[biofuel] A question about lignine

[Pieter Koole]

Hi all,
I am making ethanol on a very very small scale ( experimenting a bit ) from
newspapers etc.
What is the best thing to do with the black stuff ( lignine isn't it ? ). Is
it poison ? Can I use it somehow ?
Is there a way to re-use the sulphuric acid (98%) I used in the proces ?
I think I have asked the next question before : Does anyone know whether
alcohol can be dried by electrolysis ?

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Koole
Struiken 3
5993 NA Maasbree
077 - 465 1533
06 - 1339 1428
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


The information contained in this message (including attachments) is
confidential, and is intended for the addressee(s)
only.  If you have received this message in error please delete it and
notify the originator immediately.  The unauthorized use, disclosure,
copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. We will not be
liable for direct, special, indirect or
consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this
message by a third party or in case of electronic communications as a result
of any virus being passed on.


- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Amount of Glycerol in SVO


> Hello Tomas, how goes? Still freezing or are there signs of spring
> yet? Last time you said it was "nice" - minus 3C! (That's not nice!)
>
> >Hello All,
> >
> >Can some one say how much glycerol there is in SVO (rapeseed, sunflower,
> >coco). Is the amount always constant 20 % or is it depending on the
oil.
>
> It's about 7-8%. The amount of the by-product "cocktail" - glycerine
> + FFA (soap) + excess methanol + catalyst - varies according to the
> oil used and its condition and the process used and processing. More
> info here:
>
> How much glycerine? Why isn't it solid
> http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make2.html#howmuchglyc
>
> By the way, we were talking about additives:
>
> >Thanks Keith,
> >
> >I will immediately look into Wintron XC30 this sounds promissing. Thanks
> >again this news group is a gold mine of info for biodieselers.
> >
> >The weather is back to nice -3ˆÁ.
> >
> >Best regards
> >
> >Tomas
>
> Wintron solved it for us, we had no trouble at all. Our WVO
> biodiesel's okay to about -5 deg C or so and it was often colder than
> that here, but not much colder than about -10 deg C. We used a 0.5%
> concentration, and for colder temps we'd just have used more, up to
> about 1%. It's still freezing at night but I guess the worst of it's
> over. Wintron's a very good product. Really serious winter cold might
> need different solutions, but for most people this will be fine.
> They've been testing a new formulation which they say works even
> better, and that will be available for next winter. More info on
> Biodiesel in winter here:
>
> http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_winter.html
> Biodiesel in winter: Journey to Forever
>
> Best wishes
>
> Keith
>
>
> >Tomas
>
>
>
>
> 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/
 

Re: [biofuel] global warming?

[Lillie Bennett]

Would anybody care to debunk this article?
 http://www.techcentralstation.com/022404D.html 

Lillie





 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] bulk oil storage

[banjojimmy73]

hello all
I am starting to produce 50 gal batches and

i need some advice on some things...

1-bulk wvo storage,  should I have an element heater in a large tank, 
or have a large storage tank and then a drum to preheat oil before 
batch process

2-What sort of rigs are people using for collection, other than the 
12 v pump into a drum or tank?

3-It is my impression from a few sources that the nbb is anti-small 
producer and doesn't make it easy to certify fuel to sell,  so can we 
get around this legality by forming and selling to co-op members?  
I'm sure this has been done by some groups i'm just ignorant.

4-I wanted to use the turk burner to heat up my leftover glycerine.  
Is this dangerous to do?

5-when adding salt to break emulstion,  should we be going kosher 
here or is your regular unblessed table salt a ok. and how much per 
liter of emulshit-fication.

6-what are the chances of president bush spontaneously combusting 
from an overload of fear and repression?

thanks to any and all who choose to enlighten.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]




 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] A question about lignine

[Ken Provost]

on 2/27/04 10:48 AM, Pieter Koole at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Hi all,
> I am making ethanol on a very very small
> scale ( experimenting a bit ) from
> newspapers etc.
> What is the best thing to do with the
> black stuff ( lignine isn't it ? ). Is
> it poison ? Can I use it somehow?



In general, any organic mixture that's BLACK
is toxic, probly carcinogenic. Blackness is
caused by multiple aromatic fused rings --
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, of which
graphite is the extreme version. Do a Google
search on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.



> Is there a way to re-use the sulphuric
> acid (98%)



I don't think so



> Does anyone know whether
> alcohol can be dried by
> electrolysis ?



I've never heard of it -- doesn't mean it's
not possible somehow, but I doubt it  -K



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] A question about lignine

[Pieter Koole]

Thanks Ken,
I hope I don't insult anybody, but as far as I remember I found the way to
make ethanol out of sawdust on journeytoforever.
If the process produces poison material, why would it be on this site ?

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Koole


The information contained in this message (including attachments) is
confidential, and is intended for the addressee(s)
only.  If you have received this message in error please delete it and
notify the originator immediately.  The unauthorized use, disclosure,
copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. We will not be
liable for direct, special, indirect or
consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this
message by a third party or in case of electronic communications as a result
of any virus being passed on.


- Original Message -
From: "Ken Provost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 4:03 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] A question about lignine


> on 2/27/04 10:48 AM, Pieter Koole at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I am making ethanol on a very very small
> > scale ( experimenting a bit ) from
> > newspapers etc.
> > What is the best thing to do with the
> > black stuff ( lignine isn't it ? ). Is
> > it poison ? Can I use it somehow?
>
>
>
> In general, any organic mixture that's BLACK
> is toxic, probly carcinogenic. Blackness is
> caused by multiple aromatic fused rings --
> polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, of which
> graphite is the extreme version. Do a Google
> search on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
>
>
>
> > Is there a way to re-use the sulphuric
> > acid (98%)
>
>
>
> I don't think so
>
>
>
> > Does anyone know whether
> > alcohol can be dried by
> > electrolysis ?
>
>
>
> I've never heard of it -- doesn't mean it's
> not possible somehow, but I doubt it  -K
>
>
>
> 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] Griffin Industries Biodiesel

[Alan Petrillo]

Does anyone have any experience with biodiesel made by Griffin Industries?

One of my trucks is sick, possibly fuel related, and both of them blow 
big white clouds on startup, and have experienced hard starting since I 
got my last batch of B100.

I've put in a call to Aaron at Ward Oil about it, but I haven't heard 
back from him yet.


AP



 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] Griffin Industries Biodiesel

[craig reece]

Alan,

I checked with some of our local bioD resellers, and there was at least 
one bad batch from Griffin. I'd contact Griffin about it - maybe they'll 
comp you some good fuel for your trouble. Here in N. California, Yokayo 
Biofuels went the extra mile when they sold some funky bioD, and 
actually went to the affected vehicles and drained the fuel, replaced 
with good stuff, and replaced fuel filters.

 Here's what my friend said:


The Griffin fuel had a very high gel point - above 40
degrees Farenheit.  Plus, when once it gels, it seems
to not ungel until raised to an even higher
temperature: 60-70 degrees.







Alan Petrillo wrote:

> Does anyone have any experience with biodiesel made by Griffin Industries?
>
> One of my trucks is sick, possibly fuel related, and both of them blow
> big white clouds on startup, and have experienced hard starting since I
> got my last batch of B100.
>
> I've put in a call to Aaron at Ward Oil about it, but I haven't heard
> back from him yet.
>
>
> AP
>
>
>
> 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
>
> * 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 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] global warming?

[Hakan Falk]

Lillie,

I accept that the Global Warming phenomena is a true and serious risk, but 
I am quite sure that all the factors that causes it are not counted for. It 
is a far more complex situation than only the CO2 pollution. I also think 
the CO2 pollution should be looked at as tracer of a far larger pollution 
problem and particulate pollution at ground surface and especially in 
water, probably have larger influence. The over fertilization of our waters 
by pollution, could be more influential than CO2.  I also belive that it is 
manmade and very serious. This is something that I have said for a long 
time now, the few times that I said anything about global warming. 
Therefore I have looked at Kyoto as positive, because if you take actions 
that reduces the amount of tracer, the underlaying causes in an 
emission/storage model, will also be reduced.

I think that the article sends some important warning shots in front of our 
bow. As such, it is very important.

If the scientist who talks about CO2 as a sole cause and not as a tracer, 
does not change soon and start to look at a more complex chain of events, 
they all take a large risk of being debunked and will loose in confidence 
and respect. For a long time I had the feeling that the CO2 model as cause, 
was too easy and not logical, if it was not a tracer of other and more 
powerful causes. I could not really consolidate the numbers. In earlier 
postings, Michael Allen did point out the risks of the loss of confidence 
in the scientists, which I had not thought about and did not really 
considered. The more I think about his points and the more I follow the 
debates, the closer I get to share his worries.

In September last year a very interesting report was published and that 
supported the view that I have,

The Study of World Oil Resources and the Impact on IPCC Emissions Scenarios,
Anders Sivertsson, Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group,
Uppsala University, Sweden
http://www.isv.uu.se/UHDSG/OilIPCC/Thesis.pdf
(large and first page in Swedish, but rest of report in English)

Where they show, that even if we burned all available oil and natural gas. 
It is not enough CO2 available to create any of the global warming 
scenarios, that are assumed. It is even a big question marks around it, if 
we add all the coal reserves. We do have too much indicators who verifies 
the global warming phenomena and it is time to build models that also 
considers emission/storage influence. From that perspective, the article 
about the changes in the water energy storage are very interesting and 
alarming.

One thing is clear, our stewardship of the world is failing and will have 
big consequences for coming generations. Our wasting way of doing things, 
are suicidal. US current energy politics and lack of respect for the rest 
of the world, is worse than any WMD risks. If you only study the part of 
depletion scenarios of the Uppsala report, it will have enormous and 
dramatic economical, social and environmental consequences anyway.

Hakan


At 01:46 28/02/2004, you wrote:
>Would anybody care to debunk this article?
>http://www.techcentralstation.com/022404D.html
> 
>
>
>Lillie




 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] bulk oil storage

[Pieter Koole]

Hi,
The only thing I know about Bush, is that we can expect ANYTHING from this
man.
I live in Holland, so I only know him from t.v., but I think that is more
than enough.
He is a great danger for the world, so be carefull.

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Koole
Netherlands.

The information contained in this message (including attachments) is
confidential, and is intended for the addressee(s)
only.  If you have received this message in error please delete it and
notify the originator immediately.  The unauthorized use, disclosure,
copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. We will not be
liable for direct, special, indirect or
consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this
message by a third party or in case of electronic communications as a result
of any virus being passed on.


- Original Message -
From: "banjojimmy73" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 3:14 AM
Subject: [biofuel] bulk oil storage


> hello all
> I am starting to produce 50 gal batches and
>
> i need some advice on some things...
>
> 1-bulk wvo storage,  should I have an element heater in a large tank,
> or have a large storage tank and then a drum to preheat oil before
> batch process
>
> 2-What sort of rigs are people using for collection, other than the
> 12 v pump into a drum or tank?
>
> 3-It is my impression from a few sources that the nbb is anti-small
> producer and doesn't make it easy to certify fuel to sell,  so can we
> get around this legality by forming and selling to co-op members?
> I'm sure this has been done by some groups i'm just ignorant.
>
> 4-I wanted to use the turk burner to heat up my leftover glycerine.
> Is this dangerous to do?
>
> 5-when adding salt to break emulstion,  should we be going kosher
> here or is your regular unblessed table salt a ok. and how much per
> liter of emulshit-fication.
>
> 6-what are the chances of president bush spontaneously combusting
> from an overload of fear and repression?
>
> thanks to any and all who choose to enlighten.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
 

Re: [biofuel] global warming?

[jkolling]

Some scientists say it's not happening, some say it is, some scientists 
say it's manmade, some say it isn't. Perhaps the ratio between them is 
even 50%-50%

Some scientists are put to work to prove a certain idea, paid, ofcourse,
so you will get reports of evidence in whichever way is looked in.

Non-paid persons or scientists should however be able and allowed to 
make up heir own mind, any time.






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] Biodiesel Quality?

[Keith Addison]

Hi Bob

>Keith Addison wrote:
>
> >Hi Todd
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hellow Keith,
> >>
> >>Yup. Sometimes biodiesel clouds right back up after it's cooled down. Used
> >>to see this when we "sun dried" fuel. Every time the sun went down the fuel
> >>clouded back up.
> >>
> >>I have a feeling that it quickly absorbed as much water from the cooler air
> >>upon sunset as it dispersed in the heat of the day.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I think so.
> >
> >
>My guess is that the amount of moisture in the biodiesel doesn't change
>as much as its solubility (as a function of temperature)
>  hence the same amount of water will make cool biodiesel look cloudy,
>whereas it will be clear when warmer, to do complete solubility.

Yes, I think that happens, but heating it also gets rid of it, as Todd said:

>Seems that the elevated heat tends to drive much of the moisture into the
>ambient air if done in a well vented tank or container. A little bit settles
>out, but more of the former.

If you heat it and leave it to cool in a drum with a lid on it, 
you'll find a whole bunch of condensed water under the lid, and cool, 
clear, biodiesel. Better indeed to have it well vented so the vapour 
can escape rather than condensing and perhaps dripping back in again.

I'd guess Camillo meant at RT when he said it'd absorb 1,200 ppm 
water from the air no matter what, and at higher temps it would be 
more, at lower temps less. Whatever the temp, you have to get rid of 
the free water content though, then let it absorb whatever it wants 
to.

Best

Keith


>
>--
>--
>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
>
>
>
>



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] A question about lignine

[Keith Addison]

>Thanks Ken,
>I hope I don't insult anybody, but as far as I remember I found the way to
>make ethanol out of sawdust on journeytoforever.

Fuel From Sawdust
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library.html#sawdust

>If the process produces poison material, why would it be on this site ?

Why not?

Compost it, Pieter. It's all organic stuff, it'll break down 
harmlessly in a properly made hot compost pile.

http://journeytoforever.org/compost.html
Composting: Journey to Forever

Best

Keith


>Met vriendelijke groeten,
>Pieter Koole
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Ken Provost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 4:03 AM
>Subject: Re: [biofuel] A question about lignine
>
>
> > on 2/27/04 10:48 AM, Pieter Koole at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > > I am making ethanol on a very very small
> > > scale ( experimenting a bit ) from
> > > newspapers etc.
> > > What is the best thing to do with the
> > > black stuff ( lignine isn't it ? ). Is
> > > it poison ? Can I use it somehow?
> >
> >
> >
> > In general, any organic mixture that's BLACK
> > is toxic, probly carcinogenic. Blackness is
> > caused by multiple aromatic fused rings --
> > polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, of which
> > graphite is the extreme version. Do a Google
> > search on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Is there a way to re-use the sulphuric
> > > acid (98%)
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't think so
> >
> >
> >
> > > Does anyone know whether
> > > alcohol can be dried by
> > > electrolysis ?
> >
> >
> >
> > I've never heard of it -- doesn't mean it's
> > not possible somehow, but I doubt it  -K



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] global warming?

[Keith Addison]

>Would anybody care to debunk this article?
> http://www.techcentralstation.com/022404D.html
>
>Lillie

Hello Lillie

Not it, them: Willie Soon, Lucy Hancock and Sallie Baliunas. The 
first and third are easily tracked, no need to bother with the 
second, and what's uncovered leaves no need to debunk the article 
itself.

Hakan makes some good points, but that certasinly wasn't these 
authors' intention.

So never mind this article, let's look at what happened to a previous 
one first.

-

Three Journal Editors Resign Over Paper by Skeptics

By Jeff Nesmith
Cox News Service, July 29, 2003

WASHINGTON -- A science journal editor who recently published an 
article questioning whether industrial emissions are driving up the 
earth's temperature has resigned, saying he was not allowed to 
publish an editorial repudiating the article.

The article was written by two Harvard University scientists with 
support from the petroleum industry.

``They submitted a flawed paper,'' said Hans von Storch, 
editor-in-chief of the journal, Climate Research. He said that the 
journal's peer review procedure failed to identify methodological 
flaws in the study.

However, owners of the magazine, which is published in Germany, 
refused to allow him to write an editorial saying the paper was 
flawed, Von Storch said in an e-mail to Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt.

Cox Newspapers reported in May that the paper was underwritten by the 
American Petroleum Institute and promoted by nonprofit organizations 
that receive support from energy interests, primarily ExxonMobil Corp.

Jeffords announced Von Storch's resignation, as well as that of 
another Climate Research editor, Clare Goodess, in the middle of a 
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing called in part 
to air the views of one of the Harvard authors, astrophysicist Willie 
Soon.

The paper by Soon and fellow astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas argues 
that the current global warming trend is not unique and that an even 
more dramatic episode occurred centuries ago, before widespread 
combustion of oil and coal.

The paper, as well as an earlier, almost identical article by Soon, 
Baliunas and three other scientists, stated that ``across the world, 
many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest 
nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.''

That statement may be true, Von Storch said, but it is not supported 
by evidence cited in the paper. Most scientists believe global 
warming is mainly caused by carbon dioxide released into the 
atmosphere through the combustion of fossil fuels.

Opponents of climate change legislation have used the Soon-Baliunas 
paper to challenge the need for legislation restricting emissions of 
the greenhouse gases.

A bill introduced by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, 
D-Conn., to impose the first limits on greenhouse gas emissions in 
the United States is scheduled to come before the Senate this week.

Story Filed By Cox Newspapers
See "Climate experts reject industry-linked report"



Global Warming Skeptics Are Facing Storm Clouds

By Antonio Regalado,
The Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2003

A big flap at a little scientific journal is raising questions about 
a study that has been embraced by conservative politicians for its 
rejection of widely held global-warming theories.

The study, by two astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for 
Astrophysics, says the 20th century wasn't unusually warm compared 
with earlier periods and contradicts evidence indicating man-made 
"greenhouse" gases are causing temperatures to rise.

Since being published last January in Climate Research, the paper has 
been widely promoted by Washington think tanks and cited by the White 
House in revisions made to a recent Environmental Protection Agency 
report. At the same time, it has drawn stinging rebukes from other 
climate scientists.

This week, three editors of Climate Research resigned in protest over 
the journal's handling of the review process that approved the study; 
among them is Hans von Storch, the journal's recently appointed 
editor in chief. "It was flawed and it shouldn't have been 
published," he said.

Dr. von Storch's resignation was publicly disclosed Tuesday by Sen. 
James Jeffords (I., Vt.), a critic of the administration's 
environmental policies, during a hearing of the Senate Environment 
and Public Works Committee called by its chairman, Sen. James Inhofe 
(R., Okla.).

The debate over global warming centers on the extent to which gases 
released from the burning of fossil fuels -- mainly carbon dioxide -- 
are trapping the sun's heat in the Earth's atmosphere, creating a 
greenhouse effect. The political fight has intensified as the Senate 
votes on a major energy bill. Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and 
Joseph Lieberman (D., Conn.) planned to introduce an amendment this 
week that would cap carbon-dioxide emissions at 2000 levels starting 
in 2010 for selec

[biofuel] floating draw-off

[banjojimmy73]

has anyone ever used a floating draw-off? 




 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] global warming?

[Hakan Falk]

Keith,

Climate change is happening and it is very compelling proof to the 
conclusion that it is man made and pollution related. It might even be 
worse and more rapid than we now belive and it is very important that we 
get to the root of it.

By making future scenarios based on several times the CO2 pollution that we 
possible could get, if we burned all the fuel we know of, does not further 
serious research on an important issue. I think there are small and 
embarrassing lapses, when climate change scenarios are based on impossible 
numbers of CO2 production, that assumes indefinite fossil fuel resources.

It is happening and therefore extremely important that we get to the real 
causes, as soon as possible. It can be much worse and quicker, than we 
imagine today. We do not know It scares me!!!

Hakan



At 14:56 28/02/2004, you wrote:
> >Would anybody care to debunk this article?
> > 
> http://www.techcentralstation.com/022404D.html
> >
> >Lillie
>
>Hello Lillie
>
>Not it, them: Willie Soon, Lucy Hancock and Sallie Baliunas. The
>first and third are easily tracked, no need to bother with the
>second, and what's uncovered leaves no need to debunk the article
>itself.
>
>Hakan makes some good points, but that certasinly wasn't these
>authors' intention.
>
>So never mind this article, let's look at what happened to a previous
>one first.
>
>-
>
>Three Journal Editors Resign Over Paper by Skeptics
>
>By Jeff Nesmith
>Cox News Service, July 29, 2003
>
>WASHINGTON -- A science journal editor who recently published an
>article questioning whether industrial emissions are driving up the
>earth's temperature has resigned, saying he was not allowed to
>publish an editorial repudiating the article.
>
>The article was written by two Harvard University scientists with
>support from the petroleum industry.
>
>``They submitted a flawed paper,'' said Hans von Storch,
>editor-in-chief of the journal, Climate Research. He said that the
>journal's peer review procedure failed to identify methodological
>flaws in the study.
>
>However, owners of the magazine, which is published in Germany,
>refused to allow him to write an editorial saying the paper was
>flawed, Von Storch said in an e-mail to Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt.
>
>Cox Newspapers reported in May that the paper was underwritten by the
>American Petroleum Institute and promoted by nonprofit organizations
>that receive support from energy interests, primarily ExxonMobil Corp.
>
>Jeffords announced Von Storch's resignation, as well as that of
>another Climate Research editor, Clare Goodess, in the middle of a
>Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing called in part
>to air the views of one of the Harvard authors, astrophysicist Willie
>Soon.
>
>The paper by Soon and fellow astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas argues
>that the current global warming trend is not unique and that an even
>more dramatic episode occurred centuries ago, before widespread
>combustion of oil and coal.
>
>The paper, as well as an earlier, almost identical article by Soon,
>Baliunas and three other scientists, stated that ``across the world,
>many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest
>nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.''
>
>That statement may be true, Von Storch said, but it is not supported
>by evidence cited in the paper. Most scientists believe global
>warming is mainly caused by carbon dioxide released into the
>atmosphere through the combustion of fossil fuels.
>
>Opponents of climate change legislation have used the Soon-Baliunas
>paper to challenge the need for legislation restricting emissions of
>the greenhouse gases.
>
>A bill introduced by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman,
>D-Conn., to impose the first limits on greenhouse gas emissions in
>the United States is scheduled to come before the Senate this week.
>
>Story Filed By Cox Newspapers
>See "Climate experts reject industry-linked report"
>
>
>
>Global Warming Skeptics Are Facing Storm Clouds
>
>By Antonio Regalado,
>The Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2003
>
>A big flap at a little scientific journal is raising questions about
>a study that has been embraced by conservative politicians for its
>rejection of widely held global-warming theories.
>
>The study, by two astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
>Astrophysics, says the 20th century wasn't unusually warm compared
>with earlier periods and contradicts evidence indicating man-made
>"greenhouse" gases are causing temperatures to rise.
>
>Since being published last January in Climate Research, the paper has
>been widely promoted by Washington think tanks and cited by the White
>House in revisions made to a recent Environmental Protection Agency
>report. At the same time, it has drawn stinging rebukes from other
>climate scientists.
>
>This week, three editors of Climate Research resigned in protest over
>the journal's handling o

Re: [biofuel] Griffin Industries Biodiesel

[Appal Energy]

Allan,

Take a fuel sample, match it with equal parts water and agitate vigorously.

I've seen your symptoms before when running fuel laden with incompletely
converted glycerides. They are hydrophylic and would suck up any water in
the bottom of the tank.

Did you fill up at a pump or did you get a glance at the fuel prior to
putting it in your tank?

It's as good a bet as any that it was already cloudy and water laden. Your
sample may be exactly that when you pull it out of the tank.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message - 
From: "Alan Petrillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "biofuel" 
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 12:31 AM
Subject: [biofuel] Griffin Industries Biodiesel


> Does anyone have any experience with biodiesel made by Griffin Industries?
>
> One of my trucks is sick, possibly fuel related, and both of them blow
> big white clouds on startup, and have experienced hard starting since I
> got my last batch of B100.
>
> I've put in a call to Aaron at Ward Oil about it, but I haven't heard
> back from him yet.
>
>
> AP
>
>
>
>
> 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/
 

Re: [biofuel] bulk oil storage

[dcande01]

Hi
The chances of
bush spontaneously combusting are slim but not immpossible.  The  
problem lies in that there are alot of bonesmen out there and it would  
be like marching the Chinese into the sea.

Fred Anderson

On Friday, Feb 27, 2004, at 21:14 US/Eastern, banjojimmy73 wrote:

> hello all
> I am starting to produce 50 gal batches and
>
> i need some advice on some things...
>
> 1-bulk wvo storage,  should I have an element heater in a large tank,
> or have a large storage tank and then a drum to preheat oil before
> batch process
>
> 2-What sort of rigs are people using for collection, other than the
> 12 v pump into a drum or tank?
>
> 3-It is my impression from a few sources that the nbb is anti-small
> producer and doesn't make it easy to certify fuel to sell,  so can we
> get around this legality by forming and selling to co-op members?
> I'm sure this has been done by some groups i'm just ignorant.
>
> 4-I wanted to use the turk burner to heat up my leftover glycerine.
> Is this dangerous to do?
>
> 5-when adding salt to break emulstion,  should we be going kosher
> here or is your regular unblessed table salt a ok. and how much per
> liter of emulshit-fication.
>
> 6-what are the chances of president bush spontaneously combusting
> from an overload of fear and repression?
>
> thanks to any and all who choose to enlighten.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>  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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the  
government fears the people, you have freedom."
Thomas Paine, ... he should know having been a revolutionary during a  
few revolutions in government, including ours, (the U.S.A.), by far the  
most relevant and meaningful in human history.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest  
reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as  
a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
Thomas Jefferson, June 1776 ... If ya don't know who he is then perhaps  
it is because of some tyranny where you live finds advantage in hiding  
his existence from you. (Oh perish the revolutionary thought of the  
ability to protect freedom from tyranny !!!)




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] floating draw-off

[Appal Energy]

Floating? No.

Draw off the top? All the time.

That's the ideal method to keep contaminants from remixing.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message - 
From: "banjojimmy73" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 9:42 AM
Subject: [biofuel] floating draw-off


> has anyone ever used a floating draw-off? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 


 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] floating draw-off

[Tilapia]

I've been touting the benefits of a floating draw-off for years. Remember, 
"The Good Stuff's On Top!" This is true for every stage of the biodiesel making 
process: In the raw oil storage container, with a little heat the water and 
crumb will settle to the bottom; with the separation of the glycerin, the 
process runs better if the biodiesel is sucked off of the glycerin layer, while 
that 
is drained down the bottom of the container; and finally, in final 
dispensing, you will avoid the problems of the "big boys" that have recently 
dispensed 
bad biodiesel if you leave the inevitable moisture and particulates behind by 
drawing off of the top of the container.

I have built several floating draw offs, and I'm not sure which is best. For 
the float, one can use polyethylene foam, not styrofoam!, or a sealed air 
container, such as a PVC pipe with capped ends. Use a good weight on the float 
to 
keep it immersed in the liquid. For the hose, I recommend one of those 
pre-coiled poly garden hoses, so it follows the fluctuating level without being 
pulled off to the side. I also use a guide rod down through the coil to keep 
things 
on the level. If you can figure a flexible joint that can stand a suction, 
perhaps you could post it here. I can't find one that is flexible enough.

Its cheap, its easy and it works!

Tom


In a message dated 2/28/04 9:47:07 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> has anyone ever used a floating draw-off?
> 
> 
> 






-
Homestead Inc.
www.yellowbiodiesel.com



[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] A question about lignine

[Fred Enga]

Hello All.

The lignin by product of the acid hydrolysis is not a poison.  We produce
ethanol from wood residue using the Gaian process of concentrated sulphuric
acid hydrolysis.  The Lignin is the carbon skeleton of the wood and has
similar properties to Charcoal. In some processes a lignin sulphate compound
is formed, but not in this process - that's more associated with the Kraft
and sulphite paper industry.  These versions of lignin find uses in the
manufacture of resins, other forms of lignin are used as binders for road
surfacing.

In our process we find the best use to be as a fuel, in fact we power our
complete process using the combustion of the lignin produced in the
hydrolysis stage, with a significant energy production over our requirements
that we can produce electricity with the surplus steam.

Concerning the reuse of the sulphuric acid, we recover and reuse, after
reconcentrating it.  Unfortunately we use a simulated moving bed
chromatography process which is not 'suitable' for home use.  The older was
is to sacrifice the acid by neutralising it with lime which give a gypsum
by-product which has little to no further use.

For those who want a little more info on ethanol production from wood
residue, there is a fairly detailed process review on our website
www.gaianbioenergy.com

Hope this helps

Regards

Fred Enga

-Original Message-
From: Pieter Koole
Sent: February 27, 2004 7:27 PM
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] A question about lignine


Thanks Ken,
I hope I don't insult anybody, but as far as I remember I found the way to
make ethanol out of sawdust on journeytoforever.
If the process produces poison material, why would it be on this site ?

Met vriendelijke groeten,
Pieter Koole


The information contained in this message (including attachments) is
confidential, and is intended for the addressee(s)
only.  If you have received this message in error please delete it and
notify the originator immediately.  The unauthorized use, disclosure,
copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. We will not be
liable for direct, special, indirect or
consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this
message by a third party or in case of electronic communications as a result
of any virus being passed on.


- Original Message -
From: "Ken Provost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 4:03 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] A question about lignine


> on 2/27/04 10:48 AM, Pieter Koole at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I am making ethanol on a very very small
> > scale ( experimenting a bit ) from
> > newspapers etc.
> > What is the best thing to do with the
> > black stuff ( lignine isn't it ? ). Is
> > it poison ? Can I use it somehow?
>
>
>
> In general, any organic mixture that's BLACK
> is toxic, probly carcinogenic. Blackness is
> caused by multiple aromatic fused rings --
> polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, of which
> graphite is the extreme version. Do a Google
> search on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
>
>
>
> > Is there a way to re-use the sulphuric
> > acid (98%)
>
>
>
> I don't think so
>
>
>
> > Does anyone know whether
> > alcohol can be dried by
> > electrolysis ?
>
>
>
> I've never heard of it -- doesn't mean it's
> not possible somehow, but I doubt it  -K
>




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] Pentagon Goes Crazy for Massive Climate Change

[Keith Addison]

The fact that via the Observer this story can be "broken" 
for a 
second time several weeks after the Fortune piece and still hardly 
penetrate our major newspapers tells us much that we need to know 
about how far denial on the subject of global warming and our role in 
it extends beyond the Bush administration. And, of course, if the 
only governmental body to seriously attend to the phenomenon turns 
out to be the Pentagon, you can expect "solutions" involving more of 
what we've already witnessed these last two years: "homeland 
security" and global war with a passion or, as the report evidently 
puts it with a certain delicacy, solutions that involve identifying 
"'no regrets' strategies to ensure reliable access to food and water 
and to ensure our national security."
-- From: And Now for Something Really Dangerous
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
by Tom Engelhardt
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0225-09.htm


"... climate change is so dangerous precisely because there are no 
borders in natureŠ When you take the global view that nature insists 
on, the idea of any one nation planning a 'no regrets' strategy, or 
even worrying about 'national security,' is just plain crazy. 
Especially when we have years of advance warning to plan for global 
cooperation.

"Nature is telling us loud and clear that we must change radically, 
from a world of competition to a world of cooperation. Only that 
radical shift in thinking will give us a chance to survive. If we can 
tear ourselves away from outdated nationalistic fantasies and get 
real, nature is giving us a chance to learn new ways to cooperate 
around the worldŠ To do anything else would be crazy."
(See below)


See:

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/print/0,15935,582584,00.html
CLIMATE COLLAPSE
The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare
The climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the 
mother of all national security issues.
FORTUNE
Monday, January 26, 2004
By David Stipp

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
Œ?Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
Œ?Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
Œ?Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer

Also:

http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/32388/
Pentagon downplays report on climate change that it commissioned
Tue Feb 24
WASHINGTON (AFP)

-

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0202-02.htm
Published on Monday, February 2, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

Pentagon Goes Crazy for Massive Climate Change

by Ira Chernus

If you want to know the prospects for major climate change in the 
years ahead, ask the Pentagon. They have to figure out how to fight 
and win, wherever the president sends them. And they always ask the 
same question first: What's the weather like out there? If the 
forecasters say, "Weather uncertain," smart soldiers plan for every 
eventuality.

As Thom Hartmann told commondreams.org readers the other day, weather 
forecasters are giving us the biggest "Uncertain" in history. They 
say that there might, just might, be a catastrophic climate change in 
the next few decades. Global warming might suddenly trigger a massive 
global cooling.

They've heard this forecast in the Pentagon, too. So they are drawing 
up contingencies plans for the worst case scenario: a long era of 
deep freeze, raging storms, and massive drought that leaves billions 
of people struggling for the necessities of life.

This is no secret. Fortune magazine just published a summary of the 
report. What you can read there may seem perfectly sensible or 
perfectly insane. It all depends on your basic assumptions.

The Pentagon planners assume that the future cannot be any different 
from the past. "History shows that whenever humans have faced a 
choice between starving or raiding, they raid." So we must assume 
that, after the great climate change, "an ancient pattern reemerges: 
the eruption of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy 
supplies. . Warfare may again come to define human life." In the 
past, the report notes, wars killed about 25% of each side's adult 
males. This time, though, a dozen or more nations might have nuclear 
weapons, and "nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable."

But is anything in human life "inevitable"? Couldn't we decide to do 
it different this time? Why not start planning for global cooperation 
rather than competition? Apparently, this possibility is off the 
Pentagon's radar screen. In the past, scarcity usually made nations 
compete, not cooperate. Safest to bet that the future will be just 
like the past. Is that crazy? Or is it just common sense?

Of course, what looks crazy in one place can look like common sense 
somewhere else. If you are in a weak little country, hunkering down 
to weather the global storm might seem crazy. But this is the 
greatest military power in world histo

[biofuel] America's new coal rush

[Keith Addison]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0226/p01s04-sten.html

February 26, 2004 edition

MORE TO MINE: If half the proposed power plants get built, coal 
miners, such as these in Illinois, will extract an extra 10 million 
tons a year.
CHARLES REX ARBOGAST/AP/FILE

America's new coal rush

Utilities' dramatic push to build new plants would boost energy 
security but hurt the environment.

By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

After 25 years on the blacklist of America's energy sources, coal is 
poised to make a comeback, stoked by the demand for affordable 
electricity and the rising price of other fuels.

At least 94 coal-fired electric power plants - with the capacity to 
power 62 million American homes - are now planned across 36 states.

The plants, slated to start coming on line as early as next year, 
would add significantly to the United States' generating power, help 
keep electricity prices low, and boost energy security by offering an 
alternative to foreign oil and gas. But they would also pump more 
airborne mercury and greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, 
nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide into the air.

Apparently, economic concerns are trumping environmental ones in 
utilities' plans.

Surprisingly, few state officials or even environmentalists are aware 
of the magnitude of the new coal rush.

One major reason is the sudden nature of the turnaround for the 
plentiful fuel. "The situation has changed 180 degrees in the last 
year, so that we're almost back to point where we were in the 1970s 
with a slew of coal-fired plants on the drawing board," says Robert 
McIlvaine, president of a Northfield, Ill., company that tracks 
energy industry development. After a decades-long drought, when few 
large coal plants were added to the power grid, "it's become a flood. 
We've been getting a new one announced almost every week since 
December."

The jump in proposed coal-fired plants over the past three years - 
which would add 62 gigawatts or another 20 percent to the US's 
current coal-generating capacity - was documented in a report last 
month by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), an arm of 
the US Department of Energy. But experts caution that perhaps no more 
than half of all proposed plants will ever be built. It can take 
seven to 10 years for a coal power plant to go from planning to 
construction - and legal action and public protests often halt them.

Aside from the report, buried on the agency's website, the push to 
coal power and its estimated $72 billion investment has been largely 
untouted by industry and overlooked by the public. Even state 
officials and environmentalists who knew more coal power was coming 
are amazed.

"I certainly wasn't aware it was 62 gigawatts. That's an awful lot 
more coal to burn," says Dan Becker, director of global warming and 
energy program at the Sierra Club. "I think most Americans would be 
shocked that utilities are dragging the 19th century into the 21st 
century."

Illinois leads the nation with 10 proposed coal-fired plants that 
would create 8 gigawatts of new power capacity, the NETL report says. 
Yet state officials were surprised to be the national leader. "It's 
definitely something we're keeping track of, but I personally wasn't 
aware it was nine or 10 plants," says Rishi Garg, an energy policy 
adviser to Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn.

 From the point of view of energy security, such moves make sense, 
proponents say. The US is considered the Saudi Arabia of coal. It 
sits on 250 years' worth of reserves. Coal already generates about 
half the nation's electricity.

The economics have also swung in the fuel's favor. Low-cost, 
low-emission, natural-gas turbines sprouted like mushrooms in the 
'90s and their contribution to the nation's generating capacity 
reached 19 percent. But in the past four years, the cost of natural 
gas has roughly tripled: from $2 per 1 million British thermal units 
of heat generated to over $6 per million BTUs. By contrast, coal 
costs less than $1 per million BTUs. That has put utilities in the 
position of paying more for the gas they burn to make power than they 
can get for the electricity it produces.

But the move back to coal raises environmental concerns. Mr. 
McIlvaine estimates that if 50 of the 94 planned projects are built, 
they would add roughly 30 gigawatts or 10 percent of base load 
generating capacity nationwide. Using industry rules of thumb, he 
estimates coal consumption would rise about 10 million tons, or 1 
percent, from today's 1 billion tons annually. That, in turn, would 
add 120 million cubic feet of exhaust gases from the stacks every 
minute of every day for decades to what is currently vented.

The burning of coal already produces more airborne mercury and 
greenhouse gases than any other single source. Robert Dickinson, an 
atmospheric scientist and climate modeler at the Georgia Institute of 
Technology, calculates the new US coal plants would add ro

Re: [biofuel] global warming?

[Keith Addison]

>Keith,
>
>Climate change is happening and it is very compelling proof to the
>conclusion that it is man made and pollution related. It might even be
>worse and more rapid than we now belive and it is very important that we
>get to the root of it.

Of course. It's also very important that we stop twiddling our thumbs 
and take whatever remedial action we can, at this belated stage. 
Reducing the sources of manmade pollution is a start. Defending the 
lousy fuel-economy of US cars isn't.

>By making future scenarios based on several times the CO2 pollution that we
>possible could get, if we burned all the fuel we know of, does not further
>serious research on an important issue. I think there are small and
>embarrassing lapses, when climate change scenarios are based on impossible
>numbers of CO2 production, that assumes indefinite fossil fuel resources.
>
>It is happening and therefore extremely important that we get to the real
>causes, as soon as possible. It can be much worse and quicker, than we
>imagine today. We do not know It scares me!!!
>
>Hakan

I'm certainly not arguing against any of that Hakan, quite the 
opposite, and for a long time.

Nothing is improved however by industry-funded spin such as this - 
there's a huge amount of it and it's very effective at confusing the 
issue and holding back sensible appraisal and sensible action. These 
people are liars, with the worst of motives. They're in no position 
to stand in judgment of genuine scientific enquiry.

They'll trash every new finding - find evidences of further manmade 
pollution causes beyond CO2 and they'll trash those too. They'll 
trash everything except business-as-usual. That's their record, 
that's what they're paid for.

>By making future scenarios based on several times the CO2 pollution that we
>possible could get, if we burned all the fuel we know of, does not further
>serious research on an important issue. I think there are small and
>embarrassing lapses, when climate change scenarios are based on impossible
>numbers of CO2 production, that assumes indefinite fossil fuel resources.

There may be, but they'd be a minority. It's more complex than that. 
To conclude, as these three charlatans do, that hey, there's no proof 
CO2's a cause, so let's go right on burning up fossil fuels like 
there's no tomorrow, would hardly be a rational response. Unless 
you're a bean-counter at Exxon-Mobil that is.

"Touting greenhouse gas emission reduction to save the world from a 
future glacial period is an unqualified prescription with no 
scientific vetting."

So it's okay to sit back and do nothing folks. Right.

Best

Keith


>At 14:56 28/02/2004, you wrote:
> > >Would anybody care to debunk this article?
> > >
> > http://www.techcentralstation.com/022404D.html
> > >
> > >Lillie
> >
> >Hello Lillie
> >
> >Not it, them: Willie Soon, Lucy Hancock and Sallie Baliunas. The
> >first and third are easily tracked, no need to bother with the
> >second, and what's uncovered leaves no need to debunk the article
> >itself.
> >
> >Hakan makes some good points, but that certasinly wasn't these
> >authors' intention.
> >
> >So never mind this article, let's look at what happened to a previous
> >one first.
> >
> >-
> >
> >Three Journal Editors Resign Over Paper by Skeptics
> >
> >By Jeff Nesmith
> >Cox News Service, July 29, 2003
> >
> >WASHINGTON -- A science journal editor who recently published an
> >article questioning whether industrial emissions are driving up the
> >earth's temperature has resigned, saying he was not allowed to
> >publish an editorial repudiating the article.
> >
> >The article was written by two Harvard University scientists with
> >support from the petroleum industry.
> >
> >``They submitted a flawed paper,'' said Hans von Storch,
> >editor-in-chief of the journal, Climate Research. He said that the
> >journal's peer review procedure failed to identify methodological
> >flaws in the study.
> >
> >However, owners of the magazine, which is published in Germany,
> >refused to allow him to write an editorial saying the paper was
> >flawed, Von Storch said in an e-mail to Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt.
> >
> >Cox Newspapers reported in May that the paper was underwritten by the
> >American Petroleum Institute and promoted by nonprofit organizations
> >that receive support from energy interests, primarily ExxonMobil Corp.
> >
> >Jeffords announced Von Storch's resignation, as well as that of
> >another Climate Research editor, Clare Goodess, in the middle of a
> >Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing called in part
> >to air the views of one of the Harvard authors, astrophysicist Willie
> >Soon.
> >
> >The paper by Soon and fellow astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas argues
> >that the current global warming trend is not unique and that an even
> >more dramatic episode occurred centuries ago, before widespread
> >combustion of oil and coal.
> >
> >The paper, as well as an earlier, almost identical article by Soon,

Re: [biofuel] global warming?

[Hakan Falk]

Keith,

My opinion is that we are even more in a hurry to save energy and
put significant resources into finding out what really is happening.

It would be very bad if it is some other components than CO2 or
the way we use energy. Then we sequester CO2 and start burning
coal at full speed, only to find that we sequester the symptom and
the problem was elevated and not solved at all.

Any waste of energy, is a contribution to throw the world into a chaos
anyway. I do not think that our addictive friends from US are going
to take the detox period from the energy addiction without severe
pain and fights to get the drug. Whatever they think, they will not
be able to control the source and they will continue to run havoc in
trying to do so.

Only the suggestion to take the SUV potent symbol away from them,
is enough to stir a wild debate and violent defence of "freedom". If we
give them the (on Internet) so popular p-enlargement for free, then
we can maybe negotiate something. Throw in some t-enlargements
and viagra, maybe we have a deal on energy saving and they can work
themselves warm like the rabbits. Sorry for this sarcasm, but I am
fed up with the SPAM I get every day, which originates from US
suppliers that delivers immediately. That is "culture", "democracy" and
"freedom" at its best. Who cares about global warming, when the
ultimate goals are to make the individuals hot. They are for sure
busy in exporting this religion. It is an old Arab strategy, give your
competitor a harem and he will soon be too distracted and occupied,
to pose a threat.

Hakan

At 18:41 28/02/2004, you wrote:
> >Keith,
> >
> >Climate change is happening and it is very compelling proof to the
> >conclusion that it is man made and pollution related. It might even be
> >worse and more rapid than we now belive and it is very important that we
> >get to the root of it.
>
>Of course. It's also very important that we stop twiddling our thumbs
>and take whatever remedial action we can, at this belated stage.
>Reducing the sources of manmade pollution is a start. Defending the
>lousy fuel-economy of US cars isn't.
>
> >By making future scenarios based on several times the CO2 pollution that we
> >possible could get, if we burned all the fuel we know of, does not further
> >serious research on an important issue. I think there are small and
> >embarrassing lapses, when climate change scenarios are based on impossible
> >numbers of CO2 production, that assumes indefinite fossil fuel resources.
> >
> >It is happening and therefore extremely important that we get to the real
> >causes, as soon as possible. It can be much worse and quicker, than we
> >imagine today. We do not know It scares me!!!
> >
> >Hakan
>
>I'm certainly not arguing against any of that Hakan, quite the
>opposite, and for a long time.
>
>Nothing is improved however by industry-funded spin such as this -
>there's a huge amount of it and it's very effective at confusing the
>issue and holding back sensible appraisal and sensible action. These
>people are liars, with the worst of motives. They're in no position
>to stand in judgment of genuine scientific enquiry.
>
>They'll trash every new finding - find evidences of further manmade
>pollution causes beyond CO2 and they'll trash those too. They'll
>trash everything except business-as-usual. That's their record,
>that's what they're paid for.
>
> >By making future scenarios based on several times the CO2 pollution that we
> >possible could get, if we burned all the fuel we know of, does not further
> >serious research on an important issue. I think there are small and
> >embarrassing lapses, when climate change scenarios are based on impossible
> >numbers of CO2 production, that assumes indefinite fossil fuel resources.
>
>There may be, but they'd be a minority. It's more complex than that.
>To conclude, as these three charlatans do, that hey, there's no proof
>CO2's a cause, so let's go right on burning up fossil fuels like
>there's no tomorrow, would hardly be a rational response. Unless
>you're a bean-counter at Exxon-Mobil that is.
>
>"Touting greenhouse gas emission reduction to save the world from a
>future glacial period is an unqualified prescription with no
>scientific vetting."
>
>So it's okay to sit back and do nothing folks. Right.
>
>Best
>
>Keith
>
>
> >At 14:56 28/02/2004, you wrote:
> > > >Would anybody care to debunk this article?
> > > >
> > > 
> http://www.techcentralstation.com/022404D.html
> > > >
> > > >Lillie
> > >
> > >Hello Lillie
> > >
> > >Not it, them: Willie Soon, Lucy Hancock and Sallie Baliunas. The
> > >first and third are easily tracked, no need to bother with the
> > >second, and what's uncovered leaves no need to debunk the article
> > >itself.
> > >
> > >Hakan makes some good points, but that certasinly wasn't these
> > >authors' intention.
> > >
> > >So never mind this article, let's look at what happened to a previous
> > >one first.
> 

Re: [biofuel] Re: Hydrologist concludes: humans must reduce ...

[murdoch]

>* that we are not a minority in holding to these principles

This is important.  One cannot carry the burden of a some big movement
on one's shoulders alone.  If you believe you're alone, you're done.
There have to be others, many others, that one trusts as one works to
also be working toward the same end, without having to be told what is
"common sense", who can supplement and augment and combine with one's
own work.


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: Gasoline supplies likely to shrink, prices rise

[murdoch]

There's also an issue of local pricing and timing here.  Gasoline hit
more than $4 per gallon last year if you bought at certain stations at
certain times during the panic around Phoenix last year.  I don't know
that we'll see a $3 average this coming year, but if the predictions
of coming shortages have some merit, then maybe we'll see some
noteworthy stories play out in certain regions, in particular.

Also, since it's a U.S. Presidential Election year, maybe there will
be a tie-in with any of those stories (for example, if they were very
extreme) and the election etory.  I'd love to see the President's SUV
business-ish-tax-break called into extended questioning, publicly,
without let-up.  

*Ostensibly* this was to "promote jobs" and such in Detroit (though
policy this came from a supposedly pro-Capitalistic group of people).
So, there's not only the issue of the fact that the President's
policies have gone away from reducing US Petroleum Import
Dependencies, but they have also made a mockery (in my view) of what
might have been better more rational more effective more sustainable
pro-job-growth policies.  *This* is the best this guy could do???

.encourage the production 

(Charity-giving to Detroit by already deeply burdened taxpayers, who
are deemed too stupid by policy-makers to understand that the bill
will come eventually, if not during this Presidency, and if not in
2004 dollars) 

of high margin gas guzzling vehicles?  Detroit makers have
protested loudly, vociferously, when challenged by Environmentalists
the last 20 years, that they'd like to tone down production of
gas-guzzlers but their hands are tied by the first business principle
of being responsive to demand for such vehicles, and yet here they are
stating clearly that demand for the gas-guzzlers *isn't* sufficient to
keep them afloat and they need therefor for Washington to have
taxpayers bail them out by paying to artificially stimulate demand for
those vehicles in particular.   

What utterly crappy insulting anti-taxypayer anti-common-sense logic.
I hope Mr. Kerry calls this administration on some of it.

MM

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:51:32 -, you wrote:

>Gas will be hitting $3 soon, probably this year...
>
>
>
>
>--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Some recent USA Today articles. Overall, relatively speaking, I like
>> their reporting on some of these issues:
>> http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-02-25-gasprices_x.htm
>> 
>> A quote:
>> 
>> >"Average gasoline prices in California and Hawaii have topped $2 
>for a gallon of unleaded regular, and Nevada is close at $1.968, AAA 
>said Wednesday. AAA said regular averaged $1.681 nationwide, up 7.9 
>cents the last month. That's 5.6 cents less than the record average 
>of $1.737 reported last Aug. 30. EIA, using different data, lists the 
>record as $1.747 last Aug. 25."
>> 
>> So, there are sometimes some discrepancies (though here they are
>> small) in how the "national retail average" is calculated.
>> 
>> Also of interest:
>> >Gas would have to average $2.89 to surpass the inflation-adjusted 
>record of $1.417 in 1981. 
>> 
>> An article here about cost-benefit analysis for vehicle safety.  I
>> thought there was a lack of mention of how vehicles interact with 
>each
>> other, and traffic engineering issues, and crowding issues, but
>> anyway: 
>> http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2004-02-25-car-rules_x.htm
>> 
>> Governor Schwarzenneger's "solution".  Somehow seems very Teutonic 
>of
>> him, this interest in Hydrogen.  But more importantly, aside from
>> that, I just think it's not all there:
>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2004-02-26-hydrogen-
>highway_x.htm
>> 
>> I can say that I know that activists have tried to give input on a
>> wide variety of other solutions, so he has either carefully 
>considered
>> these solutions and set them aside, or simply blown them off.
>
>
>
>
>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/
 

Re: [biofuel] Moral Dilemma...

[murdoch]

>That's an old myth, Fred, and much as the entire media establishment 
>strives to maintain it, it's a myth nonetheless. You must be 
>objective, hm? How're you going to manage that? And Heisenberg 
>doesn't apply to journalists, we're not part of what we observe, we 
>stand aloof and play no role in it other than merely to record, a 
>mere conduit, a pipe - what a joke! 

Some followup thoughts on this very interesting post of yours.  I
don't have a sense if the previous poster really warranted the whole
thing being directed at what he was saying, but in this case no
matter.  My thoughts are to what you were saying:

In addition to what you've said, there is another way to see this:
turn it around and try projecting a story where one makes absolutely
no decisions, has no input, basically does nothing.  I don't think
it's really possible.  Story choice (what is a story, what is
newsworthy, what's crap) is perhaps the most important thing of all,
and perhaps the first thing before anything else, and how do you do a
story without choosing what the story is?

But beyond this, I think there's a trend in philosophy and
intellectualism and policy-criticism toward defining a "hands-off"
view (in politics... laissez-faire in morality perhaps this would
be let-others-alone) as a do-nothing view.  But this is *wrong*.  For
want of better words, I think someone should be "pro-active" in
journalism and politics.  But, of course, this is super-dangerous.
What if they are "proactive in politics in a way that enslaves me, for
example?

So, what I mean is sort of that I don't define what I want from a
Politician, or somebody else that I employ, that they should sit and
do absolutely zero to avoid doing anything wrong, and only to do what
they're told.  So, we have this trend toward saying.. ok, they haven't
been an adulterer, they haven't embezzled, therefor they're 'good'.
Nope.

I'd rather see them try to figure out what their job is, and to come
up with some ideas, to discuss them, to be an adult and admit when
some of them don't turn out good, and then to take the good ones and
try to implement them.

In journalism, this is sort of why I voiced that I don't think USA
Today's recent coverage of some energy policy issues sucks because
I think there is some ethic at that publication (perhaps I'm wrong) of
trying to figure out what a story is before they're "told" of
trying to ask some questions and seeing what comes of it.  Nothing
interesting?  Ok, throw it away.  Something interesting?  Ok, bring it
out.  Hard to define "interesting".  Ok, so, that will take some work.

This, I think, is how to get a story.  Waiting to be told by the
E-channel that some alleged celebrity has allegedly done some
supposedly scandalous thing, and then rushing over to cover it with
1000 other people is not my idea of the whole story in journalism,
though undboutedly being responsive to demand, if there is some demand
for that story, is part of it.

 



Journalists make subjective 
>decisions about what to write, what to write about, what not to write 
>about, what's "relevant" and what's not, all the time, they do little 
>else, whether they do it in conformance with media precepts and holy 
>writ or not... and indeed it changes the outcome. Many journalists 
>like the myth because it means no can for them to carry, the buck 
>doesn't stop with them, they think. Many others, especially since we 
>had all this out (again) in the 60s and 70s, are aware that the true 
>role of the Fourth Estate is not served but rather obstructed by the 
>required "objectivity", the journalist-as-pipe approach, and have 
>both developed better ways and practised them, despite usually less 
>than cosy relations with the likes of news editors (the reason about 
>two-thirds of my working career has been as a freelancer).
>
>The back cover of Harold Evans's "Pictures on a page" has the 
>headline: "Why is the girl in the centre smiling?" Below that is a 
>photograph of a bunch of people on a beach, worried onlookers 
>surrounding lifesavers and a medic treating a man lying unconscious 
>on the sand, and the girl, kneeling beside him, smiling up at the 
>camera. The caption: "Her fiance lies at death's door after being 
>rescued from the sea. She smiles because she saw a press cameraman 
>and knew her picture was going in the papers. The way 
>photo-journalism changes - as well as reflects - the world we see is 
>one of the themes of this fascinating book."
>
>>In Bush's case the best shot has to be as he goes under for the last
>>time.
>
>You'd wait for the "best" shot?
>
>>Best Regards
>>Fred
>>
>>On Wednesday, Feb 18, 2004, at 20:14 US/Eastern, Appal Energy wrote:
>>
>> > Actually, there is a third answer to this...
>
>What is it, Todd? Here's one possible third answer - I'm a lousy 
>swimmer. And a fourth - journalist or not, I wouldn't take pictures 
>of someone drowning, no matter who it was.  Yet... as always, it 
>depends... I have a file of 

[biofuel] George Forman Grill Grease-Catching Feature

[murdoch]

http://www.ihome.com/collection/collection_103289.asp?strShopperId=4712086673219EDBF7D2998E0D94EF0C6B58260A44CDE094

As we can see in the photo, one of the good features of the Grill is
that it comes with a handy device for catching grease.  This grill is
one of the kitchen ideas to really make it and become part of many
homes (including mine). Managing the grease is (it seems to me) a
problem with much indoor cooking of meat.

Since the manufacturer seems open to ideas, I wonder if they've
contemplated enclosing some educational literature or sales material
with some of the grill sales, to help homeowners to find better uses
for that grease than throwing it away.  If not making fuel for
oneself, then collecting it for a friend or local organization?  Maybe
even selling it if an energy crisis causes any dramatic changes in
fuel pricing economics?


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/