Re: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil Or Petrol
Olivier Morf wrote: 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 SNIP 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. And what if good organic and biodynamic tecniques are used and the health of the soil and microorganisms is considered so that nitrogen is fixed through natural processes? Is this not a nitrogen sink rather than a source? Sighanother brick in the smear campaign wall...not even a clever one. Joe ___ 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] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil Or Petrol
Dear all; _*This is not new*_ but the publicity and the way it was publicized is.In the past several engine test where run and exhaust gases were analyzed. ( Keith do you agree?) More nox are there. (It seems to me higher nox is a manageable consequence when using biofuels). Some biofuels produce more than the others but all produce more nox then fossil fuel. A credible analysis must consider several parameters and so it must carry a LCA life cycle analysis; this is a must ( this is not a simple task even though is not very difficult). At the end I believe ( this is not hard data this is my guess ) biofuels still will perform better on environmental terms and most likely will be more economical as the damages cost of biofuels are much lower then teh one form fossil fuels. Very best for us Chic Joe Street escreveu: Olivier Morf wrote: 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 SNIP 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. And what if good organic and biodynamic tecniques are used and the health of the soil and microorganisms is considered so that nitrogen is fixed through natural processes? Is this not a nitrogen sink rather than a source? Sighanother brick in the smear campaign wall...not even a clever one. Joe ___ 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil Or Petrol
Yes NOx emmissions can change when switching from petroleum to biofuels. They can go up or down depending on the specific circumstances according to what I read. However what can be said in a general sense is this; oxides of nitrogen form when combustion temperature is high enough for the reaction to take place between nitrogen and oxygen. I have found a way to reduce combustion temperatures by injecting a mixture of water and alcohol recovered from my fuel making process. I don't have a way of quantifying my emissions other than paying for a test but the system I put in my car can be enabled or disabled with the flick of a switch. If there is anyone on the list who is willing to test my car I would be very interested to learn what the effect of my system is on NOx emissions. Joe francisco ramos wrote: Dear all; _*This is not new*_ but the publicity and the way it was publicized is.In the past several engine test where run and exhaust gases were analyzed. ( Keith do you agree?) More nox are there. (It seems to me higher nox is a manageable consequence when using biofuels). Some biofuels produce more than the others but all produce more nox then fossil fuel. A credible analysis must consider several parameters and so it must carry a LCA life cycle analysis; this is a must ( this is not a simple task even though is not very difficult). At the end I believe ( this is not hard data this is my guess ) biofuels still will perform better on environmental terms and most likely will be more economical as the damages cost of biofuels are much lower then teh one form fossil fuels. Very best for us Chic Joe Street escreveu: Olivier Morf wrote: 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 SNIP 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. And what if good organic and biodynamic tecniques are used and the health of the soil and microorganisms is considered so that nitrogen is fixed through natural processes? Is this not a nitrogen sink rather than a source? Sighanother brick in the smear campaign wall...not even a clever one. Joe ___ 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/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20070928/1427254f/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/
[Biofuel] The ultimate globalwarming challenge
If you can scientifically prove that there is harmful manmade global warming going on, you can grab the prize money, 125,000 $ The bet is on for 53 day's , up to now, nobody claimed the prize. See article or the linked site for more details. This challenge comes, if you like to know, from an other site: www.junkscience.com/ and the man behind the scene their is : Steven J. Milloy Steven J. Milloy is: the founder and publisher of http://www.junkscience.com/index.htmlJunkScience.com and http://www.csrwatch.com/CSRwatch.com ; an investment adviser to the http://www.freeenterpriseactionfund.com/Free Enterprise Action Fund ; and a columnist for http://www.foxnews.com/FoxNews.com . ... ;-) Grts Bruno M. ~~ http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/ [] CHALLENGE $125,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses: UGWC Hypothesis 1 Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling. UGWC Hypothesis 2 The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered. [] RULES By submitting an entry to the contest, entrants agree to the following terms and conditions: Entrants agreed to be bound by the UGWC Rules. Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest. JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final. The winner, if any, will receive $125,000 in a single, lump sum payment. JunkScience.com does not promise or guarantee that the UGWC will have any winner. All entries must represent the original work of an entrant that has been produced specifically for the UGWC. All data used in an entry must be publicly available and readily accessible to the public. Entries will be accepted starting August 7, 2007. A fee of $15 is required for each entry submitted. There will be no refunds of entry fees. No entries will be accepted after December 1, 2008. The results of the UGWC will be announced on February 1, 2009. All entries must be submitted in MS Word or PDF format. Entries must include a summary or abstract of no more than 700 words for each hypothesis. Entrants consent to their entries being posted on the contest web site for public review and comment. Entrants waive all rights and claims against JunkScience.com related to, or arising from the UGWC. = -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: 27/09/2007 17:00 ___ 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] The ultimate globalwarming challenge
Bruno M. wrote: If you can scientifically prove that there is harmful manmade global warming going on, you can grab the prize money, 125,000 $ It's a fool's errand. Steven J. Milloy is: the founder and publisher of http://www.junkscience.com/index.htmlJunkScience.com and http://www.csrwatch.com/CSRwatch.com ; an investment adviser to the http://www.freeenterpriseactionfund.com/Free Enterprise Action Fund ; and a columnist for http://www.foxnews.com/FoxNews.com . This is WHY it's a fool's errand: Entrants agreed to be bound by the UGWC Rules. Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest. Need I write more? robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice The Long Journey New Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ 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] New biofuels RD website from Sun Grant .org
... Since april 2007 May be a usefull link for your bookmarks? http://bioweb.sungrant.org Grts Bruno M. FYI: The Sun Grant BioWeb is a non-commercial, educational website that provides current information about using biomass resources for bioenergy and bioproducts. This site is designed to help you understand: What biomass is, where it is, and how much is available. The ways it can be converted to biofuels, biopower, and bioproducts. The current state of biomass technology, research, production use Biomass economics and policy BioWeb's content authors, web, and database design teams are hard at work behind the scenes refining the system and content. Additional content will be added as it is available. ... BioWeb represents a joint effort of the five U.S. regional http://www.sungrant.org/Sun Grant Centers of Excellence (http://sungrant.tennessee.edu/University of Tennessee, http://ncsungrant.sdstate.org/South Dakota State University, http://sungrant.oregonstate.edu/Oregon State University, http://sungrant.okstate.edu/Oklahoma State University, and http://www.nesungrant.cornell.edu/Cornell University). BioWeb contributors represent a broad spectrum of expertise in the biomass arena, including universities, national laboratories, federal agencies, state governments, and private industry. BioWeb is not new research or unvetted ideas. Rather, it is a first-of-its-kind organization and packaging of existing work, reviewed by academic professionals for accuracy. This resource complements existing research and educational efforts. BioWeb fills a niche that can benefit all agencies, organizations, and individuals contributing to the advancement of a feasible and valuable biobased industry for America. === -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: 27/09/2007 17:00 ___ 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] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil Or Petrol
On Sep 28, 2007, at 6:15 AM, Joe Street wrote: And what if good organic and biodynamic tecniques are used and the health of the soil and microorganisms is considered so that nitrogen is fixed through natural processes? Is this not a nitrogen sink rather than a source? I think nitrogen fixing typically takes molecular nitrogen (N2) out of the air -- not sure if nitrogen oxides can be fixed in the same way. If NOx is really a bad GHG, and if it can't be utilized by nitrogen- fixing bacteria, then methods must be employed to reduce its emissions from biodiesel burning -K ___ 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] The ultimate globalwarming challenge
You're quite right Robert. Bruno M. wrote: If you can scientifically prove that there is harmful manmade global warming going on, you can grab the prize money, 125,000 $ You wouldn't want someone like Steven J. Milloy deciding on the scientific proof of whether oil burns or water's wet, let alone global warming. Eg: STEVEN MILLOY: A columnist for FoxNews.com and publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. Milloy also runs the Advancement of Sound Science Center and the Free Enterprise Action Institute. Those two groups-apparently run out of Milloy's home-received $90,000 from ExxonMobil. Key quote: The date of Kyoto's implementation will live in scientific and economic infamy. Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least five. That quote's from the list archives, along with ExxonMobil's donations to the other global warming denialists, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Paul Driessen, Patrick Michaels, S. Fred Singer, etc etc etc, who work so tirelessly to serve their masters' bidding. Traitors to their planet, let alone to science and humanity. But I guess it keeps their pockets warm. http://www.mail-archive.com/search?q=Milloy[EMAIL PROTECTED] Milloy 30 matches The ultimate global warming challenge is to do something effective about it following 20 wasted years of very well-funded inaction sponsored by the likes of ExxonMobil and defended by paid maggots like Steven J. Milloy in the name of science. THAT's what will live in scientific and economic infamy. There are excellent resources in the archives for exposing spin and disinformation. One-stop shop: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch SourceWatch Do your homework next time, eh, Bruno? Keith It's a fool's errand. Steven J. Milloy is: the founder and publisher of http://www.junkscience.com/index.htmlJunkScience.com and http://www.csrwatch.com/CSRwatch.com ; an investment adviser to the http://www.freeenterpriseactionfund.com/Free Enterprise Action Fund ; and a columnist for http://www.foxnews.com/FoxNews.com . This is WHY it's a fool's errand: Entrants agreed to be bound by the UGWC Rules. Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest. Need I write more? robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice The Long Journey New Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ 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] he made over 7 million loans
Kiva.org gives you a chance to do what Muhammad Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize for last year. And for 30 years he was one of the world's great micro-credit lenders. He made over 7 million loans, 97 percent to village women with a 98.5 percent payback rate. And over half of the people he loaned money to worked their way above the international poverty line so that per capita income in his native Bangladesh moved from less than a dollar a day to about $570 a year, largely driven by the Grameen Bank and other projects like that in good times and bad. - Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20070928/b7084012/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] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil Or Petrol
Hi Ken and all On Sep 28, 2007, at 6:15 AM, Joe Street wrote: And what if good organic and biodynamic tecniques are used and the health of the soil and microorganisms is considered so that nitrogen is fixed through natural processes? Is this not a nitrogen sink rather than a source? I think nitrogen fixing typically takes molecular nitrogen (N2) out of the air -- not sure if nitrogen oxides can be fixed in the same way. If NOx is really a bad GHG, and if it can't be utilized by nitrogen- fixing bacteria, then methods must be employed to reduce its emissions from biodiesel burning -K This report, like so many others, fails to distinguish between biofuels and Agrofuels, and fails to take the full life-cycle approach, which is the only one that tells any truths. Some things probably have to be offset against other things. Agrofuels won't ever be carbon-neutral, but biofuels (small-scale, local) can be carbon-neutral, and in such a context any extra NOx that comes with biodiesel is probably a worthwhile tradeoff compared with fossil-diesel. Gasoline motors are still cleaner-burning than diesels, but diesels use much less fuel, and when they use local biodiesel the carbon reduction makes any extra NOx an even smaller issue. Klaus Elsbett told me this four years ago, in a comment on Tokyo's buffoon of a mayor's ridiculous DieselNo! campaign: One has to distinguish between local pollution and global pollution: The use of renewable energy is of greatest importance to reduce global pollution, especially that of greenhouse gases. But it cannot solve the problem of overpollution in overpopulated and overmotorised areas such as Greater Tokyo, Los Angeles, Mexico City and the like. While in city traffic and stop-and-go driving condition the diesel (i.e. compression ignition) system is by far the most fuel-efficient engine system, the exhaust gas emissions (whether with diesel or with veggie oil) in terms of nitrogen oxid, hydrocarbons and blacksmoke are less good than those of lpg or gasoline (i.e. spark ignition) engines. That is due to the fact that the exhaust gas aftertreatment and -aftercleaning of spark ignition engines is much more advanced, even though that costs you double the fuel consumption. So in my opinion the DieselNo! campaign falls short as it is just trying to solve the problem of local pollution at the cost of higher global pollution. That is quite typical for local populistic politicians. In my opinion, the real solution was to ban every vehicle with a combustion engine and replace it with a perfect public transportation system and goods distribution logistic at least in those urban areas. Quite so. One reason exhaust gas treatment of spark ignition engines is more advanced than with diesels is the old high-sulphur petrodiesel fuel, because the sulphur poisons the catalyst in catalytic converters. But biodiesel contains no sulphur, so diesels using 100% biodiesel can use catalytic converters. So can diesels using the newer ULSD (Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel) fuels, but the problem with that is that it's only the newer, more advanced diesel engines that can use those fuels, because it's the sulphur content of the fuel that provides the required engine lubricity. But biodiesel has very high lubricity even without sulphur, and when biodiesel is used as a lubricity additive to ULSD (2%), older diesels can burn the new fuel without a major retrofit and can also use after-treatment technologies. That's important because diesel motors last such a long time, and replacing them before their use-by date only for emissions reasons comes with very high eco-manufacturing costs (including extra emissions). If you visit DieselNet you'll find a lot of progress being made on improving diesel emissions, on all fronts. There are also fuel additives that reduce NOx emissions well below petro-diesel levels. A report like this that doesn't take all this into account is both biased and ignorant, IMHO. Real junk science. Ken, I don't know if N-fixing bacteria can deal with NOx or not, but I think it'd be asking rather a lot of them to handle this problem for us. A bit like asking cows not to fart so we can all go on guzzling gas like there's no tomorrow (actually they don't fart methane, they belch it). I think we can handle it ourselves. Publish-or-perish scientists don't help much though. All 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] Twentynine steps to the unthinkable
Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Problems are My Holocaust Problems Michael Santomauro - ReportersNoteBook Sept 27, 2007 The Holocaust consists of three basic elements: (1) Approximately six million Jews were deliberately killed. (2) These killings were part of a state sponsored program on the part of the Third Reich whose ultimate goal was the total eradication of the Jewish people. (3) The bulk of these murders took place in special death camps where the principal mechanism of execution was the homicidal gas chamber that utilized Zyclon B, a commercial pesticide whose active ingredient was hydrogen cyanide. That the Third Reich possessed the technological and administrative means to carry out such a vast amount of killing there is little doubt. The Soviet Union with significantly inferior assets in these areas was able to kill far greater numbers of human beings. Furthermore, the armies of the Third Reich succeeded in killing at least ten million of its heavily armed military opponents in the course of World War II. Hence the killing of six million unarmed civilians should not have presented any unique problems to such an industrially advanced and bureaucratically efficient state as Nazi Germany, on the contrary, it would have been far easier. My doubts about the Holocaust are not centered on whether it could have happened but whether it did happen. In fact many of the doubts that I have are a direct consequence of the fact that I have no doubt that it actually could have happened...but certainly not in the ways that have been described thus far in the ''official'' literature. It is part of the Western tradition in legal, scientific and intellectual matters that those asserting something have the burden of proof and that those who disagree are not required to provide evidence. This tradition however has been turned on its head regarding the Holocaust since the ''historical truth'' of the Holocaust has been posited in advance. Furthermore, even to express doubts can result in criminal penalties in at least 11 so-called democratic countries and the ruining of lives and careers in numerous others. Listed below are some of the ''problems '' I have with the Holocaust. Should these be cleared up it would go a long way toward my accepting it .they are in no particular order. 1) Why did Elie Wiesel and countless other Jews survive the Holocaust if it was the intention of the Third Reich to eliminate every Jew they got there hands on? Elie was a prisoner for several years; other Jews survived even longer. Most of these ''survivors'' were ordinary people who did not have any unique expertise that the Germans could have exploited for their war effort. There was no logical reason for them to be kept alive. The very existence of more than a million survivors even today, some sixty years later, contradicts one of the basic components of the Holocaust i.e. that the Germans had a policy to eliminate every Jew they got their hands on. 2) Why is their no mention of the Holocaust in Churchill's six volume History of the Second World War or the wartime memoirs of either De Gaulle or Eisenhower or any of the other lesser luminaries who wrote about the Second World War. Keep in mind all these were written years after the war ended and thus after the Holocaust had been allegedly proven by the Nuremberg Trials? With regard to the Holocaust, the silence of these cognoscenti is deafening! 3) What was an inmate infirmary (and a brothel) doing in Auschwitz if in fact it was a death camp? 4) Why would the Germans round up Jews from their far flung empire, thereby tying up large numbers of personnel and rolling stock, while fighting a world war on two fronts to deliver people to ''death camps'' hundreds of miles away who were then executed upon arrival.wouldn't a bullet on the spot have appealed to legendary German sense of efficiency? 5) Why after sixty years have historians been unable to come up with a single German document that points to a Holocaust? Should we believe the likes of Raul Hilberg that in the place of written orders there was an incredible meeting of the minds by the literally tens of thousands of people who would have had to coordinate their actions in order to carry out an undertaking of this magnitude. Prof. Hilberg's exact quote: But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus - mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy. Let us note again those final words: an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus - mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy. 6) How come it is still insisted upon that six million Jews were killed when the official
[Biofuel] Power harnessed one step at a time
Power harnessed one step at a time In the push to harvest alternative energy, scientists have tapped a number of novel sources: the sun, corn, old cooking oil. But how about the simple act of walking? For two architecture students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass., the sound of footsteps is an echo of energy gone to waste. They figure that the stomp of every footfall gives off enough power to light two 60-watt bulbs for one second. Now imagine how many people walk through a train station each morning, or walk down the street in Hong Kong, says James Graham, who, with fellow MIT graduate student Thaddeus Jusczyk, is helping to develop the growing field of crowd farming. http://blog.alternate-energy.net/entries/entry_19.php Get your daily alternative energy news Alternate Energy Resource Network 1000+ news sources-resources updated daily http://www.alternate-energy.net News Blog http://blog.alternate-energy.net/index.php Next_Generation_Grid http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/next_generation_grid Alternative_Energy_Politics http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Alternative_Energy_Politics Tomorrow-energy http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/tomorrow-energy Earth_Rescue_International http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Earth_Rescue_International ___ 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/
