[biofuels-biz] Fwd: From Rachel's: Nationwide Precaution Campaign
For US members. See: http://RACHEL.ORG/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=2275 #756 - The Year of Precautionary Action, November 14 , 2002 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:49:57 -0400 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Subscribers to Rachel-News [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Rachel News [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: From Rachel's: Nationwide Precaution Campaign To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you find the Rachel newsletter useful or interesting, please forward it to a friend suggesting that they start their own free E-mail subscription. To stop receiving the Rachel newsletter, send E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with two words in the body of the message (not in the subject line): UNSUB RACHEL-NEWS Dear Rachel's Reader, Late last year in Rachel's #756, we told you about a precautionary campaign that was in the works. Now that campaign is about to kick off nationwide, urging a precautionary approach to environmental protection, environmental justice, and worker safety. I am writing to ask you to endorse the principles of the campaign, and get involved if you want to. The attached material has 3 parts: 1) An invitation for YOU individually and/or your GROUP to endorse the campaign. 2) The final BE SAFE Campaign Platform. 3) The endorsement itself -- this is where you say you're on board with this powerful idea. Thanks for considering this. The precautionary principle already has the polluters worried. Let's give them something to REALLY worry about: a nation-wide show of support for the better safe than sorry approach. And thanks for reading Rachel's. Sincerely, Peter Montague, editor == INVITATION We invite you or your organization to endorse the BE SAFE Platform listing the four principles of the precautionary approach. Enclosed please find the Platform and an Endorsement coupon. The Center for Health, Environment Justice (CHEJ), Rachel's Environment Health News, and hundreds of groups in the Environmental Health Alliance are spearheading a national campaign to build a unified demand for preventive, protective policies in America. The BE SAFE campaign is a collaborative initiative to build a large coalition for pollution prevention and to hold corporations and government accountable for protecting human health and the environment. We can elevate public support with a strong and diverse voice for precaution and propel the BE SAFE precautionary approach message into the forefront of public and political consciousness. Our goal is to mobilize a broad constituency and gather hundreds of thousands of signatures endorsing the Platform, which will be given to the President in January 2005. Together we will demand that decision makers choose a better safe than sorry approach motivated by caution and prevention. Your platform signature will be among the first of five hundred groups and thousands of individuals for the campaign launch in October 2003. You can help build the momentum critical to the success of this campaign. Please send in the Platform endorsement coupon today or you can email it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] We will be launching the campaign in mid-October with national and statewide media events. The campaign is reaching out to a wide range of groups because the precautionary approach intersects with all our issues. We can have a powerful impact if we all raise the BE SAFE precaution message in our issue campaigns. Precaution is needed in a broad spectrum of environmental and health concerns, including air pollution, children's environmental health, clean production, green schools, landfills, mining, nuclear power, occupational safety and health, pesticides, sludge, toxic dumps, water pollution, wilderness protection and many others. Organizational leaders have written over 40 Issue Brochures -- directly connecting each issue with the BE SAFE principles on precaution. This fall we will feature the brochures and other resources on the www.besafenet.com website. Please endorse the BE SAFE Platform today by emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] or faxing in your coupon to CHEJ at 703-237-8389. Together we can build public support for government and industry to Put Safety First. Thank you. Sincerely, Lois Marie Gibbs, CHEJ Executive Director Anne Rabe, Be Safe Campaign Coordinator Peter Montague, editor, Rachel's Environment Health News === BE SAFE Platform (Blueprint Ensuring Our Safety And Future Economy) Environmental Health Alliance In the 21st century, we envision a world in which our food, water and air are clean, and our children grow up healthy and thrive. Everyone needs a protected, safe community and workplace, and natural environment to enjoy. We can make this world vision a reality. The tools we bring to this work are prevention, safety, responsibility and democracy. Our goal is to prevent pollution and environmental destruction before it happens. We
Re: [biofuel] 2,000 gallon of biodiesel (was) Sen. John Kerry on Hybrids, EVs
Keith and MM, I made the suggestion to show how easy it really is to get a fast and cheap reduction in use of oil. The problem is that it is not politically right. I will answer the arguments, it will be most fun that way, The 2,000 gallon of biodiesel is for buying new diesels It is a counter suggestion to subsidizing hydrogen cars. That US already have 1 % of diesels only prove that they exists and it is infinitely more than existing hydrogen cars. If US had 40% diesels, like Europe, the program would be less effective. It is 180,000 miles for a Lupo, so if the cars are clean and efficient, it could be almost lifetime fuel and who would not be interested in that? The new diesels engines, running on biodiesel, can easily fall within the specs of clean cars. It is totally a cleaner technology than most of the hydrogen that will be produced the next 30 years. This because of the necessity of using current feed stock for hydrogen and the pollution from the electricity production to do any production with electrolysis. The clean and fuel efficient diesels are in production and you can buy such a car today. This will shorten the implementation of effective fuel independence with more than 25 years. Until now, I can only find two very negative points which makes the suggestion doubtful. That is that the political value of my suggestion is far less than talking about hydrogen and that it is feasible. The one who suggest it, have to do it. The spectaculars about it is far less than hydrogen. The one who suggest it have to do it and the results are more or less guaranteed. Not the kind of things that politicians favor. If you want you could also give 2,000 gallon of Ethanol or Hydrogen, instead of subsidize the price of the car. You will neutralize arguments, but lose the higher efficiency of diesels (min. 25%) and suffer from the lack of availability of hydrogen cars, but maybe that is worth it. -:)) Hakan At 06:32 AM 9/26/2003, you wrote: Hello JD Make it 2,000 gallon of biodiesel. Hakan That's three or four years' worth, on average. Diesels are only 1% of new cars sold in the US, but how many cars would even that be in four years not using fossil fuels? I don't think they will like it Hakan. I do though. :-) Kerry says: So I'm trying to help them. I mean if $2,000 doesn't do it, let's make it three. What does it take to make it happen? It's peanuts, compared with the SUV tax breaks. Should therefore be very feasible. At 08:43 PM 9/25/2003, you wrote: Why not give anyone who buy a biodiesel compatible car = any diesel. a check for 1000 gallon of B100, it is the same cost or cheaper. Would get the biodiesel production running, save imports and environment. Would sell a lot of economical diesels and get the US to produce such cars. Ready to go and will start to save imports from the day it starts. Would be a lot of Lupos in the beginning, but would force US car makers to make good diesel alternatives quite fast. So is somebody going to suggest it to him? He got burned last time he opened his mouth and the dread word diesel came out, if you recall, and he doesn't mention diesels this time, though he doesn't exclude them either. US can put a man on the moon and make hydrogen cars. It should also be possible to make a good diesel engine, or maybe it is too difficult? Can it take longer than developing a hydrogen car? Why do the Germans, French and Japanese have them and the Americans not? I haven't heard it for awhile now, but Japanese friends used to say that the Americans can make a space rocket but not a toaster. On the other hand, IIRC the most recent Japanese attempt to make a space rocket was a bit embarrassing. And on the third hand (?) maybe the Japanese can't make a toaster either anymore, I think they've subcontracted all that stuff to China. Actually it's not just the Americans, Japan is also being a bit silly when it comes to diesels. More re which later, when I have the other half of the story tied up - quite a nice story! Or at least the other half's nice. regards Keith Hakan At 02:23 PM 9/25/2003, you wrote: Excerpt from an interview in the Detroit Free Press Yesterday: (Peter Horton gave Kerry a ride in his EV1 a few weeks back) The interview is here, toward the bottom: http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/ekerry23_20030923.htmht tp://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/ekerry23_20030923.htm http://www .freep.com/voices/columnists/ekerry23_20030923.htmhttp://www.freep.c ohttp://www.freep.co m/voices/columnists/ekerry23_20030923.htm Keith, I think my F-250 might burn through the 1000 gallons in a year, maybe more, that's why I want to make biodiesel. Just trying to figure ouyt how not to kill myself in the process. :-) I think it's possible,
Re: [biofuel] New Athena Project a Sustainable Energy Policy Planning Process
Tim, Maybe you can copy the discussion about 2,000 gallons of biodiesel to the Athena Project. Could be interesting if we get going on it. Hakan At 03:13 AM 9/23/2003, you wrote: September 22, 2003 For immediate release The New Athena Project, a Sustainable Energy Policy Planning Process This project is inviting representatives from environmental and scientific communities in concert with business interests, public policy experts and other stakeholders to participate in a process to develop a Sustainable Energy Policy Plan to be offered to all candidates running for political office. The New Athena Project seeks to promote a Sustainable Energy Policy that has global environmental sustainability as its first priority in answer to similar planning documents being offered by current controlling commercial interests who formulate their plans and goals based on sustaining economic status quo with control and dominance of the world energy marketplace as a first priority, while marginalizing environmental consequences in favor of economic development. Eleven basic discussion topics have been defined and presented online at http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Athena.http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Athena. Each is linked to a board in the New Athena discussion forum to allow interested parties an opportunity to help shape the Sustainable Energy Policy that is offered to all candidates for political office. Visit http://www.fuelandfiber.com/Athenahttp://www.fuelandfiber.com/Athena for more details and to participate in the process. 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] USING SEPARATOR FOR AFTER WASH TREATMENT OF ME
Keith OK, soap cracks back to FFA with H3PO4 hence keeping the water clear. FFA volume is quite small. Just on my way out hence short reply. Mark --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keith I feel centrifuges are the future of mass production. Our plant has a production capability of 700,000L per week so I cant avoid using them. ark No doubt, but the focus of this group, and our focus at Journey to Forever, is not on mass production and large production-capacity plants but on small-scale, decentralized, localized production, and in this setting I see no need for nor advantage in centrifuges. As previously explained. Meanwhile I asked you a couple of questions in the message below, but got no response from you. Keith Hello Mark, Tomas and all Tomas, Where could I buy one at this price? I centrifuge all materials before washing on a lab level, so using the Alfie unit would give a level of automation. One problem you are having is residual glycerol contamination in the wash water causing it to cloud very quickly. Yes, as already pointed out. Not settling for long enough before the wash, or not washing enough. I find separating the two phases (ME and Glycerol) first such that they are both clear allows for a far cleaner wash. Further, I also find neutralising the pH wash water allows for a long term clear final product. Phosphoric acid will on a very small volume level crack the soaps back to FFA. I have two trains of thought on this - 1) I use ~10% by volume wash water pH neutralised on a automated closed loop system. It needs to be washed only once and the amount of H3PO4 used is in relative terms quite small. The wash water clears and hence can be recycled time and time again. But remember the soap will return back to FFA. The pysical volume with respect to the final bio-diesel is very small indeed, maybe 0.001% v/v. How did you calculate that? If it's that small an amount of FFA, then that little soap wouldn't make that much difference in washing, seems to me. 2) Wash the biodiesel with tap water say 2 or 3 times until the final stage water is clear. Spent water has to be put down the drain, which is a waste. No it doesn't, and no it isn't. You should reuse it - use the 2nd wash water for the next batch first wash, the 3rd wash water for the next batch 2nd wash and so on. So you're using each wash three times, only the 3rd wash is fresh. The first wash can't be reused, but it doesn't have to go down the drain either. A simple grey-water system will handle it well. We currently feed it to water hyacinths and duckweed, and compost the plants. Next step will be to reclaim cleansed water from the water hyacinths and duckweed. In either case, the final glycerol can be pH neutralised with H3PO4 under closed loop control, the Sodium Phosphate precipitate removed via centrifuge, the water and ME separated via centrifuge. The final product is clear ME, neutral Glycerol and a compact solid fertilizer base. If you believe in fertilizers. Even if you do, most phosphates are applied to phosphate-rich soil, and most of what's applied quickly becomes unavailable to plants, like the rest. Phosphates are made available by biological action via the soil micro-life. Keep the micro-life happy and you don't need phosphates, nor any other fertilizers. Anyway, what do you mean by neutral Glycerol? You've accounted for the catalyst in the by-product cocktail, but not for the soap/FFA, which is probably most of it, and not for the excess methanol. I don't understand the perceived need for centrifuges etc etc etc. What for? It increases the production rate? I don't think so - maybe it shortens the production *time*. Well, so what? Settling, washing, bubble-drying will take maybe 4-5 days from starting processing to finished, clear fuel. So if you have space to store 4-5 days' production, that's all you need. If you've got your processing right, that is - if you find a need for all this just for a cleaner wash it might help to pay some attention to optimizing your process. Whatever, what I've seen of centrifuges so far doesn't exactly impress, and nor does the price. Best Keith Mark = Mark Schofield M.Sc B.Eng DHE AMIMechE t 07944 401662 e [EMAIL PROTECTED] Autogas Conversions and LPG Pumps Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM
Re: [biofuel] USING SEPARATOR FOR AFTER WASH TREATMENT OF ME
Todd, Yes I have. We buy in contract amount of fat and oil delivered to site via tanker. Remember that the UK is a relatively small place peaking at 1000 miles long by 200 wide. Regards Mark Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/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] Unwashed BD with pH 7
Dag Pieter Keith wrote : You have this next bit wrong Pieter, I don't know what you've been reading but Aleks Kac doesn't have a method for separating glycerin and FFAs, that's by Todd and me. Very very sorry Keith. How could I be that stupid. It's easy! :-) I may have got confused on this, unsuccessfully trying to separate glycerin and FFA's and read that separation would work better with the two stage acid - base method. No, the advantage of the acid-base method is less FFAs, more biodiesel. It doesn't make any difference to the separation process itself, it's the same whichever process you use. The amount of acid required depends on the amount of catalyst used - less with acid-base, but I've separated by-product from heavily used oil titrating at more than 10ml and processed by single-stage base and not had any difficulty, LOTS of FFA. By a diesel heating device ( I think I found out these words myself ; rather smart for a Dutch guy, isn't it ?) :-) Dutch guys don't strike me as lacking smarts. I mean a central heating, that uses diesel as a fuel. Oh. Right. They can use biodiesel okay (depending on the model), and there's a group (altfuelfurnace) working on using SVO/WVO with them, but I think you'd have terrible coking and clogging problems with raw glycerine by-product, even if you pre-heated it. Separated FFA might work, with a bit of fiddling maybe - the viscosity is lower than that of SVO, closer to biodiesel. regards Keith Met vriendelijke groeten, Pieter Koole Netherlands - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 4:11 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Unwashed BD with pH 7 Hello Pieter Hi, Someone wrote to me not quite to believe I produce BD with pH 7, which is not whashed at all. I can't find this message right now, sorry author. It's believable, once you add the very long settling times you're using. Probably the only thing it won't account for is the proportion of the excess methanol remaining in the biodiesel, which, contrary to Joshua Tickell's book, is NOT great fuel that's good for your engine and washing it out is a waste. Not good for engines, despite your high mileage (which isn't very high for a diesel, and it's only one case). If your containers are open you might be losing much of it through evaporation anyway, which might be good for the biodiesel but not very good for you, if you're breathing it. I make BD at 1000 liter batches at a time, using 2 containers of 1000 liter each. When the first container is about half empty, I fill up the second one and make BD in it, using the single stage method ( as described in Joshua Tickels book ) After te reaction process, often this is the next day or so, I drain off the glycerin layer and let the rest of the lot wait, untill the first container is empty, which can easely take several months. The BD in the second container does have a pH of 7-7.5 by then and looks like beautifull liquid gold. pH Measuring is in my case very accurate. I have a small factory and work with many chemicals, so measuring pH is part of my job. Usually I use a digital pH meter, but in the case of BD I use pH paper with an accuracy of 0.5 pH. As I wrote before, I have driven over 100.000 km now on BD without a single problem. ( Citroen Turbo Diesel, built in 1992 ) This car has driven over 400.000 km all together now. My previous car was also a Citroen Turbo diesel, and that one drove just over 500.000 km without ever seeing a garage. I change oil and filter every 100.000 km. Citroen used to have a very bad image, and it took them years and years to get rid of their bad name, just buy making extreme good cars. No rust at all, no engine problems at all and great comfort, with top speed of 180 km / hr. and less noise than in many petrol cars. You have this next bit wrong Pieter, I don't know what you've been reading but Aleks Kac doesn't have a method for separating glycerin and FFAs, that's by Todd and me. Aleks's two methods are both two-stage processes for making biodiesel, the base-base and the acid-base method. You asked once before if washing is absolutely necessary with the acid-base method (yes, because of the sulphur), so I presume you've used it, or at least know what it is. You also asked previously about your difficulties separating glyc/FFA, but it wasn't very clear what you were doing, though I think you got some good advice. So this puzzles me. Here are the different links to the articles at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_aleks.html Two-stage biodiesel process http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_aleksnew.html Foolproof biodiesel process http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycsep.html Separating glycerine/FFAs What I still can't get right is separating glycerin and FFA's .
[biofuel] Fwd: From Rachel's: Nationwide Precaution Campaign
For US members. See: http://RACHEL.ORG/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=2275 #756 - The Year of Precautionary Action, November 14 , 2002 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:49:57 -0400 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: Subscribers to Rachel-News [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Rachel News [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: From Rachel's: Nationwide Precaution Campaign To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you find the Rachel newsletter useful or interesting, please forward it to a friend suggesting that they start their own free E-mail subscription. To stop receiving the Rachel newsletter, send E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with two words in the body of the message (not in the subject line): UNSUB RACHEL-NEWS Dear Rachel's Reader, Late last year in Rachel's #756, we told you about a precautionary campaign that was in the works. Now that campaign is about to kick off nationwide, urging a precautionary approach to environmental protection, environmental justice, and worker safety. I am writing to ask you to endorse the principles of the campaign, and get involved if you want to. The attached material has 3 parts: 1) An invitation for YOU individually and/or your GROUP to endorse the campaign. 2) The final BE SAFE Campaign Platform. 3) The endorsement itself -- this is where you say you're on board with this powerful idea. Thanks for considering this. The precautionary principle already has the polluters worried. Let's give them something to REALLY worry about: a nation-wide show of support for the better safe than sorry approach. And thanks for reading Rachel's. Sincerely, Peter Montague, editor == INVITATION We invite you or your organization to endorse the BE SAFE Platform listing the four principles of the precautionary approach. Enclosed please find the Platform and an Endorsement coupon. The Center for Health, Environment Justice (CHEJ), Rachel's Environment Health News, and hundreds of groups in the Environmental Health Alliance are spearheading a national campaign to build a unified demand for preventive, protective policies in America. The BE SAFE campaign is a collaborative initiative to build a large coalition for pollution prevention and to hold corporations and government accountable for protecting human health and the environment. We can elevate public support with a strong and diverse voice for precaution and propel the BE SAFE precautionary approach message into the forefront of public and political consciousness. Our goal is to mobilize a broad constituency and gather hundreds of thousands of signatures endorsing the Platform, which will be given to the President in January 2005. Together we will demand that decision makers choose a better safe than sorry approach motivated by caution and prevention. Your platform signature will be among the first of five hundred groups and thousands of individuals for the campaign launch in October 2003. You can help build the momentum critical to the success of this campaign. Please send in the Platform endorsement coupon today or you can email it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] We will be launching the campaign in mid-October with national and statewide media events. The campaign is reaching out to a wide range of groups because the precautionary approach intersects with all our issues. We can have a powerful impact if we all raise the BE SAFE precaution message in our issue campaigns. Precaution is needed in a broad spectrum of environmental and health concerns, including air pollution, children's environmental health, clean production, green schools, landfills, mining, nuclear power, occupational safety and health, pesticides, sludge, toxic dumps, water pollution, wilderness protection and many others. Organizational leaders have written over 40 Issue Brochures -- directly connecting each issue with the BE SAFE principles on precaution. This fall we will feature the brochures and other resources on the www.besafenet.com website. Please endorse the BE SAFE Platform today by emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] or faxing in your coupon to CHEJ at 703-237-8389. Together we can build public support for government and industry to Put Safety First. Thank you. Sincerely, Lois Marie Gibbs, CHEJ Executive Director Anne Rabe, Be Safe Campaign Coordinator Peter Montague, editor, Rachel's Environment Health News === BE SAFE Platform (Blueprint Ensuring Our Safety And Future Economy) Environmental Health Alliance In the 21st century, we envision a world in which our food, water and air are clean, and our children grow up healthy and thrive. Everyone needs a protected, safe community and workplace, and natural environment to enjoy. We can make this world vision a reality. The tools we bring to this work are prevention, safety, responsibility and democracy. Our goal is to prevent pollution and environmental destruction before it happens. We
RE: [biofuel] USING SEPARATOR FOR AFTER WASH TREATMENT OF ME
Keith OK, soap cracks back to FFA with H3PO4 hence keeping the water clear. FFA volume is quite small. Just on my way out hence short reply. Mark I hope you'll send a more detailed one when you come back. We all know acid cracks soap back to FFA, you already said that, twice, now three times: Phosphoric acid will on a very small volume level crack the soaps back to FFA. And that wasn't the question. This was: again. But remember the soap will return back to FFA. The pysical volume with respect to the final bio-diesel is very small indeed, maybe 0.001% v/v. How did you calculate that? If it's that small an amount of FFA, then that little soap wouldn't make that much difference in washing, seems to me. How did you calculate the 0.001% v/v? There are a lot of variables at play there, yet you give such a precise figure, what's it based on? This isn't very precise: ... the amount of H3PO4 used is in relative terms quite small and ... a very small volume level. There were other questions. You also said 2-3 washes with tapwater wastes the water, which isn't so, and you don't appear to have considered using 2-3 washes with acid added to the first wash, which many people do. You also talked of neutral Glycerol: In either case, the final glycerol can be pH neutralised with H3PO4 under closed loop control, the Sodium Phosphate precipitate removed via centrifuge, the water and ME separated via centrifuge. The final product is clear ME, neutral Glycerol and a compact solid fertilizer base. Anyway, what do you mean by neutral Glycerol? You've accounted for the catalyst in the by-product cocktail, but not for the soap/FFA, which is probably most of it, and not for the excess methanol. I'm not just asking for the sake of asking - surely you're aware that the pros and cons of acid-washing are a long-running controversy, it often comes up on the list, with some progress being made at last towards a resolution. You've posted this very low figure for the FFA quantities, which would certainly be relevant to the discussion, only you don't say what it's based on, it doesn't quite make sense, and it tends to ignore all the variables, not only the obvious ones but also the less obvious ones such as the different FA profiles of different oils, and how the different acids might behave in a wash, as pointed out recently by Prof. Michael Allen and cross-posted here. So please explain. The whole message doesn't quite make sense, and seems rather odd for someone with a 700,000L per week biodiesel plant. Do you have such a plant? I mean up and running? A week or so ago you were talking of laboratory-level experiments, a couple of months back you were making your first test batches. You say there's a 700,000L per week biodiesel plant operating in the UK, that's nearly 10 million US gallons a year, which would surely make rather a large and loud dent in the market there even if it's operating at well below the production capability you claim, but we've heard nothing of it except from you. Keith Addison Journey to Forever --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keith I feel centrifuges are the future of mass production. Our plant has a production capability of 700,000L per week so I cant avoid using them. ark No doubt, but the focus of this group, and our focus at Journey to Forever, is not on mass production and large production-capacity plants but on small-scale, decentralized, localized production, and in this setting I see no need for nor advantage in centrifuges. As previously explained. Meanwhile I asked you a couple of questions in the message below, but got no response from you. Keith Hello Mark, Tomas and all Tomas, Where could I buy one at this price? I centrifuge all materials before washing on a lab level, so using the Alfie unit would give a level of automation. One problem you are having is residual glycerol contamination in the wash water causing it to cloud very quickly. Yes, as already pointed out. Not settling for long enough before the wash, or not washing enough. I find separating the two phases (ME and Glycerol) first such that they are both clear allows for a far cleaner wash. Further, I also find neutralising the pH wash water allows for a long term clear final product. Phosphoric acid will on a very small volume level crack the soaps back to FFA. I have two trains of thought on this - 1) I use ~10% by volume wash water pH neutralised on a automated closed loop system. It needs to be washed only once and the amount of H3PO4 used is in relative terms quite small. The wash water clears and hence can be recycled time and time again. But remember the soap will return back to FFA. The pysical volume with respect to the final bio-diesel is very small indeed, maybe
Re: [biofuel] (fwd) Sen. John Kerry on Hybrids, EVs
murdoch wrote: Excerpt from an interview in the Detroit Free Press Yesterday: (Peter Horton gave Kerry a ride in his EV1 a few weeks back) The interview is here, toward the bottom: The $2,000 tax credit for a clean car -- what do you have in mind? Hybrid, anything, hybrid, electric, you name it. I mean Roger Smith created a great car. I rode in one out in California the other day. That electric car is a terrific car, and they stopped making them. Why? I think the cost was prohibitive. You know what, there were people out there prepared to do it. Countless numbers of Americans have been waiting to buy that Ford Escape, who wanted to grab a hybrid. I mean the Japanese are selling them here, they've got waiting lines for them. Let's get going, folks. So I'm trying to help them. I mean if $2,000 doesn't do it, let's make it three. What does it take to make it happen? I certainly want the jobs to be here. I don't want people losing their jobs. These cars meanwhile are being sold elsewhere, and they're being made elsewhere. http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/ekerry23_20030923.htm It would be interesting if US Presidential candidates with enough resources http://www.bop2004.org/dtaweb/bop2004/ mentioned EV or hybrid ownership. Toyota May Build More to Meet Prius Demand By John O'Dell Times Staff Writer September 24, 2003 http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/news/la-fi-toyota24sep24,0,767323,print.story?coll=la-classifieds-autos-news Toyota's redesigned 2004 Prius gasoline-electric hybrid car won't be for sale at dealerships for nearly a month, but officials at Torrance-based Toyota Motor Sales USA expect their home office in Japan to increase annual production of the popular sedan because of strong orders. Toyota Motor Corp., which builds the Prius in Japan, initially planned to build 36,000 of the cars in 2004 for worldwide sale. But more than 20,000 Priuses already have been sold, including 11,000 in Japan รท where sales began two weeks ago. In the U.S., Toyota dealers have 9,400 orders for the $19,995 hybrid, said Don Esmond, senior vice president and general manager of the company's Toyota division. The best sales year so far for the Prius hybrid was 21,000 units in 2002. The current generation of the Prius, introduced in Japan in 1997 and in the U.S. in 2000, is a smaller and less powerful car than the 2004 model but is priced the same. Toyota has been selling about 12,000 Priuses a year in the United States. ~~ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/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: diesel or hybrid?
Hello Biofuel folks, I am reposting this message that I originally put up on the evworld server. The original message was on this list, but it got reposted. Please understand that I am doing so here hoping that someone will provide a counter point which will educate me more on biodiesel. Thanks. Forbes Bagatelle-Black I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I would buy the Prius. Not that the TDI would be a bad choice! In terms of protecting the environment right here and now, I would say that the choice is a wash. Both vehicles presents significant benefits in terms of clean emissions. However, looking into the effect your choice will have on the future of transportation technology, I think buying the Prius today now will do the most good at the present time. I say this because of several reasons, including: 1. Electric drivetrain technology needs our support right now. With the Bush administration gutting funding to the pure EV industry, it is critically important that research on battery and motor technology be supported by other means. Hybrid vehicle development does support this technology, but research being done in hybrid development will have benefits to vehicular design which go far beyond the hybrid electric/gasoline industry. 2. Supporting hybrids will result in demonstrable benefits to biodiesel-powered vehicles. As others have posted, a diesel/electric hybrid would combine many of the benefits from both technologies. Correct me if I am wrong here, but I seem to remember that some of the extremely high-efficiency diesels have a fairly peaky efficiency curve. They like to stay in their sweet spot efficiency-wise. A hybrid diesel/electric drivetrain would allow them to do so. 3. Diesel drivetrains are approaching their theoretical peak efficiency points. This makes battery and motor technologies (especially battery technology) the long poles in the tent. Investing in these technologies now will help bring them up to par with internal combustion technologies. Now, I readily admit that I am biased. I know a lot more about hybrids and pure electrics than about biodiesel, so I am hoping that a biodiesel expert will offer an educational counterpoint. Respectfully, Forbes Bagatelle-Black --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Thor Skov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to pose a question to forum. I am considering swapping my 2001 Golf TDI for another car, one that is an automatic rather than a stick. I have to do a lot of driving for my job (about 90 miles a day), and although I prefer stick driving, the clutching is bothering my pelvis and leg. So, I am contemplating getting either a new Jetta TDI wagon (I really like the VWs) or the second generation toyota Prius. The question for me is what type of technology should I support, from the standpoints both of environmental impact and incentives to auto manufacturers. On the one hand, I want to be able to continue to burn biodiesel, which makes up approximately 1/4 of my fuel consumption--more if the proposed subsidy goes through (assuming World Energy drops its prices accordingly and/or the Ferndale plant actually starts producing sometime this decade). Biodiesel has good environmental benefits, gets decent mileage (maybe 45 mpg with the automatic), and is a great conversation item with which to get people thinking about sustainability. Also, there is the option to convert to SVO down the road. I don't have a feel for the extent to which my purchase will encourage VW and other european firms to start selling more high-efficient diesel models in the U.S. On the other hand, the new Prius gets considerably better mileage, and is a SULEV/PZEV. Not being carbon neutral withstanding, it pollutes much less than the TDI. Toyota is far out in front of Detroit (and Europe) in hybrid development, and there is something to be said I think for rewarding that innovation. U.S. automakers haven't even put out a first generation hybrid vehicle and Toyota is already working on its third generation. Any thoughts? thor skov p.s. I'd really prefer a jetcar, if I could get one! = Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul. --Edward Abbey Grants Manager, Stillaguamish Tribe Of Indians P.O. Box 277 Arlington, WA 98223-0277 Phone: (360) 652-7362 Ext 284 Fax: (360) 435-7689 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do
[biofuel] re: diesel or hybrid?
Thanks to everyone who responded on this thread. I wanted to add one more comment to the discussion. During the Clinton Administration, all the major U.S. auto manufacturers developed diesel-electric hybrid concept vehicles, in line with the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicle. Some were more realistic than others, but all had high mileages, and all were unveiled 1998-2001. Interesting that as soon as our current President took office, this initiative left the headlines. At least one of these, the GM Precept, metamorphosed into a fuel-cell electric hybrid, and has still not been released. Detroit certainly missed getting any of my car-buying dollar. And I would buy the diesel-hybrid Precept. Given the success of the Prius among consumers, I see the attitude of U.S. automakers as simply indicative of their reluctance to do ANYTHING new or innovative. Sure, they'll take our research money to develop products, but not introduce them. It is baffling. I realize that SUVs are just ridiculously profitable, but you'd think that at least ONE automaker would introduce something that the others don't have, to try to grab a slice of market share. Looks an awful lot like oligopolistic behavior to me. best to all, thor skov http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/april98/departments/news_notes/news_note.html http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/concept_cars/2001/1/GM_hybrid_gets_80_mpg/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/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: diesel or hybrid?
While the Prius has much to offer, it is not the most fuel efficient car ouit there. It is easily beaten by the VW Lupo 3L TDI, which has a three cylinder Diesel engine with direct fuel injection and a displacement of 1.2 litres, which produces 45 kW of power. It is called the '3L' because it's official fuel consumption is below three litres per 100 km-94.1 miles per gallon. On a recent trek of 20,6999 miles at an average speed of 53.1 mph, it averaged 118 miles per gallon. The worst it got was 100.9 mpg, and the best was 141.9 mpg. Since this Diesel can be driven on Bio Fuel, it would be low in pollution, while independant of fossil fuel. Diesels if taken care of can do in excess of 400,000 miles. You can also produce your own Bio Fuel for the Lupo- not so for the Prius. VW is working towards a goal of 300 MPG using Diesel technology. By contrast the Prius uses gasoline-(something you can't make, and is a major pollutant, as well as a depleting resourse, of anti-American countries)- as well as electric. Someday, those batteries will have to be replaced, and at a substantial cost to either you- if you keep it that long, or the person you sell it to and it's resale price affected by that replacement cost- eventuality. While it may be noble to support hybrid technology, Diesel technology-which Rudolf Diesel designed and originated as a NON FOSSIL FUEL alternative (and was murdered for it), should deserve just as much -if not more, support. Rolede Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/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: diesel or hybrid?
Hi Thor Just been some discussion on PNGV in another thread. You might have a look at this post: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?view=28505list=BIOFUEL Check out the Jack Doyle interview, explains quite a lot. And the Mokhiber-Weissman review. Thanks to everyone who responded on this thread. I wanted to add one more comment to the discussion. During the Clinton Administration, all the major U.S. auto manufacturers developed diesel-electric hybrid concept vehicles, in line with the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicle. Some were more realistic than others, but all had high mileages, and all were unveiled 1998-2001. Interesting that as soon as our current President took office, this initiative left the headlines. Yes, now isn't that odd!! It was Gore who pushed PNGV, and diesels. Could have made a big difference. But the new guys made a different deal and the US blithely continues its utterly gross pig-out on petroleum, and sod the rest of us, and the future. It's warping the whole planet, and it will have to stop, like it or not. Sooner would be better (and less painful). At least one of these, the GM Precept, metamorphosed into a fuel-cell electric hybrid, and has still not been released. Detroit certainly missed getting any of my car-buying dollar. And I would buy the diesel-hybrid Precept. Given the success of the Prius among consumers, I see the attitude of U.S. automakers as simply indicative of their reluctance to do ANYTHING new or innovative. Sure, they'll take our research money to develop products, but not introduce them. It is baffling. I realize that SUVs are just ridiculously profitable, but you'd think that at least ONE automaker would introduce something that the others don't have, to try to grab a slice of market share. Looks an awful lot like oligopolistic behavior to me. Well, yes. And I have to say it looks a lot like psychopathic behaviour to me, and I'm not the only one. Anyway, contrary to myth, big biz doesn't do the market that way - they squeeze everyone else out one way or another, usually another, and then they divide it up into territories and keep off each other's patches. Organized crime also does it that way. Regards Keith best to all, thor skov http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/april98/departments/news_notes/n ews_note.html http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/concept_cars/2001/1/GM_hybrid_ gets_80_mpg/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/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] sulfuric acid in two-stage method
I got some sulfuric acid to use in the two-stage method. The method calls for 95% sulfuric. I measured the specific density of the acid I purchased at 1.825 Kg/litre, which puts it somewhere between 91% and 96%. Is it alright to use this acid, adjusting the amount used to compensate for the lower concentration, or should I keep looking? Thanks. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/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] A fair perspective on US war taxes...
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8981 War Tax The Wealthy Robert B. Reich is the Maurice B. Hexter Professor of Social and Economic Policy at Brandeis University, and was the Secretary of Labor under former President Bill Clinton. The president is asking Congress for an additional $87 billion in emergency spending for Iraq. But where will the money come from? Next year's budget is already almost $500 billion in the hole. The simplest and most obvious place to get the money: Postpone next year's tax cut for the richest 1 percent of Americans, those earning more than half a million dollars a year. That would generate about $87 billion right there, the whole extra cost of the war. Again and again in wartime, America has imposed a war tax on the very wealthy. The estate tax, which overwhelmingly hits wealthy families, began under wartime Republican president Abraham Lincoln and was resumed by Republican wartime president William McKinley. And it was maintained from World War I all the way up through the end of the Cold War. Now, of course, the estate tax is being phased out. During World War I, the income tax rate on the wealthiest rose to 77 percent, and during World War II it rose to more than 90 percent, and stayed there. In 1953, with the Cold War raging, Republican president Dwight Eisenhower refused to reduce it on the richest Americans. By 1980, the top rate was still up there, at 70 percent. Now the top rate is 38.6 percent, and it's heading downward. Even though the White House has no plan to pay for the extra costs of invading, occupying and rebuilding Iraq, it's busy shifting the tax burden away from the rich. The president says this will stimulate the economy. But the rich won't spend the extra cash. They already spend as much as they want. They're more likely to invest it wherever around the world they can get the highest return. Look, I'm not even saying raise taxes on the rich. Just keep the tax rate where it is. This alone would give us enough to pay the extra costs. It's only fair. Most Americans are still imperiled by recession -- their wages going nowhere and their jobs precarious. Someone's got to pay for the extra costs, and it might as well be the only people in America who can afford to. This isn't about class warfare, folks. It's about real patriotism during a time of war. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/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] George? Oh George....Which way did he go. Which way did he go. Uh-hoh, Uh-hoh, Uh-hoh...
Sorry. The subject line is from an old cartoon. Couldn't resist. :-) http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8980 The Unilateral Party Is Over New York-based Russ Baker is an award-winning journalist who covers politics and media. Ask an American voter which political party he or she trusts more on foreign policy, and they'll almost always tell you GOP. That's based on the sense that Democrats are too softhearted, unwilling to make the tough decisions needed to protect American interests and safeguard peace, democracy and freedom around the world. To test that assumption, let's compare two situations that come as close as recent history allows to a matched pair: how Bush has handled Iraq versus how Clinton handled the Balkans. When the former Yugoslavia began to unravel during the Bush Sr. administration, then-secretary of state James Baker famously refused to intervene in the spiraling slaughter, because, as he put it, We don't have a dog in that fight. Running hard against Bush I, candidate Bill Clinton scored points with humanitarians by insisting he would do something about the unfolding tragedy in the Balkans. Once in office, with It's the Economy, Stupid as his mantra, Clinton actually delayed as long as possible becoming involved with the Bosnian war. But when he finally acted, he did so in a resolutely multilateral manner. Which turned out to be the key to his success. In 1995, at the height of international outrage over the Bosnian slaughter, U.S.-led NATO forces moved in, decisively halting the hostilities. U.S. Envoy Richard Holbrooke's whirlwind negotiations culminated in the Dayton Agreement, which has kept the peace for 8 years now. Flash forward to Kosovo, 1999. In response to yet more ethnic cleansing, Clinton quickly assembled an international coalition. Military action, when it came, involved an almost even split of combat aircraft between the United States and Europe (including, most notably, the French). Germans provided ground troops, transport planes and logistical support. Even the Serbophilic Russians agreed eventually to send security forces. In both Balkan crises, Republicans were quick to condemn military action and subsequent peacekeeping efforts, even though the moves had considerable support in the world community. Dr. James Lyon directs the widely respected International Crisis Group in Belgrade and holds a PhD in Balkan history. He harkens back with some nostalgia to the days of American multilateralism. Clinton's foreign policy is certainly looking pretty good [by comparison], he says. Many of the key architects of war crimes and genocide in the region are today on trial in the Hague or pending prosecution. Despite many difficulties, a multibillion dollar effort to rebuild the region and to construct the institutions of a market-based, pluralistic democracy is well underway, with heavy spending by all parties. This includes money not just from the United States, but from the European Union as a whole as well as from individual member states. The foreign administrators in Bosnia and Kosovo, respectively, are a Briton and a Finn. All programs fall under U.N. auspices, with a de facto partnership between the E.U. and the United States running things. Bush the younger came into office a near-polar opposite of his father. Remarkably uninformed about foreign affairs, he pitched what voters, worried about paying their own bills, wanted to hear: No hard-earned greenbacks for nation-building in far-off places with funny-sounding names. Then, with 9/11, reality intervened. Bush appropriately took out the Al Qaeda-shielding Taliban in Afghanistan, but then, unable to find Osama bin Laden, he decided to get rid of Saddam Hussein, his father's old bugaboo. Our European allies, unwilling to buy what was obviously a mistaken or irrelevant or dishonest rationale for an invasion, declined to approve, except for a few countries that couldn't resist the pressure from Washington. Having ridiculed and insulted allies offering legitimate critiques, the Bush administration now finds itself in a deep hole with too few resources and too few friends. Having demanded that the world follow him into a mess, Bush now disingenuously touts international participation -- in cleaning up. The international community isn't buying it, partly because Bush remains decidedly unapologetic about having ignored it in the first place. In a speech to the United Nations on September 23, Bush played to the domestic peanut gallery by defending the war and restricting any mention of a U.N. role in Iraq to broadly supported efforts such as UNICEF or the World Food Program -- and pointedly avoiding the subject of a multilateral governing body for Iraq. This drew criticism from French president Jacques Chirac and from U.N. head Kofi Annan, among others, who clearly see this latest half-hearted effort as the latest in a series of arrogant snubs. The problem is that Bush has expended far too much of
[biofuel] Volkswagen TDI
I plan to start making biodiesel, but I'm still not comfortable about placing homemade diesel into the tank for a car I just paid $20,000 for. How many of you have made biodiesel for a Volkswagen TDI on a long-term basis? How many miles have you been doing this? Have you experienced any problems with your engine. Have you experienced any warrantee problems with Wolkswagen of America? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/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] Sources of methanol in teh US?
What are Univar, and Allpro? I was hoping for a common use source so that I could find it locally They are companies that sell chemical. I am mistaken about Univar, they only deal with large accounts. All Pro is a company that sells racing fuel (methanol). You can get NaOH in drain cleaner but the price is very high. From Univar it was .42 cents (US) per pound, delivered. I also have got NaOh from Brenntag, another company that deals in NaOH, KOH, and methanol. The race car fuel people have always been the cheapest source. George Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/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: phosphoric acid in Foolproof method
--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, simonswb6 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: how does using hot water help with the bubble wash? Hot water dissolves soap better than cold water does (same reason as why sugar dissolves in hot tea better than in cold tea). Heat also breaks/prevents emulsions. Hot water washing seeems to be cvommonly used in oil chemistry processes of all kinds, if I understand correctly. whenever they use water washing for anything they heat it. I'm seeing less smulsification (or none at all) and think I'm getting everything washed with much less water (which is my aim) Many people have reported wash problems that miraculously go away when summertime comes. Temperature is why- quite low temp changes have an effect on emulsion formation in bubblewashing. I got great results washing some pretty iffy biodiesel at 100F, typical summertime ambient temps in much of the US. . I was looking this info up for someone else the other day and found info that also said that monoglycerides and diglyerides in biodiesel are more soluble in hot water than cold water (where they're not all soluble I believe- otherwise you could just wash your way to ASTM biodiesel glycerol content levels, which you can't). I don' t know what the supporting evidence was for this statement, but it could be another reason for why this works. Or the author of the MG/DG statement might have been making the conclusion from what he was seeing (better washes) and it might be all due to the soap dissolving issue, I d Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/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: sulfuric acid in two-stage method
Yes, it worked in my experience with something similar. Where did you get this info on the correlation between the density and the exact purity? we have a sulfuric acid drain cleaner in the US which varies in purity quite a lot, but is commonly available at hardware stores. I suppose there are other ingredients in it which could make it hard to test this way, but I could be wrong. The info on how to test it's purity would be useful! mark --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, maimino1984 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I got some sulfuric acid to use in the two-stage method. The method calls for 95% sulfuric. I measured the specific density of the acid I purchased at 1.825 Kg/litre, which puts it somewhere between 91% and 96%. Is it alright to use this acid, adjusting the amount used to compensate for the lower concentration, or should I keep looking? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/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/
