Re: [Biofuel] Abuse [was] It's imperialism, stupid
Mike, In essence, what you are saying, is that Keith is among the best moderators out there. It might be explained by that he after all is professional, but it is also a skill in dealing with people. So, if you want this as a topic, it will be a well deserved love song to Keith. It would not be the first time. Hakan At 09:44 PM 7/16/2005, you wrote: Kieth wrote ...too much abuse, and not only of the list. I was kicked off a Yahoo! Group today: RefrigeratorAlternatives Maybe it was me. However, some shared my opinion that there were too much hostilities toward fellow members. Unlike this group, I found that going a little off topic earned you a nasty-gram from the moderator (who referred to it as my group). Since your getting the story from only one side, I'll stop there. I've been a part of this list for a while so you have some experience about my opinions, my attitude and my writing style. Of course I've made mistakes, used strong language and debated aggressively. However, I don't think the moderator of RefrigeratorAlternatives truly has the interest of the group in mind. I'm very disappointed. It looked like a great topic for an on-line discussion. Is there anyone else who had a similar experience? Mike Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the encouragement, Mike. Kieth, Earlier, you mentioned how companies like Monsanto try to infiltrate groups like ours. In addition I'm sure that there are many emotionally driven and misguided individuals like Tim who are acting on their own. Yes, an endless trickle, Chinese water torture, LOL! Sorry, I know it's not funny, I am sympathetic. Everybody, soon or late, sits down to a banquet of consequences, said Robert Louis Stevenson, and I don't envy some of these people the feast that awaits them. But it's not a workable sympathy, too much abuse, and not only of the list. It's the garbageman people take to abusing when the garbage happens to be them, and that's me, LOL! But if you don't like bouncers then shape up and learn how to behave. Quite often it works out that way! too, I'm happy to say. Otherwise it's just a job, it's not a matter of personalities, which I've said before, and it's true, but these people will never believe that. What they want to believe is their problem. When I told Tim I wouldn't let him lead the list in another crazed circular argument like he'd done before, he answered: Oh, so is this about list leadership? Huh? Another guy who got abusive in this thread told me I'm a control freak. On the contrary, when we moved the list from Yahoo last year it was less control I was after. Much of our thinking was in helping the list to be a self-moderating community, which it kept trying to be but it kept getting shot down because one or two simply had the wrong attitude - regardless of their views, they didn't think of communities, they thought of themselves. I posted a few messages about this at the time. The second Welcome message sent onlist is from the administrat! ors - rules, of a sort. The gist of it is that the list is an online community, for sharing and mutual benefit, not a shop where you can be demanding and the customer's always right. Once you realize that it's all fairly obvious. If you come to a mailing list via Yahoo though you might be more inclined to see it as a shop - the wrong expectations, and another reason for leaving there. It worked well, it's much more a self-moderating community now. In the past, I've mentioned (rhetorically) that we have strength in solidarity. The fact that we can debate about the details but stay unanimous about almost everything else There are so many different kinds of people here, from different backgrounds, different places, different cultures. It's great! Solidarity in diversity. shows extraordinary strength and fidelity for this type of forum and I think we stand a better chance than most in defendi! ng ourselves and this group from such kinds of sabotage. I'm glad other list members think that too, so do I, but on the other hand I don't want to be overconfident. The fakes at Bivings did a lot of harm, they're not dumb. The Margolis article below is a great example of how this list is an extremely important conduit for getting the truth out to potentially millions of people. Many in this group have contributed in big ways and others are inspired to do the same. You have earned many titles Kieth. Yes! Though you wouldn't want to hang all of them on your wall. One which I feel you've earned many times over is that of activist. Through this group and your work with JTF, you have directly effected the lives of thousands of people (myself included). ...for what it's worth. It's worth a lot to me Mike, many thanks. Regards Keith Mike ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
[Biofuel] Turd Blossom aka Karl Rove
'Turd Blossom' in full flower: Traitor in the White House July 15, 2005 By Bill Press http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45290 Nixon had Watergate. Reagan, Contragate. Clinton, Monicagate. Now George W. Bush has own scandal: Turdgate. Named after Karl Rove, the top White House aide whom Bush calls Turd Blossom a term of endearment unique to Texas. It started in January 2003, when President Bush, using his State of the Union address to build a case for war in Iraq, accused Saddam Hussein of shopping for yellowcake uranium in Niger. Bush's dishonesty was revealed in July by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Writing in the New York Times, Wilson reported that he'd been sent to Africa by the CIA, before the speech, to investigate the yellowcake claim and came back and reported it was bogus. An embarrassed White House had to admit Bush was wrong. That's when the Bush smear machine kicked in. Eight days later, citing sources at the White House, columnist Bob Novak charged that Wilson was not to be taken seriously because he'd actually been sent to Niger by his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame. The next week, Matt Cooper wrote a follow-up piece for Time magazine, also based on anonymous White House sources. Judith Miller researched, but did not publish, an article for the New York Times. That might look like business as usual. Only one problem. In this case, the leak blew the cover of an undercover CIA agent working on weapons of mass destruction. That's a federal crime. A special prosecutor was named to investigate who in the Bush White House broke the law. For two years, Turd Blossom himself denied any involvement in the case. He also instructed hapless White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to tell reporters: I have spoken to Karl Rove. He was not involved in this. Now we know that is a big, fat lie. Rove's attorney admits he spoke with Cooper four days before Novak wrote his column. In an e-mail obtained and published by Newsweek, Cooper recounts having been warned by Rove to distrust Wilson because it was Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD issues, who authorized the trip. And there you have it: Turd Blossom busted. On two counts. Rove is clearly guilty of a political dirty trick: attacking the credibility of Wilson, simply because he dared question Bush's phony arguments for the war in Iraq. This is a pattern for the Bush White House. They targeted similar, personal, attacks against Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill. But Rove is also guilty of something far more serious. By revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent, he compromised our nation's security and put countless lives at risk. That's nothing short of an act of treason. Much worse than Nixon's goons breaking into Democratic Party headquarters. And much, much worse than Clinton's act of consensual oral sex. But Republicans don't care. They've launched an orchestrated campaign to defend Turd Blossom. In official talking points distributed by the Republican National Committee, they insist, for example, that Rove did not call Cooper, but that Cooper called him. So what? What matters is not who placed the call, but what was said during the call. The GOP cheat sheet also credits Rove with trying to do Cooper a favor, by warning him about Wilson. The Bush administration going out its way to help the liberal media? That, you must admit, is laugh-out-loud funny. Rove apologists also make a big deal out of the fact that Wilson endorsed John Kerry for president. Yes, he did but not until October 2003, three months after Rove had attacked him and blown his wife's cover. By then, can you blame him? Weakest of all, Republicans argue that Turd Blossom didn't actually give Cooper the name of Wilson's wife. Give me a break. In July 2003, simply Googling Joe Wilson would tell you his wife was the former Valerie Plame. What Google did not tell you was that she worked for the CIA. That's what Rove let out of the bag. That's where Rove committed treason. The big question is: Now that we know, without a doubt, it was Karl Rove who spilled the beans, why does he still have a job at the White House? President Bush promised to fire anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak. Why he hasn't fired Rove? We know the answer. Bush can't fire Karl Rove. Without Turd Blossom, who would pull the puppet strings? Bill Press is a political analyst for MSNBC, a syndicated columnist, and the author of Spin This! ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Burning glycerol for heat / Acrolein
The chemical kinetics of fire is not understood very well. Smoking a cigarette will produce thousands of intermediate radicals, which will lead to thousands of end products, many of which are harmful. Altering temperature and other variables will lead to different end products. So unless you have empirical evidence on a specific substance, it's hard to know what is going to happen. I know people do burn it as a fuel, but I wouldn't recommend doing it in your kitchen, for instance. R Del Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all,I am considering the use of my glycerol coproduct as a burner fuel for process heat generation (indirect via boiler).My glycerol generated while running 20% methanol is of very low viscosity (mostly likely due to the excess methanol), and seems quite usable. This may be more advantageous than recover when heating large batches.I have been searching for emissions information on this, as I have heard that toxic acrolein is produced.when glycerin is burnt at temps below 1800degF. (I have heard this about WVO/SVO usage as well).My question is how much?...as acrolein is also produced burning gasoline, diesel, and cigarettes.It seems that if the amount of acrolein produced by burning the gylerol waste is LESS than the amount that would be produced by burning the amount of petro diesel that is offset by the biodiesel..then net amount of acrolein is still a reduction, and hence acceptable.Any data out there?Any chemists out there who may be able to calculate an approximation?Molecular formula C3H4O (..that's little 3, little 4)-Rob..Info on Acrolein:Acrolein is principally used as a chemical intermediate in the production of acrylic acid and itsesters. Acrolein is used directly as an aquatic herbicide and algicide in irrigation canals, as amicrobiocide in oil wells, liquid hydrocarbon fuels, cooling-water towers and water treatmentponds, and as a slimicide in the manufacture of paper (IARC, 1985). Combustion of fossil fuels,tobacco smoke, and pyrolyzed animal and vegetable fats contribute to the environmentalprevalence of acrolein (IARC, 1985). Acrolein is a byproduct of fires and is one of several acutetoxicants which firefighters must endure. It is also formed from atmospheric reactions of 1,3-butadiene. The annual statewide industrial emissions from facilities reporting under the AirToxics Hot Spots Act in California based on the most recent inventory were estimated to be54,565 pounds of acrolein (CARB, 2000).CHRONIC TOXICITY SUMMARYACROLEIN (2-propenal, acraldehyde, allyl aldehyde, acryl aldehyde)CAS Registry Number: 107-02-8I. Chronic Toxicity SummaryInhalation reference exposure level 0.06 mg/m3 (0.03 ppb)Critical effect(s) Histological changes in nasal epithelium in ratsHazard index target(s) Respiratory system; eyesII. Physical and Chemical Properties (HSDB, 1995)Description Colorless or yellow liquid with piercing,disagreeable odorMolecular formula C3H4O (oops..thats litte 3, little 4)Molecular weight 56.1 g/molDensity 0.843 g/cm3 @ 20°CBoiling point 53°CMelting point -88°CVapor pressure 220 torr @ 20°COdor threshold 160 ppb (370 mg/m3)(Amoore and Hautala, 1983)Solubility Soluble in ethanol, diethyl ether, and up to 20% w/v in waterConversion factor 1 ppm = 2.3 mg/m3 @ 25° C ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Compost Update
We have a new neighbor, a friendly, English fellow who noticed that I was turning my compost pile this morning. He came over, interested in my work, and asked several questions about composting. We also talked about my garden, which is, apparently, a rather hot topic of discussion among the people who live around here . . . I think my current batch of compost is too wet. After a couple of weeks in the bin, the bottom of the pile is dark brown, crumbly, smells like the forest floor and is crawling with worms and other small creatures. However, many of the long fibers from plant roots and stalks haven't fully decomposed (no, I don't own a shredder!), and the middle of the pile looks too wet. I've mixed in some dry material and put it back together, leaving it for the detritus creatures to handle. My questions with respect to all of this relates to digging compost in around my trees. When we go about weeding, I've noticed that digging near the trees runs a high risk of damaging surface roots. How can I dig all of this compost around my trees without wrecking the root network? Do I just pile the compost onto the surface and let it decompose further into the ground, or should I be less concerned about surface roots and dig the composted material into the soil around the drip line? How far down should I be going? Is this time of year the best time of year to be doing this, or should I save the compost for the fall? robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782 Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Abuse [was] It's imperialism, stupid
Hakan, I don't disagree with your comments about Kieth. After all, his background in journalism and his understanding of what the "free press" really means, helps keep the group's objectivity. Kieth: were talkin' about ya -- hope you don't mind :-) My biggest concern is what to do about a moderator who does not understand the responsibility associated withauthority and becomes zealous withpower for his/her own personalgratification -- authority for it's own sake. We could be talking about a group of thousands who eventually decide to tolerateabusive behavior because it is outweighed by the information gained. I would think that many in this list take issue with that -- especially having discussed our political climate. I've personally seen (off-line, in-person) clubs and associations who have adopted this behavior and they give me the creeps. I'm not a sociologist or mental health professional, but I draw parallels between this kind of small scale, group behavior and cults or even dictatorships. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this. I just find it difficult toactively resist abuse of power off-line and tolerate it on-line. MikeHakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike,In essence, what you are saying, is that Keith is among the best moderators out there. It might be explained by that he after all is professional, but it is also a skill in dealing with people. So, if you want this as a topic, it will be a well deserved "love song" to Keith. It would not be the first time.HakanAt 09:44 PM 7/16/2005, you wrote:Kieth wrote "...too much abuse, and not only of the list."I was kicked off a Yahoo! Group today: RefrigeratorAlternativesMaybe it was me. However, some shared my opinion that there were too much hostilities toward fellow members. Unlike this group, I found that going a little off topic earned you a nasty-gram from the moderator (who referred to it as "my group"). Since your getting the story from only one side, I'll stop there.I've been a part of this list for a while so you have some experience about my opinions, my attitude and my writing style. Of course I've made mistakes, used strong language and debated aggressively. However, I don't think the moderator of RefrigeratorAlternatives truly has the interest of the group in mind.I'm very disappointed. It looked like a great topic for an on-line discussion.Is there anyone else who had a similar experience?MikeKeith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:Thanks for the encouragement, Mike. Kieth, Earlier, you mentioned how companies like Monsanto try to infiltrate groups like ours. In addition I'm sure that there are many emotionally driven and misguided individuals like Tim who are acting on their own.Yes, an endless trickle, Chinese water torture, LOL!Sorry, I know it's not funny, I am sympathetic. "Everybody, soon orlate, sits down to a banquet of consequences," said Robert LouisStevenson, and I don't envy some of these people the feast thatawaits them. But it's not a workable sympathy, too much abuse, andnot only of the list. It's the garbageman people take to abusing whenthe garbage happens to be them, and that's me, LOL! But if you don'tlike bouncers then shape up and learn how to behave. Quite often itworks out that way! too, I'm happy to say. Otherwise it's just a job,it's not a matter of personalities, which I've said before, and it'strue, but these people will never believe that. What they want tobelieve is their problem.When I told Tim I wouldn't let him lead the list in another crazedcircular argument like he'd done before, he answered: "Oh, so is thisabout list leadership?" Huh? Another guy who got abusive in thisthread told me I'm a control freak.On the contrary, when we moved the list from Yahoo last year it wasless control I was after. Much of our thinking was in helping thelist to be a self-moderating community, which it kept trying to bebut it kept getting shot down because one or two simply had the wrongattitude - regardless of their views, they didn't think ofcommunities, they thought of themselves. I posted a few messagesabout this at the time. "The second Welcome message sent onlist isfrom the administrat! ors - rules, of a sort. The gist of it is thatthe list is an online community, for sharing and mutual benefit, nota shop where you can be demanding and the customer's always right.Once you realize that it's all fairly obvious. If you come to amailing list via Yahoo though you might be more inclined to see it asa shop - the wrong expectations, and another reason for leavingthere."It worked well, it's much more a self-moderating community now. In the past, I've mentioned (rhetorically) that we have strength in solidarity. The fact that we can debate about the details but stay unanimous about almost everything elseThere are so many different kinds of people here, from differentbackgrounds, different places, different cultures. It's great!Solidarity in diversity. shows extraordinary strength and fidelity for this type of forum
Re: [Biofuel] Burning glycerol for heat / Acrolein
How about combining the glycerin with nitrogen to create nitroglycerin? I know, nitrogen is explosive but so is hydrogen. The engines in our vehicles are using what is called "explosion propulsion". Exploding fuel pushes against pistons which are linked to a shaft, which is linked to the transmission. There must be a safe way to use nitroglycerin. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The chemical kinetics of fire is not understood very well. Smoking a cigarette will produce thousands of intermediate radicals, which will lead to thousands of end products, many of which are harmful. Altering temperature and other variables will lead to different end products. So unless you have empirical evidence on a specific substance, it's hard to know what is going to happen. I know people do burn it as a fuel, but I wouldn't recommend doing it in your kitchen, for instance. R Del Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, I am considering the use of my glycerol coproduct as a burner fuel for process heat generation (indirect via boiler). My glycerol generated while running 20% methanol is of very low viscosity (mostly likely due to the excess methanol), and seems quite usable. This may be more advantageous than recover when heating large batches. I have been searching for emissions information on this, as I have heard that toxic acrolein is produced.when glycerin is burnt at temps below 1800degF. (I have heard this about WVO/SVO usage as well). My question is how much?...as acrolein is also produced burning gasoline, diesel, and cigarettes. It seems that if the amount of acrolein produced by burning the gylerol waste is LESS than the amount that would be produced by burning the amount of petro diesel that is offset by the biodiesel..then net amount of acrolein is still a reduction, and hence acceptable. Any data out there? Any chemists out there who may be able to calculate an approximation? Molecular formula C3H4O (..that's little 3, little 4) -Rob .. Info on Acrolein: Acrolein is principally used as a chemical intermediate in the production of acrylic acid and its esters. Acrolein is used directly as an aquatic herbicide and algicide in irrigation canals, as a microbiocide in oil wells, liquid hydrocarbon fuels, cooling-water towers and water treatment ponds, and as a slimicide in the manufacture of paper (IARC, 1985). Combustion of fossil fuels, tobacco smoke, and pyrolyzed animal and vegetable fats contribute to the environmental prevalence of acrolein (IARC, 1985). Acrolein is a byproduct of fires and is one of several acute toxicants which firefighters must endure. It is also formed from atmospheric reactions of 1,3- butadiene. The annual statewide industrial emissions from facilities reporting under the Air Toxics Hot Spots Act in California based on the most recent inventory were estimated to be 54,565 pounds of acrolein (CARB, 2000). CHRONIC TOXICITY SUMMARY ACROLEIN (2-propenal, acraldehyde, allyl aldehyde, acryl aldehyde) CAS Registry Number: 107-02-8 I. Chronic Toxicity Summary Inhalation reference exposure level 0.06 mg/m3 (0.03 ppb) Critical effect(s) Histological changes in nasal epithelium in rats Hazard index target(s) Respiratory system; eyes II. Physical and Chemical Properties (HSDB, 1995) Description Colorless or yellow liquid with piercing, disagreeable odor Molecular formula C3H4O (oops..thats litte 3, little 4) Molecular weight 56.1 g/mol Density 0.843 g/cm3 @ 20C Boiling point 53C Melting point -88C Vapor pressure 220 torr @ 20C Odor threshold 160 ppb (370 mg/m3) (Amoore and Hautala, 1983) Solubility Soluble in ethanol, diethyl ether, and up to 20% w/v in water Conversion factor 1 ppm = 2.3 mg/m3 @ 25 C ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives
Re: [Biofuel] Turd Blossom aka Karl Rove
Bill Press put his finger on it. We can't afford to lose Turd Blossom. Dick Chaney can't run the country alone. Rick MH wrote: The big question is: Now that we know, without a doubt, it was Karl Rove who spilled the beans, why does he still have a job at the White House? President Bush promised to fire anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak. Why he hasn't fired Rove? We know the answer. Bush can't fire Karl Rove. Without Turd Blossom, who would pull the puppet strings? Bill Press is a political analyst for MSNBC, a syndicated columnist, and the author of Spin This! ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Burning glycerol for heat / Acrolein
nitrogen is explosive? .. crap. no one lite a match... lol... the earths atmosphere is 78.084% nitrogen Ray J r wrote: How about combining the glycerin with nitrogen to create nitroglycerin? I know, nitrogen is explosive but so is hydrogen. The engines in our vehicles are using ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] biofuels would need more energy to produce than they can provide
according to anglo-us scientific studies. FD Des études scientifiques portent un coup à l'éthanol 07/07/2005 Journal de l'environnement Le développement de l'éthanol utilisé comme biocarburant pourrait avoir des conséquences environnementales négatives, estiment des chercheurs. Deux recherches scientifiques viennent de remettre en cause l'intérêt du développement de l'éthanol comme biocarburant alternatif à l'essence. D'abord, une étude scientifique américaine parue dans Bioscience conclut que l'éthanol à usage de carburant réduit la biodiversité, augmente l'érosion du sol, et consomme de grandes quantités d'eau pour le nettoyage des cannes à sucre, de l'ordre de 3.900 litres par tonne. Décrits par Marcelo Dias de Oliveira et ses collègues, de l'université d'Etat de Washington, ces impacts environnementaux, uniquement liés à la culture de la canne à sucre, pourraient provoquer un coup de frein au développement de l'éthanol comme carburant qui s'est justement appuyé sur un argument environnemental: le CO2 produit par la combustion de l'éthanol est compensé par la photosynthèse de la plante, les seules émissions de CO2 provenant des transports et du processus industriel. Or actuellement, cet argument est aussi reconsidéré par les scientifiques. Cette fois-ci par une étude anglo-américaine, publiée dans Nature resources research, qui estime «qu'il n'y a aucun bénéfice énergétique à utiliser la biomasse des plantes pour fabriquer du carburant.» Selon les chercheurs de l'université de Cornell et de Berkeley, le process de fabrication d'éthanol à partir de maïs exigerait 29% d'énergie de plus que celle que l'éthanol peut produire comme carburant, et celle du bois 57% de plus. Les résultats du biodiesel apparaissent du même ordre avec un besoin en énergie pour le produire 27% plus important que l'énergie dégagée en tant que carburant pour le soja, et 118% pour le tournesol. A noter, les scientifiques n'ont pas indiqué les besoins énergétiques d'une raffinerie traditionnelle. «Utiliser de la biomasse n'est donc pas une stratégie soutenable», juge David Pimental, de l'université de Cornell, dans un communiqué de presse. En outre, ces résultats montrent que les biocarburants ne permettent pas de s'affranchir de la dépendance énergétique. Or il s'agit d'un argument essentiel pour le Brésil, où l'éthanol de sucre de canne compte pour 40% du carburant consommé par les véhicules dans le pays, mais aussi pour les Etats-Unis et pour Europe où les biocarburants doivent atteindre un taux d'incorporation de 5,75% d'ici 2010. Reste que le véritable avenir de l'utilisation de la biomasse dans les véhicules est le BTL (Biomass to liquids), un gaz de synthèse, pour la plupart des spécialistes. C'est d'ailleurs la position décrite dans l'étude «Well to wheels» (1) du Centre commun de recherche de la commissions européenne (2). Réalisé avec la collaboration de l'ensemble des constructeurs européens et américains et des raffineurs, le rapport établit que «le BTL a le potentiel pour économiser substantiellement plus de gaz à effet de serre que les options de biocarburants actuels à coût comparable et mérite d'être davantage étudié.» (1) Le rapport «Du puits à la roue» se nomme précisément «of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the european context». (2) Plus connu sous son nom anglais Joint research center, le Centre commun de recherche a été créé pour aider aux décisions politiques de l'Union européenne. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html (July 5, 2005 Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy By Susan S. Lang) http://www.journaldelenvironnement.net/fr/login.asp?page=%2Ffr%2Fdocument%2F detail%2Easp%3Fid%3D12508%26idThema%3D6%26idSousThema%3D32%26type%3DJDE%26ct x%3D2 59 (Pour accéder à ce document, merci de vous inscrire gratuitement au JDLE) http://www.6clones.com/ (Bienvenue sur le portail des biocarburants de l'écologie et de l'environnement) http://www.verasun.com/releases_6_14_05.htm (Technology Breakthrough Enables Biodiesel Production from Ethanol Plants) http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2005/06/29/news/latest_news/48908bd feba06fd38625702f004ad254.txt (Du maïs dans le moteur, Sioux City Journal, 29/06/05) http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=310126 (Préférer sa voiture au bus peut vous conduire au tribunal Dix femmes de ménage organisaient leur covoiturage pour aller travailler au Luxembourg. Une société de bus les assigne pour «concurrence déloyale».Par Thomas CALINON samedi 09 juillet 2005 Liberation) ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
[Biofuel] Energy ration cards for everyone planned
Energy ration cards for everyone planned By Charles Clover, Environment Editor 02/07/2005 Telegraph.co.uk, UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/02/nrg02.xmlsS heet=/portal/2005/07/02/ixportaltop.html [Quand le ministre de l'environnement de Tony Blair évoque le rationnement de l'énergie pour parvenir à diminuer de 2/3 les émissions de GES d'ici à 2050...] Every individual in Britain could be issued with a personal carbon allowance - a form of energy rationing - within a decade, under proposals being considered seriously by the Government. Ministers say that increasingly clear evidence that climate change is happening more quickly than expected has made it necessary to think the unthinkable. Elliot Morley: ‘We should have an open mind’ They believe they need to start a public debate on energy rationing now if Tony Blair's aspiration of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds by 2050 is to be achieved. Under the scheme for domestic tradeable quotas (DTQs), or personal carbon allowances, presented to the Treasury this week, everyone - from the Queen to the poorest people living on state benefits - would have the same annual carbon allocation. This would be contained electronically on a ration card, which could be the proposed ID card or a carbon card based on supermarket loyalty cards. It would have to be handed over every time a form of non-renewable energy was purchased - at the filling station, or when buying tickets for a flight - for points to be deducted. High users of energy would have to purchase points from low users, or from a central carbon bank, if they wanted to use more energy. The scheme applies the principle of carbon trading already accepted for industry. The implications of domestic carbon trading have been studied for two years by the Tyndall centre for climate change research, which says the scheme is feasible, affordable and fair. The virtues of the scheme, according to Mr Blair's green advisers, the Sustainable Development Commission, are that it would provide a virtually guaranteed way of reducing fossil fuel emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. That is the amount scientists say is necessary to avoid unacceptable climate change, such as the switching-off of the Gulf Stream, the melting of the Greenland glaciers and the die-back of the Amazon rain forest. Domestic tradeable quotas have many advantages over carbon taxes, not least that they are independent from political control, the commission says. It has recommended that the Government formally consider domestic tradeable quotas, within two years. In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Elliot Morley, the minister for the environment and climate change, said the Government was committed to a review of its policies by the end of the year. We should have an open mind about the kind of levers that we apply and not be afraid to think the unthinkable, he said. It is fair to say that for a lot of people personal carbon allowances falls into the unthinkable category. I don't think we should dismiss these approaches. There might be a decade of debate in it before we get anywhere with it, but my job is to consider quite radical new approaches. The problems were the cost and making it work as a system that prevented cheating. Kevin Anderson, of the Tyndall Centre, said: Once you have accepted that we need a reduction of 60 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 - which it seems now that all parties have - you need to start soon. We saw what the public thought of carbon taxes in the protests over the fuel tax escalator. The beauty of personal carbon allowances is that you only need to make about a 1.25 per cent reduction in carbon emissions every year. This is a way that enables us to make the necessary annual changes without radical adjustments to our lives. It is about making the small changes year by year. It won't stop us going on holiday. But it might constrain how many times we fly. This could be up and running within four to 10 years. A Private Member's Bill to establish DTQs and a trading system was introduced recently by the Labour MP Colin Challen, but this is the first time it has been seriously considered by ministers. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Généraliser les biocarburants, une fausse bonne idée
From The Guardian Bruxelles wishes 20% of fuel from vegetal source in 2020. To reach that goal, UK should use all it's agriculture. Généraliser les biocarburants, une fausse bonne idée George Monbiot The Guardian Courrier international - n° 764 - 23 juin 2005 http://www.courrierinternational.com/article.asp?obj_id=52827provenance=zop .couverture Bruxelles souhaite que 20 % du carburant soit d’origine végétale en 2020. Pour ce faire, le Royaume-Uni devrait y consacrer la totalité de ses terres agricoles. Les biocarburants, fabriqués à partir d’huiles végétales, de déchets agricoles ou de bois, suscitent un grand enthousiasme. En brûlant, ils renvoient simplement dans l’atmosphère le gaz carbonique absorbé par les plantes durant leur croissance. L’abandon des combustibles fossiles au profit du biogazole et du bioalcool est présenté comme le remède aux changements climatiques. L’Union européenne (UE) souhaite que 6 % du carburant utilisé en 2010 soit du biogazole, et 20 % en 2020. Pour atteindre ces objectifs, le gouvernement britannique a réduit la taxe sur les biocarburants de 20 pence [0,30 euro] par litre, tandis que l’UE verse aux agriculteurs 45 euros par hectare pour les cultures adéquates. Tout le monde est content. Les paysans et l’industrie chimique peuvent développer de nouveaux marchés, l’Etat peut respecter ses engagements en matière de réduction des émissions de gaz carbonique, et les écologistes peuvent saluer cette contribution au ralentissent du réchauffement de la planète. Les partisans de ces combustibles sont bourrés de bonnes intentions, mais ils ont tort. Utilisés en l’état, à très petite échelle, les biocarburants sont inoffensifs. Mais les projets de l’UE exigent des cultures spécialement destinées à la production de ces combustibles. Dès que l’on réfléchit à tout ce que cela implique, on s’aperçoit que le remède est aussi mauvais que le mal. Au Royaume-Uni, le trafic routier consomme 37,6 millions de tonnes de produits pétroliers par an. La culture d’oléagineux la plus productive dans ce pays est celle du colza, avec 3 à 3,5 tonnes par hectare. Une tonne de graines de colza donnant 415 kilos de biogazole, on obtient 1,45 tonne de carburant par hectare. Pour faire rouler tous nos véhicules au biogazole, il faudrait donc 25,9 millions d’hectares, alors que le Royaume-Uni n’en compte que 5,7 millions. Et pour atteindre l’ objectif plus modeste de l’UE (20 % de biogazole en 2020) il faudrait consacrer la quasi-totalité de nos terres agricoles au colza. Si le même phénomène se produisait à l’échelle européenne, l’effet sur l’ approvisionnement alimentaire serait catastrophique : on passerait d’un excédent net à un déficit net. Et si, comme le réclament certains, l’ expérience était étendue à l’échelle mondiale, alors l’essentiel des terres labourables de la planète serait destiné à produire de quoi alimenter les automobiles. Cette perspective peut sembler ridicule. S’il existait une demande alimentaire non satisfaite, le marché ne s’assurerait-il pas que les cultures servent d’abord à nourrir les hommes ? Rien ne permet de l’ affirmer. Le marché réagit à l’argent, pas aux besoins. Or les gens qui possèdent une voiture ont plus d’argent que ceux qui risquent de mourir de faim. S’ils sont en concurrence, ce sont les automobilistes qui gagneront. Quelque chose d’assez comparable est déjà en train de se produire. Alors que 800 millions de personnes souffrent de malnutrition, l’accroissement de la production agricole sert à nourrir les animaux : depuis 1950 le nombre de têtes de bétail dans le monde a quintuplé. Tout simplement parce que ceux qui consomment de la viande et des laitages ont un plus grand pouvoir d’ achat que ceux qui n’achètent que des produits issus de cultures vivrières. Rouler sucré L’éthanol fabriqué à partir de bagasse (résidus de canne à sucre) représente aujourd’hui 40 % du carburant utilisé au Brésil, constate The New York Times. Dans ce pays, un acheteur de voiture neuve sur trois choisit un véhicule “flexible”– qui peut rouler à l’essence, à l’éthanol ou avec un mélange des deux. Cette année, 67 % de la récolte brésilienne de canne à sucre devrait être utilisée pour produire du carburant. http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0,36-664856,0.html (L'Afrique a besoin d'énergies renouvelables, par Mersie Ejigu LE MONDE | 22.06.05) --- --- 6- SUBSTITUTION - Le nucléaire ne fera pas rouler les voitures ! Courrier international - n° 764 - 23 juin 2005 http://www.courrierinternational.com/article.asp?obj_id=52831provenance=zop .couverture Le président Bush propose de réduire les importations de pétrole en faisant davantage appel au nucléaire. Mais, souligne The New York Times, les réacteurs nucléaires produisent de l’électricité, pas du pétrole. Et le pétrole produit peu d’électricité. Le nucléaire génère 8 % de l’énergie consommée aux
[Biofuel] theoretical and practical questions
Hello All, I am a beginner with biodiesel and i did a lot of reading the last few months and i did quite some test batches with unused sunflower oil with the single stage method (as is advised). Now i have some practical questions and theoretical questions. Practical questions: When you are finished with making the BD (ready to put in the car) and you take a small sample of this and shake it with an equal amount of water in a glass jar the water and BD separate, should the BD layer be completey clean and clear after few minutes? How can you test if your final product is good enough to put in you car? I also have some questions about washing my test batches. As i am a chemist and work in a laboratory all my test batches were made in laboratory conditions. After separating the glycerol layer from the BD layer, i washed the BD 3 times with water. Then i filtered the BD over a coffee filter and the BD looked really nice (clean, clear). But when i shake this BD with water again, the BD layer looks not clear again, and it looks like there is still soap in it. How do you know when you are finished washing the BD and should i filter it after every wash? Theoretical problems As i live in Holland and it can get very could in winter, i am also interested in the 2 stage method because BD made with the 2 stage method works better in colder conditions. But what is the chemical difference between BD made with the single stage and BD with the second stage? In my laboratory we also analyze fatty acids and we also make FAME to analyze with GC. The difference with making BD and FAME to analyze with GC is that we also add Borotrifluoride-methanol complex as a catalyst for...? Nobody at my jobs does know why and i asked 2 PhD in organic chemistry but they also dont know. So does anyone know why this catalyst is added and what it does exactly. Would it help us to when processing our BD? Hopefully someone can help me. Greetings, Marc I ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Turd Blossom aka Karl Rove
While I do agree that the cover up by the Whitehouse is a disgrace and the Bush smear campaign that started all this is unacceptable, Rove probably did not break any laws. Plame was not undercover at the time the column was printed and had not been since 1997. Apparently, ambassador Joseph Wilson and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997 From http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a covert agent must have been on an overseas assignment within the last five years. The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003. What do others think? Regards, Bud - Original Message - From: MH [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 7:32 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Turd Blossom aka Karl Rove 'Turd Blossom' in full flower: Traitor in the White House July 15, 2005 By Bill Press http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45290 Nixon had Watergate. Reagan, Contragate. Clinton, Monicagate. Now George W. Bush has own scandal: Turdgate. Named after Karl Rove, the top White House aide whom Bush calls Turd Blossom - a term of endearment unique to Texas. It started in January 2003, when President Bush, using his State of the Union address to build a case for war in Iraq, accused Saddam Hussein of shopping for yellowcake uranium in Niger. Bush's dishonesty was revealed in July by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Writing in the New York Times, Wilson reported that he'd been sent to Africa by the CIA, before the speech, to investigate the yellowcake claim and came back and reported it was bogus. An embarrassed White House had to admit Bush was wrong. That's when the Bush smear machine kicked in. Eight days later, citing sources at the White House, columnist Bob Novak charged that Wilson was not to be taken seriously because he'd actually been sent to Niger by his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame. The next week, Matt Cooper wrote a follow-up piece for Time magazine, also based on anonymous White House sources. Judith Miller researched, but did not publish, an article for the New York Times. That might look like business as usual. Only one problem. In this case, the leak blew the cover of an undercover CIA agent working on weapons of mass destruction. That's a federal crime. A special prosecutor was named to investigate who in the Bush White House broke the law. For two years, Turd Blossom himself denied any involvement in the case. He also instructed hapless White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to tell reporters: I have spoken to Karl Rove. He was not involved in this. Now we know that is a big, fat lie. Rove's attorney admits he spoke with Cooper four days before Novak wrote his column. In an e-mail obtained and published by Newsweek, Cooper recounts having been warned by Rove to distrust Wilson because it was Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD issues, who authorized the trip. And there you have it: Turd Blossom busted. On two counts. Rove is clearly guilty of a political dirty trick: attacking the credibility of Wilson, simply because he dared question Bush's phony arguments for the war in Iraq. This is a pattern for the Bush White House. They targeted similar, personal, attacks against Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill. But Rove is also guilty of something far more serious. By revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent, he compromised our nation's security and put countless lives at risk. That's nothing short of an act of treason. Much worse than Nixon's goons breaking into Democratic Party headquarters. And much, much worse than Clinton's act of consensual oral sex. But Republicans don't care. They've launched an orchestrated campaign to defend Turd Blossom. In official talking points distributed by the Republican National Committee, they insist, for example, that Rove did not call Cooper, but that Cooper called him. So what? What matters is not who placed the call, but what was said during the call. The GOP cheat sheet also credits Rove with trying to do Cooper a favor, by warning him about Wilson. The Bush administration going out its way to help the liberal media? That, you must admit, is laugh-out-loud funny. Rove apologists also make a big deal out of the fact that Wilson endorsed John Kerry for president. Yes, he did - but not until October 2003, three months after Rove had attacked him and blown his wife's cover. By then, can you blame him? Weakest of all, Republicans argue that Turd Blossom didn't actually give Cooper the name of Wilson's wife. Give me a break. In July 2003, simply Googling Joe Wilson would tell you his wife was the former
RE: [Biofuel] Compost Update
Yes just pile it up ontop of the soil, you can losely rake or turn over the top of the soil to a shallow depth, it does depend on the type of tree however, pines seem to have intensive root structures close to the surface and most dicidueos(spelling?) don't, trees grow better if you piles all the compost into a big hole prior to planting. placing on top will help as the nutriants leech down through the soil. Its also good as it helps hold the moisture in the ground . trees hate grass and respond to a mulch around there roots, they naturally compete with each other, tress excrete an oil / substance that kills and inhibits grass growth. while grass trys to steal all the surface water Cheers, Bede -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of robert luis rabello Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 7:19 AM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Compost Update We have a new neighbor, a friendly, English fellow who noticed that I was turning my compost pile this morning. He came over, interested in my work, and asked several questions about composting. We also talked about my garden, which is, apparently, a rather hot topic of discussion among the people who live around here . . . I think my current batch of compost is too wet. After a couple of weeks in the bin, the bottom of the pile is dark brown, crumbly, smells like the forest floor and is crawling with worms and other small creatures. However, many of the long fibers from plant roots and stalks haven't fully decomposed (no, I don't own a shredder!), and the middle of the pile looks too wet. I've mixed in some dry material and put it back together, leaving it for the detritus creatures to handle. My questions with respect to all of this relates to digging compost in around my trees. When we go about weeding, I've noticed that digging near the trees runs a high risk of damaging surface roots. How can I dig all of this compost around my trees without wrecking the root network? Do I just pile the compost onto the surface and let it decompose further into the ground, or should I be less concerned about surface roots and dig the composted material into the soil around the drip line? How far down should I be going? Is this time of year the best time of year to be doing this, or should I save the compost for the fall? robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782 Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Turd Blossom aka Karl Rove
hi bud, this question of whether plame was or was not a covert operative, has already been circulating for at least a week. frankly, it smacks of the typical obfuscation and counter-fingerpointing tactics that these jerk-offs use all the time. i was unable to download the article you linked to, but there are huge ambiguities in the paragraph you cited: -who are these 'experts' that were consulted? is it specifically stated in the letter of the law that the assignment must be. . .long-term? if not, how many experts would argue to the contrary? -does the usa today article assert unequivocally that the law did not apply to plame as of the date of Novak's column? are they basing this merely on wilson's numerous references? -how many references are numerous? do they go into detail sufficient to conclude that plame had no further covert assignments after 1997? -suppose plame *were* given covert assignments since 1997. are we to assume that wilson would have casually made reference to this in his book (my wife had just returned from a wet works operation in venezuela. . . .)? or is it possible, since he couldn't just blurt out the fact that his wife was an undercover cia operative, that he inserted false details in his book? i highly doubt that conclusions about plame's status as an agent can be drawn from anything that is public record. nevertheless, it's certainly possible that rove did not break that particular law. that's up to prosecutor fitzgerald (a republican) to decide. would he have chewed up so much time and public resources pursuing an investigation that was based on a false premise? well, that too is possible. i don't share the widely held view of fitzgerald as a tough, independent, non-partisan law-and-order type. so, only time will tell what comes of the investigation. but this doesn't mean that rove didn't break other laws. there are very strict protocols that must be followed when revealing the identities (or activities IIRC) of intelligence personnel, and it seems pretty clear that rove did not (follow them). and, as you so rightly point out, that doesn't change the fact that the whole thing is a disgrace (well, i suppose it's a 'dis' race, too lol). cheers, -chris b. ---BeginMessage--- While I do agree that the cover up by the Whitehouse is a disgrace and the Bush smear campaign that started all this is unacceptable, Rove probably did not break any laws. Plame was not undercover at the time the column was printed and had not been since 1997. Apparently, ambassador Joseph Wilson and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997 From http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a covert agent must have been on an overseas assignment within the last five years. The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003. What do others think? Regards, Bud - Original Message - From: MH [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 7:32 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Turd Blossom aka Karl Rove 'Turd Blossom' in full flower: Traitor in the White House July 15, 2005 By Bill Press http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45290 Nixon had Watergate. Reagan, Contragate. Clinton, Monicagate. Now George W. Bush has own scandal: Turdgate. Named after Karl Rove, the top White House aide whom Bush calls Turd Blossom - a term of endearment unique to Texas. It started in January 2003, when President Bush, using his State of the Union address to build a case for war in Iraq, accused Saddam Hussein of shopping for yellowcake uranium in Niger. Bush's dishonesty was revealed in July by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Writing in the New York Times, Wilson reported that he'd been sent to Africa by the CIA, before the speech, to investigate the yellowcake claim and came back and reported it was bogus. An embarrassed White House had to admit Bush was wrong. That's when the Bush smear machine kicked in. Eight days later, citing sources at the White House, columnist Bob Novak charged that Wilson was not to be taken seriously because he'd actually been sent to Niger by his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame. The next week, Matt Cooper wrote a follow-up piece for Time magazine, also based on anonymous White House sources. Judith Miller researched, but did not publish, an article for the New York Times. That might look like business as usual. Only one problem. In this case, the leak blew the cover of an undercover CIA agent working on weapons of mass destruction. That's a federal crime. A special prosecutor was named to investigate who in the Bush White House broke the law. For two years, Turd
[Biofuel] RE: Turd Blossom
I love that name Turd Blossom. Although it may have a different meaning in Texas, it sure seems to describe him well. Throughout this entire event the White House Administration has denied all accountability for anyone on 'their' staff. Scott McLellan has also clearly and without ambiguity announced that Turd Blossom and his boss had NO INVOLVEMENT. Now see the video of him dancing when the press asks a few questions. http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scotty_Rove.mov -- Message: 3 Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:32:51 -0500 From: MH [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Turd Blossom aka Karl Rove To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 'Turd Blossom' in full flower: Traitor in the White House July 15, 2005 By Bill Press http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45290 Nixon had Watergate. Reagan, Contragate. Clinton, Monicagate. Now George W. Bush has own scandal: Turdgate. Named after Karl Rove, the top White House aide whom Bush calls Turd Blossom - a term of endearment unique to Texas. It started in January 2003, when President Bush, using his State of the Union address to build a case for war in Iraq, accused Saddam Hussein of shopping for yellowcake uranium in Niger. Bush's dishonesty was revealed in July by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Writing in the New York Times, Wilson reported that he'd been sent to Africa by the CIA, before the speech, to investigate the yellowcake claim and came back and reported it was bogus. An embarrassed White House had to admit Bush was wrong. That's when the Bush smear machine kicked in. Eight days later, citing sources at the White House, columnist Bob Novak charged that Wilson was not to be taken seriously because he'd actually been sent to Niger by his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame. The next week, Matt Cooper wrote a follow-up piece for Time magazine, also based on anonymous White House sources. Judith Miller researched, but did not publish, an article for the New York Times. That might look like business as usual. Only one problem. In this case, the leak blew the cover of an undercover CIA agent working on weapons of mass destruction. That's a federal crime. A special prosecutor was named to investigate who in the Bush White House broke the law. For two years, Turd Blossom himself denied any involvement in the case. He also instructed hapless White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to tell reporters: I have spoken to Karl Rove. He was not involved in this. Now we know that is a big, fat lie. Rove's attorney admits he spoke with Cooper four days before Novak wrote his column. In an e-mail obtained and published by Newsweek, Cooper recounts having been warned by Rove to distrust Wilson because it was Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD issues, who authorized the trip. And there you have it: Turd Blossom busted. On two counts. Rove is clearly guilty of a political dirty trick: attacking the credibility of Wilson, simply because he dared question Bush's phony arguments for the war in Iraq. This is a pattern for the Bush White House. They targeted similar, personal, attacks against Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill. But Rove is also guilty of something far more serious. By revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent, he compromised our nation's security and put countless lives at risk. That's nothing short of an act of treason. Much worse than Nixon's goons breaking into Democratic Party headquarters. And much, much worse than Clinton's act of consensual oral sex. But Republicans don't care. They've launched an orchestrated campaign to defend Turd Blossom. In official talking points distributed by the Republican National Committee, they insist, for example, that Rove did not call Cooper, but that Cooper called him. So what? What matters is not who placed the call, but what was said during the call. The GOP cheat sheet also credits Rove with trying to do Cooper a favor, by warning him about Wilson. The Bush administration going out its way to help the liberal media? That, you must admit, is laugh-out-loud funny. Rove apologists also make a big deal out of the fact that Wilson endorsed John Kerry for president. Yes, he did - but not until October 2003, three months after Rove had attacked him and blown his wife's cover. By then, can you blame him? Weakest of all, Republicans argue that Turd Blossom didn't actually give Cooper the name of Wilson's wife. Give me a break. In July 2003, simply Googling Joe Wilson would tell you his wife was the former Valerie Plame. What Google did not tell you was that she worked for the CIA. That's what Rove let out of the bag. That's where Rove committed treason. The big question is: Now that we know, without a doubt, it was Karl Rove who spilled the beans, why does he still have a job at the White House?
Re: [Biofuel] Burning glycerol for heat / Acrolein
LOL all jokes aside, though, that's actually an interesting idea. if it were possible to keep the N and glycerine separate, and inject them into the cylinder where they would combine, then explode. . . . of course, there's the question of how energy efficient this would be (i'm assuming it would be pretty efficient since nitroglycerine is so extremely explosive). and what emissions would be like. and whether creating nitroglycerine is as easy and simple as that in the first place. -chris In a message dated 7/17/05 2:46:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How about combining the glycerin with nitrogen to create nitroglycerin? I know, nitrogen is explosive but so is hydrogen. The engines in our vehicles are using what is called explosion propulsion. Exploding fuel pushes against pistons which are linked to a shaft, which is linked to the transmission. There must be a safe way to use nitroglycerin. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] biofuels would need more energy to produce than they canprovide
What a bunch of crap. I consider my time gathering waste oil and making bio-diesel as a hobby that also saves me money .Since I haven't bought blood fuel since Dec 02 I feel I am doing my part to promote a positive endevor (environment, local sustainability etc.) Another study found a 35% gain in energy making ethanol. I prefer to believe that bio-fuels are the way to go. - Original Message - From: F. Desprez [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel Biofuel@sustainablelists.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:47 PM Subject: [Biofuel] biofuels would need more energy to produce than they canprovide according to anglo-us scientific studies. FD Des études scientifiques portent un coup à l'éthanol 07/07/2005 Journal de l'environnement Le développement de l'éthanol utilisé comme biocarburant pourrait avoir des conséquences environnementales négatives, estiment des chercheurs. Deux recherches scientifiques viennent de remettre en cause l'intérêt du développement de l'éthanol comme biocarburant alternatif à l'essence. D'abord, une étude scientifique américaine parue dans Bioscience conclut que l'éthanol à usage de carburant réduit la biodiversité, augmente l'érosion du sol, et consomme de grandes quantités d'eau pour le nettoyage des cannes à sucre, de l'ordre de 3.900 litres par tonne. Décrits par Marcelo Dias de Oliveira et ses collègues, de l'université d'Etat de Washington, ces impacts environnementaux, uniquement liés à la culture de la canne à sucre, pourraient provoquer un coup de frein au développement de l'éthanol comme carburant qui s'est justement appuyé sur un argument environnemental: le CO2 produit par la combustion de l'éthanol est compensé par la photosynthèse de la plante, les seules émissions de CO2 provenant des transports et du processus industriel. Or actuellement, cet argument est aussi reconsidéré par les scientifiques. Cette fois-ci par une étude anglo-américaine, publiée dans Nature resources research, qui estime «qu'il n'y a aucun bénéfice énergétique à utiliser la biomasse des plantes pour fabriquer du carburant.» Selon les chercheurs de l'université de Cornell et de Berkeley, le process de fabrication d'éthanol à partir de maïs exigerait 29% d'énergie de plus que celle que l'éthanol peut produire comme carburant, et celle du bois 57% de plus. Les résultats du biodiesel apparaissent du même ordre avec un besoin en énergie pour le produire 27% plus important que l'énergie dégagée en tant que carburant pour le soja, et 118% pour le tournesol. A noter, les scientifiques n'ont pas indiqué les besoins énergétiques d'une raffinerie traditionnelle. «Utiliser de la biomasse n'est donc pas une stratégie soutenable», juge David Pimental, de l'université de Cornell, dans un communiqué de presse. En outre, ces résultats montrent que les biocarburants ne permettent pas de s'affranchir de la dépendance énergétique. Or il s'agit d'un argument essentiel pour le Brésil, où l'éthanol de sucre de canne compte pour 40% du carburant consommé par les véhicules dans le pays, mais aussi pour les Etats-Unis et pour Europe où les biocarburants doivent atteindre un taux d'incorporation de 5,75% d'ici 2010. Reste que le véritable avenir de l'utilisation de la biomasse dans les véhicules est le BTL (Biomass to liquids), un gaz de synthèse, pour la plupart des spécialistes. C'est d'ailleurs la position décrite dans l'étude «Well to wheels» (1) du Centre commun de recherche de la commissions européenne (2). Réalisé avec la collaboration de l'ensemble des constructeurs européens et américains et des raffineurs, le rapport établit que «le BTL a le potentiel pour économiser substantiellement plus de gaz à effet de serre que les options de biocarburants actuels à coût comparable et mérite d'être davantage étudié.» (1) Le rapport «Du puits à la roue» se nomme précisément «of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the european context». (2) Plus connu sous son nom anglais Joint research center, le Centre commun de recherche a été créé pour aider aux décisions politiques de l'Union européenne. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html (July 5, 2005 Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy By Susan S. Lang) http://www.journaldelenvironnement.net/fr/login.asp?page=%2Ffr%2Fdocument%2F detail%2Easp%3Fid%3D12508%26idThema%3D6%26idSousThema%3D32%26type%3DJDE%26ct x%3D2 59 (Pour accéder à ce document, merci de vous inscrire gratuitement au JDLE) http://www.6clones.com/ (Bienvenue sur le portail des biocarburants de l'écologie et de l'environnement) http://www.verasun.com/releases_6_14_05.htm (Technology Breakthrough Enables Biodiesel Production from Ethanol Plants) http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2005/06/29/news/latest_news/48908bd feba06fd38625702f004ad254.txt (Du maïs dans le moteur, Sioux City Journal, 29/06/05)
Re: [Biofuel] Burning glycerol for heat / Acrolein
Have the big black helicopters landed in your back yard yet? How 'bout the guys in the black suits? All you have to do now is type the word Jihad and. oops! Mike[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOLall jokes aside, though, that's actually an interesting idea. if it were possible to keep the N and glycerine separate, and inject them into the cylinder where they would combine, then explode. . . .of course, there's the question of how energy efficient this would be (i'm assuming it would be pretty efficient since nitroglycerine is so extremely explosive). and what emissions would be like. and whether creating nitroglycerine is as easy and simple as that in the first place.-chrisIn a message dated 7/17/05 2:46:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How about combining the glycerin with nitrogen to create nitroglycerin? I know, nitrogen is explosive but so is hydrogen. The engines in our vehicles are using what is called "explosion propulsion". Exploding fuel pushes against pistons which are linked to a shaft, which is linked to the transmission. There must be a safe way to use nitroglycerin.___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] biofuels would need more energy to produce than they canprovide
In a message dated 7/17/2005 8:29:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subj: Re: [Biofuel] biofuels would need more energy to produce than they canprovide Date: 7/17/2005 8:29:02 PM Eastern Standard Time From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent from the Internet What a bunch of crap. I consider my time gathering waste oil and making bio-diesel as a hobby that also saves me money .Since I haven't bought "blood fuel" since Dec 02 I feel I am doing my part to promote a positive endevor (environment, local sustainability etc.) Another study found a 35% gain in energy making ethanol. I prefer to believe that bio-fuels are the way to go. - Original Message - From: "F. Desprez" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "biofuel" Biofuel@sustainablelists.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:47 PM Subject: [Biofuel] biofuels would need more energy to produce than they canprovide according to anglo-us scientific studies. FD "Des études scientifiques portent un coup à l'éthanol" 07/07/2005 Journal de l'environnement Le développement de l'éthanol utilisé comme biocarburant pourrait avoir des conséquences environnementales négatives, estiment des chercheurs. Deux recherches scientifiques viennent de remettre en cause l'intérêt du développement de l'éthanol comme biocarburant alternatif à l'essence. D'abord, une étude scientifique américaine parue dans Bioscience conclut que l'éthanol à usage de carburant réduit la biodiversité, augmente l'érosion du sol, et consomme de grandes quantités d'eau pour le nettoyage des cannes à sucre, de l'ordre de 3.900 litres par tonne. Décrits par Marcelo Dias de Oliveira et ses collègues, de l'université d'Etat de Washington, ces impacts environnementaux, uniquement liés à la culture de la canne à sucre, pourraient provoquer un coup de frein au développement de l'éthanol comme carburant qui s'est justement appuyé sur un argument environnemental: le CO2 produit par la combustion de l'éthanol est compensé par la photosynthèse de la plante, les seules émissions de CO2 provenant des transports et du processus industriel. Or actuellement, cet argument est aussi reconsidéré par les scientifiques. Cette fois-ci par une étude anglo-américaine, publiée dans Nature resources research, qui estime «qu'il n'y a aucun bénéfice énergétique à utiliser la biomasse des plantes pour fabriquer du carburant.» Selon les chercheurs de l'université de Cornell et de Berkeley, le process de fabrication d'éthanol à partir de maïs exigerait 29% d'énergie de plus que celle que l'éthanol peut produire comme carburant, et celle du bois 57% de plus. Les résultats du biodiesel apparaissent du même ordre avec un besoin en énergie pour le produire 27% plus important que l'énergie dégagée en tant que carburant pour le soja, et 118% pour le tournesol. A noter, les scientifiques n'ont pas indiqué les besoins énergétiques d'une raffinerie traditionnelle. «Utiliser de la biomasse n'est donc pas une stratégie soutenable», juge David Pimental, de l'université de Cornell, dans un communiqué de presse. En outre, ces résultats montrent que les biocarburants ne permettent pas de s'affranchir de la dépendance énergétique. Or il s'agit d'un argument essentiel pour le Brésil, où l'éthanol de sucre de canne compte pour 40% du carburant consommé par les véhicules dans le pays, mais aussi pour les Etats-Unis et pour Europe où les biocarburants doivent atteindre un taux d'incorporation de 5,75% d'ici 2010. Reste que le véritable avenir de l'utilisation de la biomasse dans les véhicules est le BTL (Biomass to liquids), un gaz de synthèse, pour la plupart des spécialistes. C'est d'ailleurs la position décrite dans l'étude «Well to wheels» (1) du Centre commun de recherche de la commissions européenne (2). Réalisé avec la collaboration de l'ensemble des constructeurs européens et américains et des raffineurs, le rapport établit que «le BTL a le potentiel pour économiser substantiellement plus de gaz à effet de serre que les options de biocarburants actuels à coût comparable et mérite d'être davantage étudié.» (1) Le rapport «Du puits à la roue» se nomme précisément «of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the european context». (2) Plus connu sous son nom anglais Joint research center, le Centre commun de recherche a été créé pour aider aux décisions politiques de l'Union européenne. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html (July 5, 2005 Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy By Susan S. Lang) http://www.journaldelenvironnement.net/fr/login.asp?page=%2Ffr%2Fdocument%2F detail%2Easp%3Fid%3D12508%26idThema%3D6%26idSousThema%3D32%26type%3DJDE%26ct x%3D2 59 (Pour accéder à ce document, merci de vous inscrire gratuitement au JDLE) http://www.6clones.com/ (Bienvenue sur le portail des biocarburants de
Re: [Biofuel] Burning glycerol for heat / Acrolein
it's not.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOLall jokes aside, though, that's actually an interesting idea. if it were possible to keep the N and glycerine separate, and inject them into the cylinder where they would combine, then explode. . . .of course, there's the question of how energy efficient this would be (i'm assuming it would be pretty efficient since nitroglycerine is so extremely explosive). and what emissions would be like. and whether creating nitroglycerine is as easy and simple as that in the first place.-chrisIn a message dated 7/17/05 2:46:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How about combining the glycerin with nitrogen to create nitroglycerin? I know, nitrogen is explosive but so is hydrogen. The engines in our vehicles are using what is called "explosion propulsion". Exploding fuel pushes against pistons which are linked to a shaft, which is linked to the transmission. There must be a safe way to use nitroglycerin.___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] biofuels would need more energy to produce than they can provide
Is there an English version of this document."F. Desprez" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: according to anglo-us scientific studies.FD"Des études scientifiques portent un coup à l'éthanol" 07/07/2005 Journalde l'environnementLe développement de l'éthanol utilisé comme biocarburant pourrait avoirdes conséquences environnementales négatives, estiment des chercheurs.Deux recherches scientifiques viennent de remettre en cause l'intérêt dudéveloppement de l'éthanol comme biocarburant alternatif à l'essence.D'abord, une étude scientifique américaine parue dans Bioscience conclutque l'éthanol à usage de carburant réduit la biodiversité, augmentel'érosion du sol, et consomme de grandes quantités d'eau pour lenettoyage des cannes à sucre, de l'ordre de 3.900 litres par tonne.Décrits par Marcelo Dias de Oliveira et ses collègues, de l'universitéd'Etat de Washington, ces impacts environnementaux, uniquement liés à laculture de la canne à sucre, pourraient provoquer un coup de frein audéveloppement de l'éthanol comme carburant qui s'est justement appuyésur un argument environnemental: le CO2 produit par la combustion del'éthanol est compensé par la photosynthèse de la plante, les seulesémissions de CO2 provenant des transports et du processus industriel.Or actuellement, cet argument est aussi reconsidéré par lesscientifiques. Cette fois-ci par une étude anglo-américaine, publiéedans Nature resources research, qui estime «qu'il n'y a aucun bénéficeénergétique à utiliser la biomasse des plantes pour fabriquer ducarburant.» Selon les chercheurs de l'université de Cornell et deBerkeley, le process de fabrication d'éthanol à partir de maïs exigerait29% d'énergie de plus que celle que l'éthanol peut produire commecarburant, et celle du bois 57% de plus. Les résultats du biodieselapparaissent du même ordre avec un besoin en énergie pour le produire27% plus important que l'énergie dégagée en tant que carburant pour lesoja, et 118% pour le tournesol. A noter, les scientifiques n'ont pasindiqué les besoins énergétiques d'une raffinerie traditionnelle.«Utiliser de la biomasse n'est donc pas une stratégie soutenable», jugeDavid Pimental, de l'université de Cornell, dans un communiqué depresse. En outre, ces résultats montrent que les biocarburants nepermettent pas de s'affranchir de la dépendance énergétique. Or ils'agit d'un argument essentiel pour le Brésil, où l'éthanol de sucre decanne compte pour 40% du carburant consommé par les véhicules dans lepays, mais aussi pour les Etats-Unis et pour Europe où les biocarburantsdoivent atteindre un taux d'incorporation de 5,75% d'ici 2010.Reste que le véritable avenir de l'utilisation de la biomasse dans lesvéhicules est le BTL (Biomass to liquids), un gaz de synthèse, pour laplupart des spécialistes. C'est d'ailleurs la position décrite dansl'étude «Well to wheels» (1) du Centre commun de recherche de lacommissions européenne (2). Réalisé avec la collaboration de l'ensembledes constructeurs européens et américains et des raffineurs, le rapportétablit que «le BTL a le potentiel pour économiser substantiellementplus de gaz à effet de serre que les options de biocarburants actuels àcoût comparable et mérite d'être davantage étudié.»(1) Le rapport «Du puits à la roue» se nomme précisément «of futureautomotive fuels and powertrains in the european context».(2) Plus connu sous son nom anglais Joint research center, le Centrecommun de recherche a été créé pour aider aux décisions politiques del'Union européenne.http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html (July5, 2005 Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodieselfrom corn and other crops is not worth the energy By Susan S. Lang)http://www.journaldelenvironnement.net/fr/login.asp?page=%2Ffr%2Fdocument%2Fdetail%2Easp%3Fid%3D12508%26idThema%3D6%26idSousThema%3D32%26type%3DJDE%26ctx%3D2 59 (Pour accéder à ce document, merci de vous inscrire gratuitement auJDLE)http://www.6clones.com/ (Bienvenue sur le portail des biocarburants del'écologie et de l'environnement)http://www.verasun.com/releases_6_14_05.htm (Technology Breakthrough EnablesBiodiesel Production from Ethanol Plants)http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2005/06/29/news/latest_news/48908bdfeba06fd38625702f004ad254.txt (Du maïs dans le moteur,Sioux City Journal, 29/06/05)http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=310126 (Préférer sa voiture au buspeut vous conduire au tribunal Dix femmes de ménage organisaient leurcovoiturage pour aller travailler au Luxembourg. Une société de bus lesassigne pour «concurrence déloyale».Par Thomas CALINON samedi 09 juillet2005 Liberation)___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/Send
Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [Biofuel] biofuels would need more energy to produce than they can provide
I would assume its this http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050717/ap_on_bi_ge/ethanol_study Ray J the skapegoat wrote: Is there an English version of this document. */F. Desprez [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: according to anglo-us scientific studies. FD Des études scientifiques portent un coup à l'éthanol 07/07/2005 Journal de l'environnement Le développement de l'éthanol utilisé comme biocarburant pourrait avoir des conséquences environnementales négatives, estiment des chercheurs. Deux recherches scientifiques viennent de remettre en cause l'intérêt du développement de l'éthanol comme biocarburant alternatif à l'essence. D'abord, une étude scientifique américaine parue dans Bioscience conclut que l'éthanol à usage de carburant réduit la biodiversité, augmente l'érosion du sol, et consomme de grandes quantités d'eau pour le nettoyage des cannes à sucre, de l'ordre de 3.900 litres par tonne. Décrits par Marcelo Dias de Oliveira et ses collègues, de l'université d'Etat de Washington, ces impacts environnementaux, uniquement liés à la culture de la canne à sucre, pourraient provoquer un coup de frein au développement de l'éthanol comme carburant qui s'est justement appuyé sur un argument environnemental: le CO2 produit par la combustion de l'éthanol est compensé par la photosynthèse de la plante, les seules émissions de CO2 provenant des transports et du processus industriel. Or actuellement, cet argument est aussi reconsidéré par les scientifiques. Cette fois-ci par une étude anglo-américaine, publiée dans Nature resources research, qui estime «qu'il n'y a aucun bénéfice énergétique à utiliser la biomasse des plantes pour fabriquer du carburant.» Selon les chercheurs de l'université de Cornell et de Berkeley, le process de fabrication d'éthanol à partir de maïs exigerait 29% d'énergie de plus que celle que l'éthanol peut produire comme carburant, et celle du bois 57% de plus. Les résultats du biodiesel apparaissent du même ordre avec un besoin en énergie pour le produire 27% plus important que l'énergie dégagée en tant que carburant pour le soja, et 118% pour le tournesol. A noter, les scientifiques n'ont pas indiqué les besoins énergétiques d'une raffinerie traditionnelle. «Utiliser de la biomasse n'est donc pas une stratégie soutenable», juge David Pimental, de l'université de Cornell, dans un communiqué de presse. En outre, ces résultats montrent que les biocarburants ne permettent pas de s'affranchir de la dépendance énergétique. Or il s'agit d'un argument essentiel pour le Brésil, où l'éthanol de sucre de canne compte pour 40% du carburant consommé par les véhicules dans le pays, mais aussi pour les Etats-Unis et pour Europe où les biocarburants doivent atteindre un taux d'incorporation de 5,75% d'ici 2010. Reste que le véritable avenir de l'utilisation de la biomasse dans les véhicules est le BTL (Biomass to liquids), un gaz de synthèse, pour la plupart des spécialistes. C'est d'ailleurs la position décrite dans l'étude «Well to wheels» (1) du Centre commun de recherche de la commissions européenne (2). Réalisé avec la collaboration de l'ensemble des constructeurs européens et américains et des raffineurs, le rapport établit que «le BTL a le potentiel pour économiser substantiellement plus de gaz à effet de serre que les options de biocarburants actuels à coût comparable et mérite d'être davantage étudié.» (1) Le rapport «Du puits à la roue» se nomme précisément «of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the european context». (2) Plus connu sous son nom anglais Joint research center, le Centre commun de recherche a été créé pour aider aux décisions politiques de l'Union européenne. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html (July 5, 2005 Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy By Susan S. Lang) http://www.journaldelenvironnement.net/fr/login.asp?page=%2Ffr%2Fdocument%2F detail%2Easp%3Fid%3D12508%26idThema%3D6%26idSousThema%3D32%26type%3DJDE%26ct x%3D2 59 (Pour accéder à ce document, merci de vous inscrire gratuitement au JDLE) http://www.6clones.com/ (Bienvenue sur le portail des biocarburants de l'écologie et de l'environnement) http://www.verasun.com/releases_6_14_05.htm (Technology Breakthrough Enables Biodiesel Production from Ethanol Plants) http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2005/06/29/news/latest_news/48908bd feba06fd38625702f004ad254.txt (Du maïs dans le moteur, Sioux City Journal, 29/06/05) http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=310126 (Préférer sa voiture au bus peut vous conduire au tribunal Dix femmes de ménage
Re: [Biofuel] Turd Blossom aka Karl Rove
Bud Eble wrote: While I do agree that the cover up by the Whitehouse is a disgrace and the Bush smear campaign that started all this is unacceptable, Rove probably did not break any laws. Plame was not undercover at the time the column was printed and had not been since 1997. Apparently, ambassador Joseph Wilson and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997 From http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a covert agent must have been on an overseas assignment within the last five years. The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003. What do others think? Regards, Bud Bud, I think it (the WH managent of the Rove-Plame issue) has been masterful in that it has shifted the focus to Amb. Wilson. The point we are missing is that the WH was in the final stage of selling a war that had been planned for several years, not a time to have any loose ends. The facts are that the group, PNAC et al had a chance to implement a grand plan and they made sure it would happen. The fact that it isnt working out as planned is that the planners are without shame, and so make mistakes... like lying constantly. Ultimatley it doesnt pan out, which Rove ought to know being the history buff. But it's Cheney anyway. Thing is that the smartest asshole is only surrounded by much dumber assholes. I'm not sure a CIA agent needs to be out of the country to be undercover, even if they didnt work for a shell corp. Would be wierd to have to let your true identity shine when the plane lands in the US, then cover it back up when you take off? Or just if you retire, so whoever you ever came into contact with undercover would get a really neat sort of retirement suprise? Anyway, just some latenight thoughts.. ranting as always. S. Chapin ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Article on Marx from www.commondreams.org
I admire Marx as an analyst and philosopher (irrespective of whether or not communism is the best model of democracy).
This isn't meant to push a particular political ideology. Please know that the reason I posted this is because (IMO) it speaks to some of the discussions we've had about globalization, inequality, political corruption, monopolization, technical progress and a few other things.
See below.
I hope you find it interesting.
MikeAndy Capen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]From: Andy Capen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:53:14 -0700 (PDT)Subject: [isoinfo] Article on Marx from www.commondreams.org
Hi, all.
Interesting article on Marx's newfound significance in the world of economics. Enjoy. Happy summer!
Peace,
Andy
Published on Sunday, July 17, 2005 by the Observer/UK
Why Marx is Man of the Moment He had globalization sussed 150 years ago
by Francis Wheen
A penniless asylum seeker in London was vilified across two pages of the Daily Mail last week. No surprises there, perhaps - except that the villain in question has been dead since 1883. 'Marx the Monster' was the Mail's furious reaction to the news that thousands of Radio 4 listeners had chosen Karl Marx as their favorite thinker. 'His genocidal disciples include Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - and even Mugabe. So why has Karl Marx just been voted the greatest philosopher ever?'
The puzzlement is understandable. Fifteen years ago, after the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, there appeared to be a general assumption that Marx was now an ex-parrot. He had kicked the bucket, shuffled off his mortal coil and been buried forever under the rubble of the Berlin Wall. No one need think about him - still less read him - ever again.
'What we are witnessing,' Francis Fukuyama proclaimed at the end of the Cold War, 'is not just the ... passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution.'
But history soon returned with a vengeance. By August 1998, economic meltdown in Russia, currency collapses in Asia and market panic around the world prompted the Financial Times to wonder if we had moved 'from the triumph of global capitalism to its crisis in barely a decade'. The article was headlined 'Das Kapital Revisited'.
Even those who gained most from the system began to question its viability. The billionaire speculator George Soros now warns that the herd instinct of capital-owners such as himself must be controlled before they trample everyone else underfoot. 'Marx and Engels gave a very good analysis of the capitalist system 150 years ago, better in some ways, I must say, than the equilibrium theory of classical economics,' he writes. 'The main reason why their dire predictions did not come true was because of countervailing political interventions in democratic countries. Unfortunately we are once again in danger of drawing the wrong conclusions from the lessons of history. This time the danger comes not from communism but from market fundamentalism.'
In October 1997 the business correspondent of the New Yorker, John Cassidy, reported a conversation with an investment banker. 'The longer I spend on Wall Street, the more convinced I am that Marx was right,' the financier said. 'I am absolutely convinced that Marx's approach is the best way to look at capitalism.' His curiosity aroused, Cassidy read Marx for the first time. He found 'riveting passages about globalization, inequality, political corruption, monopolization, technical progress, the decline of high culture, and the enervating nature of modern existence - issues that economists are now confronting anew, sometimes without realizing that they are walking in Marx's footsteps'.
Quoting the famous slogan coined by James Carville for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992 ('It's the economy, stupid'), Cassidy pointed out that 'Marx's own term for this theory was "the materialist conception of history", and it is now so widely accepted that analysts of all political views use it, like Carville, without any attribution.'
Like Molière's bourgeois gentleman who discovered to his amazement that for more than 40 years he had been speaking prose without knowing it, much of the Western bourgeoisie absorbed Marx's ideas without ever noticing. It was a belated reading of Marx in the 1990s that inspired the financial journalist James Buchan to write his brilliant study Frozen Desire: An Inquiry into the Meaning of Money (1997).
'Everybody I know now believes that their attitudes are to an extent a creation of their material circumstances,' he wrote, 'and that changes in the ways things are produced profoundly affect the affairs of humanity even outside the workshop or factory. It is largely through Marx, rather than political economy, that those notions have come down to us.'
Even the Economist journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, eager cheerleaders
