Re: [Biofuel] The unspoken Holocaust

[Keith Addison]

Hi Bob

>Hi all,
> Back again, asking more questions. Read only the last 
>paragraph if the rest enrages you. Shouldn't I just shut up?

:-) Only if you want to.

Anyway, it's certainly been very widely ignored (like the gypsy death 
toll) but it's not quite an unspoken Holocaust, or not anymore. The 
subject recently got a major airing in the mainstream press, though 
not in the US, as with so much else. See, eg.:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17596.htm
How three million Germans died after VE Day
04/25/07 "The Telegraph"
Nigel Jones reviews After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to 
the Berlin Airlift by Giles MacDonogh

Here's the book (different subtitle in the US version):
http://snipurl.com/1rqme
Amazon.com: After the Reich: The Brutal History of The Allied 
Occupation: Books: Giles MacDonogh

The Telegraph piece is below.

Thanks for posting Sunic's piece. "Why are the sufferings and 
victimhood of some nations or ethnic groups ignored, while the 
sufferings of other nations and groups receive fulsome and 
sympathetic attention from the media and politicians?"

Like I said, some genocides just aren't fashionable. That's an 
extremely lousy answer, we badly need better answers than that, and 
taboos and false sacred cows won't help us get them.

Best

Keith

--

How Three Million Germans Died after VE Day

Nigel Jones reviews After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to 
the Berlin Airlift by Giles MacDonogh

04/25/07 "The Telegraph" -- --- Giles MacDonogh is a bon viveur and a 
historian of wine and gastronomy, but in this book, pursuing his 
other consuming interest - German history - he serves a dish to turn 
the strongest of stomachs. It makes particularly uncomfortable 
reading for those who compare the disastrous occupation of Iraq 
unfavourably to the post-war settlement of Germany and Austria.

MacDonogh argues that the months that followed May 1945 brought no 
peace to the shattered skeleton of Hitler's Reich, but suffering even 
worse than the destruction wrought by the war. After the atrocities 
that the Nazis had visited on Europe, some degree of justified 
vengeance by their victims was inevitable, but the appalling 
bestialities that MacDonogh documents so soberly went far beyond 
that. The first 200 pages of his brave book are an almost unbearable 
chronicle of human suffering.

His best estimate is that some three million Germans died 
unnecessarily after the official end of hostilities. A million 
soldiers vanished before they could creep back to the holes that had 
been their homes. The majority of them died in Soviet captivity (of 
the 90,000 who surrendered at Stalingrad, only 5,000 eventually came 
home) but, shamingly, many thousands perished as prisoners of the 
Anglo-Americans. Herded into cages along the Rhine, with no shelter 
and very little food, they dropped like flies. Others, more 
fortunate, toiled as slave labour in a score of Allied countries, 
often for years. Incredibly, some Germans were still being held in 
Russia as late as 1979.

The two million German civilians who died were largely the old, women 
and children: victims of disease, cold, hunger, suicide - and mass 
murder.

Apart from the well-known repeated rape of virtually every girl and 
woman unlucky enough to be in the Soviet occupation zones, perhaps 
the most shocking outrage recorded by MacDonogh - for the first time 
in English - is the slaughter of a quarter of a million Sudeten 
Germans by their vengeful Czech compatriots. The survivors of this 
ethnic cleansing, naked and shivering, were pitched across the 
border, never to return to their homes. Similar scenes were seen 
across Poland, Silesia and East Prussia as age-old German communities 
were brutally expunged.

Given that what amounted to a lesser Holocaust was unfolding under 
their noses, it may be asked why the western Allies did not stop this 
venting of long-dammed-up rage on the (mainly) innocent. MacDonogh's 
answer is that it could all have been even worse. The US Treasury 
Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, favoured turning Germany into a gigantic 
farm, and there were genocidal Nazi-like schemes afoot to starve, 
sterilise or deport the population of what was left of the bombed-out 
cities.

The discovery of the Nazi death camps stoked Allied fury, with 
General George Patton asking an aide amid the horrors of Buchenwald: 
'Do you still find it hard to hate them?' But the surviving inmates 
were soon replaced by German captives - Dachau, Buchenwald, 
Sachsenhausen and even Auschwitz stayed in business after the war, 
only now with the Germans behind the wire.

It was Realpolitik, not humanitarian concern, that caused a swift 
shift in western attitudes towards their former foes. Fear of 
Communism spreading into the heart of Europe, and the barbarities of 
the Russians - who kidnapped and killed hundreds of their perceived 
enemies from the western zones of Berlin and Vienna - belatedly made 

[Biofuel] Engine Temperature and BioDiesel

[Tony Marzolino]

Hello List,
  When using a blended bio-diesel (say B30 or any blend) does engine temp. 
effect performance?  With the Cummings 5.9 diesel, it seems that the hotter the 
day and warmer the engine the better the truck runs.  
   
  With a B30 blend, there was much better engine performance than running 
straight diesel.  Have other members noticed a difference too?
   
  Thanks
  Tony Marzolino

   
-
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/20071003/f9f47df2/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 unspoken Holocaust

[Bob Molloy]

Hi all,
 Back again, asking more questions. Read only the last paragraph if 
the rest enrages you. Shouldn't I just shut up?  
Regards,
Bob.

  
The Destruction of Ethnic Germans and German Prisoners of War in Yugoslavia, 
1945-1953

Tomislav Sunic

  From the European and American media, one can often get the 
impression that World War II needs to be periodically resurrected to give 
credibility to financial demands of one specific ethnic group, at the expense 
of others. The civilian deaths of the war's losing side are, for the most part, 
glossed over. Standard historiography of World War II is routinely based on a 
sharp and polemical distinction between the "ugly" fascists who lost, and the 
"good" anti-fascists who won, and few scholars are willing to inquire into the 
gray ambiguity in between. Even as the events of that war become more distant 
in time, they seemingly become more politically useful and timely as myths.

  German military and civilian losses during and especially 
after World War II are still shrouded by a veil of silence, at least in the 
mass media, even though an impressive body of scholarly literature exists on 
that topic. The reasons for this silence, due in large part to academic 
negligence, are deep rooted and deserve further scholarly inquiry. Why, for 
instance, are German civilian losses, and particularly the staggering number of 
postwar losses among ethnic Germans, dealt with so sketchily, if at all, in 
school history courses? The mass media -- television, newspapers, film and 
magazines -- rarely, if ever, look at the fate of the millions of German 
civilians in central and eastern Europe during and following World War II. [1]

  The treatment of civilian ethnic Germans -- or Volksdeutsche 
-- in Yugoslavia may be regarded as a classic case of "ethnic cleansing" on a 
grand scale. [2]  A close look at these mass killings presents a myriad of 
historical and legal problems, especially when considering modern international 
law, including the Hague War Crimes Tribunal that has been dealing with war 
crimes and crimes against humanity in the Balkan wars of 1991-1995. Yet the 
plight of Yugoslavia's ethnic Germans during and after World War II should be 
of no lesser concern to historians, not least because an under­standing of this 
chapter of history throws a significant light on the violent breakup of 
Communist Yugoslavia 45 years later. A better understanding of the fate of 
Yugoslavia's ethnic Germans should encourage skepticism of just how fairly and 
justly international law is applied in practice. Why are the sufferings and 
victimhood of some nations or ethnic groups ignored, while the sufferings of 
other nations and groups receive fulsome and sympathetic attention from the 
media and politicians?

  At the outbreak of World War II in 1939, more than one and a 
half million ethnic Germans were living in southeastern Europe, that is, in 
Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Romania. Because they lived mostly near and along the 
Danube river, these people were popularly known "Danube Swabians" or 
Donauschwaben. Most were descendants of settlers who came to this fertile 
region in the 17th and 18th centuries following the liberation of Hungary from 
Turkish rule.

  For centuries the Holy Roman Empire and then the Habsburg 
Empire struggled against Turkish rule in the Balkans, and resisted the 
"Islamization" of Europe. In this struggle the Danube Germans were viewed as a 
rampart of Western civilization, and were held in high esteem in the Austrian 
(and later, Austro-Hungarian) empire for their agricultural productivity and 
military prowess. Both the Holy Roman and Habsburg empires were multicultural 
and multinational entities, in which diverse ethnic groups lived for centuries 
in relative harmony.

  After the end of World War I, in 1918, which brought the 
collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg empire, and the imposed Versailles 
Treaty of 1919, the juridical status of the Donauschwaben Germans was in flux. 
When the National Socialist regime was established in Germany in 1933, the 
Donauschwaben were among the more than twelve million ethnic Germans who lived 
in central and eastern Europe outside the borders of the German Reich. Many of 
these people were brought into the Reich with the incorporation of Austria in 
1938, of the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia in 1939, and of portions of 
Poland in late 1939. The "German question," that is, the struggle for 
self-determination of ethnic Germans outside the borders of the German Reich, 
was a major factor leading to the outbreak of World War II. Even after 1939, 
more than three million ethnic Germans remained outside the borders of the 
expanded Reich, notably in Romania, Yugoslavia, Hungary and the Soviet Union.

  In the first Yugoslavia -- a monarchical state created in 
1919

Re: [Biofuel] 747 on biofuel

[Kurt Nolte]

Just out of curiosity... what really makes the LIM any different from a 
two-stroke diesel? They too are blower scavenged, port exhausted closed 
crankcase engines...

-Kurt

Joe Street wrote:
> Damn it all to hell. My friend just bought a Moyes Dragonfly 
>  and I had a half baked notion to put a 
> LIM cycle engine  on it 
> and make the claim to be the first to go flying on biodiesel!  Well I'm 
> glad the wheels are in motion even if I can't be first. :-)
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> Dawie Coetzee wrote:
>
>   
>> They can keep their 747's, but I'm thinking what can be done with a 
>> time-expired Allison 250-series... -D
>>
>>
>> - Original Message 
>> From: Bruno M. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, 2 October, 2007 4:27:03 PM
>> Subject: [Biofuel] 747 on biofuel
>>
>>
>> FYI:
>> ~~
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7017694.stm
>>
>> Biofuel trial flight set for 747
>> By Richard BlackEnvironment correspondent, BBC News website
>>
>> Air New Zealand says it plans to mount the first test flight of a 
>> commercial airliner
>> partially powered by biofuel.
>>
>> The 747 flight, scheduled for 2008 or 2009, will not carry passengers
>>
>> The 747 flight is one part of a deal signed by the airline,
>> engine producer Rolls-Royce and aircraft manufacturer Boeing to 
>> research "greener" flying.
>>
>> One of the four engines will run on a mixture of kerosene and a biofuel,
>> and is set for late 2008 or early 2009.
>>
>> But Virgin Atlantic is planning to beat Air New Zealand to the punch
>> by having its own biofuel flight early next year.
>>
>> Air New Zealand's chief executive Rob Fyfe said that advances in technology
>> had made biofuels a viable possibility for use in aviation sooner 
>> than anticipated.
>>
>> The New Zealand government recently declared the objective of 
>> becoming carbon neutral,
>> and climate change and energy minister David Parker said the national 
>> airline's initiative would help achieve that goal.
>>
>> "I'm delighted that Air New Zealand has taken the lead by signing up
>> for the first commercial trial of a biofuelled... aircraft," he said.
>>
>> The partnership gave no details of the type of biofuel to be used, 
>> but said that the test flight will not carry passengers.
>>
>> ... more, see link ...
>> === 
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /pipermail/attachments/20071002/d22a41e1/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 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] video - our police state

[Kirk McLoren]

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/163.html
   
-
Building a website is a piece of cake. 
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20071003/a5f6b394/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 OrPetrol

[Keith Addison]

Hello Jan

I think you have your answers. but here's the whole thing:

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/21090701.asp
Biofuels could boost global warming, finds study
Chemistry World
21 September 2007

Full research paper:
N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming 
reduction by replacing fossil fuels

Abstract:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.html
PDF:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.pdf

HTH

Best

Keith


>Dear all, I would really like to read this study this report in
>original,since the article is producing several question marks.
>It is well known that the exhaust emissions from fatty acid methyl esters
>are producing higher amounts of nitrious gases than petro diesel does , but
>as far as I can remember, the nitrious oxide corresponds only to a tiny part
>of these. It is also well known that that the higher the cetane number of
>the biodiesel, the lower the emissions of nitrious gases. From that point it
>is a little bit strange to conclude that the the emissions of nitrious gases
>from rape seed oil biodiesel and maize biodiesel are the same, since the
>iodine number of maize oil in general is higher than the corresponding value
>of rape seed oil. This is suggesting in its prolongment that the emissions
>of nitrious gases from BD out of rape seed oil should be lower than from BD
>of maize oil. If the article is displaying the facts from the study
>correctly, then there are two ways to approach this problem:
>1) Further product development of the fatty acid methyl esters in order to
>raise the cetane number to a level where the emissions of nitrious gases
>become acceptably lower.
>2) New diesel veichles will be equipped with an Exhaust Gas Recirculation
>(EGR) system or an exhaust gas aftertreatment system which will lower the
>production of nitrious gases as required in Euro regulations.
>Information on the properties of nitrious oxide can be found at
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide  No doubt has the information on
>the green house effects from nitrious oxide come from this sight,
>No matter if the conclusions from the study are right or not, it still makes
>sense to produce biodiesel, not in the least for forcing the development to
>take another path than previous. You know what I mean.
>
>Jan Warnqvist
>- Original Message -
>From: "Olivier Morf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 6:40 AM
>Subject: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil
>OrPetrol
>
>
>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.
>
>"One wants rational decisions rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon
>because superficially something appears to reduce emissions," 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: "The significance of it is that the
>supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought
>hitherto."
>
>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 concl

Re: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil OrPetrol

[Chris Burck]

haven't read the actual study, but to me this report simply reeks of
bad intentions, and appears to ignore fundamental questions.  for
instance, of the production that was studied, what agricultural
methods were used (e.g. petrolizers or non-petro/organic fertilizers)?

___
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 ThanOil OrPetrol

[Jan Warnqvist]

Ok, my mistake. When reading the article this is not shown very clear. But 
nitrous oxide is N2O and nothing else.
- Original Message - 
From: "Chris Burck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas ThanOil 
OrPetrol


jan, the study was focused on NO2 released by soil microbes as the
rapeseed crops grow, not on the emissions from burning the fuel.  you
make an excellent point, though.  imo, we should *always* be searching
for ways to reduce the impact of the fuels we burn.

On 10/3/07, Jan Warnqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear all, I would really like to read this study this report in
> original,since the article is producing several question marks.
> It is well known that the exhaust emissions from fatty acid methyl esters
> are producing higher amounts of nitrious gases than petro diesel does , 
> but
> as far as I can remember, the nitrious oxide corresponds only to a tiny 
> part
> of these. It is also well known that that the higher the cetane number of
> the biodiesel, the lower the emissions of nitrious gases. From that point 
> it
> is a little bit strange to conclude that the the emissions of nitrious 
> gases
> from rape seed oil biodiesel and maize biodiesel are the same, since the
> iodine number of maize oil in general is higher than the corresponding 
> value
> of rape seed oil. This is suggesting in its prolongment that the emissions
> of nitrious gases from BD out of rape seed oil should be lower than from 
> BD
> of maize oil. If the article is displaying the facts from the study
> correctly, then there are two ways to approach this problem:
> 1) Further product development of the fatty acid methyl esters in order to
> raise the cetane number to a level where the emissions of nitrious gases
> become acceptably lower.
> 2) New diesel veichles will be equipped with an Exhaust Gas Recirculation
> (EGR) system or an exhaust gas aftertreatment system which will lower the
> production of nitrious gases as required in Euro regulations.
> Information on the properties of nitrious oxide can be found at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide  No doubt has the information 
> on
> the green house effects from nitrious oxide come from this sight,
> No matter if the conclusions from the study are right or not, it still 
> makes
> sense to produce biodiesel, not in the least for forcing the development 
> to
> take another path than previous. You know what I mean.
>
> Jan Warnqvist
> - Original Message -
> From: "Olivier Morf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 6:40 AM
> Subject: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil
> OrPetrol
>
>
> 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 

Re: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil OrPetrol

[Chris Burck]

jan, the study was focused on NO2 released by soil microbes as the
rapeseed crops grow, not on the emissions from burning the fuel.  you
make an excellent point, though.  imo, we should *always* be searching
for ways to reduce the impact of the fuels we burn.

On 10/3/07, Jan Warnqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear all, I would really like to read this study this report in
> original,since the article is producing several question marks.
> It is well known that the exhaust emissions from fatty acid methyl esters
> are producing higher amounts of nitrious gases than petro diesel does , but
> as far as I can remember, the nitrious oxide corresponds only to a tiny part
> of these. It is also well known that that the higher the cetane number of
> the biodiesel, the lower the emissions of nitrious gases. From that point it
> is a little bit strange to conclude that the the emissions of nitrious gases
> from rape seed oil biodiesel and maize biodiesel are the same, since the
> iodine number of maize oil in general is higher than the corresponding value
> of rape seed oil. This is suggesting in its prolongment that the emissions
> of nitrious gases from BD out of rape seed oil should be lower than from BD
> of maize oil. If the article is displaying the facts from the study
> correctly, then there are two ways to approach this problem:
> 1) Further product development of the fatty acid methyl esters in order to
> raise the cetane number to a level where the emissions of nitrious gases
> become acceptably lower.
> 2) New diesel veichles will be equipped with an Exhaust Gas Recirculation
> (EGR) system or an exhaust gas aftertreatment system which will lower the
> production of nitrious gases as required in Euro regulations.
> Information on the properties of nitrious oxide can be found at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide  No doubt has the information on
> the green house effects from nitrious oxide come from this sight,
> No matter if the conclusions from the study are right or not, it still makes
> sense to produce biodiesel, not in the least for forcing the development to
> take another path than previous. You know what I mean.
>
> Jan Warnqvist
> - Original Message -
> From: "Olivier Morf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 6:40 AM
> Subject: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil
> OrPetrol
>
>
> 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 res

Re: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil OrPetrol

[Jan Warnqvist]

Dear all, I would really like to read this study this report in 
original,since the article is producing several question marks.
It is well known that the exhaust emissions from fatty acid methyl esters 
are producing higher amounts of nitrious gases than petro diesel does , but 
as far as I can remember, the nitrious oxide corresponds only to a tiny part 
of these. It is also well known that that the higher the cetane number of 
the biodiesel, the lower the emissions of nitrious gases. From that point it 
is a little bit strange to conclude that the the emissions of nitrious gases 
from rape seed oil biodiesel and maize biodiesel are the same, since the 
iodine number of maize oil in general is higher than the corresponding value 
of rape seed oil. This is suggesting in its prolongment that the emissions 
of nitrious gases from BD out of rape seed oil should be lower than from BD 
of maize oil. If the article is displaying the facts from the study 
correctly, then there are two ways to approach this problem:
1) Further product development of the fatty acid methyl esters in order to 
raise the cetane number to a level where the emissions of nitrious gases 
become acceptably lower.
2) New diesel veichles will be equipped with an Exhaust Gas Recirculation 
(EGR) system or an exhaust gas aftertreatment system which will lower the 
production of nitrious gases as required in Euro regulations.
Information on the properties of nitrious oxide can be found at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide  No doubt has the information on 
the green house effects from nitrious oxide come from this sight,
No matter if the conclusions from the study are right or not, it still makes 
sense to produce biodiesel, not in the least for forcing the development to 
take another path than previous. You know what I mean.

Jan Warnqvist
- Original Message - 
From: "Olivier Morf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 6:40 AM
Subject: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil 
OrPetrol


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

Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch

[Keith Addison]

Hello Dawie

>The thing that bothers me when I encounter reports of cases like 
>these is the notion that, while a corporation like McDonalds can 
>easily afford to pay out millions in damages, a mom-and-pop eatery 
>cannot.

Quite. Punitive damages, like this was supposed to be, are intended 
to make it too expensive to risk doing it again, so it should be 
proportional to what will hurt, rather than ruin. The corps tend to 
get such a free ride though that it seldom works that way - in this 
case it was reduced to what would be a slap on the wrist for 
McDonalds, barely a disincentive, though it would ruin a mom-and-pop 
eatery. At the time McDonald's made $1.35 million in coffee sales per 
day. The punitive damages were $2.7 million, reduced to $480,000 - 
all over in four hours.

>Similarly, McDonalds has the organizational power to ensure that its 
>products are proof against the unpredictable behaviour of its 
>patrons, a mom-and-pop eatery does not. If the rulings in these 
>cases represent simple precedents the result can only be to create 
>an environment in which mom-and-pop eateries cannot operate and 
>which definitely favours the McDonaldses of the world.
>
>However, the facts of the matter seem to suggest that these are not 
>simple precedents but that some cognizance is taken of the relative 
>power of the parties involved. (In my experience the remarkable 
>thing about legal systems, however flawed they are, is how often 
>they are perfectly sane and rational.) Contrary to popular belief, 
>what is legally sauce for mom-and-pop eateries is not sauce for 
>McDonalds; and if this means one law for the former and another for 
>the latter, that is all to the good. "One law for the lion and ox," 
>said William Blake, "is tyranny."
>
>It is certainly tyranny if mom-and-pop eateries were treated like 
>McDonalds. But it would be tyranny too if McDonalds were treated 
>like a mom-and-pop eatery, out of the old failure to see the 
>difference between human beings (like Mom and Pop) and corporations. 
>Keith has never tired of saying that corporations have more human 
>rights than human beings do, and I hope he never does unless we are 
>so fortunate that it ceases to be true.

In which case I'll get tired of it immediately! LOL!

>In this sense, the sort of tort reform that is proposed seems to 
>approach a real problem from precisely the wrong end.

The only purpose is corporate benefit and to hell with everything 
else. It's one of a range of initiatives with the same end.

>There is a definite advantage in litigation if, as it seems to be, 
>it is an alternative to regulation. It is better to rap McDonalds 
>over their knuckles, sending out a message to those selling coffee 
>to be careful (in proportion, of course, to who they are), than to 
>require the abovementioned eateries to file reports about men who 
>come around with clip-boards and thermometers, on top of everything 
>else they have to do to survive.
>
>I would like to see a society in which all people take greater 
>responsibility for themselves. To me this is a spiritual thing, 
>linked to my own adulthood, moral agency, and consummateness as a 
>human being.

I fully agree with that view.

>Though there are those for whom the ability to cast off 
>responsibility is a luxury to be relished greatly, I cannot 
>understand them:

Nor can I.

>that is a slave's attitude.

Yes.

>But if I wish that people take up responsibility readily it is 
>necessary that taking up such responsibility be a reasonable thing 
>to do. That means a world that is technologically understandable and 
>a population that is educated in the range of technologies they need 
>to use. Herein lies one more sense of the word "appropriate" in 
>"appropriate technology".

Yes, but there's a problem here, and the richer the country the worse 
the problem seems to be. Our societies have been woefully deskilled, 
especially in the last 30 years or so, but it's been going on for 
longer than that. Compared with our grandparents and especially our 
great-grandparents we're helpless, and rather ignorant. I guess it 
all helps to make us obedient little consumers. I don't know how 
we're going to go about getting those skills back again, or replacing 
them, let alone changing the prevailing attitude of helplessness and 
dependence. Learn from the Third World maybe.

Another point about this is that a more understandable kind of 
technology is probably much easier to adapt to the small-scale, 
local-industry level (as required), and even at the same overall rate 
of production it would probably have a smaller eco-footprint, lower 
eco-manufacturing costs, lower carbon emissions. Would or could have 
- via less built-in obsolescence, for one thing.

>For instance, the systemics of the "Western" living environment 
>require that motor vehicles be operated by people who neither 
>understand nor have the inclination to learn about the basics of the 
>Otto cycle. Instead of making