[Biofuel] Okay, This time I really am going to take down the list, , , , but first, please read

[Chip Mefford]

Good day all of you who are left, 

I really want to thank everyone who has sent their 
thoughts on taking the list down. There have been 
some, , no, not some, all, great stories. 

Before I take the list down, , 
I was wondering how many of you are still interested in keeping
something like this going. 

reason I ask is that I am becoming involved in a 
new software project that I find very exciting, and
hence have chosen to do the work to update my 
respective servers, including the mailing list server. 

Kind of a pain in the neck, I went through a life-change
over the last 6 years, and walking away from all things
IT was part of that. Since I had many dangling obligations
(being a denizen of the internet) I tapered it all down
to where about the only thing I was responsible for was
this mailing list. However, that particular attempt
at resolving some things in my life by not doing 
systems administration have cropped back up again, 
so that wasn't the fix for which I had hoped. 

So, it doesn't make sense really to abandon all those
skills I had developed, even though I am moving into 
my dotage, (heh) but rather to double down and dive back
in. 

The project of which I speak is FarmOS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCOqg5iH6fM

Take a look, give me some feedback, if there is interest, 
I'll migrate some or all of this list into a new
community.

Thanks kindly for your attention in this matter;

--chipper
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

[Biofuel] Happy Solstice all, Taking the list down.

[Chip Mefford]

It has been many years now since Keith passed. 

As things stand, Darryl is about the only traffic posted here
and even that is echoing (admittedly interesting) stuff 
posted elsewhere. 

If anyone is interested, I can and am willing to provide the subscriber's
list if anyone wishes to continue this work.

As things stand, this mailing list is the only mailing list left on
my mailman server that gets any traffic at all, and the spam to post
ratio is about 70:1 (intercepted). 

As of 20170101, the list will shut down.

The archives will of course remain in place until such a time as
those responsible for them decide to take some other action.

Please take these few days to make your farewells.

So long
and thanks for everything.

your list-admin
--chipper
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

[Biofuel] List is back up.

[Chip Mefford]

I think this issue is resolved. 

Thanks kindly for your forbearance. 

--
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] Temporarily Taking Down the Mailing List for 24 hours

[Chip Mefford]

Oh
You may continue to submit articles for the list,
they will be held and released to the list once I've tended to the
problem. 

- Original Message -
> From: "Chip Mefford" 
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 9:22:54 PM
> Subject: Temporarily Taking Down the Mailing List for 24 hours
> 
> Dear All;
> 
> I've got a spam problem that I have to sort out.
> 
> In order to do this, I have to shut down the mailman list server for a day
> and let the queue clear out.
> 
> I host a few mailing lists, and the amount of traffic they generate is making
> it difficult to parse
> out my mail logs.
> 
> The mailing list server and it's related mail server are all cross encrypted
> and secured. Unfortunately,
> I was still using SSLv3 on the web server front end of the mail server, and
> it appears that it
> may have fallen to a vulnerability and at least one of my users credentials
> were compromised.
> 
> I've dropped all SSL support, and am now TLS only, I've made changes to those
> suspect accounts
> and now I need to verify that all leaks have been plugged, so I have to let
> things
> cool down for a day.
> 
> I'll be bringing the mailing list back up Sunday night, Mar 29 or early Mon,
> Mar 30.
> 
> I'm very sorry for having to take this somewhat unilateral action, but the
> reputation of
> the service, once lost, is gone forever. I have to take action.
> 
> 
> --chipper.
> 
> Any questions, please email me direct.
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

[Biofuel] Temporarily Taking Down the Mailing List for 24 hours

[Chip Mefford]

Dear All;

I've got a spam problem that I have to sort out. 

In order to do this, I have to shut down the mailman list server for a day and 
let the queue clear out. 

I host a few mailing lists, and the amount of traffic they generate is making 
it difficult to parse
out my mail logs. 

The mailing list server and it's related mail server are all cross encrypted 
and secured. Unfortunately, 
I was still using SSLv3 on the web server front end of the mail server, and it 
appears that it
may have fallen to a vulnerability and at least one of my users credentials 
were compromised. 

I've dropped all SSL support, and am now TLS only, I've made changes to those 
suspect accounts
and now I need to verify that all leaks have been plugged, so I have to let 
things
cool down for a day. 

I'll be bringing the mailing list back up Sunday night, Mar 29 or early Mon, 
Mar 30. 

I'm very sorry for having to take this somewhat unilateral action, but the 
reputation of
the service, once lost, is gone forever. I have to take action.


--chipper. 

Any questions, please email me direct. 
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] Cheaper wind turbines.

[Chip Mefford]

Call  me skeptical of *ALL* so-called energy breakthroughs. 

As to wind power here in the US, here's what I wrote on industrial scale wind 
power
a few years back, and for the most part, I still agree with myself. :)

http://cubic-dog.blogspot.com/2010/06/wind-farms-some-considerations.html

___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] The Future of the Biofuels mailing list, your input needed.

[Chip Mefford]

Well, 

I gotta admit, I've gotten a huge response to my query, and honestly I wasn't 
expecting it.
Aside from the responses you've all perhaps read, I've received many off-list 
as well. 

Okay, we'll leave it up.
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

[Biofuel] The Future of the Biofuels mailing list, your input needed.

[Chip Mefford]

Good day all;

As of this morning, there are 456 subscribers to this list. 

The recent news of Keith's passing come as sad news to us all and we saw a tiny 
uptick in traffic over those few days. Since then, we're back to some updates
on issues that many of us find interesting by Darryl, and not much else. 

So, I need to hear from you, as in a *lot* of you if you want to see this list 
continue. 

The archives are in place, and as of right now, it's the intention to keep them 
in
place, but I'm uncertain that this list is really serving any further purpose. 

Keith and I have discussed this very issue many times over the last 5 or so 
years.
I offered to host the list in order to keep it going a few years back. But now
that we are no longer blessed with Keith's insights, well, I'm not sure
this list is really relevant. 

So, please respond to this posting with your thoughts. I'll need to hear from
a lot of you. 

--chipper
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] Oil Is Back! A Global Warming President Presides Over a Drill-Baby-Drill United States

[Chip Mefford]

FWIW;

I've only been alive long enough to have paid attention since Nixon,
and in that time, every single president has made big public noises about
how we had to break our dependence on oil, and every single president
(yes, including Carter, and Clinton) has done what they could to
increase our consumption of it. 

So, none of this is really news. All this talk about is mostly about
adjusting to the price at the pump, once folks get used to it, they
go out and buy bigger SUVs and trucks. Just how it is. 
And always has been. 

- Original Message -
> From: "Darryl McMahon" 
> To: Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2014 11:11:12 AM
> Subject: [Biofuel] Oil Is Back! A Global Warming President Presides Over a 
> Drill-Baby-Drill United States
> 
> http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25993-oil-is-back-a-global-warming-president-presides-over-a-drill-baby-drill-united-states
> 
> [multiple links in on-line article]
> 
> Oil Is Back! A Global Warming President Presides Over a Drill-Baby-Drill
> United States

>SNIP
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] Any beekeeping contacts in Switzerland?

[Chip Mefford]

Hey Zeke, 

We're going to be in switzerland for a few days in early oct. 
I too share these interests, and we know folks who know folks too. 

- Original Message -
> From: "Zeke Yewdall" 
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 2:39:28 PM
> Subject: [Biofuel] Any beekeeping contacts in Switzerland?
> 
> I am trying to find out more about the beehouses used in Switzerland (and
> other mountainous regions in Europe).  There's very little info on them
> here in the US, but the standard langstroth hive does not work as well in
> cold winter climates, from what I can gather.  And, they require electric
> fences for any protection from bears, and even with them, bear invasions
> are common in the mountains.  But, they're cheap... the US way of doing
> things.I am considering making a trip to Switzerland next summer to
> research these more and see how they function, however, I need to get some
> contacts there first and see if it's possible to set up a tour of
> beehouses, etc. My not speaking German is not helping the research ;)
> But, I figured this list might have some ideas.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Zeke
> ___
> Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
> Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
> 
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] The rise of social capital

[Chip Mefford]

Good thread folks!


I, use open source, free as in speech tools exclusively and have since
the mid-90s, going on 20 years now. Never looked back. 

I, could give a shit about cars anymore. 
And I'm something of a car nut. Just for fun, here's a short
and incomplete list of cars I've owned that I put together
a while ago, just as a mental exercise:

http://cubic-dog.blogspot.com/2010/07/cars-i-have-owned.html

I, am a fan of solar power, don't really care anymore what the
utilities in the US think about anything, I think that they
are a bunch of bastards. They don't have to be, but they
go out of their way to choose to be. 

I don't care about electric cars at all. Cars, irrespective
of how they are powered, are not the answer. Cars, irrespective
of how they are powered, are the problem. 

That said, they are fun to fiddle with. :)

--me
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] Are Utility Companies Out to Destroy Solar's 'Rooftop Revolution'?

[Chip Mefford]

In a word? 

Yu Becha!


- Original Message -
> From: "Keith Addison" 
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 8:41:54 AM
> Subject: [Biofuel] Are Utility Companies Out to Destroy Solar's 'Rooftop  
> Revolution'?
> 
> http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/09-0
> 
> Published on Wednesday, October 9, 2013 by Common Dreams
> 
> Are Utility Companies Out to Destroy Solar's 'Rooftop Revolution'?
> 
> In California, customers who install solar systems and battery arrays
> are finding themselves cut off from grid
> 
> - Jon Queally, staff writer
> 
> In the nation's largest state, California, the major utility
> companies are trying to limit growth.
> 
> Of rooftop solar panels, that is.
> 
> According to reporting by Bloomberg, the state's three largest
> utilities-Edison International, PG&E Corp. and Sempra Energy-are
> "putting up hurdles" to homeowners who have installed sun-powered
> energy systems, especially those with "battery backups wired to solar
> panels," in order to slow the spread of what has become a threat to
> their dominant business model.
> 
> "The utilities clearly see rooftop solar as the next threat," Ben
> Peters, a government affairs analyst at solar company Mainstream
> Energy Corp., told Bloomberg. "They're trying to limit the growth."
> 
> According to Peters, as the business news outlet reports, the dispute
> between those with solar arrays and the utility giants "threatens the
> state's $2 billion rooftop solar industry and indicates the depth of
> utilities' concerns about consumers producing their own power.
> People with rooftop panels are already buying less electricity, and
> adding batteries takes them closer to the day they won't need to buy
> from the local grid at all."
> 
> Citing but one example, Bloomberg reports:
> 
> >Matthew Sperling, a Santa Barbara, California, resident, installed
> >eight panels and eight batteries at his home in April.
> >
> >"We wanted to have an alternative in case of a blackout to keep the
> >refrigerator running," he said in an interview. Southern California
> >Edison rejected his application to link the system to the grid even
> >though city inspectors said "it was one of the nicest they'd ever
> >seen," he said.
> >
> >"We've installed a $30,000 system and we can't use it," Sperling said.
> 
> The utilities argue that customers with solar energy-storing
> batteries might be rigging the system by fraudulently storing
> conventional energy sent in from the utility grid, storing it in the
> batteries, and then sending it back to the grid for credit. The solar
> companies say there is no proof that this is happening.
> 
> What environmentalists and solar energy advocates see is the utility
> companies putting barriers up to a decentralized system they will not
> no longer be able to control or profit from.
> 
> As Danny Kennedy, author of the book "Rooftop Revolution" and
> co-founder of solar company Sungevity in California, said in an
> interview with Alternet earlier this year:
> 
> >Solar power represents a change in electricity that has a
> >potentially disruptive impact on power in both the literal sense
> >(meaning how we get electricity) and in the figurative sense of how
> >we distribute wealth and power in our society. Fossil fuels have led
> >to the concentration of power whereas solar's potential is really to
> >give power over to the hands of people. This shift has huge
> >community benefits while releasing our dependency on the
> >centralized, monopolized capital of the fossil fuel industry. So
> >it's revolutionary in the technological and political sense.
> 
> As this Sierra Club video shows, the idea of a 'rooftop revolution'
> is fundamental to what many see as the most promising development in
> terms of undermining the dominance of the fossil fuel paradigm in the
> U.S.:
> 
> The tensions between decentralized forms of energy like rootop solar
> or small-scale wind and traditional large-scale utilities is nothing
> new, but as the crisis of climate change has spurred a global
> grassroots movement push for a complete withdrawal from the fossil
> fuel and nuclear paradigm that forms the basis of the current
> electricity grid, these tensions are growing.
> 
> As this segment from a PBS profile of the work of Lester Brown shows,
> a future of a society based on renewable energy shows what's possible:
> 
> But the resistance to these changes is coming strongest from those
> with a vested interest in the status quo. With most focus on the
> behavior of the fossil fuel companies themselves, the idea that
> utility companies will be deeply impacted by this green energy
> revolution is often overlooked.
> 
> Earlier this summer, David Roberts, an energy and environmental
> blogger at Grist.org, wrote an extensive, multi-part series on the
> role of utilities in the renewable energy transition, explaining why
> understanding the politics and economics of the utili

Re: [Biofuel] Cost of electric cars dropping to gas equivalents

[Chip Mefford]

Good morning all;

- Original Message -
> From: "Dawie Coetzee" 
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 2:31:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cost of electric cars dropping to gas equivalents
> 
> To answer the first question, "What would it take to get you into an
> electric car today?", probably the exercise of violence, possibly
> fatal violence. In other words, over my dead body.
> 
> But then, much the same applies, to a very slightly lesser extent, to
> every new car made today.
> 
> It is to me highly significant that all these cars are offered
> primarily on a lease basis, with outright purchase prices hardly
> mentioned. The very notion of possession is being redefined from on
> high, in all kinds of more or less subtle ways. It is part of the
> programme to turn the automobile from something substantially like a
> cuckoo-clock into something substantially like a cellphone, i.e.
> something that has no "parts" but instead a sort of ephemeral
> unitary sophistication which betrays a wholesale, veil-dropping
> embrace of planned obsolescence. This shift - part of a
> near-century-old development - is necessary to prop up the
> prevailing system of industrial production and ultimately the power
> basis of the entire government-corporate state. And that is the sole
> cause of the ecological crisis the world is in.
> 
> -Dawie Coetzee


Good comments Dawie;

I kinda gave up reading at the point where I was unable to get past the
lease-pricing bit. Yeah, sure, paying rent might be cost-equiv, so what? 

Folks I do some work for were teetering on the edge of jumping in and getting
a Nissan Leaf. But in the end, they went for the new Prius. Now, these folks
are good folks, and I enjoy the work I do for them. One of the background 
projects floating about is a town-car replacement in the form of 
yet-still-another
domestically produced Velomobile. It's pretty cool in that he is a true
believer, already been around the block on project development, granting, and
all that and built a few prototypes. Anyway, the target market is her. So
if we can come up with something she would drive to work, then we've met
our target. :)

Being a cycling fascist, I'm of the well-considered opinion, that cars, 
irrespective
of how they are powered, are not the answer. Cars, irrespective of how they
are powered, are the problem. Just like we all love to moan about how the
'corporations' are so good at externalizing all their negative costs onto 
society at large, and the ecosphere in total, Drivers like to externalize 
their same cost models by paying for their fuel. This is evidenced by the 
growth in the sense of entitlement being non-proportionate to the amount of
$$$ folks spend on fuel, the more they spend, the radically more they feel
entitled to do whatever the hell they want with the roads, air, water, 
etc etc. Heck, the only form of legal homicide in the world I think, is
drivers running down cyclists and pedestrians. 

Okay, I'm ranting, sorry.

Moving along, the idea being that folks drive, driving EVs is not actually 
really
any worse than driving anything else in the form of 2 ton personal transport. 
The key step, in my considered opinion, is tying the operator to the impact
in a more direct fashion than merely swiping a card at a fueling station, 
irrespective of what the fuel actually is. This is where I love home-brewed
biofuels. Those of you doing this are taking a huge chunk of the responsibility
for your impact, and with that, comes a deepening awareness. You *know* what
it takes to move that thing down the road, in ways the regular motorist never
will. never can. EVs are similar, if you are actually involved in the harvesting
of the electrical power, otherwise, it's just a feel-good externalization. 

Had a chevy volt nearly blow me off the road as I cycled up alongside the 
university
the otherday, at least after it passed, it didn't stink. :)

--
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] Monsanto gives up fight for GM plants in Europe

[Chip Mefford]

Good Morning all:

- Original Message -
> From: "Darryl McMahon" 
> To: Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 8:27:49 PM
> Subject: [Biofuel] Monsanto gives up fight for GM plants in Europe
> 
> http://www.dw.de/monsanto-gives-up-fight-for-gm-plants-in-europe/a-16851701
> 
> Monsanto gives up fight for GM plants in Europe
> 
> Date 31.05.2013
> 
>   The world's largest producer of seeds, Monsanto, has apparently
>   given
> up on attempts to spread its genetically modified plant varieties in
> Europe. A German media report said the firm would end all lobbying
> for
> approval.

I wouldn't believe this for one minute, sounds like they are switching tactics
now. They have an entire modern military grade intelligence service at their
disposal, not the mention a team of lawyers that goes right up to and including
sitting justices on the supreme court of the US.

Good Job EU, but I expect the real battle is just beginning. 

Monsanto is wholly serious about what they are doing, and I'm sure they'd
love to have a 'Change of State' in their trophy room. 
 
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

[Biofuel] Test, please ignore

[Chip Mefford]

Changes to the email system behind the list, 
Just checking to see if they are working. 
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] Battery Breakthrough?

[Chip Mefford]

I've got a 10 y/o prius, still working, though not as well. 

but mostly, I ride a bicycle. 

Ride a bicycle. 
through the rain, through the snow, through the nice weather,
it's better than any EV. 

i want to get rid of the prius, be a 1-car family, but there'll 
be time for that later, it sill comes in handy. Once the house
is finished perhaps, and I don't need to haul the utility trailer
out for supplies. 

the mrs has a newer prius, also at least paid for, it still
gets in the mid to upper 50s, my old one, not so much. 

- Original Message -
> From: "robert and benita rabello" 
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 6:45:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Battery Breakthrough?
> 
> On 4/19/2013 2:06 PM, Darryl McMahon wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > as you might expect, I saw this announcement earlier in the week.
> > While industry analysts are excited, my enthusiasm is restrained.
> > When
> > they get this to market as an affordable product in a size that is
> > relevant to vehicle propulsion, then I will be excited.
> 
>  Right now I'm underwhelmed.  I've read periodic announcements
>  like
> this before, and I can't help but wonder how much is hype designed to
> stir investment dollars, as opposed to a genuine breakthrough.
> >
> > Today, we have OEMs making electric cars that are affordable (e.g.,
> > 2012 Mitsubishi i-MiEV can be acquired today for about $21,000
> > (after
> > rebates and before taxes) in Ontario - range about 100 km (reliable
> > in
> > winter).  The 2012 Nissan Leaf can be acquired locally now for
> > about
> > $25,000 (after rebates and before taxes) - range about 120 km
> > (reliable in winter).
> 
>  The Leaf is supposed to be a nice car.  I've also been ogling
>  that
> Ford Focus EV, but that's running close to $50K. My Ranger is aging
> not
> so gracefully now, my boys are getting ready to leave home, and if
> I'm
> going to buy a car at all, it's going to be an EV. Having written
> this,
> I'd prefer to avoid buying ANYTHING, as the embodied energy in an
> automobile, along with its requisite infrastructure, contributes
> mightily to dependence on fossil energy and climate change.
> 
> > The Tesla Model S (85kWh) can be acquired for about $92,000 (after
> > rebates and before taxes) - range about 400 km (reliable in
> > winter).
> > (An amazing car.)  That's with technology we saw on the market in
> > small form factors a decade ago.
> 
>  We saw one in Langley a couple of weeks ago.  It's a beautiful
> machine, for certain!
> 
> >
> > I wonder what is stopping people from buying these vehicles in huge
> > numbers today.  They want to support the oil industry? Climate
> > change
> > is a hoax?  They think the price of gasoline and diesel is going to
> > drop dramatically in the near future and stay there indefinitely?
> >  The
> > Osborne Effect (waiting for the next generation of a product which
> > they expect to be better and cheaper, creating the risk that the
> > vendor founders before they can produce it)?
> 
>  The last car we bought was a hybrid Camry, more than 6 years
>  ago.
> We decided to support hybrid technology because if there is no
> demand,
> innovation will stop.  The same thing is true of battery electrics.
>  But
> while hybrids have been steadily gaining market share (there are
> quite a
> few of them in our neighborhood), battery electrics remain rare
> birds.
> People I've spoken to about this believe they're too expensive and
> don't
> like the limited range.
> 
> > They really do travel over 4 hours at a time at highway speeds,
> > multiple times per day, on a routine basis?  (I telecommute now,
> > but I
> > remember resenting 20 minute commutes as a colossal waste of time.)
> 
>  No, of course not.  But perception and reality are often two
> different things.  If, however, I had to work in Vancouver, I'd hit
> the
> range limit of the Focus EV in a single direction.
> 
> > Is it really still the sticker price? Supposing you plan to own a
> > car
> > for 10 years, and travel 20,000 km/year, and it gets a real world
> > fuel
> > consumption in the order of 8 litres/100 km, and gasoline is an
> > average of just $1.50 per litre over the next 10 years.  Well,
> > 200,000
> > km at 8 L/100k is 16,000 litres for fuel. At $1.50, that's $24,000
> > -
> > more than the price of the car (for the Leaf or i-MiEV).  The
> > electricity cost is almost trivial - charging at off-peak times, it
> > really is, but let's say it's 2 cents per km over the 10 years, for
> > a
> > total of $4,000 for the whole decade.  i-MiEV plus electricity for
> > 10
> > years:  $25,000. New gasoline econobox (e.g., Ford Focus) $17,000
> > vehicle + $24,000 fuel:  $41,000.  That's before we impose a carbon
> > tax.
> 
>  Agreed. The maths make sense. Our family laughed at us for
>  buying a
> hybrid, but they're not laughing now . . .
> 
> >
> > The other exciting place for low-cost, high-

[Biofuel] News is bad for you, your health, your mind, your body.

[Chip Mefford]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli

And I believe every word of it. It makes sense:

"News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier
News is bad for your health. It leads to fear and aggression, and hinders your 
creativity and ability to think deeply. The solution? Stop consuming it 
altogether"

In the past few decades, the fortunate among us have recognised the hazards of 
living with an overabundance of food (obesity, diabetes) and have started to 
change our diets. But most of us do not yet understand that news is to the mind 
what sugar is to the body. News is easy to digest. The media feeds us small 
bites of trivial matter, tidbits that don't really concern our lives and don't 
require thinking. That's why we experience almost no saturation. Unlike reading 
books and long magazine articles (which require thinking), we can swallow 
limitless quantities of news flashes, which are bright-coloured candies for the 
mind. Today, we have reached the same point in relation to information that we 
faced 20 years ago in regard to food. We are beginning to recognise how toxic 
news can be.

News misleads. Take the following event (borrowed from Nassim Taleb). A car 
drives over a bridge, and the bridge collapses. What does the news media focus 
on? The car. The person in the car. Where he came from. Where he planned to go. 
How he experienced the crash (if he survived). But that is all irrelevant. 
What's relevant? The structural stability of the bridge. That's the underlying 
risk that has been lurking, and could lurk in other bridges. But the car is 
flashy, it's dramatic, it's a person (non-abstract), and it's news that's cheap 
to produce. News leads us to walk around with the completely wrong risk map in 
our heads. So terrorism is over-rated. Chronic stress is under-rated. The 
collapse of Lehman Brothers is overrated. Fiscal irresponsibility is 
under-rated. Astronauts are over-rated. Nurses are under-rated.

We are not rational enough to be exposed to the press. Watching an airplane 
crash on television is going to change your attitude toward that risk, 
regardless of its real probability. If you think you can compensate with the 
strength of your own inner contemplation, you are wrong. Bankers and economists 
– who have powerful incentives to compensate for news-borne hazards – have 
shown that they cannot. The only solution: cut yourself off from news 
consumption entirely.

News is irrelevant. Out of the approximately 10,000 news stories you have read 
in the last 12 months, name one that – because you consumed it – allowed you to 
make a better decision about a serious matter affecting your life, your career 
or your business. The point is: the consumption of news is irrelevant to you. 
But people find it very difficult to recognise what's relevant. It's much 
easier to recognise what's new. The relevant versus the new is the fundamental 
battle of the current age. Media organisations want you to believe that news 
offers you some sort of a competitive advantage. Many fall for that. We get 
anxious when we're cut off from the flow of news. In reality, news consumption 
is a competitive disadvantage. The less news you consume, the bigger the 
advantage you have.

News has no explanatory power. News items are bubbles popping on the surface of 
a deeper world. Will accumulating facts help you understand the world? Sadly, 
no. The relationship is inverted. The important stories are non-stories: slow, 
powerful movements that develop below journalists' radar but have a 
transforming effect. The more "news factoids" you digest, the less of the big 
picture you will understand. If more information leads to higher economic 
success, we'd expect journalists to be at the top of the pyramid. That's not 
the case.

News is toxic to your body. It constantly triggers the limbic system. Panicky 
stories spur the release of cascades of glucocorticoid (cortisol). This 
deregulates your immune system and inhibits the release of growth hormones. In 
other words, your body finds itself in a state of chronic stress. High 
glucocorticoid levels cause impaired digestion, lack of growth (cell, hair, 
bone), nervousness and susceptibility to infections. The other potential 
side-effects include fear, aggression, tunnel-vision and desensitisation.

News increases cognitive errors. News feeds the mother of all cognitive errors: 
confirmation bias. In the words of Warren Buffett: "What the human being is 
best at doing is interpreting all new information so that their prior 
conclusions remain intact." News exacerbates this flaw. We become prone to 
overconfidence, take stupid risks and misjudge opportunities. It also 
exacerbates another cognitive error: the story bias. Our brains crave stories 
that "make sense" – even if they don't correspond to reality. Any journalist 
who writes, "The market moved because of X" or "the company went bankrupt 
because of Y" is an id

Re: [Biofuel] The N.R.A. Wins Again

[Chip Mefford]

Good Morning all;

- Original Message -
> From: "Darryl McMahon" 
> To: Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 7:58:14 AM
> Subject: [Biofuel] The N.R.A. Wins Again
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/the-nra-wins-again.html
> 
> The N.R.A. Wins Again
> 
> March 20, 2013
> 
> By Alex Koppelman
> 
> After Sandy Hook, after twenty children were shot and killed at a
> place
> where they should have been safe from all harm, there was some
> optimism
> among supporters of gun control: perhaps now, finally, both Democrats
> and Republicans could see the light—and the suffering—and revive the
> assault-weapons ban. It was a futile hope.

> SNIP

Yes, one *could* see this as a NRA 'win', for some value of 'win' whatever the 
heck that is supposed to mean, 

Or, one could see this as much ado about nothing. 

As this lists -pretty much only- self-admitted 'reticent gun nut', I found the
entire so-called 'conversation' completely devoid of any useful information, and
all of it, on both, -or more accurately- on all sides as being completely vapid 
and insultingly myopic rhetoric and hyperbole. 

The 'gun issue' is much more vast than a preposterous and pointless piece of 
political
pandering and posturing can address, not just in a meaningful way, but in any 
way
whatsoever. 

The issues surrounding the gigantic global concept known as 'small arms' are 
massive. 
The people of the country known as the united states support, as in tacitly 
permit
and even profit from massive small arms proliferation globally. With the break 
up of 
the soviet union, the US emerged as the biggest player in this wide open market 
place.
(not that it was doing poorly before hand). Small Arms is a big part of what 
might
be the biggest international business there is, hand in hand with oil, the Arms 
Trade. 
which is worth trillions. 

And yes, it's all part and parcel of an aegis we like to call the war machine:

 " Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired 
signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, 
those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money 
alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, 
the hopes of its children… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. 
Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of 
iron. "

   --President, (General) Dwight D. Eisenhower

And he'd know, of course, having done his level best to model the post-war US 
on the wartime Third Reich. 

Despite whatever level on intention, you'll not wish 'bad guns' away through 
regulation. You may succeed in driving them further underground, with all the 
joys, fun and massive profit seeking known to the illicit drug trade, just like 
all prohibitions and contraband. 

OR, 

We *could* if we so desired, Take an open, fearless and honest look at the 
problem of how we in the US benefit through our implicit and explicit use of 
force and make some real choices as to whether it's all worth it or no. 

real studies, devoid of political pressure need to be done, real honest 
assessments of all facets of every aspect of 'guns' needs addressing, really, 
and badly. This ties directly into our attitudes about entitlement, health 
care, automobility, wealth, power, influence, etc, etc, etc. 

An NRA win? Hardly
A loss for all humanity? Certainly. 
But had things gone the other way, it wouldn't have made any difference. But it 
would have made a big difference to all those folks who ran out and stocked up 
on 'bad guns' in the hope that they would be banned because the value of them 
would double overnight, quadruple over a year, just like they did after the 
Bush ban, which also changed not a damned thing, at all. 

--me
  
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming

[Chip Mefford]

Ooops, 
Wrong presentation, 
But it's still directly germane. 

- Original Message -
> From: "Chip Mefford" 
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:19:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about 
> global warming
> Good day all:
> 
> 
> At some point, I meant to transcribe some bits and pieces from this
> presentation
> from our annual conference last Feb at PASA (Pennsylvania Assoc for
> Sustainable Agriculture)
> due to it's relevance on asking the really tough questions that will
> stimulate the
> environment wherein we can start finding real answers.
> 
> I've listened to this keynote about 6 times, and I've yet to fully
> 'get it' all
> yet, and you can hear a few of my hoots during it in places. :)
> 
> Regardless, for those who are actually interested in the whole thing,
> here it is:
> 
> http://vimeo.com/34530550
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming

[Chip Mefford]

Good day all:


At some point, I meant to transcribe some bits and pieces from this presentation
from our annual conference last Feb at PASA (Pennsylvania Assoc for Sustainable 
Agriculture)
due to it's relevance on asking the really tough questions that will stimulate 
the
environment wherein we can start finding real answers. 

I've listened to this keynote about 6 times, and I've yet to fully 'get it' all
yet, and you can hear a few of my hoots during it in places. :)

Regardless, for those who are actually interested in the whole thing, 
here it is:

http://vimeo.com/34530550
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming

[Chip Mefford]

Well, 

Just for fun, I've yet to see any real numbers on how this nuclear renaissance
actually addresses anything. There's a lot of rhetoric about how it's cleaner
than the fossil fuel alternatives, but that's all, just rhetoric. Very little
about actually replacing burning fossil carbon with nukes, but rather, the 
on-the-ground facts are adding nukes to fossil carbon, additionally, not 
substituting
anything. 

Further, there is question as to whether there actually are any real net gains
given the entire life cycle of a nuclear plant. 

less hype, more facts. 

- Original Message -
> From: "Jason Mier" 
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 2:01:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about 
> global warming
> man... no matter which "longview" you take the results suck. more
> nukes mean more radioactive slag piles and brownfield sites, but fewer
> nukes means more smokestacks.
> 
> honestly, the idea of multimillion year damages bothers me more than
> something that has the potential to be remediated in a century or
> two... but the problem there is how much can we adapt in that
> timeframe?
> 
> there won't be any islands left in any ocean, a lot of the known
> coastlines around the world will be gone, and the weather... well...
> the sahara's probably going to grow up and take a trip around the
> world...
> ___
> Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
> Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] Protecting nuclear power plants from nature's worse

[Chip Mefford]

Wow;

While I expect nothing less from my fellow countrymen, than to lean heavily 
on the FUD (fear, uncertainly and doubt) aspects of 'renewables' to keep 
any nuclear country glowing, that others can't see through the veil that
the US has done everything it can to cripple and deter real alternative
energy schemes since 'the beginning' (fsvo beginning).

There are so many fallacies that crop up whenever one attempts to 
articulate the US's posture towards power generation, it's practically
impossible to list them all. 

For some background, I can heartily recommend Ray Reece's 1979 work
"The Sun Betrayed:  A Report on the Corporate Seizure of U.S. Solar Energy"
finished and published in '79, when the whole thing was basically a fait
accompli.

- Original Message -
> From: "Keith Addison" 
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2012 10:36:06 PM
> Subject: [Biofuel] Protecting nuclear power plants from nature's worse
> U.S. needs Japan to remain nuclear, expert says
> Relations in region not likely to change with Obama or Romney, even
> in China ties
> http://www.japantimes.co.jp/print/nb20121103d1.html
> 
> Officials drafting new regulations raked in millions
> Nuke industry funded NRC's safety experts
> http://www.japantimes.co.jp/print/nn20121104a1.html
> 
> Power Politics: Japan's Resilient Nuclear Village
> Sunday, 04 November 2012 13:02
> By Jeff Kingston, Japan Focus | News Analysis
> 
> 
> --0--
> 
> http://www.japantimes.co.jp/print/eo20121103a1.html
> 
> Protecting nuclear power plants from nature's worse
> 
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] White House owes Preppers and survivalists a massive apology

[Chip Mefford]

- Original Message -
> From: "Tony" 
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Monday, November 5, 2012 6:39:10 AM
> Subject: [Biofuel] White House owes Preppers and survivalists a massive 
> apology
> Page / Story Link
> http://www.naturalnews.com/037822_liberal_media_preppers_survivalists.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal media, White House owes Preppers and Survivalists a massive
> apology in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy
> 
> []
> SNIP

As someone who might be called a prepper, maybe even doomer, perhaps
survivalist, or whatever you want, who *also* is prior law enforcement, 
and has done a bit of SAR and EMS work, I think this
article is heavy on rhetoric and hyperbole. 

here's something I wrote on this issue a few years back:

http://cubic-dog.blogspot.com/2008/05/weather-be-prepared.html
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

[Biofuel] Testing the new list

[Chip Mefford]

Okay list;

We're almost there. Keith is having issues posting to the list. 

I'm supposing this is due to the DNS changes that I made for the 
new list not fully propagating across everything as of yet. 

Also, the new email address (@lists.sustainability.org, rather than 
@sustainability.org) isn't
filtering into the archive as of yet. So, none of this chatter is 
being archived as of yet. Which is fine. 

I'd actually appreciate a few echos from you all. My logs show all the
email except a small handfull being delivered promptly. 

And Zeke, all I got was a modest amount of rain, wind never topped 20mph. So
we're doing fine. Back home in WV, the snow fall is being measured in feet, and
is still pounding down. Good be some happy telemarkers this week. But things
are going to be messed up, and There Will Be Flood. 
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] More list problems

[Chip Mefford]

I'm sorry everyone,

I've found another typo in the list information (my fault)

I'm going to dump and re-create the list. 

Please pardon all these administrative issues as I get the
new list sorted. 
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] This is just a test, please ignore and delete.

[Chip Mefford]

Okay, 

Another test. 

having some teething issues with the new list. 

- Original Message -
> From: "Chip Mefford" 
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 5:58:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] This is just a test, please ignore and delete.
> Hey Dave;
> 
> Yeah, pretty good presumption. :)
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Dave Hajoglou" 
> > To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 5:53:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Biofuel] This is just a test, please ignore and
> > delete.
> > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Chip Mefford < c...@daviswv.net >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry for the inconvenience.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I feel so inconvenienced. I presume this is the new list?
> > -dave hojo
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
> > Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> > http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
> ___
> Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
> Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Re: [Biofuel] This is just a test, please ignore and delete.

[Chip Mefford]

Hey Dave;

Yeah, pretty good presumption. :)


- Original Message -
> From: "Dave Hajoglou" 
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 5:53:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] This is just a test, please ignore and delete.
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Chip Mefford < c...@daviswv.net >
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the inconvenience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel so inconvenienced. I presume this is the new list?
> -dave hojo
> 
> 
> ___
> Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
> Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
> http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

[Biofuel] This is just a test, please ignore and delete.

[Chip Mefford]

Sorry for the inconvenience. 

--chipper
___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

[Biofuel] A compromise position in the food/farming dilemma ?

[Chip Mefford]

An interesting read:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/a-simple-fix-for-food/?src=recg


Summary: 
Seems the folks at Iowa State Univ, at their Marsden Farm did a medium term 
experiment
comparing short rotation chem intensive conventional industrial model ag with a 
hybrid
long rotation, pasture grazing (ruminate based) plot management (old school) 
with a result
of conventional like outputs and 'profits' with radically reduced chem and 
fertilizer
inputs. 

Interesting aspects include how far afield the university had to go in order to 
publish
their study, and how totally deaf Vilsack's USDA has been to it. 

On a personal note, a lot of it makes perfect sense to me, and while I am a 
great big
fan of no chem, no how, no way, ever, wholly ruminate field and pasture 
management, etc
I certainly won't dismiss this study out of hand, it's very interesting. 

I'm trying to get a copy of the study now. 

--

___
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] Dear all... [2]

[Chip Mefford]

G'day Keith;
> 
> About the archives. As long as the listserve distributes the messages
> to the members, the archives updates automatically. With only
> snippets, sent direct, it wouldn't do that. If we continue with a
> listserve then the archives will stay current. (And the listserve
> software we need is Mailman.)

to paraphrase Harvey Lime from Brazil:
"Mailman is my forte"

But you are shooting your mailman archives over to mail-archive.com
and I don't know a thing about that service. 

I'm confident I can handle the mailman bits. 

last year, I got rid of all my servers and moved
all my stuff onto a pair of VMs hosted by prgmr.com.
I'm no longer running a mailman implementation, but
I certainly could if it would help. 


--chipper

___
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] Dear all...

[Chip Mefford]

Hey Keith, 

I can host the list if you like, 

Just say'n. 

What will happen to the archives? 

(I'm only panicking mildly)

- Original Message -
> From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 11:26:41 AM
> Subject: [Biofuel] Dear all...
> It's October, the list is going to run out of time soon and the host
> service will close it down. I'm not sure of the exact date, but
> suddenly the music will stop.
> 
> The new community I mentioned previously is still some way down the
> road, but it will eventually happen. When it does, you'll be hearing
> from me.
> 
> Meanwhile, the list will stop, but I won't. I'll keep harvesting the
> news, I do it anyway.
> 
> If any list members would like to keep receiving these daily
> snippets, I don't mind sending them direct. Please let me know -
> offlist please.
> 
> All best, and a very big thanks for everything, over the years. This
> list has taught me so much (deep bow).
> 
> Regards to all.
> 
> 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/

Re: [Biofuel] How the G.O.P. Became the Anti-Urban Party

[Chip Mefford]

- Original Message -
> From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 2:54:04 PM
> Subject: [Biofuel] How the G.O.P. Became the Anti-Urban Party
> 
> 
> How the G.O.P. Became the Anti-Urban Party

I'm not so sure I follow.

For the last 12 or so years, or in the general trend as
the US population becomes more and more urbanized (as has
been going on since WWII) the neo-republican party, as 
defined by Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, etc etc
is no longer relevant to the urbanites. 

They are focused on electoral college issues for their wins. 
In a general election, the democrats own the country. 
They neo-republicans have been focused (rightfully so I might add)
on winning the rural working class voter, and they do it
quite effectively. 

I don't think they are anti-urban, so much as the urban
is anti-republican. The republicans have no win there,
why waste time/effort/money on it? They don't need the
cities to win the electoral college. They'd like to have
them, sure, but it won't happen, and they know it. 


___
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] 90 Million Americans Can't Be Wrong

[Chip Mefford]

Well, , , 

I can certainly say that the lack of civics education must be intentional. 

Even our elected leaders and our supreme court justices seem to have never
taken a civics class in their lives, and they like it that way. 

- Original Message -
> From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 11:56:17 PM
> Subject: [Biofuel] 90 Million Americans Can't Be Wrong
> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32229.htm
> 
> 90 Million Americans Can't Be Wrong
> 
> By Joel Poindexter
> 
> August 18, 2012 "Information Clearing House" -- Those who vote in
> presidential elections often describe the action as being part of
> their civic duty; it's something every good citizen must do. Others
> consider voting to be a right, and elections are something which
> every American should participate in. After all, they remind us, not
> everyone has this right in other countries. Still, there are others
> who see voting as both a duty and a right, as if it could be both at
> the same time.
> 
> So when voter turnout was abysmally poor during last week's primaries
> in Kansas and Missouri, many were upset. Talk radio hosts, Internet
> pundits, and members of the media all commented on the low
> participation rate, and quite a few were disturbed by the numbers.
> Kansas City, Missouri for instance, had a voter turnout of only 15%.
> Now, it's generally understood that primaries and midterms have lower
> voter participation rates than presidential election years, so this
> ought not to surprise anyone, but there is some hope this year's
> elections will have the lowest turnout of the last fifty.
> 
> When asked by USA Today and Suffolk University why they're not
> planning to vote this November, respondents answered that: "They're
> too busy. They aren't excited about either candidate. Their vote
> doesn't really matter. And nothing ever gets done, anyway." All are
> excellent reasons, especially the last two, for they lay bare the
> great lie that elections solve anything. The results of the poll
> indicate that some 90 million Americans have no intention to vote in
> this year's presidential election; let's hope that number swells over
> the coming months.
> 
> Curtis Gans, who is director of the Center for the Study of the
> American Electorate, had this to say regarding why so few are
> expected to vote:
> 
> There's a lot of lack of trust in our leaders, a lack of positive
> feelings about political institutions, a lack of quality education
> for large segments of the public, a lack of civic education, the
> fragmenting effects of waves of communications technology, the
> cynicism of the coverage of politics - I could go on with a long
> litany.
> 
> As far as a lack of civic education, this may be true, but it's not
> for a lack of trying on the part of the government school systems. In
> every election cycle students in government schools vote on the
> national candidates; being homeschooled I never participated in such
> conditioning, but I distinctly remember my second-grade friends
> voting in the 1992 election for Bill Clinton. Students even hold
> their own elections, to choose from within their own ranks
> politicians who're supposed to advocate for them with the
> administration, in order to get longer recess, treats in the
> cafeteria, and who knows what else. It's one of the more disturbing
> attempts to indoctrinate children in the civic religion of democracy.
> But it's not always successful.
> 
> One of those polled, Jamie Palmer, 35, has never voted, and good for
> her; if only I had could have such a clear conscience. When asked why
> she hadn't, her reply was "[politicians] say the same things; they
> make promises; they don't keep them. It's ridiculous. If I vote,
> nothing is going to come of it. It's just going to be like it is
> right now." Fortunately, she was never fooled by the teachers
> shilling for the state at her school.
> 
> When discussing the issue of politics most people will argue that if
> you don't vote it's because you're lazy, unpatriotic, or part of the
> problem with society. These are people who were taught what to think,
> not how to think.
> 
> As for the lazy charge, it may be true in many cases, but certainly
> not all of them. The USA Today poll indicated that at least some
> people didn't want to take the time to follow politics or go to the
> polls, so not voting was less a deliberate choice as opposed to
> simply being a low priority. But for the vast majority of non-voters
> that I know, it's a conscious choice they've made based on sound
> principles. They have clear and well thought out arguments against
> voting, but in no way could they be considered lazy. They are instead
> wrapped up in educating others, they are journalists, organizers,
> activists, and dedicated to fostering parallel institutions to
> compete with and hopefully replace those of the corporatist/statist
> system now in

Re: [Biofuel] 'Clean Energy' Politics Take Energy Out of Wind Industry Sails

[Chip Mefford]

Hey Jason;

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. I do appreciate it. 

I worked long and hard on it, and I can certainly understand folks who wonder 
why on earth
am I even bothering? 

Yes, I am saying that. 
but more than that. 

This is the only large scale wind power implementation that I have been up 
close and
personal with. And from all the numbers i could research, and everything I 
could find,
the wind power aspect itself was nothing more than a gigantic tax-dodging 
gilded lilly. 
The target was to tie the Mount Storm Power Station and a number of other coal 
power
stations further to the west across the Alleghenys to the mid-atlantic grid. 
Mount Storm
was put in place to send power down to Newport News Va/Va beach for the 
shipyards and military
interests, like a lot of WV, it's about export. However, the I95 corridor, from 
Richmond, up
through DC-Baltimore into Delaware/NJ/NY needs more more more and more power. 
Now, since
NO ONE wanted yet still another highline feeding in from the west, much less to 
have to
actually build it, an interesting plan was hatched. "Oh, we'll go GREEN!!!" and 
it worked.
Folks signed off. All these coal plants are finding a practically bottomless 
market. 
The wind is there, sure, but what does it actually Do? No one can tell me, and 
I suspect,
not very much. What I've heard is 3% of capacity of the installation is 
realized, which
is less than 2% of the power out of Mount Storm all by itself, to say nothing 
of the
plants coming online further to the west. 

The ecological footprint of this thing is HUGE. *if* it were replacing coal, 
that would
be one thing, but it isn't. 

I am skeptical of ALL industrial-scale anything. 

- Original Message -
> From: "Jason Mier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 1:26:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] 'Clean Energy' Politics Take Energy Out of Wind 
> Industry Sails
> if i'm reading this right, you're saying that all "mo'power" is doing
> is enabling the "mo'power is good power" idiots to continue being
> their idiotic selves?
> 
> can't really argue with that...
> 
> 
> > Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:21:08 -0700
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> > Subject: Re: [Biofuel] 'Clean Energy' Politics Take Energy Out of
> > Wind Industry Sails
> >
> > I'm pretty much deeply suspect of 'wind energy' on the
> > commercial scale. I know how well it works on a homestead/farm
> > scale, and that's pretty excellent stuff.
> >
> > But this big stuff? I ain't so sure.
> >
> > Here's my write up from a few years back:
> >
> > http://cubic-dog.blogspot.com/2010/06/wind-farms-some-considerations.html
> >
> > It won't be popular. But all the rebuttals I've gotten
> > have been hyperbolic, not well reasoned. I welcome
> > rational rebuttal/debate, but as we all know
> > that's a tall order of folks.
> >
> > --me
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> > > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 8:43:16 PM
> > > Subject: [Biofuel] 'Clean Energy' Politics Take Energy Out of Wind
> > > Industry Sails
> > > http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/08/13-0
> > >
> > > Published on Monday, August 13, 2012 by Common Dreams
> > >
> > > 'Clean Energy' Politics Take Energy Out of Wind Industry Sails
> > >
> > > US wind production soars, but politics threaten federal subsidies
> > > that have helped elevate industry
> > >
> > > - Common Dreams staff
> > >
> > > As the US wind energy industry hit a new milestone recently by
> > > reaching 50GW of power production, the industry trade group warns
> > > that 'the best of times' could become the 'worst of times' if a
> > > looming deadline to extend federal subsidies for clean energy
> > > investment is not met.
> > >
> > > The American Wind Energy Association, the lobbying arm of the wind
> > > industry, announced recently that the wind sector's 50GW
> > > (gigawatts)
> > > of capacity is enough to power nearly 13 million American homes,
> > > or
> > > as many as in Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Virginia, Alabama, and
> > > Connecticut combined.
> > >
> > > In addition, the number of new operational wind projects across
> > > the
> > > US is enough to supplant "44 coal-fired power stations or 11
> > > nuclear
> > > power plants", will result in emission reductions that would
> > > equate
> > > to taking 14 million cars off the road, and -- because wind energy
> > > demands almost no water use -- conserves 30 billion gallons of
> > > water
> > > a year compared to thermal electric power generation.
> > >
> > > "The milestone," as reported by The Guardian, "was achieved thanks
> > > to
> > > a surge in new wind farms coming online as developers rush to
> > > complete projects before the possible lapsing of the US
> > > government's
> > > crucial production tax credit (PTC) at the end of this year.
> > > Acc

Re: [Biofuel] 'Clean Energy' Politics Take Energy Out of Wind Industry Sails

[Chip Mefford]

I'm pretty much deeply suspect of 'wind energy' on the
commercial scale. I know how well it works on a homestead/farm
scale, and that's pretty excellent stuff. 

But this big stuff? I ain't so sure.

Here's my write up from a few years back:

http://cubic-dog.blogspot.com/2010/06/wind-farms-some-considerations.html

It won't be popular. But all the rebuttals I've gotten
have been hyperbolic, not well reasoned. I welcome
rational rebuttal/debate, but as we all know
that's a tall order of folks. 

--me

- Original Message -
> From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 8:43:16 PM
> Subject: [Biofuel] 'Clean Energy' Politics Take Energy Out of Wind Industry 
> Sails
> http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/08/13-0
> 
> Published on Monday, August 13, 2012 by Common Dreams
> 
> 'Clean Energy' Politics Take Energy Out of Wind Industry Sails
> 
> US wind production soars, but politics threaten federal subsidies
> that have helped elevate industry
> 
> - Common Dreams staff
> 
> As the US wind energy industry hit a new milestone recently by
> reaching 50GW of power production, the industry trade group warns
> that 'the best of times' could become the 'worst of times' if a
> looming deadline to extend federal subsidies for clean energy
> investment is not met.
> 
> The American Wind Energy Association, the lobbying arm of the wind
> industry, announced recently that the wind sector's 50GW (gigawatts)
> of capacity is enough to power nearly 13 million American homes, or
> as many as in Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Virginia, Alabama, and
> Connecticut combined.
> 
> In addition, the number of new operational wind projects across the
> US is enough to supplant "44 coal-fired power stations or 11 nuclear
> power plants", will result in emission reductions that would equate
> to taking 14 million cars off the road, and -- because wind energy
> demands almost no water use -- conserves 30 billion gallons of water
> a year compared to thermal electric power generation.
> 
> "The milestone," as reported by The Guardian, "was achieved thanks to
> a surge in new wind farms coming online as developers rush to
> complete projects before the possible lapsing of the US government's
> crucial production tax credit (PTC) at the end of this year.
> According to AWEA, over 2.8GW of capacity has now been added during
> the year to date, while total US wind energy capacity has doubled
> since 2008."
> 
> The potential good news for the industry, however, is balanced by the
> politics of clean energy subsidies in the middle of election year
> politics.
> 
> "These truly are the best of times and could be the worst of times
> for American wind power," said Denise Bode, CEO of the AWEA. "This
> month we shattered the 50-gigawatt mark, and we're on pace for one of
> our best years ever in terms of megawatts installed. But because of
> the uncertainty surrounding the extension of the Production Tax
> Credit, incoming orders are grinding to a halt."
> 
> The 'Production Tax Credit' was created under the George H.W. Bush
> administration and has been extended by each president since.
> President Obama included the most recent extension of the provision
> when he signed the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and, as the
> Washington Post notes specifically "extended the wind credit through
> 2012 to allow wind energy producers to collect 10 years' worth of
> credits up front as a form of stimulus."
> 
> But Republican candidate Mitt Romney has vowed to end the subsidy
> once and the GOP House and Senate leadership have vowed to do the
> same.
> 
> Romney's campaign has said it would allow the credit to end in order
> to "create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can
> compete on their merits," the Des Moines Register reported.
> 
> "At a moment when home-grown energy, renewable energy, is creating
> new jobs in Colorado and Iowa, my opponent wants to end tax credits
> for wind energy producers," Obama told supporters in Pueblo, Colo.
> 
> The wind industry, however, says that layoffs are already occurring
> due to the politic uncertainty.
> 
> "Layoffs have begun up and down our American manufacturing supply
> chain, which the industry has so proudly has built up in support of
> the U.S. economy and made-in-the USA manufacturing. And when incoming
> orders stop, so do factories. Congress must act now to give wind
> energy a stable business environment to keep producing all this
> homegrown power, and save 37,000 American jobs by the first quarter
> of next year," Bode said.
> 
> # # #
> 
> ___
> 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.c

Re: [Biofuel] Solar, Wind & other Alternatives

[Chip Mefford]

200 ah at what voltage? 

- Original Message -
> From: "Tony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Monday, August 6, 2012 9:18:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Solar, Wind & other Alternatives
>
> I wonder how big 2 x 200 amp/hour batteries
> would end up being?
> 
> With a life span of about 50 years it would be
> worth giving them a go
> 
> 
> Homemade Edison Cell
> 
> http://www.ehow.com/way_5993981_homemade-edison-cell.html
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> 
> At 07:10 AM 6/08/2012 +0100, you wrote:
> >Something I'd like to see is artisanal/homemade/cobbled Edison-cell
> >batteries:
> >perfectly viable but quite bulky, which shouldn't be a problem in a
> >non-mobile application.-D
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /pipermail/attachments/20120806/e4b8b316/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/

Re: [Biofuel] Solar, Wind & other Alternatives

[Chip Mefford]

FWIW;

Another vote for SMA inverters. Yeah, not cheap, but worth it. Solid
technology. 

- Original Message -
> From: "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Monday, August 6, 2012 10:10:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Solar, Wind & other Alternatives
> For the grid-tie inverters, we have been using the SMA inverters quite
> a
> bit... not the cheapest ones out there, but they work reliably and do
> tell
> you what's going on -- we've used a lot of chinese made ones, and the
> failure rate has been less than desirable (30% or so on one brand).
> 
> Z
> 
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Thanks for the info on the Trimetric battery meter
> > Zeke
> >
> > I did a quick Search and came up with
> > http://www.bogartengineering.com/
> > for starters, will read up on it and will find out the best /
> > cheapest way
> > to get one, as we seem to be ripped off for everything here in AU
> > Esp
> > on Electrical Gadgets it probably will be cheaper to Import it from
> > Anywhere other than AU !
> >
> > No the Regulator doesn't have a meter just a few LEDs
> > Being a bit of nerd that way I like to know more accurately
> > what my figures are even though I am not that electronically Capable
> >
> > It drives me crazy for instance my 1kw Grid Inverter is a PVEdge
> > it only has a very basic readout that only shows the units it has
> > created since day one and for present readings it has 4 LEDS
> > 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% and you don't know just exactly what you are
> > collecting at any one given time
> >
> > I recently got my 86 year old mum into a 1.5 kw Grid solar setup
> > ( $2200 installed Govt contributed 7000$ ) and her inverter tells
> > you
> > just about everything !
> > I am tempted to get it hooked to her computer and then I can monitor
> > it
> > Via TeamViewer from 100kms away from her place
> >
> > I have a new link for the Regulator
> >
> > MPPT60-2, 15V to 95V,3600w output Regulator
> > Paid $300.00 Normally $649.00
> > http://www.gsl.com.au/mppt60.html
> >
> > Just as a point of interest as well When I put my system in just
> > over
> > 2 years ago
> > the electricity Company ( Synergy) paid us 47cents per unit.
> >
> > They have since changed it to only 7 cents per unit.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > At 07:06 AM 6/08/2012 -0600, you wrote:
> > >The link to your charge controller didn't work, so I'm not sure
> > >exactly
> > >what it has and does not have. But, usually, the meter for the
> > >solar
> > >panels is built into that.
> > >
> > >If not, a good all around meter is the trimetric battery meter --
> > >it will
> > >measure battery voltage, and net amps (PV minus load -- so in a way
> > >it's
> > >measuring both your load and your PV, just not independently) as
> > >well as
> > >tracking amp hours in and out of the battery, to give you a battery
> > >state
> > >of charge (yes, you can also get that with a hydrometer, but it's
> > >way
> > >easier to look at a little display than to pop the battery caps off
> > >and
> > >take a hydrometer reading every few hours. It's about $185 here in
> > >the
> > >US... not sure if there are australian distributors or not.
> > >
> > >Z
> > >
> > >On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Folks
> > > >
> > > > I live in a small town 100km from Perth Western Australia
> > > > and I have put ( on a very limited income ) up 1kw system
> > > > ( subsidised by our Govt, my cost was 2500$ they contributed
> > > > 8000$ )
> > > >
> > > > I did this just over 2 years ago, and as the way the grid system
> > > > works,
> > > > if the grid power goes out, so does the solar system so we are
> > > > still no
> > > > better off .
> > > >
> > > > So the Alternative Energy Bug Bit harder !
> > > >
> > > > I decided to set up a stand alone system and have been slowly
> > > > getting together this ...
> > > >
> > > > System to date and costs so far
> > > >
> > > > 4 x Trojan 6V golf cart Batteries 205 amp/hour each
> > > > ( this system is 24 volt )
> > > >
> > > > These Batteries are 8 months old 4 for $200 as
> > > > apposed to 175$ ex GST each new
> > > > in Aust.
> > > >
> > > > ( Secondary lighting bank for led lighting and miscellaneous
> > > > uses
> > > > 2 x 12v 89amp/HR marine/Truck/4wd batteries )
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > http://www.supercheapauto.com.au/online-store/lights-electrical/automotive-batteries/4wd-truck-marine.aspx?id=5072
> > > >
> > > > ( Am Still deciding if I will go 12v for lighting )
> > > >
> > > > 2 x Monocrystalline Solar Panel 180W (24V)
> > > > Paid $300.00 each . Normal price $669.00 EACH
> > > > http://www.altronics.com.au/index.asp?area=item&id=N0180
> > > >
> > > > MPPT60-2, 15V to 95V,3600w output Regulator
> > > > Paid $300.00 Normally $649.00
> > > > http://www.gsl.com.au/products/solar_regulators.html#product3
> > > >
> > > > 4 x 6m lengths of 50 x 50 angle Iron for frame
> > > > 

Re: [Biofuel] Solar, Wind & other Alternatives

[Chip Mefford]

Hey Zeke;

Interesting. 

I've pondered these things a lot over the last few years, 
and there seems to be some interesting points with them, 
mostly due to the internal resistance. Aside from the 
big pluses on their chemistry, which is gentle compared to
most storage batteries out there, their seemingly limitless
cycling ability, assuming you don't just abuse them to death,
and such things: They really do seem to waste an awful lot
of power, takes a lot to charge'em, and they don't give
much back. If you have enough of them, I guess it's kinda
a wash, but for a full duty cycle, it takes a lot of batteries
and a lot of PV to do what can be done with less PV and
fewer lead-acid batteries. 

Which is to say, I think I like the idea of nickle-iron more
than the actual batteries themselves. 

Also, there is an outfit out your way (Lakewood) who is manufacturing
nickel iron cells. They are called iron edison or something. 

- Original Message -
> From: "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Monday, August 6, 2012 9:24:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Solar, Wind & other Alternatives
> I'm not sure... but I am a big fan of the nickel iron cells (aside
> from the
> price of new ones... eek. The might be cheaper there, since they are
> only
> produced in china any more, and you're a little closer).
> 
> Z
> 
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > I wonder how big 2 x 200 amp/hour batteries
> > would end up being?
> >
> > With a life span of about 50 years it would be
> > worth giving them a go
> >
> >
> > Homemade Edison Cell
> >
> > http://www.ehow.com/way_5993981_homemade-edison-cell.html
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> >
> > At 07:10 AM 6/08/2012 +0100, you wrote:
> > >Something I'd like to see is artisanal/homemade/cobbled Edison-cell
> > >batteries:
> > >perfectly viable but quite bulky, which shouldn't be a problem in a
> > >non-mobile application.-D
> > >
> > -- next part --
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: /pipermail/attachments/20120806/e4b8b316/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/
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /pipermail/attachments/20120806/ec03d1f8/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] recovering an old stone lined septic,

[Chip Mefford]

Hey all;

been /so/ long since i posted to this list. I miss ya'll, and hope some of you
are still following it.

we bought our forever place a year ago, and this coming weekend, we will 
christen/commission
the first of our two composting toilets. after a LOT of deliberation, we 
decided to go
the NSF certified route, in case we ever get into trouble with the local code 
officials (which
is probably inevitable). We are planning the more simple/practical humanure 
approach for the 
privy in the woods, which we will not pull a permit on. :)

At any rate, when we 'fire up' the composter this weekend, I can de-commission 
the old
bathroom, and FINALLY stop using the toilet. 

When I went through the septic inspection (this place was originally built in 
1835 or thereabouts)
the inspector and I were pretty amazed to be staring down what was obviously 
the old stone-lined
well. He explained that around these parts, when they brought in the water 
lines back in the 50s
before the septic code requirements were in place, that some folks just 
trenched out to the old well
and put in a pipe and capped it. Don't need that water no more, got that fancy 
city water now!

I've -of course- had it pumped, and will likely have it pumped again. But 
that's not really going
to do much when we are talking well over half a century of crapping down the 
well. The water table
here is very close, within 10' and it's karst topography out here, but I'm at 
the base of the hollar
and sitting on the old alluvial of the creek, and the ridges and rocks are 
mostly sandstone,and I've
got PLENTY of that in the ground. Soo, what I want to do is introduce enzymes 
and bacteria that will 
start the long, slow work of undoing all the damage to the watertable. 

any ideas what bacteria and enzymes I'm looking for, and sources? 

thanx in advance, 

--chipper

___
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 Jobs Mirage: How Much More Work Do Humans Really Need?

[Chip Mefford]

Pretty funny, 

i was just ruminating on how the USDA has done an excellent
job over the last 50 years of completely decimating the population
of it's constituents. 

Furthermore, it's PROUD of it. 

The us Ag-Industry is PROUD of the fact that there are fewer
folks involved in agriculture than ever before. 

Here in the US, we now have more people in prison than we have
farmers.

Now, that's progress!

___
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] China Benefits as US Solar Industry Withers

[Chip Mefford]

it's kinda crazy. 

SPI makes its panels in the US, But I *think* they actually ship 
the panels to china, to have them mounted, and then ship the 
finished panels back. This is what Evergreen was doing. 

This is just simply crazy. 

yes Zeke, I completely agree, this is what 'consumer demand' does.

As i have stated on this list many times for many years, I have 
no problem with folks from China, et al, making this stuff
for use there. It's the intercontinental transport aspect
that makes me crazy. 

I just bought a dozen solarworld modules that were manufactured
in the US, these were to replace the US manufactured Sharp
modules that I just simply couldn't get. 

Oddly, it's kinda an aesthetic thing with me. I wanted the Sharps
because they are polycrystalline. The SWs are mono, and the polys
are beautiful to my eye, and monos are boring. 

:)

- Original Message -
From: "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 11:12:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] China Benefits as US Solar Industry Withers

Yup China and SE asia is really taking over the solar panel
business.  Most distributors only sell chinese modules -- some have
some japanese or american or european offerings, but not many.  The
two "american" companies mentioned -- first solar and Sunpower, are
both made in southeast asia, not the US.  And... modules coming out of
Arizona, where alot of the US production is done, have had some
quality issues recently. Part of this has been driven by US
consumers themselves... by shopping only for the lowest cost solar
power they can find, they push towards using cheaper chinese modules.

Z

On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Keith Addison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.truth-out.org/china-benefits-us-solar-industry-withers/1315063642
>
> China Benefits as US Solar Industry Withers
>
> Saturday 3 September 2011
>
> by: Keith Bradsher, The New York Times News Service | Report
>
> Hong Kong - The bankruptcies of three American solar power companies
> in the last month, including Solyndra of California on Wednesday,
> have left China's industry with a dominant sales position - almost
> three-fifths of the world's production capacity - and rapidly
> declining costs.
>
> Some American, Japanese and European solar companies still have a
> technological edge over Chinese rivals, but seldom a cost advantage,
> according to industry analysts.
>
> Loans at very low rates from state-owned banks in Beijing, cheap or
> free land from local and provincial governments across China, huge
> economies of scale and other cost advantages have transformed China
> from a minor player in the solar power industry just a few years ago
> into the main producer of an increasingly competitive source of
> electricity.
>
> "The top-tier Chinese firms are kind of the benchmark now," said
> Shayle Kann, a managing director of solar power studies at GTM
> Research, a renewable energy market analysis firm based in Boston.
> Pricing of solar equipment is determined by the Chinese industry, he
> said, "and everyone else prices at a premium or discount to them."
>
> Besides Solyndra, the other two American manufacturers that filed for
> bankruptcy in August were Evergreen Solar, of Massachusetts, and
> SpectraWatt, a New York company. Another company, BP Solar, halted
> manufacturing at its complex in Frederick, Md., last spring.
>
> Those bankruptcies and closings represent almost one-fifth of the
> solar panel manufacturing capacity in the United States, according to
> GTM Research.
>
> Solyndra and Evergreen in particular suffered because they pursued
> unusual technologies whose competitiveness depended on their using
> less polysilicon, the main material for solar panels. That has become
> less important because polysilicon prices have tumbled more than 80
> percent in the last three years as output has caught up with demand.
>
> Analysts say that two American companies remain strongly placed. One
> is First Solar, the largest American manufacturer, which uses a
> different technology but has its biggest factory in Malaysia. The
> other, SunPower, is much smaller but is an industry leader in the
> efficiency with which its panels convert sunlight into electricity,
> so that they sell at a premium to Chinese panels.
>
> But with Beijing heavily supporting its industry, the Chinese
> companies are forging ahead.
>
> "There is no question that renewable energy companies in the United
> States feel pressure from China," said David B. Sandalow, the
> assistant secretary for policy and international affairs at the
> United States Energy Department. "Many of them say it is cheap
> capital, not cheap labor, that gives Chinese companies the main
> competitive advantage."
>
> China's three biggest solar power companies - Suntech Power, Yingli
> Green Energy and Trina Solar - have all in the last two weeks
> announced second-quarter sales increases of 33 to 63 perc

Re: [Biofuel] Time for U.S. to say yes to Canadian oil sands

[Chip Mefford]

On Friday, September 2, 2011 10:04:50 AM "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> Interesting that when you are addicted to coke, the problem does not
> seem to be the addition, but where to get more coke. Nowhere in the
> article did I see any discussion of reducing oil demand.
> 
> Z

Nor is it likely that you ever will. 

Where conservation is mentioned at all, it's always a footnote,
an afterthought. There is NO MONEY to be made in conservation.
You can't 'grow' the economy by spending LESS.

Or, so they say. Personally i see huge opportunities from reducing
economic growth, or rather in deliberate economic contraction. 

It's also pretty funny how google culture can't properly source
'you can't push the river' 

:)

___
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] Time for U.S. to say yes to Canadian oil sands

[Chip Mefford]

> on Thursday, September 1, 2011 1:48:16 PM "Darryl McMahon" <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]> wrote:


> "Economically viable" does not equal environmentally viable.


Indeed.

"Economically viable" has become nearly the antithesis of 
environmentally viable

If 'nearly' applies. Some would say it IS the antithesis. 

> 
> http://ottawaaction.ca/join-us (Sept. 26th, 2011, Ottawa Parliament
> Hill re: Tar Sands mining)
> 
> http://www.restco.ca/Inuvik_RT_Ottawa.shtml (Sept. 12-16, Ottawa,
> Canada
> Science and Technology Museum, Ottawa Forum concurrent with Inuvik
> Roundtable Review of Arctic Offshore Drilling - a more low-key
> affair).
> 
> Darryl McMahon
> 
> On 01/09/2011 1:30 PM, Keith Addison wrote:
> > Really?
> >
> > http://search.japantimes.co.jp:80/mail/eo20110831rs.html
> >
> > Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2011
> >
> > Time for U.S. to say yes to Canadian oil sands
> >
> > By ROBERT J. SAMUELSON
> >
> > The Washington Post
> >
> > WASHINGTON - When it comes to energy, America is lucky to be next to
> > Canada, whose proven oil reserves are estimated by Oil and Gas
> > Journal at 175 billion barrels.

tar sands are NOT oil, they are an oil precursor. 

Like the marcellus shale, and all these 'bottom of the barrel'
extraction schemes that are coming along these days, one expects
there are investment scams at play here, rather than any actual 
measurable production. 


___
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] Bill Gates's Nuclear Miracle?

[Chip Mefford]

These are by far and away the safest reactors ever designed. 

As long as they remain unbuilt, they will remain so. 

- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 8:12:08 AM
Subject: [Biofuel] Bill Gates's Nuclear Miracle?

Also:


Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes
£13m shed-size reactors will be delivered by lorry
John Vidal and Nick Rosen
The Observer, Sunday 9 November 2008


South African Govt Halts Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Project
16 September 2010


Aim High!
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor

Hmph.

--0--



Bill Gates's Nuclear Miracle? John Gilleland Says TerraPower Needs 
Discipline, Not Divine Intervention

Gregory T. Huang 3/23/10

John Gilleland's first day on the job was a little different from 
most people's. The nuclear physicist showed up at Intellectual 
Ventures in Bellevue, WA, and sat down at the conference table with 
his new boss, CEO Nathan Myhrvold, and another, shall we say 
prominent, techie.

"The guy on my left looked familiar," Gilleland says. "It was Bill Gates."

Gilleland had been on the job for all of three minutes when Myhrvold 
said jokingly, "John, you're late on your deliverables."

That was back in December 2006. Gilleland is now CEO of TerraPower, 
the spinoff from Intellectual Ventures that is focused on creating a 
fundamentally new kind of nuclear reactor. It's the invention firm's 
biggest research project to date, spinning out as a separate entity 
in the fall of 2008 with 30-some staff and untold amounts of funding 
from Gates and other investors. It is a project that Intellectual 
Ventures likes to cite as a potentially transformative, homegrown 
invention.

The basic idea is to create a reactor that needs only a small amount 
of enriched uranium to get started, and then uses depleted uranium 
(spent fuel) or natural, unenriched uranium to produce the 
nuclear-fission reactions necessary to generate power for 60 years or 
more without refueling. The design is called a traveling wave 
reactor, and the idea dates back to the early 1990s. If it works, the 
key benefits would be cheaper power, much more plentiful fuel, more 
efficient nuclear waste disposal, and less risk of nuclear 
proliferation.

Gates has been gushing about the project as of late. He mentioned 
TerraPower prominently in his talk at the TED conference in 
California last month, calling out the proposed reactor design as a 
possible "miracle" innovation in the effort to provide clean energy 
to more of the world's population without increasing carbon emissions 
in the atmosphere. (Nuclear power provides about 20 percent of the 
electricity in the U.S.)

Gilleland (see photo, left) has been given the keys to Gates and 
Myhrvold's nuclear kingdom for good reason. Previously, he co-founded 
and led Archimedes Technology Group, which developed improved 
techniques for cleaning up nuclear weapons waste, among other things. 
Before that, he was chief scientist and vice president of energy 
programs at Bechtel, and U.S. managing director of the International 
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) program for fusion energy, 
and he spent 16 years at General Atomics doing fusion research.

The traveling wave reactor is certainly an intriguing idea, and one 
that could be a true breakthrough. But the question, skeptics say, is 
whether it can be made to really work-and how long that will take. 
The idea is that the reactor makes its own fuel and uses it as it 
goes along: the neutrons emitted by a small amount of enriched 
uranium convert depleted uranium into plutonium, which splits to 
produce energy and also emits more neutrons that continue to "breed" 
new fuel. There is no precedent for TerraPower's particular design, 
and the project faces some major challenges-technical, business, and 
regulatory. So far the physics has only been tested in computer 
simulations, albeit using the most advanced supercomputers available. 
(It's worth mentioning that only someone like Gates could afford to 
fund this and risk having it not work-which is exactly why Myhrvold 
sees the need for an "invention capital" industry.)

On the plus side, the environment for nuclear power development is 
more promising than it has been in years. President Obama recently 
called for a new generation of nuclear plants to be built in the 
U.S.; they would be the first new ones in 30 years. Companies 
including General Atomics, General Electric, NuScale Power, and 
Hyperion Power Generation have burgeoning nuclear efforts in the 
U.S., as does General Fusion in British Columbia, and Are

Re: [Biofuel] How do you get WVO?

[Chip Mefford]

What little WVO I've used, I've bought. 

I'm glad it's out of the 'waste' stream. 

- Original Message -
From: "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:42:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] How do you get WVO?

That's what's happened around here in the last few years... it's no
longer considered waste -- you have to pay to get it, and pick it up
regularly on a schedule, and all.  In the bigger picture, this is
good, the economy realizing that there is no "waste" and it can be
used for other things -- at least for this small bit.  But, it's also
annoying for trying to make biodiesel from WVO...

Z

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Richard Slinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So far I have made a L of BD from pure VO.  Then I made a L from WVO.  I've
> moved up to the 5 gal bucket and have done the same.  That is 5 gal and 1 L
> of Pure VO (not cheap btw) and 5 gal 1 L of WVO.  It took a while to get all
> that WVO.  I've gone to over 30 restaurants trying to get WVO and they
> aren't giving it up at all.  They are all, emphasize ALL, using Valley
> Protein.  It turns out that they are paying the restaurants $40 per barrel.
>  How can I compete with that?  Any ideas guys?
>
> Thanks to all
>
> Dick
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110809/18248580/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 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] Seeking Help - Lister-Petter 1-cylinder diesel engine

[Chip Mefford]

As you are no doubt aware, diesels require a *lot* of compression to fire. 

You may not be able to get it spinning fast enough to build enough compression
to get it to fire, esp since the engine hasn't run in many years, and was likely
pretty worn when it was taken out of service. 

I'd shoot a 1/4 second shot of ether into the air intake. 
Not much more. just a bit. The ether will allow the engine to fire compression
and it might take off and run. Worth a try.


- Original Message -
From: "Darryl McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2011 3:36:44 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] Seeking Help - Lister-Petter 1-cylinder diesel engine

Background

Neither my son or I are really heat engine kind of people.  I'm more 
about electric drive stuff, and my son is an aviation electronics 
technician.  So, where my ignorance of diesel engines shows through, my 
apologies in advance.

I received this engine a few years ago, effectively for free.  I figured 
a small diesel should be hard to really break, and it might come in 
useful someday.  Now, I have 2 or 3 potential uses for it.

The previous owner had it for several years, and never tried to start 
it.  He delivered it to me covered with a cardboard box, saying it was a 
Lombardini.  According to him, the owner before him had stored it for 
several years, and never tried to start it.  The story is that the 
original application for the engine was to power highway information 
signs before the LED / photovoltaic panel age.

In the past few days, my son and I have found ourselves with an 
unaccustomed amount of free garage floor space, and some time (mostly 
due to other projects not appearing, not having parts available, or 
dropping in priority).  Our current objective is to get the engine 
running.  If successful, we will then invest in upgrading/replacing all 
the consumables (filters, hoses).

We took the cardboard off to find it is not a Lombardini, but a 
Lister-Petter.  It has an electric starter - including solenoid - and 
what appears to be a heavy-duty alternator attached (driven by a 
V-belt.  The latter would be consistent with the highway sign 
application.  No fuel tank.  At least one fuel-related hose was cut.  No 
electrical wiring of any kind still attached.  No keys or obvious 
keyholes.  There is a Made in England sticker on the top of it.

No documentation of any kind came with the engine.  The name plate 
indicates it is a AC1 model, which means it likely dates from somewhere 
between 1970 and 1985.

http://www.winget.co.uk/document/LISTER%20PETTER%20AC-AD%20OPERATORS%20MANUAL.pdf

We have been consulting this documentation for information.  Parts manual:

http://www.stategen.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/stategen_lister-petter_ac1_ad1_parts.pdf

Operations manual:

http://www.winget.co.uk/document/LISTER%20PETTER%20AC-AD%20OPERATORS%20MANUAL.pdf

Recent Activity

We have changed the oil (2.7 litres of diesel oil put in, which agrees 
with just over full on the dipstick.  The old oil was quite unattractive.

We jury-rigged a fuel tank from a go-kart fuel tank (scavenged from 
another electric conversion project).  We bought fresh fuel, cleaned out 
the tank with methanol, and put the fuel in the tank and pressurized the 
fuel side sufficiently to find a leak in one of the hoses that came with 
the engine, downstream from the fuel filter - so fuel is getting at 
least that far.  Jury-rigged a repair for that - no further leaking.  
Exhaust system is in place.  The air filter is filthy, so we have 
removed it for commissioning purposes.  (Will definitely replace it if 
we can get the engine running, along with the fuel and oil filters).

We tried rope-starting yesterday.  About all we concluded from that 
exercise (and I mean that literally) was that the cylinder seems to have 
good compression, and the decompressor lever is effective.  We have 
tried the stop/run lever in both positions, and that made no difference.

Today we attached casters to the frame to make it easier to move around, 
and worked out the connections for the electric starter, replaced the 
missing wiring, attached a battery and proved up the solenoid and 
starter motor.  At least I hope we can retire the starting rope as a 
result.  We turned the engine over and proved the starter turns the 
cylinder in the same direction as the rope starter (given it is Lucas 
starter and solenoid, we weren't really sure if it would be positive or 
negative ground.  We are using negative ground, and that appears to be 
working.  Like I said, I'm more an electrics kind of guy.)  We rolled 
the engine on electric power several times, for up to 30 seconds, but no 
evidence of ignition, no smoke, white or black.  Looks like we might 
have some raw fuel coming out the exhaust pipe.

Still Not Running

However, it still is not running.  We're looking for more information.  
A couple of possible clues from the Web.

"I've had this engi

Re: [Biofuel] A Manifesto for Earth

[Chip Mefford]

Just a couple of thoughts that are relevant. 

Bill Doer's 'Tenets of basic Foundational Forestry'

http://cubic-dog.blogspot.com/2010/09/tenents-of-basic-foundational-forestry.html

and of course:

What is the prime product of the farm? 

The prime product of the farm is soil. 

any farming enterprise that cannot increase soil fertility is 
doomed. The soil is the principal and primary product of
the farm. 

- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 10:26:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] A Manifesto for Earth

Quite nice, but it's a bit weak on soil, nothing about fertility 
maintenance, without due attention to which all other efforts are 
considerably weakened. See Small Farms Library:
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html

It covers ethics and philosophy.

Best

Keith


>I have been looking for a clear statement and vision on environmental
>ethics and philosophy.  The best I have seen thus far is "A Manifesto
>for Earth" by Ted Mosquin and Stan Rowe.  If you have not read it I
>highly recommend doing so.  If you know of a better statement, or
>prefer others, please direct me to them.  As this was published in
>2004 I assume there have been more recent developments since.  See
>below for the text of this paper:
>
>A Manifesto for Earth (HTML 42.6 Kb file) (Mosquin and Rowe)
>http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/EarthManifesto.html
>
>A Manifesto for Earth (PDF 2.5Mb file) (Mosquin and Rowe)
>http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/EarthManifesto.pdf

___
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] Bicycle and pedestrian funding in danger

[Chip Mefford]

"Dawie Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4:27:04 AM "Dawie Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> I think the average American city can solve at least 50% of its
> transport problem simply by allowing shophouses in all its
> neighbourhoods.

You'll find no argument with me. The idea of the shophouse/cottage industry
is just pure common sense. it is the future. Ready or not, here it comes. 

 

___
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 Market Is Lying: Why We Must Tax Carbon, Not Subsidize It

[Chip Mefford]

The only way to actually 'cap' in a meaningful way, is to cap it at the source. 
As in, cap it off. 

- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Irwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 7:12:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Market Is Lying: Why We Must Tax Carbon, Not 
Subsidize It

Why not cap and trade and tax carbon. Taxing carbon can give you the
immediate benefit that the climate desperately needs. Taxing is something
countries can do as individuals that benefits their economic balance sheets
upon implementation. Cap and trade has many holes and needs to be ratified
by each and every government. Waiting until an enforcable cap and trade
system is in place world wide just lets the greenhouse gas pollution
continue. The taxes can be phased out as each country wishes perhaps based
on their participation and benefit from cap and trade.

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Chip Mefford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Keith Addison wrote:
>
> > >Sweden has been using a carbon tax since 1991. It works. See
> > >
> > >http://www.carbontax.org
> > >
> > ><http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/0/2108273.pdf>
> > >
> > >If markets are to deliver a least-cost economy then prices have to be
> > >corrected to include costs external to market transactions. Taxes are
> > >the simplest and most efficient way to do this. Alfred Pigou
> > >introduced
> > >the concept in the 1920s. We're a little slow catching on.
> >
> > :-) Funny, that.
> >
> > Thanks Doug - all best
> >
> > Keith
>
> I'm not sure of how well that would work on a planetary scale.
> For one thing, you'd need to get all affected governments to agree on
> some authority to tax.
>
> No, I think cap and trade is the best approach.
>
> Cap the carbon at the mine entrance, at the well head.
>
> Then trade stuff you have, for other stuff you want.
>
> ___
> 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/20110714/5665f64e/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/

Re: [Biofuel] The Market Is Lying: Why We Must Tax Carbon, Not Subsidize It

[Chip Mefford]

Keith Addison wrote:

> >Sweden has been using a carbon tax since 1991. It works. See
> >
> >http://www.carbontax.org
> >
> >
> >
> >If markets are to deliver a least-cost economy then prices have to be
> >corrected to include costs external to market transactions. Taxes are
> >the simplest and most efficient way to do this. Alfred Pigou
> >introduced
> >the concept in the 1920s. We're a little slow catching on.
> 
> :-) Funny, that.
> 
> Thanks Doug - all best
> 
> Keith

I'm not sure of how well that would work on a planetary scale.
For one thing, you'd need to get all affected governments to agree on
some authority to tax.

No, I think cap and trade is the best approach.

Cap the carbon at the mine entrance, at the well head.

Then trade stuff you have, for other stuff you want. 

___
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] Petroleum alternatives, yes; How about Nuclear?

[Chip Mefford]

Hey Zeke;

Zeke Yewdall wrote
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Chip Mefford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about we just turn away from hard path energy all together
> > and embrace the soft path?
> >
> > Soft path energy approaches lead us off into an uncertain future.
> > The hard path leads us to oblivion.
> 
> Isn't it interesting that the majority of people seem to prefer
> oblivion rather than uncertainty?

It is interesting. So many folks will say (And I think they say it without
thinking about what they are saying) "I have no desire to live through
$some_coming_big_change" Or "What does it matter, we'll all just die anyway?"
and stuff like this. Some of these folks are the gentle loving good neighbor
types who are a joy to know. it's like somehow they are emotionally incapable
to see anything other than cornucopian utopia and certain annihilation. 
it is very strange. There are so very many other approaches to every challenge
we face, and such unwillingness to embrace them. 

___
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] Petroleum alternatives, yes; How about Nuclear?

[Chip Mefford]

How about we just turn away from hard path energy all together
and embrace the soft path?

Soft path energy approaches lead us off into an uncertain future.
The hard path leads us to oblivion. Rather than arguing over
what car to drive, why not take a hard look at not driving cars
at all. it's not really a question of how will we energize our
global infrastructure, but rather of what value is that global
infrastructure in the first place if it leads where it is 
headed? 

The future, as I've heard it expressed here before, is small
settlements, towns, hamlets and maybe even a small city just
a few days ride, all supported by their immediate landbase.
This model has worked for tens of thousands of years into the
past, it will work for tens of thousands of years into the future.
It scales up into the billions across the globe, and scales down
to a few hundred thousand, or even less. But is scales. 
We can embrace it, or resist it, but it IS the future. If
not by intention then by consolation. 


Paul Landis wrote;
> If someone complains about the toxic use of Petroleum/Gas,
> they can be informed that there are reliable, available alternatives:
> SVO and or Biodiesel.
> And people on this list have done volumes to make this important
> alternative reality.
> 
> How about Nuclear?
> 
> A friend of mine, a scientist, pointed out that "all the nuclear plant
> does is to create steam
> which power the turbine which drives the generator".
> 
> Alternatives:
> Steam created from natural gas obtained without fracking;
> 
> and how about large commercial diesel engines running on SVO or
> Biodiesel.
> Here there is not need to even have the costly equipment to handle the
> steam and run the turbines.
> 
> 
> Paul Landis
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
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] Trees not cure for global warming

[Chip Mefford]

Hey Lee;

that's a negative. 

Of the solar energy that hits the tree canopy, much of it gets used, which cuts 
down on the reflectivity.
Further, by the usual way in which we think about stuff, this could be 
considered excess or waste heat.

Lots of stuff go on in photosynthesis, not the least of which is transpiration, 
which in turn, has a 
cooling effect on the low-thermal-mass 'air' surrounding the forest. 

Compare a walk in the forest to a walk in the desert at the same latitudes. 

The same energy has arrived, but the plethora of processes involved in the 
growing of trees, vegetative
materials, etc make a lot of direct use of that energy. Furthermore, these 
processes involve utilizing
solar energy to make use of atmospheric carbon to make living stuff. This 
living stuff stores this
atmospheric carbon over a very long period of time. 

No, the energy arrives and does NOT leave by the same means. This is one of the 
unique aspects of life. 

- Original Message -
From: "Lee Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 7:58:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Trees not cure for global warming

I would have thought that the solar gain on bare earth would have been the same 
as the solar gain when the trees are heated. The same sun and solar intensity 
has entered the same atmosphere. The same energy has arrived and must leave our 
planet by the same means, no matter where/what it hits.

Nay sayers want us to over think things and get confused.

Lee

On 24/06/2011, at 12:39 AM, Zeke Yewdall wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Thomas Irwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would also think that is the ground is covered in reflective snow would
>> not the trees also be covered. That would be with evergreen treees.
> 
> Not necesarily -- here in high country in Colorado, the trees are not
> covered for the majority of the winter (mostly from wind blowing the
> snow off of them, but sometimes also it melts off the trees), but the
> ground is covered for 6 months except on the sunniest south facing
> slopes.  Generally, there is more snow where the trees are, because
> they catch it from the wind and cause drifts, instead of letting it
> just all blow away, plus they shade the snow and allow it to last
> longer into the spring and summer.  But, anyway, it's still much
> cooler with trees than without -- all the sun being caught by zillions
> of needles instead of just one flat surface near the ground.
> 
> 
>> Deciduous trees would have no leaves so the snow effect would be the same.
>> Also the initial absorbtion of sunlight on leaf surfaces would occur 30
>> meters in the air causing a more gradual heating. The leaves are performing
>> transpiration which causes evaporative cooling. The comparison is wrong as
>> well. The comparison should be between forest heating vs desert heating.
>> Life and systems are a lot more complex than even most scientists and
>> modelers can see.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Bruno M. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>>> FYI:
>>> ~~
>>> 
>>> 
>>> www.leaderpost.com/technology/Study%20trees%20cure%20global%20warming/4967756/story.html
>>> 
>>> By Margaret Munro, Postmedia News June 18, 2011
>>> 
>>> Study: trees not cure for global warming
>>> 
>>> Planting trees may help appease travellers' guilt about pumping carbon
>>> into the atmosphere.
>>> 
>>> But new research suggests it will do little to cool the planet,
>>> especially when trees are planted in Canada and other northern
>>> countries, says climatologist Alvaro Montenegro, at St. Francis Xavier
>>> University in Nova Scotia.
>>> 
>>> "There is no magic bullet" for global warming, says Montenegro, "and
>>> trees are certainly not going to be providing it."
>>> 
>>> He assessed the impact of replanting forests on crop and marginal lands
>>> with Environment Canada researcher Vivek Arora. Their study, published
>>> Sunday in Nature Geoscience, concludes "afforestation is not a
>>> substitute for reduced greenhouse-gas emissions."
>>> 
>>> The United Nations, environmental groups and carbon-offset companies are
>>> invested heavily in the idea that planting trees will help slow climate
>>> change and global warming. International authorities have long described
>>> "afforestation" as a key climate-change mitigation strategy.
>>> 
>>> But the study says the benefits of tree planting are "marginal" when it
>>> comes to stopping the planet from overheating.
>>> 
>>> Trees do suck carbon out of the air, but the study highlights that their
>>> dark leaves and needles also decrease the amount of solar radiation that
>>> gets reflected by the landscape, which has a warming effect.
>>> 
>>> Cropland - especially snow-covered cropland - has a cooling effect
>>> because it reflects a lot more solar energy than forests, the scientists
>>> say. This so-called "albedo effect" is important and ne

Re: [Biofuel] Trees not cure for global warming

[Chip Mefford]

Sorry, 
I don't know much, but this is something I actually do know
about. And this article really got my goat, as it were. 

- Original Message -
From: "Chip Mefford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:41:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Trees not cure for global warming

Trees do a whole lot more than 'just' sink carbon. 

and 'we' are losing forests, not gaining forests. 

Net LOSS

Not Net Gain. 


- Original Message -
From: "Bruno M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 9:24:07 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] Trees not cure for global warming

FYI:
~~

www.leaderpost.com/technology/Study%20trees%20cure%20global%20warming/4967756/story.html

By Margaret Munro, Postmedia News June 18, 2011

Study: trees not cure for global warming

Planting trees may help appease travellers' guilt about pumping carbon 
into the atmosphere.

But new research suggests it will do little to cool the planet, 
especially when trees are planted in Canada and other northern 
countries, says climatologist Alvaro Montenegro, at St. Francis Xavier 
University in Nova Scotia.

"There is no magic bullet" for global warming, says Montenegro, "and 
trees are certainly not going to be providing it."

He assessed the impact of replanting forests on crop and marginal lands 
with Environment Canada researcher Vivek Arora. Their study, published 
Sunday in Nature Geoscience, concludes "afforestation is not a 
substitute for reduced greenhouse-gas emissions."

The United Nations, environmental groups and carbon-offset companies are 
invested heavily in the idea that planting trees will help slow climate 
change and global warming. International authorities have long described 
"afforestation" as a key climate-change mitigation strategy.

But the study says the benefits of tree planting are "marginal" when it 
comes to stopping the planet from overheating.

Trees do suck carbon out of the air, but the study highlights that their 
dark leaves and needles also decrease the amount of solar radiation that 
gets reflected by the landscape, which has a warming effect.

Cropland - especially snow-covered cropland - has a cooling effect 
because it reflects a lot more solar energy than forests, the scientists 
say. This so-called "albedo effect" is important and needs to be 
incorporated into assessments of tree planting programs and projects, 
the researchers say.

Montenegro and Arora stress that planting forests has many benefits - 
trees provide habitat for wildlife and prevent soil erosion. And 
planting forests does help reduce atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide 
because carbon is locked into wood as trees grow.

But planting trees will have only a modest effect on the global 
temperature, according to their study, which used a sophisticated 
climate modelling system developed by Environment Canada.

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110621/6c11ec05/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/

Re: [Biofuel] Trees not cure for global warming

[Chip Mefford]

Trees do a whole lot more than 'just' sink carbon. 

and 'we' are losing forests, not gaining forests. 

Net LOSS

Not Net Gain. 


- Original Message -
From: "Bruno M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 9:24:07 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] Trees not cure for global warming

FYI:
~~

www.leaderpost.com/technology/Study%20trees%20cure%20global%20warming/4967756/story.html

By Margaret Munro, Postmedia News June 18, 2011

Study: trees not cure for global warming

Planting trees may help appease travellers' guilt about pumping carbon 
into the atmosphere.

But new research suggests it will do little to cool the planet, 
especially when trees are planted in Canada and other northern 
countries, says climatologist Alvaro Montenegro, at St. Francis Xavier 
University in Nova Scotia.

"There is no magic bullet" for global warming, says Montenegro, "and 
trees are certainly not going to be providing it."

He assessed the impact of replanting forests on crop and marginal lands 
with Environment Canada researcher Vivek Arora. Their study, published 
Sunday in Nature Geoscience, concludes "afforestation is not a 
substitute for reduced greenhouse-gas emissions."

The United Nations, environmental groups and carbon-offset companies are 
invested heavily in the idea that planting trees will help slow climate 
change and global warming. International authorities have long described 
"afforestation" as a key climate-change mitigation strategy.

But the study says the benefits of tree planting are "marginal" when it 
comes to stopping the planet from overheating.

Trees do suck carbon out of the air, but the study highlights that their 
dark leaves and needles also decrease the amount of solar radiation that 
gets reflected by the landscape, which has a warming effect.

Cropland - especially snow-covered cropland - has a cooling effect 
because it reflects a lot more solar energy than forests, the scientists 
say. This so-called "albedo effect" is important and needs to be 
incorporated into assessments of tree planting programs and projects, 
the researchers say.

Montenegro and Arora stress that planting forests has many benefits - 
trees provide habitat for wildlife and prevent soil erosion. And 
planting forests does help reduce atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide 
because carbon is locked into wood as trees grow.

But planting trees will have only a modest effect on the global 
temperature, according to their study, which used a sophisticated 
climate modelling system developed by Environment Canada.

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110621/6c11ec05/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/

Re: [Biofuel] Are We on the Brink of Burying Nuke Power Forever?

[Chip Mefford]

Just wanted to say,

I keep reading this thread subject as 

"Are We on the Brink of Buying Nuke Power Forever?"

And I'd have to say, yes. Forever and ever, in any human-scaled timeline. 

___
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] Andrea Rossi and his approach to Cold Fussion

[Chip Mefford]

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> Hello everyone!
> I'm just wondering if any of you has looked into Andrea Rossi and his
> approach to Cold Fussion. According to reports I've found over the
> net, they are about to go commercial in Greece with a 1MW power plant
> by October. I found the following web site to contain the most
> detailed information about this approach to Cold Fussion:
> http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
> I found the information rather stunning but then again, I'm not an
> expert on the subject. Nonetheless, this technology is worth a look.
> Regards,Alex

Been following this since '89, first with a lot of interest, a bit of 
healthy skeptical doubt, but mostly hopeful. In very short order,
the skeptical side starting winning. Was even subscribed to Cold Fusion
magazine for a while. 

What I've learned from these decades can be summed up here:

Here's a quick and simple checklist:


1) Principal inventor has no education in the field? Check
2) Actual operation would require a rewriting of the science of the field? Check
3) Demonstrations geared towards 'infotainment' rather than accurate 
measurement? Check
4) Claims to have a patent? Check
5) Paranoid secrecy despite claim of patent protection? Check
6) Appeals to authority rather than science? Check
7) Claims of large yet uncompleted business deals/investments? Check






___
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] Fwd: New Engine 100 MPG

[Chip Mefford]

- Original Message -
> From: "Darryl McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2011 9:43:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: New Engine 100 MPG
> I expect to be picking up my 'new' ride this coming Sunday.
> 

BIG SNIP

> He does appreciate the irony that his job is about the use and
> maintenance of aircraft, any one of which will burn more petro fuel in
> an hour than he is saving in a season of e-commuting.
> 
> Darryl

Small steps, 

that's how we do it, 

small steps matter.

___
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] Fwd: New Engine 100 MPG

[Chip Mefford]

Oh, and as a follow-up,

here's an incomplete list of cars I have owned in my life,
I know I've left some out.

http://cubic-dog.blogspot.com/2010/07/cars-i-have-owned.html


- Original Message -----
From: "Chip Mefford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 1:52:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: New Engine 100 MPG


Hey Fritz;

Even though I grew up and live in the states, I remember isettas/500s/hillman 
hunters/austin 1000s
and all those fun things. I even know where there is about 85% of a 
messerschmitt in a barn not
too far away. I loved those cars, all of them. My dad, back in '62, opted for a 
large car, a
VW kaefer, and never looked back, had VDubs until he died. 

The new 500 could carry a *real* 500 in it's boot. 

And yes, it is all a rip off. 

Wanna make the roads really safer, rather than politically safer? 
Pull those driver's side airbags and replace them with a sharpened 6" steel 
spike 
pointing at the drivers chest. Fixed!

No more 'accidents'. Now folks can drive tiny and seriously stingy-on-the-fuel
vehicles again. 

- Original Message -
From: "Fritz Friesinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 12:57:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: New Engine 100 MPG

Hello Chip,
when I startet out with my first car,a Lloyd Alexander Ts , 19hp the 
consumption was not that a big of a deal (1966)
but just the same one did not drive just to burn fuel.
I dont recall how much that yellow streetsinger burnt at the time,but there 
have been cars around then with less than 3liters
consumption per 100km witch comes closed to the 100Mper Gallon thing.
some Vehicles like the Messerschmitt cabinscooter or the little Gogomobil,and 
than the Renaults or the500Fiat.
Big enough to get your But around,but not to impress lotsa girls! And there we 
go: A man and his symbols
The Americans startet with the oversize Bathtops,lately I saw a 500 Fiat in 
Montreal ,shorter that little thing as a Chevy wide!
My Brothers BMW Isetta, The one who opened the door to the front parked cross 
as well as long! You came a long a parking spot
pulled the Handbrake and the thing jumped in the spot (Cross) and it never 
failed to do so
The are all gone and I really dont know why Fiat shoud get the Price they ask 
for the new 500!
Its all a rip off!
Fritz
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110603/35fd92f2/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 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] Fwd: New Engine 100 MPG

[Chip Mefford]

Hey Fritz;

Even though I grew up and live in the states, I remember isettas/500s/hillman 
hunters/austin 1000s
and all those fun things. I even know where there is about 85% of a 
messerschmitt in a barn not
too far away. I loved those cars, all of them. My dad, back in '62, opted for a 
large car, a
VW kaefer, and never looked back, had VDubs until he died. 

The new 500 could carry a *real* 500 in it's boot. 

And yes, it is all a rip off. 

Wanna make the roads really safer, rather than politically safer? 
Pull those driver's side airbags and replace them with a sharpened 6" steel 
spike 
pointing at the drivers chest. Fixed!

No more 'accidents'. Now folks can drive tiny and seriously stingy-on-the-fuel
vehicles again. 

- Original Message -
From: "Fritz Friesinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 12:57:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: New Engine 100 MPG

Hello Chip,
when I startet out with my first car,a Lloyd Alexander Ts , 19hp the 
consumption was not that a big of a deal (1966)
but just the same one did not drive just to burn fuel.
I dont recall how much that yellow streetsinger burnt at the time,but there 
have been cars around then with less than 3liters
consumption per 100km witch comes closed to the 100Mper Gallon thing.
some Vehicles like the Messerschmitt cabinscooter or the little Gogomobil,and 
than the Renaults or the500Fiat.
Big enough to get your But around,but not to impress lotsa girls! And there we 
go: A man and his symbols
The Americans startet with the oversize Bathtops,lately I saw a 500 Fiat in 
Montreal ,shorter that little thing as a Chevy wide!
My Brothers BMW Isetta, The one who opened the door to the front parked cross 
as well as long! You came a long a parking spot
pulled the Handbrake and the thing jumped in the spot (Cross) and it never 
failed to do so
The are all gone and I really dont know why Fiat shoud get the Price they ask 
for the new 500!
Its all a rip off!
Fritz
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110603/35fd92f2/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/

Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: New Engine 100 MPG

[Chip Mefford]

Well, 


just say'n:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTg6r6c0ZlKBq4FJWZWt9lsztH2wxDaJzUmaNCBjrCiT3deoE32

http://www.runmuki.com/commute/images/cartoon.jpg

is all. 



- Original Message -
From: "Aleksander Kac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 6:26:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: New Engine 100 MPG

Well.
Regardless of every sane argument I need to drive to make a living.
To pay the house I live in, to pay for my internet connection, you get it, I 
believe.
I need to drive a lot some days. I need to carry tools sometimes. I need to be 
on time and I'm hot. 

So yes, its 33 deg C out there, and the humidity is high, and aircon helps a 
lot. 

I work 13-14 hours some days, staying cool during drives helps to stay alert on 
the road. 
So yes, I not only believe aircon is nice, I believe it's neccessary on some 
days. 

Traffic is heavy only some days, but mostly very bearable where I live. 

The most we need to take real good care of these days are the cyclists. 

These are not people getting from A to B, these are people with nothing to do 
all afternoon and they didn't tire themselves during their work day. But I 
still take care.

So yes, passive and active safety elements in cars are essential. And we don't 
have tank traffic at all. We don't even have many tanks left anymore. There are 
some
large vehicles on road and I happen to own one. And no, it's not putting in 
danger any one, it's rather useful for that matter. 

Cheers, Aleks



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dawie Coetzee
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 11:54 AM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: New Engine 100 MPG

Hi Aleks, Jason

"Well, I need to say something here. Why all these inventions?"

Why indeed?

"You can buy a whole production car capable of 100 mpg today."

Unfortunately it is fundamentally one of several million of them, and done that 
way can't be otherwise. 


"The  world record in fuel economy set by Gerhardt Plattner with this car is  
actually way better: 107 mpg from austria to denmark and back, 2007 km  on 45 
litres of diesel, using autobahns, climbing mountain highway  passes etc. 
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2011/05/gerhard-plattner-does-it-again-drives.html 
(7% better fuel economy at these low values is no easy job in real world 
traffic)

"It's not a hybrid."

Good.

"It's got aircon and everything a modern car should have."

Should a modern car have aircon and everything else? Why? Perhaps because it 
spends so much time in heavy traffic? Isn't THAT rather the problem? 


"It hasn't got an exotic engine, the engine is a common rail 1.2 litre tdi."

That's one common rail too exotic!

"It's even almost half reasonably priced.

"And it's not even a kei or very small car : Skoda Fabia Greenline II 
http://www.buyacar.co.uk/cars/skoda/skoda_fabia/review_skoda_fabia_greenline_ii_4637.jhtml
 "

Primarily because it needs to 'protect' its occupants against all that tank 
traffic ...

"Cheers, Aleks"

This looks like a lot of fun to me. Seventeen of them might achieve remarkable 
fuel economy; no great matter if the eighteenth and nineteenth don't. And they 
would achieve that fuel economy the right way, that is, pretty much by accident.

Regards

Dawie







From: Aleksander Kac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org" 

Sent: Fri, 27 May, 2011 8:27:01
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: New Engine 100 MPG

Well, I need to say something here. Why all these inventions?

You can buy a whole production car capable of 100 mpg today. 

The world record in fuel economy set by Gerhardt Plattner with this car is 
actually way better: 107 mpg from austria to denmark and back, 2007 km on 45 
litres of diesel, using autobahns, climbing mountain highway passes etc. 
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2011/05/gerhard-plattner-does-it-again-drives.html 
(7% better fuel economy at these low values is no easy job in real world 
traffic)

It's not a hybrid.

It's got aircon and everything a modern car should have. 

It hasn't got an exotic engine, the engine is a common rail 1.2 litre tdi.

It's even almost half reasonably priced.

And it's not even a kei or very small car : Skoda Fabia Greenline II 
http://www.buyacar.co.uk/cars/skoda/skoda_fabia/review_skoda_fabia_greenline_ii_4637.jhtml
 

Cheers, Aleks


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Lee 
Dyson
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 3:13 AM
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: [Biofuel] Fwd: New Engine 100 MPG

Hello All,

was sent this, looks interesting. Looks like if it can be vaporised and 
combustible you can run this engine on it, diesel also. Looks like the idea has 
been around since at least the 1950's

Lee


Begin forwarded message:

> Subject: FW: New Engine 100 MPG
> 

Re: [Biofuel] Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium - Telegraph

[Chip Mefford]

Yes, safe nuclear does exist.

Any plant that hasn't been built is much safer than any one that is.

Besides, we already have fusion, 

right up there, about 93 million or so miles away, and since
we are already forced to deal with it's safety issues regardless
of our use of the power, we may as well focus on that. 



- Original Message -
From: "bmolloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2011 7:08:05 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way 
with thorium - Telegraph

 

According to the Telegraph, safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading
the way with thorium.

 

Link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Sa
fe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html (via
shareaholic.com)

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110602/2a086a90/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/

Re: [Biofuel] Human Intelligence and the Environment

[Chip Mefford]

Interesting discussion;
I've heard it postulated that having a significant prefrontal cortex allows us
humans to -if we work really really hard at it- achieve something that isn't
pure evil. That said, we -as a species- don't really like to use our prefrontal
cortex all that much. We prefer to act based on emotion, action<->re-action.
That's much easier. We have a pretty strong evolutionary precedent for acting
on what serves us in the short term, the long term nearly always can only be
considered to beneficial to others, not us, not directly.

But what about yeast? How intelligent is yeast? Are there yeast cells that 
become
aware of the walls of the petri dish? Do they tell their neighbors? Do the
neighbors shout them down, calling them unpatriotic, traitors, communists, etc?

No, yeast cells probably don't ever become aware of the walls of the petri 
dish, 
probably never become aware of the depletion of the agar. But then again, 
neither
do we. 

So, as an experiment goes, this is a pretty good one, and the empirical results 
are
pretty telling. 

Intelligence? Where? 


___
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] Solar Power Breakthrough.

[Chip Mefford]

Well,

that mindset, as strange as it seems, is actually backed by a couple of 
centuries
of historical precedent. 

Note, historical precedent, not scientific precedent. No, not the same.
Statistical precedents are used to come up with all kinds of whacky stuff. 

Take a look at the IEA's projections, as a for instance.

"this will happen, because it always has in the past."

I often ponder, if a few yeast cells became aware of the walls of the
petri dish, would they then get shouted down by their fellow yeast cells
for being gloomy and depressing and told repeatedly that everything will
be fine because things have always been fine.

Are we actually smarter than yeast? 

Empirical evidence suggests, , , , 

- Original Message -
From: "Zeke Yewdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 11:53:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.

I just love the people who don't think they need to do anything to prevent
global warming or pollution or whatever, because technolgy will come to the
rescue... then refuse to use the technology that could actually help
alleviate the issue..."I don't need to worry about the emissions from
all the electrical loads in my house because technology will find a way to
keep the pollution from that from being a problem"... uh... there already IS
this technology that can make electricity from nothing else than the sun
that already falls on your roof -- oh, and it also has no moving parts and
will last about 30 or 40 years.  What more technology are you freaking
waiting for. You want your cake and to eat it too... but even that's not
good enough... you want a robot to chew it for you, and then to not get fat
from eating cake all day.

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Chip Mefford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
> Brilliant!
>
> yet still another reason to not deploy PV solar!
>
> Seems like every time PV solar gets legs, an announcement
> of a breakthrough technology (was in NanoSolar last time?)
> comes along explaining how PV solar is now 'Obsolete' and
> this emerging technology will make solar power ubiquitous
> and too cheap to meter.
>
> Great, where can I buy it?
>
> Oh, I can't buy it?
>
> But I'd be stupid to buy anything else right?
>
> So I should wait, right?
>
> Exactly.
>
> Well done.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "bmolloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2011 6:21:54 PM
> Subject: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.
>
>
>
>
>
> Solar Power Breakthrough Could Render Photovoltaic Cells Obsolete
>
>
>
> Link:
>
> http://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/solar-power-breakthrough-could-render.ht
> ml (via shareaholic.com)
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110502/7edcd967/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/
>
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110503/1d757ad4/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/

Re: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.

[Chip Mefford]

It ended, 

we're in the anthropocene. 



- Original Message -
From: "Joe Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2011 10:38:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.

Yep.  Like it or not the earth is going to warm up, the Holocene is 
coming to an end. Even filling the deserts with panels will only hurry 
it along.

J


On 04/05/2011 10:12 AM, Zeke Yewdall wrote:
> Well... it just goes to prove that you cannot supply side yourself out of
> the problem... if houses are going to use 1000 or 5000kWh per month,
> switching to solar will be better than coal... but not really a solution.
>


___
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] Solar Power Breakthrough.

[Chip Mefford]

In a grossly oversimplified nutshell, 

Some folks figured the work they were doing at Comsat was a waste of time,
split off, opened their own shop with a little help from their friends,
made some PV cells, figured their process was cool, went looking for 
venture capital, comsat filed suit for patent infringement, venture
capitalists headed for the hills, but a few stayed, they started
Solarex, and made some more cells, then made a few panels, 
government did find it interested, ordered some, they got some
money, and then an angel in the form of Amoco came along, promising
the moon, allowed the breeder to get built, and panels to get
churned out, but it wasn't 'cost effective' and Amoco put them
in a cash stranglehold, and managed to assume ownership of the 
company. Then Amoco 'merged' with BP, and the marginalization
was a fait accompli. Solarex ceased to be, and the panels ceased
to be manufactured, everything gone to the pacific rim. 
Why BP hasn't torn the building down is a mystery to me. 

Guess they figure it's rotting husk, right outside
the DC Beltway (frederick md) is a good reminder not
to play your game on their turf (energy). 

- Original Message -
From: "Joe Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 5:02:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.

LOL!  BP Solar.  Mobil Solar.  OIL Solar.  Think about it.  What a laugh.

J

On 03/05/2011 4:51 PM, Chip Mefford wrote:
> Sorry,
>
> I'm just pretty sick of 30+ years of folks coming up
> with every single reason on earth to avoid PV solar like
> the plague,
>
> and I think, after a lot of years of careful study, ,
>
> that it's all bullshit.
>
> All of it.
>
> Here's your solar foundry/breeder,
>
> http://cpm01.smugmug.com/Other/solar-stuff/16662355_zWC5F2#1256330469_zWL85tR-XL-LB
>
> It was built back in the late 80s, decommissioned recently.
>
> was never 'cost effective' whatever the hell that means.
>
> But it did work.
>
> http://cpm01.smugmug.com/Other/solar-stuff/16662355_zWC5F2#1256336745_m9CKmgV-XL-LB
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Chip Mefford"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 4:46:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.
>
>
> Yes,
>
> you're correct.
>
> Much better to use that power to run furnaces to make beer and coke
> cans.
>
> That's a better use of the power.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Joe Street"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 3:08:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.
>
> I thought Chip was being sarcastic, not that he was actually proposing
> that people wait, but that many stupid people will perceive it as a
> reason to wait.  On the other hand until the day comes that silicon
> foundries are using solar energy to do the job of making cells, and
> indeed panels, the environmental influence of solar energy is actually
> nothing to brag about.  Take a look at the amount of dirty energy it
> takes to make your nice clean green solar panels.  I have a small
> czochralski furnace here capable of growing only about 20kg silicon
> crystals, half of which will be wasted in the wafering process.  It
> alone uses about 45kw for about 12 hrs to grow one crystal and that is
> not even the very beginning of the story. Not even close.  Many of the
> EROEI claims for solar PV assume purified silicon as a starting point.
> Some even assume starting from silicon wafers and tell you the break
> even point is just a few years. This is a big deception.  One day I'd
> like to see a foundry running on solar energy. That is the first need.
>
> Joe
>
> On 03/05/2011 11:53 AM, Zeke Yewdall wrote:
>> I just love the people who don't think they need to do anything to prevent
>> global warming or pollution or whatever, because technolgy will come to the
>> rescue... then refuse to use the technology that could actually help
>> alleviate the issue..."I don't need to worry about the emissions from
>> all the electrical loads in my house because technology will find a way to
>> keep the pollution from that from being a problem"... uh... there already IS
>> this technology that can make electricity from nothing else than the sun
>> that already falls on your roof -- oh, and it also has no moving parts and
>> will last about 30 or 40 years.  What more technology are you freaking
>> waiting for. You want your cake and to eat it too... but even that's not
>> good enough... you wa

Re: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.

[Chip Mefford]

Sorry, 

I'm just pretty sick of 30+ years of folks coming up
with every single reason on earth to avoid PV solar like
the plague, 

and I think, after a lot of years of careful study, , 

that it's all bullshit. 

All of it. 

Here's your solar foundry/breeder, 

http://cpm01.smugmug.com/Other/solar-stuff/16662355_zWC5F2#1256330469_zWL85tR-XL-LB

It was built back in the late 80s, decommissioned recently. 

was never 'cost effective' whatever the hell that means. 

But it did work. 

http://cpm01.smugmug.com/Other/solar-stuff/16662355_zWC5F2#1256336745_m9CKmgV-XL-LB

- Original Message -
From: "Chip Mefford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 4:46:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.


Yes, 

you're correct.

Much better to use that power to run furnaces to make beer and coke
cans. 

That's a better use of the power. 

- Original Message -
From: "Joe Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 3:08:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.

I thought Chip was being sarcastic, not that he was actually proposing 
that people wait, but that many stupid people will perceive it as a 
reason to wait.  On the other hand until the day comes that silicon 
foundries are using solar energy to do the job of making cells, and 
indeed panels, the environmental influence of solar energy is actually 
nothing to brag about.  Take a look at the amount of dirty energy it 
takes to make your nice clean green solar panels.  I have a small 
czochralski furnace here capable of growing only about 20kg silicon 
crystals, half of which will be wasted in the wafering process.  It 
alone uses about 45kw for about 12 hrs to grow one crystal and that is 
not even the very beginning of the story. Not even close.  Many of the 
EROEI claims for solar PV assume purified silicon as a starting point.  
Some even assume starting from silicon wafers and tell you the break 
even point is just a few years. This is a big deception.  One day I'd 
like to see a foundry running on solar energy. That is the first need.

Joe

On 03/05/2011 11:53 AM, Zeke Yewdall wrote:
> I just love the people who don't think they need to do anything to prevent
> global warming or pollution or whatever, because technolgy will come to the
> rescue... then refuse to use the technology that could actually help
> alleviate the issue..."I don't need to worry about the emissions from
> all the electrical loads in my house because technology will find a way to
> keep the pollution from that from being a problem"... uh... there already IS
> this technology that can make electricity from nothing else than the sun
> that already falls on your roof -- oh, and it also has no moving parts and
> will last about 30 or 40 years.  What more technology are you freaking
> waiting for. You want your cake and to eat it too... but even that's not
> good enough... you want a robot to chew it for you, and then to not get fat
> from eating cake all day.
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Chip Mefford<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
>
>>
>> Brilliant!
>>
>> yet still another reason to not deploy PV solar!
>>
>> Seems like every time PV solar gets legs, an announcement
>> of a breakthrough technology (was in NanoSolar last time?)
>> comes along explaining how PV solar is now 'Obsolete' and
>> this emerging technology will make solar power ubiquitous
>> and too cheap to meter.
>>
>> Great, where can I buy it?
>>
>> Oh, I can't buy it?
>>
>> But I'd be stupid to buy anything else right?
>>
>> So I should wait, right?
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> Well done.
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "bmolloy"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2011 6:21:54 PM
>> Subject: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Solar Power Breakthrough Could Render Photovoltaic Cells Obsolete
>>
>>
>>
>> Link:
>>
>> http://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/solar-power-breakthrough-could-render.ht
>> ml (via shareaholic.com)
>>
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110502/7edcd967/attachment.html
>> ___
>> Biofuel mailing list
>> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>>
>> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>> http://journeytoforever.org

Re: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.

[Chip Mefford]

Yes, 

you're correct.

Much better to use that power to run furnaces to make beer and coke
cans. 

That's a better use of the power. 

- Original Message -
From: "Joe Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2011 3:08:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.

I thought Chip was being sarcastic, not that he was actually proposing 
that people wait, but that many stupid people will perceive it as a 
reason to wait.  On the other hand until the day comes that silicon 
foundries are using solar energy to do the job of making cells, and 
indeed panels, the environmental influence of solar energy is actually 
nothing to brag about.  Take a look at the amount of dirty energy it 
takes to make your nice clean green solar panels.  I have a small 
czochralski furnace here capable of growing only about 20kg silicon 
crystals, half of which will be wasted in the wafering process.  It 
alone uses about 45kw for about 12 hrs to grow one crystal and that is 
not even the very beginning of the story. Not even close.  Many of the 
EROEI claims for solar PV assume purified silicon as a starting point.  
Some even assume starting from silicon wafers and tell you the break 
even point is just a few years. This is a big deception.  One day I'd 
like to see a foundry running on solar energy. That is the first need.

Joe

On 03/05/2011 11:53 AM, Zeke Yewdall wrote:
> I just love the people who don't think they need to do anything to prevent
> global warming or pollution or whatever, because technolgy will come to the
> rescue... then refuse to use the technology that could actually help
> alleviate the issue..."I don't need to worry about the emissions from
> all the electrical loads in my house because technology will find a way to
> keep the pollution from that from being a problem"... uh... there already IS
> this technology that can make electricity from nothing else than the sun
> that already falls on your roof -- oh, and it also has no moving parts and
> will last about 30 or 40 years.  What more technology are you freaking
> waiting for. You want your cake and to eat it too... but even that's not
> good enough... you want a robot to chew it for you, and then to not get fat
> from eating cake all day.
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Chip Mefford<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
>
>>
>> Brilliant!
>>
>> yet still another reason to not deploy PV solar!
>>
>> Seems like every time PV solar gets legs, an announcement
>> of a breakthrough technology (was in NanoSolar last time?)
>> comes along explaining how PV solar is now 'Obsolete' and
>> this emerging technology will make solar power ubiquitous
>> and too cheap to meter.
>>
>> Great, where can I buy it?
>>
>> Oh, I can't buy it?
>>
>> But I'd be stupid to buy anything else right?
>>
>> So I should wait, right?
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> Well done.
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "bmolloy"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2011 6:21:54 PM
>> Subject: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Solar Power Breakthrough Could Render Photovoltaic Cells Obsolete
>>
>>
>>
>> Link:
>>
>> http://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/solar-power-breakthrough-could-render.ht
>> ml (via shareaholic.com)
>>
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110502/7edcd967/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/
>>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110503/1d757ad4/attachment.

Re: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.

[Chip Mefford]

Brilliant!

yet still another reason to not deploy PV solar!

Seems like every time PV solar gets legs, an announcement
of a breakthrough technology (was in NanoSolar last time?)
comes along explaining how PV solar is now 'Obsolete' and
this emerging technology will make solar power ubiquitous
and too cheap to meter. 

Great, where can I buy it? 

Oh, I can't buy it? 

But I'd be stupid to buy anything else right? 

So I should wait, right? 

Exactly. 

Well done. 

- Original Message -
From: "bmolloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2011 6:21:54 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] Solar Power Breakthrough.

 

 

Solar Power Breakthrough Could Render Photovoltaic Cells Obsolete

 

Link:
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/solar-power-breakthrough-could-render.ht
ml (via shareaholic.com)

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20110502/7edcd967/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/

Re: [Biofuel] Saskatchewan government announces $1.24 billion carbon storage project

[Chip Mefford]

Wait a sec, 

I thought the Weyburn project was running into a few 'issues'.

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Sask+family+claims+carbon+capture+storage+site+captured+spewed+dead/4093755/story.html

Guess that doesn't count. 

- Original Message -
From: "Darryl McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 12:17:49 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] Saskatchewan government announces $1.24 billion carbon   
storage project

Sigh.  If you want to put the carbon in the ground, so it will actually 
stay there, why not just leave it (coal) in the ground to start with?

Yep, that's $1.24 Billion, with a B.

Darryl



http://www.newstalk980.com/story/20110426/50246

Includes $204 million contribution from federal government
Story Tools
ShareThis
Reported By Natalie Geddes
Posted April 26, 2011 - 11:03am

Saskatchewan's southeast will be home to one of the world's first 
commercial-sized carbon capture and storage facilities, according to an 
announcement by the government Tuesday morning.

The province is announcing a $1.24 billion dollar project will see the 
Boundary Dam Power Station upgraded. The coal plant there will 
incorporate a steam turbine to help the coal-fired power plant integrate 
with a new carbon capture and storage system.

Saskatchewan has been at the forefront of carbon sequestration in the 
last several years and this announced project will be one of the biggest 
in the world. It involves carbon dioxide gas being injected deep into 
the earth to store the greenhouse gases indefinitely. The Minister 
responsible for SaskPower Rob Norris adds the province is currently in 
talks with the oil industry, who could than purchase the captured chemicals.

In many ways Saskatchewan is counting on this so called “clean coal”. 
The current power grid gets 60 percent of its power from burning coal. 
We also know that the need for power in Saskatchewan is expected to 
double in the next 10 years. If proven successful this carbon capture 
project could become an industry standard for efficient and cleaner coal.
CEO of SaskPower Robert Watson adds that power rates are bound to rise, 
but the addition of carbon capture could ensure coal’s future and help 
keep customer costs down.

Tuesday’s announcement has been in the works for months, Watson says it 
was his reason for so many recent trips to Ottawa. Saskatchewan has been 
in close talks with the federal government ensuring that this carbon 
capture project falls into industry and emission guidelines. In fact 
they had hoped Ottawa would have new emission guidelines ready, but that 
was put off by the federal election. Minister Norris says the decision 
to start now was after telling Ottawa they want to get out in front and 
help set where those guidelines should be. They were also dealing with 
the aging Boundary Dam Power Station, and construction price estimates 
that could expire.

The mayor of Estevan Gary St.Onge admits he was getting worried that the 
power station might close. Now the already booming oil town will host 
another influx of workers. A proposed 600 employees will be needed 
during the height of the renovation. Work should start immediately with 
completion by 2012.

Photo of Boundary Dam taken by News Talk Radio's Natalie Geddes on Apr. 
26, 2011.

-- 
Darryl McMahon

___
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] Has BP Really Cleaned Up the Gulf Oil Spill?

[Chip Mefford]

>- Original Message -
>From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:40:20 PM
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Has BP Really Cleaned Up the Gulf Oil Spill?
>
>BP Is Messing With the Wrong Woman
>Tuesday 19 April 2011
>by: David Swanson, War is a Crime
>A year ago BP began filling the Gulf of Mexico with oil.
>Last week BP blocked a woman from entering its annual meeting.
>Which will prove the bigger mistake?
>http://www.truthout.org/bp-messing-wrong-woman/1303196400

Oh

that was indeed a mistake. 

I've met Diane, 

she's a handful. 

___
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] Rush to Use Crops as Fuel Raises Food Prices and Hunger Fears

[Chip Mefford]

Well, 

despite what 'we all know', viz the growing of crops in a way that 
doesn't destroy the earth, but rather sustains, even improves the
fertility of the soil, and all that.

Contemporary 'agribusiness' style agriculture being what it is, I'm
still completely unclear on the EROEI of fuel-crops. 

Some folks I know grew 7 acres of sunflower last year, and had a 
marvelous harvest. They managed to scrape together with some neighbors
enough money to buy a 40 yr/o small (by modern standards) harvester
and a similar vintage oil press. I don't know the numbers, but they
were quite pleased with yields. This spring, the sunflowers are going
into a different field, according to their plan for soil management
and all that. I'm unclear on their science, but I'll know more
as I become more familiar with their operation in the coming years. 
They are pretty sharp folks. 

The number folks keep kicking around is by modern agricultural practices 
it takes 10 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of fuel(food). 

I often get lost and bogged down in the vast maze of details surrounding
all this. 

Anyone help?   

___
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] Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power (George Monbiot)

[Chip Mefford]

No, it wasn't satire. 

- Original Message -
From: "GEORGE PAGE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:31:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear 
power (George Monbiot)

Did everyone else catch that the title to Monbiot's article references Dr. 
Strangelove, and I'm just finally getting it?  Was the article a satire, or 
what?

Maybe I'm a little slow...

George Page

___
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] Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power (George Monbiot)

[Chip Mefford]

A general response to the response to the responses to the responses:

Note: I'm sooo glad to finally see some discussion on this list. Once
vibrant, thanks so kindly to all for playing :)

And I'm going to try to avoid getting into that trap where we are all
talking past one another, rather than to one another. But also keep
it flushed out for those of us on the list who are lurking. 

Robert wrote


|(Major snippage here.)  I (robert) asked a question about declines in 
|industrial output and comfort, to which Chip replied:
|> Yes, the 'all or none by tomorrow' is a false dichotomy. It's stating
|> that since it cannot happen by tomorrow, then it should be dismissed
|> right now. I don't think this is deliberate, or even slopping logic,
|> I think it's intentional, and meant to argue a point without making
|> a competent rebuttal.
|
| Yet, this is often a show-stopper for people who can't imagine 
|living in a world economy that differs from the one we have now.  "If we 
|can't replace one energy source with another, then nothing can be done . 
|. ."  This mentality clings to the status quo.  It is very difficult to 
|argue an alternative path, without having a plan on how to get there 
|from here.

Agreed. yes. Faulty logic is often a show-stopper. *most* folks do exactly
what they are expected to do when appeals to emotion and appeals to authority
are thrown at them. Folks (to whom this matter is directed) have been
convinced, and reinforced in that belief that their collective way of life
is not just good, it's the best, that 'it is not negotiable' and there is
the veiled threat that if the commies and socialists have their way, 
they will be stripped of their worldly possessions, turned out into the salt
mines, blah blah blah. So this way of life must be defended at all costs. 
Sure, there's hyperbole there, but I think you know what I mean. 

I read it here years ago, posted by Keith, and I'll paraphrase because
I can't find a reference in the archives. 

The future is towns and villages supported by their immediate landbase. This
model has worked for thousands of years in the past, and will continue to
work for thousands of years into the future. It's a model that can work
with billions of people, or with just a few hundred thousand, but it is
the future. 

I've read this same sentiment elsewhere. If one actually takes into account
what is actually going on, it's the only path forward that makes any sense
whatsoever. Once this eventual reality crosses one's threshold of cognition, 
then all the rest of the options sorta get greyed out.  

In his keynote address at the Pennsylvania Assoc for Sustainable Agriculture
a number of year back, James Kunstler made one of his typical quips concerning
the 'status quo' in response to then President Bush's remark about 'our
way of life is not negotiable'. As Kunstler put it. If you refuse to negotiate, 
then you get assigned a negotiating partner, in this case, Reality. 
If we, here in the west, the US in particular do not consider our way of life
negotiable, then that way of life gets negotiated without our willing 
cooperation. 

It doesn't matter if the general population doesn't like it. The fact is, 
the 'american way of life' is coming off the menu. We as a people, can embrace
this irrefutable inevitability willingly and with a sense of bold adventure
(which I like to think defines the heart of the actual american spirit) or
we can hide behind our big screen TVs, clutching bags of cheetos and 2 litre
jugs of hfcs soda. But the future will come, ready or not. 

I suppose my overarching point here is, It doesn't matter that folks won't
accept it. 

I'm in a transition, essentially back to things I thought were so as a much 
younger
man in the 70s. I'm pretty much over attempting to tell anyone else how to live.
Was never that keen on it in the first place. I am in process of demonstrating 
how one may live if one wishes. it's getting better every day. It's my 
opinion that the best way to say something, is to do something. 

| There are some things I've thought about, with respect to the 
|question of energy use for manufacturing.  The first is, while we don't 
|have a viable process for making decent steel without coke, why does so 
|much of what we build HAVE to be made of steel?  Can't we use aluminum 
|(which is stronger, anyway), or some other material--like 
|carbon--instead?  (Aluminum smelting is still energy intensive, but 
|aluminum doesn't require carbon input.) A lot of steel is recycled, 
|which doesn't require additional carbon either, so if we began to reduce 
|our use of steel, that, in turn, would reduce the need to make virgin 
|steel from iron ore and metallurgical coal, because recycled steel could 
|fill the transitional gap.

Couple of things, 
'We' can make decent steel without coke. In point of fact, some of the
best examples of steel are made with charcoal, at a small scale, in
'backyard' foundries. To me, this isn't the q

Re: [Biofuel] Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power (George Monbiot)

[Chip Mefford]

Snipped for clarity, Just responding to the points with which
I have issue:


|Dave Hajoglou wrote:
|
|On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 3:01 PM, robert and benita rabello
|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>...  Does it follow
|> that a reduction in energy use and reliance on renewables would
|> necessarily result in massive declines in both industrial output and
|> citizen comfort?
|
|Articles like these tend to suggest changes in an
|all-or-none-right-now!! frame of reference.  If we decided to switch
|"whole sale" to only renewable energy right now then yes, we would not
|be able to maintain our lifestyles.  A sensible approach would suggest
|that changes will be slow and our complex systems will adapt.  It's
|tantamount to cave men saying that switching from wood to oil in a
|month, without the necessary infrastructure, is impossible and
|therefore we cannot sustain our life style in a non-wood energy
|economy.


Yes, the 'all or none by tomorrow' is a false dichotomy. It's stating
that since it cannot happen by tomorrow, then it should be dismissed
right now. I don't think this is deliberate, or even slopping logic,
I think it's intentional, and meant to argue a point without making
a competent rebuttal. 

Further, 
Again, as I stated earlier, assuming the entire world wakes up tomorrow
and decides, "Okay, Nukes are a bad idea, let's get rid of them" first
and foremost, someone needs to come up with a way to do that. This
has not been done. Key Point, there isn't any way to get rid of the
damned machines. So, even given that folks start working on ways to
safely deactivate these plants tomorrow, (and they aren't going to)
it will likely take decades before any real momentum builds. 

And Rockefeller/Standard oil did a very nice job of getting 'cave men'
to switch from wood to oil in very short order. 

As to maintaining our lifestyle:
What does that even mean? 
Which lifestyle is that? 

Folks I know who are messing and suffering their way through various
airport security horrors, just to enjoy the dubious pleasure of modern
cattle carrier experience of flying in these modern times, to end
up sitting in front of a box filled with colored light poking at
a flat slab of buttons (aka, doing computer consulting work) while
their health fails, just to get up tomorrow and do it again, because
they are glad for the work. This is a lifestyle? Sure, some even
enjoy it, but the buried costs are ENORMOUS, and at the end of the day
(and many of you know this) it was all pointless. Not one single
square meter of compost was turned as as result. 

Lifestyle, 

This? 

http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/ve/1438/earth_lights_lrg.jpg

Sorry, I don't see lighting up parking lots as a lifestyle that
deserves the resultant destruction and depletion of resources. 
We can do so much better than this. 

___
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] Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power (George Monbiot)

[Chip Mefford]

I started on this response days ago, and at Keith's prompting, I figure
I'll try to wrap it up:




Hey Robert:

|- Original Message -
|From: "robert and benita rabello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
|Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 3:01:00 PM
|Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear 
power (George Monbiot)
|
|On 3/25/2011 10:38 AM, Dawie Coetzee wrote:
|> I fear that, despite Keith's occasional promptings to the contrary, I still 
had
|> no great love for George Monbiot anyway. The latest merely confirms my 
earlier
|> misgivings.
|>
|> My own position, in which the Green is rather overshadowed by the Black,
|> represents one of the few angles from which George's cloven hoof is really
|> visible. To me he has always been far too much the eco-authoritarian, for 
whom
|> ecological survival could never really, thoroughly, consummately co-exist 
with
|> personal liberty. His localism seems thin and superficial, his centralism 
runs
|> much deeper.
|>
|> An appreciation for obscure local apple cultivars gave George Monbiot a 
chance.
|> He has blown it now.
|
| Ok, it's one thing to dismiss the article offhand because it 
|doesn't harmonize with the overall theme of local energy and food 
|production, but I would like to ask the list what I believe is an 
|important question.  Mr. Monibot mentioned that pre-industrial England 
|did not support a very comfortable lifestyle for most of its 
|inhabitants, and that full reliance on solar, wind and biomass would 
|move English society backward without nuclear power.  

I think when folks talk about pre-industrial, they are actually talking
about pre-easy-coal, aka 17th century. There was plenty of industry
in the 1600s and before. Granted, charcoal foundries were pretty 
hard on their resources, but they were also self-limiting. Feedback
loops and all. 



|Does it follow 
|that a reduction in energy use and reliance on renewables would 
|necessarily result in massive declines in both industrial output and 
|citizen comfort?  (I'm also thinking of that article Keith posted a few 
|weeks ago, in which analysis of coal consumption in Industrial 
|Revolution England actually INCREASED with improvements in efficiency.)  
|Can we support large populations in the industrialized nations without 
|fossil and nuclear power?

It follows that a reduction in energy use and reliance on renewables 
would necessarily result in massive, and I mean MASSIVE declines in
industrial output, and a reduction in the waste of the lives of the citizenry. 

Industrial output is about putting more cars, trucks, ships, aircraft
and the equipment for producing, loading, and unloading of those
same things out there (and arms of course). The big question is, 
do we really NEED or even WANT more and more and more cars, 
trucks, ships, aircraft and equipment for producing, loading 
and unloading of those same things? 


Simply put, the ability to sit back and be a George Monbiot (and pontificate
about how Nuclear is good and useful, because it allows George Monbiot
to be George Monbiot, and not just another neighbor farmer/blacksmith/shopsmith/
cooper/wheelbuilder/schoolteacher/framer/teamster/etc, (IE, someone who
actually does something)) just isn't all that useful, or even 
necessary, In a world made by hand. 

Am I romanticizing? Sure. However, this romance allows for a lot
more 'room' or 'slack' in the system, than the romance of Growth
Without End, Amen. Which doesn't allow for much slack. 

In fairness, it has created some slack despite itself.   

(anecdote warning!)

Back in Feb, I was a farming conference keynoted by Wes Jackson
of the Land Institute, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Jackson
In his keynote, he gave a quick and interesting history of the
'industrial age' in particular, the early 'industrial age'. 
He explained that the industrial age did in fact, create some
very useful slack. To wit: Of the folks born on 12 February 1809
(exactly 202 years before the keynote) There were 2 men men
in particular. One went on to become a great emancipator, the
other went on to become a notable president of the United States. 
Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln. 

Darwin stepped out there, building on the work of those
who came before, he came up with a model of existence that
was testable, an experience that could be experimented upon. A
great unshackling from dogmatic belief. And in another example, 
the other -building on the slack created by the heavily industrialized
northern states- was able to entertain seriously the concept of
the removal of the state of slavery from the moral and ethical
code of law for a nation, as a model to the rest of the world. 
The wealth of the so-called southern states was still tied to
up-to-16th century agrarian economic models, hence slavery. So,
there was a conflict. 

Further, he also went into (as did Keith earlier) William Stanley
Jevon's work, in particular the yet-to

Re: [Biofuel] Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power (George Monbiot)

[Chip Mefford]

Well, 

I have a lot of respect for George Monbiot. 

However, I think the nuclear business folks haven't just been
sitting on their hands these last few decades, they've been working
very hard on winning support from their own enemies. They are
anything but stupid. 

- Original Message -
From: "Dave Hajoglou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 12:30:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear 
power (George Monbiot)

So, was that George guy serious?  I mean, calling a disaster all
tidied up with negligible impact while citing a chart from a comic
writer (albeit a very scientifically inclined author) as evidence that
this whole thing really sheds a good light on nuclear boarders on
unethical.  We here in the US have a good appetite for unethical
journalism, mind, but did I miss something?  Was he serious?

-hoj

___
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] Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power (George Monbiot)

[Chip Mefford]

- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 7:25:52 AM
Subject: [Biofuel] Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power 
(George Monbiot)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power

-ARTICLE SNIPPED-


An interesting read, however it seems to have fallen on deaf ears with me. 
(deaf eyes?)

While folks are hailing the lack of damage that has resulted in this 
still-on-going-with-no-end-yet-in-sight battle with a basically unchecked 
nuclear power station, I'm not exactly reassured. 

Yes, the pro nuclear industry, -which just a week ago was saying this is
a non issue, and a week before that would have said that this couldn't even
happen, and a month before that, and so on- has done an admirable job pointing
out that everything is fine, no problems here, nothing to see, move along, move
along. In the mean time, the heroic actions of the folks on the ground trying 
their
very best to stave off yet still another earth killing mistake, are yet again, 
going 
unheralded.  

The articles harping on how this isn't an issue, and even so, the newer plants
couldn't have this problem, and the very newest technology is completely safe. 

On that last point, I must agree. yes, the plants that have not been built
are indeed much much safer than those that have been built. Touche`

A few points stand out in this, that I believe are being completely ignored. 

1) There is no way to handle the waste
2) There is no way to handle the waste
3) There is no way to handle the waste

a very distant
4) Only the nuclear industry claims an actual reduction in carbon emissions. 
Others who have studied the lifecycle of nuclear power state that at it's very
best, it's a wash, and it's difficult to crunch the numbers in such a way to 
even
get that rosy a result. The raw numbers, including the mining and refining of
uranium, the land destruction, the water waste, the massive industrial process
of gathering, refining and transporting the fuel, the construction and 
maintenance
of the plants themselves, before getting into the maintenance and disposal of 
waste
and the decommissioning of the plants make it look like a net negative, all the 
way
around. 

My personal pet peeve,
There Is No Difference Between Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons. 

If there is a difference, then please explain why whenever a country 'out of 
favor'
with the 'west' displays an interest in developing this much touted clean and
green power, the west gets very very upset, claiming that there is no difference
between nuclear power and nuclear weapons when 'they' do it. Only when 'we' do 
it? 

I'm confused. 

When I hear a Monbiot make such a pronouncement absent caveats to the effect of
nuclear weapons cannot be entrusted to governments. Therefore nuclear power
cannot be entrusted to governments, nor can they be entrusted to private 
enterprise.
Therefore they cannot be entrusted to human institutions as we currently 
understand
them (institutions). 

Maybe, just a distant and pretty hollow maybe;
Were someone such as Monbiot to suggest that this technology is just too sketchy
to be handled by any agency with an agenda, and that a world wide body might be
required to find a few places on this planet that were well suited to the long
term storage of nuclear materials, and be empowered to construct some massive
'safe' reactors where ALL the nuclear materials from every single last atomic
weapon and power plant could be dealt with, outside the influence of any 
government
or business, IE, some hitherto unexplored authority paradigm, akin to the 
initial
UN, Then, maybe then, I'd perk up and pay attention.

Simply put, were we as a species to decide to turn away from this little shop
of horrors, it would likely take 50 plus years of intense international effort
and cooperation to achieve anything like gains towards that end. 

By way of qualification;

I like techie stuff like this, I confess my sin of giggly excitement over 
technological
wizardry. When i was just a kid, running around after school, I got to walk 
around the
Neely reactor at Ga Tech, see the blue glow, and all that. Very cool stuff. 
That reactor
was shut down in '88, and defueled in '96. Folks who are claiming that 
everything is
fine in Fukushima, take note. Shutdown in '88, defueled in '96. 

Couple of points, 

You can't turn off a nuclear reactor
The life cycle of nuclear power is incompatible with the life cycle of
our kids. 

The End. 



___
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@susta

Re: [Biofuel] Portable solar cooker for cooking, heating and electricity generation

[Chip Mefford]

Pretty neat!

I, or rather she, stumbled across these folks at a
statewide farm show a number of years back. 

http://www.solarovens.org/

She bought me one for my birthday, and we've bought a few 
others and given them away as presents to friends. 

These things work pretty well. I've cooked lots of meals
in mine. 

I don't know if their mission is achieving anything like
the impact they are hoping, but it would be nice.


- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 5:22:13 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] Portable solar cooker for cooking, heating and electricity 
generation

Lothis of buzzwords, but it looks interesting...

SolSource 3-in-1

http://www.oneearthdesigns.org/solsource.html
The SolSource is a lightweight solar energy device that provides 
users with a low-cost and portable means of cooking, heating and 
electricity generation.

Co-designed with rural Himalayan communities, the SolSource 
eliminates many of the complications associated with burning solid 
fuels, including harmful indoor air pollution, gender inequities and 
greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, 2.5 billion people rely on solid 
fuels for their daily energy needs, resulting in more than 1.6 
million deaths per year and making indoor air pollution a leading 
cause of mortality for children under 5 in developing regions of the 
world.

Combining advanced technology with user-centered design, the 
SolSource represents an exciting new design solution for communities 
and individuals everywhere.

>  Download the SolSource 3-in-1 Brochure
http://www.oneearthdesigns.org/media/SolSource-Brochure-20100923.pdf

Collaborative Design

By directly involving local stakeholders in the design process, OED 
empowered Himalayan communities to define their own vision of an 
effective solution. Community members from a variety of backgrounds 
participated as members of the team, and physical immersion by the 
organization yielded valuable insight into local preferences, 
traditions and needs. OED's formalized impact assessments supplied 
communities with the options and ideas they needed to balance 
tradeoffs and make well-informed decisions, while the informal 
feedback generated by iterative testing solidified a qualitative 
voice in the SolSource's creation.

Throughout the process, many villagers communicated that existing 
alternatives to solid fuels were inappropriate for their social, 
economic and environmental needs. Traditional solar stoves are 
frequently designed only for cooking - leaving villagers reliant on 
solid fuels for heating - and are constructed with fragile concrete 
and glass components, yet rural communities lack the resources needed 
to repair broken devices. Moreover, many stoves weigh up to 95kg 
each. This excess weight hinders portability and in many cases 
prevents distribution networks from reaching the end-user. The 
SolSource's innovative design makes no sacrifice in efficiency for 
versatility and simplicity.

One Earth Designs

___
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] Gun Crazy

[Chip Mefford]

Hey Mark

Please read up on False Analogy. 

It's a type of informal fallacy. 

an easy thing to fall into, we all do it. 

All the best

:wq



|- Original Message -
|From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
|Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:01:31 PM
|Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Gun Crazy
|
|When 9 thousand Americans kill each other with guns that's terrible.
|45 thousand die on US roads each year.  I suppose most just fall asleep
|reading this.  -Mark Hoagy

___
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] Gun Crazy

[Chip Mefford]

Here was one thread:

http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg66127.html

there have been others. 


>- Original Message -
>From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:22:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Gun Crazy
>
>That's fine Keith but motor vehicles here in the USA
>cause far higher deaths.  How did that discussion pan out?
>
>-Mark Hoagy

___
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] More on Bees and CCD - EPA Knew of CCD issue with Clothianidin

[Chip Mefford]

>- Original Message -
>From: "Darryl McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 9:24:33 AM
>Subject: [Biofuel] More on Bees and CCD - EPA Knew of CCD issue with   
>Clothianidin
>
>BIG SNIP
>Is it just me, or does it seem that whistle-blowers and 'leaks' are the 
>only way left to us to hold our governments to account?
>
>-- 
>Darryl McMahon

Our governments are being held to account? 

Really? 

___
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] greenhouse farming

[Chip Mefford]

Hey Keith;

>- Original Message -
>From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Thanks very much Chip. Those are good.
>
>Compost 'tea' distillery, though? No need for a distillery. Take a 
>5-gallon pail, add 2 double handfuls of worm casts or finely sifted 
>compost (aerobic, thermophilic compost, ie it got hot), a bottle cap 
>of liquid seaweed emulsion and a tablespoonful of molasses to give 
>the bugs something to eat, plus a little less than 4 gallons of water 
>(preferably rainwater if the local tap water is chlorinated), stir it 
>up with a paint-stirrer in a drill, then use a fishtank aerator pump 
>with a bubblestone on the end to keep it aerated. Leave for at least 
>24 hours, stirring occasionally with a stick. Filter through an old 
>pair of pantyhose and use.

Neat. 

yeah, She did do a cursory explanation of what they were doing 
there with all that muck, but I didn't follow it, was paying
attention to the soil warming system at the time, I just snapped
a few pics. 

>There are some folks (like Elaine Ingham for one) who've figured out 
>a response to the difficult problem that it's hard to make any money 
>out of organic growers because they don't need anything, and 
>overcomplicated compost tea brewers accompanied by overspecialised 
>lab tests is one such response.

Lol!

Yeah, true enough. 

This farm is a lab. They are doing a lot of stuff that looks completely
counter intuitive to me. But they are also growing a lot of food
and feeding a lot of people. This farm belongs to a university, and it
stocks their kitchens, as well as acts as a faculty CSA. 

The way they are handling their mountains of compost goes against everything
I've read, in that ALL of the kitchen waste, and I mean ALL of it goes
in there. Scares the willies out of me. However, it's their farm, 
not mine. And I like these folks a lot, and they are wonderful
neighbors. 

It's all a grand experiment. Personally, I think they'd do well to
read more Howard and Price; But it's most certainly not my call.
They are a school, and schools are, well, schools. :)
And I'll be well pleased if I can come close to feeding as many
people in my life, as they do in a year. 

>All best

And you, 

--chipper

___
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] greenhouse farming

[Chip Mefford]

And this is another picture that shows the greenhouses


http://cpm01.smugmug.com/Bicycles/buy-fresh-bike-local-2010/IMG0747/963630486_GKPoV-XL.jpg

The woman in the white shirt is the farm manager. 

___
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] greenhouse farming

[Chip Mefford]

>- Original Message -
>From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:40:18 AM
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] greenhouse farming
>
>Anyone willing to send me photos of their greenhouses? Plus whatever 
>information you think might be relevant (if you haven't already said 
>it onlist)?

Hey Keith:

Here are some pics that I sent along in a previous thread on biofuel
oil heater for radiant heat. 

This is on a neighboring farm. 

This is the solar collector and it shows one of the two 'high tunnel
greenhouses. The other greenhouse is to the right, out of frame, but
it's a twin:

http://cpm01.smugmug.com/Bicycles/buy-fresh-bike-local-2010/IMG0751/963631204_narY5-XL.jpg

This is the backup for the radiant soil-warming system, it runs on biodiesel. 

http://cpm01.smugmug.com/Bicycles/buy-fresh-bike-local-2010/IMG0749/963631153_nZVUP-XL.jpg

This is the dehydrater, it's a prototype, runs off the same heating circuit. 

 
http://cpm01.smugmug.com/Bicycles/buy-fresh-bike-local-2010/IMG0750/963631184_kr738-XL.jpg

This is the compost 'tea' distillery, (it's in that tent-thing behind the solar 
collector)
I don't fully grock this (yet).

http://cpm01.smugmug.com/Bicycles/buy-fresh-bike-local-2010/IMG0753/963631267_g7bCZ-XL.jpg

___
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] greenhouse farming

[Chip Mefford]

>- Original Message -
>From: "David Penfold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
>These chaps do geodesic greenhouses:
>
>http://www.geodesic-greenhouse-kits.com/features.php

If you like that kinda thing, I've loved these people
for many years. Nice folks, cool structures, works good. 

Spendy, but robust. Friend of mine has a 20' shelter 
system that he's had, Sheesh, well over 20 years. 


http://www.shelter-systems.com/greenhouses.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] I'm just

[Chip Mefford]

downright excited to see all this activity on this list
after all this time. 

Keep it up!

___
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 'Transition Town' Movement's Initial Genius

[Chip Mefford]

>- Original Message -
>From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:40:54 PM
>Subject: [Biofuel] The 'Transition Town' Movement's Initial Genius
>
>http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/29-7
>
>Published on Monday, November 29, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
>
>The 'Transition Town' Movement's Initial Genius

Very interesting Keith, 
and quite timely. 

With the change in wind here in the US, particularly in my home state
of WV (a third world country inside the US) I decided that my home state
was no longer as viable a place to live out my years as I had hoped,
the very few progressive gains made, having just been pretty much wiped
out with, , well, enough of that. 

Anyway, I started casting about for another place to live. 

One of the first things i did was order Rob Hopkin's Transition 
Handbook, and read it cover to cover. And since I am already
involved in PASA (pennsylvania assoc for sustainable agriculture)
and getting more and more involved with each passing year, 
Started digging around for transitions initiatives in Pa. 

Am now searching for land. 

I'm tired of trying to explain myself all of the time, over
and over again. I have a lot I can teach, and I have a lot
to learn, and I'm really looking forward to real people
doing real stuff, on a daily basis, instead of just
every now and again. 

___
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] Fighting Doom: The New Politics of Climate Change

[Chip Mefford]

>- Original Message -
>From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 8:37:33 AM
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Fighting Doom: The New Politics of Climate Change
>
>Well Joe.
>
>>Derrick Jensen really got
>>the best of me.
>
>A sad admission. What a lightweight - the "problem of civilization"?? 
>Actually, civilisation somewhat predates neo-liberal corporatism, and 
>even the Industrial Revolution. Why don't you write to him, suggest a 
>very long reading list, starting perhaps with Arnold Toynbee, and 
>Weston Price? 

As much as I like Derrick, and I do like Derrick, 
this is a pretty classic case of it's hard to pour a drink
for a man when his glass is already full. 

Reexamining his position would mean, well, , , reexamining his
position, and he's pretty much fully invested himself in
his own world view, (as do we all to some extent). 

Again, I like Derrick, and think he's a fine person. But 
I think his views are so skewed (worth a read, yes, but
that's all) that trying to debate them is pointless. 

Life is short. 

___
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] 8 Electric-Car Myths Busted

[Chip Mefford]

>- Original Message -
>From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:40:00 AM
>Subject: [Biofuel] 8 Electric-Car Myths Busted
>
>http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/01/electric-car-myths
>
>8 Electric-Car Myths Busted

I enjoyed this article, and coupled with this bit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSdnycHfLnQ

makes it all look like EV's are the best thing since the
'taming' of fire. 

While all this tasty cornucopian goodness looks good to the
last drop, I just remain unconvinced that cars are the answer
to any problem at all. I don't care how the car is powered. 

I see them as the problem. Fun, yes, handy, yes (in the
absence of some sensible transporation, like walking to the
train station), and certainly enjoyable, but I just don't
think the pros outweigh the cons. 

i just don't. But that's me.  

___
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] World Energy Outlook, 2010

[Chip Mefford]

Oh I have no doubt that "DEMAND" will continue to rise, 

but the report says that PRODUCTION will continue to rise 
right along with it. 

This, i just cannot buy. I've yet to hear one geologist credibly
back this up. OTOH, I've heard plenty say quite the opposite. 


- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:17:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] World Energy Outlook, 2010

Maybe you'll find AFP's take on it a little less chokesome:


Actually it's just as chokesome.

"China China China", hm. I'm a bit sceptical.

GDP growth - ah yes, that's what really counts. More from AFP:

Climate change and consumerism are biggest threats to future, U.N. warns


Best

Keith


>http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/
>
>Any clueful commentary welcome.
>
>I choked at paragraph 10 of the 'Fact Sheet'
>
>"The eventual peak in oil will be determined by factors affecting 
>both demand and supply. In the
>New Policies Scenario, production in total does not peak before 
>2035, though it comes close to doing
>so. By contrast, in the 450 Scenario, production does peak, at 86 
>mb/d, just before 2020, as a result
>of weaker demand, falling briskly thereafter. Oil prices are much 
>lower as a result."
>
>And was unable to read any further.


___
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] World Energy Outlook, 2010

[Chip Mefford]

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/


Any clueful commentary welcome. 

I choked at paragraph 10 of the 'Fact Sheet'


"The eventual peak in oil will be determined by factors affecting both demand 
and supply. In the
New Policies Scenario, production in total does not peak before 2035, though it 
comes close to doing
so. By contrast, in the 450 Scenario, production does peak, at 86 mb/d, just 
before 2020, as a result
of weaker demand, falling briskly thereafter. Oil prices are much lower as a 
result."

And was unable to read any further. 

___
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] A gem (and it's nuclear-powered)

[Chip Mefford]

Wow, 

I don't know what to say. 

This is a timely and important news story if ever 
there was one. :)

Interesting read, thanks for passing it along. 

- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2010 5:02:01 AM
Subject: [Biofuel] A gem (and it's nuclear-powered)

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/nn20101102i1.html

Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010

FYI
TOILETS

Toilets: Japan power behind throne

By MASAMI ITO

Staff writer

Japan, the state-of-the-art high-tech powerhouse that gave the world 
manga and sushi, has also achieved prowess in a more fundamental 
feature of daily life: the toilet.

Once the nation began installing more and more Western-style toilets 
after the tried and true squat-type variety fell from favor, the 
basic pot for sitting has been transformed by gadgetry ranging from 
heated seats to full-service bidets, and even artificial sounds to 
disguise what otherwise is heard.

In their evolution, toilets have become the lap of luxury.

A key feature of the Japan Pavilion at Shanghai Expo 2010, which 
closed Sunday, was the "world's No. 1" toilets, which visitors were 
welcomed to try out. From June, the venue even included one 
gold-plated toilet each in the men's and women's bathrooms.

Following are questions and answers regarding Japan's rise to 
prominence in the high-tech toilet industry:

Who are the key players in high-tech toilets?

There are several companies in the sanitary ware business, but 90 
percent of the market is dominated by two companies - Toto Ltd., 
which commands a 60 percent share, and Inax Corp., which has 30 
percent.

According to a Toto survey, Asian- or Japanese-style squat-type 
toilets were king of the hill until 1976, when Japan began shipping 
an equal amount of Western-style alternatives.

As of September 2009, however, Western-style toilets accounted for 98 
percent of new shipments, according to data gleaned by the Japan 
Sanitary Equipment Industry Association, an industry group to which 
Toto and Inax belong.

What prompted the shift to Western-style toilets?

Several factors were involved, but Japan's hosting of international 
events, including the Tokyo Olympics and World Exposition, attracted 
throngs of foreigners, particularly those mainly inclined to use 
Western-style toilets, according to Toto.

In addition, the rapid graying of society has meant seniors are less 
able to squat and more comfortable using seated toilets.

But squat-type toilets are regarded as more sanitary by some because 
the body never comes in contact with them.

What is the history of flush toilets?

According to the children's book "Toire no Daijoshikii" ("Common 
Sense about Toilets") published in 2006 by Poplar Publishing Co., 
flush toilets of sorts date back at least to 2,200 B.C. Found in the 
ruins of a palace in the ancient Mesopotamian city of Tell Asmar in 
modern-day Iraq were the remains of Akkad period toilets made of 
brick that drained into a river.

Rome also came up with public flush toilets around 600 B.C. as 
conduits and drainage technology improved.

Japan's oldest "flush" toilets appear to date to the Nara Period 
(710-784). Found at the site of the ancient capital of Fujiwara are 
the remains of latrine ditches that drained. Hole-in-the-ground 
toilets were also discovered, the book said.

What are the roots of the modern Western-style toilet?

London watchmaker Alexander Cummings is credited with creating the 
first self-contained flush toilet in 1775. The toilet bowl held water 
that was stopped by a sliding valve. By pulling a lever, the valve 
would slide and the contents in the bowl would be flushed down the 
drain.

Japan's first sewerage system was introduced in Tokyo's Kanda 
district in 1884, but generally speaking, such systems did not spread 
nationwide until after World War II.

Even at the end of the Showa Era, many households still had cesspits 
that were cleaned out regularly by septic service trucks, according 
to "Toire no Daijoshikii."

Most places now have flush toilets, but hole-in-the-ground ones are 
still used at construction sites or in makeshift facilities in 
disaster areas.

When did bidets become popular in Japan?

Japan originally began importing bidets in the 1960s from Western 
countries for medical purposes.

In 1967, Inax developed the first Japan-made bidet. That was followed 
in 1980 by Toto's Washlet series, which boasted heated seats and a 
warm water wash. The brand is celebrating its 30th anniversary this 
year.

According to a Cabinet Office survey, only 14.2 percent of households 
had bidet-style toilets in 1992, but as of last March, 71.6 percent 
did.

The Washlet, a widespread household feature nowadays, was the product 
of a great deal of hard work, Toto spokeswoman Akiko Yamasaki said.

"There were no data - we didn't know where a person's buttocks would 
be located (on the seat)," Yamasaki said. "We began to develop (the 

Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel powered radiant heat (was Nigera)

[Chip Mefford]

Hey Seth:

>- Original Message -
>From: "Seth Macdonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
>Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 9:57:16 PM
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel powered radiant heat (was Nigera)
>
>Thanks for the tip Chip!
>
>The only reason I would want to be heating the floor with Bio-diesel instead 
>of 
>water or Glycol heated by solar and/or a wood fired boiler, is because I have 
>to 
>dry the fuel anyways. I'd rather not waste that energy so to speak so I may as 
>well pump the fuel throough the floor while I'm heating it and heat the 
>building... When I need to heat the next batch, my thought was to have a 
>hopper 
>above the heating system which is allways full and I would recharge the system 
>with exactly the amount I remove..
>
>Eventually I'd love to run the system on solar or another renewable heat 
>source...
>
>
>Seth(Dredneck)

Ah, this is very cool. yer thinking!

Yeah, they call this 'co-generation'. Not wasting the heat. Very very forward 
thinking. 

Okay, things to keep in mind, Yer gonna want some kind of major liquid thermal 
mass storage. 
What I've seen in some very well engineered house systems, was stuff like a 
2500 gallon
storage tank buried beneath a part of the slab, as a place to store excess 
heat. 

You could use this for a lot of things, like preheating your inputs to your 
biodiesel 
system to save on the fuel load when running the process. 

You might want to put some long thought into this part of the engineering. 

Further, the slab itself. 

There is actually a lot of tricky engineering and physics involved in all this. 
For a conventional radiant slab system, folks put in the pipes, pour the slab,
and 'buy' the pre-engineered heating system for the slab size/tempzone. 

There are a lot of considerations, not the least of which is that the actual 
amount
of heat for the slab is relatively low, you are looking for a slab temp of 
22-25c
(72-77) and NO MORE. Believe it or not, a slab at a temp higher than 25 is 
actually
uncomfortable, and further, you can CRACK THE SLAB. Adding too much heat can
break the slab, adding the right amount of heat too quickly can break the slab.
Once the slab cracks, then you have major problems with the system, as the 
tubing *will* fail, blah blah blah. 

Essentially, you are going to want to maintain the slab at or near the temp at 
which
the concrete cured. Since this is getting pretty late in the year, this means
you are going to be using a lot of additional heat to cure the slab at or near
the optimal temp. 

I hope you are documenting this as you go, this is a very cool project, and I 
wish you all the luck in the world, keep up the good work!

--

___
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] Biodiesel powered radiant heat (was Nigera)

[Chip Mefford]

I should clarify;

The oil burner system shown, is a BACKUP to the solar collector system shown 
here:

http://cpm01.smugmug.com/Bicycles/buy-fresh-bike-local-2010/IMG0751/963631204_narY5-XL.jpg

When planning stuff like this, one of the key points to keep in mind, is the 
order of
energy, as Amory Lovins puts it. Second law of thermodynamics. While an oil 
burner is
in the same order of magnitude as the work in this case, heating the floor, 
it's still
a higher quality of energy. A closer match is solar power. 

The closer the match, the more efficient, taking the long view. esp when you 
factor
in the cracking of the biofuel in the first place. 

Biofuels, like fossilfuels are just too danged convenient for their own good. :)

Using your ingenuity and some more of your food powered energy (IE doing work) 
you
could probably front load your heating needs by dreaming up and implementing a 
solar heat collection/distribution system, which would drop the biofuel 
requirements
for your heating needs radically. 

I know you are trying to get this done on a short timeline, but please plan for
migrating the main energy source from the oil burner to solar collection, I 
think
you'll be happy you did. You don't have time to do it this year, but maybe next
summer. 

Again, neat project, keep us posted!

cheers
--chipper 



- Original Message -----
From: "Chip Mefford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:06:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Nigeria: Shell Oil's 'License to Kill'



- Original Message -
From: "Seth Macdonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 11:11:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Nigeria: Shell Oil's 'License to Kill'

|SNIP

|I am also madly trying to pour a floor in my shop complete with in-floor 
heating 
|pipes before freeze-up(which is happening SOON!)
|
|I am curious if anyone out there has ever tried to run Bio-Diesel in a 
hydronic 
|in-floor heating system. It seems to me to be the perfect solution to using 
|energy already consumed by the drying process to heat the facility. My biggest 
|question is wether or not plastic pex water pipe is compatible with bio-diesel.
|
|Any leads on this subject would be greatly appreciated,
|
|Sincerely,
|"The Dred Neck"
|
|Dunster BC
|Canada
|V0J 1J0

http://cpm01.smugmug.com/Bicycles/buy-fresh-bike-local-2010/IMG0749/963631153_nZVUP-XL.jpg


Hey Seth;

What you see in this picture, is an experimental greenhouse soil bed heating 
system, which
is based on the same concept as radiant floor heating. This system uses an oil 
burner
converted to run biodiesel. 

It works. 

This system is installed at the Dickenson College Farm CSA, which grows the food
for Dickenson College in Carlisle Pa, US. This is the website: 
http://www.dickinson.edu/about/sustainability/college-farm/
Jen Halpin is the farmer/farm manager, and her partner, Matt is the whacko who
comes up with stuff like this. You can find her contact info on the website,
and they may be able to share some clues with you. 

Good luck! Sounds like a fun project.

___
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] Nigeria: Shell Oil's 'License to Kill'

[Chip Mefford]

- Original Message -
From: "Seth Macdonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 11:11:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Nigeria: Shell Oil's 'License to Kill'

|SNIP

|I am also madly trying to pour a floor in my shop complete with in-floor 
heating 
|pipes before freeze-up(which is happening SOON!)
|
|I am curious if anyone out there has ever tried to run Bio-Diesel in a 
hydronic 
|in-floor heating system. It seems to me to be the perfect solution to using 
|energy already consumed by the drying process to heat the facility. My biggest 
|question is wether or not plastic pex water pipe is compatible with bio-diesel.
|
|Any leads on this subject would be greatly appreciated,
|
|Sincerely,
|"The Dred Neck"
|
|Dunster BC
|Canada
|V0J 1J0

http://cpm01.smugmug.com/Bicycles/buy-fresh-bike-local-2010/IMG0749/963631153_nZVUP-XL.jpg


Hey Seth;

What you see in this picture, is an experimental greenhouse soil bed heating 
system, which
is based on the same concept as radiant floor heating. This system uses an oil 
burner
converted to run biodiesel. 

It works. 

This system is installed at the Dickenson College Farm CSA, which grows the food
for Dickenson College in Carlisle Pa, US. This is the website: 
http://www.dickinson.edu/about/sustainability/college-farm/
Jen Halpin is the farmer/farm manager, and her partner, Matt is the whacko who
comes up with stuff like this. You can find her contact info on the website,
and they may be able to share some clues with you. 

Good luck! Sounds like a fun project.

___
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] Nigeria: Shell Oil's 'License to Kill'

[Chip Mefford]

|- Original Message -
|From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
|Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 5:22:20 AM
|Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Nigeria: Shell Oil's 'License to Kill'
|
|>Keith, thanks for the link to the Gutenberg 'Wealth of Nations'. 
|>Curiously, I don't think I have yet read the entire piece, although I do
|>have a copy in my ever-expanding reading pile.
|
|:-) I think the whole of Wall Street joins you in never having read 
|the guy they quote so often to justify their corporate crime spree. 
|He's a nice read, is Adam Smith.


Yeah, I personally *love* the way folks spout off Smith, having,
if they payed any actual attention to him at all, payed attention
ONLY to the Wealth of Nations work, completely ignoring ALL of
Smith's other companion work. 

That Wealth of Nations is so widely considered, and Theory of
Moral Sentiments is so wholly ignored, says pretty much
everything there is to say about *most* folks who will
use Smith to cite or argue. 

"You haven't even read the half of it" is my only rejoinder. 

Of course, those that are actually familiar with both works, often
hold different views than those who have only read the one. 


___
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] Honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder Update

[Chip Mefford]

Hey Darryl;

Yer certainly welcome. 

Couple of salient points, the now nearly intractable use of neonicotinoid 
pesticides
(nicotine bug killers) came out of the labs into the environment around 1996. 

A few years later, honey bee (and other) populations began to decline. 

A few years later, they began to collapse. 

*Some* places -employing the cautionary principal-, banned the use of these 
pesticides
and the populations began to recover. 

Go figure. 

Yeah, there is a lot more to it than that. The preponderance of GMO crops 
follows
a similar timeline, but it's difficult to tie colony collapse in the EU to 
GMO/Transgenic crops, when such things aren't yet in broad use. 

The use of oversized artificial combs sure isn't helping. Some beekeepers 
who allow the bees to make their own homes aren't seeing the same level
of problems as those who are going the full industrial route. 

Those who don't move their hives around commercially aren't AS affected 
as those that are, but are affected never the less. 

It's a multifaceted problem, pretty much like all things in this modern life. 

- Original Message -
From: "Darryl McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 9:19:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder Update

Thanks Chip, that Web search was informative.

Darryl

On 22/10/2010 5:46 AM, Chip Mefford wrote:
> Yeah,
>
> I've been watching this news break and spread (like a virus) for
> a few months now.
>
> While I have no doubts that there are in fact contributing factors,
> I remain a bit skeptical as to this being the smoking gun,
>
> esp in view that these stories make no mention of the correlation
> (though not necessarily causation, but sure could be) of
> the rising use of neonicotinoid pesticides.
>
> google about for that.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Darryl McMahon"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:48:33 PM
> Subject: [Biofuel] Honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder Update
>
> Article from New York Times.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/science/07bees.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
>
> The paper:  Iridovirus and Microsporidia Linked to Honey Bee Colony Decline
>
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013181
>
> Seems to me, the underlying causes might include the trucking of
> 'portable' colonies around the country, importation of non-native bees
> to bolster the commercial population, and other environmental factors
> that might be weakening the immune defences of the bees.
>
> I don't think there are any honey bee colonies on my property, although
> I have recently removed some abandoned paper wasp nests from my
> greenhouse.  I'll have to try to seal it better for next year to
> encourage them to nest elsewhere.
>
> I've just become aware of the mason and leaf-cutter bees as
> pollinators.  Perhaps I can build something to encourage them for next
> spring.
>
> http://www.seeds.ca/proj/poll/index.php?n=Mason+Bee+Profile
>
> (Learning never ends.)
>

-- 
Darryl McMahon
Project Manager,
Common Assessment and Referral for Enhanced Support Services (CARESS)


___
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] Honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder Update

[Chip Mefford]

Yeah, 

I've been watching this news break and spread (like a virus) for 
a few months now. 

While I have no doubts that there are in fact contributing factors, 
I remain a bit skeptical as to this being the smoking gun, 

esp in view that these stories make no mention of the correlation
(though not necessarily causation, but sure could be) of 
the rising use of neonicotinoid pesticides. 

google about for that. 

- Original Message -
From: "Darryl McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:48:33 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] Honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder Update

Article from New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/science/07bees.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

The paper:  Iridovirus and Microsporidia Linked to Honey Bee Colony Decline

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013181

Seems to me, the underlying causes might include the trucking of 
'portable' colonies around the country, importation of non-native bees 
to bolster the commercial population, and other environmental factors 
that might be weakening the immune defences of the bees.

I don't think there are any honey bee colonies on my property, although 
I have recently removed some abandoned paper wasp nests from my 
greenhouse.  I'll have to try to seal it better for next year to 
encourage them to nest elsewhere.

I've just become aware of the mason and leaf-cutter bees as 
pollinators.  Perhaps I can build something to encourage them for next 
spring.

http://www.seeds.ca/proj/poll/index.php?n=Mason+Bee+Profile

(Learning never ends.)

-- 
Darryl McMahon
The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy - in eBook and tradepaper
http://www.econogics.com/TENHE/


___
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] UN to Confront Sci-fi Climate Solutions at Biodiversity Meeting

[Chip Mefford]

The way I've explained my reticence towards all this stuff has been;

When we come up with computer modeling that is able to accurately 
predict the weather years into the future, THEN our models will
be good enough that we can think about fiddling about with altering
the genetics of 'stuff' with some degree of confidence what the
medium term outcomes will be. at that time, we can make these
choices. Until them, we are guessing in the darkness of 
ignorance. 

Sensitive Dependence on initial conditions. Google it sometime. 
 


___
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/