[biofuel] Re: Electric generators

[eric12856]

Wow, thanks Ken and Martin, great info and thank you for responding! 
I thought there was no way a generator/alternator genhead could 
backfeed the grid. Everything I see on the web says I need an 
induction motor to do that.

Anyway, what I really want to know is how to prevent "islanding" when 
the utility goes offline. Any suggestions/references?


--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Basterfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin the is nothing technical to stop you using your alternator 
as it is
> to feed back into the main supply. All you need to do is 
synchronise the
> alternator output with the mains and then close the switch to 
couple the
> two. You will have to common the neutrals.   A lamp connected 
between mains
> phase and alternator phase is all that is required. As the engine 
speed is
> slowly increased,  the the lamp will begin to beat slowly on and 
off as the
> alternator phase signal slowly slips past the mains phase. When the 
lamp
> goes out the two signals are in phase and can be connected 
together. I.e.
> you close the switch. henceforth the alternator will be sychronised 
to the
> mains and if you increase the Diesel engine throttle, power will be 
fed to
> the mains supply. The lamp will have to be double voltage to avoid 
blowing
> it. A 240 volt lamp when connecting 110 systems or two 240 lamps in 
series
> if running off 240 volt systems.
> 
> Don't throw out the alternator just to fit  an induction motor 
unless your
> alternator has specific instructions from the manufactor saying 
that you are
> not allowed to connect it to the mains.
> 
> This same system of synchronising using beating lamps can be 
applied to 3
> phase alternators, just connect 3 lamps between each of the 
respective  3
> phases- Original Message -
> Ken
> 
> From: "martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 4:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Electric generators
> 
> 
> > Your induction generator will continue to function if it isn't
> > overloaded. If the power goes out, the induction generator will 
either
> > become overloaded and stop generating, or continue to run while
> > back-feeding the power lines. As soon as you notice that the 
power is
> > out you should throw your main breaker or shut off the generator. 
If you
> > intend to spin your meter backwards anyway, I'm really not sure 
if one
> > of the automatic switches would work for you.
> >
> > eric12856 wrote:
> >
> > >Lot of smart guys in this group so I figure someone can answer my
> > >question that I think may have a simple answer, but first
> > >some background.
> > >
> > >I have a 5hp Biodiesel generator set that I also extract heat 
(from
> > >coolant and exhaust to heat the house). Now that I've moved into 
a
> > >new house (my heating and electric was $450/month!!)I was 
thinking of
> > >swapping out the generator head for an induction motor so that I 
can
> > >intertie with the utility and use the utility as a battery and
> > >supplemental power.
> > >
> > >I know that if the utility goes out that It will produce no
> > >electricity since the motor needs the field windings excited to
> > >produce. Thats ok, the generator head will be moved to small gas
> > >engine as backup.
> > >
> > >My question:
> > >For safety reasons, I would like to stop the Diesel engine when 
the
> > >utility goes off. Anyone know how I can accomplish the shutdown 
or
> > >where I can find a schematic so I can build my own? The engine 
has a
> > >built-in 12 volt shutdown solenoid. Would a simple relay off the 
main
> > >breaker suffice?
> > >
> > >Thanks!
> > >Eric Olsen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ---
> > Martin Klingensmith
> > http://nnytech.net/
> > http://infoarchive.net/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >
> > Biofuels list archives:
> > http://archive.nnytech.net/
> >
> > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

Re: [biofuel] Global Warming

[Appal Energy]

No Bryan. Not a bit touchy. Just that most people don't have or care to take
the time to deal with people in denial, spoon feeding them data and
resources which they don't want to read or will never read, don't want to
believe or will never believe, could care less about and are perfectly
willing to dismiss in order to maintain their own ordered belief or
disbelief system.

You did, after all, state your case rather clearly against everything
between the two ends of any spectrum. So why bother?

Oh. Just one other minor detail. It's that little matter of trying to butter
all sides of your bread. The fact that such a practice is so very messy
makes it highly unlikely that "the world [will every view] us exactly the
same." That would be akin to claiming that a capital driven biodiesel firm
is exactly the same as a principle driven biodiesel firm. The product may be
the same, but the packages are completely different and the proceeds put to
completely different uses.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: "Bryan Brah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 4:19 PM
Subject: RE: [biofuel] Global Warming


> Todd,
>
> A bit touchy eh?  So now it's personal attacks?  One of the great benefits
of the online world is that those of differing opinions can exchange ideas.
Renewable energy attracts people for various reasons.  Some because they
believe it will save the environment, some because they want a degree of
independence from increasingly oppressive governments.  It is important
however to remember that although our reasons are different, our goal is the
same: the promotion and advancement of renewables.  So while you may deride
me for my cynicism and paranoia, the results of my actions are the same as
yours, and the world views us exactly the same.
>
> -BRAH
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:50 AM
> To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [biofuel] Global Warming
>
> Yes. Here we have it. No different than a chemical company releasing
toxins
> into a hydrology, increased levels of cancer occurring withing that
bubble,
> and then the chemical company's legal staffs beating the populace down
> demanding "Prove to us and the jury that it was our chemicals that caused
> the cancer and not the hair spray you use, the vegetables you eat, the
> chlorine in the city water, or the sun, orad infinitum."
>
> Global warming via CO2 - a theory to redistribute wealth to
> non-industrialized nations?
>
> Perhaps before you concern yourself with the "theory" of global warming
and
> try and suck the life's blood out of everyone that you care to argue your
> disbeliefs with, you might be better served in focusing on those  fits of
> cynicism and paranoia that it appears you're prone to.
>
> What appears to be most apparent, based upon your statements of lifestyle
> preference (ride the bike to work, rather smell French fries than
> dion-diesel) that you simply want to make an arguement for arguement's
sake.
> That's fine for academics and the like who get paid to ruminate over how
> many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But don't expect everyone in
the
> grass roots sector to eagerly get caught up in your counter arguements
just
> for the sheer sport of it. Maybe you've got that kind of free time to
waste,
> but most people don't.
>
> Todd Swearingen
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bryan Brah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:50 AM
> Subject: RE: [biofuel] Global Warming
>
>
> > Show me the money!
> >
> > As far as a the relationship between the earth's mean temperature and
CO2
> levels, first prove to me that CO2 levels wouldn't have risen without
human
> contribution.  Next show me that this CO2 is the CAUSE of the increase in
> the mean temperature.  I won't argue that the temperature is rising, but
the
> atmospheric level of CO2 might very well be a RESULT of a higher mean
> temperature.  The "Greenhouse Effect" is just a theory; there are a number
> of other theories that explain why the earth's temperature is rising.
These
> include increased sunspot activity and tectonic and geothermal action.
> Increased temperature could cause saturated CO2 to be released from the
> oceans.
> >
> > Blaming "Global Warming" on CO2 emissions (and thus on industrialized
> countries), is a convenient ruse to redistribute wealth to
> non-industrialized nations.  Kyoto doesn't do anything to curb the
emissions
> of China, India, all of Africa, or South America.  Do you believe for a
> minute that these countries don't produce CO2 emissions, and won't
continue
> to do so at greater and greater rates?  Kyoto is not about protecting the
> environment, it is about controlling people.
> >
> > Comparing the CO2 production on a per person basis is misleading, while
> Europeans are responsible for 8 tons of CO2 each per year, and Chinese
make
> only 2 tons per year per person (Kirk's s

[biofuel] Raw, Devastating Realities That Expose The Truth About Basra

[Keith Addison]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3340

Raw, Devastating Realities That Expose The Truth About Basra

by Robert Fisk
The Independent
March 27, 2003

IRAQ

Two British soldiers lie dead on a Basra roadway, a small Iraqi girl 
- victim of an Anglo American air strike - is brought to hospital 
with her intestines spilling out of her stomach, a terribly wounded 
woman screams in agony as doctors try to take off her black dress.

An Iraqi general, surrounded by hundreds of his armed troops, stands 
in central Basra and announces that Iraq's second city remains firmly 
in Iraqi hands. The unedited al-Jazeera videotape - filmed over the 
past 36 hours and newly arrived in Baghdad - is raw, painful, 
devastating.

It is also proof that Basra - reportedly "captured' and "secured' by 
British troops last week - is indeed under the control of Saddam 
Hussein's forces. Despite claims by British officers that some form 
of uprising has broken out in Basra, cars and buses continue to move 
through the streets while Iraqis queue patiently for gas bottles as 
they are unloaded from a government truck.

A remarkable part of the tape shows fireballs blooming over western 
Basra and the explosion of incoming - and presumably British - 
shells. The short sequence of the dead British soldiers - over which 
Tony Blair voiced such horror yesterday - is little different from 
dozens of similar clips of dead Iraqi soldiers shown on British 
television over the past 12 years, pictures which never drew any 
condemnation from the Prime Minister.

The two Britons, still in uniform, are lying on a roadway, arms and 
legs apart, one of them apparently hit in the head, the other shot in 
the chest and abdomen.

Another sequence from the same tape shows crowds of Basra civilians 
and armed men in civilian clothes, kicking the soldiers' British Army 
Jeep and dancing on top of the vehicle. Other men can be seen kicking 
the overturned Ministry of Defence trailer, which the Jeep was towing 
when it was presumably ambushed.

Also to be observed on the unedited tape - which was driven up to 
Baghdad on the open road from Basra - is a British pilotless drone 
photo-reconnaissance aircraft, its red and blue roundels visible on 
one wing, shot down and lying overturned on a roadway. Marked "ARMY' 
in capital letters, it carries the code sign ZJ300 on its tail and is 
attached to a large cylindrical pod which probably contains the 
plane's camera.

Far more terrible than the pictures of dead British soldiers, 
however, is the tape from Basra's largest hospital that shows victims 
of the Anglo-American bombardment being brought to the operating 
rooms shrieking in pain.

A middle-aged man is carried into the hospital in pyjamas, soaked 
head to foot in blood. A little girl of perhaps four is brought into 
the operating room on a trolley, staring at a heap of her own 
intestines protruding from the left side of her stomach. A 
blue-uniformed doctor pours water over the little girl's guts and 
then gently applies a bandage before beginning surgery. A woman in 
black with what appears to be a stomach wound cries out as doctors 
try to strip her for surgery. In another sequence, a trail of blood 
leads from the impact of an incoming - presumably British - shell. 
Next to the crater is a pair of plastic slippers.

The al-Jazeera tapes, most of which have never been seen, are the 
first vivid proof that Basra remains totally outside British control. 
Not only is one of the city's main roads to Baghdad still open - this 
is how the three main tapes reached the Iraqi capital - but General 
Khaled Hatem is interviewed in a Basra street, surrounded by hundreds 
of his uniformed and armed troops, and telling al-Jazeera's reporter 
that his men will "never' surrender to Iraq's enemies. Armed Baath 
Party militiamen can also be seen in the streets, where traffic cops 
are directing lorries and buses near the city's Sheraton Hotel.

Mohamed al-Abdullah, al-Jazeera's correspondent in Basra, must be the 
bravest journalist in Iraq right now. In the sequence of three tapes, 
he can be seen conducting interviews with families under fire and 
calmly reporting the incoming British artillery bombardment. One tape 
shows that the Sheraton Hotel on the banks of Shatt al-Arab river has 
sustained shell damage.

On the edge of the river - beside one of the huge statues of Iraq's 
1980-88 war martyrs, each pointing an accusing finger across the 
waterway towards Iran - Basra residents can be seen filling jerry 
cans from the sewage-polluted river.

Five days ago the Iraqi government said 30 civilians had been killed 
in Basra and another 63 wounded. Yesterday, it claimed that more than 
4,000 civilians had been wounded in Iraq since the war began and more 
than 350 killed.

But Mr Abdullah's tape shows at least seven more bodies brought to 
the Basra hospital mortuary over the past 36 hours. One, his head 
still pouring blood on to the mortua

[biofuel] The New Humanitarianism

[Keith Addison]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3345

The New Humanitarianism
Basra As A Military Target

by Rahul Mahajan
Z Sustainer Program
March 28, 2003

 
IRAQ Iraq's desperate humanitarian situation has suddenly become a 
retroactive justification for the war, even for the attacking of 
civilian targets. The need to get aid into Basra has apparently 
prompted a British military spokesperson to designate it as a 
"legitimate military target" 
(http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/25/sprj.irq.basra.deaths/) 
, language reminiscent of Gulf War I, when the saturation bombing of 
Basra was justified on the same basis.

As verifiable civilian deaths mount toward 300 
(http://www.iraqbodycount.net) in this "war of liberation," the need 
to establish American moral superiority is growing rapidly. Thus 
Donald Rumsfeld's convenient rediscovery of the Geneva Convention and 
thus the American media hysteria over al-Jazeera, which has the 
temerity to provide balanced reporting of the war.

Thus also a recent press conference by the execrable Andrew Natsios, 
head administrator of USAID, in which he raised the already stunning 
mendacity of the Bush administration to new heights. While beating 
his chest over the massive preparations the United States has made to 
avert a humanitarian tragedy in Iraq (always assuming the Iraqis 
don't screw things up by continuing unaccountably to resist their 
liberation), he touched on the problems of Basra, where only 40% of 
the people currently have access to potable water.

The genesis of said problems, according to him, is "a deliberate 
decision by the regime not to repair the water system or replace old 
equipment with new equipment, so in many cases people are basically 
drinking untreated sewer water in their homes and have been for some 
years." 
(http://lists.state.gov/SCRIPTS/WA-USIAINFO.EXE?A2=ind0303d&L=us-iraqp 
olicy&D=1&H=1&O=D&F=&S=&P=10264)

A deliberate decision by the regime. We've seen some remarkable lies 
(http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR031803.htm) about Iraq from 
this administration including Dick Cheney's statement that Iraq has 
"reconstituted nuclear weapons" 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42517-2003Mar17.html), 
Ari Fleischer's that Iraq did not declare the range of its al-Samoud 
2 missiles, and an attempt to pass off crudely forged 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9011-2003Mar22) documents 
as proof that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Niger.

But this. "A deliberate decision by the regime." The mind boggles. 
Ever since Iraq's water treatment system was left in shambles by the 
Gulf War, where the deliberate targeting of the entire electrical 
power grid caused water pumping to shut down and sewage to fill the 
streets of Basra, the Iraqi government has scrambled desperately to 
repair its water system, only to come repeatedly face to face with 
one huge obstacle: the United States government.

Joy Gordon's excellent article, "Cool War: Economic Sanctions as a 
Weapon of Mass Destruction" (Harper's, November 2002, text at 
http://www.scn.org/ccpi/HarpersJoyGordonNov02.html), documents at 
length her conclusion that "the United States has consistently 
thwarted Iraq from satisfying its most basic humanitarian needs."

Under the sanctions regime set up over Iraq after the Gulf War, any 
country on the Security Council could block or indefinitely delay any 
contract for goods submitted by the Iraqi government. The United 
States has imposed far more blocks than all other members put 
together; as of 2001, it had put half a billion dollars worth of 
water and sanitation contracts on hold. The water treatment goods it 
has blocked at one time or another include pipes (roughly 40% of the 
clean water pumped is lost to leakage), earth-moving equipment, 
safety equipment for handling chlorine, and no fewer than three 
sewage treatment plants.

But there can be no doubt that, in the inimitable words of Madeleine 
Albright, "we care more about the Iraqi people."

If you're not convinced yet, consider this. After coming under harsh 
criticism 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&conte 
ntId=A54153-2003Mar6¬Found=true) because of the frightful 
inadequacy of its humanitarian preparations, the United States has 
made some attempt to remedy the problem. The original plan was a 
reprise of the Afghan operation dubbed "military propaganda" by 
Doctors Without Borders, in which some tens of thousands of meals 
would be dropped out of planes every day, and, in the miraculous 
manner common in that part of the world, each meal would feed a 
multitude; now, some shipments of wheat have been added to the 
original plan.

The same Andrew Natsios wrote an indignant rejoinder to the 
Washington Post, claiming full readiness of the United States to 
"help Iraq." 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18063-2003Mar12.html). 
Tucked away in the middle of his missive

[biofuel] Media War: Obsessed With Tactics And Technology

[Keith Addison]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=3334

Media War: Obsessed With Tactics And Technology

by Norman Solomon
March 27, 2003

MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Two months ago, when I wandered through a large market near the 
center of Baghdad, the day seemed like any other and no other. A 
vibrant pulse of humanity throbbed in the shops and on the streets. 
Meanwhile, a fuse was burning; lit in Washington, it would explode 
here.

Now, with American troops near Baghdad, the media fixations are 
largely tactical. "A week of airstrikes, including the most 
concentrated precision hits in U.S. military history, has left tons 
of rubble and deep craters at hundreds of government buildings and 
military facilities around Iraq but has yielded little sign of a 
weakening in the regime's will to resist," the Washington Post 
reported on March 26.

Shrewd tactics and superlative technology were supposed to do the 
grisly trick. But military difficulties have set off warning bells 
inside the U.S. media echo chamber. In contrast, humanitarian 
calamities are often rendered as PR problems, whether the subject is 
the cutoff of water in Basra or the missiles that kill noncombatants 
in Baghdad: The main concern is apt to be that extensive suffering 
and death among civilians would make the "coalition of the willing" 
look bad.

But in spite of all the public-relations efforts on behalf of this 
invasion, the military forces of Washington and London remain a 
coalition for the killing of Iraqi people who get in the way of the 
righteous juggernaut. Despite the prevalent media fixations, the 
great moral questions about this war have not been settled -- on the 
contrary, they intensify with each passing day -- no matter what gets 
onto TV screens and front pages.

When U.S. missiles exploded at Iraqi government broadcast facilities 
Wednesday morning, it was a move to silence a regime that had been 
gaining ground in the propaganda struggle. Throughout the months of 
faux "diplomacy" and the first days of invading Iraq, the governments 
led by George W. Bush and Tony Blair had managed to do the nearly 
impossible -- make themselves look even more mendacious than the 
bloody dictator Saddam Hussein.

On the home front, most U.S. news outlets are worshiping the nation's 
high-tech arsenal. It was routine the other day when the Washington 
Post printed a large color diagram under the headline "A Rugged 
Bird." Unrelated to ornithology, the diagram annotated key features 
of the AH-64 Apache -- not a bird but a helicopter that excels as a 
killing machine.

We're supposed to adore the Pentagon's prowess; the deadlier the 
better. Transfixed with tactical maneuvers and overall strategies 
inside Iraq, media outlets rarely mention that this entire war by the 
U.S. government and its British accomplice is a flagrant violation of 
international law. Only days before the United States launched the 
attack, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said that the invasion -- 
lacking a new Security Council resolution to authorize it -- would 
violate the U.N. Charter.

In the capital city of the world's only superpower, the Post is 
cheering on the slaughter. "Ultimately the monument that matters will 
be victory and a sustained commitment to a rebuilt Iraq," the 
newspaper concluded. Its assessment came in an editorial that 
mentioned the pain -- but not the anger -- of family members grieving 
the loss of Kendall D. Waters-Bey, a Marine from Baltimore who died 
soon after the war began.

The Post's editorial quoted the bereaved father as saying that "the 
word 'sorrow' cannot fill my pain." But the editorial did not include 
a word of the response from the dead man's oldest sister, Michelle 
Waters, who faulted the U.S. government for starting the war and 
said: "It's all for nothing. That war could have been prevented. Now, 
we're out of a brother. Bush is not out of a brother. We are."

The Baltimore Sun reported that Michelle Waters spoke those words "in 
the living room of the family home, tears running down her cheeks."

A week into this war, CNN's White House correspondent John King was 
in sync with many other journalists as he noted criticisms of the 
administration's "war strategy." The media anxiety level has been 
rising, but the voiced concerns are overwhelmingly about tactics. A 
military triumph may not be so easy after all.

Today, I took another look at quotations that I'd jotted at meetings 
with Iraqi officials during visits to Baghdad last fall and winter. 
(The quotes are included in "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't 
Tell You," a book I co-authored with foreign correspondent Reese 
Erlich.)

In mid-September, the elderly speaker of Iraq's national assembly, 
Saadoun Hammadi, told our delegation of Americans: "The U.S. 
administration is now speaking war. We are not going to turn the 
other cheek. We are going to fight. Not only our armed forces will 
fight. Our people will fight."

Three months lat

[biofuel] Eliminating Truth

[Keith Addison]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=3346

Eliminating Truth
The Development Of War Propaganda

by David Miller
March 28, 2003

The attack on Iraq looks set to be the most censored conflict of 
modern times.  Media coverage in mainstream media will be controlled 
as never before.  The US is determined to eliminate independent 
reporting of and from Iraq and it will go to unprecedented lengths to 
ensure that its propaganda and spin will dominate media agendas in 
the UK and US and it will expend massive resources in minimising 
critical coverage across the world.

 The US and UK governments have shown themselves adept at learning 
propaganda lessons from successive conflicts.  In both Suez (1956) 
and most importantly Vietnam, the UK and US governments came to 
believe that propaganda and media control were key to winning wars.  
In the Suez debacle General Sir Charles Keightley concluded in an 
internal government report in 1957 that the 'over-riding lesson' was 
that 'world opinion is now the absolute principal of war'[1] The role 
of the media in the Vietnam war was believed by many to have been a 
key factor in the defeat of the US and the victory of the 
Vietnamese.  But in fact the US media only started to feature dissent 
after the US ruling elite became split on the war. Nevertheless 
America's future war planners decided not to risk uncensored press 
coverage of their own conflicts.  'They determined - evidently 
beginning in the Reagan Administration - that reporters would never 
again have the opportunity to confuse the American public about the 
government's war aims, whether deliberately or by accident'[2] .

 The lessons of Vietnam were put into effect in the Falklands 
conflict in 1982.  There was close control of the 29 journalists who 
were allowed to accompany the military to the South Atlantic and no 
independent facilities for reporting.  A dual system of censorship 
operated which ensured that journalists' copy was censored on naval 
vessels in the South Atlantic and then again at the Ministry of 
Defence in London before being released. The success of the news 
management in the Falklands was not lost on the US government as Lt 
Commander Arthur Humphries of the US Navy noted in 1983: 'In spite of 
a perception of choice in a democratic society, the Falklands War 
shows us how to make certain that government policy is not undermined 
by the way a war is reportedÉ  Control access to the fighting, invoke 
censorship, and rally aid in the form of patriotism at home and in 
the battle zone.'[3]  This policy was followed in the invasions of 
both Grenada (1984) and Panama (1989)

 Humphries also noted that if there was one deficiency in the policy, 
it was in failing to fill the resulting information void with 
pictures. 'In the Falklands the British failed to appreciate that 
news management is more than just information security censorship.  
It also means providing pictures'.[4] By the time of the Gulf War in 
1991 this lesson had been well learned.  In the Saudi desert 
journalists were isolated from the fighting and newsrooms were 
supplied every day with new footage of 'precision' bombs hitting 
their targets.  This was the new clean war in which civilians would 
not be harmed as 'smart' technology enabled 'surgical strikes'.  This 
was a systematic charade.  Only 7% of the ordnance was 'smart'.  The 
other 93% being indiscriminate weapons including weapons of mass 
destruction.  The smart technology turned out not to be so smart and 
missed its target in 40% of cases according to official figures.[5]  
Needless to say we didn't see any of the footage of either the 'dumb' 
bombs or the smart bombs which missed.  But even when the smart 
weapons hit their targets, civilians died, as in the case of the 
al-Amariyah bunker in Baghdad which was not a military installation 
but an air raid shelter.  This time the US and UK are claiming that 
most bombs will be of the smart variety and that the technology has 
been improved.  According to the British Ministry of Defence, 
'greater attention to precision-guided weapons means we could have a 
war with zero civilian casualties'.[6]  This statement was falsified 
on the first night of bombing when between three and five Iraqi 
civilians were hit by shrapnel. The emphasis on the clean war again 
is an attempt to divert attention from the fact that weapons of mass 
destruction such as depleted uranium tipped shells and 'bunker 
buster' and 'daisy cutter' bombs will be used.  Conjuring up the 
smell of freshly mowed grass, the daisy cutter is actually a bomb the 
size of a small car which destroys everything in an area the size of 
a football pitch.  It is said to resemble a small nuclear bomb.

The pool
In past wars including the 1991 gulf war, the pool system has been 
the main means of control of journalists 'in theatre' - a propaganda 
term adopted by many journalists. The pool allows the military to 
control the m

[biofuel] Civilian Casualties, Censorship, And Patriotism

[Keith Addison]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3344

Inferno
Civilian Casualties, Censorship, And Patriotism

by David Edwards
Media Lens
March 28, 2003

IRAQ

Niche Killing

It's hard to believe that a little more than one week ago, the Iraqi 
regime, facing imminent attack, was meekly dismantling its al-Samoud 
missiles, presenting scientists for interview, and allowing hundreds 
of air strikes to deplete its forces without reply. US oil, 'defence' 
and other state-corporate interests had of course long since chosen 
war. Or, rather, they had chosen a "cake walk" - a parade of the best 
firepower money can buy, a travelling arms fair ensuring that the 
latest killing machines would be suitably 'combat tested'. US 
generals talked of "flexibility and responsiveness", British generals 
of "niche combat roles". This sounded disturbingly like the Total 
Quality jargon of management consultancy.

And now a giant snake of military equipment lies caked in dust, 
bruised and battered, its body wallowing in the blood of innocents. 
Suddenly Stalingrad feels like something that happened only sixty 
years ago. There is a palpable sense of the ghosts of ancient wars 
looking down grimly on a humbled leviathan. It's an old story: supply 
lines overstretched by overconfidence, state of the art power shaken 
by 'little people' who weren't supposed to matter, people who haven't 
read the script. Suddenly war seems about blood and courage again, 
not computers.

But there is no glory here - US and UK troops have been lead into a 
nightmare, they are dying for a cause that no one should be asked to 
die for. Can you imagine dying for Bush and Blair? Can you imagine 
killing for them? Michelle Waters, the sister of a Marine who died 
soon after the war began, says of her family:

"It's all for nothing. That war could have been prevented. Now, we're 
out of a brother. Bush is not out of a brother. We are." (Quoted, 
'Media War: Obsessed With Tactics And Technology', Norman Solomon, 
ZNet, March 27, 2003)

And the people of Iraq - their soldiers, often conscripts, are people 
too - are being slaughtered in their thousands. Hell, we now know, is 
a bombed market place under an orange sky in a war fought for oil and 
power. Hell is an impoverished, speechless market trader trembling 
amid the body parts. "Alas", cried Shantideva a thousand years ago, 
"our sorrows fall in endless streams!"

Restraining Hands

In some spiritual traditions compassion is described as the 
"invisible protector" of living beings. If this sounds like mere 
sentiment, consider that compassion is protecting the civilian 
population of Iraq in a very real way, right now. The millions of 
ordinary people who felt like insignificant ants marching in giant 
crowds in February and March have had this very real effect: they 
have placed an invisible restraining hand on the shoulders of the 
people throwing the Tomahawks, the MOABs and the JDAMs. The US 
military does not feel able to shed the blood of thousands of 
civilians by bringing its giant, fiery hammers down on urban areas - 
they know the world is watching, they know the world will not 
tolerate it. They know this because you and we filled small areas of 
space with our bodies on the streets of our cities. It didn't feel 
like much at the time.

Be in no doubt, if this had been Stalin or Churchill, if it had been 
Nixon or Reagan, Basra and Baghdad would now be rubble. This could 
well be changing - when mighty armies start taking casualties the 
gloves tend to be mislaid - and optimism must not stray into naivety, 
but we must be clear about one important point: the protests, the 
concern, the dissent, are absolutely vital. They have made a 
difference.

The media is, of course, busy sanitising the horrors that are taking 
place in our names. Indeed the ability to overlook horrors committed 
by the West and its allies is a key job requirement for mainstream 
journalists. A Nexis database search showed that between 1990-1999 
the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek and 
Time used the word 'genocide' 132 times to describe the actions of 
Iraq against Kurds. Over the same period the same word was used 14 
times to describe the actions of Turkey against Kurds. We all know 
what Iraq is alleged to have done to the Kurds at Halabja and 
elsewhere, but how many people know about the 50,000 Kurdish dead and 
3 million refugees, victims of Turkish military assault? Who knows 
that 80% of the arms were supplied by the US, including M-60 tanks, 
F-16 fighter-bombers, Cobra gunships, and Blackhawk 'slick' 
helicopters? As Turkish commandos slip now across the border into 
Northern Iraq, the BBC's John Simpson comments: "Of course the Kurds 
are very nervous about the whole thing." (BBC1, March 22) If an enemy 
and not a NATO ally had been involved, we might perhaps have been 
given a little information on the detail behind the jitters.

Hiding the "good guy" horrors 

Re: [biofuel] Global Warming

[Tom Tibbits]

Hakan,
The IPCC is actually a panel of 2000 leadig atmospheric scientists, and over 
the last 10 years they have managed to reach a concensus (very difficult for 
argumentative scientists!!!): the radiative forcing of the climate has changed 
as a direct result of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere (up 50% since 
1870). This is the quickest change that has ever been seen, based on geological 
records going back 2 billion years. Furthermore, this level of CO2 is 
unprecendented - sure, CO2 levels have fluctuated over the last millennia, but 
the highest concentration seen before now was 350ppm. Today we're on 374ppm and 
rising at 1ppm per year.
I have been aware of the global warming theory and climate change for about 12 
years. Today I am more worried than ever! It is grotesque to sit there like 
Brah and chuck in senseless arguments (the sunspot thing has been 
comprehensively rubbished by the IPCC) - even if nothing happens, surely the 
precautionary principle should apply? Hell, if your tax bill went up by 50% in 
five years, wouldn't you get a little tetchy?

tom
-- 
Tom Tibbits
PG, EXSS,
The Blackett Laboratory,
Prince Consort Road,
London
SW7 2BW
http://www.sc.ic.ac.uk/~q_pv/

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Work +44 207 594 6678
Mobile +44 778 607 5692
Home +44 207 701 5303
-- 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Hakan Falk 
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 6:20 PM
  Subject: RE: [biofuel] Global Warming



  Bryan,

  I am sorry, but I cannot accept your statements as having
  scientific base and connection to reality nor being knowledgeable,
  reasonable and responsible. I do find the 200 leading scientist
  in the field and the world, that belive in the CO2 connection
  and Global Warming somewhat more serious and convincing.

  Hakan


  At 10:50 AM 3/28/2003 -0600, you wrote:
  >Show me the money!
  >
  >As far as a the relationship between the earth's mean temperature and CO2 
  >levels, first prove to me that CO2 levels wouldn't have risen without 
  >human contribution.  Next show me that this CO2 is the CAUSE of the 
  >increase in the mean temperature.  I won't argue that the temperature is 
  >rising, but the atmospheric level of CO2 might very well be a RESULT of a 
  >higher mean temperature.  The "Greenhouse Effect" is just a theory; there 
  >are a number of other theories that explain why the earth's temperature is 
  >rising.  These include increased sunspot activity and tectonic and 
  >geothermal action.  Increased temperature could cause saturated CO2 to be 
  >released from the oceans.
  >
  >Blaming "Global Warming" on CO2 emissions (and thus on industrialized 
  >countries), is a convenient ruse to redistribute wealth to 
  >non-industrialized nations.  Kyoto doesn't do anything to curb the 
  >emissions of China, India, all of Africa, or South America.  Do you 
  >believe for a minute that these countries don't produce CO2 emissions, and 
  >won't continue to do so at greater and greater rates?  Kyoto is not about 
  >protecting the environment, it is about controlling people.
  >
  >Comparing the CO2 production on a per person basis is misleading, while 
  >Europeans are responsible for 8 tons of CO2 each per year, and Chinese 
  >make only 2 tons per year per person (Kirk's stat), there are about four 
  >times as many Chinese as there are Europeans, so the regional output is 
  >the same.  Furthermore the demographic of "developed" countries is 
  >changing.  The European population is expected to decrease over the next 
  >two decades, so who will be producing more CO2 then?  Has China signed Kyoto?
  >
  >I'll butter my bread how I like.  I ride my bike to work because I want 
  >to, not because an international treaty makes it illegal for me to drive 
  >my car.  When I do drive, I'd rather smell French fries than dead 
  >dinosaurs.  What we should really be doing is using wind, solar, and tide 
  >power to split hydrogen for fuel cells, but I imagine that we'll have to 
  >run out of petroleum and coal before that happens.
  >
  >-BRAH



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



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

Re: [biofuel] biodiesel and diesel?

[Neoteric Biofuels Inc]

Hi:

SVO must be heated.


On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 12:00 PM, brian_moretti wrote:

> i was wondering if a person could use SVO without modifying their
> engine if they were to periodically use petrodiesel to clean out the
> engine. i know very little about this subject and i would be very
> thankful if anyone would be able to help me.
> thanks,
> brian
>
>
>
>  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> -~-->
> Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
> - 
> ~->
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to  
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

Re: [biofuel] ETHANOL PLANTS

[Contactos Mundiales]

Mr. Vic GAbriel

Dear Mr Gabriel:

In reference to your post I would like to thow in some ideas about the
issue of ethanol plants.

Firstly let us remember that ethanol is produced by yeasts and there are
many strains with quite different attributes.  For the lowest cost plant
one has to selecct the best Saccharomyces Cerevisae yeast for the purpose
in mind and, then, design the plant around the selected organism's
attributes.

If you are looking forward to produce fuel ethanol, then you would want
to use a yeast strain that:

1- Can ferment the available sugars at the highest possible speed.
If a yeast can completely ferment a batch in 8 hours, then the plant capital
costs will be lower per unit of ethanol produced as compared to a yeast that
can only manage to ferment one batch per day.  The same holds true for the
capital costs of pumps, piping, controls, space, etc.  Most yeasts can only
produce one batch per day.  The HS /LE Yeast and Pocess can produce 3
batches per day.

2-  Performs under high osmotic pressures.
Most yeasts can only ferment in very diluted molasses, around 18 or 20 Brix.
If you have a yeast that can perform in a 35 Brix substrate, then you can
put
twice as much sugar into the fermenter and produce twice the ethanol with
every batch.  Again, here is a lower plant capital cost, since you can save
on fermenter and the associated gears.  The HS / LE Yeast and Process
can ferment molasses solutions of 35 Brix.

(At this point your productivity per fermenter is six fold as compared to
the commonplace yeast)

3-  Separates quickly from the substrate at the end of each fermentation
cycle.
Recycling the yeast after each batch saves in propagation costs, therefore
it is advisable to reuse the yeast cells for as many cycles as possible.
Recycling common yeast calls for the use of expensive centrifuges which
add to the plant capital costs.  However, if you use a flocculent yeast,
then
you do not need to buy (and support) any centrifugue, thus lowering further
your plant capital costs. The HS / LE Yeast and Process do not require
the installation of any centrifuge, because the yeast is of a highly
flocculent
type.

4-  Produces a low volume highly concentrated effluent (vinasse or dunder).
Ethanol plants that use common yeasts produce around 12 to 14 liters vinasse
per liter of ethanol and reqire high capital costs for the effluent disposal
processes. The HS /LE Yeast and Process generates between 4-7 liters vinasse
per liter ethanol, thus lowering the plant capital costs associated with the
effluent treatment process.

5- Is tolerant to high ethanol concentration.
Some common yeasts can not tolerate high ethanol concentrations and thus
can only produce wines low in ethanol.  Plants designed for low ethanol
concentrations (ie: 6% v/v) have to provide more thermal energy per liter
of ethanol than plants designed to process higher concentrations (ie: 12%).
A higher steam supply demands the use of larger boliers, therefore
increasing
the plant capital costs. The HS /LE Yeast and Process can deliver ethanol
concentrations in the range of 12 % v/v, and this require lower capital
costs.

When you add up the capital cost reductions made possible by the use of
a yeast that embodies the above traits, then the capital costs can be
reduced
by around 45%, with a significant production cost savings that results
from reduced depreciation, lower maintenance costs, lower casualty
insurance, lower energy costs, lower effluent treatment expenses and lower
labor costs.

The astronomical capital costs for ethanol plants that use sugar cane
molasses
or glucose from starch must be revised in the presence of the HS / LE Yeast
&
Process.

Please send us a nota if you would like to find more about this new process.
The  invitation is kindly extended to all forum bembers.

With warmest regards,

Luis R. Calzadilla
[EMAIL PROTECTED]








 - Original Message -
From: vic gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 2:14 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] other fuel sources from waste... plastics.


>
> Hi everyone. I'm writing from Los Angeles, CA. I read
> feasibility studies prepared by government agencies
> and some universities in US  that say that smallest
> capacity ethanol plant to be economically feasible is
> 10 million to 15 million gallons/year.
>
> The cost of equipment and support buildings is about
> $US 90,000,000 to $ US 120,000,000. This cost is
> staggering. I wonder if anyone of the members of our
> group have encountered a more cost effective system
> that can process commercially. I thought it would be
> good to start with l million gallons /year with
> possibilities of expansion in the future. Can you
> please link me with some manufacturers. Used equipment
> is ok.
>
> I want to gain experience through using a 50 gallon
> steel drum and copper tower that I saw on the
> internet.
> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks.
> Vic Gabriel
>
> __
>

RE: [biofuel] Global Warming

[Gabrielle Harrison & Paul van den Bergen]

you know guys, it's possible this was just flame bait, but assuming it 
isn't I'll still bite... Sound like a Pave The Earth fanatic to me

it don't matter if the CO2 levels were rising or not, we are definitely 
making it worse... when you can see the damage done to the planet from even 
low res satellites and you still don't think it is a problem you are 
forgetting the basic lessons of history.

back in the roman era, there was a city on the African Mediterranean 
coast.  Forest, deep water port, river.  150 years later it was gone, 
abandoned, with a delta 50 km long in front of it? why? because the forest 
disappeared.  So, now we are doing the same thing, stealing the resources 
of the whole planet. Only this time there is no where to go once we have 
done it. We will have to live in our own cesspool...

but then, do I really think I am reaching anyone?  sounds like Bryan 
doesn't want to listen to us anyway, head in the sand...


At 07:20  28/03/2003 +0100, you wrote:

>Bryan,
>
>I am sorry, but I cannot accept your statements as having
>scientific base and connection to reality nor being knowledgeable,
>reasonable and responsible. I do find the 200 leading scientist
>in the field and the world, that belive in the CO2 connection
>and Global Warming somewhat more serious and convincing.
>
>Hakan
>
>
>At 10:50 AM 3/28/2003 -0600, you wrote:
> >Show me the money!
> >
> >As far as a the relationship between the earth's mean temperature and CO2
> >levels, first prove to me that CO2 levels wouldn't have risen without
> >human contribution.  Next show me that this CO2 is the CAUSE of the
> >increase in the mean temperature.  I won't argue that the temperature is
> >rising, but the atmospheric level of CO2 might very well be a RESULT of a
> >higher mean temperature.  The "Greenhouse Effect" is just a theory; there
> >are a number of other theories that explain why the earth's temperature is
> >rising.  These include increased sunspot activity and tectonic and
> >geothermal action.  Increased temperature could cause saturated CO2 to be
> >released from the oceans.
> >
> >Blaming "Global Warming" on CO2 emissions (and thus on industrialized
> >countries), is a convenient ruse to redistribute wealth to
> >non-industrialized nations.  Kyoto doesn't do anything to curb the
> >emissions of China, India, all of Africa, or South America.  Do you
> >believe for a minute that these countries don't produce CO2 emissions, and
> >won't continue to do so at greater and greater rates?  Kyoto is not about
> >protecting the environment, it is about controlling people.
> >
> >Comparing the CO2 production on a per person basis is misleading, while
> >Europeans are responsible for 8 tons of CO2 each per year, and Chinese
> >make only 2 tons per year per person (Kirk's stat), there are about four
> >times as many Chinese as there are Europeans, so the regional output is
> >the same.  Furthermore the demographic of "developed" countries is
> >changing.  The European population is expected to decrease over the next
> >two decades, so who will be producing more CO2 then?  Has China signed 
> Kyoto?
> >
> >I'll butter my bread how I like.  I ride my bike to work because I want
> >to, not because an international treaty makes it illegal for me to drive
> >my car.  When I do drive, I'd rather smell French fries than dead
> >dinosaurs.  What we should really be doing is using wind, solar, and tide
> >power to split hydrogen for fuel cells, but I imagine that we'll have to
> >run out of petroleum and coal before that happens.
> >
> >-BRAH
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >[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/

   ## Paul van den Bergen
   # Gabrielle Harrison
#  # 848 High Street Rd
  ## Glen Waverley VIC 3150 Australia
   #   ## [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   #   #  ph/fax. +613 9886 3160
   # 



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to t

Re:African Forests Re: [biofuel] Global Warming

[damiandolan]

biofuel@yahoogroups.com wrote:


UN Warning on African Forests

Unless Africa adopts new measures to protect the environment, its forests will 
continue to deteriorate rapidly, resulting in a depletion of both wood and 
non-wood products, according to a United Nations report released today. 

 "In the absence of fundamental changes, the forestry situation in Africa will 
be marked by continued high losses of forest cover, deterioration in the state 
of the environment, and depletion of non-wood forest products in general and 
medicinal plants in particular," says the UN Food and Agriculture Organization 
(FAO) (http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/news/2003/15160-en.html) report, 
entitled "Forestry Outlook Study for Africa" (FOSA).

The report forecasts that in 2020 Africa will experience continued loss in 
forest cover, while progress in sustainable forest management will be slow. 
With illegal logging likely to remain a major problem, Africa will not be in a 
position to produce wood competitively - a precarious situation given that wood 
will continue to be the main source of energy. An increased urban demand for 
charcoal is also expected to result in further degradation of forests.

Presented by FAO at the sixteenth session of the agency's Committee on Forestry 
this week in Rome, the report outlines measures necessary to bring about 
significant improvement to this environmental degradation. It provides a 
20-year perspective and long-term planning framework for the development of the 
forestry sector for the continent. FOSA also includes sub-regional reports for 
North, East, Southern, Central and West Africa.

"Poverty alleviation and environmental protection will remain the most 
important priorities over the next two decades," the report states, outlining 
priorities and strategies for enhancing the contribution of forestry to the 
economic, social and environmental interests of Africa.

The report says empowering key stakeholders through policy and institutional 
changes is critical, including revitalizing the public sector, making markets 
work for poor people, enhancing the efficiency of the informal sector through 
legal and institutional frameworks, and better access to information. 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
: UN News Service 

   



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

Re: [biofuel] EU: Boycott of American Goods Over Iraq War Gains Momentum

[damiandolan]

Hi Darryl,

What about McDonalds/Budweiser/Texaco/Miller?

dD

biofuel@yahoogroups.com wrote:

<  
<  The boycotts cut both ways.
<  
<  
However, if one wants to send a 
<  financial message to the U.S. and British administrations, are there any 
target 
<  products that would be particularly effective if boycotted?
<  
<  Darryl McMahon
<  
<  
<  
<  Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
<  http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
<  
<  Biofuels list archives:
<  http://archive.nnytech.net/
<  
<  Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
<  To unsubscribe, send an email to:
<  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<  
<  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
<  
<  
<  




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuel] Making Vegetable Oil

[Clarence]

 Does anyone know of anywhere I can find information
on making vegetable oil itself? The process, etc

 Clarence

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

RE: [biofuel] Global Warming

[Bryan Brah]

Todd,
 
A bit touchy eh?  So now it's personal attacks?  One of the great benefits of 
the online world is that those of differing opinions can exchange ideas.  
Renewable energy attracts people for various reasons.  Some because they 
believe it will save the environment, some because they want a degree of 
independence from increasingly oppressive governments.  It is important however 
to remember that although our reasons are different, our goal is the same: the 
promotion and advancement of renewables.  So while you may deride me for my 
cynicism and paranoia, the results of my actions are the same as yours, and the 
world views us exactly the same.
 
-BRAH
 
  
 
-Original Message-
From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:50 AM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Global Warming
 
Yes. Here we have it. No different than a chemical company releasing toxins
into a hydrology, increased levels of cancer occurring withing that bubble,
and then the chemical company's legal staffs beating the populace down
demanding "Prove to us and the jury that it was our chemicals that caused
the cancer and not the hair spray you use, the vegetables you eat, the
chlorine in the city water, or the sun, orad infinitum."

Global warming via CO2 - a theory to redistribute wealth to
non-industrialized nations?

Perhaps before you concern yourself with the "theory" of global warming and
try and suck the life's blood out of everyone that you care to argue your
disbeliefs with, you might be better served in focusing on those  fits of
cynicism and paranoia that it appears you're prone to.

What appears to be most apparent, based upon your statements of lifestyle
preference (ride the bike to work, rather smell French fries than
dion-diesel) that you simply want to make an arguement for arguement's sake.
That's fine for academics and the like who get paid to ruminate over how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But don't expect everyone in the
grass roots sector to eagerly get caught up in your counter arguements just
for the sheer sport of it. Maybe you've got that kind of free time to waste,
but most people don't.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: "Bryan Brah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:50 AM
Subject: RE: [biofuel] Global Warming


> Show me the money!
>
> As far as a the relationship between the earth's mean temperature and CO2
levels, first prove to me that CO2 levels wouldn't have risen without human
contribution.  Next show me that this CO2 is the CAUSE of the increase in
the mean temperature.  I won't argue that the temperature is rising, but the
atmospheric level of CO2 might very well be a RESULT of a higher mean
temperature.  The "Greenhouse Effect" is just a theory; there are a number
of other theories that explain why the earth's temperature is rising.  These
include increased sunspot activity and tectonic and geothermal action.
Increased temperature could cause saturated CO2 to be released from the
oceans.
>
> Blaming "Global Warming" on CO2 emissions (and thus on industrialized
countries), is a convenient ruse to redistribute wealth to
non-industrialized nations.  Kyoto doesn't do anything to curb the emissions
of China, India, all of Africa, or South America.  Do you believe for a
minute that these countries don't produce CO2 emissions, and won't continue
to do so at greater and greater rates?  Kyoto is not about protecting the
environment, it is about controlling people.
>
> Comparing the CO2 production on a per person basis is misleading, while
Europeans are responsible for 8 tons of CO2 each per year, and Chinese make
only 2 tons per year per person (Kirk's stat), there are about four times as
many Chinese as there are Europeans, so the regional output is the same.
Furthermore the demographic of "developed" countries is changing.  The
European population is expected to decrease over the next two decades, so
who will be producing more CO2 then?  Has China signed Kyoto?
>
> I'll butter my bread how I like.  I ride my bike to work because I want
to, not because an international treaty makes it illegal for me to drive my
car.  When I do drive, I'd rather smell French fries than dead dinosaurs.
What we should really be doing is using wind, solar, and tide power to split
hydrogen for fuel cells, but I imagine that we'll have to run out of
petroleum and coal before that happens.
>
> -BRAH
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


 

Re: [biofuel] SVO particulate reduction

[Neoteric Biofuels Inc]

Yes, that is correct.


On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 11:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Hi all
> I'm under the impression that particulate emissions are about 50%
> reduced with SVO. Is this about right?
>
>  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> -~-->
> Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
> - 
> ~->
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to  
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuel] biodiesel and diesel?

[brian_moretti]

i was wondering if a person could use SVO without modifying their 
engine if they were to periodically use petrodiesel to clean out the 
engine. i know very little about this subject and i would be very 
thankful if anyone would be able to help me.
thanks, 
brian



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuel] Re: U.S. Congressman introduces biodiesel tax incentive bill

[finnloag]

I suppose we could have all seen this coming... sigh  I can think 
of no compelling reason why biodiesel made using waste vegetable oil 
should not be included (other than the fact that the bill is 
sponsored by "grassroots" ag interests: -(  Time to write my 
Congressional reps.  -Finn
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?
dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h1279ih.txt

``(1) Biodiesel defined.--The term `biodiesel' means the 
monoalkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived solely 
from 
virgin vegetable oils for use in compressional-ignition 
(diesel) engines. Such term shall include esters derived from 
vegetable oils from corn, soybeans, sunflower seeds, 
cottonseeds, canola, crambe, rapeseeds, safflowers, 
flaxseeds, 
rice bran, and mustard seeds.


--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> U.S. Congressman introduces biodiesel tax incentive bill
> 
> U.S. Congressman K. Hulshof (R-MO) introduced a bill that, if 
passed, 
> would provide a partial federal excise tax exemption for diesel 
> blended with biodiesel. Such incentive is critical to help 
biodiesel 
> manufacturers to compete with the less expensive petroleum diesel.
> 
> http://nbb.grassroots.com/NBBNewsRelease/Hulshof_Biodiesel/?
lk=1385516 
> -1385516-0-6744-LYr58520dWNlT6OKSw/wEXU/3lNVjHAp
> 
[snip]



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

Re: [biofuel] Re: Electric generators

[Ken Basterfield]

Martin the is nothing technical to stop you using your alternator as it is
to feed back into the main supply. All you need to do is synchronise the
alternator output with the mains and then close the switch to couple the
two. You will have to common the neutrals.   A lamp connected between mains
phase and alternator phase is all that is required. As the engine speed is
slowly increased,  the the lamp will begin to beat slowly on and off as the
alternator phase signal slowly slips past the mains phase. When the lamp
goes out the two signals are in phase and can be connected together. I.e.
you close the switch. henceforth the alternator will be sychronised to the
mains and if you increase the Diesel engine throttle, power will be fed to
the mains supply. The lamp will have to be double voltage to avoid blowing
it. A 240 volt lamp when connecting 110 systems or two 240 lamps in series
if running off 240 volt systems.

Don't throw out the alternator just to fit  an induction motor unless your
alternator has specific instructions from the manufactor saying that you are
not allowed to connect it to the mains.

This same system of synchronising using beating lamps can be applied to 3
phase alternators, just connect 3 lamps between each of the respective  3
phases- Original Message -
Ken

From: "martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Electric generators


> Your induction generator will continue to function if it isn't
> overloaded. If the power goes out, the induction generator will either
> become overloaded and stop generating, or continue to run while
> back-feeding the power lines. As soon as you notice that the power is
> out you should throw your main breaker or shut off the generator. If you
> intend to spin your meter backwards anyway, I'm really not sure if one
> of the automatic switches would work for you.
>
> eric12856 wrote:
>
> >Lot of smart guys in this group so I figure someone can answer my
> >question that I think may have a simple answer, but first
> >some background.
> >
> >I have a 5hp Biodiesel generator set that I also extract heat (from
> >coolant and exhaust to heat the house). Now that I've moved into a
> >new house (my heating and electric was $450/month!!)I was thinking of
> >swapping out the generator head for an induction motor so that I can
> >intertie with the utility and use the utility as a battery and
> >supplemental power.
> >
> >I know that if the utility goes out that It will produce no
> >electricity since the motor needs the field windings excited to
> >produce. Thats ok, the generator head will be moved to small gas
> >engine as backup.
> >
> >My question:
> >For safety reasons, I would like to stop the Diesel engine when the
> >utility goes off. Anyone know how I can accomplish the shutdown or
> >where I can find a schematic so I can build my own? The engine has a
> >built-in 12 volt shutdown solenoid. Would a simple relay off the main
> >breaker suffice?
> >
> >Thanks!
> >Eric Olsen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ---
> Martin Klingensmith
> http://nnytech.net/
> http://infoarchive.net/
>
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuels-biz] Fwd: [BIOENERGY] Fw: California Ethanol Workshop

[Keith Addison]

>Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:38:43 -0800
>Sender: The Bioenergy Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Tom Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: T R Miles
>Subject: [BIOENERGY] Fw: California Ethanol Workshop
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To Bioenergy list
>From: Anne Wester
>Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:25 AM
>Subject: California Ethanol Workshop
>
>California Ethanol Workshop
> Developing Ethanol's Role in California's Energy,
> Economic & Environmental Future
>
>April 14th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm
>April 15th 8:00 am - 12:00 pm
>
>Embassy Suites
>Sacramento, California
>Cost: $25 (includes meals and materials)
>(Legislators-Complimentary Registration)
>Special Room Rate at the Embassy Suites Expires Friday, March 28th
>
>
>Fuel ethanol production in America has reached historic levels.  It 
>has supported
>rural economies in some states, and reduced air pollution and 
>protected water quality
>in others.  Across the U.S., it reduces dependence on imported oil 
>and provides
>consumers with energy diversification and added fuel choice.  Could 
>California tap
>its resources to produce an in-state transportation fuel utilizing 
>agriculture,
>forestry and other biomass resources?  What would it take?  What would be the
>environmental, economic and fuel market impacts?  What are the costs 
>and benefits?
>This workshop will cover technical and policy issues to address 
>these questions.
>
>Preliminary Agenda
>
>April 14
>
>7:00-8:00 a.m.   Registration
>
>
>8:00-8:20 a.m.   Welcoming Remarks/Overview of Program
>Doug Kaempf, U.S. Department of Energy (invited)
>
>8:20-8:40 a.m.   Legislative Update: Policy Efforts 
>Supporting Ethanol
>Industry
>Development in California
>
>8:40-8:55 a.m.   Keynote Address: Ethanol's Role in 
>Supporting State
>Agriculture
>Dan Webb, Deputy Secretary, California 
>Department of Food &
>Agriculture
>
>8:55-10:45 a.m. Ethanol in California's Transportation 
>Energy Markets:
>Today and
>Tomorrow
>
>á California's Transition from MTBE to Ethanol and Beyond
>Mike McCormack, Office of Transportation Fuel Supply & Demand, 
>California Energy
>Commission
>
>á Future of Ethanol Use in California's Gasoline Under Different
>Scenarios/Fuel Blends
>Representative, Gasoline Marketer
>
>á Outlook for E85, Fuel Cells and Other Ethanol Markets in California
>
>á Energy & Carbon Emission Balance of Ethanol
>Michael Wang, Environmental Analyst, Argonne National Laboratory
>
>10:45-11:00 a.m.Refreshment Break
>
>
>11:00-12:30 p.m.Ethanol Supply Outlook for California 
>and Potential for
>In-State Production
>
>á California's Ethanol Supply Options
>William Maloney, Director of Business Development, ED&F MAN Alcohol
>
>á Status Report on Opportunities Fostering a California 
>Ethanol Industry
>Neil Koehler, Director, California Renewable Fuels Partnership
>
>á The Investment Climate for Ethanol Production in California
>Mark Yancey, Director, BBI International
>
>12:30-1:30 p.m. Networking Lunch
>
>1:30-3:30 p.m.   Ethanol's Potential Role in 
>California's Agricultural
>Industry
>Moderator: Steve Schaffer, Director, Office of Agriculture & Environmental
>Stewardship, California Department of Food & Agriculture
>
>á Overview of Ethanol's Prospective Contribution to 
>California Agriculture
>Representative, California Dept. of Food & Agriculture
>
>á Farm Bill Programs That Support Fuel Ethanol Production
>Charles Clendenin, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Rural Development
>
>Ethanol Development Case Studies in Three California Regions
>
>á Corn-to-Ethanol Project in Colusa County
>Phil Cherry, Harvest Biofuels
>
>á Sweet Sorghum and Sugar Cane to Ethanol in Imperial County
>Carson Kalin, Imperial Bioresources
>
>á San Joaquin Valley, Dr. Ellen Burnes, California State 
>University, Fresno
>
>3:30-3:45 p.m.   Refreshment Break
>
>3:45-5:15 p.m.   Moving Towards a California Public Policy
>Decision-Making Framework for Ethanol
>Discussion Leader: Dennis 
>Schuetzle, Technikon
>LLC/Ford Motor Co.
>Scott Matthews, Director, 
>Transportation Energy
>Division, California Energy Commission
>This session will be an interactive discussion among a selected 
>panelists from state
>government, policy makers, officials representing the energy, agricultural and
>environmental sectors, and other stakeholders and decision makers. 
>Panelists will
>discuss what steps California needs to consider to sustain ethanol 
>markets and foster
>ethanol production.
>
>5:15 p.m.  Adjourn
>
>5:30-6:30 p.m.   Networking Reception
>
>April 15
>
>7:30-8:00 a.m.   Registration
>
>8:00-1

[biofuel] Fwd: [BIOENERGY] Fw: California Ethanol Workshop

[Keith Addison]

>Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:38:43 -0800
>Sender: The Bioenergy Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Tom Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: T R Miles
>Subject: [BIOENERGY] Fw: California Ethanol Workshop
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To Bioenergy list
>From: Anne Wester
>Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:25 AM
>Subject: California Ethanol Workshop
>
>California Ethanol Workshop
> Developing Ethanol's Role in California's Energy,
> Economic & Environmental Future
>
>April 14th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm
>April 15th 8:00 am - 12:00 pm
>
>Embassy Suites
>Sacramento, California
>Cost: $25 (includes meals and materials)
>(Legislators-Complimentary Registration)
>Special Room Rate at the Embassy Suites Expires Friday, March 28th
>
>
>Fuel ethanol production in America has reached historic levels.  It 
>has supported
>rural economies in some states, and reduced air pollution and 
>protected water quality
>in others.  Across the U.S., it reduces dependence on imported oil 
>and provides
>consumers with energy diversification and added fuel choice.  Could 
>California tap
>its resources to produce an in-state transportation fuel utilizing 
>agriculture,
>forestry and other biomass resources?  What would it take?  What would be the
>environmental, economic and fuel market impacts?  What are the costs 
>and benefits?
>This workshop will cover technical and policy issues to address 
>these questions.
>
>Preliminary Agenda
>
>April 14
>
>7:00-8:00 a.m.   Registration
>
>
>8:00-8:20 a.m.   Welcoming Remarks/Overview of Program
>Doug Kaempf, U.S. Department of Energy (invited)
>
>8:20-8:40 a.m.   Legislative Update: Policy Efforts 
>Supporting Ethanol
>Industry
>Development in California
>
>8:40-8:55 a.m.   Keynote Address: Ethanol's Role in 
>Supporting State
>Agriculture
>Dan Webb, Deputy Secretary, California 
>Department of Food &
>Agriculture
>
>8:55-10:45 a.m. Ethanol in California's Transportation 
>Energy Markets:
>Today and
>Tomorrow
>
>á California's Transition from MTBE to Ethanol and Beyond
>Mike McCormack, Office of Transportation Fuel Supply & Demand, 
>California Energy
>Commission
>
>á Future of Ethanol Use in California's Gasoline Under Different
>Scenarios/Fuel Blends
>Representative, Gasoline Marketer
>
>á Outlook for E85, Fuel Cells and Other Ethanol Markets in California
>
>á Energy & Carbon Emission Balance of Ethanol
>Michael Wang, Environmental Analyst, Argonne National Laboratory
>
>10:45-11:00 a.m.Refreshment Break
>
>
>11:00-12:30 p.m.Ethanol Supply Outlook for California 
>and Potential for
>In-State Production
>
>á California's Ethanol Supply Options
>William Maloney, Director of Business Development, ED&F MAN Alcohol
>
>á Status Report on Opportunities Fostering a California 
>Ethanol Industry
>Neil Koehler, Director, California Renewable Fuels Partnership
>
>á The Investment Climate for Ethanol Production in California
>Mark Yancey, Director, BBI International
>
>12:30-1:30 p.m. Networking Lunch
>
>1:30-3:30 p.m.   Ethanol's Potential Role in 
>California's Agricultural
>Industry
>Moderator: Steve Schaffer, Director, Office of Agriculture & Environmental
>Stewardship, California Department of Food & Agriculture
>
>á Overview of Ethanol's Prospective Contribution to 
>California Agriculture
>Representative, California Dept. of Food & Agriculture
>
>á Farm Bill Programs That Support Fuel Ethanol Production
>Charles Clendenin, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Rural Development
>
>Ethanol Development Case Studies in Three California Regions
>
>á Corn-to-Ethanol Project in Colusa County
>Phil Cherry, Harvest Biofuels
>
>á Sweet Sorghum and Sugar Cane to Ethanol in Imperial County
>Carson Kalin, Imperial Bioresources
>
>á San Joaquin Valley, Dr. Ellen Burnes, California State 
>University, Fresno
>
>3:30-3:45 p.m.   Refreshment Break
>
>3:45-5:15 p.m.   Moving Towards a California Public Policy
>Decision-Making Framework for Ethanol
>Discussion Leader: Dennis 
>Schuetzle, Technikon
>LLC/Ford Motor Co.
>Scott Matthews, Director, 
>Transportation Energy
>Division, California Energy Commission
>This session will be an interactive discussion among a selected 
>panelists from state
>government, policy makers, officials representing the energy, agricultural and
>environmental sectors, and other stakeholders and decision makers. 
>Panelists will
>discuss what steps California needs to consider to sustain ethanol 
>markets and foster
>ethanol production.
>
>5:15 p.m.  Adjourn
>
>5:30-6:30 p.m.   Networking Reception
>
>April 15
>
>7:30-8:00 a.m.   Registration
>
>8:00-1

[biofuel] Re: EU: Boycott of American Goods Over Iraq War Gains Momentum

[hhvd]

I had the same thought Hakan LOL
The good news is, in Canada we have the advantage of much closer ties 
to the British ( the Queen would be quite upset at any invasion 
attempt) and the French as well ( since we have a very large 
Francophone population ), so although our meager military is tied up 
due to the Afghanistan situation, we most likely would get the 
support of the British and French.
This would lead to an interesting combination of "conflicts".
The US could be fighting Canada, Britain and France here, while the 
British and the US are fighting Iraq,
while we Canadians are still assisting the US, and the Brits in 
Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, we all continue to buy goods from each other and complain 
about each other. 
Even stranger than this is the fact that we as people almost all like 
each other.

HVD
ps...anyone thinking of invading Canada would be out of their minds 
as it is way too cold here... besides, they could just buy what they 
want.. we will ship it.
  

--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Darryl,
> 
> Good advise, continue to deliver, otherwise you take the
> risk of being "liberated". -:)
> 
> Hakan
> 
> 
> At 04:27 PM 3/28/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >The boycotts cut both ways.
> >
> >I read an article in the past couple of days (can't find citation 
right 
> >now), that
> >American consumers have become more likely to boycott Canadian 
products 
> >because of
> >the Canadian government's "opposition" to U.S. action in Iraq. 
(Please 
> >note that
> >Canadian troops are currently in Afghanistan, Canadian Navy ships 
are in the
> >Persian Gulf, and a small number of Canadian military are 
currently serving
> >attached to U.S and British units in Iraq and area.
> >
> >If U.S. consumers really want to make an impact, I recommend 
targeting our 
> >major
> >exports to the U.S.
> >1) Oil.  The U.S. imports more oil from Canada ("Soviet 
Canuckistan" I 
> >believe is
> >the current term of choice in Washington D.C.)
> >2) Natural Gas.
> >3) Electricity (about 40,000,000,000,000 Watt-hours imported from 
Canada 
> >to U.S. in
> >2002)
> >4) Light trucks (including SUVs and minivans and pickups).  Over 
half of 
> >these
> >vehicles produced in Canada are exported to the U.S.
> >5) Softwood lumber.  Never mind, the U.S. government has already 
applied 
> >an illegal
> >tariff (per NAFTA) on this, despite having the same tariff 
overturned by U.S.
> >courts in the past.
> >
> >I understand that boycotting American brands may have a limited 
effect 
> >(hurting
> >local merchants more than U.S. interests).  However, if one wants 
to send a
> >financial message to the U.S. and British administrations, are 
there any 
> >target
> >products that would be particularly effective if boycotted?
> >
> >Darryl McMahon


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

Re: [biofuel] EU: Boycott of American Goods Over Iraq War Gains Momentum

[Hakan Falk]

Hi Darryl,

Good advise, continue to deliver, otherwise you take the
risk of being "liberated". -:)

Hakan


At 04:27 PM 3/28/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>The boycotts cut both ways.
>
>I read an article in the past couple of days (can't find citation right 
>now), that
>American consumers have become more likely to boycott Canadian products 
>because of
>the Canadian government's "opposition" to U.S. action in Iraq. (Please 
>note that
>Canadian troops are currently in Afghanistan, Canadian Navy ships are in the
>Persian Gulf, and a small number of Canadian military are currently serving
>attached to U.S and British units in Iraq and area.
>
>If U.S. consumers really want to make an impact, I recommend targeting our 
>major
>exports to the U.S.
>1) Oil.  The U.S. imports more oil from Canada ("Soviet Canuckistan" I 
>believe is
>the current term of choice in Washington D.C.)
>2) Natural Gas.
>3) Electricity (about 40,000,000,000,000 Watt-hours imported from Canada 
>to U.S. in
>2002)
>4) Light trucks (including SUVs and minivans and pickups).  Over half of 
>these
>vehicles produced in Canada are exported to the U.S.
>5) Softwood lumber.  Never mind, the U.S. government has already applied 
>an illegal
>tariff (per NAFTA) on this, despite having the same tariff overturned by U.S.
>courts in the past.
>
>I understand that boycotting American brands may have a limited effect 
>(hurting
>local merchants more than U.S. interests).  However, if one wants to send a
>financial message to the U.S. and British administrations, are there any 
>target
>products that would be particularly effective if boycotted?
>
>Darryl McMahon



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

Re: [biofuel] EU: Boycott of American Goods Over Iraq War Gains Momentum

[Darryl McMahon]

The boycotts cut both ways.

I read an article in the past couple of days (can't find citation right now), 
that 
American consumers have become more likely to boycott Canadian products because 
of 
the Canadian government's "opposition" to U.S. action in Iraq. (Please note 
that 
Canadian troops are currently in Afghanistan, Canadian Navy ships are in the 
Persian Gulf, and a small number of Canadian military are currently serving 
attached to U.S and British units in Iraq and area.

If U.S. consumers really want to make an impact, I recommend targeting our 
major 
exports to the U.S.
1) Oil.  The U.S. imports more oil from Canada ("Soviet Canuckistan" I believe 
is 
the current term of choice in Washington D.C.)
2) Natural Gas.
3) Electricity (about 40,000,000,000,000 Watt-hours imported from Canada to 
U.S. in 
2002)
4) Light trucks (including SUVs and minivans and pickups).  Over half of these 
vehicles produced in Canada are exported to the U.S.
5) Softwood lumber.  Never mind, the U.S. government has already applied an 
illegal 
tariff (per NAFTA) on this, despite having the same tariff overturned by U.S. 
courts in the past.

I understand that boycotting American brands may have a limited effect (hurting 
local merchants more than U.S. interests).  However, if one wants to send a 
financial message to the U.S. and British administrations, are there any target 
products that would be particularly effective if boycotted?

Darryl McMahon


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

Re: [biofuel] SVO particulate reduction

[Hakan Falk]

Hi James,

I have seen 80%, but I guess it depends on the quality of
diesel. We discussed this before on the list and with current
filter on diesel cars, the cancer causing particles are those
under 2,5 micron, for which the body does not have a defense.
Currently a diesel with filter is more dangerous than one
without, according to investigations in Switzerland and France.
I know that biodiesel and SVO are very big improvements.

Hakan


At 08:12 PM 3/28/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi all
>I'm under the impression that particulate emissions are about 50%
>reduced with SVO. Is this about right?



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuel] SVO particulate reduction

[milliontc]

Hi all
I'm under the impression that particulate emissions are about 50% 
reduced with SVO. Is this about right?

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuel] Re: 'Drive for America' Campaign Calls on Big Three Automakers To Increase Fuel Economy as Matter of National Security

[Keith Addison]

Forwarded response to this campaign:

>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Frank Sirett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:20:08 +0100
>Subject: Re: [alternatepower] Digest Number 797
>
>I am sorry, I cannot let this one go by.
>
>The problem with foreign oil is not that it is foreign, but rather that the
>oil companies that are selling it, mostly American, are being very poor
>corporate citizens and they can influence American foreign policy, as well
>as the policies of many foreign, oil producing nations, to an outstanding
>degree.
>
>The countries whom are accused of being hostile mostly consider the United
>States hostile. The majority of Kuwaitis do not want the government they
>have. The majority of Saudis do not want the government they have. The
>majority of the Iranis do not want the government they have but do not want
>a return to the bad old days of the Shah. The Nigerians do not want their
>government, the list goes on and on, but the American foreign policy seems
>to favour these non democratic regimes as long as they sell oil under the
>correct conditions.
>
>If you want a hybrid vehicle, the Japanese are already building one and
>marketing it. I would suggest you buy that. The American Big Three do not
>care to support the United States or anything else. They want to make money
>and as much of it as is humanly possible. There is nothing patriotic in
>feeding a leech just because it came from your particular part of the river.
>A leech is a leech and it will try to insinuate itself into a position of
>prosperity using whatever tools it has to hand. If patriotism is a handy
>tool, that will be used.
>
>A free market system means that you have a choice and are not coerced into
>selecting a lesser product. This is a red herring, in many ways. The only
>message that will ever get through to any multinational business is the
>economic message. Keep your car longer, drive it less and if the local
>product is not up to your standards, buy one that is not local. If it is
>worth the effort, the foreign makers will open factories locally and the
>only long term suffering will be on the part of those who produce something
>that is not worthy.
>
>American cars in Europe are not more expensive than local makes. They can be
>purchased, but they are rare because they are simply not what people want
>nor do they offer the value that is expected by the purchasing public.
>Spanish cars are purchased in England and French cars are purchased in Spain
>and German cars are purchased everywhere. Japanese may easily sweep the
>market when their product is the best and that is the way it should be.
>Competition is fierce for that reason and people tend to get what they want,
>by and large.
>
>That is what a free market is all about. Not just free within the national
>borders, but free in the borders of the marketplace.
>
>Frank Sirett
>Canet de Mar, Spain
>
> > Message: 2
> >Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:42:05 -
> >From: "kayactsg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Drive for America Campaign
> >
> > Dear friends:
> >
> > It's time to "Drive For America" -- clean and efficiently.  Take
> > action at http://www.DriveforAmerica.org.
> >
> > For too long, our nation has been dangerously dependent on foreign
> > oil - leaving our economy and our foreign policy hostage to the whims
> > of other, often hostile nations.  But through the use of advanced
> > automotive technologies such as hybrid electric vehicles and fuel
> > cells, we can dramatically increase the gas mileage of our cars,
> > trucks, and SUV's.  We can finally start to reduce our energy
> > dependence, and increase our national security. Driving efficiently,
> > we can "Drive for America."
> >
> > Fortunately, after years of delay, America's big three automakers
> > recently announced tentative plans to introduce hybrid electric
> > vehicles. And now it's up to us to make sure that they actually
> > follow through on these plans.
> >
> > Take action at http://www.DriveforAmerica.org.  Send the automakers a
> > message. Tell them you applaud their promises for higher mileage
> > vehicles, but that you will be watching closely to make sure those
> > promises are kept, and that their vehicles really will "Drive for
> > America."
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Drive For America Team

Orig message:

>http://www.ase.org/media/newsrel/drive_for.htm
>
>'Drive for America' Campaign Calls on Big Three Automakers To
>Increase Fuel Economy as Matter of National Security
>
>www.driveforamerica.org
>
>Washington, DC, March 27, 2003 -With world oil markets increasingly
>in turmoil, U.S. oil imports steadily increasing, and oil and gas
>prices on the rise, the Alliance to Save Energy has launched the
>Drive for America campaign demanding that the Big Three automakers
>increase fuel economy as a matter of national security. In the web
>campaign's first 24 hours, more than 5,000 Americans on the home
>front signed on to the campaign as a way of making their own

[biofuels-biz] Re: 'Drive for America' Campaign Calls on Big Three Automakers To Increase Fuel Economy as Matter of National Security

[Keith Addison]

Forwarded response to this campaign:

>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Frank Sirett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:20:08 +0100
>Subject: Re: [alternatepower] Digest Number 797
>
>I am sorry, I cannot let this one go by.
>
>The problem with foreign oil is not that it is foreign, but rather that the
>oil companies that are selling it, mostly American, are being very poor
>corporate citizens and they can influence American foreign policy, as well
>as the policies of many foreign, oil producing nations, to an outstanding
>degree.
>
>The countries whom are accused of being hostile mostly consider the United
>States hostile. The majority of Kuwaitis do not want the government they
>have. The majority of Saudis do not want the government they have. The
>majority of the Iranis do not want the government they have but do not want
>a return to the bad old days of the Shah. The Nigerians do not want their
>government, the list goes on and on, but the American foreign policy seems
>to favour these non democratic regimes as long as they sell oil under the
>correct conditions.
>
>If you want a hybrid vehicle, the Japanese are already building one and
>marketing it. I would suggest you buy that. The American Big Three do not
>care to support the United States or anything else. They want to make money
>and as much of it as is humanly possible. There is nothing patriotic in
>feeding a leech just because it came from your particular part of the river.
>A leech is a leech and it will try to insinuate itself into a position of
>prosperity using whatever tools it has to hand. If patriotism is a handy
>tool, that will be used.
>
>A free market system means that you have a choice and are not coerced into
>selecting a lesser product. This is a red herring, in many ways. The only
>message that will ever get through to any multinational business is the
>economic message. Keep your car longer, drive it less and if the local
>product is not up to your standards, buy one that is not local. If it is
>worth the effort, the foreign makers will open factories locally and the
>only long term suffering will be on the part of those who produce something
>that is not worthy.
>
>American cars in Europe are not more expensive than local makes. They can be
>purchased, but they are rare because they are simply not what people want
>nor do they offer the value that is expected by the purchasing public.
>Spanish cars are purchased in England and French cars are purchased in Spain
>and German cars are purchased everywhere. Japanese may easily sweep the
>market when their product is the best and that is the way it should be.
>Competition is fierce for that reason and people tend to get what they want,
>by and large.
>
>That is what a free market is all about. Not just free within the national
>borders, but free in the borders of the marketplace.
>
>Frank Sirett
>Canet de Mar, Spain
>
> > Message: 2
> >Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:42:05 -
> >From: "kayactsg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Drive for America Campaign
> >
> > Dear friends:
> >
> > It's time to "Drive For America" -- clean and efficiently.  Take
> > action at http://www.DriveforAmerica.org.
> >
> > For too long, our nation has been dangerously dependent on foreign
> > oil - leaving our economy and our foreign policy hostage to the whims
> > of other, often hostile nations.  But through the use of advanced
> > automotive technologies such as hybrid electric vehicles and fuel
> > cells, we can dramatically increase the gas mileage of our cars,
> > trucks, and SUV's.  We can finally start to reduce our energy
> > dependence, and increase our national security. Driving efficiently,
> > we can "Drive for America."
> >
> > Fortunately, after years of delay, America's big three automakers
> > recently announced tentative plans to introduce hybrid electric
> > vehicles. And now it's up to us to make sure that they actually
> > follow through on these plans.
> >
> > Take action at http://www.DriveforAmerica.org.  Send the automakers a
> > message. Tell them you applaud their promises for higher mileage
> > vehicles, but that you will be watching closely to make sure those
> > promises are kept, and that their vehicles really will "Drive for
> > America."
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Drive For America Team

Orig message:

>http://www.ase.org/media/newsrel/drive_for.htm
>
>'Drive for America' Campaign Calls on Big Three Automakers To
>Increase Fuel Economy as Matter of National Security
>
>www.driveforamerica.org
>
>Washington, DC, March 27, 2003 -With world oil markets increasingly
>in turmoil, U.S. oil imports steadily increasing, and oil and gas
>prices on the rise, the Alliance to Save Energy has launched the
>Drive for America campaign demanding that the Big Three automakers
>increase fuel economy as a matter of national security. In the web
>campaign's first 24 hours, more than 5,000 Americans on the home
>front signed on to the campaign as a way of making their own

RE: [biofuel] Global Warming

[Hakan Falk]

Bryan,

I am sorry, but I cannot accept your statements as having
scientific base and connection to reality nor being knowledgeable,
reasonable and responsible. I do find the 200 leading scientist
in the field and the world, that belive in the CO2 connection
and Global Warming somewhat more serious and convincing.

Hakan


At 10:50 AM 3/28/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>Show me the money!
>
>As far as a the relationship between the earth's mean temperature and CO2 
>levels, first prove to me that CO2 levels wouldn't have risen without 
>human contribution.  Next show me that this CO2 is the CAUSE of the 
>increase in the mean temperature.  I won't argue that the temperature is 
>rising, but the atmospheric level of CO2 might very well be a RESULT of a 
>higher mean temperature.  The "Greenhouse Effect" is just a theory; there 
>are a number of other theories that explain why the earth's temperature is 
>rising.  These include increased sunspot activity and tectonic and 
>geothermal action.  Increased temperature could cause saturated CO2 to be 
>released from the oceans.
>
>Blaming "Global Warming" on CO2 emissions (and thus on industrialized 
>countries), is a convenient ruse to redistribute wealth to 
>non-industrialized nations.  Kyoto doesn't do anything to curb the 
>emissions of China, India, all of Africa, or South America.  Do you 
>believe for a minute that these countries don't produce CO2 emissions, and 
>won't continue to do so at greater and greater rates?  Kyoto is not about 
>protecting the environment, it is about controlling people.
>
>Comparing the CO2 production on a per person basis is misleading, while 
>Europeans are responsible for 8 tons of CO2 each per year, and Chinese 
>make only 2 tons per year per person (Kirk's stat), there are about four 
>times as many Chinese as there are Europeans, so the regional output is 
>the same.  Furthermore the demographic of "developed" countries is 
>changing.  The European population is expected to decrease over the next 
>two decades, so who will be producing more CO2 then?  Has China signed Kyoto?
>
>I'll butter my bread how I like.  I ride my bike to work because I want 
>to, not because an international treaty makes it illegal for me to drive 
>my car.  When I do drive, I'd rather smell French fries than dead 
>dinosaurs.  What we should really be doing is using wind, solar, and tide 
>power to split hydrogen for fuel cells, but I imagine that we'll have to 
>run out of petroleum and coal before that happens.
>
>-BRAH
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Biofuels list archives:
>http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
>Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

RE: [biofuel] Fw: It Has Always Been The Soldier

[Bryan Brah]

Here's an essay by Michael New.  
 
http://thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no18/vo12no18_stand.htm
 
-BRAH
 
-Original Message-
From: bratt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 2:48 PM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fw: It Has Always Been The Soldier
 
Jennifer:

Wasn't there a soldier named Michael New that refused to serve as a UN soldier 
because he had sworn alegiance to the USA?  Didn't he end up in jail for 
refusing this illegal order?

EdB- Original Message - 
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 1:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [biofuel] Fw: It Has Always Been The Soldier


  >>>The American Soldier ESP. Officers are DUTY BOUND to Disobey ANY illegal 
  Order, or to commit ANY Geneva standard war crime. Not only is it allowed to 
  ignore orders to do so, but you are MANDATED to, or suffer the same crime 
  charge. You can also arrest ANY soldier, Officer or enlisted who orders such 
  or engages in such. And that's a Fact :-)

  Respectfully Yours,

  Jennifer :-)


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
  ADVERTISEMENT

   
   

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

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

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

  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

 

 

  

 

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

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

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! 
  Terms of Service. 


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



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

Re: [biofuel] Iraq...

[exotyone]

In a message dated 3/28/03 7:33:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> Extracted from links at www.rense.com: seems to be coming, 
> in some part, from intercepted US/UK miltary communication traffic.
> 
> >According to [Russian military] intelligence Pentagon made a decision to 
> significantly reinforce the coalition. During >the next two weeks up to 
> 50,000 troops and no less than 500 tanks will arrive to the combat area 
> from the US military >bases in Germany and Albania. By the end of April 
> 120,000 more troops and up to 1,200 additional tanks will be sent to >
> support the war against Iraq.
> >
> >A decision was made to change the way aviation is used in this war. The 
> use of precision-guided munitions will be >scaled down and these weapons 
> will be reserved for attacking only known, confirmed targets. There will be 
> an increase >in the use of conventional high-yield aviation bombs, 
> volume-detonation bombs and incendiary munitions. The USAF >command is 
> ordered to deliver to airbases used against Iraq a two-week supply of 
> aviation bombs of 1-tonn caliber and >higher as well as volume-detonation 
> and incendiary bombs. This means that Washington is resorting to the 
> "scorched >earth" tactics and carpet-bombing campaign.
> >
> >(source: iraqwar.ru, 03-25-03, translated by Venik)
> >
> 

Not really...and that is NOT a confirmed report. that is Rumor(scorched 
earth) till proven otherwise . And guided munitions may run low, which are 
needed for hitting Exact targets where Saddam hides his arsenel in civilian 
areas.   THe conventional bombs can be used outside cities in conventional 
manner on exposed Iraqi Units/armor, field pieces/rocket sights, etc.and 
on any troop concentrations
   ALSO ..ANY conventional bomb munitions Can be made into Precision GUIDED 
bombs right in the field by attachement of the fins and guiding tipALso, 
1 must consider the info source (Russia). Thus far ALL reports from Iraq show 
US and British exercise extreme caution to NOT hurting non-combatatants and 
their property. We have taken fire and not returned it in many cases in order 
to not hurt of kill innocent civilians PUT in the way by the Iraqi "SS". We 
have also not knowingly fired on Iraqi Civilians, but the Iraqi Forces have. 
I know my munitions, i know my training. Our trrops are trained as i was 
trained. and I and they do not put anyone at undue risk, or  inflict undue 
harm. There is Not benifit from doing so, militarily ..and DEFINITELY Not 
politically. Common sense folks, common sense .
   I am the same type of person as you are, i just happen to wear a uniform, 
and try to the best of my ability to defend the Free World. War is MORE scary 
to me than it is to those Not in uniform...you'll have to trust me on that 1. 
I've been on both sides of the fence. I know. 
 I hope and pray for a quick end to the war, and a just rebuilding of the 
Iraqi nation as much as anyone. I also fear there will be many more battles 
to come in the world of WMD in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations (N 
Korea) etc. 
  I personally don't like seeing the US and England basically Going it alone. 
i would hope the nations of the world would unite to beat this enemy of 
humanity , and not sitting it out on political agendas in the UN and 
elsewhere. We can't do it alone. it's an impossible job for 1 or 2 or 3 
nations to do. We all have to root out these elements of destruction, or we 
will all feel its destruction and its effects untill we do.
I don't have all the answers. I don't think anyone does, but we all 
must work together to find them, and take action on them. These Things will 
not just "Negotiate" away.
  
 Jennifer USAF


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



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuels-biz] 'Drive for America' Campaign Calls on Big Three Automakers To Increase Fuel Economy as Matter of National Security

[Keith Addison]

http://www.ase.org/media/newsrel/drive_for.htm

'Drive for America' Campaign Calls on Big Three Automakers To 
Increase Fuel Economy as Matter of National Security

www.driveforamerica.org

Washington, DC, March 27, 2003 -With world oil markets increasingly 
in turmoil, U.S. oil imports steadily increasing, and oil and gas 
prices on the rise, the Alliance to Save Energy has launched the 
Drive for America campaign demanding that the Big Three automakers 
increase fuel economy as a matter of national security. In the web 
campaign's first 24 hours, more than 5,000 Americans on the home 
front signed on to the campaign as a way of making their own 
contribution to national security and sending a message to U.S. 
automakers.

"With cars and light trucks accounting for more than 40 percent of 
U.S. oil consumption, the Big Three automakers are uniquely 
positioned to help break our nation's deadly oil dependence," said 
Alliance President David M. Nemtzow. "For too long, our nation has 
been dangerously dependent on foreign oil, leaving our economy and 
our national security hostage to the whims of other, often hostile, 
nations. The Drive for America campaign allows us to declare that we 
will no longer tolerate being a nation of oil junkies."

According to the campaign, the battle against energy dependence has 
become more than just an environmental or economic one - it has 
become a critical battle for national security. As evidence, the 
campaign website (www.driveforamerica.org) reminds Americans of these 
alarming statistics:

* U.S. dependence on oil imports is currently the highest in our 
history - accounting for well over half of the oil we consume. 
Without efforts to reverse this trend, imports will reach two-thirds 
of U.S. oil consumption by 2025.
* More than two-thirds of the world's oil reserves are concentrated 
in the explosive Middle East.
* Saudi Arabia holds one-fourth of the world's proven oil reserves - 
the largest share - followed by Iraq, at 11 percent.
* Current fuel economy standards save about 2.8 million barrels of 
oil a day, according to the National Academy of Sciences.

"America can significantly increase the gas mileage of its cars, 
trucks, and SUVs by employing current and emerging automotive 
technologies such as hybrid electric vehicles," said Alliance 
Director of Policy Kara Saul Rinaldi. "This campaign tells America's 
automakers that Americans want more efficient vehicles and demand a 
change in our gluttonous oil consumption."

The Drive for America campaign also urged Americans to take the 
Patriot's Energy Pledge (www.saveabarrel.org) to reduce their 
personal use of oil in various ways, such as by keeping their cars 
tuned, buying fuel efficient vehicles, and walking or taking public 
transit to work.



The Alliance to Save Energy is a coalition of prominent business, 
government, environmental, and consumer leaders who promote the 
efficient use of energy worldwide to benefit consumers, the 
environment, economy, and national security.

The Patriot's Energy Pledge is a civic campaign to help Americans 
reduce dependence on oil by taking personal steps to meet our 
transportation needs in more fuel-efficient ways. By taking the 
pledge, you will save at the pump, help the environment, and make our 
nation more secure.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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

 

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

Re: [biofuel] Global Warming

[exotyone]

In a message dated 3/28/03 8:01:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> 
> And then there is the even less extravigant method of simply reducing
> consumption. (Novel thought, eh?)
> 
> Cheaper on the pocketbook, less taxing on a planet, preserves resources for
> a future time, reduces the frequency of environmental catastrophe.
> 
> Who woulda' ever thunk
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "paul van den bergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [biofuel] Global Warming
> 
> 
> > On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:01 pm, MH wrote:
> > >  "It takes a pound of coal to generate the electricity to light a
> 100-watt
> > > bulb for 10 hours.  For every pound of coal we burn, nearly three 
> pounds
> of
> > > carbon dioxide go into the atmosphere."
> >
> > Coal is bad enough, but concrete (portland cement) is worse.
> > for every ton, 5.5 tons of CO2 are produced.
> >
> >
> > I like the statement "We don't really know what is going on, but you can
> be
> > pretty sure that we can't go on dumping all this junk into the 
> environment
> > and not have a dramatic and adverse effect" or words to that effect.
> >
> > I have heard plenty of ideas about reversing green house evvects, from
> > sequestering liquid CO2 in geosinks to Fe seeding the southern ocean to
> tie
> > up CO2 as boita that sink down the thermocline...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr Paul van den Bergen
> > Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures
> > caia.swin.edu.au
> 

>>>makes sense to mei have had MANY a good laugh when told, "we should 
drive "Electric cars" ...they don't pollute!!".The heck they don't...you 
plug it in to charge, and how you think they make the electricity that 
charges that car up?? loland  correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't 
gas/diesel/etc Fueled cars More pollution regulated than power plants?
  
Jennifer  :-)


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



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuel] 'Drive for America' Campaign Calls on Big Three Automakers To Increase Fuel Economy as Matter of National Security

[Keith Addison]

http://www.ase.org/media/newsrel/drive_for.htm

'Drive for America' Campaign Calls on Big Three Automakers To 
Increase Fuel Economy as Matter of National Security

www.driveforamerica.org

Washington, DC, March 27, 2003 -With world oil markets increasingly 
in turmoil, U.S. oil imports steadily increasing, and oil and gas 
prices on the rise, the Alliance to Save Energy has launched the 
Drive for America campaign demanding that the Big Three automakers 
increase fuel economy as a matter of national security. In the web 
campaign's first 24 hours, more than 5,000 Americans on the home 
front signed on to the campaign as a way of making their own 
contribution to national security and sending a message to U.S. 
automakers.

"With cars and light trucks accounting for more than 40 percent of 
U.S. oil consumption, the Big Three automakers are uniquely 
positioned to help break our nation's deadly oil dependence," said 
Alliance President David M. Nemtzow. "For too long, our nation has 
been dangerously dependent on foreign oil, leaving our economy and 
our national security hostage to the whims of other, often hostile, 
nations. The Drive for America campaign allows us to declare that we 
will no longer tolerate being a nation of oil junkies."

According to the campaign, the battle against energy dependence has 
become more than just an environmental or economic one - it has 
become a critical battle for national security. As evidence, the 
campaign website (www.driveforamerica.org) reminds Americans of these 
alarming statistics:

* U.S. dependence on oil imports is currently the highest in our 
history - accounting for well over half of the oil we consume. 
Without efforts to reverse this trend, imports will reach two-thirds 
of U.S. oil consumption by 2025.
* More than two-thirds of the world's oil reserves are concentrated 
in the explosive Middle East.
* Saudi Arabia holds one-fourth of the world's proven oil reserves - 
the largest share - followed by Iraq, at 11 percent.
* Current fuel economy standards save about 2.8 million barrels of 
oil a day, according to the National Academy of Sciences.

"America can significantly increase the gas mileage of its cars, 
trucks, and SUVs by employing current and emerging automotive 
technologies such as hybrid electric vehicles," said Alliance 
Director of Policy Kara Saul Rinaldi. "This campaign tells America's 
automakers that Americans want more efficient vehicles and demand a 
change in our gluttonous oil consumption."

The Drive for America campaign also urged Americans to take the 
Patriot's Energy Pledge (www.saveabarrel.org) to reduce their 
personal use of oil in various ways, such as by keeping their cars 
tuned, buying fuel efficient vehicles, and walking or taking public 
transit to work.



The Alliance to Save Energy is a coalition of prominent business, 
government, environmental, and consumer leaders who promote the 
efficient use of energy worldwide to benefit consumers, the 
environment, economy, and national security.

The Patriot's Energy Pledge is a civic campaign to help Americans 
reduce dependence on oil by taking personal steps to meet our 
transportation needs in more fuel-efficient ways. By taking the 
pledge, you will save at the pump, help the environment, and make our 
nation more secure.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

Re: [biofuel] Global Warming

[Appal Energy]

Yes. Here we have it. No different than a chemical company releasing toxins
into a hydrology, increased levels of cancer occurring withing that bubble,
and then the chemical company's legal staffs beating the populace down
demanding "Prove to us and the jury that it was our chemicals that caused
the cancer and not the hair spray you use, the vegetables you eat, the
chlorine in the city water, or the sun, orad infinitum."

Global warming via CO2 - a theory to redistribute wealth to
non-industrialized nations?

Perhaps before you concern yourself with the "theory" of global warming and
try and suck the life's blood out of everyone that you care to argue your
disbeliefs with, you might be better served in focusing on those  fits of
cynicism and paranoia that it appears you're prone to.

What appears to be most apparent, based upon your statements of lifestyle
preference (ride the bike to work, rather smell French fries than
dion-diesel) that you simply want to make an arguement for arguement's sake.
That's fine for academics and the like who get paid to ruminate over how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But don't expect everyone in the
grass roots sector to eagerly get caught up in your counter arguements just
for the sheer sport of it. Maybe you've got that kind of free time to waste,
but most people don't.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message -
From: "Bryan Brah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 11:50 AM
Subject: RE: [biofuel] Global Warming


> Show me the money!
>
> As far as a the relationship between the earth's mean temperature and CO2
levels, first prove to me that CO2 levels wouldn't have risen without human
contribution.  Next show me that this CO2 is the CAUSE of the increase in
the mean temperature.  I won't argue that the temperature is rising, but the
atmospheric level of CO2 might very well be a RESULT of a higher mean
temperature.  The "Greenhouse Effect" is just a theory; there are a number
of other theories that explain why the earth's temperature is rising.  These
include increased sunspot activity and tectonic and geothermal action.
Increased temperature could cause saturated CO2 to be released from the
oceans.
>
> Blaming "Global Warming" on CO2 emissions (and thus on industrialized
countries), is a convenient ruse to redistribute wealth to
non-industrialized nations.  Kyoto doesn't do anything to curb the emissions
of China, India, all of Africa, or South America.  Do you believe for a
minute that these countries don't produce CO2 emissions, and won't continue
to do so at greater and greater rates?  Kyoto is not about protecting the
environment, it is about controlling people.
>
> Comparing the CO2 production on a per person basis is misleading, while
Europeans are responsible for 8 tons of CO2 each per year, and Chinese make
only 2 tons per year per person (Kirk's stat), there are about four times as
many Chinese as there are Europeans, so the regional output is the same.
Furthermore the demographic of "developed" countries is changing.  The
European population is expected to decrease over the next two decades, so
who will be producing more CO2 then?  Has China signed Kyoto?
>
> I'll butter my bread how I like.  I ride my bike to work because I want
to, not because an international treaty makes it illegal for me to drive my
car.  When I do drive, I'd rather smell French fries than dead dinosaurs.
What we should really be doing is using wind, solar, and tide power to split
hydrogen for fuel cells, but I imagine that we'll have to run out of
petroleum and coal before that happens.
>
> -BRAH
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuel] Six Days Of Shame

[Keith Addison]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=3325

Six Days Of Shame

by John Pilger
March 26, 2003

TERROR WAR

TODAY is a day of shame for the British military as it declares the 
Iraqi city of Basra, with a stricken population of 600,000, a 
"military target".

You will not read or hear those words in the establishment media that 
claims to speak for Britain.

But they are true. With Basra, shame is now our signature, forged by 
Blair and Bush.

Having destroyed its water and power supplies, cut off food supply 
routes and having failed to crack its human defences, they are now 
preparing to lay siege to Iraq's second city which is more than 40 
per cent children.

What an ignominious moment in British history. Here is an 
impoverished country under attack by a superpower, the United States, 
which has unimaginable wealth and the world's most destructive 
weapons, and its "coalition" accomplice, Britain, which boasts one of 
the world's best "professional" armies.

Believing their own propaganda, the military brass has been stunned 
by the Iraqi resistance.

They have tried to belittle the militia defending Basra with lurid 
stories that its fighters are killing each other.

The truth is that the Iraqis are fighting like lions to defend not a 
tyrant but their homeland. It is a truth the overwhelming majority of 
decent Britons will admire.

The historical comparison Tony Blair and his propagandists fear is 
that of the British defending themselves against invasion. That 
happened 60 years ago and now "we" are the rapacious invaders.

Yesterday, Blair said that 400,000 Iraqi children had died in the 
past five years from malnutrition and related causes. He said "huge 
stockpiles of humanitarian aid" and clean water awaited them in 
Kuwait, if only the Iraqi regime would allow safe passage.

In fact, voluminous evidence, including that published by the United 
Nations Children's Fund, makes clear that the main reason these 
children have died is an enduring siege, a 12-year embargo driven by 
America and Britain.

As of last July, $5.4billion worth of humanitarian supplies, approved 
by the UN and paid for by the Iraqi government, were blocked by 
Washington, with the Blair government's approval. The former 
assistant secretary general of the UN, Denis Halliday, who was sent 
to Iraq to set up the "oil for food programme", described the effects 
of the embargo as "nothing less than genocide". Similar words have 
been used by his successor, Hans Von Sponeck.

Both men resigned in protest, saying the embargo merely reinforced 
the power of Saddam.

Both called Blair a liar.

And now Blair's troops are firing their wire-guided missiles to 
"soften up" Basra.

I have walked the city's streets, along a road blown to pieces by a 
US missile. The casualties were children, of course, because children 
are everywhere. I held a handkerchief over my face as I stood in a 
school playground with a teacher and several hundred malnourished 
youngsters.

The dust blew in from the southern battlefields of the 1991 Gulf War, 
which have never been cleaned up because the US and British 
governments have denied Iraq the specialist equipment.

The dust, Dr Jawad Al-Ali told me, carries "the seeds of our death". 
In the children's wards of Basra's main hospital, deaths from a range 
of hitherto unseen cancers are common and specialists have little 
doubt that up to half the population of southern Iraq will die from 
cancers linked to the use of a weapon of mass destruction used by the 
Americans and British - uranium tipped shells and missiles.

ONCE again, the Americans are deploying what Professor Doug Rokke, a 
former US Army physicist, calls "a form of nuclear weapon that 
contaminates everything and everyone".

Today, each round fired by US tanks contains 4,500 grams of solid 
uranium, whose particles, breathed or ingested, can cause cancer.

This, and the use by both the Allies of new kinds of cluster bombs, 
is being covered up.

Once again, the British public is being denied the reality of war.

Images of bandaged children in hospital wards are appearing on TV but 
you do not see the result of a Tornado's cluster bombing.

You are not being shown children scalped by shrapnel, with legs 
reduced to bloody pieces of string.

Such images are "not acceptable", because they will disturb viewers - 
and the authorities do not want that. These "unseen" images are the 
truth. Iraqi parents have to look at their mutilated children, so why 
shouldn't those of us, in whose name they were slaughtered, see what 
they see?

Why shouldn't we share their pain? Why shouldn't we see the true 
nature of this criminal invasion?

Other wars were sanitised, allowing them to be repeated.

If you have satellite TV, try to find the Al Jazeera channel, which 
has distinguished itself with its coverage. When the Americans bombed 
Afghanistan, one of their "smart" bombs destroyed the Al Jazeera 
office in Kabul. Few believe it

[biofuel] EU: Boycott of American Goods Over Iraq War Gains Momentum

[Keith Addison]

http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=6072

EU: Boycott of American Goods Over Iraq War Gains Momentum

By Erik Kirschbaum
Reuters
March 25, 2003

Berlin - No more Coca-Cola or Budweiser, no Marlboro, no American 
whiskey or even American Express cards -- a growing number of 
restaurants in Germany are taking everything American off their menus 
to protest the war in Iraq.

Although the protests are mainly symbolic, waiters in dozens of bars 
and restaurants in Hamburg, Berlin, Munich, Bonn and other German 
cities are telling patrons, "Sorry, Coca-Cola is not available any 
more due to the current political situation."

The boycotts appear to be part of a nascent worldwide movement. One 
Web site, www.consumers-against-war.de, calls for boycotts of 27 top 
American firms from Microsoft to Kodak while another, 
www.adbusters.org, urges the "millions of people against the war" to 
"Boycott Brand America."

Consumer fury seems to be on the rise. Demonstrators in Paris smashed 
the windows of a McDonald's restaurant last week, forcing police in 
riot gear to move in to protect staff and customers of the American 
fast-food outlet. The attackers sprayed obscenities and "boycott" on 
the windows.

In Indonesia, Iraq war opponents have pasted signs on McDonald's and 
other American food outlets, trying to force them shut by "sealing 
them" and urging Indonesians to avoid them.

In the Swiss city of Basel, 50 students recently staged a sit-down 
strike in front of a McDonald's to block customers' entry, waved 
peace signs and urged people to eat pretzels instead of hamburgers.

Anti-American sentiment has even reached provinces in Russia, where 
some rural eateries put up signs telling Americans they were 
unwelcome, according to an Izvestia newspaper report.

A German bicycle manufacturer, Riese und Mueller GmbH, canceled all 
business deals with its American suppliers.

"Americans only pay attention when money is on the line," director 
Heiko Mueller told Reuters, whose firm buys $300,000 worth of 
supplies from half a dozen American firms each year.

"We wanted to make a statement against this war and told our American 
partners that unless they renounce what their government is doing we 
won't do any business with them anymore."

Small But Symbolic

The German restaurant boycotts of American products started small but 
spread rapidly after the Iraq war began on Thursday. The conflict has 
struck a raw nerve in a country that became decidedly anti-war after 
the devastation of World War II, which it initiated.

"If people all around the world boycott American products it might 
influence their policies," said Jean-Yves Mabileau, owner of 
"L'Auberge Francaise" which joined 10 Hamburg restaurants in banning 
Coca Cola, Philip Morris' Marlboro cigarettes, whiskey and other 
American goods.

"This started as a light-hearted reaction to Americans dumping French 
wine in the gutter and renaming 'French Fries' as 'Freedom Fries'," 
he said. "But it feels good to take a stand against this war. It is 
just a small gesture, but a good one."

Diners at the Osteria restaurant in Berlin are finding that "things 
go better without Coke" and are ordering Germany's long overshadowed 
imitation of "the real thing" -- the slightly sweeter "Afri-Cola" -- 
to express their outrage.

"We wanted to do something to express our annoyance," Osteria owner 
Fabio Angile told Reuters. "We want to hit America where it hurts -- 
in their wallets. None of the customers have complained. On the 
contrary, most thought it was a great idea."

Herve Keroureda, owner of a French restaurant in Hamburg known as "Ti 
Breizh," said he was astonished by the massive media coverage of 
their small-scale anti-American protest.

"It was only intended as a small gesture but has turned into a 
gigantic issue," he said. "And the reaction from the patrons has been 
tremendous. Most have called it a brilliant idea."

In Bonn, bartender Bruno Kessler said he was refusing to sell 
American whiskey or American beer such as Anheuser-Busch's Budweiser 
at his "Eifeler Stuben."

"I asked myself 'What can I possibly do to show my anger over this 
barbary?'," he told Germany's N-24 television network.

Starbucks, Big Macs Avoided

Sarah Stolz, a 22-year-old German student of American studies, was 
headed for a Starbucks, coffee shop in central Berlin when her 
anti-war conscience got the best of her.

"I was thinking about going into Starbucks which I love, when I 
realized it was wrong," she said. "I'm backing the boycott because 
the war is totally unjustified."

Rita Marschall was avoiding McDonald's and Burger King.

"I'm boycotting American products because their policy on Iraq is 
totally wrong," said Marschall, 26, in front of a Berlin McDonald's. 
"It's just one of many ways we can take a stand."

Some German bakeries have renamed a local cake known as "Amerikaner" 
-- a disk-shaped pastry with icing on top -- as "Peace-ies," bearing 
a peace sign 

[biofuel] Iraq: US Army Depots Named After Oil Giants

[Keith Addison]

http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=6128

Iraq: US Army Depots Named After Oil Giants

By Neela Banerjee
New York Times
March 27, 2003

The subtleties surrounding the sensitive role oil plays in the Iraqi 
war may have eluded the United States Army. Deep in some newspaper 
coverage yesterday was a report that the 101st Airborne Division had 
named one central Iraq outpost Forward Operating Base Shell and 
another Forward Operating Base Exxon.

The Pentagon shrugged off concerns that now might not be the time to 
mention the names of foreign oil companies on Iraqi soil. "The 
forward bases are normally refueling points they're basically gas 
stations in the desert," a Pentagon spokeswoman said. "Whether or not 
we're going to lecture everyone that, due to political sensitivities, 
you should be careful what you call your gas stations, I don't know 
if that's something that should be done or would be done."

Neither Royal Dutch/Shell nor Exxon knew about the Iraqi bases. 
Cerris Tavinor, a spokeswoman for Shell, heard of the base only when 
a reporter called.

"We don't have anything in Iraq," Ms. Tavinor said. "Clearly they 
pick their names for whatever they want to use."

Tom Cirigliano, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said he first heard of 
the bases when he read a press review on Wednesday morning, but the 
mention did not bother the company, the world's largest publicly 
traded corporation.

"My first reaction when I saw it was this was not a political 
statement in any way by the men and women of 101st," Mr. Cirigliano 
said. "I think the 101st was being pretty creative and naming things 
after what reminds them of home. And I think that's pretty neat."

But others involved in the oil industry say the Pentagon's 
indifference to the names of the bases was poorly considered. "You 
have this atmosphere of suspicion and apprehension now, and that's 
just among your allies," Jan Stuart, head of research for global 
energy futures at ABN Amro, the Dutch investment bank, said. "And in 
this atmosphere, you call your own supply effort this. It's 
mind-boggling the degree of insensitivity. There is little doubt the 
Americans will win the war, but you have to wonder how people who are 
so insensitive are going to win the peace."


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

RE: [biofuel] Global Warming

[Bryan Brah]

Show me the money!  
 
As far as a the relationship between the earth's mean temperature and CO2 
levels, first prove to me that CO2 levels wouldn't have risen without human 
contribution.  Next show me that this CO2 is the CAUSE of the increase in the 
mean temperature.  I won't argue that the temperature is rising, but the 
atmospheric level of CO2 might very well be a RESULT of a higher mean 
temperature.  The "Greenhouse Effect" is just a theory; there are a number of 
other theories that explain why the earth's temperature is rising.  These 
include increased sunspot activity and tectonic and geothermal action.  
Increased temperature could cause saturated CO2 to be released from the oceans. 
 
 
Blaming "Global Warming" on CO2 emissions (and thus on industrialized 
countries), is a convenient ruse to redistribute wealth to non-industrialized 
nations.  Kyoto doesn't do anything to curb the emissions of China, India, all 
of Africa, or South America.  Do you believe for a minute that these countries 
don't produce CO2 emissions, and won't continue to do so at greater and greater 
rates?  Kyoto is not about protecting the environment, it is about controlling 
people.  
 
Comparing the CO2 production on a per person basis is misleading, while 
Europeans are responsible for 8 tons of CO2 each per year, and Chinese make 
only 2 tons per year per person (Kirk's stat), there are about four times as 
many Chinese as there are Europeans, so the regional output is the same.  
Furthermore the demographic of "developed" countries is changing.  The European 
population is expected to decrease over the next two decades, so who will be 
producing more CO2 then?  Has China signed Kyoto?
 
I'll butter my bread how I like.  I ride my bike to work because I want to, not 
because an international treaty makes it illegal for me to drive my car.  When 
I do drive, I'd rather smell French fries than dead dinosaurs.  What we should 
really be doing is using wind, solar, and tide power to split hydrogen for fuel 
cells, but I imagine that we'll have to run out of petroleum and coal before 
that happens.  
 
-BRAH
 
   


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



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
DVD Rentals with No Late Fees - Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ZKLNcC/pEZFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuel] FW: Sympathy For the Devil

[kirk]

The truth is, war is always a last resort.  Itâs the reaction of people
backed into a corner, which is precisely where Western Society is today.  We
face the immediate and perpetual decline in our standard of living if we don
ât steal every oil, gas, and uranium deposit on earth before 2012.

Interesting read.
Kirk





Sympathy For the Devil


Thereâs a lot of confusion and disagreement about what the War on Terrorism
is about.



Is it a clash of civilizations?



Good vs Evil?



Is it really a war?



Most of the world knows the answer to these questions.  In America, itâs a
different story.  Like everyone else, I was glued to the TV on September 11,
in a state of shock as events unfolded.  Rather than watch CNN, I chose to
watch BBC.



The BBC Newsman asked a man dressed in a suit and tie, a man who looked and
sounded as if he had an education, if he thought the events at the WTC could
be the result of US Foreign Policy in the Middle East.  Iâll never forget
what this man on the streets of New York said·



ãWhat does flying airplanes into buildings have to do with politics?ä



This sense of Papal infallibility in oneâs government is precisely why 9/11
happened.  The public is not used to questioning how a continuous stream of
oil is provided at 30 bucks a barrel.  They never question the means through
which their lifestyle is provided.



Most just donât want to know the truth.



The truth is, war is always a last resort.  Itâs the reaction of people
backed into a corner, which is precisely where Western Society is today.  We
face the immediate and perpetual decline in our standard of living if we don
ât steal every oil, gas, and uranium deposit on earth before 2012.



This is a simple mathematical fact.  Population growth and industrial demand
are outpacing energy production growth, and have been since 1979.  World Oil
production peaks in 2012, and after that, itâs a rapid slide all the way
down the bell curve.



Short of a major breakthrough in fusion, electromagnetic overunity devices,
solar panel efficiency, or hydrolysis efficiency to power fuel cells on
water, we face a never before seen energy crisis by the end of this decade,
made worse by the exponential rise in Chinese, Caspian, and Indian energy
demands between now and 2012.



The government knows this.  So do the energy companies.  But theyâre not
interested in finding an alternate energy source, because to do so would
mean the government and its corporate sponsors in the Petroleum and Defense
industries will no longer be on the top of the heap.



And they really, really like being in charge.



So rather than spend on scientific research into fusion or free energy, we
spend nearly a trillion a year making things to kill lots and lots of
colored people, steal their land, and steal their mineral rights.  In doing
so, we extend the life of the Empire by baby steps, at the cost of millions
of lives and trillions of dollars of the taxpayerâs money.



But rather than play follow the leader, letâs play follow the flow of
history, and then a game of follow the money.  First, a timeline to show why
the world is mad at the USA.  Then a timeline to let the reader decide what
the war on terror is about· using genocide to keep the top dogs on top, or
fighting terrorists·



September 11, 1609 Henry Hudson ãdiscoversä (i.e. STEALS) Manhattan Island.
Blankets infected with bubonic plague and smallpox are given to the natives
so the colonial armies can save bullets.  In the NY area alone, more than
150,000 First Nations people are killed or left homeless in the ensuing
years.



September 11, 1839 President Martin van Buren, through the US State
Department, tried to have the executive branch interfere with the judiciary,
in order to have a group of Africans, free men by American law at the time,
returned to their Îrightful ownersâ, the Spanish Crown, and sent to Cuba for
detention followed by trial and execution, even though US law at the time
stated clearly that only slaves born into slavery were legally slaves in the
United States.



September 11, 1917 Ferdinand Marcos Philippines Pres (1965-86) is born.  His
US sponsored military dictatorship and death squads trained at Fort Benning
Georgia were responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Philippinos.
Hundreds of thousands more were tortured, mutilated, and had their homes
burnt to the ground with US State Department approval.



September 11, 1919 The US once again invades Honduras on behalf of the
United Fruit Company to put down a popular revolt against a US puppet
dictatorship that had been murdering, starving and torturing the populace at
the behest of United Fruit for decades.



September 11, 1922 The British Mandate of Palestine Begins.  British guns
murdered tens of thousands of Palestinian Arabs, displacing them from their
homes and settlements that were then given to Jewish settlers.  More than
1200 villages were totally destroyed by the Brit

RE: [biofuel] Global Warming

[kirk]

Even if there was no CO2 from coal the mercury problem is enough to not burn
it.

Kirk

-Original Message-
From: MH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:46 PM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Global Warming


 Ken wrote:
>
> Hoagy did a great job of documenting the situation --
> if only they could recognize the truth when they
> see it :-). Unfortunately, it's a matter of selective
> perception. Something that is too threatening to ones
> way of life, or just too uncomfortable for ones
> emotional state to bear, will HAVE to be dismissed
> regardless of any evidence presented.
>
> Perhaps part of the answer is to present the
> inevitable readjustment as a GOOD thing to be
> welcomed rather than feared. Certainly in my own
> case, it's only the benefit of having had several
> DECADES to cogitate upon this stuff that has made
> it seem LONG OVERDUE to me... -K

 Thank you Ken.  Most of us I think are thinking about

 Changing Patterns of Fossil Fuel Use
See how changes in fossil fuel use affect regional emissions of
 carbon dioxide. A region's emissions depend on population size and
 the average amount of carbon dioxide released by each person.
 The U.S. releases more than 20 tons per person a year.

 This Table represents Total CO2 emissions by region in billion tons CO2 per
year

http://globalwarming.enviroweb.org/ishappening/peopleemc2/peoplenenergy_chan
gepatter.html

 Total Today - Amount of carbon dioxide emissions:
 From fossil fuel use TODAY.

 Scenario A - Amount of carbon dioxide emissions:
 If people worldwide used fossil fuels at the rate of
  Western Europe--8 tons per person a year.

 Scenario B - Amount of carbon dioxide emissions:
 If people worldwide used fossil fuels at the rate of
 less industrialized regions like China and Latin America
 --2 tons per person a year.

 

 Fossil fuels, which release carbon dioxide when burned,
 are used to generate electricity; heat and light homes
 and workplaces; power factories and run cars.

 Unless we reduce population growth and use of fossil fuels,
 the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will double by
 sometime in the middle of the [this] century.

 The future of Earth's climate may depend partly on
 the buildup of heat-trapping gases, primarily carbon dioxide, in the
atmosphere.

http://globalwarming.enviroweb.org/ishappening/peopleemc2/peoplenenergy_foss
ilpop.html



 


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

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

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

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


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 3/17/2003


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

Re: [biofuel] Global Warming

[Appal Energy]

And then there is the even less extravigant method of simply reducing
consumption. (Novel thought, eh?)

Cheaper on the pocketbook, less taxing on a planet, preserves resources for
a future time, reduces the frequency of environmental catastrophe.

Who woulda' ever thunk

- Original Message -
From: "paul van den bergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Global Warming


> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:01 pm, MH wrote:
> >  "It takes a pound of coal to generate the electricity to light a
100-watt
> > bulb for 10 hours.  For every pound of coal we burn, nearly three pounds
of
> > carbon dioxide go into the atmosphere."
>
> Coal is bad enough, but concrete (portland cement) is worse.
> for every ton, 5.5 tons of CO2 are produced.
>
>
> I like the statement "We don't really know what is going on, but you can
be
> pretty sure that we can't go on dumping all this junk into the environment
> and not have a dramatic and adverse effect" or words to that effect.
>
> I have heard plenty of ideas about reversing green house evvects, from
> sequestering liquid CO2 in geosinks to Fe seeding the southern ocean to
tie
> up CO2 as boita that sink down the thermocline...
>
>
>
> --
> Dr Paul van den Bergen
> Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures
> caia.swin.edu.au
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> IM:bulwynkl2002
> It's a book. Non-volatile storage media. Everyone should have one.
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

Re: [biofuel] Iraq...

[Steve Spence]

That will make CNN happy, They love devastation pictures. Boosts ratings
..

Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Preston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 7:31 AM
Subject: [biofuel] Iraq...


Extracted from links at www.rense.com: seems to be coming,
in some part, from intercepted US/UK miltary communication traffic.

>According to [Russian military] intelligence Pentagon made a decision to
significantly reinforce the coalition. During >the next two weeks up to
50,000 troops and no less than 500 tanks will arrive to the combat area from
the US military >bases in Germany and Albania. By the end of April 120,000
more troops and up to 1,200 additional tanks will be sent to >support the
war against Iraq.
>
>A decision was made to change the way aviation is used in this war. The use
of precision-guided munitions will be >scaled down and these weapons will be
reserved for attacking only known, confirmed targets. There will be an
increase >in the use of conventional high-yield aviation bombs,
volume-detonation bombs and incendiary munitions. The USAF >command is
ordered to deliver to airbases used against Iraq a two-week supply of
aviation bombs of 1-tonn caliber and >higher as well as volume-detonation
and incendiary bombs. This means that Washington is resorting to the
"scorched >earth" tactics and carpet-bombing campaign.
>
>(source: iraqwar.ru, 03-25-03, translated by Venik)
>
>[ < previous report | next report > ]


--
Andrew Preston


--
http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different.


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

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

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

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




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuel] Iraq...

[Andrew Preston]

Extracted from links at www.rense.com: seems to be coming, 
in some part, from intercepted US/UK miltary communication traffic.

>According to [Russian military] intelligence Pentagon made a decision to 
>significantly reinforce the coalition. During >the next two weeks up to 50,000 
>troops and no less than 500 tanks will arrive to the combat area from the US 
>military >bases in Germany and Albania. By the end of April 120,000 more 
>troops and up to 1,200 additional tanks will be sent to >support the war 
>against Iraq.
>
>A decision was made to change the way aviation is used in this war. The use of 
>precision-guided munitions will be >scaled down and these weapons will be 
>reserved for attacking only known, confirmed targets. There will be an 
>increase >in the use of conventional high-yield aviation bombs, 
>volume-detonation bombs and incendiary munitions. The USAF >command is ordered 
>to deliver to airbases used against Iraq a two-week supply of aviation bombs 
>of 1-tonn caliber and >higher as well as volume-detonation and incendiary 
>bombs. This means that Washington is resorting to the "scorched >earth" 
>tactics and carpet-bombing campaign.
>
>(source: iraqwar.ru, 03-25-03, translated by Venik)
>
>[ < previous report | next report > ]

 
-- 
Andrew Preston


-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different·

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuel] Iraq...., Siege of Basra

[Andrew Preston]

I received this, para 3 on, overnight. 

One specific thing that I noticed on the BBC is that when the city
of Basra is mentioned it is virtually always in the context of the 
need for humanitarian aid/water/food , and military spokesmen keep
referring to the likelihood, and encouragement for an uprising in the
city against the Saddam government. 

I have yet to see any UK based media state come out with what seems to
be the accurate reflection of what is happening..., that Basra is
under siege by US/UK forces, that the water supplies were cut by US/UK
military action, and that the full intention thereafter by US/UK is to
compress the population into revolt. 


>Thursday 27.03.03
>
>Here is a short update on the war.
>
The UK media have been largely taken over by war propaganda which
contains
an indeterminate amount of straightforward lies. 

This is the site with the military news from the Iraqi side, it is
getting
millions of hits:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news076.htm

Other sites independent of the US/UK disinformation system are:
www.wsws.org
http://www.rense.com
WhatReallyHappened.com

Al Jazeera, the station run by ex-BBC employees broadcasts out of pro-war
Qatar, now host to the Blair/Bush attack. They show pictures banned in
the
US/UK media of civilian casualties and have exposed the more obvious
US/UK lies.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/

WAR UPDATE

The Bush/Blair forces are facing fierce resistance from all Iraqis
including
Shias, so far the Republican Guard has hardly been engaged. The supply
lines
are overstretched and the possibility of a damaging Iraqi counter-attack
is
looming. Battles are raging all over Southern Iraq and nobody except the
respective military commands has the full picture. 

The official casualty figures are almost certainly false, the US/UK
deaths
and serious injuries are probably running into the hundreds. Dozens if
not
scores of vehicles are lost and many hitech systems are not withstanding
the
desert conditions.

The Iraqis have evolved tactics to overcome some of the technical US/UK
superiority and there is fury from US/UK that they have acquired
communications and night vision technology which should have been banned
by
sanctions. 

As well as lying about casualties, US/UK are lying about damage to
civilian
targets which have probably caused hundreds of deaths and serious
injuries
by now. There is a complicity here with the Iraqi regime which also
wishes
to understate civilian casualties so as to maintain morale.

The most spectacular lie was over the `insurrection` in Basra, carried as
fact in all the UK newspapers except The Guardian and the Mirror where
coverage has remained reasonably objective. The `insurrection` was
probably
concocted to distract from the real story: that the US/UK invaders are
blockading the city and have interfered with water and electricity
supplies,
creating a massive humanitarian crisis there. 

Promotinmg this lie on BBC Radio 4 a military PR officer spent some time
explaining that this was a war of liberation and went on to tell
interviewer
Nick Clarke that Basra would soon be `captured - I mean liberated`.

If as appears the US/UK invaders are already running low on precision
weaponry they may resort to indiscriminate bombardment and lie about it,
as
happened in the 1991 war. The pattern was repeated again in Kossovo where
a
war promoted by Blair to teach Milosovic a lesson caused a massive
humanitarian crisis and was escalated to a criminal bombing campaign
against
civilian targets. At one point NATO falsified film footage to excuse an
attack on a civilian train. 

The 1991 Iraq war ended when US pilots destroyed two large convoys
fleeing
Kuwait, killing thousands of Iraqi military and civilians along with
their
Kuwaiti hostages. Then the attackers had the cover of a large coalition
of
complicit states. If US/UK forces conduct similar atrocities this time
the
war could escalate.

It is now clear that Bush/Blair have made a horrendous strategic error in
assuming the Iraqis won't fight, a similar error to that made by Hitler
in
his attack on Russia. Many arabs are optimistic that Baghdad could prove
to
be Bush/Blair's Stalingrad.

If Iraq holds out for long there will certainly be renewed moves against
US/UK in the UN which will make it clearer than ever that the attacks are
illegal. 

In the UK, opinion polls are claiming a swing back to support for Blair
who
plans to promote himself again as Mr Nice and blame all the problems on
Bush. UK citizens are some of the most gullible in the world: egged on by
the pro-war media, a section feel that `our` troops should be supported
right or wrong once the war has started. 

This will not survive a military failure. The anti-war movement should
concentrate on Blair as much as the war, reminding everyone that he got
us
into this.

Finally, here is a report which certainly does not fit the official
story:

Arab TV Crew Says Found 
40 Dead US Soldiers
The following appeared in the letter

[biofuel] article on supercritical transesterification

[Marc de Piolenc]

See the following publication for supercritical reaction conditions.

"Biodiesel fuels from veg.oils via catalytic and non-catalytic
supercritical
alcohol transesterifications and other methods: a survey."
ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT   44 (2003)  2093-2109 (Published
by
ELSEVIER. www.elsevier.com)
Author: AYHAN DEMIRBAS

Would it be possible for somebody to scan and post this article? I do
not have access to this journal.

Marc de Piolenc
Iligan City, Philippines

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuels-biz] article on supercritical transesterification

[Marc de Piolenc]

See the following publication for supercritical reaction conditions.

"Biodiesel fuels from veg.oils via catalytic and non-catalytic
supercritical
alcohol transesterifications and other methods: a survey."
ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT   44 (2003)  2093-2109 (Published
by
ELSEVIER. www.elsevier.com)
Author: AYHAN DEMIRBAS

Would it be possible for somebody to scan and post this article? I do
not have access to this journal.

Marc de Piolenc
Iligan City, Philippines

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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

 

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

[biofuel] Diesel emission technologies at the SAE Congress

[Keith Addison]

Diesel emission technologies at the SAE Congress

Regardless of the ups and downs in the fortunes of the SAE World 
Congress and Exhibition, the diesel emission sessions have enjoyed 
considerable interest and high attendance for a number of years. It 
was also the case during this year's Congress, held in Detroit, MI on 
March 3-6.

Diesel particulate filter technologies, including both filter 
substrates and systems, were one of the main topics. A number of 
papers presented by authors from Ibiden and NGK discussed the 
improvements in silicon carbide (SiC) substrate technologies. 
Researchers attempted to improve the thermal shock resistance of SiC 
by either modifying the material properties (composite Si-SiC, paper 
2003-01-0384) or by developing of new assembling techniques for SiC 
filter segments (2003-01-0376). Another trend was to develop SiC 
materials of increased porosity, up to as much as 65%, to allow for 
coating with high catalyst/washcoat loadings, as may be needed in 
catalyzed DPFs or in combined DPF/NOx adsorber devices (2003-01-0377, 
2003-01-0383).

Silicon nitride, a new filter substrate material, was presented by 
Japan's Asahi Glass (2003-01-0386). The silicon nitride material was 
claimed to have temperature resistance and chemical stability 
comparable to those of SiC, while being endowed with superior thermal 
shock tolerance, thus potentially eliminating the major drawback of 
silicon carbide and the need for filter segmentation. Asahi developed 
a new manufacturing method using silicon metal as the raw material, 
resulting in costs allegedly comparable or lower than those for SiC 
parts. Another new material, named DuraTrap AT, was showcased by 
Corning, but no paper was presented. The DuraTrap AT, designed to 
combine high thermal capacity and low thermal conductivity, is 
currently tested with selected Corning customers.

Diesel filter systems papers dealt mainly with ongoing improvement 
and testing of existing concepts, such as those using cerium or iron 
based fuel additives for regeneration. A new configuration of 
passively regenerating catalytic filter, maximizing the effect of NO2 
regeneration, was suggested by researchers from the University of 
Delft, where a catalyzed wall-flow filter was proceeded by a 
catalyzed ceramic foam substrate (2003-01-0379).

In comparison to the last year Congress, more NOx adsorber papers 
were presented, highlighting the ongoing development in this 
technology, but also identifying many technical problems (such as 
durability and regeneration/desulfation strategies) that have to be 
solved before the commercial application of NOx adsorbers in U.S. 
2007 compliant engines can be possible. For the first time, some 
papers presented results from vehicle prototypes, as opposed to 
laboratory bench tests. For instance, AVL reported a 65% NOx and 90% 
PM emissions reduction over the FTP-75 test in a 1750 kg vehicle 
equipped with a NOx adsorber and a DPF (2003-01-0043). An interesting 
observation was made that the upstream NOx adsorber helped to 
regenerate the DPF, probably through increasing the NO2/PM ratio. 
Little new development was reported in the U.S. EPA NOx adsorber 
demonstration program. However, the EPA is expecting to start road 
tests of a NOx adsorber/DPF equipped vehicle (5.9 liter engine) in 
July.

The EPA has been also developing an alternative technology--a clean 
combustion diesel engine meeting the 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx standard 
without the use of exhaust aftertreatment. An early prototype of the 
engine (with most vital organs replaced by dummies) was showcased in 
the FEV exhibit area, but no technical paper was presented. A NOx 
emissions map of the engine was shown, with NOx never exceeding 0.2 
g. The technology was developed in a 1.9 liter, 4-cylinder TDI 
engine, apparently not operated in the HCCI mode. The engine was 
equipped with "hydraulically intensified" high pressure (> 200 MPa) 
injection system. NOx emissions were controlled by high boost 
(turbocharger + boost assist device, intercooler) and a low pressure 
loop EGR. The engine would require exhaust gas aftertreatment for CO, 
HC, and PM. Technical details on the engine and the system cost vs. 
performance trade-offs are not known.

With the continuing opposition of the EPA against urea-SCR 
technology, there were fewer SCR reports. The most active company in 
this area was Siemens (Ceramics GmbH), who presented papers on 
integrated SCR-based NOx/PM control systems targeting both Euro 4/5 
and the US 2007 (2003- 01-0774).


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list addres

[biofuels-biz] Diesel emission technologies at the SAE Congress

[Keith Addison]

Diesel emission technologies at the SAE Congress

Regardless of the ups and downs in the fortunes of the SAE World 
Congress and Exhibition, the diesel emission sessions have enjoyed 
considerable interest and high attendance for a number of years. It 
was also the case during this year's Congress, held in Detroit, MI on 
March 3-6.

Diesel particulate filter technologies, including both filter 
substrates and systems, were one of the main topics. A number of 
papers presented by authors from Ibiden and NGK discussed the 
improvements in silicon carbide (SiC) substrate technologies. 
Researchers attempted to improve the thermal shock resistance of SiC 
by either modifying the material properties (composite Si-SiC, paper 
2003-01-0384) or by developing of new assembling techniques for SiC 
filter segments (2003-01-0376). Another trend was to develop SiC 
materials of increased porosity, up to as much as 65%, to allow for 
coating with high catalyst/washcoat loadings, as may be needed in 
catalyzed DPFs or in combined DPF/NOx adsorber devices (2003-01-0377, 
2003-01-0383).

Silicon nitride, a new filter substrate material, was presented by 
Japan's Asahi Glass (2003-01-0386). The silicon nitride material was 
claimed to have temperature resistance and chemical stability 
comparable to those of SiC, while being endowed with superior thermal 
shock tolerance, thus potentially eliminating the major drawback of 
silicon carbide and the need for filter segmentation. Asahi developed 
a new manufacturing method using silicon metal as the raw material, 
resulting in costs allegedly comparable or lower than those for SiC 
parts. Another new material, named DuraTrap AT, was showcased by 
Corning, but no paper was presented. The DuraTrap AT, designed to 
combine high thermal capacity and low thermal conductivity, is 
currently tested with selected Corning customers.

Diesel filter systems papers dealt mainly with ongoing improvement 
and testing of existing concepts, such as those using cerium or iron 
based fuel additives for regeneration. A new configuration of 
passively regenerating catalytic filter, maximizing the effect of NO2 
regeneration, was suggested by researchers from the University of 
Delft, where a catalyzed wall-flow filter was proceeded by a 
catalyzed ceramic foam substrate (2003-01-0379).

In comparison to the last year Congress, more NOx adsorber papers 
were presented, highlighting the ongoing development in this 
technology, but also identifying many technical problems (such as 
durability and regeneration/desulfation strategies) that have to be 
solved before the commercial application of NOx adsorbers in U.S. 
2007 compliant engines can be possible. For the first time, some 
papers presented results from vehicle prototypes, as opposed to 
laboratory bench tests. For instance, AVL reported a 65% NOx and 90% 
PM emissions reduction over the FTP-75 test in a 1750 kg vehicle 
equipped with a NOx adsorber and a DPF (2003-01-0043). An interesting 
observation was made that the upstream NOx adsorber helped to 
regenerate the DPF, probably through increasing the NO2/PM ratio. 
Little new development was reported in the U.S. EPA NOx adsorber 
demonstration program. However, the EPA is expecting to start road 
tests of a NOx adsorber/DPF equipped vehicle (5.9 liter engine) in 
July.

The EPA has been also developing an alternative technology--a clean 
combustion diesel engine meeting the 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx standard 
without the use of exhaust aftertreatment. An early prototype of the 
engine (with most vital organs replaced by dummies) was showcased in 
the FEV exhibit area, but no technical paper was presented. A NOx 
emissions map of the engine was shown, with NOx never exceeding 0.2 
g. The technology was developed in a 1.9 liter, 4-cylinder TDI 
engine, apparently not operated in the HCCI mode. The engine was 
equipped with "hydraulically intensified" high pressure (> 200 MPa) 
injection system. NOx emissions were controlled by high boost 
(turbocharger + boost assist device, intercooler) and a low pressure 
loop EGR. The engine would require exhaust gas aftertreatment for CO, 
HC, and PM. Technical details on the engine and the system cost vs. 
performance trade-offs are not known.

With the continuing opposition of the EPA against urea-SCR 
technology, there were fewer SCR reports. The most active company in 
this area was Siemens (Ceramics GmbH), who presented papers on 
integrated SCR-based NOx/PM control systems targeting both Euro 4/5 
and the US 2007 (2003- 01-0774).


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

Biofuels at Journey to Forever
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel at WebConX
http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofu

[biofuel] EMA issues technical statement on biodiesel

[Keith Addison]

EMA issues technical statement on biodiesel

The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) issued a technical 
position  statement on the use of biodiesel fuel in diesel engines. 
In the  statement the EMA concluded:

  - Biodiesel fuels should meet the ASTM D6751 standard or an approved
European specification (DIN 51606, EN 14214).

  - Fuels blending up to 5% biodiesel with petroleum-based diesel fuel
(B5) should not cause engine or fuel system problems. The use of
biodiesel blends above 5% should be consulted with the individual
engine manufacturers.

  - Biodiesel blends may require additives to improve storage stability
and allow use in a wide range of temperatures. The conditions of
seals, hoses, gaskets, and wire coatings should be monitored
regularly when biodiesel fuels are used.

  - Biodiesel fuels reduce emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide but increase nitrogen oxides emissions when compared to
petroleum-based diesel fuel. Therefore, biodiesel or its blends
should not be used as a means to improve air quality in ozone non-
attainment areas.

  - Individual engine manufacturers will determine the implications, if
any, of the use of biodiesel fuels on their commercial engine
warranties.

The conclusion that biodiesel bends greater than B5 should not cause 
problems when used in existing diesel engines is consistent with the 
Common Position Statement issued in June 2000 by a consortium of fuel 
injection equipment (FIE) manufacturers. The FIE Manufacturers 
concluded that fuel injection systems can be designed for operation 
with neat biodiesel fuel (B100). However, in equipment designed for 
petroleum fuels, blends greater than B5 can cause reduced product 
service life and injection equipment failures.

EMA Statement
http://www.enginemanufacturers.org/admin/library/upload/297.pdf

FIE Manufacturers Common Position (2000)
http://www.dieselnet.com/tech/fuels/fie_fame_position_2000_06.pdf1/

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuel] U.S. Congressman introduces biodiesel tax incentive bill

[Keith Addison]

U.S. Congressman introduces biodiesel tax incentive bill

U.S. Congressman K. Hulshof (R-MO) introduced a bill that, if passed, 
would provide a partial federal excise tax exemption for diesel 
blended with biodiesel. Such incentive is critical to help biodiesel 
manufacturers to compete with the less expensive petroleum diesel.

http://nbb.grassroots.com/NBBNewsRelease/Hulshof_Biodiesel/?lk=1385516 
-1385516-0-6744-LYr58520dWNlT6OKSw/wEXU/3lNVjHAp

March 13, 2003

Missouri Congressman Introduces Biodiesel Tax Incentive Bill
U.S. Senate also introduces energy bill with significant biodiesel measures

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo.-U.S. Congressman Kenny Hulshof (R-MO) today 
introduced H.R. 1279, a bill that would provide a partial federal 
excise tax exemption for diesel blended with biodiesel, a cleaner 
burning fuel made from domestic resources like soybean oil. The House 
Bill is similar to a biodiesel tax provision found in S. 597, a 
comprehensive energy bill introduced earlier this week by Senators 
Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Max Baucus (D-MT).

The incentive is critical to help break down barriers for biodiesel 
in a highly competitive marketplace. It is similar to a bill Hulshof 
introduced last year in an effort to show strong House support for a 
biodiesel tax incentive provision in last year's Senate Energy Bill. 
Congress ran out of time before taking action on energy legislation. 
Both the Hulshof bill and this year's Senate Energy Bill would 
provide a one-cent reduction in the federal diesel fuel excise tax 
for each percentage of biodiesel blended with petroleum diesel up to 
20 percent.

"Encouraging the use of biodiesel holds great promise," Hulshof said. 
"It opens new markets for agriculture, creates jobs in our rural 
communities, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and is friendly to 
the environment. My bill is meant to make biodiesel's potential a 
reality."

Biodiesel's significant benefits to the environment, human health, 
the economy and domestic energy security have earned the fuel broad 
bipartisan support. Representative Hulshof introduced this bill with 
the following cosponsors: Reps. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Ron Lewis 
(R-KY), Jerry Weller (R-IL), Marion Berry (D-AR), John Shimkus 
(R-IL), Jim Ryun (R-KS), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Ike Skelton (D-MO), 
Timothy Johnson (R-IL), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Dennis Rehberg (R-MT), 
Jim Leach (R-IA), Wayne Gilcrest (R-MD), Robert Andrews (D-NJ), Doug 
Bereuter (R-NE), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Ray LaHood (R-IL), John 
Hostettler (R-IN), Jerry Costello (D-IL), William Lipinski (D-IL) and 
Mark Kennedy (R-MN).

"One thing that makes this proposal unique is that any cost to the 
Highway Trust Fund as a result of the biodiesel tax incentive would 
be repaid from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit 
Corporation," said Joe Jobe, executive director of the National 
Biodiesel Board. "The fact that this is cost neutral to the US 
Treasury does not even consider the enormous economic stimulus the 
incentive will have on domestic job creation, rural and urban 
economic development, and state and local tax revenues. Also, the 
incentive will have an impact on displacing foreign petroleum, the 
single largest component of our national trade deficit."

More than 300 major U.S. vehicle fleets already use the 
cleaner-burning alternative fuel that works in any diesel engine with 
few or no modifications. Biodiesel can be used in pure form (B100), 
or blended with petroleum diesel at any level. It offers similar fuel 
economy, horsepower and torque to petroleum diesel. Biodiesel reduces 
emissions like unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfates and 
particulate matter. Soy biodiesel reduces lifecycle carbon dioxide by 
78 percent. Biodiesel is also the only alternative fuel to have 
completed the Health Effects testing requirements of the Clean Air 
Act.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuels-biz] EMA issues technical statement on biodiesel

[Keith Addison]

EMA issues technical statement on biodiesel

The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) issued a technical 
position  statement on the use of biodiesel fuel in diesel engines. 
In the  statement the EMA concluded:

  - Biodiesel fuels should meet the ASTM D6751 standard or an approved
European specification (DIN 51606, EN 14214).

  - Fuels blending up to 5% biodiesel with petroleum-based diesel fuel
(B5) should not cause engine or fuel system problems. The use of
biodiesel blends above 5% should be consulted with the individual
engine manufacturers.

  - Biodiesel blends may require additives to improve storage stability
and allow use in a wide range of temperatures. The conditions of
seals, hoses, gaskets, and wire coatings should be monitored
regularly when biodiesel fuels are used.

  - Biodiesel fuels reduce emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide but increase nitrogen oxides emissions when compared to
petroleum-based diesel fuel. Therefore, biodiesel or its blends
should not be used as a means to improve air quality in ozone non-
attainment areas.

  - Individual engine manufacturers will determine the implications, if
any, of the use of biodiesel fuels on their commercial engine
warranties.

The conclusion that biodiesel bends greater than B5 should not cause 
problems when used in existing diesel engines is consistent with the 
Common Position Statement issued in June 2000 by a consortium of fuel 
injection equipment (FIE) manufacturers. The FIE Manufacturers 
concluded that fuel injection systems can be designed for operation 
with neat biodiesel fuel (B100). However, in equipment designed for 
petroleum fuels, blends greater than B5 can cause reduced product 
service life and injection equipment failures.

EMA Statement
http://www.enginemanufacturers.org/admin/library/upload/297.pdf

FIE Manufacturers Common Position (2000)
http://www.dieselnet.com/tech/fuels/fie_fame_position_2000_06.pdf1/

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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

 

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

[biofuels-biz] U.S. Congressman introduces biodiesel tax incentive bill

[Keith Addison]

U.S. Congressman introduces biodiesel tax incentive bill

U.S. Congressman K. Hulshof (R-MO) introduced a bill that, if passed, 
would provide a partial federal excise tax exemption for diesel 
blended with biodiesel. Such incentive is critical to help biodiesel 
manufacturers to compete with the less expensive petroleum diesel.

http://nbb.grassroots.com/NBBNewsRelease/Hulshof_Biodiesel/?lk=1385516 
-1385516-0-6744-LYr58520dWNlT6OKSw/wEXU/3lNVjHAp

March 13, 2003

Missouri Congressman Introduces Biodiesel Tax Incentive Bill
U.S. Senate also introduces energy bill with significant biodiesel measures

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo.-U.S. Congressman Kenny Hulshof (R-MO) today 
introduced H.R. 1279, a bill that would provide a partial federal 
excise tax exemption for diesel blended with biodiesel, a cleaner 
burning fuel made from domestic resources like soybean oil. The House 
Bill is similar to a biodiesel tax provision found in S. 597, a 
comprehensive energy bill introduced earlier this week by Senators 
Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Max Baucus (D-MT).

The incentive is critical to help break down barriers for biodiesel 
in a highly competitive marketplace. It is similar to a bill Hulshof 
introduced last year in an effort to show strong House support for a 
biodiesel tax incentive provision in last year's Senate Energy Bill. 
Congress ran out of time before taking action on energy legislation. 
Both the Hulshof bill and this year's Senate Energy Bill would 
provide a one-cent reduction in the federal diesel fuel excise tax 
for each percentage of biodiesel blended with petroleum diesel up to 
20 percent.

"Encouraging the use of biodiesel holds great promise," Hulshof said. 
"It opens new markets for agriculture, creates jobs in our rural 
communities, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and is friendly to 
the environment. My bill is meant to make biodiesel's potential a 
reality."

Biodiesel's significant benefits to the environment, human health, 
the economy and domestic energy security have earned the fuel broad 
bipartisan support. Representative Hulshof introduced this bill with 
the following cosponsors: Reps. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Ron Lewis 
(R-KY), Jerry Weller (R-IL), Marion Berry (D-AR), John Shimkus 
(R-IL), Jim Ryun (R-KS), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Ike Skelton (D-MO), 
Timothy Johnson (R-IL), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Dennis Rehberg (R-MT), 
Jim Leach (R-IA), Wayne Gilcrest (R-MD), Robert Andrews (D-NJ), Doug 
Bereuter (R-NE), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Ray LaHood (R-IL), John 
Hostettler (R-IN), Jerry Costello (D-IL), William Lipinski (D-IL) and 
Mark Kennedy (R-MN).

"One thing that makes this proposal unique is that any cost to the 
Highway Trust Fund as a result of the biodiesel tax incentive would 
be repaid from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit 
Corporation," said Joe Jobe, executive director of the National 
Biodiesel Board. "The fact that this is cost neutral to the US 
Treasury does not even consider the enormous economic stimulus the 
incentive will have on domestic job creation, rural and urban 
economic development, and state and local tax revenues. Also, the 
incentive will have an impact on displacing foreign petroleum, the 
single largest component of our national trade deficit."

More than 300 major U.S. vehicle fleets already use the 
cleaner-burning alternative fuel that works in any diesel engine with 
few or no modifications. Biodiesel can be used in pure form (B100), 
or blended with petroleum diesel at any level. It offers similar fuel 
economy, horsepower and torque to petroleum diesel. Biodiesel reduces 
emissions like unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfates and 
particulate matter. Soy biodiesel reduces lifecycle carbon dioxide by 
78 percent. Biodiesel is also the only alternative fuel to have 
completed the Health Effects testing requirements of the Clean Air 
Act.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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

 

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

[biofuels-biz] Renault introduces particulate filters on diesel cars

[Keith Addison]

Renault introduces particulate filters on diesel cars

During the Geneva Auto Show, Renault unveiled its Vel Satis 2.2 dCi 
(direct common-rail injection) luxury sedan equipped with a diesel 
particulate filter (DPF) system, based on a catalyzed filter 
technology to be supplied by Engelhard. The cars will be available in 
Europe beginning in the second quarter 2003.

The new Vel Satis equipped with the Engelhard filter meets the Euro 4 
(2005) emission standards for all regulated pollutants, qualifying 
for European tax incentive programs intended to encourage voluntary 
reductions in diesel emissions.

The Renault system incorporates a cooled exhaust gas recirculation 
(EGR) which, in combination with low NOx engine calibration, allows 
the car to meet the Euro 4 HC+NOx emission limit of 0.30 g/km.

Emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide are controlled by a 
typical, platinum-based diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) installed 
after the turbocharger. The DPF regeneration does not rely on the 
nitrogen dioxide that may be generated in the oxidation catalyst.

The DPF unit (a wall-flow monolith made of silicon carbide (SiC), 
coated with a platinum-based catalyst) is installed in the underbody 
location, about 80 cm after the catalyst. Due to the low exhaust 
temperatures often encountered in light-duty vehicles, as well as the 
positioning of the filter away from the exhaust manifold, the filter 
requires a periodic active regeneration which usually takes place 
every 300-500 km. The beginning of regeneration is determined by the 
engine management system depending on the PM mass in the filter, as 
calculated based on the filter pressure loss. The regeneration is 
started by increasing the exhaust temperature through post-injection 
of fuel in the common rail injection system. Further temperature 
increase occurs in the DOC due to exothermic oxidation of 
hydrocarbons. Once the temperature increases, the particulates 
accumulated in the filter are oxidized over the DPF catalyst.

PM emissions are reduced in the filter to below the Euro 4 limit of 
0.025 g/km, provided ultra low sulfur fuel (10 ppm S) is used. If the 
car is operated on fuels with high sulfur content, the filter will 
still regenerate, but PM emissions are likely to be above 0.025 g/km 
due to catalytic production of sulfate particulates. The fuel economy 
penalty due the post-injections of fuel and increased pressure drop 
over the filter is estimated at 1.5-3%.

The Vel Satis is the first modern diesel car to feature a catalyzed 
DPF. In 2000, particulate filters we introduced on diesel cars by 
Peugeot. The Peugeot system, sold in over 400,000 cars by the end of 
2002, features a non-catalyzed filter regenerated through the use of 
engine management and a fuel additive. In comparison to the Peugeot 
filter, the Renault system has the advantage of working without the 
use of fuel additive, resulting in simpler logistics, less ash 
accumulation in the filter, and less expensive maintenance. Renault 
cars are also fully Euro 4 compliant, while current Peugeot vehicles 
do not meet the Euro 4 NOx limit (a fully Euro 4 compliant Peugeot 
system was announced for 2004). The drawback of the Renault system is 
the reliance on ultra low sulfur fuel for fully effective PM emission 
reduction.

DPF-equipped Vel Satis cars will be introduced by Renault in 
selective markets, such as Germany, where tax incentive programs are 
established for early launch of Euro 4 vehicles, and where low sulfur 
fuels are available. Renault also plans to equip other models with 
the new technology in the coming months. Likely candidates include 
the minivan Espace and the mid-size Laguna.

The particulate filters are being supplied by Engelhard's European 
production facility in Nienburg, Germany. The particulate filter 
substrates are supplied by Ibiden. The emission control system will 
be packaged and supplied by Eberspächer.

http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.030503/230645387 
&ticker=EC 
http://www.media.renault.com/data/doc/mediarenaultcom/en/4939_CP_filtr 
eparticule_GB_bis.pdf



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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

 

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

[biofuel] California proposes PM control regulation for public fleets

[Keith Addison]

California proposes PM control regulation for public fleets

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) proposed "Diesel Particulate 
Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Publicly 
Owned and Operated Fleets, including Non-Urban Transit Buses." It is 
another PM emission reduction measure, which follows the adopted (and 
currently being revised) urban bus rule and the proposed rule for 
solid waste collection vehicles.

The public fleet rule would apply to heavy-duty diesel vehicles (GVW 
over 14,000 lbs), including non-urban buses, owned and operated on 
public roads by a public agency or operated under contract to a 
public agency. The proposal requires that Best Available Control 
Technology (BACT) is applied to an increasing percentage of the 
fleet, starting with 25% of selected model year (MY) vehicles in 
2006, with 100% BACT implementation for 1960-2006 MY vehicles in 
2009/2010.

Either one of the following technologies can be applied as a BACT:

- A diesel engine certified to the 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM emission standard

- An alternative fuel engine or a dual fuel engine certified to the
   lowest optional California PM emission standard
 
- The highest level diesel emission control strategy (retrofit) that
   is verified by the California ARB for an engine to reduce diesel PM
   emission
 
After December 31, 2004, fleets would be also required to use diesel 
fuel with a sulfur content of maximum 15 ppm.

The proposed rule will be discussed in a workshop to be held on 
April 3, 2003 in El Monte, CA.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailouts/msc0304/msc0304.pdf
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailouts/msc0304/msc0304att1.pdf

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuel] Renault introduces particulate filters on diesel cars

[Keith Addison]

Renault introduces particulate filters on diesel cars

During the Geneva Auto Show, Renault unveiled its Vel Satis 2.2 dCi 
(direct common-rail injection) luxury sedan equipped with a diesel 
particulate filter (DPF) system, based on a catalyzed filter 
technology to be supplied by Engelhard. The cars will be available in 
Europe beginning in the second quarter 2003.

The new Vel Satis equipped with the Engelhard filter meets the Euro 4 
(2005) emission standards for all regulated pollutants, qualifying 
for European tax incentive programs intended to encourage voluntary 
reductions in diesel emissions.

The Renault system incorporates a cooled exhaust gas recirculation 
(EGR) which, in combination with low NOx engine calibration, allows 
the car to meet the Euro 4 HC+NOx emission limit of 0.30 g/km.

Emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide are controlled by a 
typical, platinum-based diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) installed 
after the turbocharger. The DPF regeneration does not rely on the 
nitrogen dioxide that may be generated in the oxidation catalyst.

The DPF unit (a wall-flow monolith made of silicon carbide (SiC), 
coated with a platinum-based catalyst) is installed in the underbody 
location, about 80 cm after the catalyst. Due to the low exhaust 
temperatures often encountered in light-duty vehicles, as well as the 
positioning of the filter away from the exhaust manifold, the filter 
requires a periodic active regeneration which usually takes place 
every 300-500 km. The beginning of regeneration is determined by the 
engine management system depending on the PM mass in the filter, as 
calculated based on the filter pressure loss. The regeneration is 
started by increasing the exhaust temperature through post-injection 
of fuel in the common rail injection system. Further temperature 
increase occurs in the DOC due to exothermic oxidation of 
hydrocarbons. Once the temperature increases, the particulates 
accumulated in the filter are oxidized over the DPF catalyst.

PM emissions are reduced in the filter to below the Euro 4 limit of 
0.025 g/km, provided ultra low sulfur fuel (10 ppm S) is used. If the 
car is operated on fuels with high sulfur content, the filter will 
still regenerate, but PM emissions are likely to be above 0.025 g/km 
due to catalytic production of sulfate particulates. The fuel economy 
penalty due the post-injections of fuel and increased pressure drop 
over the filter is estimated at 1.5-3%.

The Vel Satis is the first modern diesel car to feature a catalyzed 
DPF. In 2000, particulate filters we introduced on diesel cars by 
Peugeot. The Peugeot system, sold in over 400,000 cars by the end of 
2002, features a non-catalyzed filter regenerated through the use of 
engine management and a fuel additive. In comparison to the Peugeot 
filter, the Renault system has the advantage of working without the 
use of fuel additive, resulting in simpler logistics, less ash 
accumulation in the filter, and less expensive maintenance. Renault 
cars are also fully Euro 4 compliant, while current Peugeot vehicles 
do not meet the Euro 4 NOx limit (a fully Euro 4 compliant Peugeot 
system was announced for 2004). The drawback of the Renault system is 
the reliance on ultra low sulfur fuel for fully effective PM emission 
reduction.

DPF-equipped Vel Satis cars will be introduced by Renault in 
selective markets, such as Germany, where tax incentive programs are 
established for early launch of Euro 4 vehicles, and where low sulfur 
fuels are available. Renault also plans to equip other models with 
the new technology in the coming months. Likely candidates include 
the minivan Espace and the mid-size Laguna.

The particulate filters are being supplied by Engelhard's European 
production facility in Nienburg, Germany. The particulate filter 
substrates are supplied by Ibiden. The emission control system will 
be packaged and supplied by Eberspächer.

http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.030503/230645387 
&ticker=EC 
http://www.media.renault.com/data/doc/mediarenaultcom/en/4939_CP_filtr 
eparticule_GB_bis.pdf



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuels-biz] Anglo American in GTL project discussions

[Keith Addison]

Anglo American in GTL project discussions

Anglo American, the South Africa-based coal and resource company, was
reported to be in discussions over possible involvement in a proposed
coal-to-oil project in Latrobe Valley, Australia. The $6 billion (AUD)
plant, promoted by Australian Power & Energy Ltd (APEL), would produce
500 MW of power and convert brown coal into 52,600 barrels of diesel
per day.

Carbon sequestration through pumping of exhaust gases underground
would be used to control greenhouse gas emissions from the plant.

A feasibility study to be conducted by APEL will determine the
technology and economic issues raised by the proposed project.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/20/1047749880818.html


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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

 

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

[biofuels-biz] California proposes PM control regulation for public fleets

[Keith Addison]

California proposes PM control regulation for public fleets

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) proposed "Diesel Particulate 
Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Publicly 
Owned and Operated Fleets, including Non-Urban Transit Buses." It is 
another PM emission reduction measure, which follows the adopted (and 
currently being revised) urban bus rule and the proposed rule for 
solid waste collection vehicles.

The public fleet rule would apply to heavy-duty diesel vehicles (GVW 
over 14,000 lbs), including non-urban buses, owned and operated on 
public roads by a public agency or operated under contract to a 
public agency. The proposal requires that Best Available Control 
Technology (BACT) is applied to an increasing percentage of the 
fleet, starting with 25% of selected model year (MY) vehicles in 
2006, with 100% BACT implementation for 1960-2006 MY vehicles in 
2009/2010.

Either one of the following technologies can be applied as a BACT:

- A diesel engine certified to the 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM emission standard

- An alternative fuel engine or a dual fuel engine certified to the
   lowest optional California PM emission standard
 
- The highest level diesel emission control strategy (retrofit) that
   is verified by the California ARB for an engine to reduce diesel PM
   emission
 
After December 31, 2004, fleets would be also required to use diesel 
fuel with a sulfur content of maximum 15 ppm.

The proposed rule will be discussed in a workshop to be held on 
April 3, 2003 in El Monte, CA.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailouts/msc0304/msc0304.pdf
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailouts/msc0304/msc0304att1.pdf

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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

 

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

[biofuels-biz] No mandatory biofuel targets in the EU

[Keith Addison]

No mandatory biofuel targets in the EU

The European Parliament has amended the Council's common position in 
regards to the mandatory content of biofuels in diesel and gasoline. 
In the modified version of the proposal, the Parliament has replaced 
the mandatory targets for biofuels with the concept of "reference 
figures" for the total of biofuels placed on the market. The 
reference figures were set at 2% for 2005 and 5.75% for 2010.

It is envisioned that the Member States should inform the Commission 
on the measures taken to reach the reference figures. In case the 
targets are not met, mandatory targets could be still enforced the 
Commission.

http://www.euractiv.com/cgi-bin/cgint.exe/?targ=1&204&OIDN=1504950

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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

 

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

[biofuel] Anglo American in GTL project discussions

[Keith Addison]

Anglo American in GTL project discussions

Anglo American, the South Africa-based coal and resource company, was
reported to be in discussions over possible involvement in a proposed
coal-to-oil project in Latrobe Valley, Australia. The $6 billion (AUD)
plant, promoted by Australian Power & Energy Ltd (APEL), would produce
500 MW of power and convert brown coal into 52,600 barrels of diesel
per day.

Carbon sequestration through pumping of exhaust gases underground
would be used to control greenhouse gas emissions from the plant.

A feasibility study to be conducted by APEL will determine the
technology and economic issues raised by the proposed project.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/20/1047749880818.html


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuel] No mandatory biofuel targets in the EU

[Keith Addison]

No mandatory biofuel targets in the EU

The European Parliament has amended the Council's common position in 
regards to the mandatory content of biofuels in diesel and gasoline. 
In the modified version of the proposal, the Parliament has replaced 
the mandatory targets for biofuels with the concept of "reference 
figures" for the total of biofuels placed on the market. The 
reference figures were set at 2% for 2005 and 5.75% for 2010.

It is envisioned that the Member States should inform the Commission 
on the measures taken to reach the reference figures. In case the 
targets are not met, mandatory targets could be still enforced the 
Commission.

http://www.euractiv.com/cgi-bin/cgint.exe/?targ=1&204&OIDN=1504950

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuel] MIT study skeptical about fuel cell vehicles

[Keith Addison]

MIT study skeptical about fuel cell vehicles

A new study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 
concluded that diesel hybrids will be better than hydrogen fuel cell 
vehicles in terms of total energy efficiency and greenhouse gas 
emissions until at least 2020. Furthermore, adoption of the hydrogen- 
based vehicle will require major infrastructure changes to make 
compressed hydrogen available.

Improving mainstream gasoline and diesel engines and transmissions 
and expanding the use of hybrids is the most effective way to curb 
greenhouse gases within the next 20 years, according to the study. 
These conclusions were released just a month after the Bush 
administration announced a billion-dollar "FreedomFUEL" initiative to 
develop commercially viable hydrogen fuel cells and a year after 
establishment of the government-industry program to develop the 
hydrogen fuel-cell-powered "FreedomCar".

The study assessed a variety of engine and fuel technologies as they 
are likely to be in 2020 with intense research but no real 
"breakthroughs". The new assessment is an extension of a study done 
in 2000, which likewise concluded that the much-touted hydrogen fuel 
cell was not a clear winner.

The hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle has low emissions and energy use on 
the road, but producing hydrogen from a hydrocarbon fuel such as 
natural gas or from water using fossil fuel-derived electricity 
requires substantial energy and produces greenhouse gas emissions. 
The "well- to-wheel" analysis performed by MIT included not only 
tailpipe emissions, but also the emissions and energy used in making 
and delivering the fuel and in the manufacturing the vehicles.

However, the study identified hydrogen as the only major fuel option 
known to date, capable of significantly lowering greenhouse gas 
emissions over longer time frame, beyond 2020. The hydrogen would 
have to be produced without making greenhouse gas emissions, either 
from a non-carbon source such as solar energy or from conventional 
fuels while sequestering the carbon emissions.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/2003/mar05/hydrogen.html 
http://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/LFEE_2003-001_RP.pdf


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuels-biz] MIT study skeptical about fuel cell vehicles

[Keith Addison]

MIT study skeptical about fuel cell vehicles

A new study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 
concluded that diesel hybrids will be better than hydrogen fuel cell 
vehicles in terms of total energy efficiency and greenhouse gas 
emissions until at least 2020. Furthermore, adoption of the hydrogen- 
based vehicle will require major infrastructure changes to make 
compressed hydrogen available.

Improving mainstream gasoline and diesel engines and transmissions 
and expanding the use of hybrids is the most effective way to curb 
greenhouse gases within the next 20 years, according to the study. 
These conclusions were released just a month after the Bush 
administration announced a billion-dollar "FreedomFUEL" initiative to 
develop commercially viable hydrogen fuel cells and a year after 
establishment of the government-industry program to develop the 
hydrogen fuel-cell-powered "FreedomCar".

The study assessed a variety of engine and fuel technologies as they 
are likely to be in 2020 with intense research but no real 
"breakthroughs". The new assessment is an extension of a study done 
in 2000, which likewise concluded that the much-touted hydrogen fuel 
cell was not a clear winner.

The hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle has low emissions and energy use on 
the road, but producing hydrogen from a hydrocarbon fuel such as 
natural gas or from water using fossil fuel-derived electricity 
requires substantial energy and produces greenhouse gas emissions. 
The "well- to-wheel" analysis performed by MIT included not only 
tailpipe emissions, but also the emissions and energy used in making 
and delivering the fuel and in the manufacturing the vehicles.

However, the study identified hydrogen as the only major fuel option 
known to date, capable of significantly lowering greenhouse gas 
emissions over longer time frame, beyond 2020. The hydrogen would 
have to be produced without making greenhouse gas emissions, either 
from a non-carbon source such as solar energy or from conventional 
fuels while sequestering the carbon emissions.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/2003/mar05/hydrogen.html 
http://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/LFEE_2003-001_RP.pdf


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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

 

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

[biofuel] Japan adopts 2005 diesel emission standards

[Keith Addison]

Japan adopts 2005 diesel emission standards

Japan's Ministry of the Environment adopted new, very stringent 
diesel emission standards for new diesel engines and vehicles 
manufactured from the Fall of 2005. The 2005 regulations bring 
significant reductions of emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM) 
and nitrogen oxides (NOx) for both light- and heavy-duty engines:

   - For heavy-duty trucks and buses over 3.5 tons, the new PM
 standard is 0.027 g/kWh, down from the current 0.18 g/kWh
 (85% reduction). The new NOx standard is 2 g/kWh, down from the
 current 3.38 g/kWh (41% reduction).
 
   - For passenger cars and small to medium-sized trucks and buses,
 the new PM standards are 0.013-0.015 g/km (depending on vehicle
 category), down from the current 0.052-0.06 g/km (75%
 reduction). The NOx standards are 0.14-0.25 g/km, compared to
 the current 0.28-0.49 g/km (50% reduction).

Japanese, EU and US emission standards are all expressed using 
different test cycles, so exact comparisons are not always possible. 
Numerically, the JP 2005 standards for heavy-duty engines are very 
similar to the Euro 5 standard (2 g/kWh NOx, 0.02/0.03 g/kWh PM over 
ESC/ETC test). However, the Euro 5 standard comes to power only in 
2008. Therefore, beginning in the fall 2005 and until the more 
stringent US 2007 standards become effective, Japan will have the 
most stringent diesel emission standards in the world.

Also the new light-duty standards are more stringent than the Euro 4 
(2005) regulation.

http://home.kyodo.co.jp/all/display.jsp?an=20030325215

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuels-biz] Japan adopts 2005 diesel emission standards

[Keith Addison]

Japan adopts 2005 diesel emission standards

Japan's Ministry of the Environment adopted new, very stringent 
diesel emission standards for new diesel engines and vehicles 
manufactured from the Fall of 2005. The 2005 regulations bring 
significant reductions of emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM) 
and nitrogen oxides (NOx) for both light- and heavy-duty engines:

   - For heavy-duty trucks and buses over 3.5 tons, the new PM
 standard is 0.027 g/kWh, down from the current 0.18 g/kWh
 (85% reduction). The new NOx standard is 2 g/kWh, down from the
 current 3.38 g/kWh (41% reduction).
 
   - For passenger cars and small to medium-sized trucks and buses,
 the new PM standards are 0.013-0.015 g/km (depending on vehicle
 category), down from the current 0.052-0.06 g/km (75%
 reduction). The NOx standards are 0.14-0.25 g/km, compared to
 the current 0.28-0.49 g/km (50% reduction).

Japanese, EU and US emission standards are all expressed using 
different test cycles, so exact comparisons are not always possible. 
Numerically, the JP 2005 standards for heavy-duty engines are very 
similar to the Euro 5 standard (2 g/kWh NOx, 0.02/0.03 g/kWh PM over 
ESC/ETC test). However, the Euro 5 standard comes to power only in 
2008. Therefore, beginning in the fall 2005 and until the more 
stringent US 2007 standards become effective, Japan will have the 
most stringent diesel emission standards in the world.

Also the new light-duty standards are more stringent than the Euro 4 
(2005) regulation.

http://home.kyodo.co.jp/all/display.jsp?an=20030325215

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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

 

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

[biofuel] Germany, France to cooperate towards Euro 5

[Keith Addison]

Germany, France to cooperate towards Euro 5

At a meeting on 27 February 2003, the German and French Environment 
Ministers agreed to cooperate to introduce further reductions of 
particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from 
diesel engines. The ministers' aim is to introduce new set of Euro 5 
standards for light-duty vehicles, effective by 2010, and to 
strengthen the already adopted Euro 5 (2008) standards for heavy-duty 
engines. A joint German-French intervention on the need for more 
stringent diesel regulations was made during the Environment Council 
meeting on March 4.

The German Minister Jürgen Trittin pointed out that technology exists 
to meet more stringent emission limits. He named six car 
manufacturers who offer, or will be offering later this year, cars 
fitted with diesel particulate filters (DPF). This group includes 
selected Peugeot, Citroen, Fiat and Lancia models featuring Peugeot 
filter-equipped engines, Renault with its new filter system (see 
"Technology" section below), and Toyota with the DPNR system.

Thanks to the progress in diesel engine technology--and contrary to 
the original regulators' intention--many diesel cars will be able to 
meet the Euro 4 (2005) standard of 0.025 g/km PM without the use of 
particulate filters. The same is true in regards to the heavy-duty 
Euro 5 standard (2008), which can be met using low-PM engine 
calibration and urea-SCR to control NOx.

The German Environment Ministry (Umweltbundesamt, UBA) developed a 
Euro 5 proposal, which is still under discussion with other German 
ministries and with the industry. The UBA proposal calls for Euro 5 
limits of 0.0025 g/km PM and 0.08 g/km NOx. The heavy-duty Euro 5 
limits should be revised down to 0.002/0.003 g/kWh PM (ESC/ETC test) 
and 1.0 g/kWh NOx (the adopted limits are 0.02/0.03 g PM and 2.0 g 
NOx). Particle number emission limits, not yet specified, should be 
introduced for both light- and heavy-duty engines.

http://www.bmu.de/presse/2003/pm019.php

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

[biofuels-biz] Germany, France to cooperate towards Euro 5

[Keith Addison]

Germany, France to cooperate towards Euro 5

At a meeting on 27 February 2003, the German and French Environment 
Ministers agreed to cooperate to introduce further reductions of 
particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from 
diesel engines. The ministers' aim is to introduce new set of Euro 5 
standards for light-duty vehicles, effective by 2010, and to 
strengthen the already adopted Euro 5 (2008) standards for heavy-duty 
engines. A joint German-French intervention on the need for more 
stringent diesel regulations was made during the Environment Council 
meeting on March 4.

The German Minister Jürgen Trittin pointed out that technology exists 
to meet more stringent emission limits. He named six car 
manufacturers who offer, or will be offering later this year, cars 
fitted with diesel particulate filters (DPF). This group includes 
selected Peugeot, Citroen, Fiat and Lancia models featuring Peugeot 
filter-equipped engines, Renault with its new filter system (see 
"Technology" section below), and Toyota with the DPNR system.

Thanks to the progress in diesel engine technology--and contrary to 
the original regulators' intention--many diesel cars will be able to 
meet the Euro 4 (2005) standard of 0.025 g/km PM without the use of 
particulate filters. The same is true in regards to the heavy-duty 
Euro 5 standard (2008), which can be met using low-PM engine 
calibration and urea-SCR to control NOx.

The German Environment Ministry (Umweltbundesamt, UBA) developed a 
Euro 5 proposal, which is still under discussion with other German 
ministries and with the industry. The UBA proposal calls for Euro 5 
limits of 0.0025 g/km PM and 0.08 g/km NOx. The heavy-duty Euro 5 
limits should be revised down to 0.002/0.003 g/kWh PM (ESC/ETC test) 
and 1.0 g/kWh NOx (the adopted limits are 0.02/0.03 g PM and 2.0 g 
NOx). Particle number emission limits, not yet specified, should be 
introduced for both light- and heavy-duty engines.

http://www.bmu.de/presse/2003/pm019.php

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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

 

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

Re: [biofuel] Global Warming

[paul van den bergen]

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 02:54 pm, paul van den bergen wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 01:01 pm, MH wrote:
> >  "It takes a pound of coal to generate the electricity to light a
> > 100-watt bulb for 10 hours.  For every pound of coal we burn, nearly
> > three pounds of carbon dioxide go into the atmosphere."
>
> Coal is bad enough, but concrete (portland cement) is worse.
> for every ton, 5.5 tons of CO2 are produced.
>
>
> I like the statement "We don't really know what is going on, but you can be
> pretty sure that we can't go on dumping all this junk into the environment
> and not have a dramatic and adverse effect" or words to that effect.
>
> I have heard plenty of ideas about reversing green house evvects, from
> sequestering liquid CO2 in geosinks to Fe seeding the southern ocean to tie
> up CO2 as boita that sink down the thermocline...

actually, brown coal is even worse...

in Vic, the majority of power comes from Brown coal - very low S which is 
about the only good thing I can say about it...

brown coal has about 60-70% water. Dry it has a energy of ~ 23MJ/kg. Wet it is 
only 3-5 MJ/kg.

once you make electricity out of it you loose most of the power transmitting 
it 100's km to Melbourne

works out at something less than 10% efficient...

seems to me a better use would be to plow it into the arid farm soil as a 
fertaliser/water retention booster... 

-- 
Dr Paul van den Bergen
Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures
caia.swin.edu.au
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IM:bulwynkl2002
It's a book. Non-volatile storage media. Everyone should have one.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Brook]

We are hoping to attract some funds to set up a waste oil collection
facility in England similiar to your own could you give us some help or
advise us what not to do?
- Original Message -
From: "Winny De Schryver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 12:16 PM
Subject: RE: [biofuels-biz] Q: price for glycerine in EU?


> Prices per ton glycerine
>
> 60%  300 ?
> 80%  500 ?
> 90%  600 ?
>
> Winny
>
> > -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> > Van: Paulius Staneiauskas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Verzonden: dinsdag 11 februari 2003 8:21
> > Aan: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com
> > Onderwerp: RE: [biofuels-biz] Q: price for glycerine in EU?
> >
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Biofuels at Journey to Forever
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> Biofuel at WebConX
> http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm
> List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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

 

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

Re: [biofuels-biz] SF biodiesel/SVO Another B100 pump

[Martin Brook]

An indicative price for constructing an Oscillattory flow Reactor to produce
10,000 tons of   biodiesel per year would be £320 k. To increase the plant
size to produce 50,000 tons per year would roughly double the price to £640
k This is not a non catalyst system.If you only want a price on a non
catalyst system we will have to reconsider.Kind regards, Martin
- Original Message -
From: "Winny De Schryver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 8:04 PM
Subject: RE: [biofuels-biz] SF biodiesel/SVO Another B100 pump


> Steve,
>
> Can you give me some figures about your plants ?
> What is the production and what is the metod catalyst or without catalyst
?
> Only WVA or pure oil to ?
> We are in Belgium and looking to build a plant of 50,000 tons a year,
> continious production without catalyst.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Winny
>
>
> > -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> > Van: Steve Spence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Verzonden: donderdag 6 maart 2003 20:35
> > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > wastewatts; vegoil-diesel; sustainablenrg; homeenergysolutions; future9;
> > EcoPages_Newswire; BiomassGroup; bio-oil; alternatepower; biofuels-biz;
> > BFIC; 3rdworldenergy; Biofuel - Egroups; Biodiesel - Egroups
> > Onderwerp: [biofuels-biz] SF biodiesel/SVO Another B100 pump
> >
> >
> >
> > Just to straighten out any confusion.  The plant being built in San Jose
> > with Western States Oil is part of a joint venture with us, Biodiesel
> > Industries, not Pacific Biodiesel.  The San Jose plant will use recycled
> > cooking oils as a feedstock, just like our plants in Las Vegas, NV and
New
> > South Wales, Australia.  The Western States Oil station in San Jose is
> > pumping B100, but we have put off any publicity until the signs
> > are finished
> > etc.   Glad to see that the svo'ers have such an active word of mouth
> > network, and that they are ahead of the press on this one.
> >
> >  Once the San Jose plant is finished, prices will come down
substantially.
> > We are currently at $1.40 per gallon FOB Las Vegas (pretax) for B100,
and
> > are
> > expanding that facility to 3 million gallons per year.  Our entire
current
> > output is already committed under contract to government fleets
> > in the area,
> > but we hope to have more available to new users once the expansion is
> > completed (mid April hopefully).
> >
> > Russ Teall
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Biodiesel Industries
> > http://www.pipeline.to/biodiesel/
> >
> >
> > Steve Spence
> > Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
> > & Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
> > http://www.green-trust.org
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > 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/
>
>
>



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/46VHAA/9bTolB/TM
-~->

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

 

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

Re: [biofuel] Global Warming

[Keith Addison]

>Hoagy did a great job of documenting the situation --
>if only they could recognize the truth when they
>see it :-).  Unfortunately, it's a matter of selective
>perception. Something that is too threatening to ones
>way of life, or just too uncomfortable for ones
>emotional state to bear, will HAVE to be dismissed
>regardless of any evidence presented.
>
>Perhaps part of the answer is to present the
>inevitable readjustment as a GOOD thing to be
>welcomed rather than feared. Certainly in my own
>case, it's only the benefit of having had several
>DECADES to cogitate upon this stuff that has made
>it seem LONG OVERDUE to me... -K

Hi Ken

LONG overdue, yes. The Kyoto Protocol should have been a binding 
agreement reached at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. That was the 
intention, it was to be the centrepiece at Rio (I was at the 
ministerial climate conference in Nairobi that preceded the Rio 
Conference). That much has footdragging accomplished, and more - it 
probably requires 60% cuts, Kyoto is just a drop in the bucket with 
its 1990 levels by 2012 or whatever.

By the way, there's a LOT of good stuff in the archives on climate 
change, global warming, the Kyoto Protocol:
http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel

Re denial, friend Misha posted this below to SANET a while back, in 
similar circumstances.

Best

Keith



>Howdy, all--
>
>Those of you who prefer science to wishful thinking and corporate 
>propaganda on the matter of human-induced climate change will 
>appreciate these resources.
>
>First, and best:
>
>/Climate Change and the Global Harvest: Potential Impacts of the 
>Greenhouse Effect on Agriculture/. Cynthia Rosenzweig, Daniel 
>Hillel. Oxford U. P., 1998.
>ISBN 0-19-508889-1.
>
>Cynthia is with the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies at 
>Columbia U. She is an ag scientist (all three degrees).
>
>See these research links for more on GISS's work on climate change, 
>climate forcings, paleoclimate, and more: 
>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/
>
>Second, I have found this collection very useful:
>
>/Global Climate Change and Agricultural Production/. Fakhri Bazzaz, 
>Wim Sombroek. Rome, FAO, 1996. Cloth ISBN 0-471-95763-1. Paper ISBN 
>0-471-96927-3.
>
>See particularly information on changing hydrological cycles, 
>regional vulnerability, and the combined effects of changing CO2, 
>temperature, UV-B radiation, and ozone on crop growth.
>
>Third, A nice popular guide--praised by Jim Hansen of NASA/Giss, 
>David Suzuki, and Rev. Sally Bingham (Episcopal Power and Light)--is:
>
>/Stormy Weather: 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change/. Guy 
>Dauncey, Patrick Mazza. 2001. ISBN 0-86571-421-5
>
>My favorite sections are "Moving toward a world without fossil 
>fuels," and the solutions that highlight the fossil-fuel- and 
>transport-intensive industrial/global food system.
>
>Fourth, here in the Pacific Northwest, we have
>
>Climate Solutions
>http://www.climatesolutions.org/
>
>Climate Solutions publications on-line
>http://www.climatesolutions.org/staging/pages/pubs.html
>
>CS's Energy Outreach Center is right here in lovely downtown 
>Olympia. "The purpose of the Center is to acquaint you with some of 
>the major considerations when building, buying, or remodeling a home 
>while having minimum impact on the environment. The energy-saving 
>materials and ideas not only save energy, therefore saving money, 
>they also help to save the planet from pollution, wasteful use of 
>non-renewable resources, and ultimately, dangerous climate changes."
>
>
>WARNING! Using these resources will remove the potential for smug 
>ignorance or comforting ourselves with fairy tales. Like how it 
>doesn't make any difference to the atmosphere's chemistry, when 
>humans take huge reserves of carbon, locked deep within the earth 
>since long before we ever evolved, and transfer them into the 
>atmosphere in a tick of geological time.
>
>These resources also convert whistling in the dark into singing in a 
>new key, so only those with a truly musical soul should use them.
>
>:^)
>
>
>peace
>mish
>
>
>
>Michele Gale-Sinex
>
>Home office:   360-459-5683
>Home office fax:   Same as above, phone first for enabling
>~~~
>The Earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are 
>killing it have names and addresses. -Utah Philips


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Your own Online Store Selling our Overstock.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/rZll0B/4ftFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

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

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

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