RE: [biofuels-biz] Q: price for glycerine in EU?

[Paulius Stančiauskas]

Hi Winny,
Can you tell me prices of all the purities?
 
Paulius
 
-Original Message-
From: Winny De Schryver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 8:07 PM
To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [biofuels-biz] Q: price for glycerine in EU?
 
Hi,

Depends on the purity of your product. Is it in the range of 65 , 80 ,
90 or
95+ % pure ?

Winny


> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: pauliusstanciauskas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Verzonden: maandag 10 februari 2003 15:08
> Aan: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com
> Onderwerp: [biofuels-biz] Q: price for glycerine in EU?
>
>
> Hello,
> I need information about glycerine price for 1t in EU. I would be
> thankfull for your information.
> Paulius
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>




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 the Yahoo!
  Terms of Service. 


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



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] Q: price for glycerine in EU?

[Martin Brook]

Hi Winny, Martin Brook here , hope you are keeping well. Could you give us
guide prices forlycerine in any or all of those categories please?y the way
I never did ge the details of those folks in Sffolk could yo send them aain
please?here abouts are you inIre/Eire?
- Original Message -
From: "Winny De Schryver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 7:07 PM
Subject: RE: [biofuels-biz] Q: price for glycerine in EU?


> Hi,
>
> Depends on the purity of your product. Is it in the range of 65 , 80 , 90
or
> 95+ % pure ?
>
> Winny
>
>
> > -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> > Van: pauliusstanciauskas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Verzonden: maandag 10 februari 2003 15:08
> > Aan: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com
> > Onderwerp: [biofuels-biz] Q: price for glycerine in EU?
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> > I need information about glycerine price for 1t in EU. I would be
> > thankfull for your information.
> > Paulius
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>



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/ 

[biofuels-biz] Bushfood

[Keith Addison]

"Not that the politics of oil aren't crucial to what's driving 
Washington these days, but the politics of edible oil also need 
recognition, along with an alternative world-saving economic and 
social strategy based on local and community food security."

[CFS = Community Food Security]


Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:07:57 -0500
From: "Wayne Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Community Food Security Coalition <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A Canadian looks at Bush State of Union and need for CFS

Bushfood
By Wayne Roberts
Toronto Food Policy Council

U.S. President George Bush fixed one eye on Iraq and the Middle East 
during his State of the Union address, as everyone noticed, but 
another eye on the American Mid-West, which almost everyone missed.

The Mid-West is the heartland of America, but also its feedlot, key 
source of grains and meat, as much staples of the U.S. economy as its 
diet. And feedlot politics are as central to the Bush style of 
"compassionate conservatism" on the home front as to his kickass 
conservatism in foreign policy. Praise the Lord, and pass the 
ammunition and bread.

Since food is too mundane to figure in grand theories and punditry, 
it's rarely seen as central to either geopolitics or domestic 
politics. But every military superpower in history has had to do 
something special about food. Partly to keep the home crowds happy, 
as in Rome's bread and circuses or Hitler's guns and butter. Partly 
to organize the feeding of troops in faraway lands; it was Napoleon 
who figured out, way too late into his invasion of Russia, that 
"armies crawl on their bellies" and can't march without food. And 
partly to maintain some sort of balance of payments, when so much of 
the economy is based on imports of booty and exports of economically 
unproductive soldiers and munitions.

It seems odd that food and agriculture command such huge government 
expenditures in U.S. budgets, second only to the military. And 
perhaps just as odd that two of the key politicians with their hands 
on the Bush-directed government deficit spree come from Iowa - 
Representative Jim Nussle, chair of the House budget committee and 
Senator Charles Grassley, chair of the Senate's finance committee. 
Doesn't seem to fit with any notion of the city slickers who run an 
advanced industrial, service and knowledge economy, until we figure 
out that a state that produces so much ham might epitomize both 
porkbarrel politics and a hogtied economy.

The guy who introduced me to this way of thinking is Peter Rosset of 
Food First, a California-based organization founded by Frances Moore 
Lappe of Diet For A Small Planet fame. Shortly after George Bush 
passed his $190 billion Farm Bill, I bugged all the U.S. delegates I 
could buttonhole at a food conference to explain to me why an 
industrially advanced country like the U.S. was spending so much 
money to subsidize agriculture. Economics tells us that agriculture 
has low profit margins, and is a primitive phase that industrializing 
countries grow out of, so why spend $190 billion to subsidize grains 
and meat?

It's pretty simple, Rosset said. Ever since the 1970s, when the U.S. 
started losing its manufacturing industries to the low-wage Third 
World, the U.S. has suffered from a terrible balance of payments 
problem because it imports so many, and exports so few, industrial 
goods.  The fact that the backwater of Canada is the leading importer 
of U.S. goods tells the tale. Only a small portion of America's Gross 
Domestic Product, about ten per cent, comes from exports; food 
accounts for 12 per cent of those exports, and is the main sector 
with lots of room to grow.

So U.S. economic strategy strives to counter-balance that outflow of 
money for industrial imports with an outflow of products based in 
sectors where the U.S. has a commanding lead - munitions and 
aerospace, information and entertainment, and food. Without 
agricultural exports, the whole Enronized house of economic cards 
risks collapse. Food accounts for 12 per cent of export earnings and 
is the main sector with lots of room to grow, since most of the Third 
World takes little U.S. food now.

Who could possible match the U.S in food exports? There's topsoil 
that's only been farmed for a century or two, not millennia as in 
much of the Third World. There's expensive equipment that the 
lowest-waged Third World workers can't match for productivity. There 
are huge expanses of barely-populated land where chemicals can be 
loaded on and no-one sees or complains. And there are export 
subsidies that no Third World country, not even a Canada suited to 
grain and meat, can begin to match.

The focus on agricultural exports leans U.S. foreign policy toward 
unilateralism, one of the hallmarks of the Bush presidency. It's not 
too much to say that the obsession driving for-export agriculture 
almost requires the U.S. to become what some call a "rogue state."

The U.S. refuses to sign international treaties

RE: [biofuels-biz] Q: price for glycerine in EU?

[Winny De Schryver]

Martin

I am in Belgium.
details from folks in Suffolk didn't come from me, sorry
Prices of glycerine follow tomorrow.

Winny

> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: Martin Brook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Verzonden: dinsdag 11 februari 2003 9:24
> Aan: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com
> Onderwerp: Re: [biofuels-biz] Q: price for glycerine in EU?
>
>
> Hi Winny, Martin Brook here , hope you are keeping well. Could you give us
> guide prices forlycerine in any or all of those categories
> please?y the way
> I never did ge the details of those folks in Sffolk could yo send
> them aain
> please?here abouts are you inIre/Eire?
> - Original Message -
> From: "Winny De Schryver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 7:07 PM
> Subject: RE: [biofuels-biz] Q: price for glycerine in EU?
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Depends on the purity of your product. Is it in the range of 65
> , 80 , 90
> or
> > 95+ % pure ?
> >
> > Winny
> >
> >
> > > -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> > > Van: pauliusstanciauskas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Verzonden: maandag 10 februari 2003 15:08
> > > Aan: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com
> > > Onderwerp: [biofuels-biz] Q: price for glycerine in EU?
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > > I need information about glycerine price for 1t in EU. I would be
> > > thankfull for your information.
> > > Paulius
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>




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/ 

[biofuels-biz] cost of gasoline, ethanol mixture @ 76 stations

[murdoch]

1.  The cost of gasoline at some local stations in San Diego seems to be pushing
upward steadily.  I'd say in the low $1.80s per gallon around where I live for
87 octane, and it can get over $2.00 per gallon for 91 octane.

2.  I've been making a point of buying down the street at the local 76 station.
I believe now that 76 is part of "Conoco-Phillips" or some such.  They have been
very clear in their "NO MTBE" signs around here for what seems like about a
year.  Their signs on their pumps used a wording that said the gasoline *might*
contain ethanol, but it was never entirely clear.  I chose to hope that they
were including ethanol, because I think the other way to get around the
Oxygenate rule (reformulated gas) might not be that common and I don't know if
it's legal.  I have written them to attempt to get a confirmation that they
*are* using a 10% or so (or whatever the standard is, to satisfy the oxygenate
requirements) mixture, but have received no response.  A late-night worker there
did respond with confidence that they were, but I can't take that as the final
answer.

Others may say, "Well, so what, we see ethanol elsewhere all the time."  I think
it's important.  There was a *hellacious* battle to get the oil companies to
switch away from MTBE in California, and to get them to consider using ethanol.
That battle seems to have gone silent for the last year.  Many seem to be still
using MTBE, according to some pumps I've seen.  

If 76 is doing something good (by the standards of ethanol proponents) then we
must give them credit and make it clear that we appreciate the lack of runaround
on the issue.  Too often we wait for bad news or resistance to bring attention
to a business.

The station I go to charges always within a penny or two of the Shell Station
nearby.  So, if 76 is using ethanol and incurring the doomsday extra costs that
the Refiners claimed would be incurred if they were forced to use ethanol, then
it's not showing at the pump, one bit.  I haven't heard a peep of complaint from
76 about this, and have seen the very large NO MTBE signs at many (all?) of
their stations.  Prior to being able to buy this gasoline down the street, which
I am assuming has ethanol in it, I had *never* been able to find a single pump
in my area that had any ethanol mixed in.  So, while others may take such
availability for-granted, I think this 76 program is awesome, pending
verification that in fact they're using ethanol.  I'm still wary on that point.

If and when further political decisions and events come to a head, I expect the
Oil companies to drag out further anti-ethanol arguments, and it would be nice,
at that time, to be able to report that at least one of them has not only been
implementing a 10% or so mixture of ethanol in some areas, but is doing so with
no customer dissatisfaction as to quality or price, and is still able to do
excellent profitable gasoline-selling business, so that many of the arguments
are just nonsense.  If 76 is really doing this, then I salute them.

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/ 

[biofuels-biz] Does the US tax code favor gas guzzlers?

[Keith Addison]

http://www.ems.org/
Environmental Media Services - facts and contacts for journalists
Feb. 10
Tax Code Encourages Gas Guzzlers, Critics Say

A huge tax break for buyers of the largest SUVs is drawing sharp 
criticism from environmentalists and public interest advocates. The 
tax break, which costs the U.S. treasury thousands of dollars per 
vehicle purchased, has created an incentive for small business owners 
to buy vehicles that exceed a 6000 pound threshold for the deduction.

Some new car dealers are using the tax break as a selling point for 
the largest SUVs and some tax advisors are also encouraging 
self-employed professionals to buy larger SUVs.

Adding to the controversy, the Bush stimulus plan, in an effort to 
spur business investment, would increase the maximum deduction for 
large trucks and SUVs to $75,000.

EMS.org has a chart comparing five vehicles that shows how the tax 
code favors large SUVs.

Find out more:
New York Times, "Bush Proposal May Cut Tax on S.U.V.'s for Business"
Sierra Club, "Sierra Club to IRS: Audit Gas-Guzzling SUVs"
Alliance to Save Energy, "SUV Tax Break 'Outrageous'"
Detroit Free Press, Brian Dickerson column, "Tax Breaks and SUVs a Curious Mix"
Detroit News, "SUV, Truck Owners Get a Big Tax Break"
Taxpayers for Common Sense white paper, "A Hummer of a Tax Break"
Taxpayers for Common Sense, "Senator to Introduce Bill to Close SUV 
Business Tax Loophole"

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/ 

[biofuels-biz] Fwd: A Letter to Our Friends in Europe

[Keith Addison]

>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:53:09 -0600
>Subject: A Letter to Our Friends in Europe
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: "AlterNet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Dear AlterNet subscriber:
>
>With war looming so darkly and protests around the world
>planned for this weekend, AlterNet.org has initiated a
>global letter, in conjunction with MoveOn.org, to the
>people of Europe. Please join us in thanking our European
>friends for their support in our allied struggle and urge
>them to demonstrate this weekend and encourage their
>governments to stand for peace:
>
>http://moveon.org/openletter/
>
>Sincerely,
>
>The staff of AlterNet
>http://www.alternet.org/


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/ 

[biofuels-biz] South Korea limiting vehicle use as oil price soars

[Keith Addison]

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19794/story.htm

South Korea limiting vehicle use as oil price soars

SOUTH KOREA: February 12, 2003

SEOUL - South Korea, the world's fourth-biggest oil buyer, plans to 
curb use of passenger cars by state employees and switch off some 
street lights as part of efforts to cushion the impact of surging oil 
prices.

"We plan to implement from next week some mandatory measures to save 
energy, such as turning off some street lamps and limiting use of 
passenger cars," an official at the Ministry of Commerce, Industry 
and Energy told Reuters this week.

Households as well as some businesses such as department stores and 
petrol stations should cut electricity use, while ski and golf 
resorts, and midnight movie theatres and 24-hour sauna bath should 
cut business hours later on, the measures stipulate.

Seoul is trying to limit the shock from global oil prices that are 
hovering well above $30 a barrel, bolstered by a possible war in Iraq 
and a strike in Venezuela, which has strangled supplies from the 
fifth-biggest exporter.

Soaring crude prices have become the main threat to growth in Asia's 
fourth largest economy that depends fully on imported oil.

The official said they would start by limiting the use of passenger 
cars by those working for state and other public organisations, but 
might later include the general public.

One out of 10 passenger cars would be banned from running on a given 
date based on the last digit of the number plate.

The forced limit on the use of passenger cars is expected to save 
about 603,000 barrels of oil or oil equivalent to 140 billion won 
($118.3 million) a month, the Korea Petroleum Industry Association 
(KPIA) said.

South Korean oil demand for transport stood at 244 million barrels in 2002.

The forced energy conservation was designed to be implemented when 
Middle East Dubai crude, the benchmark for most supplies into Asia, 
tops $29 a barrel but stays below $35.

Dubai crude price stood at $30.41 a barrel at 0621 GMT.

Oil imports account for nearly 20 percent of South Korea's total 
imports in value which stood at about $150 billion last year. A $1 
rise in crude prices on an average basis over a year cuts economic 
growth by 0.1 percentage points.

Seoul said last week it was set to cut the oil import tax by 43 
percent to 8.0 won per litre from February 17 to protect consumers 
and business from high oil prices.

The government has said it would implement further measures such as 
cutting local taxes on oil products and might release oil reserves if 
the Dubai price touched $33. (US$1=1183.8 Won).

Story by Park Sung-woo

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE


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/ 

[biofuel] Hide the peanut.

[Gordon Dempsey]

 I retired after 20+ years of military service. (1985)  Do I believe
that Sadam's weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed? In a word, NO!
 There are a whole lot of subterranean bunkers that are covered with
sand at this moment. The only people that know the coordinates of those
bunkers are Sadam and his elite Officer Corps.
  When you were a child, did you ever play the shell game, hide the
peanut. Sadam learned that well. I think if we don't find the weapons before
a war occurs, the weapons will emerge and be used on UN troops as well as
his own people again.
   To tie this into oil. His people remain in poverty while he builds
palaces instead of universities, instead of upgrading public utilities,
instead of irrigation and agriculture.  To him as the all powerful dictator,
the oil money is his and he builds armies and tanks instead of tractors,
plows, road building equipment. He kills his own people if they disagree.
I would like to live in a perfect world, but I'm sorry to have to
tell you, I don't think I can make a perfect decision for even my family,
let alone the world.
I try to make things better, so let it begin with what I can
contribute.  To you the scholars and educators, do things to improve what we
have to work with. Even small steps forward are better than dragging someone
else backwards.

Sincerely,
Gordon Dempsey

Bio diesel, one batch at a time



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] More reason for Unrest?

[Crabb, David]

The patriot missle system was not intended to hit the target.
While it would be extra nice if it did, there wasn't time givent the
technology to do so.

What it would do was go up and try to get in its path and explode close
enough to damage it, hopefully destroying it.
It was known to not hit it enough on the first one that a second rocket was
fired, just in case.

I don't recall any reports that guaranteed or promoted 100% accuracy.  This
is just wrong to say so.  Any country buying it would know that some chance
of deflecting is better then no chance.  It was also well known that the
reason for the accuracy that they *did* have, was that they were going up
against very old scud technology.

The new anti-missle systems detect and launch much sooner, pre-apex,  and
only need one.

This guy may have some points, the problem is they are mixed in with 'look
at how the WTC fell down, it had to be 
an implosion" type of stuff.  Then he went on do speak of the various other
bombs in the other buildings that were
carried out and covered up.  That would be tasty for a journalist to
report.. were is the evidence?


What is this copy of college report stuff?  Any links to this?



Message: 4
   Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 10:09:04 -0600
   From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More reason for Unrest?

 A article that sums up recent events and doesn't hold back -- 


 Fake terror alerts:
 by John Kaminski
 2-8-3 
 http://www.timewedo.com/special/kaminski/fake.shtml

 How stupid do they think we are? Only hours after our much-praised
Secretary of State is
 revealed to have been using material plagiarized from a college student to
justify why we're going
 to kill thousands of people with bombs, our government issues a terror
alert and expects us to
 believe it? 

 And how stupid are we? We believe it. 

 Everybody takes it seriously even though Colin Powell has been shown to
 have perpetrated a colossal lie before the entire world, sitting in front
of the
 assembled multitude of rectitude at the United Nations, exposed as having
 tried to pass off a decade-old college post-graduate thesis as supposedly
 cutting-edge Department of Defense intelligence. Used before the most
 august leaders of the world, this is supposed to be the best we can do? For
 all that money in the defense budget? 

 I mean, shouldn't we be embarrassed to be caught in such a childish lie?
 Could the U.S. government have reached a new low in their sluggish and
 unintelligent efforts to convince the world it should bomb everything that
 doesn't "love our freedom?" 

 But it didn't matter. The American people have become such dullards that
 apparently nobody made the connection concerning lying about the reasons
 for bombing Iraq and lying about the terror alert. Certainly not the TV
 news robots. 

 Stupidest of all? The terror alert was meant to cover up the Secretary of
 State's very own sophomoric faux pas, but the piggies needn't have
 bothered. 

 The TV anchorpeople, who worry a lot more about their hair than they do
 the fate of the world, didn't even blink an eye, didn't even make the
 connection, that if Powell is fabricating evidence culled from the
out-of-date research - the grad
 student's work was assessing conditions in Iraq more than a decade ago -
then what possible
 evidence could this most "humane" member of the Bush Cabal of Death have
been using to
 suddenly whip up a new terror alert - which served no greater purpose than
to take the world's
 focus off his own obvious incompetence and insincerity. 

 His own lies. There could be no clearer evidence that the United States is
lying - not only about
 its own objectives but also about its own methods, its own performance -
and, as I'm sure our
 genuine enemies would notice, and most dangerous of all - its actual
capabilities. There may be
 no doubt that the U.S. could totally vaporize Baghdad, and no doubt that
America's demonic
 weapons of mass destruction have turned large swaths of Third World
countries into radioactive
 wastelands, but there are real doubts that this two-faced gang of armchair
cutthroats have the
 ability, the will or the intent to defend our country. 

 Just look at the investigation into 9/11, the biggest crime in American
history, and let me know if
 you see one. Just look at Enron, the biggest robbery in American history,
and let me know if you
 see the big perps being brought to justice. 

 Lies. Everywhere you turn are lies, couched in trite buzzphrases, uttered
by incompetent
 functionaries like Ashcroft, who couldn't even make a decent middle school
debate team, not to
 mention Bush, who will never learn that sincere statements later learned to
be false mean you can
 never reach people again. 

 Or maybe you can. Maybe people don't really care if the world is destroyed,
if their own sons
 return to the Fatherland contaminated by radioactivity and poison vaccines.
The insincerely
 enraptured media suckups, who have their own challenges to overcome, insis

[biofuel] Alternative Fuel Data Center website

[murdoch]

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 07:08:58 -0800 (PST), you wrote:

>Hello all,
>I found this website with lots of information.  I'm
>not promoting the site, just passing on some info.
>Cheers,
>BG
>
>Alternative Fuel Data Center
>http://www.afdc.doe.gov/afvehicles.html

There is a lot of terrific research that the average person can do at the DOE
websites.  

www.eia.doe.gov, 
www.energy.gov, 
www.nrel.gov, 
etc.  
As to this particular one, afdc, I think that one also has a lot of good stuff.
I don't recall how I rated them on some of the problems typical to such sites,
such as keeping track of which alt-fuel vehicles are *really* available to
consumers (never mind casual manufacturer claims which are often half-truths).
I also think that some of the harder-to-answer alt-fuel questions remain so even
after a visit to that site, but you can't have everything.  I always thought of
the DOE websites in general as sort of a fairly good expenditure of my taxpayer
dollars.  We pay for them, and some researchers whose salaries we pay apparently
thought it would be interesting to organize some decent information and put it
up there in more or less useable form.

However, I haven't spent much time at those sites during the Bush
Administration, and it is not clear to me whether his tenure would have led to
any change in the truthfulness of the information.  During the Clinton
Administration I spent several hours trying to study the info that was there
about ANWR, for example, and whether one liked it or not, it seemed fairly
scientific and cut and dry.  I mean, at least it seemed so to me.  We are all
dependent, at least in part, on our own private baloney-detection-systems.

Now, since the political nature of the issue has been heightened, I'd be wary of
what I'd find there, but I have no reason as yet to say anything as to any
decline in those sites.

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: trees was: RE: [biofuel] Re: Introduction and some questions - Newbie

[Ken Basterfield]

Can I add an example on whether a plant takes much from the top soil. Edible
figs are constrained from growing a mass of green vegetation by restricting
the surface rooting to a 2ft by 2ft  square box, 2 ft deep with an open
bottom through which the deep roots can grow. Without this the fig tree
would grow massive and not produce much fruit. Plainly it needs it's mat of
surface roots which seems to counter to your first para. I grow cherries in
large pots for the same reason.

Ken
- Original Message -
From: "Greg and April" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: trees was: RE: [biofuel] Re: Introduction and some questions -
Newbie


> If the leaves and smaller branches are left, that is more than enough,
> because the large trees are getting most of the nutrients from the sub
soil
> ( that is not used by most plants ) not the top soil.  You could then go
> back and put the ashes back if you really wanted to, if this was done, the
> result would be a total increase in top soil nutrients for most plants
> including young trees.
>
> Don't for get the experiment that showed most of the building blocks of a
> plant do not come from the soil at all.  I don't remember all the details,
> but, I think that it was a British scientist in the 1800's planted a tree
in
> a large tub of soil that had been carefuly weighed, then much later,
weighed
> the tree, and the soil again to see how much of the soil the tree had used
> in growing, and the soil weighed a pound or so lighter, and the tree was
> more than 30 lbs.
>
> Greg H.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Martin Klingensmith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 14:16
> Subject: Re: trees was: RE: [biofuel] Re: Introduction and some
questions -
> Newbie
>
>
> > Well, doesn't something have to replenish the minerals that you took out
> > of the soil in the form of wood?
> >
> > ---
> > Martin Klingensmith
> > infoarchive.net  [archive.nnytech.net]
> > nnytech.net
> >
> >
> >
> > Robin,
> > Time is a relative thing. Compared to Radishes, Corn takes a long
> > time to grow, but we don't stop using it. Even mighty Oak trees have
> > a finite life span, and it would be wasteful to not use the resource.
> > Heating Oil from Fossil Fuels takes even longer to replenish than an
> > Oak Tree.
> > It would be irresponsible to simply leave the wood to rot on the
> > ground creating a fire hazard and breeding ground for diseases, and
> > instead use Fossil Fuels for Heating your home.
> > Once an Oak Tree is dead, whether from disease or storm damage or by
> > being cut down for whatever reason, it would be wasteful and
> > irresponsible  to not utilize the wood.
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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/ 

RE: [biofuel]Democratic!???

[Hakan Falk]

David,

I inserted my comments below,

At 04:22 PM 2/10/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>hitler:
>You seem to be older than me, as you spoke of personal knowledge,
>so I will bow to your wisdom concerning this matter.   :)
>All else would be speculation and estimation on my part as I haven't lived
>through it or seen anything on this.
>I think it would make a nice topic for the History Channel on cable tv,
>though.

I was not old enough to personally have experiences from WWII or the 
Finnish wars, for that I need to be at least 80 years old and I am only 62. 
I am coming from a family that was very much engaged in the Finnish and 
Jewish causes during the Finnish and second world wars. As a child I loved 
to listen when the older people told their stories and they were all people 
who lived trough the period and in many cases very actively, I already told 
about my mother who studied in Germany just before WWII and that both my 
parents who was voluntaries in the Finnish wars. In Swedish you often call 
the handles on a pan "the ears on a pan" and therefore we have a saying 
"even small pans have large ears". This often as a caution to be aware of 
what you talk about in presence of children and I am sure that it is a 
corresponding saying in English.

Before I left Sweden around 25 years ago. The Swedish TV had just made a 
long series of documentaries about military incidents during the second 
world war, released from secrecy by the national archives. It was adapted 
and had the same couple (an officer and his adjutant) as leading persons in 
all incidents, even if each one in reality had different people involved. 
In three of them, my uncle was the officer in charge, even if I can only 
remember two.

The first one was about the agreement were Sweden allowed Germany to 
transport relief troops from northern Norway through Sweden. The allies are 
often describing this as a negative for Sweden and conveniently forgetting 
that originally a lot these troops was fighting on the Finnish side against 
the Soviets (one of the allies) during the Finnish Continuation War and 
therefore a support to Finland. The agreement was that the Germans should 
be unarmed, but they had the habit of going with armed escort anyway. The 
Swedish normally turned a blind eye towards this, but it was one incident 
were the officer in charge had the guts to disarm the escort and that 
officer was my Uncle.

The other that I remember was an incident during the German retreat from 
Finland. As a part of the peace treaty with the Soviets, the Finns had to 
get rid of the German troops in Finland, that had helped them in the 
"Continuation War". The Germans did not want to go, so the Finns had to 
throw them out by force. A part of the Northern Border between Sweden and 
Finland goes along a river and the Germans had open artillery fire on what 
they saw as the pursuing Finnish troops. The problem was that it was at a 
bend of the river and that in reality they had opened fire on Swedish 
territory and troops, that my Uncle was in charge of. In the TV version the 
officer in charge could not get in contact with the high command and he, 
together with the adjutant took a small boat and row over to the Germans 
under fire, to tell them about the error. The Germans immediately seized 
fire, apologized and invited the officer for dinner, the adjutant was 
invited in the kitchen and got drunk before they went back. I asked my 
Uncle if the incident was correctly portrayed and he said "no, the guy who 
was rowing the boat was a one legged Finn and he was drunk already when we 
started".

I listened to many stories and opinions from that time, from the "horses 
mouth". Jewish friends of my family that fled Nazi Germany, relatives 
directly involved and the high command of the Swedish military who was my 
grandfathers friends and often invited for dinners. Therefore some of them 
might diverge quite a bit from official versions. I also read a lot.



>-
>politix:
>I wasn't trying to say that the Us system is the best.. just different.
>Different and not
>modified just before the election to give one party or another an edge..
>they both had the
>same limitations.
>One man .. one vote  = true democracy.  The US is a Republic, so arguing
>that people
>were gypped is not really fair.  The fairness being that you are stating
>that
>one man = one vote was not the election, so tallying results as if it was
>done that way
>is not fair.  district was known to be
>75% for one party ..etc>
>One may choose to not like it, thats fine.  The father in a family often
>makes decisions for the children because 'he knows what is best for the
>family'.  Of course the father for a state
>'could' vote against the populace of the state.  That state could then vote
>to get rid of  'Dad', something I am sure many teenagers would like to do
>sometimes.. heh

I agree that all system has flaws, the only thing I disagree with is that 
the US is flawless and it is superi

Re: [biofuel] More reason for Unrest?

[Keith Addison]

  FAIR-L
 Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

MEDIA ADVISORY:
A Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage
Disproof of previous claims underlines need for scrutiny

February 10, 2003

In reporting on Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation
to the United Nations Security Council, many journalists treated
allegations made by Powell as though they were facts.  Reporters at
several major outlets neglected to observe the journalistic rule of
prefacing unverified assertions with words like "claimed" or "alleged."

This is of particular concern given that over the last several months,
many Bush administration claims about alleged Iraqi weapons facilities
have failed to hold up to inspection.  In many cases, the failed claims--
like Powell's claims at the U.N.-- have cited U.S. and British
intelligence sources and have included satellite photos as evidence.

---

In its report on Powell's presentation, the New York Daily News (2/6/03)
accepted his evidence at face value: "To buttress his arguments, Powell
showed satellite photos of Iraqi weapons sites and played several
audiotapes intercepted by U.S. electronic eavesdroppers.  The most
dramatic featured an Iraqi Army colonel in the 2nd Republican Guards Corps
ordering a captain to sanitize communications."  The Daily News gave no
indication that it had independent confirmation that the photos were
indeed of weapons sites, or that individuals on the tapes were in fact who
Powell said they were.

In Andrea Mitchell's report on NBC Nightly News (2/5/03), Powell's
allegations became actual capabilities of the Iraqi military: "Powell
played a tape of a Mirage jet retrofitted to spray simulated anthrax, and
a model of Iraq's unmanned drones, capable of spraying chemical or germ
weapons within a radius of at least 550 miles."

Dan Rather, introducing an interview with Powell (60 Minutes II, 2/5/03),
shifted from reporting allegations to describing allegations as facts:
"Holding a vial of anthrax-like powder, Powell said Saddam might have tens
of thousands of liters of anthrax.  He showed how Iraqi jets could spray
that anthrax and how mobile laboratories are being used to concoct new
weapons."  The anthrax supply is appropriately attributed as a claim by
Powell, but the mobile laboratories were something that Powell "showed" to
be actually operating.

Commentator William Schneider on CNN Live Today (2/6/03) dismissed the
possibility that Powell could be doubted: "No one disputes the findings
Powell presented at the U.N. that Iraq is essentially guilty of failing to
disarm."  When CNN's Paula Zahn (2/5/03) interviewed Jamie Rubin, former
State Department spokesperson, she prefaced a discussion of Iraq's
response to Powell's speech thusly: "You've got to understand that most
Americans watching this were either probably laughing out loud or got sick
to their stomach. Which was it for you?"

--

Journalists should always be wary of implying unquestioning faith in
official assertions; recent history is full of official claims based on
satellite and other intelligence data that later turned out to be false or
dubious.  After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the first Bush administration
rallied support for sending troops to Saudi Arabia by asserting that
classified satellite photos showed the Iraqi army mobilizing on the Saudi
border.  This claim was later discredited when the St. Petersburg Times
obtained commercial satellite photos showing no such build-up (Second
Front, John R. MacArthur).  The Clinton administration justified a cruise
missile attack on the Sudan by saying that intelligence showed that the
target was a chemical weapons factory; later investigation showed it to be
a pharmaceutical factory (London Independent, 5/4/99).

In the present instance, journalists have a responsibility to put U.S.
intelligence claims in context by pointing out that a number of
allegations recently made by the current administration have already been
debunked.  Among them:

* Following a CIA warning in October that commercial satellite photos
showed Iraq was "reconstituting" its clandestine nuclear weapons program
at Al Tuwaitha, a former nuclear weapons complex, George W. Bush told a
Cincinnati audience on October 7 (New York Times, 10/8/02): "Satellite
photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have
been part of his nuclear program in the past."

When inspectors returned to Iraq, however, they visited the Al Tuwaitha
site and found no evidence to support Bush's claim.  "Since December 4
inspectors from [Mohamed] ElBaradei's International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) have scrutinized that vast complex almost a dozen times, and
reported no violations," according to an Associated Press report
(1/18/03).

* In September and October U.S. officials charged that conclusive evidence
existed that Iraq was preparing to resume manufacturing banned ballis

Re: [biofuel] banning the oil field

[Keith Addison]

Hi MM and all

>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:01:35 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >murdoch wrote:
> >
> >  They seem to want energy independence for the U.S., but
> >> only if it doesn't hurt their cronies.  They have the priority 
>of better energy
> >> policy, but it is subverted to at least one higher priority, aka 
>Exxon-Mobil et.
> >> al. (under guise of giving due consideration to the rationale 
>for staying with
> >> much of the fossil fuel paradigm).
> >>
> >
> >I wonder, how much of the concern for big oil is actually concern for
> >all the people who work in oil related jobs?  I am working for a
> >sustainable world, so don't get me wrong, but what do we do with the
> >people that are employed in the un-sustainable one?  I am not speaking
> >of the educated engineers or management, but the guys out in the field,
> >who number in the thousands, quite probably hundreds of thousands.  The
> >people who have no education, but have families to support.  Also, the
> >clerks, dispatchers, and basic mechanics, that will need to be retrained.
>
>I think these are good questions, no, *great* questions, to which I don't have
>all the answers lined up, although I do have some of my own 
>opinions.  You don't
>have to couch this sort of question in apologetic terms with me.  It's central
>and important.
>
>I think it's larger than the oil industry, per se.  To me the 
>question is: when
>there is a push for a change in a major world industry, what can be reasonably
>expected in terms of job loss and gain?  What does history teach us, if
>anything, that could be useful in such a case?  Can the job loss be avoided in
>any case, if the older industry is suffering?  Can the new jobs be identified
>and discussed, so that they are a real prospect that can be brought into the
>discussion and not some phantom?  Can the cost of retraining be quantified so
>that it is understood and discussed rationally?

There are many recent examples to study. It's most interesting what 
happened to the print industry with the end of the "hot-metal" era at 
the inception of desktop publishing (and also slightly earlier with 
the rise of the quick-print shops based on photocopiers). Maybe not 
too many people realize that when they type something on their 
computers they're essentially doing a typesetting job, what 
highly-trained printers used to do. Linotype setters, compositors, 
all gone, just like that - what happened to them, where did those 
jobs go to? The printing industry survived, but it's an interesting 
story, relevant and recent enough to be immediately applicable in 
many ways. Added depth comes from the fact that it had happened in 
printing before, 80 years earlier, with the arrival of the Linotype 
machine, which sets whole lines of text, replacing a whole set of 
skills devoted to setting one letter at a time, the text then made up 
by hand. (Chinese text was still being set this way until very 
recently.)

Further examples, a whole host of them, come in the 1960s and a bit 
later after so many industries were transferred to newly independent 
nations at the end of the colonial era, in terms of the Bandung 
agreements. Perhaps foremost among these was textiles: the 
industrialized nations didn't seem to realize that there was somewhat 
more to it than just a great opportunity to sell textiles 
manufacturing equipment like hot cakes all over the world, often 
subsidized. What it meant was that their domestic textiles industries 
soon became obsolete, unable to compete - especially since many of 
them hadn't been modernized, unlike the new foreign factories. Whole 
regions in Britain and Europe were devastated economically.

This came with the flood of exports from the new textiles producers, 
which was the intention - that instead of the colonial nations simply 
extracting raw materials in the colonized countries, adding value in 
the "home" countries and selling the value-added products (in part) 
back to consumers in the countries the raw materials had been 
extracted from, the value should be added by the "3rd World" 
countries themselves to their own raw materials, for export to the 
industrialized-nation markets (while the industrialized nations 
themselves moved "up" a step into high-tech and service industries 
etc). But the industrialized countries don't seem to have figured 
this out very well either, and the new goods met protectionist 
barriers - the Multi-Fibre Arrangement with its quota system and the 
Uruguay rounds of trade negotiations (now become the unmitigated 
disaster of the WTO etc).

So this isn't exactly an untrodden path. Textiles protectionism and 
job-losses, for instance, go back a couple of hundred years to when 
the British flooded India with cheap textiles, rigged the rules 
against the excellent Indian textiles industry, and its export trade, 
forced cotton growers in India to switch to opium to supply Britain's 
noxious opium-tea trade with China, which led to the Opium Wars, and 
the foun

Re: trees was: RE: [biofuel] Re: Introduction and some questions - Newbie

[Keith Addison]

>Well, doesn't something have to replenish the minerals that you took out
>of the soil in the form of wood?
>
>---
>Martin Klingensmith
>infoarchive.net  [archive.nnytech.net]
>nnytech.net

Hi Martin

In fact the trees do that themselves. The natural scheme of things 
allows for a large amount of production to be removed without any 
extra replacement. Of course it's easy to disrupt or destroy those 
arrangements, it very much matters how it's done. But that's been 
well-known for a long time, if not always practised. Trees are 
deep-rooters, their roots go down into the sub-soil and beyond; the 
roots exude a weak carbonic acid which etches "new" mineral supplies 
out of the rock, which the root system then brings to the surface and 
into the tree. Cut the tree, remove the timber and replace nothing, 
but still all the leaves, small branches etc, bark hopefully, all of 
which contains the lion's share of the nutrients anyway, plus the 
root system itself, are left to decay back into the soil, mainly the 
topsoil, along with its mineral content. The decay process maintains 
the crucial supply of humus in the topsoil which maintains the 
soilfood web (including the vital mycorrhizal fungi). It helps to 
shred and chip all the remnants and spread it. There have been 
invesdtigations of whether returning just the ash to the forest floor 
can maintain the required fertility levels, with mixed success. This 
is important for biomass energy projects using energy plantations. 
The ash does contain all the minerals, but that's all it contains, no 
organic matter. In tropical soils especially this is not enough, it 
still needs organic matter maintenance as well as the ash. Also it 
rather depends on the particular soil type and conditions, too much 
ash can severely imbalance a soil, so that the required minerals are 
there but not in an "available" form that the plant has access to; 
the physical structure of the soil can also suffer badly.

Best

Keith



>Robin,
>Time is a relative thing. Compared to Radishes, Corn takes a long
>time to grow, but we don't stop using it. Even mighty Oak trees have
>a finite life span, and it would be wasteful to not use the resource.
>Heating Oil from Fossil Fuels takes even longer to replenish than an
>Oak Tree.
>It would be irresponsible to simply leave the wood to rot on the
>ground creating a fire hazard and breeding ground for diseases, and
>instead use Fossil Fuels for Heating your home.
>Once an Oak Tree is dead, whether from disease or storm damage or by
>being cut down for whatever reason, it would be wasteful and
>irresponsible  to not utilize the wood.
>
>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/ 

[biofuel] Re: Introduction and some questions - Newbie

[Keith Addison]

Motie wrote:



>The above explanation is further proof that we don't have to deal
>with International cultural and language differences to inadvertently
>confuse the issues through inadequate definitions of terminolgy.
>
>This list is not only informative on Energy issues, but I find it
>educational and worthwhile in developing my communication skills, by
>repeatedly demonstrating the need for clear and precise use of common
>terms.
>
>This is also a good place to insert a 'Tip o' the Hat' to Hakan for
>being a great contributor, and to acknowledge his dedication and
>efforts in overcoming the language barrier.
>
>Best,
>Motie

Hear hear for that Motie!

Best

Keith


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

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

RE: [biofuel] doing with the wastes

[Keith Addison]

David Crabb wrote:

>This is somewhat correct.
>
>Your example of coolant is exactly right.  Not that many people flush their
>own coolant or even do it as often as they are supposed to do so.   Take
>these same rocket scientists, who don't know what they are doing.. or just
>dont care
>once its dumped down the gutter.. and it 'could' be messy.
>
>I am all for renewables.. Its just that in this case.. I would rather have
>people go to 'jiffy lube', where it can be monitored.
>
>I would like the same for biodiesel production, lots of independent shops in
>town where I can get my biodiesel.
>With proven franchise practices in place.
>
>Now.. where can i get one  :)

Suggest you have a look at this David:

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycerin.html
Glycerine
General
Separating glycerine
Purifying glycerine
Paintbrush cleaner
Soap
Glop soap
High-explosives
Heart disease drug
Love potion
Safe sweetener
Health supplement
Preserving plants
Photocopying
Other uses
Disposal

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycsep.html
Separating glycerine/FFAs

Best

Keith


>Message: 10
>   Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 11:06:58 -0600
>   From: "csakima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: People   Was: doing with the wastes
>
>It's funny how  just because it's common place ... it's ... ahem ...
>"safe" in our minds.   Yet anything unknown ... the "dangerous" red flag
>goes up.
>
>We fill gasoline ... awe shoots ... some spills.   Oh well ... we drive off.
>Change radiator coolant ... river running down the street.   Spill oil
>changing it ... shovel some dirt over.   But making ethanol and Biodiesel
> that generates major protest.
>
>Curtis


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: trees was: RE: [biofuel] Re: Introduction and some questions - Newbie

[Keith Addison]

>Can I add an example on whether a plant takes much from the top soil. Edible
>figs are constrained from growing a mass of green vegetation by restricting
>the surface rooting to a 2ft by 2ft  square box, 2 ft deep with an open
>bottom through which the deep roots can grow. Without this the fig tree
>would grow massive and not produce much fruit. Plainly it needs it's mat of
>surface roots which seems to counter to your first para. I grow cherries in
>large pots for the same reason.
>
>Ken

Hi Ken, Greg

Trees have two root systems, one deep-rooter set for anchoring the 
things and garnering minerals from the subsoil, the other a much 
denser, more finely rooted surface-root system, and this is the main 
system the tree feeds by. These are also the main mycorrhizal roots.

There's much more about this here, very interesting (the whole thing 
is very interesting!) - full-text online at our Small Farms Library:

"An Agricultural Testament" by Sir Albert Howard, Oxford University 
Press, 1940.
Part III
Health, Indisposition, and Disease in Agriculture
9. Soil Aeration
The Soil Aeration Factor in Relation to Grass and Trees
The Root System of Deciduous Trees
The Root System of Evergreens
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/howardAT/AT9a.html

Best wishes

Keith

>- Original Message -
>From: "Greg and April" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 11:53 PM
>Subject: Re: trees was: RE: [biofuel] Re: Introduction and some questions -
>Newbie
>
>
> > If the leaves and smaller branches are left, that is more than enough,
> > because the large trees are getting most of the nutrients from the sub
>soil
> > ( that is not used by most plants ) not the top soil.  You could then go
> > back and put the ashes back if you really wanted to, if this was done, the
> > result would be a total increase in top soil nutrients for most plants
> > including young trees.
> >
> > Don't for get the experiment that showed most of the building blocks of a
> > plant do not come from the soil at all.  I don't remember all the details,
> > but, I think that it was a British scientist in the 1800's planted a tree
>in
> > a large tub of soil that had been carefuly weighed, then much later,
>weighed
> > the tree, and the soil again to see how much of the soil the tree had used
> > in growing, and the soil weighed a pound or so lighter, and the tree was
> > more than 30 lbs.
> >
> > Greg H.
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Martin Klingensmith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 14:16
> > Subject: Re: trees was: RE: [biofuel] Re: Introduction and some
>questions -
> > Newbie
> >
> >
> > > Well, doesn't something have to replenish the minerals that you took out
> > > of the soil in the form of wood?
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Martin Klingensmith
> > > infoarchive.net  [archive.nnytech.net]
> > > nnytech.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Robin,
> > > Time is a relative thing. Compared to Radishes, Corn takes a long
> > > time to grow, but we don't stop using it. Even mighty Oak trees have
> > > a finite life span, and it would be wasteful to not use the resource.
> > > Heating Oil from Fossil Fuels takes even longer to replenish than an
> > > Oak Tree.
> > > It would be irresponsible to simply leave the wood to rot on the
> > > ground creating a fire hazard and breeding ground for diseases, and
> > > instead use Fossil Fuels for Heating your home.
> > > Once an Oak Tree is dead, whether from disease or storm damage or by
> > > being cut down for whatever reason, it would be wasteful and
> > > irresponsible  to not utilize the wood.
> > >
> > > 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] Digest Number 1359

[Tony Clark]

There is another option.  Makers of biodiesel invariably need to find disposal 
options for their by-product - Glycerol soaps.
By mixing this with sawdust to make a dry paste, and filling used milk cartons 
with this mixture, the use of timber for fuel can be significantly reduced. A 1 
litre milk carton (~1 quart US) of this mixture will give off more heat than 
twice or three times that weight in firewood.
I have been collecting milk cartons from work and home (3 per day * 200 work 
days = 600 litres of convenient solid fuel.  
The only proviso is that it should be burned in a very hot fire, to minimise 
formation of possible pollutants.
  Message: 5
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:01:58 -0600
From: Kim & Garth Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Subject: Re: Re: Introduction and some questions - Newbie



  Robin Parker wrote:

  >> 
  > Who in their right mind is wasting oak on firewood??  That stuff takes
  > forever to grow!
  > 
  >

  But oak trees do die.  They make fantastic fire wood and that is all I 
  burn.  I would never cut down a live one, no need, there are plenty of 
  dead ones to harvest.

  Bright Blessings,
  Kim



[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/ 

[biofuel] Bushfood

[Keith Addison]

"Not that the politics of oil aren't crucial to what's driving 
Washington these days, but the politics of edible oil also need 
recognition, along with an alternative world-saving economic and 
social strategy based on local and community food security."

[CFS = Community Food Security]


Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:07:57 -0500
From: "Wayne Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Community Food Security Coalition <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A Canadian looks at Bush State of Union and need for CFS

Bushfood
By Wayne Roberts
Toronto Food Policy Council

U.S. President George Bush fixed one eye on Iraq and the Middle East 
during his State of the Union address, as everyone noticed, but 
another eye on the American Mid-West, which almost everyone missed.

The Mid-West is the heartland of America, but also its feedlot, key 
source of grains and meat, as much staples of the U.S. economy as its 
diet. And feedlot politics are as central to the Bush style of 
"compassionate conservatism" on the home front as to his kickass 
conservatism in foreign policy. Praise the Lord, and pass the 
ammunition and bread.

Since food is too mundane to figure in grand theories and punditry, 
it's rarely seen as central to either geopolitics or domestic 
politics. But every military superpower in history has had to do 
something special about food. Partly to keep the home crowds happy, 
as in Rome's bread and circuses or Hitler's guns and butter. Partly 
to organize the feeding of troops in faraway lands; it was Napoleon 
who figured out, way too late into his invasion of Russia, that 
"armies crawl on their bellies" and can't march without food. And 
partly to maintain some sort of balance of payments, when so much of 
the economy is based on imports of booty and exports of economically 
unproductive soldiers and munitions.

It seems odd that food and agriculture command such huge government 
expenditures in U.S. budgets, second only to the military. And 
perhaps just as odd that two of the key politicians with their hands 
on the Bush-directed government deficit spree come from Iowa - 
Representative Jim Nussle, chair of the House budget committee and 
Senator Charles Grassley, chair of the Senate's finance committee. 
Doesn't seem to fit with any notion of the city slickers who run an 
advanced industrial, service and knowledge economy, until we figure 
out that a state that produces so much ham might epitomize both 
porkbarrel politics and a hogtied economy.

The guy who introduced me to this way of thinking is Peter Rosset of 
Food First, a California-based organization founded by Frances Moore 
Lappe of Diet For A Small Planet fame. Shortly after George Bush 
passed his $190 billion Farm Bill, I bugged all the U.S. delegates I 
could buttonhole at a food conference to explain to me why an 
industrially advanced country like the U.S. was spending so much 
money to subsidize agriculture. Economics tells us that agriculture 
has low profit margins, and is a primitive phase that industrializing 
countries grow out of, so why spend $190 billion to subsidize grains 
and meat?

It's pretty simple, Rosset said. Ever since the 1970s, when the U.S. 
started losing its manufacturing industries to the low-wage Third 
World, the U.S. has suffered from a terrible balance of payments 
problem because it imports so many, and exports so few, industrial 
goods.  The fact that the backwater of Canada is the leading importer 
of U.S. goods tells the tale. Only a small portion of America's Gross 
Domestic Product, about ten per cent, comes from exports; food 
accounts for 12 per cent of those exports, and is the main sector 
with lots of room to grow.

So U.S. economic strategy strives to counter-balance that outflow of 
money for industrial imports with an outflow of products based in 
sectors where the U.S. has a commanding lead - munitions and 
aerospace, information and entertainment, and food. Without 
agricultural exports, the whole Enronized house of economic cards 
risks collapse. Food accounts for 12 per cent of export earnings and 
is the main sector with lots of room to grow, since most of the Third 
World takes little U.S. food now.

Who could possible match the U.S in food exports? There's topsoil 
that's only been farmed for a century or two, not millennia as in 
much of the Third World. There's expensive equipment that the 
lowest-waged Third World workers can't match for productivity. There 
are huge expanses of barely-populated land where chemicals can be 
loaded on and no-one sees or complains. And there are export 
subsidies that no Third World country, not even a Canada suited to 
grain and meat, can begin to match.

The focus on agricultural exports leans U.S. foreign policy toward 
unilateralism, one of the hallmarks of the Bush presidency. It's not 
too much to say that the obsession driving for-export agriculture 
almost requires the U.S. to become what some call a "rogue state."

The U.S. refuses to sign international treaties

[biofuel] Burning glyc and acrolein - was Re: Introduction and some questions - Newbie

[Keith Addison]

Hi Tony

>There is another option.  Makers of biodiesel invariably need to 
>find disposal options for their by-product - Glycerol soaps.
>By mixing this with sawdust to make a dry paste, and filling used 
>milk cartons with this mixture, the use of timber for fuel can be 
>significantly reduced. A 1 litre milk carton (~1 quart US) of this 
>mixture will give off more heat than twice or three times that 
>weight in firewood.
>I have been collecting milk cartons from work and home (3 per day * 
>200 work days = 600 litres of convenient solid fuel.
>The only proviso is that it should be burned in a very hot fire, to 
>minimise formation of possible pollutants.

Funny... a local carpenter just brought us some bags of sawdust, 
about half-sawdust half shavings, and we were thinking of doing just 
that with the shavings (other uses for the sawdust). I like the milk 
carton angle.

>The only proviso is that it should be burned in a very hot fire, to 
>minimise formation of possible pollutants.

Yes, the old acrolein story. Can we settle it now please? How hot is 
"very hot", ie hot enough to avoid acrolein pollution? How would you 
make sure to get a fire that hot?

Good news if we can pin this down once and for all and find safe ways 
of burning the stuff as an option.

Regards

Keith


>  Message: 5
>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:01:58 -0600
>From: Kim & Garth Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  Subject: Re: Re: Introduction and some questions - Newbie
>
>
>
>  Robin Parker wrote:
>
>  >>
>  > Who in their right mind is wasting oak on firewood??  That stuff takes
>  > forever to grow!
>  >
>  >
>
>  But oak trees do die.  They make fantastic fire wood and that is all I
>  burn.  I would never cut down a live one, no need, there are plenty of
>  dead ones to harvest.
>
>  Bright Blessings,
>  Kim
>
>
>
>[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/


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] neophyte with questions

[kjfaltfuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

Hello,

 I've long been interested in learning how to make my own 
biodiesel to reduce my fuel costs . After reviewing the content of 
journeytoforever.org I see there are more technical/serious concerns 
to the process than I first thought. Specifically, the handling of 
methanol and the byproducts of the distillation process. Is there a 
co-op and individual producer in the Detroit, MI/Tri-county area 
willing to "show me the ropes". I would gladly be an active 
participant in a co-op. I think it would be safer to learn from a 
sucessful producer(s) rather than learn by trial and error on my own. 
It appears that one or more of the potential errors could be quite 
harmful.
 Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Kevin Flynn  



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: banning the oil field

[Kim & Garth Travis]

Murdoch, Please pass this info on:  Houston has a renewable energy 
group, that was started by several NASA engineers, that your 
corespondent might want to look into.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

In answer to part of his letter:  While it is true that humans are 
resilient, I can not write off the suffering that will be caused by an 
abrupt change in employment.  Men who have worked 20 or 30 years in a 
field, are going to be in real trouble.  They are so close to 
retirement, but not close enough to be able to take it.

I do know Halliburton and Schlumberger, very well.  And BJ Services. 
They are the big 3 in oil field service and have many employees with 
less than grade 8.  I have met complete illiterates that work for these 
companies, not just functionally illiterate.  Jobs where you pound iron 
are getting fewer and fewer, and the financial support of foundations 
like Literacy Volunteers of America is getting smaller and smaller.

I know for a fact, that the rural areas of the southern states did not 
educate blacks, hispanics and poor whites much before the 1960's. 
Literacy rates in these areas is still in the 30% range.  [if you want 
the references, I will dig them out, they are in books, not on the web.]

I seriously wonder what kind of jobs the new, sustainable fuels can 
provide that these people can do?

I am very happy to see new jobs created that require an education, I 
believe this is good for our culture.  I am aware that we have some 
dislocation coming, I am just trying to figure out, how bad it will be.

Bright Blessings,
Kim




murdoch wrote:

> Thanks for a really interesting account.  Since the person I was responding to
> was in the biofuel group, I'm going to cc your response to that group.
> 
> Since you are into studying the different progressive housing methods out 
> there,
> and are in Houston, maybe an application to NASA could be an offbeat idea?  I
> had a very interesting conversation a couple of months ago with a guy who had 
> a
> Masters... he'd done a thesis on his studies of a theoretical Mars structure 
> and
> the different (relatively wild-to-talk-about) challenges involved, and the
> issues in powering it.  He had done a lot of study on different types of power
> schemes and structures, and the pros and cons involved.  I don't think 
> there's a
> lot of employment out there for it, but, as you are in Houston...
> 
> I keep wondering about what will be the best most durable least-flammable
> least-earthquakeable materials and mechanical approaches out there for the
> houses of the future, that balance other concerns such as plenty of light and
> air and energy management, and if we make progress in "carbon fibre" material 
> if
> this will result in a de facto method of carbon sequestration.
> 
> Some of the news releases a week or two ago were sort of embarrassing
> eye-openers.  I didn't realize that there's so much potential for energy 
> savings
> in structures.
> 
> 
>> Hi;
>> New here.
>> As a native Texan with a mechanical aptitude I've spent virtually all 
>> my adult life dependant on the oil industry for employment. As a 
>> draftsman & mechanical designer I've worked for a variety of 
>> different companies who served the oil industry with machinery & 
>> equipment.
>> 
>> Today I can proudly say that my employment is with a company in the 
>> specialty of providing fire, smoke & gas detection & suppression 
>> systems for petroleum & petro-chemical facilities. In this capacity 
>> I've been learning more about electrical drafting and design & 
>> packaging of electronic equipment, so, at the age of 45, I'm not 
>> quite as dependant on the oil industry as I once was. I've also 
>> become increasingly interested in learning more about alternative 
>> fuels as well as solar & wind energy generation. That's why I'm here.
>> 
>> Can't say the same for my brothers-in-law. One has spent his whole 
>> adult life with companies like Halliburton & Schlumberger directly in 
>> the oil field servicing equipment. The other is a commercial diver on 
>> the Gulf Coast often working off-shore rigs. The latter has expressed 
>> a keen interest in learning a new trade just because of the inherent 
>> dangers of his career. The former, however, would be hard-pressed to 
>> move into any new trade other than driving a truck.
>> 
>> Most of the other people I know who have worked for oil-field related 
>> industries have skills that are transferable, such as welders, 
>> machinists and mechanics. Very few are absolutely tied to oil-field-
>> only trades, even if they think they are. Most of the drafters, 
>> designers & engineers that I've known are also the kind of sub-
>> geniuses who are interested in other things besides oil field related 
>> employment. There's an inside joke that inside every draftsman is an 
>> amateur architect just waiting for a chance to build his dream home.
>> 
>> Personally, I would relish a chance to work more with architects who 
>> do sustai

Re: [biofuel] neophyte with questions

[Keith Addison]

>Hello,
>
> I've long been interested in learning how to make my own
>biodiesel to reduce my fuel costs . After reviewing the content of
>journeytoforever.org I see there are more technical/serious concerns
>to the process than I first thought. Specifically, the handling of
>methanol and the byproducts of the distillation process. Is there a
>co-op and individual producer in the Detroit, MI/Tri-county area
>willing to "show me the ropes". I would gladly be an active
>participant in a co-op. I think it would be safer to learn from a
>sucessful producer(s) rather than learn by trial and error on my own.
>It appears that one or more of the potential errors could be quite
>harmful.
> Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Kevin Flynn

Hello Kevin

I'm surprised you got frightened off by what you found at Journey to 
Forever, most people get encouraged, or so a great deal of feedback 
tells us. It's easy! - start here:

Where do I start?
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html#start

... and then just keep going. Thousands upon thousands of people are 
doing it without any problems, and if they do have problems they come 
here, and are invariably helped to solve them. The safety warning are 
of course to be taken seriously, but I'll bet you do much more 
dangerous things all the time and think nothing of it, just because 
you're used to it. Drive a car, cross a street... So get used to it, 
take one step at a time. Great if you can find a local group to help 
you, but there's no real need for it, you'll be fine on your own. 
There's great information available now and good support from groups 
like this one. Those of us here (quite a few) who made a start a few 
years ago had nothing like this to help us, but we managed anyway, 
without killing ourselves or anyone else.

Just do it! You won't regret it.

Best wishes

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever


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] Digest Number 1354

[Ken Chua]

Hi all,
just want to comment on some stuff Phil posted.
 "  After seeing people in Europe starve during  the
early 1900's  the US government adopted what we farmers and ranchers call
the "cheap food policy".   Our government never wanted to see the people in
the US go hungry like the Europeans did.   Consequently the US government
has encouraged overproduction of food in the US so it would always be
available (in surplus) and be available at a cheap price to the consumer."


I think this is a very good policy one of which every government in the world 
should adopt.

"This food commodity will always have a
consumer waiting to buy it especially if it is cheaper in price.  The
obvious evidence of this is the millions and millions of starving people in
the world that go without food every day.  These poor people are not
concerned with a third car or bigger house.  These people are not concerned
with even a single car or house.   For these millions of people their first
and only concern, even above  a simple hut to live in,  is FOOD- where will
I get something to eat today  so
I can simply stay alive for tomorrow."

The mere fact that these people are poor means that they are not productive 
enough or do not produce anything of  economic value to other people.  That is 
why they can't earn the money to buy food.  Most of the time they have to plant 
their own food for survival but going up against corporate farming, it would 
still be alot cheaper just to buy this than plant it yourself.  Imagine 
yourself as a citizen of a third world country.  The only thing your skilled 
for is agriculture and the food that is being imported is alot cheaper and 
better than what you produce... now what would you do.

   "We as farmers and ranchers in the US
are faced with this simple problem unique only to food.  The more we produce
to stay in business the cheaper it will get and we will never fill the
demand for food in the world based on these criteria.  100 years ago the
market for US produced food was only the US.  Now we are in a global market
for food.  This has changed for the same reasons other products are in a
global market -  the main reason being world transportation and
communication are faster and more efficient and products can be produced  on
one side of the globe and sold on another side within days or weeks instead
of months or years.   Because of this any surplus food produced in the US,
and the world for that matter,  is  discounted in price  sold  and even
given away to poor people in underdeveloped countries."

Sometimes the best way to help someone is not helping them at all.  Giving away 
food at unrealistic prices does not promote self sufficiency, it promotes 
dependency and kills the hard working people who try to be self sufficient.  
Its the American govt that sells/gives these to underdeveloped countries as aid 
and gets these underdeveloped countries hooked on cheap food.

  "Until that need for
food by underdeveloped countries is met there is no hope for US agriculture
to increase our own prices.  We can never met that need as long as these
countries have no money to buy food that is priced based on our cost of
production.  They will continue however to consume our surplus at a price
much lower than our cost of production thus always driving our price
downward.  If these poor people had the money to buy food from US farmers
"at the cost of production plus reasonable profit" I am convinced the US
could feed the entire world!!!"

If you can't afford something, you should not enjoy that luxury even if it was 
given to you.  The American gov't gives alot of food aid around the world to 
needy countries as good will while buying the same food at US market prices to 
support farmers.  If the American Gov't didn't give out these excess food.  
They would have had to destroy the excess to maintain the price for farmers and 
then the farmers would be told not to produce that much because there is no 
demand for it anyway.  If not for this system of supporting farmers and 
supporting "friends" there would be still too many farmers producing too much 
for too few Americans.  I said Americans because in this case the food would be 
too expensive for anyone else to buy.

   "You might say - well then,  why don't the farmers and ranchers get
together and produce less, create a shortage, and raise their prices to a
profitable level.  Besides the fact that this could never be done given the
dynamics of agriculture in the US and the moral issues it would raise in the
US and the world, our government would never allow this to happen because of
the cheap food policy I explained earlier.  This would be a monopoly in its
simplest form dealing with a basic necessity for life-food.   The government
simply couldn't and wouldn't allow this to happen.  Consequently we as
farmers and ranchers are left to seek help from the government so that we
can stay in business to produce the food necessary to feed the US and

Re: [biofuel] More reason for Unrest?

[Greg and April]

It was intended to go after aircraft, not other missiles.  Few weapons that
I know of are capable of hitting a missle, let alone one that has such a
short flight time.  You might be able to do it with a Air to Air missle, if
the launching aircraft was within a few miles ( around 20- 25 miles ) of the
launch point, and can catch it when it is slow, and under stress of the
launch.

Greg H.

- Original Message -
From: "Crabb, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 17:22
Subject: RE: [biofuel] More reason for Unrest?


> The patriot missle system was not intended to hit the target.
> While it would be extra nice if it did, there wasn't time givent the
> technology to do so.
>


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] Huge Fee Increases Proposed for Solar Energy in Cal ifornia

[James Slayden]

Um, what could be the rational for this??  Control and greed!  =)  Those
two things usually amount to most difficulties in the world.

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Crabb, David wrote:

> What could be the possible rationale for this?
> 
> I find that most of the bad gov't plans are made by what appear to be
> well
> meaning
> but short sighted people.
> 
> Surely, installing solar cells would lower the peak energy usage and the
> costly
> powerplants needed to provide this power.  What is the logic for taxing
> the
> sun here?
> 
> I certainly hope it isn't the old "we tax energy usage to pay for the
> extra
> power plants.. these people
> aren't paying their share of the tax, since they arent using as much grid
> electricity" 
> 
> The only one that I would think of that even makes some remote sense
> would
> be the extra costs
> that could be incurred safeguarding lineworkers when the power is off due
> to
> malfunction.  They would want to make
> sure that companies aren't dumping power back into the grid while people
> are
> working on the lines.
> 
> This shouldn't carry much weight, though, as that protection should be at
> the box where the company hooks up to the grid.  The company should have
> already had to pay for a box that will not dump electricity into the grid
> when the power is down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >From: "Len Walde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> >What follows below is an important  "Wake-up Call for all renewable
> energy
> >developers. If it gets a foothold in solar it will set a very bad
> precedence
> >for All renewable energy. Please think about it and act now. The
> proposed
> >letter is a good one  but draft your own -- use it as a model so each
> letter
> >reflects your thinking and perspective -- recipients have to realize you
> are
> >really concerned about the ramifications of the imposition of "exit
> fees".
> >"Exit fees" are , after all just "disincentive fees" -- coercive,
> >intimidating , anti-renewable, "taxation without representation", 
> attempts
> >by Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern  California Edison and San Diego Gas
> &
> >Electric, to stifle the growth of renewable energy in All of its forms.
> 
> snip
> 
> >- Original Message -
> >From: ""List owner for solareclips"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Action Alert: Huge Fee Increases Proposed for Solar Energy
> > > Customers in California
> > > January 28, 2003
> > >
> > > What's at Stake:
> > > In the next 30 days, the California Public Utilities
> > > Commission will rule on a proposal that would severely
> > > undermine the growth of solar energy in California.
> > > California's utilities - Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern
> > > California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric - actively
> > > support the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
> > > to approve a new solar tax equivalent, known as "exit
> > > fees".
> > >
> > > These proposed fees would dramatically increase the costs
> > > of using solar energy for utility customers. The proposal
> > > would give utilities the right to install meters that
> > > measure solar production on privately owned solar energy
> > > systems and increase the cost of this solar energy for
> > > customers by up to 40 percent. Help stop this bad idea
> > > from becoming public policy before it's too late.
> 
> 
> 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/ 

RE: [biofuel] doing with the wastes

[James Slayden]

Any infomation out there on the use of coolant for Eth making?

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Crabb, David wrote:

> This is somewhat correct.
> 
> Your example of coolant is exactly right.  Not that many people flush
> their
> own coolant or even do it as often as they are supposed to do so.   Take
> these same rocket scientists, who don't know what they are doing.. or
> just
> dont care
> once its dumped down the gutter.. and it 'could' be messy.
> 
> I am all for renewables.. Its just that in this case.. I would rather
> have
> people go to 'jiffy lube', where it can be monitored.
> 
> I would like the same for biodiesel production, lots of independent shops
> in
> town where I can get my biodiesel.
> With proven franchise practices in place.
> 
> Now.. where can i get one  :)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Message: 10
>Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 11:06:58 -0600
>From: "csakima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: People   Was: doing with the wastes
> 
> It's funny how  just because it's common place ... it's ... ahem ...
> "safe" in our minds.   Yet anything unknown ... the "dangerous" red flag
> goes up.
> 
> We fill gasoline ... awe shoots ... some spills.   Oh well ... we drive
> off.
> Change radiator coolant ... river running down the street.   Spill oil
> changing it ... shovel some dirt over.   But making ethanol and Biodiesel
>  that generates major protest.
> 
> Curtis
> 
> 
> 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/ 

RE: [biofuel] Re: banning the oil field & illiteracy

[Gordon Dempsey]

This is not horn blowing, just a surprised reaction. Comments at the end.

I do know Halliburton and Schlumberger, very well.  And BJ Services.
They are the big 3 in oil field service and have many employees with
less than grade 8.  I have met complete illiterates that work for these
companies, not just functionally illiterate.  Jobs where you pound iron
are getting fewer and fewer, and the financial support of foundations
like Literacy Volunteers of America is getting smaller and smaller.

I know for a fact, that the rural areas of the southern states did not
educate blacks, hispanics and poor whites much before the 1960's.
Literacy rates in these areas is still in the 30% range.  [if you want
the references, I will dig them out, they are in books, not on the web.]

I seriously wonder what kind of jobs the new, sustainable fuels can
provide that these people can do?

I am very happy to see new jobs created that require an education, I
believe this is good for our culture.  I am aware that we have some
dislocation coming, I am just trying to figure out, how bad it will be.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

[Gordon Dempsey]

Kim,
I don't know very many people in the oil industry, but functional,
and total illiterates are a fact of life in society.
I went to Oklahoma for an agriculture related school. There were many young
people who could not read the simple text book. When the school had a
competition, I stayed in one of the class rooms and read the entire (small)
text book onto cassette tapes to be duplicated for students who could not
read. From describing the cover, every sentence, describing each picture or
photo, to the back cover.
   I felt that this was important to help others help themselves.  As
industry changes, I hope that there will be a sense of responsibility in the
industry to educate in some manner, the hard working laborers who are just
as important in getting the job done as the engineers.

Observing first hand,

Gordon






[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] banning the oil field

[James Slayden]

One should look at the new issue of Satya for an eye-opening view of
modern slavery.  It is very enlightening!!  All of us in 1st world nations
should be extreemely grateful to be where we are.  =)

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Keith Addison wrote:

> Hi MM and all
> 
> >On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:01:35 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >murdoch wrote:
> > >
> > >  They seem to want energy independence for the U.S., but
> > >> only if it doesn't hurt their cronies.  They have the priority
> >of better energy
> > >> policy, but it is subverted to at least one higher priority, aka
> >Exxon-Mobil et.
> > >> al. (under guise of giving due consideration to the rationale
> >for staying with
> > >> much of the fossil fuel paradigm).
> > >>
> > >
> > >I wonder, how much of the concern for big oil is actually concern for
> > >all the people who work in oil related jobs?  I am working for a
> > >sustainable world, so don't get me wrong, but what do we do with the
> > >people that are employed in the un-sustainable one?  I am not speaking
> > >of the educated engineers or management, but the guys out in the
> field,
> > >who number in the thousands, quite probably hundreds of thousands. 
> The
> > >people who have no education, but have families to support.  Also, the
> > >clerks, dispatchers, and basic mechanics, that will need to be
> retrained.
> >
> >I think these are good questions, no, *great* questions, to which I
> don't have
> >all the answers lined up, although I do have some of my own
> >opinions.  You don't
> >have to couch this sort of question in apologetic terms with me.  It's
> central
> >and important.
> >
> >I think it's larger than the oil industry, per se.  To me the
> >question is: when
> >there is a push for a change in a major world industry, what can be
> reasonably
> >expected in terms of job loss and gain?  What does history teach us, if
> >anything, that could be useful in such a case?  Can the job loss be
> avoided in
> >any case, if the older industry is suffering?  Can the new jobs be
> identified
> >and discussed, so that they are a real prospect that can be brought into
> the
> >discussion and not some phantom?  Can the cost of retraining be
> quantified so
> >that it is understood and discussed rationally?
> 
> There are many recent examples to study. It's most interesting what
> happened to the print industry with the end of the "hot-metal" era at
> the inception of desktop publishing (and also slightly earlier with
> the rise of the quick-print shops based on photocopiers). Maybe not
> too many people realize that when they type something on their
> computers they're essentially doing a typesetting job, what
> highly-trained printers used to do. Linotype setters, compositors,
> all gone, just like that - what happened to them, where did those
> jobs go to? The printing industry survived, but it's an interesting
> story, relevant and recent enough to be immediately applicable in
> many ways. Added depth comes from the fact that it had happened in
> printing before, 80 years earlier, with the arrival of the Linotype
> machine, which sets whole lines of text, replacing a whole set of
> skills devoted to setting one letter at a time, the text then made up
> by hand. (Chinese text was still being set this way until very
> recently.)
> 
> Further examples, a whole host of them, come in the 1960s and a bit
> later after so many industries were transferred to newly independent
> nations at the end of the colonial era, in terms of the Bandung
> agreements. Perhaps foremost among these was textiles: the
> industrialized nations didn't seem to realize that there was somewhat
> more to it than just a great opportunity to sell textiles
> manufacturing equipment like hot cakes all over the world, often
> subsidized. What it meant was that their domestic textiles industries
> soon became obsolete, unable to compete - especially since many of
> them hadn't been modernized, unlike the new foreign factories. Whole
> regions in Britain and Europe were devastated economically.
> 
> This came with the flood of exports from the new textiles producers,
> which was the intention - that instead of the colonial nations simply
> extracting raw materials in the colonized countries, adding value in
> the "home" countries and selling the value-added products (in part)
> back to consumers in the countries the raw materials had been
> extracted from, the value should be added by the "3rd World"
> countries themselves to their own raw materials, for export to the
> industrialized-nation markets (while the industrialized nations
> themselves moved "up" a step into high-tech and service industries
> etc). But the industrialized countries don't seem to have figured
> this out very well either, and the new goods met protectionist
> barriers - the Multi-Fibre Arrangement with its quota system and the
> Uruguay rounds of trade negotiations (now become the unmitigated
> disaster of the WTO etc).
> 
> So this isn't exactly an unt

RE: [biofuel] neophyte with questions

[Gordon Dempsey]

  Hi Keith,
   Thank you for adding that link. Even with books and video tapes,
there is always just a little different way someone else does things.  I
enjoy the help I get here.  Thank you.

  Gordon


   Hello Kevin

  I'm surprised you got frightened off by what you found at Journey to
  Forever, most people get encouraged, or so a great deal of feedback
  tells us. It's easy! - start here:

  Where do I start?
  http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html#start

  ... and then just keep going. Thousands upon thousands of people are
  doing it without any problems, and if they do have problems they come
  here, and are invariably helped to solve them. The safety warning are
  of course to be taken seriously, but I'll bet you do much more
  dangerous things all the time and think nothing of it, just because
  you're used to it. Drive a car, cross a street... So get used to it,
  take one step at a time. Great if you can find a local group to help
  you, but there's no real need for it, you'll be fine on your own.
  There's great information available now and good support from groups
  like this one. Those of us here (quite a few) who made a start a few
  years ago had nothing like this to help us, but we managed anyway,
  without killing ourselves or anyone else.

  Just do it! You won't regret it.

  Best wishes

  Keith Addison
  Journey to Forever





[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/ 

[biofuel] The oil in Iraq

[Hakan Falk]

I looked at CNN's Q&A and it is amazing which people they muster to engage 
on the issue of the Iraq oil and US interest in it. I sent the following 
email to them,

"If US must rely on their known oil reserves it would be finished in around 
10 years. To say that US is not acting out of oil supply interest is 
ludicrous. Iraq have maybe the largest oil reserves in the world along side 
with the Saudis more than half the oil in the world. With troops in Iraq 
they will control it.

Hakan Falk "


I do not expect that they will quote it.

Hakan



**
If you want to take a look on a project
that is very close to my heart, go to:
http://energysavingnow.com/
http://hakan.vitools.net/ My .Net Card
http://hakan.vitools.org/ About me
http://vitools.com/ My webmaster site
**
"A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to
how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn't the world
being round that agitated people, but that the world
wasn't flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has
been sold to the masses over generations, the truth
will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving
lunatic."  -- Dresden James

"No flag is large enough to cover the shame of
killing innocent people" -- Howard Zinn

"Nobody grows old merely by living a number of years.
We grow old by deserting our ideals. Years may
wrinkle the skin, but to give up enthusiasm
wrinkles the soul." - Unknown





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] Hide the peanut.

[Keith Addison]

> I retired after 20+ years of military service. (1985)  Do I believe
>that Sadam's weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed? In a word, NO!
> There are a whole lot of subterranean bunkers that are covered with
>sand at this moment. The only people that know the coordinates of those
>bunkers are Sadam and his elite Officer Corps.
>  When you were a child, did you ever play the shell game, hide the
>peanut. Sadam learned that well. I think if we don't find the weapons before
>a war occurs, the weapons will emerge and be used on UN troops as well as
>his own people again.
>   To tie this into oil. His people remain in poverty while he builds
>palaces instead of universities, instead of upgrading public utilities,
>instead of irrigation and agriculture.  To him as the all powerful dictator,
>the oil money is his and he builds armies and tanks instead of tractors,
>plows, road building equipment. He kills his own people if they disagree.
>I would like to live in a perfect world, but I'm sorry to have to
>tell you, I don't think I can make a perfect decision for even my family,
>let alone the world.
>I try to make things better, so let it begin with what I can
>contribute.  To you the scholars and educators, do things to improve what we
>have to work with. Even small steps forward are better than dragging someone
>else backwards.
>
>Sincerely,
>Gordon Dempsey
>
>Bio diesel, one batch at a time

How does trying to make things better square with starting a 
tinderbox war that will kill innocents by the thousands, wreak little 
but destruction, that could set off a spreading conflagration that 
will backfire on your country, perhaps on you, and probably on 
everyone else too, with a rationale that most of the world questions 
or rejects, on the basis of "evidence" that is either far too flimsy 
or rigged or both?

"I think"... "I believe"... That's all we ever hear from the pro-war 
faction, from the very top down. Don't you think or believe it needs 
a little more than opinions and blind faith? You're talking of 
ravishing a whole country and its people, and perhaps a whole region. 
How does that squarte with this:

>Even small steps forward are better than dragging someone
>else backwards.

???

What is the relevance of this?

> I retired after 20+ years of military service. (1985)  Do I believe

Is it that therefore you know what you're talking about? Your 
erstwhile C-in-C certainly didn't, he's the laughing stock of the 
world right now - for those who aren't just too appalled to laugh.

Here's another ex-US soldier who thinks he knows better, and he's at 
least got some credibility:

> Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine and senior weapons inspector in 
>Iraq who has become a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy, said a 
>speech by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations this 
>week lacked any real evidence. "It is smoke and mirrors. It has 
>nothing to do with reality. It was plain wrong," Ritter said in a 
>speech to ministers, diplomats and journalists in the United Arab 
>Emirates. Evidence presented by the United States to show Iraq is 
>concealing banned weapons is flawed and proves nothing...
 From "Former UN inspector attacks Iraq arms evidence" UAE: February 11, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19780/story.htm

You say:

>To him as the all powerful dictator,
>the oil money is his and he builds armies and tanks instead of tractors,
>plows, road building equipment. He kills his own people if they disagree.

"He" (it's a whole country and its people, NOT just one guy!!!) has 
the weakest armed forces in the region.

On what do you base your claim that "He kills his own people if they 
disagree"? (As if that's a major reason for bombing the whole country 
into a arking lot!) On the claim that he gassed the Kurds in 1988? 
For one thing, he was a US ally when he did that, if he did it, and 
the US didn't mind much then, but now Bush uses it as an excuse for 
war.

The US intelligence services haven't exactly covered themselves in 
glory with the Iraq issue recently - eg, this:

>* Following a CIA warning in October that commercial satellite photos
>showed Iraq was "reconstituting" its clandestine nuclear weapons program
>at Al Tuwaitha, a former nuclear weapons complex, George W. Bush told a
>Cincinnati audience on October 7 (New York Times, 10/8/02): "Satellite
>photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have
>been part of his nuclear program in the past."
>
>When inspectors returned to Iraq, however, they visited the Al Tuwaitha
>site and found no evidence to support Bush's claim.  "Since December 4
>inspectors from [Mohamed] ElBaradei's International Atomic Energy Agency
>(IAEA) have scrutinized that vast complex almost a dozen times, and
>reported no violations," according to an Associated Press report
>(1/18/03).
>
>* In September and October U.S. officials charged that conclusive evidence
>existe

[biofuel] Mixing Oil And Water

[Keith Addison]

http://www.progress.org/2003/iraq12.htm

War for Natural Resources

Mixing Oil And Water

Here is an important examination of one of the false claims being 
made by the Bush administration in favor of killing. Our thanks to 
the Agribusiness Examiner for distributing the remarks, which 
originally appeared in the New York Times.

by Stephen C. Pelletiere

It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence 
of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to 
re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is 
assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them 
on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind 
or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its 
citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence 
most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the 
town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year 
Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its 
own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam 
Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were 
bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any 
certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not 
the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence 
Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, 
and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was 
privy to much of the classified material that flowed through 
Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed 
a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war 
against the United States; the classified version of the report went 
into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came 
about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq 
used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the 
town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The 
Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that 
exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United 
States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a 
classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence 
community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was 
Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the 
battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, 
however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent --- that 
is, a cyanide-based gas --- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, 
who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known 
to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, 
as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A 
much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make 
reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that 
Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the 
report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, 
that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq 
in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He 
has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But 
accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of 
genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have 
goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These 
were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, 
but Halabja is not one of them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has 
bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was 
Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on 
America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest 
reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical 
sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive 
river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and 
Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the 
north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the 
sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of 
dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan 
dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming 
to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was 
much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline 
that would bring the 

RE: [biofuel] Re: banning the oil field & illiteracy

[James Slayden]

Kim,

one only needs a high school education to produce biodiesel, if even that!
Driving a truck to get oil and deliver BD also is fairly low level on the
education scale.

I'm sure that a small/mid level producer could employ 3-5 people per site.

There really isn't any barriers to entry to mid level work with biofuels.
The only issue is it economically feasable for the area which it is being
produced. To this end some areas will be more attractive than others as it
will support a local economy better.  


James Slayden

 On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Gordon Dempsey wrote:

> This is not horn blowing, just a surprised reaction. Comments at the end.
> 
> I do know Halliburton and Schlumberger, very well.  And BJ Services.
> They are the big 3 in oil field service and have many employees with
> less than grade 8.  I have met complete illiterates that work for these
> companies, not just functionally illiterate.  Jobs where you pound iron
> are getting fewer and fewer, and the financial support of foundations
> like Literacy Volunteers of America is getting smaller and smaller.
> 
> I know for a fact, that the rural areas of the southern states did not
> educate blacks, hispanics and poor whites much before the 1960's.
> Literacy rates in these areas is still in the 30% range.  [if you want
> the references, I will dig them out, they are in books, not on the web.]
> 
> I seriously wonder what kind of jobs the new, sustainable fuels can
> provide that these people can do?
> 
> I am very happy to see new jobs created that require an education, I
> believe this is good for our culture.  I am aware that we have some
> dislocation coming, I am just trying to figure out, how bad it will be.
> 
> Bright Blessings,
> Kim
> 
> [Gordon Dempsey]
> 
> Kim,
> I don't know very many people in the oil industry, but
> functional,
> and total illiterates are a fact of life in society.
> I went to Oklahoma for an agriculture related school. There were many
> young
> people who could not read the simple text book. When the school had a
> competition, I stayed in one of the class rooms and read the entire
> (small)
> text book onto cassette tapes to be duplicated for students who could not
> read. From describing the cover, every sentence, describing each picture
> or
> photo, to the back cover.
>I felt that this was important to help others help themselves.  As
> industry changes, I hope that there will be a sense of responsibility in
> the
> industry to educate in some manner, the hard working laborers who are
> just
> as important in getting the job done as the engineers.
> 
> Observing first hand,
> 
> Gordon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [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.
> 


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

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

Re: [biofuel] The oil in Iraq

[Ernie Wedgewood]

If the US plans are to take over the oil in Iraq why didn't they
keep it the last time. They all ready had control of the oil
fields when they extinguished the fires in the last attack.

I am not sure that this is just about oil. But I must admit that
the oil fields of Iraq would be a great prise for any King.

Ernie Wedgewood

=
Ernie Wedgewood,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

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

Re: [biofuel] banning the oil field

[Keith Addison]

James Slayden wrote:

>One should look at the new issue of Satya for an eye-opening view of
>modern slavery.  It is very enlightening!!  All of us in 1st world nations
>should be extreemely grateful to be where we are.  =)

Ah, James, I can hardly wait to get back to the South (the 3rd 
World), and AWAY from the industrialized countries. Not that I don't 
like Japan, I do, I like it a lot, more than anywhere else I've been 
in the North. But it's been too long away - I know there are a whole 
lot of muscles and nerves I'm not even aware of that will unclench in 
relief and a sense of homecoming when I set foot in the South again. 
And especially when I get back to Africa. And I think I should say 
that there's more than one kind of slavery - not to belittle the 
plain vanilla variety, which still does indeed exist in its pure 
form, and could hardly be more dreadful. But there are other 
varieties. Especially for women. And for children too. And certainly 
very much present in the 1st World countries as well.

The Satya slavery coverage is here, by the way:
http://www.satyamag.com/

How about this?

http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/bcr3/bcr3_200301_ir_eng_add.txt
Freedom at Midnight: Human Trafficking in Romania

regards

Keith


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

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

RE: [biofuel] banning the oil field

[kirk]

http://www.satyamag.com/

Kirk

-Original Message-
From: James Slayden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:38 AM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] banning the oil field


One should look at the new issue of Satya for an eye-opening view of
modern slavery.  It is very enlightening!!  All of us in 1st world nations
should be extreemely grateful to be where we are.  =)

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Keith Addison wrote:

> Hi MM and all
> 
> >On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:01:35 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >murdoch wrote:
> > >
> > >  They seem to want energy independence for the U.S., but
> > >> only if it doesn't hurt their cronies.  They have the priority
> >of better energy
> > >> policy, but it is subverted to at least one higher priority, aka
> >Exxon-Mobil et.
> > >> al. (under guise of giving due consideration to the rationale
> >for staying with
> > >> much of the fossil fuel paradigm).
> > >>
> > >
> > >I wonder, how much of the concern for big oil is actually concern for
> > >all the people who work in oil related jobs?  I am working for a
> > >sustainable world, so don't get me wrong, but what do we do with the
> > >people that are employed in the un-sustainable one?  I am not speaking
> > >of the educated engineers or management, but the guys out in the
> field,
> > >who number in the thousands, quite probably hundreds of thousands. 
> The
> > >people who have no education, but have families to support.  Also, the
> > >clerks, dispatchers, and basic mechanics, that will need to be
> retrained.


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] banning the oil field

[James Slayden]

I'll have to take a look at that Romanian article.  Thanks for putting
that Satya link in there.  Yes, there is quite a lot of various types of
slavery going on in all the nations across the globe.  I didn't mean to
leave out the 1st world nations, just that it is more underground here
then other places, but yes it still exists.

James Slayden

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Keith Addison wrote:

> James Slayden wrote:
> 
> >One should look at the new issue of Satya for an eye-opening view of
> >modern slavery.  It is very enlightening!!  All of us in 1st world
> nations
> >should be extreemely grateful to be where we are.  =)
> 
> Ah, James, I can hardly wait to get back to the South (the 3rd
> World), and AWAY from the industrialized countries. Not that I don't
> like Japan, I do, I like it a lot, more than anywhere else I've been
> in the North. But it's been too long away - I know there are a whole
> lot of muscles and nerves I'm not even aware of that will unclench in
> relief and a sense of homecoming when I set foot in the South again.
> And especially when I get back to Africa. And I think I should say
> that there's more than one kind of slavery - not to belittle the
> plain vanilla variety, which still does indeed exist in its pure
> form, and could hardly be more dreadful. But there are other
> varieties. Especially for women. And for children too. And certainly
> very much present in the 1st World countries as well.
> 
> The Satya slavery coverage is here, by the way:
> http://www.satyamag.com/
> 
> How about this?
> 
> http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/bcr3/bcr3_200301_ir_eng_add.txt
> Freedom at Midnight: Human Trafficking in Romania
> 
> regards
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
> 
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 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/ 

Re: [biofuel] More reason for Unrest?

[MH]

 I wonder if the Iraqi people, who maybe the
 worlds second richest nation with oil, would welcome
 a US blitzkrieg called "Shock & Awe" rather
 then a slow suffering demise from a brutal
 dictator.  Some veterans and world leaders
 feel differently which will be addressed
 following this news report -- 

 January 27-February 2 
 *"Shock and Awe":  The plan on the Bush administration's table for opening the 
war on Iraq is called
 "Shock and Awe".  U.S. military strategists have announced a plan to pummel 
Iraq with as many as 800
 cruise missiles in the space of two days. Many of these missiles would rain 
down on Baghdad, a city of
 five million people.  The Pentagon now predicts that the Iraq blitzkrieg could 
approximate the devastation
 of a nuclear explosion. "The sheer size of this has never been ... 
contemplated before," one Pentagon
 strategist boasted to CBS News. "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad."   
This massive destruction is
 deemed necessary even though the Pentagon claims that The Iraqi military is a 
shadow of what it was
 before the Gulf War".  Astonishingly the administration somehow thinks that 
even though at least  3000
 bombs will hit the city in 48 hours, civilian casualties will be minimal due 
to the use of high tech precision
 bombs.  In Afghanistan, where the targets were in remote rural areas, by 
February 2002 the US had
 dropped 18,000 bombs, missiles and other ordnance, over half of which were 
precision-guided munitions.
 Approximately 5000 civilians were killed in Afghanistan, representing a much 
higher rate than during the
 Kosovo bombings of 1999, due to "bombing mishaps" and accidents.  This despite 
the much greater use of
 "precision" bombs in Afghanistan.  The potential loss of innocent human life 
in the urban center of
 Baghdad is staggering.  How many innocents must we annihilate before our 
nation's thirst for vengeance is
 sated?   http://www.literalpolitics.com/bushweek.htm 

 === 

 Another plan for avoiding a  War for Oil, 
 Weapons of Mass Destruction and human rights abuses -- 


 Franco-German Plan Floated to Avert Iraq War
 Emma Thomasson
 Reuters 
   abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030208_166.html
 February 8, 2003 

 ... Breaking news: France and Germany, with the support of the Vatican, may
 introduce a plan to triple the number of United Nations inspectors in Iraq, 
and have
 those inspectors supported by UN troops inside Iraq. This plan, developed 
without
 consulting the U.S. government, appears intended to avert an offensive attack 
by the
 United States and United Kingdom against Iraq ... 

 For more details about the U.N. PROTECTORATE proposals
 and to read what the troops from *Veterans for Common Sense*
 have to say.  There is a PHENOMENAL response. 
 http://veteransforcommonsense.org/article.asp?id=373

 ===

 The following news report addresses the
 thoughts from a USA representative upon a
 "Just War" presented to Pope John Paul
 and the Vatican's response. 
 

 World News
 February 10, 2003 

 Papal power: the Pope addresses pilgrims and tourists
 in St Peter's Square in Rome yesterday. He prayed
 for "an act from on high" to prevent a war against
 Iraq

 Vatican diplomacy

 Pope takes issue with America's 'just war'
 From Richard Owen in Rome
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-572322,00.html

 THE POPE launched an eleventh-hour crusade
 yesterday to avert a war against Iraq, for which he
 believes there is no justification. 

 The ageing pontiff rebuffed attempts by the Bush
 Administration to persuade him that impending
 military action against Baghdad amounted to a
 Christian ãjust warä. 

 Today he will dispatch a personal peace envoy to
 Baghdad to urge President Saddam Hussein to
 co-operate fully with United Nations weapons
 inspectors. 

 At the end of the week he will meet Tariq Aziz, Iraqâs
 Deputy Prime Minister and an Arab Christian, in
 Rome, and will also meet Kofi Annan, the UN
 Secretary-General. Diplomats said that Mr Aziz might
 remain in Rome to meet Mr Annan under the auspices
 of the Vatican. 

 Looking and sounding like a man rejuvenated by the
 urgent need to avert the imminent conflict, the Pope,
 82, also gave his backing to the new Franco-German
 plan to resolve the Iraq crisis through beefed-up
 weapons inspections and the deployment of UN
 troops. The plan was disclosed to the Pope on Friday
 by Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister.
 Diplomats said that the Pope had been ãthe first
 world figure to be told of the planä. 

 Yesterday the Pope made a dramatic and impassioned
 appeal for world prayers, declaring that only God
 could stop the conflict now. ãAt this hour of
 international worry we all feel the need to look to God
 and beg him to grant us the great gift of peace,ä he
 told pilgrims and visitors in St Peterâs Square. Only
 ãan act from on highä could offer hope of altering
 what appeared to be a bleak future. 

 The Pope is sending Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, his
 dip

Re: [biofuel] Mixing Oil And Water

[murdoch]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 03:48:58 +0900, you wrote:

>http://www.progress.org/2003/iraq12.htm

Great article.  I love getting the straight poop from a spook.

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] cost of gasoline, ethanol mixture @ 76 stations

[murdoch]

1.  The cost of gasoline at some local stations in San Diego seems to be pushing
upward steadily.  I'd say in the low $1.80s per gallon around where I live for
87 octane, and it can get over $2.00 per gallon for 91 octane.

2.  I've been making a point of buying down the street at the local 76 station.
I believe now that 76 is part of "Conoco-Phillips" or some such.  They have been
very clear in their "NO MTBE" signs around here for what seems like about a
year.  Their signs on their pumps used a wording that said the gasoline *might*
contain ethanol, but it was never entirely clear.  I chose to hope that they
were including ethanol, because I think the other way to get around the
Oxygenate rule (reformulated gas) might not be that common and I don't know if
it's legal.  I have written them to attempt to get a confirmation that they
*are* using a 10% or so (or whatever the standard is, to satisfy the oxygenate
requirements) mixture, but have received no response.  A late-night worker there
did respond with confidence that they were, but I can't take that as the final
answer.

Others may say, "Well, so what, we see ethanol elsewhere all the time."  I think
it's important.  There was a *hellacious* battle to get the oil companies to
switch away from MTBE in California, and to get them to consider using ethanol.
That battle seems to have gone silent for the last year.  Many seem to be still
using MTBE, according to some pumps I've seen.  

If 76 is doing something good (by the standards of ethanol proponents) then we
must give them credit and make it clear that we appreciate the lack of runaround
on the issue.  Too often we wait for bad news or resistance to bring attention
to a business.

The station I go to charges always within a penny or two of the Shell Station
nearby.  So, if 76 is using ethanol and incurring the doomsday extra costs that
the Refiners claimed would be incurred if they were forced to use ethanol, then
it's not showing at the pump, one bit.  I haven't heard a peep of complaint from
76 about this, and have seen the very large NO MTBE signs at many (all?) of
their stations.  Prior to being able to buy this gasoline down the street, which
I am assuming has ethanol in it, I had *never* been able to find a single pump
in my area that had any ethanol mixed in.  So, while others may take such
availability for-granted, I think this 76 program is awesome, pending
verification that in fact they're using ethanol.  I'm still wary on that point.

If and when further political decisions and events come to a head, I expect the
Oil companies to drag out further anti-ethanol arguments, and it would be nice,
at that time, to be able to report that at least one of them has not only been
implementing a 10% or so mixture of ethanol in some areas, but is doing so with
no customer dissatisfaction as to quality or price, and is still able to do
excellent profitable gasoline-selling business, so that many of the arguments
are just nonsense.  If 76 is really doing this, then I salute them.

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] tax credits for biodiesel-capable cars as alternative fuel vehicles

[Thor Skov]

hi all,

I was looking at the AFDC website
http://www.afdc.doe.gov/advanced_cgi.shtml
and was surprised to see ethanol-capable vehicles
listed.  More precisely, I am wondering why
biodiesel-capable vehicles are NOT listed.

I always thought that it was because their attribute
as alternative fuel vehicles resided in the fuel, and
not in anything about the engine.  But the ethanol
capable vehicles can also burn straight gasoline, so
that doesnt' seem quite fair.  Biodiesel is, after
all, listed on the site as an alternative fuel.  But
no tax credits are available to those who run diesels
on biodiesel.

Does anyone have any ideas how we can address this
issue of diesel engines as alternative fuel vehicles? 
I was thinking of some sort of proof of purchase
system that would grant a diesel vehicle owner the
appropriate tax credit if s/he could show proof of
purchase of a quantity of biodiesel roughly
commensurate with the miles driven in a particular
year.

Does this sound outrageously complicated?  Feasible? 
Any other suggestions?

thor skov

=
Grants Manager
Stillaguamish Tribe Of Indians
3439 Stoluckquamish Lane
P.O. Box 277
Arlington, WA 98223-0277
(360) 652-7362  Ext 284

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

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

[biofuel] GM public relations campaign

[murdoch]

Keith:

Thought you and others might find this interesting.  It is from Doug Korthof.
He posted this opinion in the RAV4 EV group.  I think he has a background in PR
and marketing.  He is the one who is protesting Toyota's decision to stop the
RAV4_EV by marching in front of their North American Headquarters every day,
which is briefly covered here:

http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/Rav4_protest_korthof.html


Doug's post:
-

You are seeing the efficacy of the GM PR campaign, that
is directed to what counts: the mass mainstream.

It is well said that it's not possible today to monopolize
information.

But there is a monopoly on the means of distribution of
information: i.e., NY and LA Times, TV News, whisper
campaigns, talk shows, and so on.

There is a reason why they pay big bucks for advertising,
and what PR firms do.

While the real, true information is "out there" on the
internet, or in books, the popular culture never gets
to see it.  The powers-that-be can tolerate a few knowing
the truth, so long as they are not permitted to infect
the popular myth so carefully built up contrary to plain facts.

When Milosovic fell in Yugoslavia, most serbs thought they
were the victims.  With Nazi Germany, it took a couple months
for the people to throw off Ribbentrop's illusions. 

In the old days, the counter-culture types used to say that
the truth was only to be found in the Wall Street Journal
and the Christian Science Monitor.

Today, here's a gloss on "fuel cells" by Investors
Business Daily (although they got a lot of the details
wrong, they got the main points right: fuel cells are fool sells!):

"Will Clean Hydrogen Power End U.S. Dependence on Oil"
"By Sean Higgins"
"...[H2] promises a clean, renewable energy source that would end the
 need for foreign oil.  But...it has never proved itself efficient
 or practical...the cost remains huge...
"Absent a major breakthrough or government mandate, Americans will
 not be driving them for a long time.
"'The problem with [H2] is there are no hydrogen wells...we can dig
 up petroleum, but [H2] has to be created from...a lot of energy.'"
"...Using the cheapest process, it costs $3,000 to make enough
 hydrogen to generate one kilowatt.  That's four times what it costs
 a gas-powered generator to make the same amount of power".

(note, they make the sophomore's error of confusing KW, a measure
 of power, with KWH, a measure of work.  But they get the point).

"...'I can only say the expense is enormous,' Shinichi Yamaguchi,
 a Toyota scientist, told the National Journal about his company's
 hydrogen powered vehicles.
"Balunias [a scientist with H-S Center for Astrophysics) is skeptical
 hydrogen can ever be made practical in a market-based economy.
"'It takes energy, and you lose energy in the process, so it is never
 going to be worthwhile', she said.  'That is just the laws of physics.'
"Others are more optomistic, but no one expects hydrogen cars for at
 least another decade or two.
"A related problem is the logistics of hydrogen fuel cells.
"There's no efficent way yet to make them widely available.  Exactly
 how it would be done is a mystery even to the experts.
"Oil companies are...looking into refitting their filling stations
 to provide hydrogen, but the infrastructure would have to be completely
 rebuilt...".

(Notice, they confuse the myth of the "fuel cell" with the real
 problem: getting the Hydrogen to power the fuel cell.  It's easy
 to make "fuel cells" widely available, but not so easy to
 envision hydrogen dispensing stations, or where the H2 would come
 from.  Use of H2 would, according to my figures, increase energy
 "tab" by 300%.  That is, it takes 3 to 4 kwh to generate
 enough hydrogen to get 1 kwh out of the fuel cell.  Thus, complete
 conversion to fuel cells would, by that very fact, increase our
 share of world energy consumption from 25% to 50%!
 
 I wonder how the "supergreens" who support "fuel cells" but now
 complain about how we hog disproportionate resources would feel
 about our hogging even more!)

The article continues, but the conclusion IBD draws is that
governments should not subsidize fuel cell use for autos.
Basically, it is throwing money down the toilet.  Yet GM is
supposed to have 300 people working on "fuel cell
development" right now!

"...Most [companies] would love a federal boost.
"There's even a Hydrogen Infrastructure Investment Roundtable.
"'We're interested in supplying energy to consumers...' [said the]
 chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, a
 roundtable participant.
"The greens are also pushing hydrogen.  They'd like to see
 internal combustion engines replaced with pollution-free
 hydrogen vehicles.
"...The European Union...announced a $2 billion fuel cell
 research program..."
"But the rush to develop hydrogen could crowd out other
 research.
"'Everyone will now focus on hydrogen fuel cells because that
 is where the research money is going to go...other techn

[biofuel] cost of gasoline

[murdoch]

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:24:41 -0600, you wrote:

>This morning on some TV show I heard someone from San Francisco say that
>they are paying $2.40 / gal for the premium stuff and about $2.10 for
>regular.
>
>Randy Scott

Good.  Let them think a few moments as to what it takes to get a gallon of
gasoline to their vehicles.  That said, SF is perhaps the highest-priced town
I've ever been in, or one of them, depending on the exact item.  There's a lot
of talk in San Diego about high gas prices, but it doesn't compare to SF, the
few times I've been there.

'Course the few who managed to get EVs there (such as the RAV4 EV drivers or the
Think drivers) basically won't feel the price rise except indirectly (costs born
by their fellow residents or for their other cars).

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] US News and World Report: Cover Story

[Ryan Morgan, Aerials Express]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030217/biztech/17oil.htm

Living Without Oil
As war looms, the search for new energy alternatives is all the more urgent

By Marianne Lavelle
Grant Goodman wanted to do his part to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign
oil. So two years ago, the Phoenix concrete producer began using
biodiesel--made from refined soybean oil--to fuel his fleet of 130
diesel-powered cement mixers and excavators. For his efforts, Goodman in
2001 won a local entrepreneur of the year award and plaudits from the
Environmental Protection Agency. But protecting the Earth was not Goodman's
only concern. "Let's start with national security--the billions and billions
we waste dancing around the issue, protecting those pipelines, invading
Iraq, doing whatever else we're doing in the Middle East. It all gets down
to continuing the flow of oil to this country."


Goodman's stance hasn't been easy. Biodiesel fuel sold for 70 cents per
gallon more than regular diesel fuel, giving competitors of his Rockland
Materials a decided edge. "It cost me a few hundred grand," says Goodman.
Those harsh economics forced him last year to resort to a petroleum mix
including 40 percent or less of biodiesel. But don't count him out. He plans
to build his own soybean oil refinery this year to help him return to 100
percent biodiesel. Goodman has urged other local businesses to make the
switch, but as long as petroleum is cheaper, he says, "I'm this guy
screaming in the wind."

Sure, in theory, everyone agrees the nation should break its 20
million-barrel-a-day oil habit, 58 percent of it imported. Last week,
President Bush noted that "sometimes we import from countries that don't
particularly like us. It jeopardizes our national security." Antiwar
protesters, who argue that Iraq's massive oil reserves have made it a U.S.
target, use sharper rhetoric. "No blood for oil!" they shouted at
demonstrations at gasoline stations around the country last week. At the
other end of the political spectrum, Martin Feldstein, who headed former
President Reagan's panel of economic advisers, has argued that the United
States should set a goal of complete oil independence by the year 2020.
"Otherwise, we will continue to be hostage to the policies of the current
and future rulers of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and their neighbors." And
indeed, the jitters of potential war in the Middle East and political
upheaval in Venezuela, the nation's fourth-largest oil supplier, have pushed
up the price of gasoline for eight consecutive weeks. If global events turn
awry, an oil price shock could, as has happened repeatedly in the past, tip
the struggling economy back into recession.

Within reach. But has anyone found a reasonable alternative to the black
gold that fuels the U.S. economy? Some answers seem tantalizingly close,
especially for transportation, which consumes the vast majority of our oil.
Hundreds of truck fleets and bus systems already run on two diesel-fuel
alternatives, biodiesel and natural gas. Meanwhile, biotechnology has made
it possible to extract fuels from farm products like corn husks, long
discarded as waste. And, of course, there are the many recent advances in
the harnessing of energy from the world's most abundant element,
hydrogen--the science for which Bush pledged $1.2 billion support in his
State of the Union message.

But much more money and an even broader government commitment will be needed
to reverse the current U.S. trajectory toward greater oil addiction. After
all, largely because of the popularity of gas-guzzling sport utility
vehicles, the average fuel economy of the 2003 fleet of cars sank 6 percent
below the peak set 15 years ago. Critics say that until the new technology
is ready to help the nation kick the oil habit, the Bush administration
should focus on breaking the addiction step by step. Fuel-economy
regulations, they argue, could force greater use of the breakthrough hybrid
gas-electric engine and other lesser-known innovations that can squeeze more
miles out of every gallon of gasoline.

Japan's government, for example, vows to put 10 million "ecofriendly" cars
on its roads by 2010, a number it hopes will include not only 50,000
hydrogen fuel cell cars but also natural gas vehicles, electric autos, and
hybrids. Japan's auto industry views that as an attainable goal, given the
tax incentives and subsidies that support it. Stephen Tang, president of
Millennium Cell, an Eatontown, N.J., firm that has developed a hydrogen
fueling system, is hopeful that a similar commitment will catch fire here.
"If we can get the oil man to say the word `hydrogen,' that's significant
progress," says Tang.

In his so-called FreedomFUEL initiative, the president zeroed in on what is
unquestionably the most promising alternative fuel. Hydrogen is everywhere,
and when used to power a special battery called a fuel cell, its only waste
product is water. It's an alluring option, but slippery. Hydrogen is
extremely difficult to ha

Re: [biofuel] US News and World Report: Cover Story

[murdoch]

Great article, thx for sending it along.

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] Thank you for the reply.

[Gordon Dempsey]

Hi Keith,
  Thank you for the reply.  I appreciate your post as well as the
references you posted for me. I'll do a bit of reading from what you sent
me. Thank you.
  I would not want to live in any country but here. At least we can
disagree over political issues and how we think "it" should be done.

Gordon


[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] The oil in Iraq

[Myles Twete]

My understanding is that going for Iraq's Oil is only the small potatos--or
at least the near-term ones.
What Bush/Cheney/Bechtel are really after is Iraq's dams and water damming
potential---which will last long past when the oil dries up
He who controls water, controls more than oil.

-Myles Twete

-Original Message-
From: Ernie Wedgewood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:03 AM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] The oil in Iraq


If the US plans are to take over the oil in Iraq why didn't they
keep it the last time. They all ready had control of the oil
fields when they extinguished the fires in the last attack.

I am not sure that this is just about oil. But I must admit that
the oil fields of Iraq would be a great prise for any King.

Ernie Wedgewood

=
Ernie Wedgewood,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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



Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

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

Re: [biofuel] The oil in Iraq

[studio53]

We are not taking over any oil fields. Ernie is absolutely correct, and as
soon as peace and stability is established in the region, we will be getting
out. If we even tried for a second to exert some sort of US military
installed government in that area, every nation on earth would be screaming
bloody murder.

It's just not going to happen. Know what you can do to help? Get yourself
off any dependence of dino-oil by getting a diesel engine vehicle and
running bio-diesel or SVO in it and convert you home heating system to
something other than dino-oil.

When we do this in mass numbers Big Oil will fall.

---
Jesse Parris  |  studio53  |  53 maitland rd  |  stamford, ct  06906
203.324.4371www.jesseparris.com/
- Original Message -
From: "Ernie Wedgewood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] The oil in Iraq


> If the US plans are to take over the oil in Iraq why didn't they
> keep it the last time. They all ready had control of the oil
> fields when they extinguished the fires in the last attack.
>
> I am not sure that this is just about oil. But I must admit that
> the oil fields of Iraq would be a great prise for any King.
>
> Ernie Wedgewood
>
> =
> Ernie Wedgewood,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

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

Re: [biofuel] The oil in Iraq

[Keith Addison]

Hi Ernie

>If the US plans are to take over the oil in Iraq why didn't they
>keep it the last time. They all ready had control of the oil
>fields when they extinguished the fires in the last attack.

Different goal that time, wasn't it? - it keeps coming up here, 
there's plenty about it in the archives, please have a look, and at 
much else that's there already, no need for all this duplication.

>I am not sure that this is just about oil.

No, not *just* about oil. Please check the archives.

Keith


>But I must admit that
>the oil fields of Iraq would be a great prise for any King.
>
>Ernie Wedgewood
>
>=
>Ernie Wedgewood,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[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] US News and World Report: Cover Story

[Keith Addison]

Thanks Ryan - very good:

  "If George Bush had pointed to the wreck of the World Trade
Center, and said, `We must correct this problem,' and the only way is by
raising the cost of gasoline on a phased-in basis, it would have worked," he
says. "It was the golden opportunity missed."

Yea, verily.

Keith



>http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030217/biztech/17oil.htm
>
>Living Without Oil
>As war looms, the search for new energy alternatives is all the more urgent


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

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

Re: [biofuel] The oil in Iraq

[Keith Addison]

Hi Jesse

>We are not taking over any oil fields. Ernie is absolutely correct, and as
>soon as peace and stability is established in the region, we will be getting
>out.

You really think peace and stability are the goal?

>If we even tried for a second to exert some sort of US military
>installed government in that area, every nation on earth would be screaming
>bloody murder.

They already are, nearly all of them, and it's not deemed very 
important. "If you're not for us you're against us." Sad, coming from 
the US, truly.

>It's just not going to happen. Know what you can do to help? Get yourself
>off any dependence of dino-oil by getting a diesel engine vehicle and
>running bio-diesel or SVO in it and convert you home heating system to
>something other than dino-oil.
>
>When we do this in mass numbers Big Oil will fall.

Well, it'll help.

Best

Keith


>---
>Jesse Parris  |  studio53  |  53 maitland rd  |  stamford, ct  06906
>203.324.4371www.jesseparris.com/
>- Original Message -
>From: "Ernie Wedgewood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:03 PM
>Subject: Re: [biofuel] The oil in Iraq
>
>
> > If the US plans are to take over the oil in Iraq why didn't they
> > keep it the last time. They all ready had control of the oil
> > fields when they extinguished the fires in the last attack.
> >
> > I am not sure that this is just about oil. But I must admit that
> > the oil fields of Iraq would be a great prise for any King.
> >
> > Ernie Wedgewood
> >
> > =
> > Ernie Wedgewood,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [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] The oil in Iraq

[Ken Provost]

Myles writes:

>My understanding is that going for Iraq's Oil is only the
>small potatoes--or at least the near-term ones.
>What Bush/Cheney/Bechtel are really after is Iraq's dams
>and water damming potential---which will last long past
>when the oil dries up
>He who controls water, controls more than oil.

Interesting theory -- I think it's mostly oil, but here's another
idea -- Bush and handlers are perfectly aware of the fact that
invading Iraq is going to bring ALL KINDS of "terrorist" attacks
on our heads as retribution. That's exactly what they WANT, so
they can essentially suspend the Constitution (see Patriot Act II),
and finally get control of the domestic situation before the s***t
really hits the fan in a decade or so -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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] The oil in Iraq

[studio53]

What a minute... wasn't that from Dune; he who control the water controls
the Universe?
---
Jesse Parris  |  studio53  |  53 maitland rd  |  stamford, ct  06906
203.324.4371www.jesseparris.com/
- Original Message -
From: "Myles Twete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:53 PM
Subject: RE: [biofuel] The oil in Iraq


> My understanding is that going for Iraq's Oil is only the small
potatos--or
> at least the near-term ones.
> What Bush/Cheney/Bechtel are really after is Iraq's dams and water damming
> potential---which will last long past when the oil dries up
> He who controls water, controls more than oil.
>
> -Myles Twete
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ernie Wedgewood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:03 AM
> To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [biofuel] The oil in Iraq
>
>
> If the US plans are to take over the oil in Iraq why didn't they
> keep it the last time. They all ready had control of the oil
> fields when they extinguished the fires in the last attack.
>
> I am not sure that this is just about oil. But I must admit that
> the oil fields of Iraq would be a great prise for any King.
>
> Ernie Wedgewood
>
> =
> Ernie Wedgewood,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> 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/ 

RE: [biofuel] The oil in Iraq

[Myles Twete]

yeah, and they won't be pre-emptively throwing suits-and-ties into jail
either---it'll be the weed-growin' greens and tie-dye crowd who get thrown
in the brink first as potential eco-terrorists, followed by the anarchists,
then the libertarian and others who might threaten the republocrat
kleptocracy...or is it a kakistocracy?
-mt

-Original Message-
From: Ken Provost [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 6:18 PM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [biofuel] The oil in Iraq


Myles writes:

>My understanding is that going for Iraq's Oil is only the
>small potatoes--or at least the near-term ones.
>What Bush/Cheney/Bechtel are really after is Iraq's dams
>and water damming potential---which will last long past
>when the oil dries up
>He who controls water, controls more than oil.

Interesting theory -- I think it's mostly oil, but here's another
idea -- Bush and handlers are perfectly aware of the fact that
invading Iraq is going to bring ALL KINDS of "terrorist" attacks
on our heads as retribution. That's exactly what they WANT, so
they can essentially suspend the Constitution (see Patriot Act II),
and finally get control of the domestic situation before the s***t
really hits the fan in a decade or so -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 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/ 

Re: [biofuel] Burning glyc and acrolein - was Re: Introduction and somequestions - Newbie

[Appal Energy]

How hot is hot? Prolly about as hot as a masonry stove would get,
~1,200*F (?). www.tempcast.com or
http://www.vtbrickoven.com/masonry/masonry.html

Not the "hot" of a standard wood burner.

You might could get away with mixing the catalyst/soap/alcohol
("glycerin layer") with WVO, SVO or WMO (waste motor oil,
hydraulic and transmission fluid) in a furnace or boiler
specifically designed for WMO. The combustion in these units is
very efficient due to the hp air input (www.cleanburn.com or
other types).

You could also prolly use the "paste log" mentioned below in a
downdraft wood gasifier
http://www.alternateheatingsystems.com/wg_fs.htm

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:47 AM
Subject: [biofuel] Burning glyc and acrolein - was Re:
Introduction and somequestions - Newbie


> Hi Tony
>
> >There is another option.  Makers of biodiesel invariably need
to
> >find disposal options for their by-product - Glycerol soaps.
> >By mixing this with sawdust to make a dry paste, and filling
used
> >milk cartons with this mixture, the use of timber for fuel can
be
> >significantly reduced. A 1 litre milk carton (~1 quart US) of
this
> >mixture will give off more heat than twice or three times that
> >weight in firewood.
> >I have been collecting milk cartons from work and home (3 per
day *
> >200 work days = 600 litres of convenient solid fuel.
> >The only proviso is that it should be burned in a very hot
fire, to
> >minimise formation of possible pollutants.
>
> Funny... a local carpenter just brought us some bags of
sawdust,
> about half-sawdust half shavings, and we were thinking of doing
just
> that with the shavings (other uses for the sawdust). I like the
milk
> carton angle.
>
> >The only proviso is that it should be burned in a very hot
fire, to
> >minimise formation of possible pollutants.
>
> Yes, the old acrolein story. Can we settle it now please? How
hot is
> "very hot", ie hot enough to avoid acrolein pollution? How
would you
> make sure to get a fire that hot?
>
> Good news if we can pin this down once and for all and find
safe ways
> of burning the stuff as an option.
>
> Regards
>
> Keith
>
>
> >  Message: 5
> >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:01:58 -0600
> >From: Kim & Garth Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >  Subject: Re: Re: Introduction and some questions - Newbie
> >
> >
> >
> >  Robin Parker wrote:
> >
> >  >>
> >  > Who in their right mind is wasting oak on firewood??  That
stuff takes
> >  > forever to grow!
> >  >
> >  >
> >
> >  But oak trees do die.  They make fantastic fire wood and
that is all I
> >  burn.  I would never cut down a live one, no need, there are
plenty of
> >  dead ones to harvest.
> >
> >  Bright Blessings,
> >  Kim
> >
> >
> >
> >[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/
>
>
> 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/ 

RE: [biofuel] The oil in Iraq

[Andrew Lowe]

On 11 Feb 2003 at 17:53, Myles Twete wrote:

> My understanding is that going for Iraq's Oil is only the small
> potatos--or at least the near-term ones. What Bush/Cheney/Bechtel are
> really after is Iraq's dams and water damming potential---which will
> last long past when the oil dries up He who controls water,
> controls more than oil.
> 
> -Myles Twete
> 
[SNIP]

Dunno about this, "controls water, controls". Iraq is at the end of 
the Euphrates and Tigris, the mouth of the river, not the head waters. 
What do they gain/control, ie influence in other countries, by 
damming the rivers? 

I recently saw a very good doco on the trouble that Turkey 
was causing to Syria and Iraq by damming the Euphrates just short 
of their, Turkeys, border. This was causing great trouble in terms of 
wells/springs drying up, reduced river flows for the downstream 
countries to use for irrigation etc etc.

I would say that if you want to talk conspiracy theories 
regarding water, Turkey, not Iraq, where both the Ephrates and 
Tigris rise would be the logical start point

Regards,
Andrew Lowe


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

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

RE: [biofuel] The oil in Iraq

[Keith Addison]

>On 11 Feb 2003 at 17:53, Myles Twete wrote:
>
> > My understanding is that going for Iraq's Oil is only the small
> > potatos--or at least the near-term ones. What Bush/Cheney/Bechtel are
> > really after is Iraq's dams and water damming potential---which will
> > last long past when the oil dries up He who controls water,
> > controls more than oil.
> >
> > -Myles Twete
> >
>[SNIP]
>
>Dunno about this, "controls water, controls". Iraq is at the end of
>the Euphrates and Tigris, the mouth of the river, not the head waters.
>What do they gain/control, ie influence in other countries, by
>damming the rivers?
>
>   I recently saw a very good doco on the trouble that Turkey
>was causing to Syria and Iraq by damming the Euphrates just short
>of their, Turkeys, border. This was causing great trouble in terms of
>wells/springs drying up, reduced river flows for the downstream
>countries to use for irrigation etc etc.
>
>   I would say that if you want to talk conspiracy theories
>regarding water, Turkey, not Iraq, where both the Ephrates and
>Tigris rise would be the logical start point
>
>   Regards,
>   Andrew Lowe

Hi Andrew

They rise in Turkey, but most of their length is in Iraq. As with 
many troubled waterways (and there are many!) it's not just at the 
source that the problems arise. Turkey is regarded as an ally, and I 
suppose is thus expected to collude. And the US, especially, has used 
water (water treatment facilities) as a weapon against Iraq 
throughout the devastating sanctions period, resulting in very many 
deaths through disease, especially child deaths.

Did you see this?

>... In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has 
>bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why 
>was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on 
>America's impetus to invade Iraq.
>
>We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest 
>reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical 
>sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive 
>river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and 
>Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the 
>north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the 
>sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.
>
>Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of 
>dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan 
>dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were 
>aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's 
>there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace 
>Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates 
>south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No 
>progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi 
>intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that 
>could change.
>
>Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way 
>that probably could not be challenged for decades --- not solely by 
>controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if 
>America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is 
>driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for 
>American companies.

From: War for Natural Resources - Mixing Oil And Water, posted here yesterday:
http://www.progress.org/2003/iraq12.htm
Archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?view=20898&list=biofuel

Water is already as contentious an issue as oil, or more so, in many 
parts of the Middle East, and the world. Meanwhile Americans are 
increasingly unhappy about the fact that privatized water supplies in 
the US are being operated by as German company. The corporatization 
of water supplies worldwide proceeds apace, and is causing very great 
harm.

Recommended:

"Blue Gold - The Global Water Crisis and the Commodification of the 
World's Water Supply" by Maude Barlow, Chair, IFG Committee on the 
Globalization of Water, National Chair, Council of Canadians
June 1999
A Special Report
Produced and Published by the International Forum on Globalization (IFG)
"The wars of the next century will be about water."  - The World Bank
Report Summary:
http://www.ifg.org/analysis/reports/bgsummary.htm

Here are a couple of excerpts:

The Corporate Theft Of The World's Water
http://tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5875

The Public Pain Of Private Water
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5903

Maude Barlow has written much about this, try a Google search for 
"Maude Barlow water" (without the quotes). Such as:

"Who Owns Water?" September 2, 2002
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=barlow

regards

Keith


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

You

[biofuel] 1st Prize!! Was: The oil in Iraq

[csakima]

Nah, you wanna hear weird conspiracy theory?  I'll take home the first prize
trophy .. thank you.

I was reading an article in time magazine recently ... I think it was named
"Is Bush too much of a wild cowboy?? Should the UN be in the business of
referee-ing ALL world affairs .. including War (who's allowed to go to war
with who)??"

If you ask me, my theory is that the US/Bush is currently serving two
purposes.   One, as a pooper scooper  first blowing a country to
smithereens ... then "reassembling" it's resources/people into a "new form
of government" ("Change the Regime"??)  ... one configured in such a way
that its once "President" is now reduced to only a "senator" in a
"GLOBAL-level council" (UN security council).   The US being a sort of
"global bulldozer"  placing one country after another under the UN in
this fashion.

Second, Bush being such a "wild man hungry for war" ... seduces the
international community into thinking  (h ... a ...o)
oooh-yesss!!  We NEED the UN as a "global referee".  Putting the UN up on a
pedestal ... as the "savior" for peace.  That (h ... a ...o) all
countries SHOULD hook up under the UN.   Forming (voila!!) . a loosely
held together . ahem ... "global one government".   Thinking "this IS
the only way to peace".   And of course, Bush being such a war-monger (as
his actions are showing) .. is showing QUITE a good case for such a
movement.

Now, about that trophy . email me off-list.  And I will gladly provide
you with an address where you can send it!!  :)

Curtis

Get your free newsletter at
http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL


- Original Message -
From: Ken Provost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Interesting theory -- I think it's mostly oil, but here's another idea --
Bush and handlers are perfectly aware of the fact that invading Iraq is
going to bring ALL KINDS of "terrorist" attacks on our heads as retribution.
That's exactly what they WANT, so they can essentially suspend the
Constitution (see Patriot Act II), and finally get control of the domestic
situation before the s***t really hits the fan in a decade or so -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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Re: cost of gasoline

[murdoch]

Taxes on fuels are always something worth keeping in mind, but it is not the tax
component which has changed recently, at all (unless there has been a change in
taxes of which I'm unaware).  It is the price outside the tax component.

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:37:47 -0800, you wrote:

>Please keep in mind that the price you pay for gas is inflated dramatically
>by the various governments (Fed, State, City, County, and more). If you
>check the wholesale prices by investigating the futures market, you will see
>that today's wholesale price is about $1.05. In November last year it was
>about $.75. Some folks have said that the dealer is only making 2-4 cents a
>gallon. 
>
>Food for thought.
>john
>>This morning on some TV show I heard someone from San Francisco say that
>>they are paying $2.40 / gal for the premium stuff and about $2.10 for
>>regular.
>>
>>Randy Scott
>
>Good.  Let them think a few moments as to what it takes to get a gallon of
>gasoline to their vehicles.  That said, SF is perhaps the highest-priced
>town
>I've ever been in, or one of them, depending on the exact item.  There's a
>lot
>of talk in San Diego about high gas prices, but it doesn't compare to SF,
>the
>few times I've been there.
>
>'Course the few who managed to get EVs there (such as the RAV4 EV drivers or
>the
>Think drivers) basically won't feel the price rise except indirectly (costs
>born
>by their fellow residents or for their other cars).
>
> 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
>
>
> 
>
>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] Sorry about multiple postings...

[Appal Energy]

Sorry about the multiple postings. Glitch in MS OE. Kept hitting
"send" and it kept telling me "could not delete."

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Burning glyc and acrolein - was Re:
Introduction and somequestions - Newbie


> How hot is hot? Prolly about as hot as a masonry stove would
get,
> ~1,200*F (?). www.tempcast.com or
> http://www.vtbrickoven.com/masonry/masonry.html
>
> Not the "hot" of a standard wood burner.
>
> You might could get away with mixing the catalyst/soap/alcohol
> ("glycerin layer") with WVO, SVO or WMO (waste motor oil,
> hydraulic and transmission fluid) in a furnace or boiler
> specifically designed for WMO. The combustion in these units is
> very efficient due to the hp air input (www.cleanburn.com or
> other types).
>
> You could also prolly use the "paste log" mentioned below in a
> downdraft wood gasifier
> http://www.alternateheatingsystems.com/wg_fs.htm
>
> Todd Swearingen
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:47 AM
> Subject: [biofuel] Burning glyc and acrolein - was Re:
> Introduction and somequestions - Newbie
>
>
> > Hi Tony
> >
> > >There is another option.  Makers of biodiesel invariably
need
> to
> > >find disposal options for their by-product - Glycerol soaps.
> > >By mixing this with sawdust to make a dry paste, and filling
> used
> > >milk cartons with this mixture, the use of timber for fuel
can
> be
> > >significantly reduced. A 1 litre milk carton (~1 quart US)
of
> this
> > >mixture will give off more heat than twice or three times
that
> > >weight in firewood.
> > >I have been collecting milk cartons from work and home (3
per
> day *
> > >200 work days = 600 litres of convenient solid fuel.
> > >The only proviso is that it should be burned in a very hot
> fire, to
> > >minimise formation of possible pollutants.
> >
> > Funny... a local carpenter just brought us some bags of
> sawdust,
> > about half-sawdust half shavings, and we were thinking of
doing
> just
> > that with the shavings (other uses for the sawdust). I like
the
> milk
> > carton angle.
> >
> > >The only proviso is that it should be burned in a very hot
> fire, to
> > >minimise formation of possible pollutants.
> >
> > Yes, the old acrolein story. Can we settle it now please? How
> hot is
> > "very hot", ie hot enough to avoid acrolein pollution? How
> would you
> > make sure to get a fire that hot?
> >
> > Good news if we can pin this down once and for all and find
> safe ways
> > of burning the stuff as an option.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > >  Message: 5
> > >Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:01:58 -0600
> > >From: Kim & Garth Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >  Subject: Re: Re: Introduction and some questions - Newbie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Robin Parker wrote:
> > >
> > >  >>
> > >  > Who in their right mind is wasting oak on firewood??
That
> stuff takes
> > >  > forever to grow!
> > >  >
> > >  >
> > >
> > >  But oak trees do die.  They make fantastic fire wood and
> that is all I
> > >  burn.  I would never cut down a live one, no need, there
are
> plenty of
> > >  dead ones to harvest.
> > >
> > >  Bright Blessings,
> > >  Kim
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >[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/
> >
> >
> > 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] Does the US tax code favor gas guzzlers?

[Keith Addison]

http://www.ems.org/
Environmental Media Services - facts and contacts for journalists
Feb. 10
Tax Code Encourages Gas Guzzlers, Critics Say

A huge tax break for buyers of the largest SUVs is drawing sharp 
criticism from environmentalists and public interest advocates. The 
tax break, which costs the U.S. treasury thousands of dollars per 
vehicle purchased, has created an incentive for small business owners 
to buy vehicles that exceed a 6000 pound threshold for the deduction.

Some new car dealers are using the tax break as a selling point for 
the largest SUVs and some tax advisors are also encouraging 
self-employed professionals to buy larger SUVs.

Adding to the controversy, the Bush stimulus plan, in an effort to 
spur business investment, would increase the maximum deduction for 
large trucks and SUVs to $75,000.

EMS.org has a chart comparing five vehicles that shows how the tax 
code favors large SUVs.

Find out more:
New York Times, "Bush Proposal May Cut Tax on S.U.V.'s for Business"
Sierra Club, "Sierra Club to IRS: Audit Gas-Guzzling SUVs"
Alliance to Save Energy, "SUV Tax Break 'Outrageous'"
Detroit Free Press, Brian Dickerson column, "Tax Breaks and SUVs a Curious Mix"
Detroit News, "SUV, Truck Owners Get a Big Tax Break"
Taxpayers for Common Sense white paper, "A Hummer of a Tax Break"
Taxpayers for Common Sense, "Senator to Introduce Bill to Close SUV 
Business Tax Loophole"

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: A Letter to Our Friends in Europe

[Keith Addison]

>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:53:09 -0600
>Subject: A Letter to Our Friends in Europe
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: "AlterNet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Dear AlterNet subscriber:
>
>With war looming so darkly and protests around the world
>planned for this weekend, AlterNet.org has initiated a
>global letter, in conjunction with MoveOn.org, to the
>people of Europe. Please join us in thanking our European
>friends for their support in our allied struggle and urge
>them to demonstrate this weekend and encourage their
>governments to stand for peace:
>
>http://moveon.org/openletter/
>
>Sincerely,
>
>The staff of AlterNet
>http://www.alternet.org/


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] South Korea limiting vehicle use as oil price soars

[Keith Addison]

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/19794/story.htm

South Korea limiting vehicle use as oil price soars

SOUTH KOREA: February 12, 2003

SEOUL - South Korea, the world's fourth-biggest oil buyer, plans to 
curb use of passenger cars by state employees and switch off some 
street lights as part of efforts to cushion the impact of surging oil 
prices.

"We plan to implement from next week some mandatory measures to save 
energy, such as turning off some street lamps and limiting use of 
passenger cars," an official at the Ministry of Commerce, Industry 
and Energy told Reuters this week.

Households as well as some businesses such as department stores and 
petrol stations should cut electricity use, while ski and golf 
resorts, and midnight movie theatres and 24-hour sauna bath should 
cut business hours later on, the measures stipulate.

Seoul is trying to limit the shock from global oil prices that are 
hovering well above $30 a barrel, bolstered by a possible war in Iraq 
and a strike in Venezuela, which has strangled supplies from the 
fifth-biggest exporter.

Soaring crude prices have become the main threat to growth in Asia's 
fourth largest economy that depends fully on imported oil.

The official said they would start by limiting the use of passenger 
cars by those working for state and other public organisations, but 
might later include the general public.

One out of 10 passenger cars would be banned from running on a given 
date based on the last digit of the number plate.

The forced limit on the use of passenger cars is expected to save 
about 603,000 barrels of oil or oil equivalent to 140 billion won 
($118.3 million) a month, the Korea Petroleum Industry Association 
(KPIA) said.

South Korean oil demand for transport stood at 244 million barrels in 2002.

The forced energy conservation was designed to be implemented when 
Middle East Dubai crude, the benchmark for most supplies into Asia, 
tops $29 a barrel but stays below $35.

Dubai crude price stood at $30.41 a barrel at 0621 GMT.

Oil imports account for nearly 20 percent of South Korea's total 
imports in value which stood at about $150 billion last year. A $1 
rise in crude prices on an average basis over a year cuts economic 
growth by 0.1 percentage points.

Seoul said last week it was set to cut the oil import tax by 43 
percent to 8.0 won per litre from February 17 to protect consumers 
and business from high oil prices.

The government has said it would implement further measures such as 
cutting local taxes on oil products and might release oil reserves if 
the Dubai price touched $33. (US$1=1183.8 Won).

Story by Park Sung-woo

REUTERS NEWS 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/