Re: [Biofuel] Redemption from Plastics Wasteland

[Ken Provost]

On Dec 15, 2005, at 7:52 AM, Keith Addison wrote:

> The Institute of Science in Society
>
> Science Society Sustainability
> http://www.i-sis.org.uk
>
> This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
> http://www.i- sis.org.uk/RFTPW.php
>


Most interesting -- thx for the post...   I wonder how this might
apply to the "plastic or paper" debate at the supermarket. For
years now I've always asked for plastic, the logic being that
I know, at least in my neck'o'the woods,  the polyethylene will
be recycled for awhile and ultimately landfilled, never to sur-
face again :-)  Seems like a surefire way to sequester some
petrocarbon that would otherwise go up in smoke.

However, if producing the polyethylene releases massive
amounts of CO2 anyway, and pollutes a lot of rivers into the
bargain, the logic would clearly be flawed.  The question is
confused further by lumping all plastics together -- we  KNOW
that PVC is bad, but maybe polyethylene production is less so.
We know that Pepsi rings around seabirds' necks are bad,
but maybe buried plastic bags are a GOOD way to put the oil
back in the ground, at least for a few centuries.

Or maybe not?

-K


___
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] MadCow additional- Organophosphates, manganese, autism, Mark Purdey, BSE

[Marylynn Schmidt]

Additional information per Mark Purdey on Mad Cow, etc for anyone 
interested.

Mary Lynn Schmidt


>From: Sheri Nakken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>Subject: [Vaccine Info] Organophosphates, manganese, autism, Mark Purdey, 
>BSE
>Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:02:46 +
>
>Email from Mark Purdey on a list I'm on (from 2002)
>http://www.purdeyenvironment.com/  (Mark's email address at the webpage)
>(more on my webpages http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/bse.htm)
>
>Hi,
>
>Yea, I am just back from the State's having been lecturing and researching
>the issue of feeding manganese to deer for their antler growth and the
>consequent eruption of chronic wasting disease ( the BSE equivalent ) in
>deer populations across wisconsin and colorado. Whilst I had an amazing
>time, I was appalled by the government mandated wholesale deer slaughter
>across these regions. It makes no scientific sense at all. You simply stop
>feeding them manganese licks - replacing them with copper licks - to
>prevent the disease !!
>
>It is interesting; this issue of high levels of manganese in autistic
>individuals. This could either result from high exposure to dietary
>manganese or from inhalation of airborn manganese pollutants, but could
>equally result from one of many possible metabolic disturbances surrounding
>the way in which the uptake of manganese is regulated at the gut wall or
>blood brain barrier, or in the way that manganese is stored in the liver /
>transported / excreted at the kidney tubules, etc. It would be useful to
>examine the environment / diet of the autisitic boy who had high manganese
>in their red blood cells. lets hear more on that one ? We might be able to
>trace the source of the problem then. It does not bode well for putting
>manganese as a lead replacement in petrol !!
>
>Manganese intoxications have certainly been demonstrated to cause severe
>disruption to the serotonergic nerve networks, which are, likewise,  well
>recognised to be impaired in autistic individuals.
>
>It is incorrect that the organophosphates ( OPs) used for warble fly
>control contained manganese. This misconception was first generated by an
>appalling article in the Times, and when I complained to them , they were
>too arrogant to even correct it !!
>
>However,  systemic OPs will increase the permeability of the blood brain
>barrier ( like oestrogens, anti-cancer drugs, prolonged stress and sonic
>shock, etc ) thus allowing a considerable increase in the amount of
>manganese and other metals that are taken up into the brain. The warble fly
>OPs also chelate copper.
>
>There are some systemic organo manganese fungicides in use , such as maneb
>and mancozeb, and I am currently studying this dramatic cluster of
>Parkinson's disease affecting one in three farmers in a 25 sq mile pocket
>of West Wales - where they are spraying maneb for blight control of early
>potatoes almost weekly throughout the growing season.
>
>There is megatons of manganese related info on my website -
>www.markpurdey.com.
>
>It would be good to investigate the environment of the autistic boy who had
>high red cell Mn. Do they use any Mn in vaccinations, perhaps for the same
>reasons as they use aluminium ?
>
>Take care,
>
>Mark
>**
>
>http://www.purdeyenvironment.com/
>
>
>http://www.purdeyenvironment.com/faq.htm
>
> 1) Organophosphates (OPs) have been used all over the world for
>decades - how could they have caused BSE?
>
> OPs per se don't cause BSE,CJD or Scrapie. They are not like
>infectious agents that produce a specific disease when you come into
>contact with them.There is a vast group of chemicals out there coming into
>the OP category and there are many variables at work when animals or humans
>come into contact with them : dose and timing of dose; formulation -
>systemic or non-systemic, oil or water based; exposure route ie.breathed
>in, oral, skin contact, vapour contact to eye, as foetus, pour on ;
>additional ingredients and impurities are often present; neuropathic or non
>neuropathic; LD 50 (toxicity); variable biochemistry. The principle cause
>of BSE, in our opinion, was the way we used a copper chelating OP, Phosmet
>- at 4x the maximum dose, in an oil based systemic formulation, poured on
>the cow's spine, bi-annually (with a voluntary follow up dose after a
>fortnight). This was unique to the UK. during the 80s.There were many other
>OP exposures at the time that played a smaller role and you have to
>consider the cumulative affect of all of them. There are other factors
>involved, the most important of which was/is the greater availability of
>Manganese in the bovine diet. see the Introductory Hypothesis and other
>pages on this site.
>
>http://www.purdeyenvironment.com/Web%20references.htm
>
>http://www.purdeyenvironment.com/IntroHyp.htm
>
>
>Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath
>http://www.nccn.net/~wwith

Re: [Biofuel] BioButanol replaces gasoline

[Robert Carr]

Sell it in the UK.   UK gasoline prices are currently around £3.60 a gallon
($6.48US)so even if you deduct the fuel duty for biofuels here of 0.27 litre
($2.08US/gal) there is still $4.40 per gallon to be had.
- Original Message -
From: "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] BioButanol replaces gasoline


> But there's a limited market for solvent.  After you've sold all you
> can at $3.70, you have to start selling it cheaper to get into the
> fuel market, or not sell any more.
>
> On 12/15/05, Paul S Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >From the first URL:
> >  "Butanol currently sells for about $3.70 per gallon in bulk  (barge)
and
> > $6.80 in 55 gallon drums."
> >  and
> >  "Our preliminary cost estimates suggest that we can produce butanol
from
> > corn for about $1.20 per gallon, not including a credit for the hydrogen
> > produced. This compares with ethanol production costs of about $1.28 per
> > gallon. Taking into account the higher Btu content of butanol, this
> > translates to 105,000 Btu per dollar for butanol and 84,000 Btu per
dollar
> > for ethanol with corn at $2.50 per bushel. As a further point of
reference,
> > butanol produced from petroleum costs about $1.35 per gallon to
> > manufacture."
> >
> >  With US wholesale gasoline (ie barge) at ~$1.65 (Source: NYMEX for
January
> > delivery), $1.20 per gallon production sounds great, especially against
> > $1.35 per gallon from petrochem.  But if the (bio)Butanol would be worth
> > $3.70 as a solvent, would the price as a fuel be low enough to replace
> > gasoline?  I think only if the supply outstripped demand to a large
degree.
> > No rational capitalist would sell a product worth $3.70 for $1.65.  Did
I
> > miss something?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/15/05, Greg and April <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ran across this on another list, and thought people here would
interested
> > it.
> > >
> > > http://butanol.com/index.html
> > > http://www.ilcorn.org/Corn_Products/Butanol/butanol.html
> > >
> > > Be interesting to see the information about BioDiesel made with
butanol.
> > >
> > > Greg H.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > PC
> >
> > He's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switch
> >
> > A little nonsense now and then, is cherished by the wisest men. - Roald
Dahl
> > ___
> > 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/
>


___
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] BioButanol replaces gasoline

[Greg and April]

I have already sent an inquiry, regarding it use 
with BioDiesel, and will pass along any info they may send me.
 
Greg H.
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Tom Irwin 

  To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  
  Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 
  12:16
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] BioButanol 
  replaces gasoline
  
  Hi Greg,
   
  I don't think you will see too much about butanol being used for 
  biodiesel. I could be wrong but I believe viscosity goes up rather 
  dramatically by increasing the number of carbons on the ester chain. A few 
  years back I tried to use propanol to make BioD and although there was some 
  separation, the top layer, (I dare not call it BioD) was like molasses in 
  consistency. I can only imagine what the addition of another carbon to the 
  alcohol would do.
   
  Tom Irwin
    
  

From: Greg and April 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:04:12 
-0300Subject: [Biofuel] BioButanol replaces gasoline
Ran across this on another list, and 
thought people here would interested it.
 
http://butanol.com/index.html
http://www.ilcorn.org/Corn_Products/Butanol/butanol.html
 
Be interesting to see the information 
about BioDiesel made with butanol.
 
Greg H.

  
   
   
  
  

  ___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] Jatropha Curcas Where

[martin roozenburg]

Hi Ires,     The India Jatropha is non edible, so the cake is not for animal flodder, the edible specie is comming from Costa Rica or Nicaragua and Mexico, can not help you with adresses. WE buy in India and crop it in Tanzania, the pressed cake and the nutshell we press in briquettes to replace the Charcoal which is the biggest de-forresting, and enviromental, killer from the woods in Africa and S.America.      If you can not find edible, there is a chemical way to clean the non edible, you will find it on the internet.  greetings and a good and healthy new year for all      Martin Roozenburg           lres1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
 Arden and all,Thank you for your suggestion but so far have been unable to locate any place that sells Jatropha seeds from Mexico, they all seem to be from India and am not sure if they are the toxic or non-toxic seeds.     The mail system here is very slow. Running the best it does at 20 to 40Kbps, more than not it is in the lower sides. If any one can pint me to an address I would be most grateful.  Doug      Try to Google for: Jatropha Curcas seeds.I got a couple hundred references as to where to purchase seeds.Good luckArden___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 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/  
	
		Yahoo! Shopping 
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping ___
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] New question on oil seed crops and ley farming

[dermot]

Hi Keith, Andres and Marilyn,

I have tried to deal with the argument concerning plants and pain but I
obviously haven't made myself clearly understood?
Below please find a more comprehensive reply which comes from the book
ANIMAL LIBERATION by Professor Peter Singer.




SPECIESISM TODAY

I have said that the difference between animals like deer - or pigs and
chickens, for that matter - whom we ought not to think of "harvesting,"
and crops like corn, which we may harvest, is that the animals are
capable of feeling pleasure and pain, while the plants are not. At this
point someone is bound to ask: "How do we know that plants do not suffer?"

This objection may arise from a genuine concern for plants; but more
often those raising it do not seriously contemplate extending
consideration to plants if it should be shown that they suffer; instead
they hope to show that if we were to act on the principle I have
advocated we would have to stop eating plants as well as animals, and so
would starve to death. The conclusion they draw is that if it is
impossible to live without violating the principle of equal
consideration, we need not bother about it at all, but may go on as we
have always done, eating plants and animals.

The objection is weak in both fact and logic. There is no reliable
evidence that plants are capable of feeling pleasure or pain. Some years
ago a popular book, "The Secret Life of Plants", claimed that plants
have all sorts of remarkable abilities, including the ability to read
people's minds. The most striking experiments cited in the book were not
carried out at serious research institutions, and attempts by
researchers in major universities to repeat the experiments have failed
to obtain any positive results. The book's claims have now been
completely discredited.

In the first chapter of this book I gave three distinct grounds for
believing that nonhuman animals can feel pain: behavior, the nature of
their nervous systems, and the evolutionary usefulness of pain. None of
these gives us any reason to believe that plants feel pain. In the
absence of scientifically credible experimental findings, there is no
observable behavior that suggests pain; nothing resembling a central
nervous system has been found in plants; and it is difficult to imagine
why species that are incapable of moving away from a source of pain or
using the perception of pain to avoid death in any other way should
have evolved the capacity to feel pain. Therefore the belief that plants
feel pain appears to be quite unjustified.

So much for the factual basis of this objection. Now let us consider
its logic. Assume that, improbable as it seems, researchers do turn up
evidence suggesting that plants feel pain. It would still not follow
that we may as well eat what we have always eaten. If we must inflict
pain or starve, we would then have to choose the lesser evil. Presumably
it would still be true that plants suffer less than animals, and
therefore it would still be better to eat plants than to eat animals.
Indeed this conclusion would follow even if plants were as sensitive as
animals, since the inefficiency of meat production means that those who
eat meat are responsible for the indirect destruction of at least ten
times as many plants as are vegetarians! At this point, I admit, the
argument becomes farcical, and I have pursued it this far only to show
that those who raise this objection but fail to follow out its
implications are really just looking for an excuse to go on eating meat.




Regards
Dermot Donnelly



___
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] New question on oil seed crops and ley farming

[dermot]

Hi Keith,

Where is all this anger and aggression coming from? I think you let
yourself down when you descend to comments like this:

>Hi Dermot
>
>That's all?? Umph. Hardly worth the effort.
>  
>
>What other kind have there been Dermot? What kind of questions won't 
>you try to respond to?
>
>And why don't you just respond to that, just as it is right there 
>above? Your point is in tatters.
>  
>
Maybe you're eating too much red meat!

> From both, and others, and more recently various comments on your 
>post on whether plants have emotions or not. There's been a lot of 
>discussion, you can't just sidestep it.
>
I haven't sidestepped anything. I've dealt with the research on plants
having emotions and on the whole non-argument about not eating plants
because they have "feelings". Are you reading all the posts. See my
replies to Andres and Marilyn on 27 Nov and 1 Dec. In the reply
following this I will respond again to the points raised about plants
and pain being a spurious argument against vegetarianism.

For you to accuse someone of sidestepping issues is rich. When evidence
of the sustainability of stockless farming is presented to you your
reply is:


"Please don't ask me to criticise some of the Soil

Association's more recent work, I can but I don't want to."



When I pointed out some of the crude propaganda emanating from Sally 
Fallon's site you sidestepped it by commenting:


"You don't surprise me Dermot. Sorry we stop right there."


You'll have to do better than that Keith.


snip


>>>There is no way of proving that an agricultural system is sustainable.
>>>  
>>>
>>Yes there is.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Sustainable means, by definition, that it can go on forever and it is
>>>obviously impossible to test that.
>>>  
>>>
>>It's not impossible. You can philosophise about what "forever" 
>>means, but it's demonstrable in practical terms.
>>
>>
There is nothing philosophical about it. If you don't get the point that
it is impossible to prove something is sustainable forever then there is
little point discussing it.

>>>All we can say is that one system is
>>>more likely to be sustainable than another one. So I don't agree with
>>>your claim to have proved that animal farming systems are sustainable.
>>>  
>>>
>>I didn't claim to have proved it.
>>
>>
What did you mean then when you said:


"It's not up to me to prove anything, already done that,
it's up to you to disprove it, and I think you have some studying to
do."


snip

>>I know you won't like this, but you're just not qualified to discuss 
>>this subject fully unless you've read the work of Weston A. Price. 
>>See:
>>
>>
This is elitism in the extreme. You can't discuss anything unless you
are "qualified". Does this mean that one cannot take a position on
nuclear power without being a nuclear engineer?  Can you be anti-GMO
without a PhD in Biochemistry?
No, what you do is try to listen to the arguments from knowledgable
people on both sides and then you make your decision. Sometimes if it is
a very technical argument such as the nuclear power engineering then you
may not understand the nuances of all the arguments so you have to base
your view on somebody or some institution you trust. In the area of
sustainable agriculture I place my trust in the SOIL ASSOCIATION and not
in Sally Fallon or Weston. A. Price.


As far as my arguments being in tatters goes, I think it is you who has
the consistency problem in your line of reasoning. You assert that:


"It's unethical to kill ANYTHING for no good reason, unethical and
not sustainable."



Yet when you were asked if you would still eat animals if it were 
possible to have sustainable agriculture without them you replied, "Yes".

I think you need to do a lot more studying on the subject of ethics. 
Again I recommend PRACTICAL ETHICS by Peter Singer.


snip

>>Your view isn't wholistic, though you think it is. You're 
>>compartmenting living things into cubicles of your own devising. 
>>Life doesn't work like that.
>>
You are the one compartmenting living things into cubicles. You are
saying that killing creatures who possess sentiency is ok once they
don't happen to belong to YOUR species. How convenient.
This type of thinking justified slavery in the past i.e. he doesn't
belong to my race therefore it is ok to treat him as property. We call
it racism now.
She doesn't belong to my sex therefore it is ok to discriminate and
opprerss her. We call it sexism now.

Hopefully before long we will have more common use of the word
"speciesism". It is so pervasive in our society that it is almost
invisible.

Regards
Dermot Donnelly


___
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/biofue

Re: [Biofuel] How long can WVO sit before transesterification

[Marty Phee]

Since it's been so cold I haven't been worried, but he wanted me to ask.

If it warms I would think it could go rancid.  What effect would that 
have on the process?

Mike Weaver wrote:
> I've kept it around a good long time and used it with no problems.
>
> I wonder if it molds?
>
> Marty Phee wrote:
>
>   
>> My friend has probably a couple hundred gallons sitting around right 
>> now.  He was in the hospital for a while and can't process it.
>>
>> Also, given we're in chicago and the weather is kind of cold.
>>
>> 


___
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] How long can WVO sit before transesterification

[Mike Weaver]

I've kept it around a good long time and used it with no problems.

I wonder if it molds?

Marty Phee wrote:

>My friend has probably a couple hundred gallons sitting around right 
>now.  He was in the hospital for a while and can't process it.
>
>Also, given we're in chicago and the weather is kind of cold.
>
>___
>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] BioButanol replaces gasoline

[dwoodard]

I'm just speculating, but the purity requirements for butanol as a solvent
may be higher than for fuel, requiring extra processing for solvent use.

Considering the comparison with ethanol, I wouldn't be surprised if
typical butanol production processes from say corn also produce small
amounts of other, related substances.

Doug Woodard
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada


On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Paul S Cantrell wrote:

> >From the first URL:
> "Butanol currently sells for about $3.70 per gallon in bulk  (barge) and
> $6.80 in 55 gallon drums."
> and
> "Our preliminary cost estimates suggest that we can produce butanol from
> corn for about $1.20 per gallon, not including a credit for the hydrogen
> produced. This compares with ethanol production costs of about $1.28 per
> gallon. Taking into account the higher Btu content of butanol, this
> translates to 105,000 Btu per dollar for butanol and 84,000 Btu per dollar
> for ethanol with corn at $2.50 per bushel. As a further point of reference,
> butanol produced from petroleum costs about $1.35 per gallon to
> manufacture."
>
> With US wholesale gasoline (ie barge) at ~$1.65 (Source: NYMEX for January
> delivery), $1.20 per gallon production sounds great, especially against
> $1.35 per gallon from petrochem.  But if the (bio)Butanol would be worth
> $3.70 as a solvent, would the price as a fuel be low enough to replace
> gasoline?  I think only if the supply outstripped demand to a large degree.
> No rational capitalist would sell a product worth $3.70 for $1.65.  Did I
> miss something?

___
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] How long can WVO sit before transesterification

[Marty Phee]

My friend has probably a couple hundred gallons sitting around right 
now.  He was in the hospital for a while and can't process it.

Also, given we're in chicago and the weather is kind of cold.

___
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] BioButanol replaces gasoline

[Zeke Yewdall]

But there's a limited market for solvent.  After you've sold all you
can at $3.70, you have to start selling it cheaper to get into the
fuel market, or not sell any more.

On 12/15/05, Paul S Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From the first URL:
>  "Butanol currently sells for about $3.70 per gallon in bulk  (barge) and
> $6.80 in 55 gallon drums."
>  and
>  "Our preliminary cost estimates suggest that we can produce butanol from
> corn for about $1.20 per gallon, not including a credit for the hydrogen
> produced. This compares with ethanol production costs of about $1.28 per
> gallon. Taking into account the higher Btu content of butanol, this
> translates to 105,000 Btu per dollar for butanol and 84,000 Btu per dollar
> for ethanol with corn at $2.50 per bushel. As a further point of reference,
> butanol produced from petroleum costs about $1.35 per gallon to
> manufacture."
>
>  With US wholesale gasoline (ie barge) at ~$1.65 (Source: NYMEX for January
> delivery), $1.20 per gallon production sounds great, especially against
> $1.35 per gallon from petrochem.  But if the (bio)Butanol would be worth
> $3.70 as a solvent, would the price as a fuel be low enough to replace
> gasoline?  I think only if the supply outstripped demand to a large degree.
> No rational capitalist would sell a product worth $3.70 for $1.65.  Did I
> miss something?
>
>
>
>
> On 12/15/05, Greg and April <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Ran across this on another list, and thought people here would interested
> it.
> >
> > http://butanol.com/index.html
> > http://www.ilcorn.org/Corn_Products/Butanol/butanol.html
> >
> > Be interesting to see the information about BioDiesel made with butanol.
> >
> > Greg H.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> PC
>
> He's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switch
>
> A little nonsense now and then, is cherished by the wisest men. - Roald Dahl
> ___
> 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] BioButanol replaces gasoline

[Paul S Cantrell]

>From the first URL:
"Butanol
currently sells for about $3.70 per gallon in bulk  (barge) and
$6.80 in 55 gallon drums."
and
"Our
preliminary cost estimates suggest that we can produce butanol from
corn for about $1.20 per gallon, not including a credit for the
hydrogen produced. This compares with ethanol production costs of about
$1.28 per gallon. Taking into account the higher Btu content of
butanol, this translates to 105,000 Btu per dollar for butanol and
84,000 Btu per dollar for ethanol with corn at $2.50 per bushel. As a
further point of reference, butanol produced from petroleum costs about
$1.35 per gallon to manufacture."

With US wholesale gasoline (ie barge) at ~$1.65 (Source: NYMEX
for January delivery), $1.20 per gallon production sounds great,
especially against $1.35 per gallon from petrochem.  But if the
(bio)Butanol would be worth $3.70 as a solvent, would the price as a
fuel be low enough to replace gasoline?  I think only if the
supply outstripped demand to a large degree.  No rational
capitalist would sell a product worth $3.70 for $1.65.  Did I miss
something?


On 12/15/05, Greg and April <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:







Ran across this on another list, and 
thought people here would interested it.
 
http://butanol.com/index.html
http://www.ilcorn.org/Corn_Products/Butanol/butanol.html

 
Be interesting to see the information about 
BioDiesel made with butanol.
 
Greg H.

  
-- Thanks,PCHe's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switchA little nonsense now and then, is cherished by the wisest men. - Roald Dahl
___
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] two stage proccess... doubts

[Joe Street]

I would concur with you on point number three.  Right from my first test 
batch with 1 liter of new oil I noticed that the BD at the end of 
washing is cloudy and I heated it with a stainless immersion (rod) 
heater (in a 2 liter flask) and little drops of water would form at the 
heater and drop out.  Now I do everything in the reactor and after the 
last wash I heat the whole thing again to 50 degrees C and some liquid 
water can be drained out.  Then I evacuate the reactor until I get to 
28" Hg and the BD comes out crystal clear and ready for use. It remains 
clear upon cooling. What I find in the liquid trap, ahead of my vacuum 
pump, appears to be water. I haven't tasted it ;-)

Pics of my stuff are here:

http://www.nonprofitfuel.ca/Reactor.html

Joe

Mike Weaver wrote:

>Along the lines of  testing or thinking outside the box I've been up to 
>5 things which may be on interest:
>1.  Titrating - I've taken to using titrating more as a starting point 
>these days - now I usually make 6 - 8 mini batches
>and just look to see which gives the best yield.  I am putting together 
>a more formal system.  8 small batches of MoX and then into
>8 mini "Dr Pepper" method small bottles.  Since this I haven't had any 
>strange results.  This is not to say I didn't have a lot of failures - 
>plenty of glop,
>weird seperations and so on.  Most were useful in that I learned what 
>not to do.
>2.  Been tinkering with Silica beads to absorb any left over water.  
>Work well in practice but haven't scaled it up yet.
>3.  (This not new) - been heating the final product - I have an odd 
>collection of home-built processors - one has a sealed glass lid so I 
>can watch what goes on.
>Interesting thing seems to be that even with settled washed BD sometimes 
>I see a little residue at the end of the heating process which seems to 
>be water.  Not a constant phenomenon.  I would have to do more research 
>before I would say that the heat releases water?  Could well be a fluke.
>4.  Will and have been tinkering with using ISA w/ Methanol.  I don't 
>think this will prove too useful to anyone except me, as I have 55 
>gallons of the stuff on hand.
>Someone did email me curious about whether it improved the cold weather 
>behavior of the BD.  He suggested a freezer test.  The only real value I 
>see here is if there is any improvement of the final product.
>5.  As most listers know, I have been struggling off and on with using 
>BD to power the whole process. I have a 10 gallon stainless reactor 
>which I want to heat with a PetroMax stove.  My current workshop it 
>unheated so I have been not at this recently.  It's been very cold for 
>this part of the country.
>
>I am sure some of the above has been covered.  If anything proves useful 
>or interesting I will write it up and post it.
>
>-Mike
>  
>
>  
>


___
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] BioButanol replaces gasoline

[Zeke Yewdall]

Yeah. If the biodiesel with a four carbon based alcohol was that
thick, why bother doing transesterification at all.  I'd love
something that I can use in my gasoline car though, so I can start
driving it again.

Zeke

On 12/15/05, Tom Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> I don't think you will see too much about butanol being used for biodiesel.
> I could be wrong but I believe viscosity goes up rather dramatically by
> increasing the number of carbons on the ester chain. A few years back I
> tried to use propanol to make BioD and although there was some separation,
> the top layer, (I dare not call it BioD) was like molasses in consistency. I
> can only imagine what the addition of another carbon to the alcohol would
> do.
>
> Tom Irwin
>
>
>  
>  From: Greg and April [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:04:12 -0300
> Subject: [Biofuel] BioButanol replaces gasoline
>
>
>
> Ran across this on another list, and thought people here would interested
> it.
>
> http://butanol.com/index.html
> http://www.ilcorn.org/Corn_Products/Butanol/butanol.html
>
> Be interesting to see the information about BioDiesel made with butanol.
>
> Greg H.
>
>
> ___
> 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] two stage proccess... doubts

[Mike Weaver]

Along the lines of  testing or thinking outside the box I've been up to 
5 things which may be on interest:
1.  Titrating - I've taken to using titrating more as a starting point 
these days - now I usually make 6 - 8 mini batches
and just look to see which gives the best yield.  I am putting together 
a more formal system.  8 small batches of MoX and then into
8 mini "Dr Pepper" method small bottles.  Since this I haven't had any 
strange results.  This is not to say I didn't have a lot of failures - 
plenty of glop,
weird seperations and so on.  Most were useful in that I learned what 
not to do.
2.  Been tinkering with Silica beads to absorb any left over water.  
Work well in practice but haven't scaled it up yet.
3.  (This not new) - been heating the final product - I have an odd 
collection of home-built processors - one has a sealed glass lid so I 
can watch what goes on.
Interesting thing seems to be that even with settled washed BD sometimes 
I see a little residue at the end of the heating process which seems to 
be water.  Not a constant phenomenon.  I would have to do more research 
before I would say that the heat releases water?  Could well be a fluke.
4.  Will and have been tinkering with using ISA w/ Methanol.  I don't 
think this will prove too useful to anyone except me, as I have 55 
gallons of the stuff on hand.
Someone did email me curious about whether it improved the cold weather 
behavior of the BD.  He suggested a freezer test.  The only real value I 
see here is if there is any improvement of the final product.
5.  As most listers know, I have been struggling off and on with using 
BD to power the whole process. I have a 10 gallon stainless reactor 
which I want to heat with a PetroMax stove.  My current workshop it 
unheated so I have been not at this recently.  It's been very cold for 
this part of the country.

I am sure some of the above has been covered.  If anything proves useful 
or interesting I will write it up and post it.

-Mike

Joe Street wrote:

>Good points there Todd;
>
>I would like to add though that it is really informative to those of us 
>on the list with less experience when we read posts such as these and 
>though information may be somewhat anecdotal or even if somewhat 
>scientific if it is less than rigorous it may still be of use if it is 
>taken as such.  If we do have time we should investigate these 
>questions.  For instance recently I posted a question similar to this 
>asking the membership for a feeling on how much water content can be 
>lived with in oil at the starting point.  I know I had at least one cc 
>of water in my last batch of 25 liters which equals at least 40 ppm 
>water content.  The batch still washed very easily and passes the water 
>and methanol tests.  I have not reprocessed it but I will have NMR 
>results for it in time.  It would be good to know just where the limits 
>are with this.  Also how much glycerine will poison the wash.  I'm sure 
>some people have a better feel for this than others even if it may not 
>be completely scientific.
>There have been a few brave souls on here who have talked about their 
>failures but not many since I've been here (about a year now I guess).  
>Human nature I guess but if anyone does have some experience that sheds 
>light on some of these questions please share.
>Personally I am trying to find out how much I can shorten settling times 
>also.  I think time can be saved especially in the early washes by 
>reducing settling times for one example but I only learn a little bit 
>with each batch and there are a lot of things I want to investigate.  
>Does it make sense for us to organize some type of 'controlled' testing 
>amongst a group of us who have a stable reliable process? I can only 
>change one variable at a time but if I can get 10 people to do the same, 
>with different variables or differing amounts of the same variable it 
>will reduce the learning curve considerably. Is anyone else interested 
>or willing to put effort into the idea?
>
>Joe
>
>Appal Energy wrote:
>
>Snip
>
>  
>
>>ReZn0r,
>>All this is done in microscopic amounts and may not amount to any 
>>discernible difference between samples that have settled twelve hours or 
>>samples that have settled six. There is really only one way to determine 
>>whether or not there is any "significant" difference between the two end 
>>results. That would be to conduct the testing.
>>
>>On a firsthand note, as we don't use two-stage base processing, opting 
>>instead for acid/base processing. As a result, we're not exactly in a 
>>position to inform you definitively one way or the other. It's also 
>>rather doubtful that very many people are in such a position, if only 
>>for the reason that it would take some rather controlled experimentation 
>>and the majority probably don't have the time or facilities to conduct 
>>such testing.
>>
>>On the other hand, it shouldn't be too terribly difficult to conduct 
>>some basic/crude testin

Re: [Biofuel] BioButanol replaces gasoline

[Tom Irwin]

Hi Greg,
 
I don't think you will see too much about butanol being used for biodiesel. I could be wrong but I believe viscosity goes up rather dramatically by increasing the number of carbons on the ester chain. A few years back I tried to use propanol to make BioD and although there was some separation, the top layer, (I dare not call it BioD) was like molasses in consistency. I can only imagine what the addition of another carbon to the alcohol would do.
 
Tom Irwin
  


From: Greg and April [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:04:12 -0300Subject: [Biofuel] BioButanol replaces gasoline
Ran across this on another list, and thought people here would interested it.
 
http://butanol.com/index.html
http://www.ilcorn.org/Corn_Products/Butanol/butanol.html
 
Be interesting to see the information about BioDiesel made with butanol.
 
Greg H.


 
 ___
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] BioButanol replaces gasoline

[Greg and April]

Ran across this on another list, and 
thought people here would interested it.
 
http://butanol.com/index.html
http://www.ilcorn.org/Corn_Products/Butanol/butanol.html
 
Be interesting to see the information about 
BioDiesel made with butanol.
 
Greg H.
___
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] U.S. Oil From Nigeria Tainted With Blood

[Keith Addison]

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1214-30.htm
Published on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 by MinutemanMedia.org

U.S. Oil From Nigeria Tainted With Blood

by Dee Burton 

Oil corporations have operated for decades in Nigeria, the world's 
fifth-leading oil producer, with no fear of penalties for trashing 
the environment or violating the human rights of nine ethnic groups 
in the Niger Delta. The Ogoni, fishers and farmers like other peoples 
of the nine Niger Delta states, lived off the land until 1958 when 
Shell Nigeria began drilling oil. Gas flaring and river dredging for 
pipelines began almost immediately, transforming the fertile delta 
into a wasteland of oil, chemicals, and pollutants.

The resultant destruction of land and contamination of rivers has 
made it impossible for Niger Delta citizens to continue to fish and 
farm. Meanwhile, Nigeria's leaders have grown rich from corporate 
oil, and gladly assign security forces to counter, and sometimes 
silence, citizen protests. In 1995 the military dictatorship of 
General Sani Abacha deemed hanging to be the necessary means to quell 
the articulate voice of poet Ken Saro-Wiwa and his eight fellow Ogoni 
activists.

These nine Ogoni environmentalists were hanged in Nigeria following a 
sham trial that attempted to end protests against the government and 
Shell. Saro-Wiwa, who founded the Movement for the Survival of the 
Ogoni People, had led these peaceful protests for almost two decades. 
One would have hoped that these activists' sacrifice, and the 
accompanying international outrage, would have led to an era of 
corporate responsibility and respect for human rights. Instead, a 
decade later, Niger Delta communities still struggle to survive as 
oil companies protect their own single-minded interests.

Case in point: According to a recent Amnesty International report, 
Chevron has failed to pursue an independent inquiry into Nigerian 
soldiers' use of force against more than 200 protesters at its 
Escravos oil terminal in Ugborodo, which resulted in 30 serious 
injuries and one death earlier this year. Similarly, an alleged 
security arrangement between a Shell Nigeria subcontractor and a 
criminal group in Odioma led to the murders of 17 people, the rape of 
two women, and the razing of 80 percent of the homes in the area. 
Neither the company nor the Nigerian government has investigated the 
incident.

The international outrage following the 1995 executions led the 
extractive and energy industry, in partnership with the U.S. and U.K. 
governments and international non-governmental organizations, to 
develop Voluntary Principles for Security and Human Rights. Though 
Shell and Chevron both claim to support the principles, there is 
little evidence of their compliance with them in Nigeria. Of greater 
significance, the U.S. Department of State has failed to monitor such 
compliance.

Nigeria is the largest African producer of oil and the United States 
is the largest purchaser of Nigerian oil. At the same time that 
polluted water and soil make a sustainable life of fishing or farming 
increasingly rare in the Niger Delta, many indigenous oil workers see 
no oil revenues. And men and women continue to die from violent 
exchanges at oil sites, while all incidents go uninvestigated by the 
oil companies and both the Nigerian and United States governments. 
Unless there is an end to the ecological assault upon the Niger Delta 
and the inequitable distribution of oil revenues, violence is bound 
to continue and escalate.

The Voluntary Principles for Security and Human Rights specify that 
companies should make public their policies regarding human rights 
conduct to security providers, and work to see that security is 
provided in a manner consistent with those policies. Shell and 
Chevron must immediately investigate and report on the incidents this 
year in Odioma and Ugborodo. In addition, the United States needs to 
guarantee that our oil companies in the Delta comply with the 
Voluntary Principles.

In the final words of Ken Saro-Wiwa: "Whether the peaceful ways I 
have favored will prevail depends on what the oppressor decides, what 
signals it sends out to the waiting public. Come the day."

Dee Burton is a Nigeria country specialist for Amnesty International 
USA and adjunct associate professor of urban public health at Hunter 
College, City University of New York. Founded in 1961, Amnesty 
International is a Nobel Prize winning grassroots activist 
organization with over 1 million members worldwide. Amnesty 
International USA (AIUSA) is the U.S. Section of this international 
human rights movement. www.amnesty-usa.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 messag

[Biofuel] LIBERIA: Firestone Sued Over "Slave" Plantation

[Keith Addison]

http://corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12860
CorpWatch : 
LIBERIA: Firestone Sued Over "Slave" Plantation

by Haider Rizvi, OneWorld.net
December 8th, 2005

Firestone, a multinational rubber manufacturing giant known for its 
automobile tires, has come under fire from human rights and 
environmental groups for its alleged use of child labor and 
slave-like working conditions at a plantation in Liberia.

Recently, the International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF), a Washington, 
D.C.-based advocacy group, filed a lawsuit charging that thousands of 
workers, including minors, toil in virtual slavery at Bridgestone's 
Firestone rubber plantation in Liberia.

According to the complaint filed in the United States District Court 
in Venice, California, Firestone, which has operated in the West 
African country since the 1920s, largely depends on poor and often 
illiterate workers to tap tons of raw latex from rubber trees using 
primitive tools exposing them to hazardous pesticides and fertilizers.

At Firestone, "all of the workers are poverty-stricken Africans, 
enduring extremely inhuman conditions under the constant guard of 
American and now Japanese overseers who live in the finest houses in 
Liberia, looking down on the field hands from their verandahs and the 
company's private golf course," the group says.

By contrast, "most of the workers have never been off of the 
plantation and do not even know that the world has moved on and 
slavery has been abolished."

The company denies the use of child labor and claims that its jobs 
are among the highest paying in Liberia. But right activists who have 
visited the plantation attest to the desperation and fear conveyed by 
Firestone's workers.

"I have seen six people living in one room, without any toilet, 
electricity, or running water," Jerome Verdier, an environmental 
lawyer from Liberia, told OneWorld. "The company has no justification 
whatsoever to keep on exploiting those people."

Verdier and others say thousands of workers at the plantation cannot 
meet daily harvesting quota without unpaid aid, requiring them to put 
their own children to work or face starvation.

In many cases, activists say, Firestone overseers not only know about 
the massive use of child labor, but also compel it. "Workers are told 
that if they can't make their daily quota, they should put their 
children to work," the lawsuit charges.

According to the ILRF, each official worker at the Firestone 
plantation is required to deliver 450 pounds of latex per day to meet 
quota, an amount many adult workers fail to produce.

"They work for $3.19 a day and work close to 20 hours every day," 
Verdier told a news conference at the U.N. headquarters in New York 
Wednesday.

Most plantation workers, according to the lawsuit, remain "at the 
mercy of Firestone for everything from food to health care to 
education. They risk expulsion and starvation if they raise even 
minor complaints, and the company makes willful use of this situation 
to exploit these workers as they have since 1926."

The 240 square-mile plantation has an official workforce of 6,000, 
out of which at least 4,000 are reportedly facing extremely inhumane 
conditions.

The group decided to bring the case before a U.S. court because the 
judicial system in Liberia had been crippled by years of civil war, 
activists said.

After a peace agreement recently bought to a close 14 years of 
political turmoil, Liberians went to the polls last month, choosing 
Africa's first democratically elected female president, 
Harvard-educated economist Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. Sirleaf, who 
defeated international soccer star George Weah in the final round of 
balloting, has promised to create jobs and fight corruption.

Activists say they hope the new government will take positive steps 
to ensure that multinational corporations, such as Firestone, are 
prevented from using exploitative labor and start abiding by human 
rights and environmental laws.

"The country is emerging from war," Verdier said, adding that 
Firestone's story is just one of many similar cases. "Multinational 
corporations continue to undermine human rights and democracy. That 
has to be stopped."

Sharing this view, Emira Woods of the Institute for Policy Studies, a 
progressive think tank based in Washington, noted that the changed 
political reality in Liberia is already demanding a substantial 
change in corporate behavior.

"Liberia needs to have the resources to get back on its feet," she 
said. "It's time for multinational corporations to realize the needs 
of Liberia's citizens."


___
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] GM to Nearly Triple India Production

[Zeke Yewdall]

I wonder how many of those GM cars will be able to compete with the Reva?

On 12/15/05, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GM_INDIA?SITE=MYPSP&SECTION=HOM
> E&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-12-13-09-31-44
> The Associated Press
> Dec 13, 9:31 AM EST
>
> GM to Nearly Triple India Production
>
> BANGALORE, India (AP) -- General Motors Corp. said Tuesday it plans
> to nearly triple the number of cars it produces in India to meet
> growing demand in the South Asian country.
>
> The announcement came just weeks after the company said it would
> slash 30,000 jobs and scale back production in the United States.
>
> GM previously had announced plans to increase production in India
> from more than double the 25,000 cars a year it currently produces in
> the country. Lawrence Burns, vice president for research and
> development, said Tuesday that the number of vehicles made in India
> would eventually reach 80,000.
>
> However, Burns provided few details of GM's plans for India, a
> country of 1 billion people with a fast growing economy that many
> Western manufacturers have long viewed as a potentially huge market.
>
> Burns insisted jobs were not being moved from the United States, and
> said much of the new production would come from increasing the hours
> of workers already employed by the company, although he did say that
> some new jobs would be added. GM currently employs about 2,000 people
> in India.
>
> Burns said the production at GM's plant in the western Indian city of
> Halol would be increased in phases, but did not offer a timetable.
>
> GM said in November that declining sales and rising health care costs
> would force it to close 12 North American manufacturing facilities by
> 2008 and cut 30,000 jobs, which represent 17 percent of GM's North
> American hourly and salaried work force of 173,000.
>
> The plan will cut the number of vehicles GM is able to build in North
> America by about 1 million a year by the end of 2008. GM will be able
> to build about 4.2 million vehicles a year in North America, down 30
> percent from 2002.
>
> GM also said Tuesday it would add about 50 researchers in India to
> its current research staff of 450. "Our target is to employ 500
> people in India early next year and the hiring momentum here will
> continue," Taub told reporters in Bangalore, India's technology hub.
>
> "The creation of research jobs here in India is consistent with the
> need for us to invest in the markets where we sell our products,"
> Burns said.
>
> ___
> 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/

[Biofuel] GM to Nearly Triple India Production

[Keith Addison]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GM_INDIA?SITE=MYPSP&SECTION=HOM 
E&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-12-13-09-31-44
The Associated Press
Dec 13, 9:31 AM EST

GM to Nearly Triple India Production

BANGALORE, India (AP) -- General Motors Corp. said Tuesday it plans 
to nearly triple the number of cars it produces in India to meet 
growing demand in the South Asian country.

The announcement came just weeks after the company said it would 
slash 30,000 jobs and scale back production in the United States.

GM previously had announced plans to increase production in India 
from more than double the 25,000 cars a year it currently produces in 
the country. Lawrence Burns, vice president for research and 
development, said Tuesday that the number of vehicles made in India 
would eventually reach 80,000.

However, Burns provided few details of GM's plans for India, a 
country of 1 billion people with a fast growing economy that many 
Western manufacturers have long viewed as a potentially huge market.

Burns insisted jobs were not being moved from the United States, and 
said much of the new production would come from increasing the hours 
of workers already employed by the company, although he did say that 
some new jobs would be added. GM currently employs about 2,000 people 
in India.

Burns said the production at GM's plant in the western Indian city of 
Halol would be increased in phases, but did not offer a timetable.

GM said in November that declining sales and rising health care costs 
would force it to close 12 North American manufacturing facilities by 
2008 and cut 30,000 jobs, which represent 17 percent of GM's North 
American hourly and salaried work force of 173,000.

The plan will cut the number of vehicles GM is able to build in North 
America by about 1 million a year by the end of 2008. GM will be able 
to build about 4.2 million vehicles a year in North America, down 30 
percent from 2002.

GM also said Tuesday it would add about 50 researchers in India to 
its current research staff of 450. "Our target is to employ 500 
people in India early next year and the hiring momentum here will 
continue," Taub told reporters in Bangalore, India's technology hub.

"The creation of research jobs here in India is consistent with the 
need for us to invest in the markets where we sell our products," 
Burns said.

___
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] The 14 Worst Corporate Evildoers

[Keith Addison]

http://corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12869
CorpWatch : 
The 14 Worst Corporate Evildoers

Global Exchange
December 12th, 2005

Corporations carry out some of the most horrific human rights abuses 
of modern times, but it is increasingly difficult to hold them to 
account. Economic globalization and the rise of transnational 
corporate power have created a favorable climate for corporate human 
rights abusers, which are governed principally by the codes of supply 
and demand and show genuine loyalty only to their stockholders.

Several of the companies below are being sued under the Alien Tort 
Claims Act, a law that allows citizens of any nationality to sue in 
US federal courts for violations of international rights or treaties. 
When corporations act like criminals, we have the right and the power 
to stop them, holding leaders and multinational corporations alike to 
the accords they have signed. Around the world--in Venezuela, 
Argentina, India, and right here in the United States--citizens are 
stepping up to create democracy and hold corporations accountable to 
international law.

Caterpillar

For years, the Caterpillar Company has provided Israel with the 
bulldozers used to destroy Palestinian homes. Despite worldwide 
condemnation, Caterpillar has refused to end its corporate 
participation house demolition by cutting off sales of specially 
modified D9 and D10 bulldozers to the Israeli military.

In a letter to Caterpillar CEO James Owens, The Office of the UN High 
Commissioner on Human Rights said: "allowing the delivery of your ... 
bulldozers to the Israeli army ... in the certain knowledge that they 
are being used for such action, might involve complicity or 
acceptance on the part of your company to actual and potential 
violations of human rights..."

Peace activist Rachel Corrie was killed by a Caterpillar D-9, 
military bulldozer in 2003. She was run over while attempting to 
block the destruction a family's home in Gaza. Her family filed suit 
against Caterpillar in March 2005 charging that Caterpillar knowingly 
sold machines used to violate human rights. Since Corrie's death at 
least three more Palestinians have been killed in their homes by 
Israeli bulldozer demolitions.

Chevron

The petrochemical company Chevron is guilty of some of the worst 
environmental and human rights abuses in the world. From 1964 to 
1992, Texaco (which transferred operations to Chevron after being 
bought out in 2001) unleashed a toxic "Rainforest Chernobyl" in 
Ecuador by leaving over 600 unlined oil pits in pristine northern 
Amazon rainforest and dumping 18 billion gallons of toxic production 
water into rivers used for bathing water. Llocal communities have 
suffered severe health effects, including cancer, skin lesions, birth 
defects, and spontaneous abortions.

Chevron is also responsible for the violent repression of peaceful 
opposition to oil extraction. In Nigeria, Chevron has hired private 
military personnel to open fire on peaceful protestors who oppose oil 
extraction in the Niger Delta.

Additionally Chevron is responsible for widespread health problems in 
Richmond, California, where one of Chevron's largest refineries is 
located. Processing 350,000 barrels of oil a day, the Richmond 
refinery produces oil flares and toxic waste in the Richmond area. As 
a result, local residents suffer from high rates of lupus, skin 
rashes, rheumatic fever, liver problems, kidney problems, tumors, 
cancer, asthma, and eye problems.

The Unocal Corporation, which recently became a subsidiary of 
Chevron, is an oil and gas company based in California with 
operations around the world. In December 2004, the company settled a 
lawsuit filed by 15 Burmese villagers, in which the villagers alleged 
Unocal's complicity in a range of human rights violations in Burma, 
including rape, summary execution, torture, forced labor and forced 
migration.

Coca-Cola

Coca-Cola Company is perhaps the most widely recognized corporate 
symbol on the planet. The company also leads in the abuse of workers' 
rights, assassinations, water privatization, and worker 
discrimination. Between 1989 and 2002, eight union leaders from 
Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia were killed after protesting 
the company's labor practices. Hundreds of other Coca-Cola workers 
who have joined or considered joining the Colombian union 
SINALTRAINAL have been kidnapped, tortured, and detained by 
paramilitaries who are hired to intimidate workers to prevent them 
from unionizing.

In India, Coca-Cola destroys local agriculture by privatizing the 
country's water resources. In Plachimada, Kerala, Coca-Cola extracted 
1.5 million liters of deep well water, which they bottled and sold 
under the names Dasani and BonAqua. The groundwater was severely 
depleted, affecting thousands of communities with water shortages and 
destroying agricultural activity. As a result, the remaining water 
became contaminated with high chloride and bacteria level

[Biofuel] Hong Kong Phooey

[Keith Addison]

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051214/hong_kong_phooey.php

Hong Kong Phooey

Mark Engler

December 14, 2005

Mark Engler, a writer based in New York City, is an analyst 
with Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be reached via the web site 
http://www.democracyuprising.com. Research assistance provided by 
Kate Griffiths.

Although much is at stake at the World Trade Organization Ministerial 
in Hong Kong this week, the success of the talks will largely hinge 
upon one issue: the willingness of the U.S., Japan and the European 
Union to live up to their own "free trade" rhetoric and to 
substantially cut their agricultural subsidies. By providing nearly 
$1 billion dollars a day in subsidies for their own farmers, the 
world's wealthiest countries-which regularly preach the virtues of 
open markets for poorer nations-are guilty of the rankest hypocrisy.

Be that as it may, a key question remains for critics of corporate 
globalization based both in the first world and in the global South: 
Is market access really the answer to poverty?

Governments of developing nations, coming off of their victory in 
resisting a one-sided trade deal in Cancun in 2003, will be pushing 
hard in Hong Kong for countries like the United States to scale back 
their agricultural supports-something the Bush administration has 
thus far proved unwilling to do. Indeed, as his op-ed in yesterday's 
LA Times makes clear, even arch neoconservative and president of the 
World Bank Paul Wolfowitz is arguing for an end to subsidies.

This leaves the increasing number of people that has grown skeptical 
of "free market" boosterism in an uncomfortable position. Certainly, 
the agricultural subsidies are harming developing world exports. But 
is removing those subsidies the best path to real economic justice 
for developing countries?

The idea of agricultural market access has attracted some progressive 
supporters. In 2002, Oxfam, a prominent anti-poverty organization, 
released a report entitled Rigged Rules and Double Standards and 
launched a campaign to "Make Trade Fair."  The report presented a 
range of recommendations for improving the terms of international 
trade and development, but market access became the clear focus as 
the document was promoted in the media. Oxfam argued, "For [the] 
engine [of trade] to function, poor countries need access to rich 
country markets. Expanding market access can help countries to 
accelerate economic growth, at the same time expanding opportunities 
for the poor."

Yet there are good reasons not to jump on the bandwagon of ending 
subsidies and promoting free trade. First, it's not at all clear that 
basing economic development on agricultural exports will allow 
countries to "trade their way out of poverty," as proponents claim. 
Historically, many nations that have relied on export-led development 
have been foiled by declining agricultural prices on the world 
market, a problem spurred by oversupply. As a 1992 Oxfam report 
entitled The Trade Trap notes, "Countries that depend on the export 
of primary commodities like coffee, sugar, or cotton are caught in a 
trap: the more they produce, the lower the price falls."

Ending lavish subsidies would help this situation somewhat by 
reducing the "dumping" of artificially underpriced first world goods 
on the international market. It won't help a lot, however, even if 
the U.S., Europe and Japan were to eliminate their supports 
entirely-something that is politically out of the question. Nancy 
Birdsall, executive director of the Center for Global Development, 
along with economists Dani Rodrik and Arvind Subramanian, writes in a 
recent Foreign Affairs article that International Monetary Fund 
estimates predict, "world prices would only rise by 2 to 8 percent 
for rice, sugar, and wheat; 4 percent for cotton; and 7 percent for 
beef. The typical annual variation in the world prices of these 
commodities is at least one order of magnitude larger."

In other words, the famous instability of agricultural export markets 
would remain a bane of poor farmers struggling to survive. Likewise, 
the World Bank's most optimistic predictions suggest that a country 
with a per capita income of $100 would only boost this figure by 60 
cents over the next 10 years as a result of trade liberalization. 
That's hardly a panacea for development.

Small farmers are in the worst position to actually reap any such 
gains, which are far more likely to be siphoned off by middlemen. Put 
in competition against giant agribusiness corporations that dominate 
markets and enjoy great political influence (not to mention access to 
deep lines of credit and facilities in which to store their 
foodstuffs when prices are low), those small producers will still 
find themselves playing a rigged game.

Moreover, as economists from the liberal Dean Baker to Morgan 
Stanley's Stephen Roach point out, with the United States running 
unsustainable trade and current account deficits, 

Re: [Biofuel] two stage proccess... doubts

[Joe Street]

Good points there Todd;

I would like to add though that it is really informative to those of us 
on the list with less experience when we read posts such as these and 
though information may be somewhat anecdotal or even if somewhat 
scientific if it is less than rigorous it may still be of use if it is 
taken as such.  If we do have time we should investigate these 
questions.  For instance recently I posted a question similar to this 
asking the membership for a feeling on how much water content can be 
lived with in oil at the starting point.  I know I had at least one cc 
of water in my last batch of 25 liters which equals at least 40 ppm 
water content.  The batch still washed very easily and passes the water 
and methanol tests.  I have not reprocessed it but I will have NMR 
results for it in time.  It would be good to know just where the limits 
are with this.  Also how much glycerine will poison the wash.  I'm sure 
some people have a better feel for this than others even if it may not 
be completely scientific.
There have been a few brave souls on here who have talked about their 
failures but not many since I've been here (about a year now I guess).  
Human nature I guess but if anyone does have some experience that sheds 
light on some of these questions please share.
Personally I am trying to find out how much I can shorten settling times 
also.  I think time can be saved especially in the early washes by 
reducing settling times for one example but I only learn a little bit 
with each batch and there are a lot of things I want to investigate.  
Does it make sense for us to organize some type of 'controlled' testing 
amongst a group of us who have a stable reliable process? I can only 
change one variable at a time but if I can get 10 people to do the same, 
with different variables or differing amounts of the same variable it 
will reduce the learning curve considerably. Is anyone else interested 
or willing to put effort into the idea?

Joe

Appal Energy wrote:

Snip

>ReZn0r,
>All this is done in microscopic amounts and may not amount to any 
>discernible difference between samples that have settled twelve hours or 
>samples that have settled six. There is really only one way to determine 
>whether or not there is any "significant" difference between the two end 
>results. That would be to conduct the testing.
>
>On a firsthand note, as we don't use two-stage base processing, opting 
>instead for acid/base processing. As a result, we're not exactly in a 
>position to inform you definitively one way or the other. It's also 
>rather doubtful that very many people are in such a position, if only 
>for the reason that it would take some rather controlled experimentation 
>and the majority probably don't have the time or facilities to conduct 
>such testing.
>
>On the other hand, it shouldn't be too terribly difficult to conduct 
>some basic/crude testing at your own leisure to see if you can discern 
>any noticeable difference.
>
>A fair guess is that you wouldn't notice much, if any. Perhaps what 
>another question might be is "Do you really have need of expediting a 
>process?" If so, such as in an industrial/commercial environment, 
>testing might hold more validity for you than other bears of average brain.
>
>Todd Swearingen
>  
>
>  
>


___
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] Redemption from the Plastics Wasteland

[Keith Addison]

The Institute of Science in Society

Science Society Sustainability
http://www.i-sis.org.uk


This article can be found on the I-SIS website at 
http://www.i- sis.org.uk/RFTPW.php

ISIS Press Release 24/11/05

Redemption from the Plastics Wasteland

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

A fully referenced 
version of this article is posted on ISIS members' website.

Plastics wasteland

Plastic wastes that litter cities, parks, beaches and countryside 
look depressingly the same everywhere on earth. They have come to 
symbolise the mass throwaway culture: cheap, trashy, transient yet 
stubbornly non-degradable and inassimilable. These by-products of the 
oil industry are icons of the industrial economy built on the 
over-exploitation of oil and other fossil fuels that's turning the 
planet literally into a terminal wasteland. Dealing with plastic 
wastes has taken on significance not far short of ultimate redemption.

The world consumes 100 million tonnes of plastic materials - 36.8 
million tonnes in Europe, 5 million tonnes in the UK - and growing at 
3 to 4 percent each year [1, 2]. The largest single sector, 37.3 
percent, is in packaging. There are about 50 different groups of 
plastics with hundreds of different varieties.

The amount of plastic wastes generated annually in the UK was 
estimated at 3 million tonnes in 2001. Although all types of plastics 
could be recycled, only 7 percent actually were. The rest were buried 
in landfills (80 percent) or incinerated (8 percent). Most plastics 
are non-biodegradable, which means they take a long time to break 
down naturally.

Significant amounts of fossil fuels are required to make plastics, 
both as a raw material and as energy for manufacture. About 4 percent 
of the world's annual oil production is used for as raw material and 
another 3-4 percent for manufacture.

Plastics manufacture requires a lot of water, produces waste and 
greenhouse gas emissions, and involves using harmful chemicals, 
especially with polyvinylchloride (PVC), the second most common kind 
of plastics in the world, where further toxic chemicals are generated 
during manufacture [3,4]. Burying plastic wastes in landfills or 
burning them in incinerators create still more hazards for health and 
the environment (see Box).

The best way to cut down on plastic wastes is to reduce use, to 
eliminate unnecessary packaging, and to reuse items such as plastic 
bags, toys, cosmetic bottles, etc. The next best way is to recycle.

Poison plastic PVC

PVC, polyvinyl chloride, is the second most commonly used plastic in 
the world, and causes the most problems for health and the 
environment. It is the largest source of dioxin when burnt in 
incinerators and in accidental fires in buildings. Dioxin is also 
created during the manufacture process, and toxic chemical additives 
are incorporated in PVC products.

The largest use of PVC is in building materials: cables, window 
frames, floors, walls, panelling, water and wastewater pipes, vinyl 
flooring, wallpaper, window blinds and shower curtains. It is in 
consumer articles such as credit cards, records, toys, office 
furniture, binders, folders, and pens, in the car industry as 
underseal, in hospitals for medical disposables, as imitation 
leather, and garden furniture.

The production of PVC involves transporting dangerous explosive 
materials such as vinyl chloride monomer (a carcinogen), and creating 
toxic wastes, notably ethylene dichloride tars. Tar wastes contain 
huge quantities of dioxins, which when incinerated or dumped, spread 
dioxins into the environment. Numerous additives are incorporated 
into the product, including softeners to make it flexible, heavy 
metals to stabilise colours, and fungicides. Dioxins are generated 
during manufacture, which end up in the process wastes, and sometimes 
in the product itself. Plasticisers are not bound to the plastic and 
can leach out over time; plasticisers in vinyl floors evaporate into 
the room. The most common plasticiser, the phthalate DEHP 
(Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate), is a suspected carcinogen, and over 90 
percent are used solely to make soft PVC plastic, including baby toys 
and teethers. Since 1999, the European Union has prohibited 
phthalates in toys intended to be place in the mouth of children 
under three years of age [5].

The disposal of PVC creates more problems. If burned in open fires or 
incinerators, it releases an acidic gas along with dioxin. If 
landfilled, it releases additives that contaminate the groundwater, 
and landfill fires involving PVC are a further source of dioxin.

TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p- dioxin), the most lethal member 
of the dioxin family, is a known human carcinogen and hormone 
disrupter, and is recognized as the most toxic synthetic compound 
ever produced. All humans and animals now carry burdens of TCDD and 
other dioxins in their bodies.

As m

[Biofuel] NIGERIA: Oil and Misery

[Keith Addison]

http://corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12864
CorpWatch : 
NIGERIA: Oil and Misery

by Lydia Polgreen, The New York Times
December 10th, 2005

December 9, 2005
Ebocha Journal
Strangers in the Dazzling Night: A Mix of Oil and Misery
By LYDIA POLGREEN

EBOCHA, Nigeria - The sun had almost set, and another glum happy hour 
arrived at One for the Road. Veronica, its proprietor, put out her 
white plastic chairs and tables, checked her stock of chilled beer 
and waited for paying customers. There was no need to switch on the 
lights. Across from her tavern, day and night, burns a ghastly, 
eternal flame.

"It is always like this," Veronica said, gesturing at the columns 
more than 200 feet high, with flames that leap and roar from a tangle 
of pipelines across the road. "Every day, every night. We no get 
darkness."

Across Nigeria's oil-rich Niger Delta, hellish towers of fire throw 
an auburn glow, scorching the communities that live under them and 
sending dark columns of smoke into the sky. They are fueled by 
natural gas, which is found along with the Bonny Light crude that 
makes Nigeria the second largest economy in sub-Saharan Africa, after 
South Africa.

The gas is a highly valuable product used to fuel industry across the 
power-hungry globe, and Nigeria has more than 600 trillion cubic feet 
of it, one of the largest reserves in the world. If harnessed and put 
to use, experts say, Nigerian gas could light the whole continent for 
the better part of a millennium.

But for decades there has been no way to capture it because oil 
companies and the Nigerian government, a majority partner in all oil 
operations here, had not built the infrastructure to make use of it. 
The market for natural gas inside Nigeria is tiny, and exporting it 
requires pipelines and other infrastructure that cost billions of 
dollars to build.

And so for decades it has simply been burned off, or flared. In 
Ebocha, which is home to an oil plant run by the Italian oil company 
Agip, the flares have been ablaze since the early 1970's, residents 
said. Over the years flares have become a blazing symbol of how the 
Nigerian government and its partners in the oil business have sucked 
endless wealth from this region, leaving its residents to suffer the 
environmental consequences of oil extraction while reaping little 
economic benefit.

That is supposed to change soon. In an effort to eliminate flaring - 
which environmental activists say takes a heavy toll on the health of 
people, crops and animals - and exploit this potentially lucrative 
resource, the Nigerian government is requiring that all flares be put 
out by 2008 and for gas exports to climb to 50 percent of current oil 
exports.

Oil companies are furiously building facilities to collect and ship 
the gas in an effort that will cost $15 billion. Flaring is down to 
40 percent of what it was at its peak and the country is exporting 
500 billion cubic feet of gas, according to the Nigerian government. 
The World Bank is helping build a gas pipeline that will connect 
Nigeria to several of its coastal neighbors, creating a wider market 
in a power-hungry region.

But the effort is behind schedule. Shell, Nigeria's biggest oil 
producer, has said it will not meet the 2008 deadline.

Pressure from environmentalists to end the practice is high, and in 
November a Nigerian court ruled that flaring violated the human 
rights of people who live nearby.

Just about everyone in Ebocha seems eager to see the flames snuffed, 
but many people find it hard to imagine this place without them. The 
flares quite literally define the place: its name means place of 
light.

Businesses like One for the Road, with its cooler of beer and phalanx 
of prostitutes, depend on plant workers as customers. Children 
scamper beneath the fiery glow to collect crunchy beetles that are 
fried up and eaten as a local delicacy. Over time the town has 
stretched closer and closer to the plant, and many of the residents 
are people who came from all across Nigeria to open businesses here 
because it is the workers who have money to spend. Many young 
residents have lived their whole lives under the flares.

At One for the Road, Lucky Ekberi and friends gathered around an 
empty table. Mr. Ekberi, 24, said he could not remember a time when 
his nights were not illuminated by the flares.

"It is always there," he said, the orange glow reflected in his 
liquid eyes. "It never goes out. It makes us sick, and many times my 
eyes are hurt. Crops don't grow well."

Like his friends, Mr. Ekberi describes himself as an "applicant," a 
euphemism for jobless, because in truth there are few jobs to apply 
for here. Despite its vast oil and gas reserves, the Niger Delta is 
perhaps the poorest part of a nation where most people live in 
extreme poverty.

Mr. Ekberi and a half dozen friends could not afford soft drinks, 
much less beer, so they sat uneasily at the table, making small talk.

Veronica, who declined to give he

Re: [Biofuel] BSE/CJD/Mad Cow/Sheep Dip- etc

[Keith Addison]

>Sorry, I've forgotten just who seemed to be interested in the fact 
>that there was a "wild" form of Mad Cow ..
>
>Just some additional information in another direction.

FYI, archive search for Mark Purdey:

http://snipurl.com/ktbw
14 matches

Best

Keith


>Mary Lynn Schmidt
>
>
>>From: Sheri Nakken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>>Subject: [Vaccine Info] *BSE/CJD/Mad Cow/Sheep Dip- ALSO BEWARE 
>>LICE LOTIONS (see   article)-Very significant article***
>>Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:53:05 +
>>
>>REMINDER of this page - EXCELLENT.
>>
>>HERE is the complete article that Dave sent including URL to excellent
>>website.
>>This deserves much attention - read carefully!
>>Sheri
>>
>>http://eionews.addr.com/epaper/eio001213.htm
>>ICI's ex-chemical  weapon   insecticide causes BSE & CJD
>>
>>
>>  Cover-up
>>  Insecticide causes
>>  Mad Cow disease
>>
>>by Fintan Dunne
>>Research Kathy Mc Mahon
>>13th December 2000
>>
>>Pharmaceutical interests in the UK are ignoring new scientific research
>>that shows the insecticide used in the
>>UK government's own warble-fly campaigns triggered the surge of 'Mad Cow'
>>disease.
>>
>> Latest experiments by Cambridge University prion specialist, David R.
>>Brown, have shown that manganese bonds with prions to cause BSE. Other
>>researchers' unpublished work shows that prions in the bovine spine --along
>>which insecticides are applied-- can be damaged by ICI's Phosmet
>>organophosphate(OP) insecticide -causing the disease.
>>
>>British scientists have led the current theory that an infectious prion in
>>bonemeal fed to cattle causes bovine spongiform disease (BSE). Infectious
>>prions are also claimed to cause new variant Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease (CJD)
>>in humans -from ingesting beef. But the infectious prion theory serves to
>>obscure a
>>tragic chemical poisoning scandal behind the majority of BSE cases.
>>
>>The new work proves that the prions can bond with manganese in animal
>>feeds or mineral licks. These manganese prions cause the neurological
>>degeneration seen in BSE. By a similar process, prions in human brains are
>>damaged by lice lotions containing organophosphate. This can result in
>>neurological diseases like CJD and Alzheimers -later in life.
>>
>>Many might be surprised to hear that organophosphates were developed by
>>Nazi chemists during the course World War Two,
>>as a chemical weapon nerve agent.
>>
>>The marginalised research has devestating financial implications for ICI.
>>It would provide a firm basis for litigants -who could include CJD
>>sufferers, farmers across the world, and the spouses and families of the
>>many British farmers who committed suicide during this BSE debacle.
>>
>>
>>Phosmet organophosphate has been used at high doses in British warble fly
>>campaigns. In 1996, ICI subsidiary Zeneca sold the phosmet patent to a PO
>>Box company in Arizona called Gowan -just one week before the UK government
>>admitted to a link between BSE and nvCJD.
>>
>>The politically well-connected British pharmaceuticals group, ICI has the
>>financial and political clout to block research into any cause other than
>>the infective model. Indeed no substantive alternative research has been
>>done. British BSE disease management and research bodies have taken
>>decisions that do not seem guided by spirited scientific enquiry.
>>Mysterious prions that jump species is the preferred research arena.
>>
>>
>>Scientist and organic farmer, Mark Purdey gave evidence to the UK BSE
>>inquiry, that warble fly insecticide was the cause of the disease.
>>The scientist wheeled out to rubbish Purdy's evidence -Dr. David Ray, later
>>turned out to have been receiving funding from the insecticide manufacturer
>>ICI.
>>
>>A lobby group that includes Bayer, Monsanto, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and
>>Schering-Plough was behind the effort to discredit Purdey. In December
>>1999, the same David Ray was appointed to the UK Veterinary Products
>>Committee (VPC) -a government body that licences animal medicines.
>>
>>Purdey has been consistently denied even exploratory funding to extend his
>>privately supported research. Yet, the Purdey/Brown chemical poisoning
>>model matches with the epidemiological spread of CJD clusters in humans. It
>>also predicts the incidence of BSE-type diseases in animals. The accepted
>>infectious model fits neither.
>>
>>The pharmaceutical industry is all the more determined to hide the
>>chemical source of BSE and CJD, because a spotlight on chemicals would
>>expose the role the insecticides in Alzheimer's -another neurodegenerative
>>disease. That might lead to claims which would dwarf those from BSE and CJD
>>litigants. In fact, two leading brain researchers into CJD and Alzheimers
>>have died in suspicious circumstances in recent years.
>>
>> In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is already
>>reviewing Phosmet

[Biofuel] Global Food Trade & the New Slave Labour

[Keith Addison]

The Institute of Science in Society

Science Society Sustainability
http://www.i-sis.org.uk

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at 
http://www.i- 
sis.org.uk/GFTNSL.php

ISIS Press Release 14/12/05

Global Food Trade & the New Slave Labour

How globalisation links UK's Tesco supermarket chain to 
colonial-style farming in South Africa that exploits farm-workers 
especially women and perpetrates poverty. 
Samantha Burcher

A fully referenced 
version of this paper is posted on ISIS members' website.

Colonial farmers call the shots

Fatima Shabodien is executive director of Women on Farms Project. She 
came to London's City Hall on a foggy day to describe the impact of 
trade, the export of food, and the changes on South African farmlands 
over the past ten years. When people think of South African farms 
they think of subsistence farming, she said. But the reality is 
predominantly commercial farming, colonial farms owned by white males 
and leased to a pool of black workers [1].

There are new laws in a democratic South Africa for working in 
agriculture. But before 1994, no laws existed to protect 
relationships between farmers and farm workers. Despite this, women 
are forced into feudal labour practices by implication. When a white 
farmer contracts a male labourer, his wife or girlfriend is expected 
to work for the farmer too. A farmwoman is paid less for her work 
than men and discriminated against as to the sort of work she can do. 
She is further bound to her man because on-farm housing is tied to 
labour; therefore women can only be housed if they work. No housing 
contracts are given to farmwomen on commercial farms.

WTO encourages unequal trade

Since the WTO introduced subsidies for farmers, things have become 
even worse for both male and female workers. Farmers have drastically 
cut back on agricultural employment and even forcibly evicted workers 
to avoid giving them tenure rights to land. What were once permanent 
jobs have now become seasonal, and these precarious positions mainly 
occupied by women (see Box). Because the jobs are casual, there are 
no provisions for benefits such as maternity pay and sick leave, nor 
protective clothing from pesticides as there would have been under 
the usual employment contracts.

South Africa's commercial agriculture is export oriented, and is 
fragile as it is open to challenges from the global market and the 
progressive removal of trade barriers and subsidies. Increased 
competition and unfair terms of trade with highly subsidised 
producers in the North, along with other factors such as drought, 
exacerbate poor pay and working conditions, leading to poor health 
for farm workers.

Unequal trade regimes reinforce inequality for women and for emerging 
black farmers who are unable to compete with white farmers on 
economic terms.

Wages paid in wine

Western Cape farmers pay labourers in part or in full with alcohol. 
This is known as the "tot system", a common practice left over from 
slavery. A steady stream of alcohol is given to the workers 
throughout the day. Not too much to make them drunk, but enough to 
make them dependent. There is a legacy of alcoholism and violence 
around colonial style farming. Farmwomen are encouraged to drink 
throughout their pregnancies, and the wine regions of the Western 
Cape has the highest incidence of foetal alcohol syndrome (FAS). 
There is no concept of leisure for farm workers, so alcohol also 
serves a recreational purpose. This puts farmwomen and their children 
in high- risk situations from violence and HIV/AIDS.

One widow's story

Gertruida Baartman is a widow with four children and an extended 
family to support. She works for six months of the year on a 
fruit-exporting farm in the Ceres district in the Western Cape region 
of South Africa. She picks, prunes and packs apples for Tesco's 
supermarkets in the UK for £3.90 a day. It's a struggle for her to 
feed the family, to pay for school fees, books and uniforms. Her 
family subsist on a bread and potato diet.

"Gertruida is ashamed of her struggle, her dignity is gone," said 
Fatima, "and she cannot make direct eye contact with people." Her 
work is fairly isolated so she experiences none of the camaraderie or 
solidarity of factory workers, or a union. In her mind, she has 
failed her family.

According to the National Union of Farmers of Canada, rural women 
comprise one quarter of the world's population [2]. And in some parts 
of Africa, women head 60 percent of households, where they meet 
almost all of the water and fuel needs and process all of the 
family's foodstuffs.

Actionaid sent a team of investigators to the Western Cape to audit 
Tesco's fruit farms. (See Rotten Fruit. Tesco profits as women 
workers pay a high price 
http://www.actionaid.

[Biofuel] BSE/CJD/Mad Cow/Sheep Dip- ALSO BEWARE LICE LOTIONS (see article)-Very significant article***

[Marylynn Schmidt]

Sorry, I've forgotten just who seemed to be interested in the fact that 
there was a "wild" form of Mad Cow ..


Just some additional information in another direction.

Mary Lynn Schmidt



From: Sheri Nakken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
Subject: [Vaccine Info] *BSE/CJD/Mad Cow/Sheep Dip- ALSO BEWARE LICE 
LOTIONS (see   article)-Very significant article***

Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:53:05 +

REMINDER of this page - EXCELLENT.

HERE is the complete article that Dave sent including URL to excellent
website.
This deserves much attention - read carefully!
Sheri

http://eionews.addr.com/epaper/eio001213.htm
 ICI's ex-chemical  weapon   insecticide causes BSE & CJD


   Cover-up
   Insecticide causes
   Mad Cow disease

 by Fintan Dunne
 Research Kathy Mc Mahon
 13th December 2000

 Pharmaceutical interests in the UK are ignoring new scientific research
that shows the insecticide used in the
UK government's own warble-fly campaigns triggered the surge of 'Mad Cow'
disease.

  Latest experiments by Cambridge University prion specialist, David R.
Brown, have shown that manganese bonds with prions to cause BSE. Other
researchers' unpublished work shows that prions in the bovine spine --along
which insecticides are applied-- can be damaged by ICI's Phosmet
organophosphate(OP) insecticide -causing the disease.

 British scientists have led the current theory that an infectious prion 
in

bonemeal fed to cattle causes bovine spongiform disease (BSE). Infectious
prions are also claimed to cause new variant Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease (CJD)
in humans -from ingesting beef. But the infectious prion theory serves to
obscure a
tragic chemical poisoning scandal behind the majority of BSE cases.

 The new work proves that the prions can bond with manganese in animal
feeds or mineral licks. These manganese prions cause the neurological
degeneration seen in BSE. By a similar process, prions in human brains are
damaged by lice lotions containing organophosphate. This can result in
neurological diseases like CJD and Alzheimers -later in life.

Many might be surprised to hear that organophosphates were developed by
Nazi chemists during the course World War Two,
as a chemical weapon nerve agent.

 The marginalised research has devestating financial implications for ICI.
It would provide a firm basis for litigants -who could include CJD
sufferers, farmers across the world, and the spouses and families of the
many British farmers who committed suicide during this BSE debacle.


 Phosmet organophosphate has been used at high doses in British warble fly
campaigns. In 1996, ICI subsidiary Zeneca sold the phosmet patent to a PO
Box company in Arizona called Gowan -just one week before the UK government
admitted to a link between BSE and nvCJD.

 The politically well-connected British pharmaceuticals group, ICI has the
financial and political clout to block research into any cause other than
the infective model. Indeed no substantive alternative research has been
done. British BSE disease management and research bodies have taken
decisions that do not seem guided by spirited scientific enquiry.
Mysterious prions that jump species is the preferred research arena.


 Scientist and organic farmer, Mark Purdey gave evidence to the UK BSE
inquiry, that warble fly insecticide was the cause of the disease.
The scientist wheeled out to rubbish Purdy's evidence -Dr. David Ray, later
turned out to have been receiving funding from the insecticide manufacturer
ICI.

 A lobby group that includes Bayer, Monsanto, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and
Schering-Plough was behind the effort to discredit Purdey. In December
1999, the same David Ray was appointed to the UK Veterinary Products
Committee (VPC) -a government body that licences animal medicines.

Purdey has been consistently denied even exploratory funding to extend his
privately supported research. Yet, the Purdey/Brown chemical poisoning
model matches with the epidemiological spread of CJD clusters in humans. It
also predicts the incidence of BSE-type diseases in animals. The accepted
infectious model fits neither.

 The pharmaceutical industry is all the more determined to hide the
chemical source of BSE and CJD, because a spotlight on chemicals would
expose the role the insecticides in Alzheimer's -another neurodegenerative
disease. That might lead to claims which would dwarf those from BSE and CJD
litigants. In fact, two leading brain researchers into CJD and Alzheimers
have died in suspicious circumstances in recent years.

  In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is already
reviewing Phosmet's safety. The Centers for Disease control in the US have
recently conducted experiments on mice that confirm the organophosphate 
risk.


 Not only is the EC beef slaughter campaign futile, because the disease is
mostly non- infectious, but unless the underlying chemic

Re: [Biofuel] Similarities between Oil and Nuclear Fuel

[Mike Weaver]

Speaking of unfair taxes, lets not forget the giant give-away in this 
year's energy bill...

Michael Redler wrote:

> What (else) is wrong with the presidents "energy initiatives"? 
>  
> /*"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Comparing U.S. dependence on overseas oil to a 
> "foreign tax on the American people," President Bush on Wednesday 
> proposed a series of energy initiatives, including more oil refineries 
> and nuclear plants, to combat the problem."*/
> ** 
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/27/bush.energy/
>  
> We already know that if there is going to be an unfair tax on the 
> American people, it should be imposed by Americans -- right? Here's 
> proof which we discussed in an earlier thread:
>  
> /*"Exxon Mobil Corp. had a quarter for the record books. The world's 
> largest publicly traded oil company said Thursday high oil and 
> natural-gas prices helped its third-quarter profit surge almost 75 
> percent to $9.92 billion, the largest quarterly profit for a U.S. 
> company ever, and it was the first to ring up more than $100 billion 
> in quarterly sales."*/
>  
> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1027-06.htm
>  
> In addition, there is a clear preference toward unsustainable, 
> environmentally dangerous sources, like nuclear. Like oil, nuclear 
> fuel has the same inherent problems related to finding, collecting and 
> controlling a finite supply.
>  
> Here is where (I think) it gets interesting. The article below reads 
> exactly like a typical article addressing oil inventories. I think 
> most of us would agree that this is not a big surprise. However, this 
> is the first time I've seen it in print by an organization dedicated 
> to tracking nuclear fuel markets.
>  
> */"The decline in global commercial uranium inventories is rapidly 
> shifting an inventory-driven market to one that is production-driven. 
> Consolidation over the last several years has squeezed the number of 
> uranium suppliers, reduced geographical diversity, and now several 
> existing and future uranium production centers are in question. In the 
> interim, long-term indicators are pointing toward a demand curve that 
> will exceed supply within the next several years and ultimately lead 
> to higher prices." /*
>  
> http://www.uxc.com/products/rpt_usa.html
>  
> Some of you are better informed than I am so, I apologize if this 
> particular discovery has already been covered.
>  
> Mike
>  
>
>
>
>___
>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] Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae by MichaelBriggs

[Mike Weaver]

Iraq, Algae - it's all the same to me.

As long as I can keep driving my SUV.

"The American way of life is a blessed one"

-America

Keith Addison wrote:

>Hi Todd, Joey
>
>I do get a chuckle out of Mike Briggs's schemes, though it's a bit of 
>a wry chuckle.
>
>"In this paper, I will first examine the possibilities of producing 
>biodiesel on the scale necessary to replace all petroleum 
>transportation fuels in the U.S."
>
>:-)
>
>No need to wake up folks, you can go right on guzzling. You just 
>aren't going to get any of the right answers if you ask the wrong 
>questions in the first place. That a person can't bring himself to 
>contemplate the dread prospect of Cold Turkey (short of worldwide 
>"Die-off", aarghhh!) doesn't automatically set in motion some sort of 
>magical alchemy that transmutes the wrong question into the right 
>one, how sad (or is it). How long has the list acknowledged that 
>replacing fossil-fuels use isn't an option no matter what you want to 
>replace it with? It's nearly all waste anyway.
>
>In the previous discussion on this that Joe reposted (not a problem 
>Joe) I asked John: "Have they made any biodiesel from it yet?" His 
>reply:
>
>  
>
>>>Mike has made some coy references at tdiclub that suggest that a 
>>>commercial venture may be in the works, but yes, the silence is 
>>>rather deafening, isn't it.
>>>  
>>>
>>It's a familiar sort of silence, there are other such silences that 
>>make a similar noise.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Here's an interesting 3rd party financial analysis of Mike's algae 
>>>paper. Well, it's interesting for us 'Merkins, anyway. :)
>>>
>>>http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/biodiesel.html
>>>  
>>>
>>Thankyou! Interesting (though it had me chuckling too).
>>
>>The holy grail:
>>
>>"In his paper, under the section titled: How much biodiesel, Michael 
>>Briggs concluded that 140,800,000,000 (140.8 billion) gallons of 
>>biodiesel could replace 100% of the petroleum transportation fuels 
>>consumed in the United States annually, without requiring a big 
>>change in driving behavior or automotive technology."
>>
>>Look ma, no cold turkey! All we need is $300 billion 1991 dollars 
>>(and more by the day), and massive capital works projects over a 
>>huge area. :-)
>>
>>
>
>I keep having to post this link. Some better answers to some of the 
>right questions, much of it derived from discussions here:
>
>How much fuel can we grow? How much land will it take?
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html#howmuch
>
>  
>
>>Joey,
>>
>>Sorry. I tend to discount anything that Monbiot ascribes to, which in
>>turn contributed to not paying much attention to the "Bad News..."
>>thread. People who don't offer solutions to the problems that they
>>self-fabricate generally aren't high on my reading list. He's lost
>>something over the years. A bit of a Pimental in his own right, using
>>irrelevant or nearly irrelevant statistics to fit his obscure thought
>>processes.
>>
>>
>
>The rest of the thread didn't exactly agree with Monbiot, and it's at 
>the heart of a new spin initiative. Worth a read, IMHO:
>
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg58058.html
>[Biofuel] The bad news about Biodiesel
>
>Whole thread linked at the end of the page.
>
>  
>
>>As for Keith's remark?
>>
>>
>>
>>>Anyway, don't mind me, I'm just not too interested or impressed by
>>>allegedly sustainable fuel schemes that don't promote local community
>>>self-reliance and are closed to the Appropriate Technology approach.
>>>  
>>>
>>Dittos.
>>
>>"The problems we face today will not be solved by the minds that created
>>them."
>>Albert Einstein
>>
>>
>
>Yes quite. Maslow's hammer doesn't work well either when it's a 
>soldering iron you need.
>
>Best
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>  
>
>>Todd Swearingen
>>
>>
>>
>>>Todd,
>>>  Please forgive the fact that I'm about to post a previous thread into
>>>this one, however, the archives don't seem to be working tonight.
>>>
>>>  The following is Keith's last post on this issue.  Subj: RE: Algae - was
>>>Re: [Biofuel] Gasoline Prices
>>>
>>>  Todd, if you keep a good personal archive, please also note the thread
>>>"the bad news about biodiesel"
>>>
>>>  http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg58130.html
>>>
>>>  as it also has some kernels.
>>>
>>>-Joey
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>snip...
>>
>>
>
>
>___
>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:
h

[Biofuel] Steam hybrid from BMW to enter market with 'Turbosteamer'

[Paul S Cantrell]

Steam assist 'hybrid' technology from BMW recovering "80%" of exhaust heat from ICE adds "15%" to fuel economy:

URL:
http://www.gizmag.com/go/4936/
BMW unveils the turbosteamer concept
December 14, 2005 A large percentage of the energy released when
petroleum is burned disappears out the exhaust system as heat. This has
always been the case but the amount of energy released looks set to be
cut by more than 80% thanks to a new system devised by BMW. BMW's
announcement of the new technology is somewhat of a technological
bombshell as it adds yet another form of hybrid automobile – a
turbosteamer. The concept uses energy from the exhaust gasses of the
traditional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) to power a steam engine
which also contributes power to the automobile – an overall 15 per cent
improvement for the combined drive system. Even bigger news is that the
drive has been designed so that it can be installed in existing model
series – meaning that every model in the BMW range could become 15%
more efficient overnight if the company chose to make the reduced
consumption accessible to as many people as possible.

Combining the innovative assistance drive with
a 1.8 litre BMW four-cylinder engine on the test rig reduced
consumption by up to 15 percent and generated 10 kilowatts more power
and 20 Nm more torque. This increased power and efficiency comes for,
well, … nothing. The energy is extracted exclusively from the heat in
the exhaust gases and cooling water so it is essentially a quantum leap
in efficiency.


The Turbosteamer is based on the same principle
of the steam engine: liquid is heated to form steam in two circuits and
this is used to power the engine. The primary energy supplier is the
high-temperature circuit which uses exhaust heat from the internal
combustion engine as an energy source via heat exchangers. More than 80
percent of the heat energy contained in the exhaust gases is recycled
using this technology. The steam is then conducted directly into an
expansion unit linked to the crankshaft of the internal combustion
engine. Most of the remaining residual heat is absorbed by the cooling
circuit of the engine, which acts as the second energy supply for the
Turbosteamer.


The development of the assistance drive has
reached the phase involving comprehensive tests on the test rig. The
components for this drive have been designed so that they are capable
of being installed in existing model series. Tests have been carried
out on a number of sample packages to ensure that the BMW 3 Series
provides adequate space. The engine compartment of a four-cylinder
model offers enough space to allow the expansion units to be
accommodated. 


Ongoing development of the concept is focusing
initially on making the components simpler and smaller. The long-term
development goal is to have a system capable of volume production
within ten years. 


"This project resolves the apparent
contradiction between consumption and emission reductions on one hand,
and performance and agility on the other," commented Professor Burkhard
Göschel. 
-- Thanks,PCHe's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switchA little nonsense now and then, is cherished by the wisest men. - Roald Dahl
___
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] Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae by MichaelBriggs

[Keith Addison]

Hi Todd, Joey

I do get a chuckle out of Mike Briggs's schemes, though it's a bit of 
a wry chuckle.

"In this paper, I will first examine the possibilities of producing 
biodiesel on the scale necessary to replace all petroleum 
transportation fuels in the U.S."

:-)

No need to wake up folks, you can go right on guzzling. You just 
aren't going to get any of the right answers if you ask the wrong 
questions in the first place. That a person can't bring himself to 
contemplate the dread prospect of Cold Turkey (short of worldwide 
"Die-off", aarghhh!) doesn't automatically set in motion some sort of 
magical alchemy that transmutes the wrong question into the right 
one, how sad (or is it). How long has the list acknowledged that 
replacing fossil-fuels use isn't an option no matter what you want to 
replace it with? It's nearly all waste anyway.

In the previous discussion on this that Joe reposted (not a problem 
Joe) I asked John: "Have they made any biodiesel from it yet?" His 
reply:

>>Mike has made some coy references at tdiclub that suggest that a 
>>commercial venture may be in the works, but yes, the silence is 
>>rather deafening, isn't it.
>
>It's a familiar sort of silence, there are other such silences that 
>make a similar noise.
>
>>Here's an interesting 3rd party financial analysis of Mike's algae 
>>paper. Well, it's interesting for us 'Merkins, anyway. :)
>>
>>http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/biodiesel.html
>
>Thankyou! Interesting (though it had me chuckling too).
>
>The holy grail:
>
>"In his paper, under the section titled: How much biodiesel, Michael 
>Briggs concluded that 140,800,000,000 (140.8 billion) gallons of 
>biodiesel could replace 100% of the petroleum transportation fuels 
>consumed in the United States annually, without requiring a big 
>change in driving behavior or automotive technology."
>
>Look ma, no cold turkey! All we need is $300 billion 1991 dollars 
>(and more by the day), and massive capital works projects over a 
>huge area. :-)

I keep having to post this link. Some better answers to some of the 
right questions, much of it derived from discussions here:

How much fuel can we grow? How much land will it take?
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html#howmuch

>Joey,
>
>Sorry. I tend to discount anything that Monbiot ascribes to, which in
>turn contributed to not paying much attention to the "Bad News..."
>thread. People who don't offer solutions to the problems that they
>self-fabricate generally aren't high on my reading list. He's lost
>something over the years. A bit of a Pimental in his own right, using
>irrelevant or nearly irrelevant statistics to fit his obscure thought
>processes.

The rest of the thread didn't exactly agree with Monbiot, and it's at 
the heart of a new spin initiative. Worth a read, IMHO:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg58058.html
[Biofuel] The bad news about Biodiesel

Whole thread linked at the end of the page.

>As for Keith's remark?
>
> > Anyway, don't mind me, I'm just not too interested or impressed by
> > allegedly sustainable fuel schemes that don't promote local community
> > self-reliance and are closed to the Appropriate Technology approach.
>
>Dittos.
>
>"The problems we face today will not be solved by the minds that created
>them."
>Albert Einstein

Yes quite. Maslow's hammer doesn't work well either when it's a 
soldering iron you need.

Best

Keith



>
>
>Todd Swearingen
>
> >Todd,
> >   Please forgive the fact that I'm about to post a previous thread into
> >this one, however, the archives don't seem to be working tonight.
> >
> >   The following is Keith's last post on this issue.  Subj: RE: Algae - was
> >Re: [Biofuel] Gasoline Prices
> >
> >   Todd, if you keep a good personal archive, please also note the thread
> >"the bad news about biodiesel"
> >
> >   http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg58130.html
> >
> >   as it also has some kernels.
> >
> >-Joey
> >
> >
> >
> >
>snip...


___
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] two stage proccess... doubts

[Robert Carr]

Teoman,
Sounds like suspended water particles in your BD. I get this all the time,
especially with more aggressive washing techniques.
Leave your BD to stand for a week or so, or warm it up a little, and the
water should settle out leaving you with clear BD again. If you have tried
re-processing without any more glycerin dropping out, but are still doubtful
of the quality, try some of the other JtF recommended quality tests, such as
dissolving a sample in pure methanol. If you get a portion that does not
dissolve, you may still have unprocessed oil in your batch.
Hope this helps.
Reg'ds
Bob
 - Original Message -
From: "Teoman Naskali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] two stage proccess... doubts


> I let some of my BD settle for about 2 months (indoors, 22 degrees
> celcius) and by the time I got to the washing stage I noticed that it
> was rather clear with some white sediment at the bottom. And when I
> washed It I did not observe much soap formation. And the separation was
> almost immediate like I was mixing vegetable oil and water.
>
> Now after two days the water still looks fairly clear. The bd is
> slightly cloudy.
>
> First I worried that I hadnt completed the process and that what I was
> washing was more vegetable oil rather thatn Bd, but reprocessing it
> didn't give any glycerine.
>
>
>
> Is there any error here?
>
>
> Thanks for any advice
> Teoman
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Appal Energy
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:01 PM
> To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] two stage proccess... doubts
>
> ReZn0r,
>
> "Settling time" is simply letting gravity do the separation work for
> you, rather than enlisting equipment such as centrifuges. The more
> glycerol/soap that is extracted by settling the less impediment to the
> subsequent step, whether it be stage two or washing.
>
> Todd Swearingen
>
> >Hi
> > We are making BD with a homemade reactor (80 liters). We have
> used de single stage and de two stage (base-base) methods succesfuly,
> but we still having many doubts :)
> >
> > In the two stages method described in journeytoforever, the mix
> settle around 12 h between first and second stage before extract the
> glycerine. It?s necessary to settle so many time? It?s bad if any
> glycerine is not decanted and is mixed in the second stage? Is there any
> "trick" to avoid to wait 12 h between first and second stage?
> >
> >Many thx in advance and sorry for my bad english
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
> g
>
> 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/
>


___
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] grease trap waste

[Jan Warnqvist]

Hello Manuel,
the FFA value does not alter the net heat value, but high FFA oils are
usually quite corrosive. And - oil from grease traps may also contain
mineral oils and other fatty substances.
Good luck to you
AGERATEC AB
Jan Warnqvist
- Original Message -
From: "manuel cilia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:45 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] grease trap waste


> Has anyone has any experience with grease trap waste. I am looking into an
> idea of collecting grease trap waste and seperating the water from the
> grease, then heating the grease to a level where it can be filtered and
used
> in gas turbines while the water is cleaned up and use for irrigation I
know
> grease trap waste is very high in FFA but does this atler it total energy
> value or just its gelling point.
> - Original Message -
> From: "Joey Hundert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae
> byMichaelBriggs
>
>
> > Todd,
> >   Please forgive the fact that I'm about to post a previous thread into
> > this one, however, the archives don't seem to be working tonight.
> >
> >   The following is Keith's last post on this issue.  Subj: RE: Algae -
was
> > Re: [Biofuel] Gasoline Prices
> >
> >   Todd, if you keep a good personal archive, please also note the thread
> > "the bad news about biodiesel"
> >
> >   http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg58130.html
> >
> >   as it also has some kernels.
> >
> > -Joey
> >
> >
> > Hello Craig
> >
> >>Hello Keith,
> >>
> >>I've been doing a bit of research on microalgae production for
> >>energy and found there is some research going on around the world in
> >>various places. The NREL's 'Aquatic Species Program' research closed
> >>in the mid 1990's due, among other things, to pressure for DOE
> >>funding and the decision to focus their research budgets on ethanol
> >>production.
> >
> > Were those the only reasons? I thought there were some negative
> > reasons about algae too, could always be wrong though.
> >
> >>Also in the 1990's the Japanese took the idea on in a big way,
> >>spending more than $250 million on research into hi-tec bioreactors
> >>with optical fiber devices etc but found they were too expensive to
> >>be economical. I believe research is continuing there but on a
> >>smaller scale;
> >
> > I haven't heard of any such research here, and I'm a bit sceptical.
> > As with biodiesel itself - it's quite easy to get the impression that
> > there's lots of fancy stuff going on here, especially if you listen
> > to several quite noisy people, and there are indeed some fancy
> > Japanese patents, but in fact biodiesel hardly exists here, some (or
> > most) of the few projects that do exist are very bad, to the extent
> > that emissions tests for exemption from the restrictions of the
> > anti-diesel campaign here (Tokyo and some other places) will no
> > longer allow biodiesel because they've found it's so badly made it
> > wrecks the machinery. Tests of our biodiesel have shown it would pass
> > and wouldn't mess up any machinery, but they made a blanket rule: NO
> > biodiesel, great, thanks guys. More and more people are making their
> > own now, since we got involved (not boasting, that's what's
> > happened), high-quality fuel, but it doesn't count, too bad. Same
> > with ethanol, lots of good research, lots of schemes, but nothing
> > happens. Yet.
> >
> >>China and Israel are also leaders in applied phycology and have done
> >>work on biofuels from algae.
> >>
> >>Michael Briggs, of UNH, and his team are currently focusing on
> >>enclosed systems where the algae will process wastewater too.
> >
> > Have they made any biodiesel from it yet?
> >
> >>John Benemann, who was involved in the NREL research, is now an
> >>independent consultant and heading up an international network who
> >>are researching into it: their website gives a good overview
> >
> > Thanks, I'll take a look.
> >
> >>http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/networks/Biofixation.htm .
> >>http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/networks/documents/01roadmp.pdf
> >>
> >>Other links...
> >>NREL research
> >>http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/34796.pdf
> >>http://govdocs.aquake.org/cgi/reprint/2004/915/9150010.pdf
> >>
> >>Further studies
> >>http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/pdf/algae_salton_sea.pdf
> >>http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/energy/pdf/36_qingyu_wu_en.pdf
> >>
> >>Discussion forum exchanges
> >>http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=447609751&f=719605551&m
> >>=932606061&r=932606061#932606061
> >
> > Um... (burp), no thanks.
> >
> >>http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3153.
> >>http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3414&whichpage=1
> >>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oil_from_algae/
> >>
> >>Algal biodiesel plant planned for California?? (I don't know
> >>anything more about it)
> >>http://www.bfi.org/Trimtab/spring02/biodiesel.htm
> >