[Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil Or Petrol

[Olivier Morf]

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece
September 22, 2007

Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil Or Petrol

By Lewis Smith

A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is
contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests.

Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed
and maize have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they
save.

Other biofuels, especially those likely to see greater use over the next
decade, performed better than fossil fuels but the study raises serious
questions about some of the most commonly produced varieties.

Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent
and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The
concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is
296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists
found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as
previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the
nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure
used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent
and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings
illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures
designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before
being hailed as a solution.

³One wants rational decisions rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon
because superficially something appears to reduce emissions,² said Keith
Smith, a professor at the University of Edinburgh and one of the
researchers.

Maize for ethanol is the prime crop for biofuel in the US where production
for the industry has recently overtaken the use of the plant as a food. In
Europe the main crop is rapeseed, which accounts for 80 per cent of biofuel
production.

Professor Smith told Chemistry World: ³The significance of it is that the
supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought
hitherto.²

It was accepted by the scientists that other factors, such as the use of
fossil fuels to produce fertiliser, have yet to be fully analysed for their
impact on overall figures. But they concluded that the biofuels ³can
contribute as much or more to global warming by N2 O emissions than cooling
by fossil-fuel savings².

The research is published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics,
where it has been placed for open review. The research team was formed of
scientists from Britain, the US and Germany, and included Professor Paul
Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on ozone.

Dr Franz Conen, of the University of Basel in Switzerland, described the
study as an ³astounding insight².

³It is to be hoped that those taking decisions on subsidies and regulations
will in future take N2O emissions into account and promote some forms of
¹biofuel¹ production while quickly abandoning others,² he told the journal¹s
discussion board.

Dr Dave Reay, of the University of Edinburgh, used the findings to calculate
that with the US Senate aiming to increase maize ethanol production
sevenfold by 2022, greenhouse gas emissions from transport will rise by 6
per cent. 



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Rachel Carson, Mass Murderer?

[Keith Addison]

Find out more about preventing malaria without DDT:
http://www.panna.org/resources/ddtMalaria.html
PANNA: DDT and Malaria Resource Center

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3186

Extra! September/ October 2007

Rachel Carson, Mass Murderer?
The creation of an anti-environmental myth

By Aaron Swartz

Sometimes you find mass murderers in the most unlikely places. Take 
Rachel Carson. She was, by all accounts, a mild-mannered writer for 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-hardly a sociopath's breeding 
ground. And yet, according to many in the media, Carson has more 
blood on her hands than Hitler.

The problems started in the 1940s, when Carson left the Service to 
begin writing full-time. In 1962, she published a series of articles 
in the New Yorker, resulting in the book Silent Spring-widely 
credited with launching the modern environmental movement. The book 
discussed how pesticides and pollutants moved up the food chain, 
threatening the ecosystems for many animals, especially birds. 
Without them, it warned, we might face the title's silent spring.

Farmers used vast quantities of DDT to protect their crops against 
insects-80 million pounds were sprayed in 1959 alone-but from there 
it quickly climbed up the food chain. Bald eagles, eating fish that 
had concentrated DDT in their tissues, headed toward extinction. 
Humans, likewise accumulating DDT in our systems, appeared to get 
cancer as a result. Mothers passed the chemical on to their children 
through breast milk. Silent Spring drew attention to these concerns 
and, in 1972, the resulting movement succeeded in getting DDT banned 
in the U.S.-a ban that later spread to other nations.

And that, according to Carson's critics, is where the trouble 
started. DDT had been sprayed heavily on houses in developing 
countries to protect against malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Without it, 
malaria rates in developing countries skyrocketed. Over 1 million 
people die from it each year.

To the critics, the solution seems simple: Forget Carson's emotional 
arguments about dead birds and start spraying DDT again so we can 
save human lives.

Worse than Hitler?

"What the World Needs Now Is DDT" asserted the headline of a lengthy 
feature in the New York Times Magazine (4/11/04). "No one concerned 
about the environmental damage of DDT set out to kill African 
children," reporter Tina Rosenberg generously allowed. Nonethe-less, 
"Silent Spring is now killing African children because of its 
persistence in the public mind."

It's a common theme-echoed by two more articles in the Times by the 
same author (3/29/06, 10/5/06), and by Times columnists Nicholas 
Kristof (3/12/05) and John Tierney (6/05/07). The same refrain 
appears in a Washington Post op-ed by columnist Sebastian Mallaby, 
gleefully headlined "Look Who's Ignoring Science Now" (10/09/05). And 
again in the Baltimore Sun ("Ms. Carson's views [came] at a cost of 
many thousands of lives worldwide"-5/27/07), New York Sun ("millions 
of Africans died . . . thanks to Rachel Carson's junk science 
classic"-4/21/06), the Hill ("millions die on the altar of 
politically correct ideologies"-11/02/05), San Francisco Examiner 
("Carson was wrong, and millions of people continue to pay the 
price"-5/28/07) and Wall Street Journal ("environmental controls were 
more important than the lives of human beings"-2/21/07).

Even novelists have gotten in on the game. "Banning DDT killed more 
people than Hitler, Ted," explains a character in Michael Crichton's 
2004 bestseller, State of Fear (p. 487). "[DDT] was so safe you could 
eat it." That fictional comment not only inspired a column on the 
same theme in Australia's Sydney Morning Herald (6/18/05), it led 
Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok.) to invite Crichton and Dr. Donald R. 
Roberts, a longtime pro-DDT activist, to testify before the Senate 
Committee on Environ-ment and Public Works.

But other attacks only seem like fiction. A web page on 
junkscience.com features a live Malaria Death Clock next to a photo 
of Rachel Carson, holding her responsible for more deaths than 
malaria has caused in total. ("DDT allows [Africans to] climb out of 
the poverty/subsistence hole in which 'caring greens' apparently wish 
to keep them trapped," it helpfully explains.) And a new website from 
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, RachelWasWrong.org, features 
photos of deceased African children along the side of every page.

Developing resistance

At one level, these articles send a comforting message to the 
developed world: Saving African children is easy. We don't need to 
build large aid programs or fund major health initiatives, let alone 
develop Third-World infrastructure or think about larger issues of 
fairness. No, to save African lives from malaria, we just need to put 
our wallets away and work to stop the evil environmentalists.

Unfortunately, it's not so easy.

For one thing, there is no global DDT ban. DDT is indeed banned in 
the U.S., but malaria isn't exactl

[Biofuel] Scientists ask EPA not to register methyl iodide

[Keith Addison]

Scientists ask EPA not to register methyl iodide

Dozens of members of the National Academy of Sciences, including five 
Nobel Laureates, sent a letter to U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen 
Johnson to ask that EPA not register the carcinogenic pesticide 
methyl iodide as a replacement fumigant for ozone depletor methyl 
bromide. EPA had refused registration in 2006 after receiving 
thousands of public comments protesting the registration. Methyl 
iodide is toxic to the nervous system and the thyroid, as well as 
causing fetal losses in experimental animals. "The combined toxicity 
of methyl iodide and the potential for exposure through drift and 
groundwater contamination is on the extreme end of the spectrum," 
said Susan Kegley, Senior Scientist at PANNA. "The real question to 
ask here is why is EPA bending over backwards to register a highly 
toxic pesticide made by a Japanese-owned chemical company?"

http://www.panna.org/campaigns/driftMeI.html
PANNA: Why EPA Should Not Register Methyl Iodide

---

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ix6b5Jx_SgzxVp5BBqmw4fOMDppg
The Associated Press:
EPA to Approve New Fumigant for Crops

By RITA BEAMISH - 2 days ago

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected within days to 
approve a new toxic fumigant for use by fruit and vegetable farmers, 
despite opposition from California regulators, prominent scientists 
and environmental and farmworker groups.

The agency intends to register methyl iodide as a substitute for the 
pesticide methyl bromide, which is being phased out by international 
treaty, according to government officials familiar with the decision. 
The new product is MIDAS, a methyl iodide compound manufactured by 
Tokyo-based Arysta LifeScience Corp.

Its EPA approval is due by Friday, said the officials, who spoke on 
condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss 
the decision publicly.

EPA spokesman Dale Kemery said only that a decision will be announced 
later this week.

Anticipating EPA's approval, 54 scientists and physicians are urging 
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to block the move for 
health-related reasons or to permit a panel of independent scientists 
to scrutinize EPA's safety analysis. They include six chemistry Nobel 
Prize winners.

"We are concerned that pregnant women and the unborn fetus, children, 
the elderly, farm workers and other people living near application 
sites would be at serious risk" from fumigated fields, the group said 
in a letter to Johnson. They described the newer fumigant as "one of 
the more toxic chemicals used in manufacturing."

The deadly fumigant is injected into the soil to kill pests before 
planting tomatoes, strawberries and other crops in agricultural 
states like California and Florida. It is not applied directly to 
fruits and vegetables, so experts do not contend consumers are at 
risk from eating crops where the fumigant is used.

EPA's analysis evaluated possible buffer zones around fields and 
concluded that bystander exposure would not be significant. It said 
farmworkers could protect themselves sufficiently with respirators.

Internal documents obtained by The Associated Press indicate use of 
the fumigant may be approved on an interim basis and later reviewed 
after new safety restrictions are set for a group of fumigants 
already in use.

California is conducting its own review and would have to approve 
methyl iodide before farmers there could use it, said Glenn Brank, 
spokesman for the state Department of Pesticide Regulation.

"It's extremely toxic," Brank said. "We are concerned about whether 
or not this can be used safely."

The state last year criticized EPA's scientific analysis. Facing 
other objections, including some from its own scientists, EPA 
subsequently decided against approval and said it would revisit the 
matter this year.

EPA evaluated animal studies that linked methyl iodide inhalation to 
fetal death, respiratory lesions, thyroid toxicity and neurotoxicity, 
and thyroid tumors in rats. It concluded the chemical was not likely 
cancerous in humans "at doses that do not alter rat thyroid hormone 
homeostasis."

California, however, classifies the fumigant as a carcinogen. Studies 
also show chronic exposure can harm the central nervous system, 
lungs, skin and kidneys.

Growers welcome new alternatives to methyl bromide, which broadly 
annihilates soil pests and weeds but is banned under the Montreal 
Protocol, with progressively smaller amounts permitted each year.

Steve Fennimore, a University of California at Davis extension 
specialist, said MIDAS was the most effective substitute in 
strawberry and other trials. Georgia researchers are still studying 
the chemical's effectiveness, according to Charles Hall, executive 
director of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association.

Florida's tomato industry, weighed down by foreign competition and 
higher energy costs, also will closely evaluate the new fumigant's 
cost and how much is

[Biofuel] Oilseed and Biodiesel Production Workshop

[Tony Marzolino]

FYI - Regarding the upcoming conference.  I received it via a farm web site 
e-mail.  I thought it might interest some.
  Tony Marzolino

Oilseed and Biodiesel Production Workshop
October 30-31, 2007
Polson and Pablo, Montana 
This Oilseeds for Fuel, Feed, and the Future workshop is designed for Montana 
farmers interested in learning more about how to produce and use biodiesel or 
how to raise oilseed crops. Topics that will be covered include the economics 
of oilseed production, crushing and processing; biodiesel quality issues; small 
scale and commercial biodiesel production and market trends in oilseeds and 
co-products. The National Center for Appropriate Technology joins several other 
sponsors in presenting this workshop.

  http://www.ncat.org/oilseeds.html#workshop

   
-
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, 
photos & more. 
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20070927/549869e7/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] HL Mencken, July 1920-great reply

[Keith Addison]

>Kieth you have a real sense of the outer moron facade and the inner 
>macheavellian activity with supportive and similar associates.  The 
>observed moron  is- as you describe him and offers the simplistic 
>solutions waving the flag of danger.  I admire your sense of 
>understanding.
>Irv Levinson

Why thankyou Irv. :-) One can but try.

All best

Keith


>-Original Message-
> >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Sep 26, 2007 10:55 PM
> >To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] HL Mencken, July 1920
> >
> >Hiya Bob
> >
> >>" . . . all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most
> >>devious and mediocre - the man who can most easily (and) adeptly
> >>disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The
> >>presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is
> >>perfected, the office represents, more closely, the inner soul of
> >>the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious
> >>day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at
> >>last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
> >
> >Yes! And here we are. If only it were that unsinister! He left out
> >the accompanying corruption.
> >
> >It's surely true that anyone who'd willingly run for US president
> >should automatically be disqualified, or perhaps committed, but I
> >think Mencken's too cynical in attributing that to the inner soul of
> >the people. It's not the people that are the problem, they're the
> >victims. No matter how their outer "souls" may have been manipulated
> >and warped and corrupted, their inner soul is still okay, given half
> >a chance. But that's a lot more than can be said for their
> >institutions, in the US and everywhere else - a different matter,
> >institutions don't have souls at all, inner or outer.
> >
> >Anyway, isn't it a sort of dynamic of democracy (whatever that may
> >be) that you'll end up with a total moron at the top? The Lowest
> >Common Denominator rules? Or is that the Peter Principle? - in a
> >bureaucratic hierarchy everyone automatically achieves his own level
> >of incompetence, or something like that. Fortunately however, there's
> >more to life on Earth, and indeed to CAWKI, than bureaucratic
> >hierarchies, as well as so-called democracies. At least there is in
> >my neighbourhood, and I'm sure in yours.
> >
> >Best
> >
> >Keith


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Big Oil's Big Stall On Ethanol

[Keith Addison]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_40/b4052052.htm?chan=t 
op+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives

NEWS & INSIGHTS
By David Kiley

Big Oil's Big Stall On Ethanol
Even as it pockets billions in subsidies, it's trying to keep E85 out 
of drivers' tanks

For some industries, the prospect of $3.5 billion in federal 
subsidies now, and double that in three years, might be a powerful 
incentive. But not, apparently, for the oil industry, which is seeing 
crude oil prices soar to record highs. Despite collecting billions 
for blending small amounts of ethanol with gas, oil companies seem 
determined to fight the spread of E85, a fuel that is 85% ethanol and 
15% gas. Congress has set a target of displacing 15% of projected 
annual gasoline use with alternative fuels by 2017. Right now, wider 
availability of E85 is the likeliest way to get there.

At the same time the industry is collecting a 51 cents-per-gallon 
federal subsidy for each gallon of ethanol it mixes with gas and 
sells as E10 (10% ethanol and 90% gas), it's working against the E85 
blend with tactics both overt and stealthy. Efforts range from 
funding studies that bash the spread of ethanol for driving up the 
price of corn, and therefore some food, to not supporting E85 pumps 
at gas stations. The tactics infuriate a growing chorus of critics, 
from the usual suspects-pro-ethanol consumer groups-to the 
unexpected: the oil industry's oft-time ally, the auto industry.

Those who criticize the industry's stance see it as reminiscent of 
its attempts to discredit the theory that human use of fossil fuels 
has caused global warming. Mark N. Cooper, research director at the 
Consumer Federation of America, authored a recent paper 
characterizing the situation as "Big Oil's war on ethanol." The 
industry, he writes, "reacted aggressively against the expansion of 
ethanol production, suggesting that it perceives the growth of 
biofuels as an independent, competitive threat to its market power in 
refining and gasoline marketing."
http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/Ethanol.pdf

The industry collects the subsidies, but didn't lobby for 
them-Congress created them to encourage a larger ethanol market. 
While oil reps say they aren't anti-ethanol, they are candid about 
disliking E85. Says Al Mannato of the American Petroleum Institute 
(API), the chief trade group for oil and natural-gas companies: "We 
think [ethanol] makes an effective additive to gasoline but that it 
doesn't work well as an alternative fuel. And we don't think the 
marketplace wants E85."

One prong in the oil industry's strategy is an anti-ethanol 
information campaign. In June the API released a study it 
commissioned from research firm Global Insight Inc. The report 
concludes that consumers will be "losers" in the runup to Congress' 
target of 35 billion gallons of biofuel by 2017 because, it 
forecasts, they'll pay $12 billion-plus a year more for food as corn 
prices rise to meet ethanol demand. The conclusions are far from 
universally accepted, but they have been picked up and promoted by 
anti-ethanol groups like the Coalition for Balanced Food & Fuel 
Policy, made up of the major beef, dairy, and poultry lobbies. Global 
Insight spokesman Jim Dorsey says the funding didn't influence the 
findings: "We don't have a dog in this hunt."

Academia plays a role as well. There is perhaps no one more hostile 
to ethanol than Tad W. Patzek, a geo-engineering professor at the 
University of California at Berkeley. A former Shell petroleum 
engineer, Patzek co-founded the UC Oil Consortium, which studies 
engineering methods for getting oil out of the ground. It counts BP 
(BP ), Chevron USA, (CVX ) Mobil USA, and Shell (RDS ) among its 
funders. A widely cited 2005 paper by Patzek and Cornell University 
professor David Pimentel concluded that ethanol takes 29% more energy 
to produce than it supplies-the most severe indictment of the 
biofuel. Michael Wang, vehicle and fuel-systems analyst at the Energy 
Dept.'s Argonne National Laboratory, says among several flaws in the 
study is the use of old data and the overestimation of corn farm 
energy use by 34%. Pimentel defends the study. In a recent update, he 
and Patzek hiked the estimate of ethanol's energy deficit to 43%.

A more moderate conclusion comes from a recent study by the 
University of California at Davis, which last year received a $25 
million grant from Chevron to study biofuels. It said the energy used 
to produce ethanol is about even with what it generates and that 
cleaner emissions would be offset by the loss of pasture and 
rainforest to corn-growing. Only a small part of the research backed 
by the grant will involve ethanol, says Billy Sanders, UC Davis' 
research director. The primary focus will be developing alternative 
processes and feedstocks for biofuel that is not ethanol.

Infrastructure problems are behind much of the oil companies' 
resistance to E85. It adds "too much complexity and c

Re: [Biofuel] Dyspeptic view

[Keith Addison]

>A friend in Vermont sent the following snippet. I hope his dyspepsia 
>is better soon.

Unlikely, short of a lobotomy.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/63634/

Magna Carta to be Bought, Branded With Asterisk

By Wolfrum
Posted on September 26, 2007, Printed on September 27, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/wolfrum/63634/

This post, written by Wolfrum, originally appeared on Shakesville

When fashion designer Marc Ecko purchased the ball Barry Bonds hit 
for his record-breaking 756th home run, he created an online poll and 
let the public decide what he should do with the ball he bought for 
more than $750,000.

The end result - Ecko will mark the ball with a large asterisk then 
send it to Major League Baseball's Hall of Fame. The asterisk is a 
sign of protest by the many fans who believe Bonds' achievement is 
tainted due to rumors and allegations of steroid abuse by the San 
Francisco Giants slugger.

This idea appears to have crossed over, as now a historic document 
appears ready to go through the same treatment.

H. Ross Perot, billionaire and former candidate for President, has 
announced he will auction off his copy of the Magna Carta. The 13th 
century document, which was on display at the National Archives in 
Washington for more than 20 years.

The document explicitly protected certain rights of the king's 
subjects -- most notably the right of Habeas Corpus, meaning that 
they had rights against unlawful imprisonment.

The copy is expected to fetch a price of up to $30 million at 
auction. Nonetheless, several potential buyers have come forward 
saying they plan on "Bondsifying" the document with a large asterisk 
before donating it back to the National Archives.

"Being that Habeas Corpus is essentially meaningless in the U.S., so 
is the Magna Carta, really," said one anonymous potential buyer. "It 
really needs an asterisk so everyone knows it's not something we take 
seriously anymore."

Other potential buyers have added that they'd like to buy a copy of 
the U.S. Constitution, as well, and mark it with an asterisk.

"If you're going to privatize everything, you may as well sell the 
Constitution, also," said one anonymous billionaire buyer. "I mean, 
obviously it's been sold out from under us figuratively, so why not 
literally? It would be perfect for an asterisk. Aside from that part 
about quartering soldiers, it's become a pretty quaint old document, 
wouldn't you say?"

Wolfrum is a regular blogger for Shakesville

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/wolfrum/63634/


> Original Message 
>
>
>Copy of Magna Carta to Be Sold
>
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20980735/
>
>
>LONDON - A 13th-century copy of the Magna Carta, a milestone of English
>freedom, will be offered for sale in New York in December, Sotheby's
>auction house said Tuesday.
>
>Did no one notice?  Both the Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution were
>sold long ago by their guardians.
>
>
>
>"I think they may have depreciated in value becauseof this, and are now
>hardly worth the paper they are printed on.  See what the fishmonger will
>give us for them, Connie."
>
>"And while they have all those bidders there in New York, see how much we can
>get for that damned French statue.  Lots of copper in there.  Give 'em all
>a tour out to the island, but make sure that Persian sonofabitch is not
>on the boat?


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] HL Mencken, July 1920-great reply

[Irwin Levinson]

Kieth you have a real sense of the outer moron facade and the inner 
macheavellian activity with supportive and similar associates.  The observed 
moron  is- as you describe him and offers the simplistic solutions waving the 
flag of danger.  I admire your sense of understanding.
Irv Levinson

-Original Message-
>From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sep 26, 2007 10:55 PM
>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] HL Mencken, July 1920
>
>Hiya Bob
>
>>" . . . all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most 
>>devious and mediocre - the man who can most easily (and) adeptly 
>>disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The 
>>presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is 
>>perfected, the office represents, more closely, the inner soul of 
>>the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious 
>>day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at 
>>last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
>
>Yes! And here we are. If only it were that unsinister! He left out 
>the accompanying corruption.
>
>It's surely true that anyone who'd willingly run for US president 
>should automatically be disqualified, or perhaps committed, but I 
>think Mencken's too cynical in attributing that to the inner soul of 
>the people. It's not the people that are the problem, they're the 
>victims. No matter how their outer "souls" may have been manipulated 
>and warped and corrupted, their inner soul is still okay, given half 
>a chance. But that's a lot more than can be said for their 
>institutions, in the US and everywhere else - a different matter, 
>institutions don't have souls at all, inner or outer.
>
>Anyway, isn't it a sort of dynamic of democracy (whatever that may 
>be) that you'll end up with a total moron at the top? The Lowest 
>Common Denominator rules? Or is that the Peter Principle? - in a 
>bureaucratic hierarchy everyone automatically achieves his own level 
>of incompetence, or something like that. Fortunately however, there's 
>more to life on Earth, and indeed to CAWKI, than bureaucratic 
>hierarchies, as well as so-called democracies. At least there is in 
>my neighbourhood, and I'm sure in yours.
>
>Best
>
>Keith
>
>
>___
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] FFA Dark bio

[Rumen Slavov]

Hi All,
I apologize to you guys,it is my mistake,the stuff is
not any oil,but residues from refining oils in the
process called degumming,where the oils are treated
with water solution of lye and the resulting soaps are
treated with acid to recover the FFA`s.Generally it is
FFA with some oil in and a lot of lipids and any
organic matter diluted in the source oil.But as far as
I am sure that FFA`s are good stuff to make BD in a
simple esterification process with a proper technology
I am doing my best to put it back in the nature,where
it came from.What really bothers me is that when we
treat the glyc from the bottom of the reactors,the
recovered FFA is dark colored!So I am going to
experiment around:I will produce soap from a virgin
refined oil and treat it with acid to produce a pure
FFA to see if it is also dark.Wish me luck!
By the way,we have offers for high acidic oils from
Brazil,no idea about the origin,maybe refining
residues too?
Regards
Ross


   

Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. 
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] FFA decolorization

[José María Montenegro]

If the coloured particles (maybe with so high percent of FFA, this oil has
been used for many cicles of heating or a strong treatment, and probably it
has a high decomposition ratio) are quite small, bentonite has not capacity
to recover from the media.  The carbon is better for this purposes.

Best


2007/9/27, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hi Ross
>
> >Hi all,
> >Keith,the quality is not a question,according to my
> >NIR the BD is 99.2% esters - the foolproof method -
> >acid stage and 2 alkaline stages with glycerin removal
> >between ,
>
> Good going!
>
> Then it really seems a pity to bother about the colour.
>
> By the way, where do you get the 60% FFA oil from, if you don't mind
> my asking? What's it been used for to have so much FFA?
>
> >but I am supplying a close circle of friends
> >with fuel and the people asking me "What is that black
> >sh.t you are producing?"
>
> :-) Friends should be more friendly.
>
> Maybe you need a suitable slogan or a brandname or something, like
> black is beautiful - but, strange to tell, in the English language
> "black" usually means trouble, it's white that means all the good
> things, now ain't that a surprise (not!). I mean they don't make
> black Kleenex. (Or do they?)
>
> Anyway you'd need it in Bulgarian, maybe it's not such a racist
> language as English.
>
> >Thanks,Mr Montenegro,the activated carbon is my last
> >mean,I somehow kept the hope that I solve the problem
> >with some bleaching agent
>
> A bleach might cause pH problems though. The carbon should work,
> though I'm surprised the bentonite didn't.
>
> All best
>
> Keith
>
>
> >since boiling the BD sounds
> >no good to me/polymerization!/ and filtering is OK
> >with 5 micron in the end of the line.
> >Ross
>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20070927/65b79508/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] FFA decolorization

[Keith Addison]

Hi Ross

>Hi all,
>Keith,the quality is not a question,according to my
>NIR the BD is 99.2% esters - the foolproof method -
>acid stage and 2 alkaline stages with glycerin removal
>between ,

Good going!

Then it really seems a pity to bother about the colour.

By the way, where do you get the 60% FFA oil from, if you don't mind 
my asking? What's it been used for to have so much FFA?

>but I am supplying a close circle of friends
>with fuel and the people asking me "What is that black
>sh.t you are producing?"

:-) Friends should be more friendly.

Maybe you need a suitable slogan or a brandname or something, like 
black is beautiful - but, strange to tell, in the English language 
"black" usually means trouble, it's white that means all the good 
things, now ain't that a surprise (not!). I mean they don't make 
black Kleenex. (Or do they?)

Anyway you'd need it in Bulgarian, maybe it's not such a racist 
language as English.

>Thanks,Mr Montenegro,the activated carbon is my last
>mean,I somehow kept the hope that I solve the problem
>with some bleaching agent

A bleach might cause pH problems though. The carbon should work, 
though I'm surprised the bentonite didn't.

All best

Keith


>since boiling the BD sounds
>no good to me/polymerization!/ and filtering is OK
>with 5 micron in the end of the line.
>Ross


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Stopping War On Iran: Talking Points

[Keith Addison]

Eat the State! Vol. 12, Issue #2 27 sept. 07
www.eatthestate.org

Stopping War On Iran: Talking Points

In recent weeks, as hostile Bush administration rhetoric toward Iran 
has ramped up, numerous press reports (particularly from the British 
press) have suggested that Bush has decided to launch a massive 
military strike against Iran.

Such a strike would have disastrous consequences, from the loss of 
life, to a probable regional war throughout the Middle East, to the 
economic impact of the cost and the threat to oil supplies, to the 
impact on an already-reeling American military itself. It's an eerie 
replay of the run-up to the Iraq war--full of lies and distortions 
and insincere diplomatic posturing--only with bigger stakes. But 
there are two crucial differences: the American public has seen what 
has happened with Iraq (and how we were lied to), and Congress is no 
longer controlled by Republican sycophants.

True, there are plenty of Democratic sycophants as well. But Congress 
is still our best hope of preventing this catastrophe. And it will 
only act if the public is informed and outraged.

To this end, here are some talking points on why a military strike 
against Iran is such a bad idea. Use them in communications with 
Congressional offices, in letters to the editor and talk shows, in 
conversations with your friends, relatives, neighbors, co-workers. Do 
what you can to stop what would be the crowning blow to our country 
from the most criminal administration in history.

1. THE FALSE RATIONALES FOR ATTACK: The Bush administration has three 
major arguments for war with Iran: Its nuclear program, alleged 
support for Iraqi insurgents, and its fundamentalism and support of 
allied terrorist groups.

* Iran is five to ten years away from having usable nuclear weapons.

* Iran is cooperating with the IAEA (the U.N.'s nuclear materials 
control agency). Its nuclear program is so far completely legal.

* The three countries known to have nuclear weapons in defiance of 
international law--Israel, India, and Pakistan--are all now receiving 
military aid from the US.

* The US has been claiming that Iran is arming Iraqi insurgents, but 
the majority of attacks against US forces are from Sunni militias 
that are also opposed to Shiite Iran.

* There is an enormous black market in weapons in Iraq, mostly 
American ones. There has been no evidence the Iranian government is 
connected to the presence or use of Iranian weapons in Iraq.

* The Iraqi militia most closely aligned with Iran is sponsored by 
the largest faction in Prime Minister al-Maliki's Iraqi government.

* Any number of countries sponsor or "harbor" terror groups, 
including almost every US ally in the Middle East. We don't attack 
them to solve the problem.

* US hawkishness has undermined Iranian reform efforts and 
strengthened the hardliners.

* Iran has never attacked the United States (or any other country), 
and poses no threat to it.

* How can we trust any intelligence, prediction, or analysis from 
this administration after Iraq?

2. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS: An attack against Iran 
would be unpopular, immoral, illegal, and would have enormous 
ramifications within and beyond the Middle East.

* The doctrine of "preemptive attack" against a country that has not 
attacked the US and is not in imminent danger of doing so is by 
definition illegal under international law, as well as deeply immoral.

* Congress has never authorized war with Iran; an attack on Bush's 
sole authority would be unconstitutional. Even if Congress did 
authorize it, such a war would be an illegal war of aggression under 
international law.

* The war with Iraq is already widely opposed by the American public. 
An attack on Iran would also be broadly unpopular in the US and 
throughout the world.

* As with Iraq, most of the casualties from an attack on Iran and the 
resulting regional war would be civilian. The loss of life would 
likely be massive.

  * Attacking Iran without provocation would further damage US moral, 
political, and economic standing around the world.

* An attack on Iran and the resulting war would be staggeringly expensive.

* If Iran's chief export were salt, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

* The threat to the Middle East's oil supply could make oil and gas 
much more expensive throughout the world, triggering a global 
economic crisis.

3. MILITARY AND NATIONAL SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS: An attack against 
Iran is likely to be militarily disastrous.

* Iran is a much larger and more populous country than Iraq, with a 
stronger economy and a large military. Iran could and would 
retaliate, and the Iranian public would likely rally around its 
government. Once begun, war could end only with US retreat or the 
nuclear annihilation of Iran.

* The possible use of nuclear weapons against Iran would lead to a 
global nuclear arms race that would be exponentially worse for 
long-term US national security.

[Biofuel] Global Warming Skeptic Can't Stand the Heat

[Keith Addison]

http://www.prwatch.org/node/6476
| Center for Media and Democracy
Source: Society of Environmental Journalists, September 19, 2007

Global Warming Skeptic Can't Stand the Heat

Patrick J. Michaels, one of the 
 global warming skeptics most often 
interviewed by news media, withdrew as an expert in a high-profile 
Vermont court case rather than disclose his funding sources," reports 
the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Michaels is a University of Virginia professor and 
 Cato Institute fellow who edits the "World 
Climate Report," a web publication "heavily funded by coal and 
electric utility industries with a large financial stake in 
preventing regulation of greenhouse emissions."

In the Vermont case, automakers challenged the state's right to 
regulate greenhouse gases, and hired Michaels as an expert witness. 
Michaels told the court that he was dependent on income from his 
firm, New Hope Environmental Services, and that some of his clients 
require their funding to be confidential.

When auto industry lawyers told Michaels that his financial 
information might be made public, due to the environmental group 
 Greenpeace's request for disclosure, Michaels 
withdrew as a witness in the case.

In court filings, Michaels blamed 2006 news reports naming the 
Colorado-based coal-burning utility Intermountain Rural Electric 
Association (IREA) as one of his clients with the loss of funding 
from IREA and another utility, Tri-State Generation & Transmission 
Association.

Full story:
http://www.sej.org/foia/index7.htm
Society of Environmental Journalists
Sep. 19, 2007
CLIMATE SKEPTIC REFUSES TO DISCLOSE FUNDING

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] 'A Coup Has Occurred' - Daniel Ellsberg

[Keith Addison]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18456.htm

'A Coup Has Occurred'

By Daniel Ellsberg

09/26/07 "ICH" -- -- September 26, 2007 (Text of a speech delivered 
September 20, 2007) -- - - I think nothing has higher priority than 
averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied by a 
further change in our way of governing here that in effect will 
convert us into what I would call a police state.

If there's another 9/11 under this regime Š it means that they switch 
on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been 
patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually 
leaked out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in 
Congress, by the Republicans and so forth.

Will there be anything left for NSA to increase its surveillance of 
us? Š  They may be to the limit of their technical capability now, or 
they may not. But if they're not now they will be after another 9/11.

And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack 
on Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran - an 
escalation - which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of 
dissent in this country, including detention camps.

It's a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they 
could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which 
Iran's reaction against Israel, against our shipping, against our 
troops in Iraq above all, possibly in this country, will justify the 
full panoply of measures that have been prepared now, legitimized, 
and to some extent written into law.  Š

This is an unusual gang, even for Republicans. [But] I think that the 
successors to this regime are not likely to roll back the assault on 
the Constitution. They will take advantage of it, they will exploit 
it.

Will Hillary Clinton as president decide to turn off NSA after the 
last five years of illegal surveillance? Will she deprive her 
administration her ability to protect United States citizens from 
possible terrorism by blinding herself and deafening herself to all 
that NSA can provide? I don't think so.

Unless this somehow, by a change in our political climate, of a 
radical change, unless this gets rolled back in the next year or two 
before a new administration comes in - and there's no move to do this 
at this point - unless that happens I don't see it happening under 
the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic.

The Next Coup

Let me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has 
occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, 
that a coup has occurred. It's not just a question that a coup lies 
ahead with the next 9/11. That's the next coup, that completes the 
first.

The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental 
of our Constitution, Š what the rest of the world looked at for the 
last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world - 
in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, 
individual rights protected from majority infringement by the 
Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment.

There have been violations of these principles by many presidents 
before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of 
illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon 
Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA, FBI, NSA against 
Americans.

I could go through a list going back before this century to Lincoln's 
suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, and before that the 
Alien and Sedition Acts in the 18th century. I think that none of 
those presidents were in fact what I would call quite precisely the 
current administration: domestic enemies of the Constitution.

I think that none of these presidents with all their violations, 
which were impeachable had they been found out at the time and in 
nearly every case their violations were not found out until they were 
out of office so we didn't have the exact challenge that we have 
today.

That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson, 
Kennedy and others. They were impeachable, they weren't found out in 
time, but I think it was not their intention to in the crisis 
situations that they felt justified their actions, to change our form 
of government.

It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that 
comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David 
Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 
70s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but have believed in 
Executive government, single-branch government under an Executive 
president - elected or not - with unrestrained powers. They did not 
believe in restraint.

When I say this I'm not saying they are traitors. I don't think they 
have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to 
help a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love 
of this country and what they think is best for this co