but they should be guarded and 
reused. But this irresponsible behavior cannot be excused. Six pallets of 
hardwood per American in land fills, give me a break!

I am of the opinion that it is almost a sin to use hardwood for pallets in 
the first place. How can you use types of trees that take 50 to 100 years 
to mature for purposes like this. Hardwood is also very stupid to put in 
landfills, because of the long time it takes to disintegrate. If you really 
need to waste hardwood, effective burning is probably the best. Compared to 
the pallets we mostly use in Europe, made of pine tree, hardwood take 4-8 
times longer to mature. Even the fast growing teak, developed mainly in 
central and south America, takes at least 2-4 the time to mature as pine 
trees and it is questionable if it is still hardwood. The fast growing teak 
is softer, but still have the natural defense against humidity and insects.

Hardwood is mostly a tropical or sub tropical tree and how can US use this 
for pallets and at the same time be upset about the deforestation of the 
remaining oxygen suppliers of the world. The hardwood of Europe was by 
tradition the property of the Kings, wherever it was rooted, because of its 
value for building ships and as structural building material. In this case 
oak was a strategic defense material. Oak used as structure for buildings, 
was inherited and reused for new buildings. The value of oak was almost 
comparable to gold a few hundred years ago.

Hakan


At 07:25 AM 11/24/2002 -0800, you wrote:


>Keith Addison wrote:
>
> > Re wasted wood, I picked this up somewhere or other, for the US, not
> > Canada: "In 1999, for instance, 7.5 million tons of wooden pallets -
> > platforms associated with shipping - went into the solid waste
> > stream, accounting for over 60 percent of all wood waste." And:
> > "There are an estimated 6 hardwood palletts in landfill for every
> > resident of the US."
> >
>
>
>
> Indeed!  I used to collect hardwood pallets, cut them up and burn
>them.  Over the course of the "average" winter, my family burned 8 tons
>of wood like this.  We hadn't paid for heat in years!  Making the leap
>back into fossil fueled residential heating was a hard decision for me.
>I like the automaticity of our natural gas boiler, but we haven't
>received a bill yet . . .
>
> >
> > I just posted this somewhere else:
> >
> > "... the United States is now far from being a sustainable society,
> > and in many respects is further away than it was at the time of the
> > Earth Summit in 1992. Unlike many other developed countries, the
> > United States has not used a strategic process to move the country
> > toward a sustainable future and has not educated the American people
> > about the opportunities and challenges of sustainable development."
>
>
>
> I've been lamenting about this for at least 30 years.  That's one of
>the reasons I'm here.
>
>robert luis rabello



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
·FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/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] Back Online

[robert luis rabello]

Keith Addison wrote:

> Re wasted wood, I picked this up somewhere or other, for the US, not
> Canada: "In 1999, for instance, 7.5 million tons of wooden pallets -
> platforms associated with shipping - went into the solid waste
> stream, accounting for over 60 percent of all wood waste." And:
> "There are an estimated 6 hardwood palletts in landfill for every
> resident of the US."
>



Indeed!  I used to collect hardwood pallets, cut them up and burn
them.  Over the course of the "average" winter, my family burned 8 tons
of wood like this.  We hadn't paid for heat in years!  Making the leap
back into fossil fueled residential heating was a hard decision for me.
I like the automaticity of our natural gas boiler, but we haven't
received a bill yet . . .

>
> I just posted this somewhere else:
>
> "... the United States is now far from being a sustainable society,
> and in many respects is further away than it was at the time of the
> Earth Summit in 1992. Unlike many other developed countries, the
> United States has not used a strategic process to move the country
> toward a sustainable future and has not educated the American people
> about the opportunities and challenges of sustainable development."



I've been lamenting about this for at least 30 years.  That's one of
the reasons I'm here.

robert luis rabello


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


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
·FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/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] Back Online

[Kim & Garth Travis]

I have found statistics that say for every three new houses built, one 
goes in the landfill, labor being more expensive than materials.  This 
being true, many of us have figured out how to build with the landfill 
materials.  There is a list dedicated to this topic, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

One man has started a movement to use landfill rescue to build homes for 
low income working families using minimum wage help.  His crew are 
usually young men that were at risk and after a year or two with him, 
they get hired by the big contractors.  His web site is phoenixcommotion.com

Congratulations on trying to reduce the waste and build sensibly, not an 
easy task with building codes, banks and insurance companies involved.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

robert luis rabello wrote:

> Hello Everyone!
> 
> It's been five months since I've been able to post here.  My wife
> and I have built a new house, and not only have I learned a lot about
> the building process, I've been astonished at how much waste and
> inefficiency goes into putting up a home.
> 
> 1.  Builders love concrete.  We used WAY more concrete than I
> believed we would when we first considered this project.  I'm not
> certain we could have done much better than we did because our property
> slopes considerably, but concrete manufacturing is VERY energy intensive
> and next time we'll have to be more careful about property selection.
> Any ideas about alternatives out there?
> 
> 2.  The amount of waste generated by a building is simply
> astonishing!  I own a Ford Ranger with a short wheelbase and a small
> box.  I filled the thing 4 times with dimensional lumber cut too short
> for use, and hauled all of it out to my father in law so that he could
> mix it with his firewood this winter.  (Generally speaking, dimensional
> lumber is so dry that it burns too quickly for a clean fire and
> therefore produces excessive smoke.)  Surely gasification or clean
> pyrolysis would be much better alternatives than the landfill, where all
> of our oriented strand board, drywall, carpet scraps and other waste
> ended up.  What's worse, is that our tradesmen kept saying that we
> actually had very little waste. . .  Some of the houses going up around
> here have huge dumpsters that get filled more than once during the
> building!  (I had asked the architect who drew our plans to minimize
> waste by making room sizes as close to standard dimensions as possible.
> We ended up with a bigger house for less money that way.  Strange, isn't
> it?)
> 
> 3.  There's a certain "momentum" in doing things the "conventional"
> way.  The lender at our credit union looked at me as if I was crazy when
> I said I wanted solar hot water.  The builders simply didn't understand
> why I was so particular about southern orientation, minimizing north
> facing window sizes (our view is to the north, so I lost on that one. .
> ..), and people scratched their heads when I specified a relatively small
> electrical panel ("just" 100 amps of service!) and high efficiency
> lighting.  We argued about extra insulation in the ceiling, heat in the
> floor and the "tiny" size of our natural gas boiler.
> 
> There's a lot of ignorance about energy issues out there.  I suppose
> people in forums like this one have a LOT of educating to do. . .
> 
> robert luis rabello
> 
> 
> 
> 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 -~-->
·FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/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: What fuels will replace Aviation Turbine Fuels

[Steve Spence]

http://www.chemeng.ucl.ac.uk/research/combusti/thesis/1_3_2_4.html

3.2.4. Heavy oils as gas turbine fuels
The efficient use of heavy oils in gas turbines is aided by standardising
its properties. Work was carried out jointly by ASME (American Society of
Mechanical Engineers) and ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)
to supply users, transporters and refiners with both fundamental and
practical aspects on how to provide clean fuels for gas turbines, nature of
impurities, their measurement, their effect on performance and means of
control and removal.
Their work evolved to produce the ASTM specification D2880-90a (ASTM
Designation D 2880-90a) . Specifications for heavy and distillate oils used
as fuels in gas turbines are partially reproduced in the following Table:




--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Steve Spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:...
> biodiesel has been tested in turbines, and is a workable alternative.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
> & Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
> http://www.green-trust.org
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Alan Erskine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Such as JP-4, JP-5, JP-8, Jet A-1 etc?
> >
> > These are kerosene based fuels and are quite different from diesel- or
> > petrol/gasoline-replacements.
> >
> >
>
>




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
áFREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/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] Corvette Diesel?

[Steve Spence]

This must be a early april fools joke. the only corvette diesel I've seen is
at http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/index.html


Corvette DIESEL ENGINE LEADS GM INTO 21st CENTURY

DETROIT - As leaders in quality, design and technology, General Motors
continues the tradition of excellence in innovative performance with
the introduction of a diesel powered Corvette.

Herb Fishey, director of GM Racing, explains that the introduction of
the Duramax 6600 Diesel  in the C5 Corvette was a breakthrough in
high-performance technology. "Until this engine was introduced, almost
every V-8 engine used in the Corvette dated back to designs that
originated in the mid-1950s," says Fishey.

According to Fishey, the most famous example is the small-block Chevy.
First introduced in 1955, millions have been built and can be found
powering everything from production cars and trucks to the cars and
trucks raced at just about every racetrack across North America.

"But now, with the introduction of the Duramax 6600 Diesel , General
Motors will begin to phase out the gas powered V8s that have been the
backbone of America's high-performance and racing industry for more
than 40 years," continued Fishey. "It will be replaced by derivatives
of the Duramax 6600 Diesel , which has the highest specific output of
any production diesel engine GM has ever built. In every sense the
Duramax 6600 Diesel is truly the high-performance engine of the
future."

"With the Duramax 6600 Diesel , the Corvette driver will enjoy massive
low-end torque, combined with the low-reving character that was once
strictly the province of large trucks," explains Joe Negro, manager of
IRL and Road Racing Groups for developing the C5-R racing version of
the Duramax.

"Few people yet realize the long-term effect that the Duramax 6600
Diesel engine is going to have on the performance industry," continues
Negro. "What is remarkable is that the very high specific output of
the production Duramax engine has been achieved at reasonable cost and
weight while meeting both emission and fuel economy standards. It is a
fantastic engine on which to base a modern-day racing program."

America's performance icon, the Chevrolet Corvette, officially
returned to road racing in 1999 with the C5-R Corvette, bringing the
technology of the future with it - Duramax 6600 Diesel .

As the 21st century approached, the Corvette engine development team
saw that performance - and racing - would not be and could not be
focused on new records and the ever-increasing speeds. Rather, the
emphasis would be on new designs that produced engines that are fuel,
weight and emissions efficient, along with being cost effective and
socially and environmentally acceptable. This new stage of development
would produce engines where electronics and dramatically improved
cooling, oiling and sealing systems made significant contributions to
increased performance.

According to Herb Fishey, the manufacturers and the performance
industry had differing opinions during the 1970s and 1980s. The
manufacturers' focus was on fuel economy and emissions. It was left
mostly to aftermarket suppliers to develop performance components for
diesels.

"The C5 is a code name for a second rate sports car," says Negro.
"It's only fitting that the Duramax 6600 Diesel  graces the engine
compartment of every C5 Corvette as essectially the Corvette is just a
pick-up truck fitted with a flimsy plastic body. It was Zora Duntov's
vision in 1953 that Corvette should lead the way with
'ready-engineered' parts and designs, and I think he would be proud
that almost no parts have changed since then."

Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


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] Back Online

[Hakan Falk]

Hi Robert,

Building houses is always a special experience. I always said that if your 
marriage survives a building project, it survives almost
anything.

I inserted some comments,

At 10:24 PM 11/23/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Hello Everyone!
>
> It's been five months since I've been able to post here.  My wife
>and I have built a new house, and not only have I learned a lot about
>the building process, I've been astonished at how much waste and
>inefficiency goes into putting up a home.

It is a wasteful and conservative Industry and it is even more astonishing 
if you look on the energy waste to live in it. You can have differences of 
2-3 times in energy use, for no apparent reasons other than ignorance.


> 1.  Builders love concrete.  We used WAY more concrete than I
>believed we would when we first considered this project.  I'm not
>certain we could have done much better than we did because our property
>slopes considerably, but concrete manufacturing is VERY energy intensive
>and next time we'll have to be more careful about property selection.
>Any ideas about alternatives out there?

The problem here is Building Codes and standards, that regulate the quality 
and security. You can always do special stress calculations, solutions and 
design of the house. It will in many cases use less concrete, but it will 
be more expensive.


> 2.  The amount of waste generated by a building is simply
>astonishing!  I own a Ford Ranger with a short wheelbase and a small
>box.  I filled the thing 4 times with dimensional lumber cut too short
>for use, and hauled all of it out to my father in law so that he could
>mix it with his firewood this winter.  (Generally speaking, dimensional
>lumber is so dry that it burns too quickly for a clean fire and
>therefore produces excessive smoke.)  Surely gasification or clean
>pyrolysis would be much better alternatives than the landfill, where all
>of our oriented strand board, drywall, carpet scraps and other waste
>ended up.  What's worse, is that our tradesmen kept saying that we
>actually had very little waste. . .  Some of the houses going up around
>here have huge dumpsters that get filled more than once during the
>building!  (I had asked the architect who drew our plans to minimize
>waste by making room sizes as close to standard dimensions as possible.
>We ended up with a bigger house for less money that way.  Strange, isn't
>it?)

Your instructions to the architect was a clever thing and it is obvious if 
they only thought about it.


> 3.  There's a certain "momentum" in doing things the "conventional"
>way.  The lender at our credit union looked at me as if I was crazy when
>I said I wanted solar hot water.  The builders simply didn't understand
>why I was so particular about southern orientation, minimizing north
>facing window sizes (our view is to the north, so I lost on that one. .
>.), and people scratched their heads when I specified a relatively small
>electrical panel ("just" 100 amps of service!) and high efficiency
>lighting.  We argued about extra insulation in the ceiling, heat in the
>floor and the "tiny" size of our natural gas boiler.

You managed to catch some very important principles, that should be 
standard for any construction industry. At the same time you developed to 
be an understanding supporter of what we try to preach at 
http://energysavingnow.com/ .

1. It is no reason why the worlds population should not cover 70-80% of the 
domestic hot water needs with passive solar panels. It is economically 
feasible and advantageous. It pays back in 3 to 5 years and last for 15-20 
years before replacement is needed, it is difficult to find a better and 
more secure investment.

2. Heated floors gives you a radiant low temperature system, that are low 
consumption and flexible in choice of alternative heating sources. Properly 
done, it is more comfortable at lower temperature and therefore a large 
energy saver.

3. The extra insulation in the ceiling is also a very good investment, the 
extra cost probably paid back in 1-2 years for a new house.

4. Anything else than high efficiency lightning should be a crime.

5. The smaller size boiler will save you a lot, especially with the storage 
capacity of the concrete in combination with heated floors. If it is half 
the size of what is normally suggested, you are alright. In 10 years, you 
might have 4-5 weeks of extreme weather conditions and a capacity problem. 
I hope that you do not have a control system with outside sensors, because 
this will be wasteful and create some problems of comfort. See the article 
about 0 degree mystery on our web site.

If you have a comparable house nearby without your considerations, you will 
find that their energy consumption is around double of yours.

Congratulations to your new house.


> There's a lot of ignorance about energy issues out there.  I suppose
>people in forums like this one have a LOT of educating to do. . .
>
>robert lui

[biofuel] Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: correction was Re: tax situation in Maine

[Keith Addison]

>I snipped the message because I didn't want to embarass anyone. I only
>snipped the part that described the name of the organization in question, not
>changing anything from World Energy. I got the message from the Massachusetts
>Dept. of Energy, who had assumed that it was the Chewonki Foundation that was
>being described.  As it turned out, this assumption was incorrect. World
>Energy has not provided any followup describing who they were referring to.
>There is no other known entity in Maine that fits the description.  Are we
>starting to see a pattern here?
>
>Tom Leue

Hello Tom

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to lay the confusion at your door. I 
suggested the list members who contacted me about it should ask you, 
I assumed they had but heard nothing further about it. I'm glad 
you've cleared it up, what you know of it, thankyou. A pattern? 
Maybe... Another trail leading nowhere, as with the alleged 
widespread problems caused by sub-spec homebrew? Both from Graham 
Noyes at World Energy, via different routes. For someone who doesn't 
want homebrewers to see industry conspiracies against them he seems 
to make it hard not to. I hope he'll be able to clear this up, at 
least.

Regards

Keith

 

>
>In a message dated 11/23/02 4:07:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
><< Hi Mark
>
>It's a bit confused-confusing. Tom Leue (Homestead, Yellow Biodiesel)
>posted the original message, it was quite badly snipped and you
>couldn't tell who'd said what. I don't know where Tom got it from -
>well, World Energy, but I didn't see anything about it at their
>website, so it would have been an email from someone there I suppose.
>Here it is again:
>
> >Here is a communication from World Energy about government actions against
> >one of the few biodiesel producers in the Northeast. Be forwarned.
> >
> >Snip>
> >We run into a lot of small producers who are trying to do the right thing,
> >but I would be remiss if I did not warn about the severity of 
>cutting corners
> >from an IRS or EPA standpoint.
> >
> >Any biodiesel producer or seller needs to understand that any biodiesel used
> >(not sold)as fuel in an on-road vehicle is subject to on-road tax. We have a
> >number of producers around the country who do not want to deal with the tax,
> >and sell it tax exempt. This fuel does often end up in peoples 
>vehicles. Just
> >as you and I pay tax at the pump, it is the user who is ultimately
> >responsible for road tax.
> >
> >We just had a small producer in another state in a similar situation. They
> >own a number of diesel vehicles and have been using it for about a 
>year. They
> >were just hit with bill for $0.31/gallon State excise tax plus penalties and
> >interest for every gallon they have produced. In addition, since 
>the fuel was
> >used in on-road vehicles, the Federal Government can (and most likely will)
> >fine up to $10.00/gallon for every gallon used. The organization in Maine is
> >a non-profit agency and is therefore tax exempt. They also do not sell any
> >fuel to te outside world.
> >
> >Many of these small producers are yet to realize how sad the 
>ending may be. I
> >don't mean to sound rude or abrupt, but the tax consequences can be quite
> >severe. I have already seen it happen once. I think we will see it happen
> >again.
>
>I was asked off-list if that was the Chewonki Foundation or Solar
>Market in Maine, and I didn't know. Later Peter Arnold of the
>Chewonki Foundation wrote:
>
> > The organization referenced can not be from Maine because our state road
> > tax is $0.23/gallon.  The communication got snipped and doesn't make as
> > much sense as it could.  The " organization in Maine is a non-profit agency
> > and is therefore tax exempt. They also do not sell any fuel to the outside
> > world." line refers to the part of this communication that got snipped.
> > The "small producer in another state" and the "organization in Maine" are
> > differernt organizations.  Since no name is included however I don't know
> > who the Maine organization is.  Peter
>
>That's all I know.
>
>Best
>
>Keith


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
·FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/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: [biofuels-biz] Re: correction was Re: tax situation in Maine

[Keith Addison]

>I snipped the message because I didn't want to embarass anyone. I only
>snipped the part that described the name of the organization in question, not
>changing anything from World Energy. I got the message from the Massachusetts
>Dept. of Energy, who had assumed that it was the Chewonki Foundation that was
>being described.  As it turned out, this assumption was incorrect. World
>Energy has not provided any followup describing who they were referring to.
>There is no other known entity in Maine that fits the description.  Are we
>starting to see a pattern here?
>
>Tom Leue

Hello Tom

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to lay the confusion at your door. I 
suggested the list members who contacted me about it should ask you, 
I assumed they had but heard nothing further about it. I'm glad 
you've cleared it up, what you know of it, thankyou. A pattern? 
Maybe... Another trail leading nowhere, as with the alleged 
widespread problems caused by sub-spec homebrew? Both from Graham 
Noyes at World Energy, via different routes. For someone who doesn't 
want homebrewers to see industry conspiracies against them he seems 
to make it hard not to. I hope he'll be able to clear this up, at 
least.

Regards

Keith

 

>
>In a message dated 11/23/02 4:07:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
><< Hi Mark
>
>It's a bit confused-confusing. Tom Leue (Homestead, Yellow Biodiesel)
>posted the original message, it was quite badly snipped and you
>couldn't tell who'd said what. I don't know where Tom got it from -
>well, World Energy, but I didn't see anything about it at their
>website, so it would have been an email from someone there I suppose.
>Here it is again:
>
> >Here is a communication from World Energy about government actions against
> >one of the few biodiesel producers in the Northeast. Be forwarned.
> >
> >Snip>
> >We run into a lot of small producers who are trying to do the right thing,
> >but I would be remiss if I did not warn about the severity of 
>cutting corners
> >from an IRS or EPA standpoint.
> >
> >Any biodiesel producer or seller needs to understand that any biodiesel used
> >(not sold)as fuel in an on-road vehicle is subject to on-road tax. We have a
> >number of producers around the country who do not want to deal with the tax,
> >and sell it tax exempt. This fuel does often end up in peoples 
>vehicles. Just
> >as you and I pay tax at the pump, it is the user who is ultimately
> >responsible for road tax.
> >
> >We just had a small producer in another state in a similar situation. They
> >own a number of diesel vehicles and have been using it for about a 
>year. They
> >were just hit with bill for $0.31/gallon State excise tax plus penalties and
> >interest for every gallon they have produced. In addition, since 
>the fuel was
> >used in on-road vehicles, the Federal Government can (and most likely will)
> >fine up to $10.00/gallon for every gallon used. The organization in Maine is
> >a non-profit agency and is therefore tax exempt. They also do not sell any
> >fuel to te outside world.
> >
> >Many of these small producers are yet to realize how sad the 
>ending may be. I
> >don't mean to sound rude or abrupt, but the tax consequences can be quite
> >severe. I have already seen it happen once. I think we will see it happen
> >again.
>
>I was asked off-list if that was the Chewonki Foundation or Solar
>Market in Maine, and I didn't know. Later Peter Arnold of the
>Chewonki Foundation wrote:
>
> > The organization referenced can not be from Maine because our state road
> > tax is $0.23/gallon.  The communication got snipped and doesn't make as
> > much sense as it could.  The " organization in Maine is a non-profit agency
> > and is therefore tax exempt. They also do not sell any fuel to the outside
> > world." line refers to the part of this communication that got snipped.
> > The "small producer in another state" and the "organization in Maine" are
> > differernt organizations.  Since no name is included however I don't know
> > who the Maine organization is.  Peter
>
>That's all I know.
>
>Best
>
>Keith


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
·FREE Health Insurance Quotes-eHealthInsurance.com
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1.voSB/RnFFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

Biofuels at Journey to Forever
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel at WebConX
http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech:
http://archive.nnytech.net/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

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

Re: [biofuel] Back Online

[Keith Addison]

Hello Robert!

Welcome back. I hope you're receiving messages okay now. Please let 
me know if you have any problems.

Re wasted wood, I picked this up somewhere or other, for the US, not 
Canada: "In 1999, for instance, 7.5 million tons of wooden pallets - 
platforms associated with shipping - went into the solid waste 
stream, accounting for over 60 percent of all wood waste." And: 
"There are an estimated 6 hardwood palletts in landfill for every 
resident of the US."

"During 1991, Ohio produced about 32 million pallets. Hardwoods make 
up 72 percent of the total production, softwood 15% and mixed 13%. 
One-third of the pallets were constructed for reuse and two-thirds of 
the pallets were one-way, or disposable pallets. Only 7.5 million 
pallets were repaired or recycled. The study estimates that disposing 
wood from pallets into landfills claims the equivalent of the saw 
timber on more than 18,000 Ohio acres each year. Eventually, a 
substantial quantity of wood pallets enter landfills, thus rendering 
this valuable resource useless."
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/opp/recyc/pallet3.html
Pallet Management Guide

:-(

>There's a lot of ignorance about energy issues out there.  I suppose
>people in forums like this one have a LOT of educating to do. . .

Yes... and a LOT of learning to do too. At least I feel that way, 
though I'm very impressed with the knowledge of many members of this 
group and others.

I just posted this somewhere else:

"... the United States is now far from being a sustainable society, 
and in many respects is further away than it was at the time of the 
Earth Summit in 1992. Unlike many other developed countries, the 
United States has not used a strategic process to move the country 
toward a sustainable future and has not educated the American people 
about the opportunities and challenges of sustainable development." 
-- From "Slouching Toward Johannesburg: U.S. Sustainable Development 
Policies", by John Dernbach, law professor at Widener University.
http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume6/v6n23_body.html#slouching

No need to pick on the US though, in particular, no country is doing 
very well at this. The US is indeed the most profligate with energy, 
and much else, but compared with the distance left to travel, the 
differences among the industrialized countries are small.

The governments aren't doing too well, no use relying on them. Hassle 
them about it, sure, but... DIY. Like your house! Congratulations, 
quite a feat - I hope you'll be comfortable and happy there.

Regards

Keith




>Hello Everyone!
>
>It's been five months since I've been able to post here.  My wife
>and I have built a new house, and not only have I learned a lot about
>the building process, I've been astonished at how much waste and
>inefficiency goes into putting up a home.
>
>1.  Builders love concrete.  We used WAY more concrete than I
>believed we would when we first considered this project.  I'm not
>certain we could have done much better than we did because our property
>slopes considerably, but concrete manufacturing is VERY energy intensive
>and next time we'll have to be more careful about property selection.
>Any ideas about alternatives out there?
>
>2.  The amount of waste generated by a building is simply
>astonishing!  I own a Ford Ranger with a short wheelbase and a small
>box.  I filled the thing 4 times with dimensional lumber cut too short
>for use, and hauled all of it out to my father in law so that he could
>mix it with his firewood this winter.  (Generally speaking, dimensional
>lumber is so dry that it burns too quickly for a clean fire and
>therefore produces excessive smoke.)  Surely gasification or clean
>pyrolysis would be much better alternatives than the landfill, where all
>of our oriented strand board, drywall, carpet scraps and other waste
>ended up.  What's worse, is that our tradesmen kept saying that we
>actually had very little waste. . .  Some of the houses going up around
>here have huge dumpsters that get filled more than once during the
>building!  (I had asked the architect who drew our plans to minimize
>waste by making room sizes as close to standard dimensions as possible.
>We ended up with a bigger house for less money that way.  Strange, isn't
>it?)
>
>3.  There's a certain "momentum" in doing things the "conventional"
>way.  The lender at our credit union looked at me as if I was crazy when
>I said I wanted solar hot water.  The builders simply didn't understand
>why I was so particular about southern orientation, minimizing north
>facing window sizes (our view is to the north, so I lost on that one. .
>.), and people scratched their heads when I specified a relatively small
>electrical panel ("just" 100 amps of service!) and high efficiency
>lighting.  We argued about extra insulation in the ceiling, heat in the
>floor and the "tiny" size of our natural gas boiler.
>
>There's a lot of ignorance about energy issues out there.  I s

Re: [biofuel] FW: green diesel

[Keith Addison]

Hi Martin

Well done!

I don't think this is a very good reply you got though. They charge 
good money for this thing, and deliberately use it to influence, 
which it does - it gets into all the mainstream media. They'd be 
giving better value for money (maybe the difference that would make 
it a good deal?) if they took a more forward-looking, proactive 
stance rather than clinging to some theoretical "average" that 
excludes important developments that absolutely need wider support on 
the paltry grounds that they're too minor. What technological 
progress would ever have been accomplished on that basis? Everything 
now mainstream was once in just that position. Biodiesel use is well 
beyond that. 35 million gallons were used last year, a seven-fold 
increase on the year before - at that rate of growth, it's minor? The 
DOE makes projections of six billion gallons a year, the EU already 
using more than 300 million gallons - it's obviously worth 
consideration. especially since it makes a crucial difference.

>We evaluate alt-fuel vehicles, but
>only those that are dedicated.

The whole point of biodiesel is that the vehicles don't have to be 
dedicated - ANY diesel. That he refers to "conventional diesel 
vehicles" would seem to indicate that he doesn't even know that. He 
definitely should know it, that's his obligation if he writes about 
these subjects for such an influential publication.

And is this really true?

>But they also do emit higher levels of NOx
>and PM than comparable gasoline vehicles.

At the tailpipe, maybe - and even then, maybe not, with the newest 
Euro-diesels that aren't imported to the US, perhaps just because of 
this sort of view. Anyway, biodiesel solves that issue - no sulfur, 
no problem. ACEEE's Green Book is remiss in not reporting this fully 
and accurately.

But is it true anyway? Hakan's point is that diesels on average burn 
30% less fuel anyway, and therefore produce that much less emissions. 
Is that being taken into account here? I bet it's not.

Jim Kliesch should brush up his act a bit on diesels.

Best

Keith



>---
>Martin Klingensmith
>nnytech.net
>infoarchive.net
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: greenercars [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 11:57 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: green diesel
>
>Martin,
>
>Thanks for your question.  In our rankings, we only evaluate OEM
>vehicles run on conventional fuels.  We evaluate alt-fuel vehicles, but
>only those that are dedicated.  E85 vehicles, for instance, are very
>rarely run on an ethanol blend, so we only score them with the use of
>gasoline.  Ditto for biodiesel/diesel.  It's not an issue of us
>intentionally leaving a certain fuel out, but rather an attempt to
>accurately depict the environmental performance of a vehicle used by an
>average consumer.
>
>I agree that environmental benefits can be achieved over current diesel
>emissions levels through the use of biodiesel.  However, at this time,
>the availability of biodiesel amounts to only a fraction of the amount
>of diesel that's consumed, to say nothing of gasoline consumption.
>
>We do score conventional diesel vehicles, namely VW's TDi models.  The
>TDis are impressive engines.  But they also do emit higher levels of NOx
>and PM than comparable gasoline vehicles.  Improvements are being made
>on diesels in general, however, with new aftertreatment devices (for
>example, NOx adsorbers, particulate traps, integrated systems, etc.),
>but those will ultimately require low-sulfur fuel to operate properly.
>Personally, I expect we'll be seeing greener diesel vehicles in the
>years to come.  I look forward to watching the developments.
>
>Kind Regards,
>Jim Kliesch
>Co-author, ACEEE's Green Book
>
> >>> "Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/20/02 20:33 PM >>>
>Could you tell me why it is that you do not include any diesel vehicles
>in your greenest cars list?
>Biodiesel fuel has no sulfur, which allows catalytic converters to be
>used, therefore NOx emissions are low.
>
>---
>Martin Klingensmith
>nnytech.net
>infoarchive.net


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/