[biofuel] Re: Fwd: Fuel Cells: What's In It For Big Oil
I don't know of anything to contradict what Bill Jones is saying as to the desire of Big Oil to reform Petroleum, but I don't think they're that afraid of Hydrogen. Certainly I could be wrong and their apparent recent support for H2 could in a way be a ruse. In the near-term, they would benefit since Hydrogen is generally (more than 90% at present?) made from Natural Gas. To be sure, installing Hydrogen technology throughout society would put folks one step closer to sourcing it in non-Big-Oil-related-ways, but at present Big Oil is the one who will be selling us the Hydrogen. Heck, Honda has a Natural Gas powered vehicle that no longer has to be charged at some special place. If I understand it correctly, you can now get such a vehicle and get a special device installed in your garage that will compress the Natural Gas and put it in your car. I have spoken to one industry person who pointed out that the experience of driving this particular vehicle is not unlike owning a fuel cell vehicle of the future. The range is somewhat limited (200 miles) and you recharge at home or at some special station. I have sat in a lecture a few years ago where a Texaco person said point-blank that they liked Hydrogen for its ability to raise the inherent value of their NG assets. Now, that was just one person's opinion. So, like I said, Bill may be on to something with his emphasis on the petroleum-to-H2 angle, but I'm just saying that I've always seen Big Oil as somewhat liking H2, at least compared to some of the alternatives. I think the history of the matter going back about 5-10 years is that Exxon didn't like H2 and made this clear (in such areas as their NYTimes OP-Eds. Other Big Oils did like H2 and said so. There was disagreement. At least, that's my recollection. But more recently I think Exxon and pretty much everyone has sort of jumped on board and embraced H2. That's why I see President Bush's myopic focus on H2, to the exclusion of even discussing many other alt-fuel-related issues, as perfectly logical, by the standards he has set. He's made no bones about setting energy policy, *and energy policy discussion*, according basically to what will sit well with certain companies. Another thing I want to mention is there was a quotation from about four years ago when VP Candidate Cheney visited Avista Labs and praised their fuel cell technology. The language he used at the time was something like ...This is excellent... Your fuel cells are devices that make use of hydrocarbons to better our lives and energy supply. I can't put it in quotations because it's nothing approaching word-for-word but the gist of it was that he was willing to praise it *based on its relationship to using hydrocarbons*. I was frankly shocked to see him make such a bald-faced admission that he'd praise something on those grounds but not on another. Are we the "United States of American Hydrocarbons"? Was something slipped into the Bill of Rights demanding that no activity is sanctioned unless it benefits fossil-derived fuels? Ridiculous, I say. At one time a GM CEO said something about What's good for GM is good for America, and this claim now seems somewhat transformed to "What's good for Exxon-Mobil is good for America". I don't think you'll get anyone to admit to thinking this, but it seems to be an idea implicit to some of our policies. I disagree with the idea. On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 04:20:17 +0900, you wrote: >Fwd from the Homestead mailing list: > >>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 01:14:40 -0800 >>From: Bill Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "Homestead mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Fuel Cells: What's In It For Big Oil >> >>The oil companies are really pouring money into finding ways to >>strip hydrogen off petroleum molecules using machines that would fit >>inside a vehicle. Devices that do this are called "reformers" and >>are pivotal to understanding where all this is leading. The key to >>reformers lies in the nature of liquid hydrogen, which requires a >>strong pressure tank to contain it. It even leaks slowly right >>through metal, so it should never be stored for long, and the tank >>must have a ventilated housing. >> >>Liquid hydrogen is really bulky compared to hydrocarbon fuels, >>requiring a car with a 100 gallon pressurized gas tank in order to >>have the same range as a regular car. Having this much pressurized >>hydrogen on board would be somewhat more dangerous than gasoline in >>the event of a collision, but I don't think modern city drivers >>really need to have such a long range from a single fill-up. >> >>If the hydrogen atoms are stored in molecules like ethanol or octane >>then the same number of hydrogen atoms can take up much less space. >>This is the idea behind reformers. By heating the fuel with >>catalysts like platinum, these miniature chemical factories produce >>hydrogen as needed. >> >>As long as we're willing to accept either a larger, fortified >
Re: [biofuel] Tucson Biofuel
Thanks for writing this out. I'll save this info and stop by there the next time I am up there. On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:56:50 -0800 (PST), you wrote: >I get the B-20 (20% soy ester, 80% diesel petrol) from >Arizona Pertoleum. Today I paid $2.10/gallon. >Usually its a bit cheaper than that. They are on >Cherry St, just north of 22nd. Phone number 623-4721. > A knowledgeable guy to talk to is Jerry. They also >sell B-100 (100% soy ester) at a stable price of >$2.85. I'm told that if I go to B-100 without running >B-20 for awhile it will clean so much junk out of my >engine that the fuel filter will clog before I even >make it home. > >No replies on Tucson homebrewers. (yet) > >Brian >--- murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:47:15 -0800 (PST), you wrote: >> >> >Hello. I'm brand new to the biodiesel world. I am >> >currently buying B-20 from a manufacturer in >> Tucson, >> >but I would like to make my own. Is there anyone, >> or >> >does anyone know anyone, in Tucson, AZ who would be >> >willing to help in my learning process? Any info >> >and/or contacts would be greatly appreciated. >> > >> >I know there is a group in Tucson making biodiesel >> >from WVO collectively, but the email address I >> found >> >for them did not work. >> > >> >Thank you, >> > >> >Brian >> >> I will be interested to see what answers you get. >> Also, I would like >> to know where you get your B-20, for my future >> reference. I live an >> hour away and have an eye long-term possibly to >> getting a diesel >> vehicle to try my hand at some of these matters. >> >> MM >> > > >__ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. >http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] E.U. wants to cut pollution from car tires
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-02-17/s_13162.asp E.U. wants to cut pollution from car tires Tuesday, February 17, 2004 By Reuters BRUSSELS, Belgium - The European Commission adopted a proposal on Monday to cut pollution from rubber tires by limiting the presence of toxic chemicals. Oils added to the rubber to make the tires easier to process and to improve their grip during rainy weather can contain cancer-inducing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), the Commission said. Particles containing the toxic chemicals can be released into the air when tire treads are worn down on roads. A build-up of toxins in the atmosphere can then become a health hazard, it said. "The objective is to reduce the emission of tire debris that contains carcinogens into the environment to an acceptable level and to control the possible risks to health and the environment," the Commission proposal read. Medical experts and environmentalists have previously been concerned about pollution caused by burning old tires and workers' exposure to carcinogens in tyre manufacture. But worries surfaced in the 1990s about road wear putting particles with PAHs into the air. The E.U. executive wants to restrict the level of such chemicals in the oils and encourage oil and tire companies to develop safer substitutes. The European Association of the Rubber Industry (BLIC) welcomed the proposal but said the Commission was moving too fast, as no method had yet been developed to test the level of PAHs in tires. "The industry will have a substitute oil ready by the end of 2009," said BLIC's Secretary-General Fazilet Cinaralp, adding that alternatives were already on the market but tires with the new oils needed extensive road safety checks. The Commission wants the industry to start exclusively using the new, safer oils by the end of 2008. But manufacturers supplying tires to racing cars have an extra four years to comply. The Commission set no date for aircraft tires to meet the stricter rules because of concerns over the impact of new oils on the specific safety requirements of such tires. E.U. industry ministers and the European Parliament have to agree the proposal before it can become law, with the legislation expected to be passed in 2005, officials said. Source: Reuters Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Largest waste coal plant in world sprouts from Pennsylvania coalregion
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-02-17/s_13170.asp Largest waste coal plant in world sprouts from Pennsylvania coal region Tuesday, February 17, 2004 By Marc Levy, Associated Press SEWARD, Pennsylvania - When it began operating in 1921 at the height of Pennsylvania's coal production, the coal-fired power plant at the mouth of the Conemaugh No. 1 Mine was a symbol of the area's industrial might. Now, more than 82 years later, that plant is being replaced by a state-of-the-art plant set to come online this spring and that's the biggest in the world to burn mountains of discarded low-grade coal left by the coal industry. The new $800 million operation is being praised for its intention to clean up millions of tons of mine waste each year while significantly cutting down on air-borne emissions that the old plant produced. In this depressed Conemaugh River town seven miles northwest of Johnstown, most residents seem willing to ignore the heavy truck traffic and freight-train-like blast of the new plant, focusing instead on the jobs and hope it brings. However, environmental advocates warn that the plant continues a reliance on fossil fuels that pollute far more than renewable sources such as wind or organic waste. Plant owner Reliant Energy says it is a sign of an emerging era in electricity generation. "It is consistent with where the industry needs to go," said Joel Staff, CEO of Houston-based Reliant. "It is an efficient use of resources and environmentally friendly." And for an electric industry being squeezed by the high cost of cleaner-burning natural gas, waste coal is intriguing. It is a cheap source of fuel whose supply seems guaranteed for the foreseeable future. Reliant estimates there are 100 million tons of waste coal within 50 miles of the site and 250 million tons statewide. The plant is expected to burn 3.5 million tons of waste coal annually. The plant uses a relatively new technology that creates a kind of wind tunnel to recirculate the waste coal with a limestone additive designed to draw away pollutants such as sulfur that would otherwise be airborne. The boilers can actually generate electricity by burning everything from high-grade coal to tires to organic matter. Reliant has committed to the state that it would burn at least 65 percent waste coal but says it is aiming for 100 percent. At 521 megawatts, the plant is about five times as powerful as the largest of the 17 or so other commercial waste coal plants in the United States and 2.5 times as powerful as the plant it's replacing. And while the new plant will create about 3 million tons more ash than the old plant, it is expected to emit significantly lower levels of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and soot, which contribute to acid rain, smog, and breathing problems and use less river water for the cooling process. The plant has earned the support of state officials for the removal of the piles of waste coal, called boney piles, which blight the landscape and leach acidic runoff into groundwater and waterways. Kathleen McGinty, Pennsylvania's secretary for environmental protection, called waste coal "an important new source of electricity" during an industry conference last month, and her department acknowledged that the state does not have the resources to remove the boney piles itself. Electric utilities view waste coal as an important development in ensuring a steady supply of electricity because it provides an alternative to coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. "In a world in which we're looking for a diversity of supply, this is a step forward," said J. Michael Love, president of the Energy Association of Pennsylvania, which represents utilities that buy electricity from producers such as Reliant. Some environmental advocates say they recognize the problems created by the existing piles of waste coal. Though they contend that burning it would not bring any more jobs and investment than, say, a wind energy farm or a plant that burns organic matter and would only increase environmental damage. "It does allow the legacy of pollution to continue," said David Masur, the executive director of the nonprofit group, PennEnvironment. "The idea of (burning waste coal) as a fix is erroneous." But for an area still reeling from the loss of coal and steel jobs over the last five decades, many see the new jobs building and supplying the plant as being more important than environmental concerns or the noise and dust created by the plant and associated heavy truck traffic. "You have your pros and cons," said Gary Stiles, a hardware store owner in Seward who can see the plant from his back porch. But "it's something we can live with because we need the jobs." Source: Associated Press Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the lis
[biofuel] How Bush reversed regulatory effort on polluting gas additive
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-02-17/s_13168.asp How Bush reversed regulatory effort on polluting gas additive Tuesday, February 17, 2004 By Pete Yost, Associated Press WASHINGTON - The Bush administration quietly shelved a proposal to ban a gasoline additive that contaminates drinking water in many communities, helping an industry that has donated more than $1 million to Republicans. The Environmental Protection Agency's decision had its origin in the early days of President Bush's tenure when his administration decided not to move ahead with a Clinton-era regulatory effort to ban the clean-air additive MTBE. The proposed regulation said the environmental harm of the additive leaching into ground water overshadowed its beneficial effects to the air. The Bush administration decided to leave the issue to Congress, where it has bogged down over a proposal to shield the industry from some lawsuits. That initiative is being led by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. A draft of the proposed regulation that former President Clinton's EPA sent to the White House on its last full day in office in January 2001 said, "The use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline presents an unreasonable risk to the environment." The EPA document went on to say that "low levels of MTBE can render drinking water supplies unpotable due to its offensive taste and odor," and the additive should be phased out over four years. "Unlike other components of gasoline, MTBE dissolves and spreads readily in the ground water ... resists biodegradation, and is more difficult and costly to remove." People say MTBE-contaminated water tastes like turpentine. In Santa Monica, Calif., the oil industry will pay hundreds of millions of dollars because the additive contaminated the city's water supply. "We're the poster child for MTBE, and it could take decades to clean this up," said Joseph Lawrence, the assistant city attorney. In 2000, the MTBE industry's lobbying group told the Clinton administration that limiting MTBE's use by regulation "would inflict grave economic harm on member companies." Three MTBE producers account for half the additive's daily output. The three contributed $338,000 to George W. Bush's presidential campaign, the Republican Party, and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000 - twice what they gave Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Since then, the three producers have given just over $1 million to Republicans. The producers are Texas-based Lyondell Chemical and Valero Energy and the Huntsman companies of Salt Lake City. "This is a classic case of the Bush administration helping its campaign contributor friends at the expense of public health," said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust, a Washington-based environmental group. Huntsman spokesman Don Olsen, echoing comments by other MTBE producers, said, "We were not a huge campaign contributor, and this has absolutely nothing to do with campaign donations. It has to do with good public policy." The industry says it has become a victim in a Washington power struggle. "Because of MTBE there has been a marked improvement in air quality and reduction in toxics in the air," Olsen said. "Because of leaking underground storage tanks in some relatively few instances, MTBE found its way into places it shouldn't be. But that has nothing to do with the product, which has done exactly what it was designed to do." Said Valero Energy spokeswoman Mary Rose Brown, "It would have been impossible to fulfill the requirements of the Clean Air Act without MTBE." A daily Washington newsletter disclosed the existence of the draft rule shortly after Bush's inauguration; outside the industry, few people noticed. At the direction of White House chief of staff Andrew Card and Mitch Daniels, then the White House's budget director, all government agencies withdrew their pre-Inauguration Day draft regulations. The EPA withdrew agency rules, including the MTBE one, in mid-February 2001, White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton said. In subsequent months, agencies rewrote many Clinton-era regulatory proposals and went public with them. However, the proposed MTBE regulation never surfaced. "As legislation looked more promising in 2002 and 2003, we focused our energies on supporting language in the Senate's energy bill," Jeffrey Holmstead, the EPA's assistant administrator for air quality, said in a statement Friday. "We have not ruled out the possibility of seeking a solution" by regulation, Holmstead said. The EPA favors a phaseout of MTBE through legislation. But the legislation has stalled, and it no longer calls for a ban in four years. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued a statement Sunday calling the MTBE matter a case of the Bush administration "yet again putting special interests over Americ
Re: [biofuel] Glycerol Disposal
It *seems* that the distinction needs to be made between liquid acrolein (dangerous toxic scary, etc.) and the formation of acrolein and its effects as an exhaust emission ...which is not nice stuff, but in comparison to liquid acrolein is not the same sort of risk - as a product of combustion, it is present in its "acrolein" form for only a short time before reacting with sunlight and other substances in the atmosphere to degrade into other less harmful forms. I don't mean to say it is not a concern, but acrolein is one of the problems of combustion of diesel fuel too, not just glycerol. We are all exposed to it all the time, from diesel exhaust, and I believe its formation is related to combustion temperature, correct? As stated, it's very much an irritant, it's presence is detected easily and we therefore tend to avoid it, a natural response (in fact, I believe that the nose is under-rated as our built-in sensor for detecting substances in the air that might be harmful to us...not always reliable, but not bad - it's a device that's been under development a long time, after all!) You can burn diesel, glycerine, vegetable oil, or biodiesel and get a range of emissions, and sometimes you reduce one and get an improvement, but at the expense of another, so it's very often a tradeoff. That being the case you have to look at the exposure risks on balance, of the various emissions, and decide which ones you are most concerned about. Then do what you can to minimize those; and carry on and perhaps assess the risk on the others, based on exposure/dose over time, etc. If it is still a problem area (and it may not be, on balance, when looked at all our other various other exposures to environmental contaminants, indoor air pollution, for example) then look more closely at aftertreatment of exhaustwhether in a diesel or a glycerol burner - as your last line of defense before it hits the atmosphere. On Tuesday, February 17, 2004, at 05:39 AM, bob allen wrote: > Tom I agree with your post, just the chemist in me must jump in briefly > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> The quick answer is no. Glycerin is a very viscous liquid, and the >> solidification point varies with the soap in it, the residual >> alcohol, and the >> completeness of the reaction. It is sometimes solid at 65 degrees F. >> What's more, it >> is dirty until it is at least partially refined. If there is no >> methanol >> recovery, it will have a volatile component and a refractive >> component. Glycerin >> flash point is over 800 degrees, and a waste oil burner will burn the >> volatile >> part, but not the refractive part, >> > the glycerin and other organic components will burn, but the sodium or > potassium hydroxide will be converted to their solid oxide forms (ash) > which may be a problem > >> which will quickly gum up the works. >> >> If glycerin is burned without enough air it may form a poisonous >> acroline >> > > thats spelled acrolein, but your right about its formation, > but is it really a problem? I would be more concerned about carbon > monoxide, undetectable, than acrolein, which has a very acrid > irritating > odor, and hence detectable. > >> compound. If you look at the structure of a glycerin molecule you >> will see three >> carbon-oxygen double bonds, >> > actually only single bonds, but yes it is "partially burned" > >> which are hard to break and take a lot of energy >> input. Carbon-oxygen double bonds are effectively carbon monoxide, >> meaning that >> the molecule is effectively partially burned already, and has a >> relatively >> low heat value per pound. >> >> A good glycerin burner handles a semi solid well, or preheats until >> it is a >> liquid. It has a fire starter of some other fuel, hopefully biodiesel >> or WVO, >> to get it up to temperature so the glycerin will burn. Then it has >> enough >> insulation to maintain this temperature, or at least has minimal heat >> withdrawal so >> the fire is not extinguished. It also has adequate air for clean >> combustion. >> I had to build this system because no standard burner does these >> things >> well. It is a masonry heater with a babington burner for a fire >> starter, burning >> WVO, and a secondary fuel feed for the glycerin. There are no visible >> emissions, and I hope that indicates a clean burn. >> >> Tom Leue >> >> >> In a message dated 2/16/04 1:30:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >> >> >> >>> In a message dated 02/16/2004 11:47:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>> Burning glycerine >>> If I understand this correctly, I can take the by product from the >>> biodiesel. >>> That nasty looking stuff from the bottom of the processor and burn >>> it in my >>> waste oil burner with no problem. I have a factory bought waste oil >>> heater >>> that I burn all the crankcase oil from the trucks that I work on. >>> Is this a >>> correct statement? >>> >>> Ric
Re: [biofuel] Tucson Biofuel
Hello, I live just below Tucson and would like also to meet and work with someone who is producing BioDiesel. If anyone knows of such a group or persons.. I would like to Know. Thanks, Randy [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://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Fwd: Fuel Cells: What's In It For Big Oil
Fwd from the Homestead mailing list: >Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 01:14:40 -0800 >From: Bill Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Homestead mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Fuel Cells: What's In It For Big Oil > >The oil companies are really pouring money into finding ways to >strip hydrogen off petroleum molecules using machines that would fit >inside a vehicle. Devices that do this are called "reformers" and >are pivotal to understanding where all this is leading. The key to >reformers lies in the nature of liquid hydrogen, which requires a >strong pressure tank to contain it. It even leaks slowly right >through metal, so it should never be stored for long, and the tank >must have a ventilated housing. > >Liquid hydrogen is really bulky compared to hydrocarbon fuels, >requiring a car with a 100 gallon pressurized gas tank in order to >have the same range as a regular car. Having this much pressurized >hydrogen on board would be somewhat more dangerous than gasoline in >the event of a collision, but I don't think modern city drivers >really need to have such a long range from a single fill-up. > >If the hydrogen atoms are stored in molecules like ethanol or octane >then the same number of hydrogen atoms can take up much less space. >This is the idea behind reformers. By heating the fuel with >catalysts like platinum, these miniature chemical factories produce >hydrogen as needed. > >As long as we're willing to accept either a larger, fortified >hydrogen tank or a car with a shorter range, we can use hydrogen >produced by "a variety of means" in our cars. There's a process for >producing hydrogen by splitting hydrogen iodide that can use waste >heat from a nuclear reactor as the energy source. Individuals could >use solar cells to power electrolysis right at home. There's no >limit to possible ways to produce hydrogen that don't involve the >oil companies at all. But all of these options require a hydrogen >tank. > >If they can only succeed in frightening people into turning against >the idea of a hydrogen tank, then there's a future for the oil >companies in a hydrogen-powered world. That wouldn't be hard at >all. I think the 100th anniversary of the Hindenburg disaster isn't >far away. What a great opportunity for yet another generation to >learn that you should never carry hydrogen with you, but rather >should invest in a horrifically expensive refinery-in-a-box that >will produce hydrogen from things like ethanol, methanol, or >hydrocarbon fuel, or even sugar syrup. > >This is why I sometimes come down hard on posts glorifying reformer >technology. If we allow ourselves to think that you must have a >compact reformer in your car, whether for convenience or safety, it >will forever eliminate every really neat method ever invented for >producing hydrogen, and we'll be forced to make a Hobson's choice >among a tiny set of options. It's not hard to see that the fossil >fuel option will be the cheapest, just as it is now, and the oil >companies will be re-enthroned at a higher level. > >If they succeed in banning IC engines, which run fabulously on >hydrogen or virtually anything, and they succeed in banning hydrogen >tanks too, then we'll be locked into a system that puts more new >carbon in the air than we do now, since people will inevitably >choose the cheap fossil-fuel reformer from the tiny palette of fake >options. > >Bill >S. Oregon coast 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://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Tucson Biofuel
Hi Brian >I get the B-20 (20% soy ester, 80% diesel petrol) from >Arizona Pertoleum. Today I paid $2.10/gallon. >Usually its a bit cheaper than that. They are on >Cherry St, just north of 22nd. Phone number 623-4721. > A knowledgeable guy to talk to is Jerry. They also >sell B-100 (100% soy ester) at a stable price of >$2.85. I'm told that if I go to B-100 without running >B-20 for awhile it will clean so much junk out of my >engine that the fuel filter will clog before I even >make it home. Try it and see - I'm sure you'll make it home, and back again to tell them they're wrong. We didn't get round to changing the filter for six weeks after starting to use B100, straight from petro-diesel, in a 13-year-old vehicle, no problem at all. A friend put it off for nearly a year, in an 11-year-old car. His filter sure was dirty, but it hadn't clogged, though the B100 he was using isn't the best. US petro-diesel isn't the best either, some of the worst in the world, but I doubt it's that much better here in Japan. There's no official standard for petro-diesel here, for one thing, and some of the stuff sold at the pumps is definitely poor-quality. So give it a try. Carry a spare filter just in case. Best Keith >No replies on Tucson homebrewers. (yet) > >Brian >--- murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:47:15 -0800 (PST), you wrote: > > > > >Hello. I'm brand new to the biodiesel world. I am > > >currently buying B-20 from a manufacturer in > > Tucson, > > >but I would like to make my own. Is there anyone, > > or > > >does anyone know anyone, in Tucson, AZ who would be > > >willing to help in my learning process? Any info > > >and/or contacts would be greatly appreciated. > > > > > >I know there is a group in Tucson making biodiesel > > >from WVO collectively, but the email address I > > found > > >for them did not work. > > > > > >Thank you, > > > > > >Brian > > > > I will be interested to see what answers you get. > > Also, I would like > > to know where you get your B-20, for my future > > reference. I live an > > hour away and have an eye long-term possibly to > > getting a diesel > > vehicle to try my hand at some of these matters. > > > > MM 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://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Why is gasoline more expensive in Europe than in the UnitedStates?
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-02-17/s_12687.asp EarthTalk: Why is gasoline more expensive in Europe than in the United States? Tuesday, February 17, 2004 From the editors of E/The Environmental Magazine Dear EarthTalk: Why is gasoline so much more expensive in Europe than in the United States? - Bo White, Chicago, Illinois There are multiple components to gasoline prices, according to the Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy: the cost of production and delivery, including the cost of crude oil to refiners and refinery processing costs; marketing and distribution costs; retail station costs; and taxes. In 2002, crude oil accounted for about 43 percent of the cost of a gallon of regular grade gasoline; refining costs and profits comprised about 13 percent; distribution, marketing, and retail dealer costs and profits made up 13 percent; and federal, state, and local taxes accounted for approximately 31 percent of the cost. Gasoline prices in countries such as the United Kingdom and Norway can sometimes reach $5 per gallon because of high taxes. According to the Wall Street Journal, taxes in the United Kingdom account for 80 percent of the pump price, while the Europe-wide average is between 60 and 70 percent. In Germany, gasoline taxes account for a whopping 20 percent of all government revenues. Across Europe, such taxes have resulted in more fuel-efficient vehicles. According to John DeCicco, a policy analyst at Environmental Defense and author of Automakers' Corporate Carbon Burdens: Reframing Public Policy on Automobiles, Oil, and Climate, "The higher taxes have contributed to fuel efficiency that averages 30 percent higher [than U.S. levels]. However, they have not motivated ongoing conservation." If gasoline taxes in the United States had the same effect on driving that cigarette taxes have had on some smokers, higher gas prices could provide the motivation for some consumers to switch from, say, large SUVs to smaller more fuel-efficient cars. According to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health, every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes reduces smoking among pregnant women by 7 percent. The average American driver is certainly not as motivated to "do the right thing" as a mother-to-be, but it stands to reason that, like the effect of cigarette taxes, increased gas taxes might drive motorists to drive more fuel-efficient cars, and those tax revenues could be used to further promote fuel-efficiency and develop alterative fuels. 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://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: [evworld] Ford attacked on fuel policy
Hello Tim >Ford, like any business, exists because there is a MARKET for their >product. Attacking the businessman for simply practicing capitalism >is a huge waste of time and resources, and will accomplish little. Practising capitalism is no bad thing, or not necessarily, but I don't think that covers the way big corporations like Ford manipulate the market for their own ends, and do it very intensely indeed. The alleged magic of the marketplace can't quite compete with the hundreds of billions poured every year into PR and advertising in the US (and into corporate media ownership, and lobbying). Attacking Bill Ford for greenwashing and not practising what he preaches is not a huge waste of time and resources, what it will accomplish is to expose him for the cheat that he is, maybe even help force him to start putting his money where his mouth is for a change - and maybe help create a bit of much-needed public scepticism for the likes of Ford and his ilk. >A better approach would focus on reducing demand for oversized gas >guzzlers. This opens the conversation to many more solutions and >options, but requires that individuals be held fully accountable for >their decisions, and forced to bear the true cost of them. Yes, that's a better approach, but counterspin needs a good knowledge of how spin works, and your first paragraph isn't very encouraging. There's a lot of very good information on this in the archives. >Sadly, I have sat in California State hearings and meetings and >witnessed groups like Blue Water Network, Sierra Club, NRDC and >others climb on-board with the very corporate interests they claim >to be attacking. What an interesting marketing angle they have >taken! When the rubber meets the road, it is easier to raise funds >to keep an organization going if said organization is not actually >doing the corporate interest any real harm. In fact, if the so- >called environmentalist organization will assist in the >greenwashing, the corporate entity will help out with funding. Hard >to resist for the average college graduate trying to make a living. "Environment Inc." is a bit of a different subject, and I don't think the big enviro groups really represent the environment movement or environmentalists in general. From a previous post: >"Many so-called public-interest organizations have become big >businesses, multinational nonprofit corporations... in the eighties >and nineties, environmentalism became a big business, and >organizations like the Audubon Society, the Wilderness Society, the >National Wildlife Federation, the Environmental Defense Fund, and >the Natural Resources Defense Council [and Club Sierra!] became >competing multi-million-dollar bureaucracies. These organizations... >seem much more interested in "the business of greening" than in >fighting for fundamental social change. > >"Another problem is that big green groups have virtually no >accountability to the many thousands of individuals who provide them >with money. Meanwhile, the grass-roots environmental groups are >starved of the hundreds of millions of dollars that are raised every >year by these massive bureaucracies. Over the past two decades, >they've turned the environmental movement's grass-roots base of >support into little more than a list of donors they hustle for money >via direct-mail appeals and telemarketing... It's getting even >worse, because now corporations are directly funding groups like the >Audubon Society, the Wilderness Society, and the National Wildlife >Federation. Corporate executives now sit on the boards of some of >these groups." > >That's from here: >http://home.earthlink.net/~dbjensen1/stauber.html >An Interview with John Stauber In effect (with many exceptions) there's a similar relationship between big, centralised environment groups and small, decentralised, local groups to that between big corporations and local businesses (real capitalism), and Big Energy and what Todd just called micro-bioregional producers. "Small-scale capitalism works out fine, but as scale increases the departure from real capitalism becomes more pronounced---profits are privatized, but costs are socialized. The attendant repair and maintenance are left to succeeding generations if possible, if not, to present low and middle income taxpayers." -- Tvo, Homestead list And local communities suffer. See eg the ILSR. http://www.ilsr.org/ >I would like to see League of Conservation Voters, or CodePINK, or >Ben & Jerry's thing "True Majority", or the long distance marketing >thing, "Working Assets" (This one is including jet air travel >incentives now) or any of those mentioned before, plus many I have >missed - I would like to see them actually work toward changing >CONSUMERS preferences, and educating CONSUMERS with the truth, >instead of playing the typical addicts game of "Blame & Shame". It takes both. They also have to be disabused of the untruths, and what you
Re: [biofuel] Tucson Biofuel
I get the B-20 (20% soy ester, 80% diesel petrol) from Arizona Pertoleum. Today I paid $2.10/gallon. Usually its a bit cheaper than that. They are on Cherry St, just north of 22nd. Phone number 623-4721. A knowledgeable guy to talk to is Jerry. They also sell B-100 (100% soy ester) at a stable price of $2.85. I'm told that if I go to B-100 without running B-20 for awhile it will clean so much junk out of my engine that the fuel filter will clog before I even make it home. No replies on Tucson homebrewers. (yet) Brian --- murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:47:15 -0800 (PST), you wrote: > > >Hello. I'm brand new to the biodiesel world. I am > >currently buying B-20 from a manufacturer in > Tucson, > >but I would like to make my own. Is there anyone, > or > >does anyone know anyone, in Tucson, AZ who would be > >willing to help in my learning process? Any info > >and/or contacts would be greatly appreciated. > > > >I know there is a group in Tucson making biodiesel > >from WVO collectively, but the email address I > found > >for them did not work. > > > >Thank you, > > > >Brian > > I will be interested to see what answers you get. > Also, I would like > to know where you get your B-20, for my future > reference. I live an > hour away and have an eye long-term possibly to > getting a diesel > vehicle to try my hand at some of these matters. > > MM > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Re: [evworld] Ford attacked on fuel policy
Ford, like any business, exists because there is a MARKET for their product. Attacking the businessman for simply practicing capitalism is a huge waste of time and resources, and will accomplish little. A better approach would focus on reducing demand for oversized gas guzzlers. This opens the conversation to many more solutions and options, but requires that individuals be held fully accountable for their decisions, and forced to bear the true cost of them. Sadly, I have sat in California State hearings and meetings and witnessed groups like Blue Water Network, Sierra Club, NRDC and others climb on-board with the very corporate interests they claim to be attacking. What an interesting marketing angle they have taken! When the rubber meets the road, it is easier to raise funds to keep an organization going if said organization is not actually doing the corporate interest any real harm. In fact, if the so- called environmentalist organization will assist in the greenwashing, the corporate entity will help out with funding. Hard to resist for the average college graduate trying to make a living. I would like to see League of Conservation Voters, or CodePINK, or Ben & Jerry's thing "True Majority", or the long distance marketing thing, "Working Assets" (This one is including jet air travel incentives now) or any of those mentioned before, plus many I have missed - I would like to see them actually work toward changing CONSUMERS preferences, and educating CONSUMERS with the truth, instead of playing the typical addicts game of "Blame & Shame". Heh, not the most popular guy on the block, Tim --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Jason Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Murdoch, et. al.: > > You write that: h therefore came to see it as naive to put much stock in > Bill Ford's > "environmentalist" credentials.> > > As someone who is spearheading a grassroots campaign against Ford, I totally > agree. I don know that I trust Bill Ford farther than I can throw him. > That said, he should be held to his nvironmental pronouncements, even if > (or especially if!) they are just greenwashing. > > It a matter of rhetoric versus reality. We all know the reality: Ford > vehicles are gruesome gas-guzzlers, and according to the EPA Ford cars and > trucks get the worst fuel economy of the seven major auto makers. At the > same time, Ford likes to say he is an environmentalist and wants to create > an nvironmental car company,whatever that means. > > I think that as advocates, it our job to hold Ford to its PR copy. If they > want to say theye an environmental enterprise, fine: But they have to > actually prove it through their actions. They have to walk the walk instead > of just talking the talk. ... This, I think, is the first step toward > corporate accountability. > > ... For more info about ongoing campaigns against Ford, check out > http://www.jumpstartford.com. > > All best > > Jason Mark > Clean Car Campaigner > Global Exchange > > on 2/11/04 8:28 AM, murdoch at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0402/06/c01-57178.htm > > > >> >California-based Blue Water Network spearheaded this ad campaign in > >> >response to Ford's pledge in 2000 to improve SUV fuel economy. > > > > [...] > > > >> >Ford pledged in July 2000 that the company would improve the fuel > >> >economy of its SUVs by 25 percent over five years. General Motors > >> >Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG made similar pledges soon afterward. > > > > [...] > > > >> > > >> >The fuel economy of Ford's light truck lineup was 20.3 mpg for the > >> >2002 model year, the last year for which the government has published > >> >complete data. Under federal regulations, an automaker's fleet of > >> >light trucks must average 20.7 mpg in the 2004 model year. That > >> >requirement will rise to 22.2 mpg by 2007. Cars must average 27.5 mpg. > >> > > >> >You can reach Jeff Plungis at (202) 906-8204 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > At the time of the 2000 pledges, I tried doing some of the math. I think the > > 25 > > percent improvement that Ford pledged was the bare minimum or close to it, and > > that this came out within a tenth of a gallon. I recall doing the math, and I > > was surprised to find that the pledge that Ford was making was not some huge > > ambitious thing to be proud of so much as the bare legal requirement. I'm not > > sure if anyone has ever officially seconded these calculations or publicly > > taken > > notice of the matter. Ford's pledge was *nothing* so far as I could see. > > They > > were doing basically what all of us do every year about this time, which is > > drag > > our time, kicking and screaming, to comply with the law and take our legally > > required actions. > > > > I therefore came to see it as naive to put much stock in Bill Ford's > > "environmentalist" credentials. This is not to say that he hasn't convinced > >
[biofuel] Re: Make plans to shut O'Hare down long-term
For those who may not have seen it, http://www.chooseclimate.org/ offers information about jet air travel that should be included with every childs education. The Java Climate Model: Interactive model linking climate science & policy based on IPCC-TAR formulae. Adjust parameters with your mouse and see an instant response on plots from emissions to impacts. Explore cause-effect links in the climate system, and the sensitivity of predictions to uncertainties and policy options. Flying off to a warmer climate: Click on the map to calculate the greenhouse warming effect of any flight! Plus information on aircraft emissions, travel alternatives, dilemmas etc. Climate Train to Kyoto: Journey by train, boat and bicycle from Europe to the UN Climate Convention in Kyoto. Full report now online. I highly reccomend a 1 hour investment of your time to explore this website. The "Climate Train to Kyoto" piece is a bit hard to follow, but stick with it for a really good story! Tim > > "We've got to plan for the long-term future of > > O'Hare," said FAA Administrator Marion Blakey... > > The best plan for the long-term future of O'Hare is to shut it down. > > There will be no need for O'Hares without fuel to burn in a heating up > world. No one will be going anywhere in the long-term. > > So start somewhere! Make plans to shut O'Hare down long-term ... for the > common good. > > THE WORLD IS IN CRISIS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING! > > Pat N 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://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Glycerol Disposal
Bob, > but is it really a problem? I would be more concerned about carbon > monoxide, undetectable, than acrolein, which has a very acrid irritating > odor, and hence detectable. I would tend to believe that acrolein is more of an emissions problem at the stack than as an indoor pollutant in all but the worst homemade furnaces. Just as biodiesel has gone through its regulatory hoops in order to achieve acceptability, so too would boilers and furnaces that might burn the glycerin cocktail. To date the commercial units are only rated as acceptable (by the US EPA) for waste motor oils, hydraulic and transmission fluids. I imagine another series of tests would need to be conducted to achieve a rating suitable for the combustion of glycerin or mixed glycerin. And even if that test weren't conducted to meet EPA standards, it probably should be done to some degree just from a knowledge standpoint to know whether a problem is actually being resolved (disposal of the glycerol) or another problem is actually being created (undue acrolein emissions). Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: "bob allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 8:39 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Glycerol Disposal > Tom I agree with your post, just the chemist in me must jump in briefly > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >The quick answer is no. Glycerin is a very viscous liquid, and the > >solidification point varies with the soap in it, the residual alcohol, and the > >completeness of the reaction. It is sometimes solid at 65 degrees F. What's more, it > >is dirty until it is at least partially refined. If there is no methanol > >recovery, it will have a volatile component and a refractive component. Glycerin > >flash point is over 800 degrees, and a waste oil burner will burn the volatile > >part, but not the refractive part, > > > the glycerin and other organic components will burn, but the sodium or > potassium hydroxide will be converted to their solid oxide forms (ash) > which may be a problem > > > which will quickly gum up the works. > > > >If glycerin is burned without enough air it may form a poisonous acroline > > > > thats spelled acrolein, but your right about its formation, > but is it really a problem? I would be more concerned about carbon > monoxide, undetectable, than acrolein, which has a very acrid irritating > odor, and hence detectable. > > >compound. If you look at the structure of a glycerin molecule you will see three > >carbon-oxygen double bonds, > > > actually only single bonds, but yes it is "partially burned" > > > which are hard to break and take a lot of energy > >input. Carbon-oxygen double bonds are effectively carbon monoxide, meaning that > >the molecule is effectively partially burned already, and has a relatively > >low heat value per pound. > > > >A good glycerin burner handles a semi solid well, or preheats until it is a > >liquid. It has a fire starter of some other fuel, hopefully biodiesel or WVO, > >to get it up to temperature so the glycerin will burn. Then it has enough > >insulation to maintain this temperature, or at least has minimal heat withdrawal so > >the fire is not extinguished. It also has adequate air for clean combustion. > > I had to build this system because no standard burner does these things > >well. It is a masonry heater with a babington burner for a fire starter, burning > >WVO, and a secondary fuel feed for the glycerin. There are no visible > >emissions, and I hope that indicates a clean burn. > > > >Tom Leue > > > > > >In a message dated 2/16/04 1:30:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > > > > > >>In a message dated 02/16/2004 11:47:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >>Burning glycerine > >>If I understand this correctly, I can take the by product from the > >>biodiesel. > >>That nasty looking stuff from the bottom of the processor and burn it in my > >>waste oil burner with no problem. I have a factory bought waste oil heater > >>that I burn all the crankcase oil from the trucks that I work on. Is this a > >>correct statement? > >> > >>Rick M > >>Brownstown, Mi. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- > >Homestead Inc. > >www.yellowbiodiesel.com > > > > > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > >Biofuels list archives: > >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > > > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > >To unsubscribe, send an email to: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- > Bob Allen,http://ozarker.org/bob > -- > - > The modern conservative is engaged in one of Man's ol
Re: [biofuel] Re: WVO pickup problems in CA
> Shouldn't there be a balance? Mightn't the fees be lowered > to account for the person's more moderate use? If you were to use economic principals as the foundation for variance in fee levels, fees would not be much lower based upon reduction in a plant's size. In practicality it takes almost the same amount of time and resources to survey a 400 square foot operation as it does one of 4,000 square feet. The same can be said for surveying records of emissions, effluents, machinery maintenance and specs, not to mention on site testing. Fees are assessed for several reasons. One is a means in which to instill some degree of compliance. A second is theoretically to cover the cost of enforcement. Some would say that a third reason is in part to weed out those of serious, long-lived intent and those who are not. Business is business. And until such time as the micro-brew biodiesel industry can insure that their operations can be run as clean as or cleaner than any other option, there will always be some degree of problem in the regulatory environment.
[biofuel] Unsubscribe
Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Re: WVO pickup problems in CA
FWIW: I tend to agree with some of the objection(s) you've raised to my reasoning. What I mean is this: After I made my post, I realized that it was a rant and all, I wasn't sure I could stand by all of it. More specifically, it is not as though I am against all government regulation, or that the answer to this specific person's issue is necessarily to call for an end to regulation of rendering, waste-hauling, etc. A state legislator reading your post, or the discussion thread, might reasonably say: "Well, ok, then, so if you are trying to discuss constructive suggestions... what do you suggest that I do?" I think my first stab at formulating an answer would be in the area of tailoring these fees and fines and regulations to recognize the advent of change in the industry. E.g.: The State may reasonably have an interest in regulating a guy in his garage from chemically befouling his neighborhood, but the size of the fees should not be so egregious as to prevent legitimate entrepeneurial or individual personal projects. Shouldn't there be a balance? Mightn't the fees be lowered to account for the person's more moderate use? As to the other objections you lay out ensuring that we don't overlook the potential for environmental damage by environmentalists, they also seem somewhat on the money. As you seem to say, there's probably some balance-point at which the interested individual can be asked to overcome a legitimate hurdle or two to certify that he will not, in his enthusiasm, overlook community concerns about unsafe chemical handling and disposal. I would expect that any legislator or activist or biofuel-maker or business or other interested party would, at the end of "hammering these things out" find that they would advance toward much more workable balanced ideas than I've presented. The part(s) of my gripe that I think I would stand by are that these problems actually be discussed and hammered out, rather than allowed to lie dormant with little (apparent) reaction or commentary from those parties who have some legitimate claim to taking part in fixing such problems. If the problem is not mentioned in the press, or debated (with various good points made on various sides) at the legislative level, then I think it's harder to arrive at workable answers. And my impression is that sometimes (certainly not always) legislators define their jobs as looking the other way until they don't have to. But coming up with workable solutions to these upcoming challenges will require discussing them and learning about them. But to return to your post, I think it brings home to me that these are issues that have been sort of lying in wait out there, and as more and more folks turn to biofuel making and buying, perhaps they're going to come up more and more. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:57:10 -0500, you wrote: >Uhhh..., not that I'm overly in love with government heavy handedness, but >you have to look at this from a couple of other perspectives. One, the >principal problem is in California, an extremely populated state, erego a >need to some degree for noticeable regulation. > >Two, where does anyone think that this WVO would go if there were no regs? >Probably the same place that it used to go, landfills and the gods know >where else. By standardizing the disposal at least some of the problems are >diminished, even if new ones are created. > >Taking away the regs doesn't mean that all the WVO will magically disappear >into only biofuel operator's tanks. > >And there is also the minor cluster of problems that everyone in biodiesel >seems to want to ignore - that being use/disposal of coproducts. Of what >value is it to consume the WVO but generate another waste stream that may >not be handled in an environmentally sound manner? And what guarantee is >there that it will be unless there is (sorry, but it has to be said) more >regulation? Erego the need for a renderer's license. > >There certainly aren't too many shadetree operators that recover their MeOH, >glycerol and FFAs, much less treat their waste water to remove soaps. > >Also, remove the renderer's license requirement and then what do you have? A >ratio of 1:1 in biodieselers to restaurants? A ratio of 1:1 in restaurants >to VOC emissions sources? A ratio of 1:1 in restaurants to barrels of MeOH >in townhome garages? > >That kind of running amuck is what regulations are for. But it certainly >shouldn't stop a cooperative of dedicated biodiesel souls from navigating >the pitfalls of legislation, in this case the rendering license. > >Todd Swearingen > >> I don't have a solution for you, but it's worth stating that this >> seems like the tip of the iceberg, in terms of inaction by legislators >> who say they are in favor of alternative fuels, conservation, improved >> environment, more jobs, entrepeneurial business-starters, >> free-market-behaviour, etc. etc. blah blah blah, but then do nothing >> and say nothing when the myriad oppor
Re: [biofuel] Glycerol Disposal
Tom I agree with your post, just the chemist in me must jump in briefly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >The quick answer is no. Glycerin is a very viscous liquid, and the >solidification point varies with the soap in it, the residual alcohol, and the >completeness of the reaction. It is sometimes solid at 65 degrees F. What's >more, it >is dirty until it is at least partially refined. If there is no methanol >recovery, it will have a volatile component and a refractive component. >Glycerin >flash point is over 800 degrees, and a waste oil burner will burn the volatile >part, but not the refractive part, > the glycerin and other organic components will burn, but the sodium or potassium hydroxide will be converted to their solid oxide forms (ash) which may be a problem > which will quickly gum up the works. > >If glycerin is burned without enough air it may form a poisonous acroline > thats spelled acrolein, but your right about its formation, but is it really a problem? I would be more concerned about carbon monoxide, undetectable, than acrolein, which has a very acrid irritating odor, and hence detectable. >compound. If you look at the structure of a glycerin molecule you will see >three >carbon-oxygen double bonds, > actually only single bonds, but yes it is "partially burned" > which are hard to break and take a lot of energy >input. Carbon-oxygen double bonds are effectively carbon monoxide, meaning >that >the molecule is effectively partially burned already, and has a relatively >low heat value per pound. > >A good glycerin burner handles a semi solid well, or preheats until it is a >liquid. It has a fire starter of some other fuel, hopefully biodiesel or WVO, >to get it up to temperature so the glycerin will burn. Then it has enough >insulation to maintain this temperature, or at least has minimal heat >withdrawal so >the fire is not extinguished. It also has adequate air for clean combustion. > I had to build this system because no standard burner does these things >well. It is a masonry heater with a babington burner for a fire starter, >burning >WVO, and a secondary fuel feed for the glycerin. There are no visible >emissions, and I hope that indicates a clean burn. > >Tom Leue > > >In a message dated 2/16/04 1:30:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > >>In a message dated 02/16/2004 11:47:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>Burning glycerine >>If I understand this correctly, I can take the by product from the >>biodiesel. >>That nasty looking stuff from the bottom of the processor and burn it in my >>waste oil burner with no problem. I have a factory bought waste oil heater >>that I burn all the crankcase oil from the trucks that I work on. Is this a >>correct statement? >> >>Rick M >>Brownstown, Mi. >> >> >> > > > > > > >- >Homestead Inc. >www.yellowbiodiesel.com > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > -- -- Bob Allen,http://ozarker.org/bob -- - The modern conservative is engaged in one of Man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness JKG [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] NOx reduction claim.
Dear Fellows and Friends: I hope that this is helpful. Best regards, Sid.Clouston BIODIESEL �gStudy Shows NOx Reductions in Biodiesel Blends with Additive,�h by Biodiesel Bulletin staff. A newly-developed additive has been shown to reduce, by five percent, the one regulated emission that biodiesel fuel had not been able to mitigate at all. Biodiesel Bulletin, February 6, 2003, at http://www.biodiesel.org/news/bulletin/2004/020604.pdf . [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://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Glycerol Disposal
Hello Rick >In a message dated 02/16/2004 4:17:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >It'll be a lot easier if you use KOH, potassium hydroxide, instead of > >NaOH, sodium hydroxide. With KOH the by-product won't solidify, makes > >it a lot easier to work with. We run it through a 1/8" valve from the > >reservoir to the burner without pre-heating, in freezing temps. > >I don't know if I have something different or not but my by-product is not >solid. It looks like used oil. Not real heavy but very much a >liquid. I have >it in a jug on the cement floor of my shop and the shop is only 50 to 60 >degrees when the big shop doors are kept closed. Hm, quite tropical, LOL! Our "shop" - a rickety old shed - doesn't quite have what you'd call a floor, it's more like a sort of broken terrain, made of packed earth, more packed in some places than in others, none of it level, and none warmer than about 25F, even on the south-facing slopes. >Does this sound right? It sounds fine. It won't necessarily go solid with NaOH, it might or it might not. Ours generally didn't solidify when we used NaOH, though it sometimes had lumps in it. The KOH by-product is always liquid, less viscous, and never lumpy. More about this here: How much glycerine? Why isn't it solid? http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make2.html#howmuchglyc >I will check into the KOH as in need to buy more lye to make some more diesel. It might be more expensive than NaOH. It's the same price here in Japan, but you have to use more so it costs more anyway, but worth it IMO. See how it works out Rick. If you're happy with your process, the NaOH by-product is consistently liquid and it works okay in the burner, then no need to change to KOH. Best Keith >Thanks > >Rick M >Brownstown, Mi. 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://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Oil heating techniques
>I have some questions regarding efficient heating of the WVO prior to >processing. In regards to Mike Pelly's conical processor and the >electric hot water tank that Maria Alovert(Girl Mark) describes-what >would be the most efficient way of heating the oil, and still do it >safely? Some designs use electricity and others use gas. Can gas or >propane be used safely around methanol? From reading on the >discussion board, Keith A. uses waste glycerin to heat the oil. This >sounds great...to be able to use all the byproducts, but is it >expensive or complicated to set up to use waste glycerin? For >beginners who have already made successful "blender batches" what >kind of processor would make a good next step? I appreciate all the >valuable information exchanged between members. Jonathan. Hi Jonathan We use the glycerine by-product cocktail only to pre-heat the oil, once the process begins heat is maintained with an electric immersion heater in the processing tank. It doesn't need much, even in this weather (about freezing) the immersion heater is only needed for a few minutes per batch. If I insulated the processor it probably wouldn't be needed at all (recommended, but I haven't done it yet). The processor is fumeless and safe, but still, I don't want open flames around while there's methanol anywhere in the picture. Same would go for propane and so on: I know quite a few people use gas, but only to heat the oil, switching to immersion heaters before adding the methoxide. Another way is to use heat exchangers, with the heat source distant from the processor set-up - in another room, or outside. Probably best to use biodiesel as the heat-exchange liquid in the pipes and heat it with water; once the water's hot it won't take very much to keep it hot. This has been discussed before, there's information in the archives, and information on heat-exchangers online at Homepower magazine. We use a sort of Turk burner to burn the by-product. You have to fiddle a bit to get it right (use tin cans for prototypes) but it's not too much bother and it works well. Basic information at Steve Spence's site: http://ww2.green-trust.org:8383/2000/biofuel/turk/ Turk Burner If you want to be more complicated you could try building a Babington burner (also at Steve's site). >For >beginners who have already made successful "blender batches" what >kind of processor would make a good next step? Try this perhaps: Simple 5-gallon processor http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor5.html Simple 5-gallon processor: Journey to Forever Best wishes Keith Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Tucson Biofuel
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:47:15 -0800 (PST), you wrote: >Hello. I'm brand new to the biodiesel world. I am >currently buying B-20 from a manufacturer in Tucson, >but I would like to make my own. Is there anyone, or >does anyone know anyone, in Tucson, AZ who would be >willing to help in my learning process? Any info >and/or contacts would be greatly appreciated. > >I know there is a group in Tucson making biodiesel >from WVO collectively, but the email address I found >for them did not work. > >Thank you, > >Brian I will be interested to see what answers you get. Also, I would like to know where you get your B-20, for my future reference. I live an hour away and have an eye long-term possibly to getting a diesel vehicle to try my hand at some of these matters. MM 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://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Re: WVO pickup problems in CA
Uhhh..., not that I'm overly in love with government heavy handedness, but you have to look at this from a couple of other perspectives. One, the principal problem is in California, an extremely populated state, erego a need to some degree for noticeable regulation. Two, where does anyone think that this WVO would go if there were no regs? Probably the same place that it used to go, landfills and the gods know where else. By standardizing the disposal at least some of the problems are diminished, even if new ones are created. Taking away the regs doesn't mean that all the WVO will magically disappear into only biofuel operator's tanks. And there is also the minor cluster of problems that everyone in biodiesel seems to want to ignore - that being use/disposal of coproducts. Of what value is it to consume the WVO but generate another waste stream that may not be handled in an environmentally sound manner? And what guarantee is there that it will be unless there is (sorry, but it has to be said) more regulation? Erego the need for a renderer's license. There certainly aren't too many shadetree operators that recover their MeOH, glycerol and FFAs, much less treat their waste water to remove soaps. Also, remove the renderer's license requirement and then what do you have? A ratio of 1:1 in biodieselers to restaurants? A ratio of 1:1 in restaurants to VOC emissions sources? A ratio of 1:1 in restaurants to barrels of MeOH in townhome garages? That kind of running amuck is what regulations are for. But it certainly shouldn't stop a cooperative of dedicated biodiesel souls from navigating the pitfalls of legislation, in this case the rendering license. Todd Swearingen > I don't have a solution for you, but it's worth stating that this > seems like the tip of the iceberg, in terms of inaction by legislators > who say they are in favor of alternative fuels, conservation, improved > environment, more jobs, entrepeneurial business-starters, > free-market-behaviour, etc. etc. blah blah blah, but then do nothing > and say nothing when the myriad opportunities arise to take action > improve state laws. They are in a unique position to take action, and > yet most of of them do zip. > > They wrongly define their jobs as staying out of trouble rather than > as coming up with innovative creative solutions. They should be > active in finding and spoting bottlenecks to our society's progress, > and they should make a best-effort to bring attention to those > bottlenecks and fix them. > > So, my suggestion however mundame it may sound, in addition to > whatever more productive suggestions you may get, will be to publicize > the silent struggle this person is having, so that legislators, and > media-people, know that in the court of public opinion, some will hold > them accountable for their incompetent unprofessional silence. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Glycerol Disposal
Philip, Split it from the soap and catalyst using a FFA recovery process found at http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycerin.html Then pass the glycerol/water/alcohol fraction over an evaporator and distill the alcohol out of it.
Re: [biofuel] Oil heating techniques
on 2/16/04 1:17 PM, j_schearer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have some questions regarding efficient heating of the WVO prior to > processing. In regards to Mike Pelly's conical processor and the > electric hot water tank that Maria Alovert(Girl Mark) describes-what > would be the most efficient way of heating the oil, and still do it > safely? Some designs use electricity and others use gas. Can gas or > propane be used safely around methanol? Propane burner and 5-gal tank works great. Heat the oil, turn off the propane before adding the methanol. No safety problems -K 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://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Tucson Biofuel
Hello. I'm brand new to the biodiesel world. I am currently buying B-20 from a manufacturer in Tucson, but I would like to make my own. Is there anyone, or does anyone know anyone, in Tucson, AZ who would be willing to help in my learning process? Any info and/or contacts would be greatly appreciated. I know there is a group in Tucson making biodiesel from WVO collectively, but the email address I found for them did not work. Thank you, Brian __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Make plans to shut O'Hare down long-term
> Battle Lines Drawn Over Expanding O'Hare > Sat February 14, 2004 08:16 AM ET > By Karen Pierog > > CHICAGO (Reuters) - The world's busiest airport > may get even busier -- ... > > Something has to be done at O'Hare as far as > FAA officials are concerned. > ... > "We've got to plan for the long-term future of > O'Hare," said FAA Administrator Marion Blakey... The best plan for the long-term future of O'Hare is to shut it down. There will be no need for O'Hares without fuel to burn in a heating up world. No one will be going anywhere in the long-term. So start somewhere! Make plans to shut O'Hare down long-term ... for the common good. THE WORLD IS IN CRISIS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING! Pat N - Forwarded message -- Battle Lines Drawn Over Expanding O'Hare Sat February 14, 2004 08:16 AM ET By Karen Pierog CHICAGO (Reuters) - The world's busiest airport may get even busier -- but not if a group of detractors has its way. The proposed multibillion-dollar expansion of runways at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport has been the subject of lawsuits and allegations of sweetheart deals mainly by the mayors of suburbs that stand to lose property to the project. The mayors have enlisted religious groups to protect two cemeteries in the path of the project and also to put together a coalition to try to build a competing airport from scratch in Peotone, Illinois, 35 miles southwest of Chicago. Meanwhile, major airlines and business leaders are backing Mayor Richard Daley's vision of a reconfigured and bigger O'Hare that will no longer cause rippling delays throughout the U.S. air traffic system. Craig Johnson, mayor of Elk Grove Village, which hugs the western edge of O'Hare, said his ongoing battle is a struggle for his suburb's very existence that may also ultimately save the airport from becoming a "white elephant." COSTS TO BALLOON? The reason is the cost of the runway expansion -- $6.6 billion in 2001 dollars. Johnson contends that final costs, when all is done, could balloon to $20 billion. Chicago recently released a master plan for the airport that pegged the costs of new runways, along with separate plans for new terminals and normal capital projects, at $14.8 billion over 20 years. That price tag will force the airport to drastically hike fees charged to airlines to pay off billions of dollars of bonds that will be sold, he said. "How can O'Hare function if it charges three to four times more than other airports?" Johnson said, pointing to the trend of low-cost airlines that cannot afford high airport fees. But Chicago aviation officials argue total capital spending planned for the airport through 2022 will keep O'Hare's cost per enplaned passenger in the middle of the pack, compared with other major U.S. airports. They also stressed that projects will proceed only if airlines agree and if investors are willing to purchase the airport's bonds. The city's immediate plan is to add a new runway, relocate or extend existing runways, construct a new terminal and create a western access to the airport. Chicago officials say that project will generate 195,000 new jobs and pump $18 billion into the local economy. Other project benefits cited by the city include expected dramatic improvements in weather-related flight delays by implementing a parallel, largely nonintersecting runway system. The estimated savings would be $380 million a year for consumers and about $370 million a year for airlines. Most of O'Hare's major carriers, including United, a unit of UAL Corp. (UALAQ.OB: Quote, Profile, Research) , and American, a unit of AMR Corp. (AMR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , have signed onto Mayor Daley's initial $2.9 billion financing phase for the runway project. Johnson, whose Suburban O'Hare Commission has hired teams of aviation experts to scrutinize plans for the airport, said many of the projects within the master plan are dependent on each other. That makes total costs excessive, while benefits, such as increased traffic and decreased delays, are below any threshold for the Federal Aviation Administration to approve. Johnson said his Elk Grove Village community, which has spent millions of dollars on the O'Hare battle, supports some of the plan as long as it does not encroach on its borders. "Build what you want on your property, just don't do it at our expense," he said. His town could lose as many as 500 businesses in its commercial park, which generates 85 cents of every dollar the suburb collects in taxes, he said. Bensenville, another western suburb, stands to lose 500 homes. Chicago's plan would point three runways at the heart of Elk Grove's residential section, heightening concerns about safety and quality of life, Johnson said. O'HARE PROJECT MIRRORS OTHER AIRPORTS Rosemarie Andolino, who heads the O'Hare project for Chicago, said the city was confident the FAA would only approve a "safe and efficient airport." She added that plans for O'Hare mirrored projects
Re: [biofuel] Re: WVO pickup problems in CA
Good start. I will do just that. Thank you! - Original Message - From: mcgeough65 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:43 AM Subject: [biofuel] Re: WVO pickup problems in CA Chuck, Here is some generic advice that I hope will be useful and applicable in this situation. Often bureaucrats say things that are not quite exact, especially if said statement enhances his or her authority and power, or makes his or her job easier, etc. Now, perhaps it's true in this instance that licenses are required, and there may be severe penalties for non- compliance, but I would take the time to read the actual statute. Most state laws are available on line. See what they say. What is the exact act that enables this agency? Which acts define the scope and power of this agency? And most importantly, which acts specify the penalties of enforcement. Are you risking life in prison or a $10 fine for violations of said statutes? (Believe it or not, sometimes no penalties whatsoever are specified.) Foremost, take the time to read the laws yourself. Print out hard copies. Put them in front of friends and collegues and ask them to read and interpret them as well. If you can read the language in which these laws are written, you will amaze yourself with the understanding that you can achieve from such a research effort. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] c.. 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 -~--> 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://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Re: WVO pickup problems in CA
Thank you! Well said! - Original Message - From: murdoch To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 10:42 AM Subject: [biofuel] Re: WVO pickup problems in CA On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:04:56 -0800, you wrote: >It appears that we have legal problems with collecting waste vegetable oil in California. A friend began collecting all of the WVO of a local restaurant. The restaurant told their rendering pick up service that their services were no longer needed. The rendering company then reported my friend to the Meat & Poultry Inspection Division of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. This branch registers and monitors transporters of inedible kitchen grease. The branch contacted my friend and told him he had to have a rendering license ($800 per year) or if he was transporting for a rendering company, then he needed a $75 license per vehicle and must appropriately label the vehicle. They also informed him that they would prosecute him if he continued. > >Here is the government website http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/mpi/ > >This looks like a major problem in California and perhaps in some other states. Anybody have any ideas? I don't have a solution for you, but it's worth stating that this seems like the tip of the iceberg, in terms of inaction by legislators who say they are in favor of alternative fuels, conservation, improved environment, more jobs, entrepeneurial business-starters, free-market-behaviour, etc. etc. blah blah blah, but then do nothing and say nothing when the myriad opportunities arise to take action improve state laws. They are in a unique position to take action, and yet most of of them do zip. They wrongly define their jobs as staying out of trouble rather than as coming up with innovative creative solutions. They should be active in finding and spoting bottlenecks to our society's progress, and they should make a best-effort to bring attention to those bottlenecks and fix them. So, my suggestion however mundame it may sound, in addition to whatever more productive suggestions you may get, will be to publicize the silent struggle this person is having, so that legislators, and media-people, know that in the court of public opinion, some will hold them accountable for their incompetent unprofessional silence. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT -- Yahoo! Groups Links a.. To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Glycerol Disposal
In a message dated 02/16/2004 4:17:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It'll be a lot easier if you use KOH, potassium hydroxide, instead of NaOH, sodium hydroxide. With KOH the by-product won't solidify, makes it a lot easier to work with. We run it through a 1/8" valve from the reservoir to the burner without pre-heating, in freezing temps. I don't know if I have something different or not but my by-product is not solid. It looks like used oil. Not real heavy but very much a liquid. I have it in a jug on the cement floor of my shop and the shop is only 50 to 60 degrees when the big shop doors are kept closed. Does this sound right? I will check into the KOH as in need to buy more lye to make some more diesel. Thanks Rick M Brownstown, Mi. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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] Oil heating techniques
I have some questions regarding efficient heating of the WVO prior to processing. In regards to Mike Pelly's conical processor and the electric hot water tank that Maria Alovert(Girl Mark) describes-what would be the most efficient way of heating the oil, and still do it safely? Some designs use electricity and others use gas. Can gas or propane be used safely around methanol? From reading on the discussion board, Keith A. uses waste glycerin to heat the oil. This sounds great...to be able to use all the byproducts, but is it expensive or complicated to set up to use waste glycerin? For beginners who have already made successful "blender batches" what kind of processor would make a good next step? I appreciate all the valuable information exchanged between members. Jonathan. 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://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> 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/
