Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
Thanks for your comments. They are vary helpful. I'm not sure I understand this Neo Con Dispensationalist principle but I also have to confess I don't understand the Neo Cons all that well. Do you think the is a political philosophy here or is it just another name for business interests who want no limits on their prerogatives and profits? Who would you suggest reading o understand them better? How much of what Bush does is connected with their philosophy? I guess the most important questions for me are how much of the administrations positions on environment are philosophical and how much pragmatic. As several people have pointed out the collapse of cheap energy i.e., oil and gas will have the most profound effect on peace and war, economics, and even the nature of life itself in the very near future. The energy corporations seem to be looking at this from the standpoint of just maximizing profits with no attention to other consequences. Is this just shortsighted self interest or a political philosophy? Rick robert luis rabello wrote: Rick Littrell wrote: Dear Tom, These are excellent points. In the case of France though the German army was a bit more of a challenge than the Iraq army, the French actually wanted us there. You bring up something interesting, Rick. I would like to clarify, however, that the German troops we Americans faced in France were far from the crack, front line divisions that initially invaded Western Europe. I have read somewhere that the best troops in the German army were transferred to face the Soviets during the Operation Against Bolshevism and in their place, second line divisions and reserves filled the void. Field Marshal Rommel once described Fortress Europa as Cloud Cuckoo Land. Nonetheless, those German troops put up a formidable fight. They were well equipped and led by an outstanding officer corps. In the case of Iraq, we were told that they constituted an imminent threat. I remember hearing about WMD warheads able to fire on 30 minute notice. We were warned about mushroom clouds over American cities. When our troops invaded Iraq, the resistance the Iraqi army actually mounted against us has to qualify for among the most inept in history. They didn't even destroy a single bridge leading to Baghdad! Perhaps SOME of the Iraqis wanted us there. Perhaps we had SOME good will among the civilian population, at least initially. Our inability to secure the place, coupled with an increasingly effective insurgency, compounded by the inability of Iraqis to agree on a government, essentially led us into the quagmire we now face in that country. Whenever I say: I told you so, I now hear a list of accomplishments and derogatory remarks about my allegedly liberal perspective from the people who think we've done well with our current Middle East meddling. I don't agree about not being able to occupy with fire power. That is no longer true. How many troops were lost invading Japan? He had more than enough troops to occupy Iraq had he treated it as an enemy instead of a victim of a dictatorship although he would have been an even bigger war criminal than he is now. Here I disagree with you strongly. American military planners are trying very hard not to replicate Vietnam, and among the techniques they espouse is the idea that force multipliers (such as overwhelming air power) can make up for troop strength on the ground. This serves to limit the number of possible American casualties, but it has a few unintended consequences. The first, is that American soldiers have to rely on brute firepower to accomplish their objectives; a principle that serves the soldier well, but often does so at the cost of civilian lives in urban areas. Other people in the world interpret this as either cowardice (Why don't those Americans just stand up and fight? This is a sentiment I've often heard from my saintly mother in law, who doesn't understand that the job of a soldier is to kill other people, not to die himself!), or excessive force. I've written before that the military is, at best, a blunt instrument. Bludgeoning the Iraqi insurgency into submission will come at a high cost. We were not told that this would be the case prior to the invasion, and much obfuscation has occurred since then to deflect attention away from the truth of the matter. In the case of Japan, there are several mitigating circumstances that compound comparison of the conflicts. One of them is cultural. Defeat for a Japanese of that era was utterly humiliating, and they did not rise up against us when our forces arrived to occupy the islands. (It would also be helpful to tabulate how many American soldiers were involved in the occupation of that country.) Secondly, the nation had been effectively reduced to rubble by massive aerial bombardment, and the economy
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Whether or not the US took Rome or invaded in 1944 the war was lost for Germany. They could no longer replace their losses while the Soviet ability to put in men and material into the field was steadily rising. The German army was essentially an army within an army. A small, highly mobile, heavily armored well trained and equipped force was backed by a larger but more traditional army. The bulk of the German forces in Russia walked and used horses for transport. When the elite forces were destroyed at Stalingrad and Kursk it was over. It also didn't help matters that Hitler was constantly ordering the army to stand and fight for every inch of ground rather than fall back and regroup. His only hope would have been to focus all of his strength on stopping the Russian advance and trying to get a separate peace in east but it is unlikely that by 1944 Stalin would have agreed to this. He was not known for being a forgiving person. Rick John Hayes wrote: Rick Littrell wrote: The US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal to the outcome. Clearly any good student of history knows that US losses in Europe during WWII were completely drawfed by those of Germany and Russian, but to claim that US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal to the outcome of the war is utterly assinine. Maybe June 6th 1944 rings a bell? Do I believe the Hollywood myth that corn fed American farm boys singlehandedly swooped it to pull the Allies chesnuts from the fire? Of course not. But Germany certainly could have thrown more forces at the Russians if not for Normandy and Italy. In case you forgot, US forces liberated Rome just 2 days before DDay. In fact, at the time of the Normandy invasion, the Italian campaign tied up 26 German divisions that could have been otherwise used as reinforcements. Not pivotal? I'd have to disagree. jh ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] The Lutec over unity device
I believe there is a Ferengie trader in your area that might be able to help but it will cost you. Then again look on the bright side. At least the Ferengie aren't Halliburton. If they were you'd really get screwed. Rick Kirk McLoren wrote: Yes, I am actually hoping to put a couple of fusion units together since I can't find a source of dilithium crystals on this remote forgotten outpost. Would you accept half a pound of pure unobtanium as payment? :) Kirk Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Common sense is actually quite uncommon in some circles. Most of the free energy people I have talked with seem to have a large emotional investment in their paradigm, be it concern about energy shortage to perceiving themselves as victims of a cabal. Your points are valid but I don't think the average Lutec fan will understand you. Great invention Keith. Will a Pepsi bottle work just as well? LOL! No, Kirk, it has to be a Dr Pepsi bottle. Do I see you getting out your chequebook? :-) regards Keith :) Kirk Jurie Vorster wrote: Not an expert in any particular field but common sense and a bit of logic tells me... 1) The how-it-works stuff claims that the *permanent* magnet provides energy in keeping the object suspended from the roof equating to a electromagnet holding it up there but expending energy instead. WELL, how would LUTEC explain the energy content of PERMANENT GLUE holding up the object... or what about hanging it from a PERMANENT HOOK that is screwed into the ceiling? 2) In the device, the magnets moves towards the steel thus giving inertial energy to the armature... then a counter electromagnetic field is applied to neutralise the magnetic properties of the steel thus allowing the permanent magnets to rotate past freely. This neutralising pulse needs to be long enough so that the next step can initiate or until the back-step that will slow down the magnets (thus reducing its inertial energy) pull is less than the forward-step pull. AT BEST, the amount of energy to neutralise the steel magnetic effect will equal the amount of inertial energy generated by the pull of the magnets towards the steel... no GAIN. Thus there will be only loss of total energy and the efficiency of the smoothing effect as per patent description will be related to the losses in the electronics to control the neutralising field coils and mechanical resistance etc... FUTURE DEVELOMENTS My theory is that if someone can find a MATERIAL that cuts or shield a magnetic field in line-of-sight to achieve the neutralising effect proposed by the LUTEC device creator, can such a device be possible. No such material exists to my knowledge as the magnetic field would curl around the shield and still slow down the permanent magnets. Some savvy boffin may be able to come up with such a material that could even be made to mechanically rotate into and out of the line-of-sight with the permanent magnets... not unlike these film-strip movie projectors synchronises field frames onto the viewing screen. My longwinded two cents worth. Can we now get back to Bio Diesel!?!? Jurie. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Sent: 03 April 2005 03:07 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Lutec over unity device OK Keith, be nice. I've developed this wonderful technique of producing cold fusion in a Dr Pepper bottle, just add the secret ingredients and shake it 3.5 times... Interested? Keith - Do you Yahoo!? Better first dates. More second dates. Yahoo! Personals ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Windmills in the Sky
How does this work? A free flying generator would simply be carried along by the wind and generate no power. If you had an engine to hold it in place against the wind you would only get back the energy you used to oppose the wind minus friction loss. You'd have a net loss of energy. If you anchored the device to the ground and floated it like a kite you could generate power providing you could keep it stable and headed into the wind. I don't know if that is possible. What exactly is this thing? Rick Kirk McLoren wrote: Windmills in the Sky By David Cohn 02:00 AM Apr. 06, 2005 PT http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,67121,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2 Australian engineer Bryan Roberts wants to build a power station in the sky -- a cluster of flying windmills soaring 15,000 feet in the air -- but is having trouble raising enough money to get the project off the ground. After 25 years of research, Roberts has designed a helicopter-like rotorcraft to hoist a wind turbine high into the air, where winds are persistent and strong. The craft, which is powered by its own electricity and can stay aloft for months, feeds electricity to the ground through a cable. Roberts, a professor of engineering at the University of Technology, Sydney, believes there is enough energy in high-altitude winds to satisfy the world's demands. Wind-tunnel data suggests a cluster of 600 flying electric generators, or FEGs, could produce three times as much energy as the United States' most productive nuclear power plant. Roberts has teamed up with Sky WindPower, a San Diego startup that is trying to commercialize his invention. The company has Federal Aviation Administration approval to conduct tests of the technology in the California desert, but needs $3 million to build full-size flying generators. The company is having trouble raising the cash because there isn't likely to be an immediate return on investors' money. High-altitude winds could provide a potentially enormous renewable energy source, and scientists like Roberts believe flying windmills could put an end to dependence on fossil fuels. At 15,000 feet, winds are strong and constant. On the ground, wind is often unreliable -- the biggest problem for ground-based wind turbines. For FEGs, the winds are much more persistent than on ground-based machines, said Roberts. That's part of the benefit, more power and greater concentration. Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said tapping into just 1 percent of the energy produced by high-altitude winds could satisfy a lot of the world's power needs. It's absurd that all this time we have turned a blind eye to the energy right above our heads, he said. High-altitude wind power represents the most concentrated flux of renewable energy found on Earth. At certain locations, the efficiency of a flying generator can be as high as 90 percent, three times higher than its grounded counterpart, according to Sky WindPower. At this efficiency, FEGs could become the nation's cheapest source of electricity, with an estimated cost per kilowatt hour of less than 2 cents, about half the price of coal, according to the Power Marketing Association. Having conducted tests with models, Sky WindPower wants to scale up Roberts' experiments and produce a commercial-sized flying windmill with four rotors. The rotorcraft will go into the first layer of the atmosphere, called the troposphere. Sky WindPower estimates the craft will produce 200 kilowatts per hour of electricity in an area that at ground level would produce none because of a lack of wind. Since strong high-altitude winds exist in many locations, the company's hope is to find sites 10 miles by 20 miles in size that are not currently used by commercial planes and turn them into restricted airspaces. Once in the air, the FEGs' roll and pitch would be controlled to catch the wind most effectively. Sky WindPower intends to use GPS technology to maintain the crafts' vertical and horizontal location to within a few feet. The craft will be brought to ground once a month or so for maintenance checks. The project has already received FAA approval and needs only to finalize a test site. Currently the company favors somewhere in Southern California. The company declined to be specific, saying it has not yet applied for local permits. Our desert test site does not have as good winds as future intended operational sites, said David Shepard, president of Sky WindPower. But starting there will enable us to proceed to more-difficult conditions with less risk. lt;agt;lt;imggt;lt;/agt; However, the company has not yet raised the capital to build the craft. Shepard said he expected the money would be found. We do have reason to expect that we will obtain the funding necessary to carry out our intended demonstration, he said. I have reason to be optimistic. Caldeira, whose high-altitude wind energy graphs
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
These are excellent points. In the case of France though the German army was a bit more of a challenge than the Iraq army, the French actually wanted us there. The response we got from the French is what Bush apparently thought he would get from the Iraqis (sp?). Unfortunately, he had no equivalent to DeGaul. I don't agree about not being able to occupy with fire power. That is no longer true. How many troops were lost invading Japan? He had more than enough troops to occupy Iraq had he treated it as an enemy instead of a victim of a dictatorship although he would have been an even bigger war criminal than he is now. As for North Korea, I think he had sense enough to know ... OK, the people around him had sense enough to know, that the North Korean Army could inflict unacceptable losses on us even if we won and we would risk complications with China. He doesn't fight from principle. As many in this group have pointed out, he is basically a bully. Rick Tom Irwin wrote: Dear Rick, What makes you think the U.S. did a good job with the invasion? It was a major cluster. Sure we beat up a third world army but failed to send the forces to close the borders. Iraq is the size of France. We invaded France in 1944 with about 1 million soldiers, Iraq with 120,000. Infantry is designed to fight for and hold territory. Our army fought extremely well, detroyed their army but it simply is too small a force to occupy a country that size. You can't occupy with firepower, you occupy with manpower. This is just basic military strategy. Do not think for an instant that I believe that we invaded to free the Iraqi people. If we really wanted to go after a really bad dictator where our military is extremely exposed and where there is a greater national threat, we'ed be in North Korea. Why aren't we there? There's certainly weapons of mass destruction? WHY? WHY? WHY? There's no oil there. Tom -Original Message- From: Rick Littrell To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 4/5/05 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity Dear Scott, I think the thesis here is a bit of a reach. At the time of the invasion the dollar was not in the shape it is now. In fact one reason for the decline is the cost of the war. I still lean to the theory that Sadam was seen as a threat to the region and eventually would threaten US access to cheep oil by occupying his neighbors. The Bush administration calculated that it would be cheaper to attack him rather than contain him. It is a sobering thought that one of the geniuses that believed this is now head of the world bank. As far as the Euro vs the dollar, The big energy companies don't care what they get paid in or by who. At one point one of the companies that wants to drill in the Arctic admitted they'd probably sell the oil to Japan Rather than try to pipe it to the lower 48. Rick Scott wrote: How many of us had an AHA moment when reading this article? We now see the real reason for this illegal war [or at least one of the reasons]. Saddam Hussein was about to be given a clean bill of health by the UN inspection team beacuse he obviously didn't have WMD's. He was then going to open the spigots and start selling oil. Not only was he going to sell oil for Euros exacerbating the decline of the dollar, but that would also have driven the global price of oil down. Clearly, EXXON/Mobile, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco et. al. did not want the price of oil to go down. ExxonMobil Corporation reported the fourth quarter of 2004 as its highest quarter ever... http://www.npnweb.com/uploads/featurearticles/2005/MarketingStrategies/ 0503ms.asp PEACE Scott - Original Message - Instead of inaugurating a new age of cheap oil, the Iraq war may become known as the beginning of an era of scarcity. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey
Re: [Biofuel] Windmills in the Sky
Thanks for the information. This is really interesting. Rick Keith Addison wrote: Thank you Kirk. In the picture to the right, the craft has been tilted by command, and the wind on this unusually windy day is turning the rotors, thus both holding up the craft and generating power which is transmitted back to the ground. See Australian Demonstration Site Photo http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/ D. Flying Electric Generators Other images http://skywindpower.com/ww/images/Rotorcraft%20vidlink.jpg http://skywindpower.com/ww/images/FEG_WEB%20Home2.jpg It's a danger to UFOs. Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] taking out Saddam
Dear Darryl, In retrospect, it would have been cheaper in both blood and money to have kept Sadam under scrutiny and contained him instead of invading. Rick Darryl wrote: No, they did not have weapons of mass destruction yet, but they did have the know how and planned to build them ASAP once the sanctions were lifted. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
With respect to the US contribution to the European theater consider that at Stalingrad the German losses were 300,000 and the Russian 400,000 and Stalingrad was a battle that the Russians won! At Kursk the Germans lost 100,000 killed and wounded and the Russians 250,000 killed and 600,000 wounded. It was the largest armored battle prior to the 1967 Arab - Israeli war. The US involvement in the fighting in Europe was not pivotal to the outcome. Rick bmolloy wrote: Hello Hakan, Again with respect, it is not well known that the Pacific losses in WW2 were greater than in Europe. If that is the case I'd like to see your source for the statement. MacArthur was supreme commander in the Pacfic. I have given you his total losses throughout his campaign which ranged all the way from his starting point in Australia to the moment he accepted the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay. I based these on figures given my William Manchester, one of the most respected American biographers of the postwar period. The precise wording of his footnote, on page 639 of the 1979 Hutchinson paperback edition American Caesar - Douglas MacArthur, reads American casualties in the Bulge were 106,502. MacArthur's 90,437. The item to which this footnote refers reads: The Battle of the Bulge (a four week break-out by German armoured columns under General Von Rundsted in the Ardennes beginning December 16, 1944, and ending January 16, 1945) ...resulted in as many American casualties as were sustained in th entire Southwest Pacfic area campaign from Australia to Tokyo. To look at a couple of single battles in Europe. At the battle of Anzio in Italy, where the Allies fought for nearly four months (January 22 to May 25, 1943) to secure a beachhead that placed them only 37 miles from Rome, the total American, i.e. not Allied, casualties were 72,306 GIs. In the battle of Normandy - June 6 to July 31, 1944 - Eisenhower lost 28,366 GIs. The bottom line is that American losses in Europe were many, many times those in the Pacific. Please don't tell me that these figures are no indication. They are exact battlefield totals. I have given your chapter and verse for my sources. If you have figures to the contrary I would be very pleased to hear them, and of course the source. Regards, Bob. - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Bob, Even those numbers are sub number and does not say anything. It is possible that my source was wrong, but do not give me number who says nothing to that effect. If my source is right and US losses were 10% of allies total, around 10,000 US soldiers died in the Battle of Bulge. It is also something wrong with that US should have lost around 100,000 in Pacific and around 300,000 in Europe. When it is well known fact that the Pacific losses were higher than the European. Please try again and maybe you will find something more realistic. Hakan At 01:55 AM 4/4/2005, you wrote: Hello Hakan, (snip) The number you give is WWII losses, I was talking about the European part of WWII. This because we talked about taking out Hitler. US lost several times more in the Pacific, than they did in Europe. With respect, the total allied losses under General MacArthur - Supreme Commander of the Pacific theatre of operation - in the entire campaign fought from Australia to his arrival in Tokyo were 90,437. In the Battle of the Bulge in France in 1944 - which was just a single battle fought over a few weeks during the Second Front campaign - a total of 106,502 allied soldiers died. (See: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, by William Manchester. Hutchinson 1979, page 639). Regards, Bob. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Iraq Invasion - Age of Oil Scarcity
I think the thesis here is a bit of a reach. At the time of the invasion the dollar was not in the shape it is now. In fact one reason for the decline is the cost of the war. I still lean to the theory that Sadam was seen as a threat to the region and eventually would threaten US access to cheep oil by occupying his neighbors. The Bush administration calculated that it would be cheaper to attack him rather than contain him. It is a sobering thought that one of the geniuses that believed this is now head of the world bank. As far as the Euro vs the dollar, The big energy companies don't care what they get paid in or by who. At one point one of the companies that wants to drill in the Arctic admitted they'd probably sell the oil to Japan Rather than try to pipe it to the lower 48. Rick Scott wrote: How many of us had an AHA moment when reading this article? We now see the real reason for this illegal war [or at least one of the reasons]. Saddam Hussein was about to be given a clean bill of health by the UN inspection team beacuse he obviously didn't have WMD's. He was then going to open the spigots and start selling oil. Not only was he going to sell oil for Euros exacerbating the decline of the dollar, but that would also have driven the global price of oil down. Clearly, EXXON/Mobile, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco et. al. did not want the price of oil to go down. ExxonMobil Corporation reported the fourth quarter of 2004 as its highest quarter ever... http://www.npnweb.com/uploads/featurearticles/2005/MarketingStrategies/0503ms.asp PEACE Scott - Original Message - Instead of inaugurating a new age of cheap oil, the Iraq war may become known as the beginning of an era of scarcity. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
Dear Hakan, You are, of course, correct as far as the fighting in Europe. The Soviet Union fielded some 540 divisions to the German 250+ and the US 87. By the time of the Normandy invasion Germany had lost. The critical battles of the war were arguably Stalingrad, Kursk, Karkov, and perhaps Voronezh. However, the US participation did likely prevent the Red Army from over running the the entire continent. And then there is the matter of the atom bomb. While its development involved mostly Europeans who fled to the US it was in the US that is was developed and for a time made Western Europe and the US the preeminent world power. Also it would be a mistake to down play the logistical support of the US to Europe which included the reduction of the U boat threat in 1943 and the support of the North African invasion. Rick Dear Henri and Rick, I only like to put this we took out Hitler to rest. That the Americans single handed took out Hitler, is a myth that only exists in Hollywood movies. The crucial material support from US in WWII was the deliveries of war material. The US infantry troop participation in Europe was on a low level and not crucial. By only look at the loss of soldiers, you understand clearly who was doing the major fighting. Russia 6,000,000 troop causalities Europe Alliance600,000 USA 60,000 Germany was very advanced and introduced for the first time the modern warfare and materials, with a massive air support. They tested much of it in the Spanish civil war. US took out Japan, not on the ground, but with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This at a time when the European part of WWII was at its end. I do agree that the US propaganda methods was/is superior. Something that Hitler and his administration several times acknowledged and copied. This superiority is maintained even today. Hakan ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] bush and money.
The presidential election is in four years but the off election for congress is in two years and there will be a chance to weaken the Republican power in the congress at that time. It gives us something to work for anyway. I suspect the role of Wolfowitz will be to assist international corporations in securing favorable (to them) deals in developing nations that will be to the detriment of the citizens of those nations and to use the power of the bank to pressure countries the administration doesn't like such as Venezuela to cooperate or change their government. I don't think the administration is going to go to war again for a long time. Iran is not Iraq. The government has much more popular support and a much stronger army than Iraq. North Korea has nuclear weapons and if it looked like they were losing they might just use them out of desperation though I doubt they would start a war with them. Unless the administration is willing to impose a draft, we are in no position to invade another country at this point and a draft would virtually eliminate the Republican party's chances in any future election. There are serious manpower shortages in all of the services. This is a government with little understanding or interest in the outside world beyond what they can exploit and a naive belief that everyone wants to be just like us if only their leaders would let them. Remember Wolfowitz actually believed that the Iraqis would not openly welcome us for liberating them but would love to pay us out of their oil revenue for doing so. Bush's approval rating continues to decline and he is having more and more difficulty domestically with his base. His initiatives have not been received well and his alleged mandate is fading fast. Rick Andrew Tracey wrote: I might be mistaken and probably are but it appears to me that now mr wolfowitz has his hands on a bottomless pit of money that he is going to give his buddy ALL THAT IT TAKES to get rid of the baddies. When is the next election in the U.S.? It seems that there will be just enough time to duplicate the Iraq effort in Iran and N. Korea. Does anybody else think this is a possibility? or am i just paranoid. One way to achieve it would be to drive oil prices sky high so as to fill the coffers of your mates oil company's,then they in turn could produce more fuel reserves for just an action. But that couldn't be because that would mean the bosses have an alternative agenda to what they are telling all the gullible little people. The little back slapping bum licking bloke from Aust might just wake up to how he has been used. Well anyway i just thought i would air my paranoia. Keep your bomb shelters in order guys, cheers. Andrew. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come
We took out Hitler because Germany declared war on us after Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Sadam did not declare war on us and presented no immediate threat. In the long run he was a danger to US and European oil interests in that he was determined to get control of the Arabian peninsula and Iran thus controlling the majority of the oil on the planet as far as has been proven. From such a position he could have bled us white. Beyond unlimited avarice he appears to have had no ideology. In this respect he resembled some of the current administrations most influential backers. That he was a real threat was demonstrated by his invasions of Kuwait and Iran though he was sufficiently contained by international pressure that any risk was potential rather than actual and manageable without going to war. There is no question that he was a dirt ball but there are much worse that we do nothing about and some of them are our allies. What we lost attacking Iraq so far exceeds what we have gained and if the Shiite party that won the election establishes a radical theocracy like Iran we will find ourselves in a far worse position than we were with Sadam. Rick Henri Naths wrote: Hakan, I would like to give a humble option here, ( Hakan wrote;...Criminal, established by the fact that we now know that Iraq were no WMD threat to US. ) We took out Hitler for the same reason, Him and Suddam Hussein were weapons of mass destruction. H. - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 March, 2005 7:29 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: The Energy Crunch To Come Bob, You were right and I am wrong and I am glad that I did get a very good explanation on how Hubbert could be so right. It also explains why president Carter was so genuinely worried, when he developed his energy plan. He had the foresight to realize that Hubbert was right. It also explains why we see the surge in the genuine hate of Americans. It is the cost of aggressive and egoistic foreign policies, that resulted in about 10 more years of artificially low oil prices. All of this, ending up in an almost criminal behavior by the Bush administration. I say almost, because I do not want to be too crude. The legal aspect of being criminal, is very clearly established, Criminal, established by the fact that we now know that Iraq were no WMD threat to US. By laying the responsibility at the feet of faulty US intelligence community, the Bush administration is trying deliberately to avoid their legal responsibility. A kind of reversed side of the well known argument it was not my fault, I was ordered to do it. LOL All of this supported by the America people, in a reelection of president Bush. I hear the false argument that only 48% voted him in office. This argument is poor mathematics, I cannot get to this result, when Bush won with a more than 3 million of the populous American vote. It was the first election of Bush, that he did not have a populous majority and he was put in office by the Courts. Hakan At 11:16 PM 3/31/2005, you wrote: All I know is what I read in the brief biography. (and what I recall from hearing about his work many years ago) Hakan Falk wrote: Bob, I stand corrected and the only excuse I have, is that I only brought forward a mistake that I read earlier. I remember that it was an article about the hearings in US congress in mid 70'. Will however not do this mistake again, but do not despair, there are many others I will do and surely in my far from perfect English. -:) What was his field at Berkeley? Hakan At 05:35 PM 3/31/2005, you wrote: Howdy Hakan, calling him a mathematician is a bit short-sighted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_King_Hubbert Hubbert was born in San Saba, Texas in 1903. He attended the University of Chicago, where he received his B.S. in 1926, his M.S. in 1928, and his Ph.D in 1937, studying geology, mathematics, and physics. He worked as an assistant geologist for the Amerada Petroleum Company for two years while pursuing his Ph.D. He joined the Shell Oil Company in 1943, retiring in 1964. After he retired from Shell, he became a senior research geophysicist for the United States Geological Survey until his retirement in 1976. He also held positions as a professor of geology and geophysics at Stanford University from 1963 to 1968, and as a professor at Berkeley from 1973 to 1976. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at
Re: [Biofuel] Iran and Russia sign nuclear deal
- have some other country dispose of the waste. Rick Keith Addison wrote: Iran and Russia sign nuclear deal Iran and Russia on Sunday signed a landmark nuclear fuel accord that paves the way for the firing up of the country's first atomic power station, a project the United States alleges is part of a cover for weapons development. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10categ_id=2artic le_id=13042 http://tinyurl.com/67qnl McCain: Bar Russia Over Iran Deal The United States should seek to bar Russia from this year's G8 summit to protest actions by Moscow, including its deal on Sunday to provide Iran with nuclear fuel, senior U.S. Senator John McCain said. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/02/28/016.html EU Supports Iranian-Russian Deal On Bushehr http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/2/00038BE5-B218-47EF-A675-F3 BB30409F53.html http://tinyurl.com/6f3ed IAEA Head Disputes Claims on Iran Arms U.S. Called Inconsistent in Nuclear Talks Washington Post, Wednesday, February 16, 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27319-2005Feb15.html?sub=AR -- http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10categ_id=2artic le_id=13042 The Daily Star - Politics - Iran and Russia sign nuclear deal Iran and Russia sign nuclear deal By Stefan Smith and Monday, February 28, 2005 TEHRAN: Iran and Russia on Sunday signed a landmark nuclear fuel accord that paves the way for the firing up of the country's first atomic power station, a project the United States alleges is part of a cover for weapons development. Under the deal, which would cap an $800 million contract to build and bring the Bushehr plant on line, Russia will fuel the reactor on condition Iran sends back spent fuel, which could potentially be upgraded to weapons use. Iranian media said Russia's top atomic energy official Alexander Rumyantsev and his Iranian counterpart Gholamreza Aghazadeh inked the deal during a tour of the Russian-built power plant at Bushehr in southern Iran. Washington is convinced Iran is seeking to build atomic weapons - charges Tehran denies - and has been trying to convince Moscow to halt its nuclear cooperation. The condition spent fuel be returned was built into the deal as a concession to Western concerns. Tehran initially rejected the condition, but eventually relented after two years of negotiations. The dispute over spent fuel had pushed the plant's opening back to January 2006. The deal faced a further snag Saturday when Iran objected to a Russian proposal to further delay firing up the plant's reactor. Russia's ITAR-TASS news agency quoted Rumyantsev as saying the plant is scheduled to go online at the end of 2006, with 100 tons of fuel to be delivered about six months before. Aghazadeh told state television that Bushehr was likely to be fully equipped within 10 months, with tests taking place by mid-2006. Russian diplomats say the United States has been lobbying against Moscow's involvement in Iran's nuclear program on a daily basis - but Russia has stuck by the lucrative contract and an option to build a second reactor at Bushehr along with plants at other locations. They say the huge contract has helped save Russia's atomic energy industry, and emphasize there is no way that Bushehr - also under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) scrutiny - could constitute part of a weapons program. Some in Russia see in Washington's tough line on Iran an unstated aim to thwart Russia's commercial and strategic interests. The United States argues Iran - lumped into an axis of evil - has no need for nuclear energy because of its massive oil and gas reserves and wants to see Tehran hauled before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. Tehran counters it needs to free up fossil fuels for export and meet increased energy demands from a burgeoning population. Iran also intends to produce its own nuclear fuel for future plants - hoped to produce 7,000 megawatts of electricity by 2020 - a drive at the center of the current stand-off with the international community. While Bushehr symbolizes Iran's nuclear ambitions, of greater Western concern is its work on the nuclear fuel cycle elsewhere in the country. Britain, France and Germany have been trying to persuade Tehran to permanently stop enriching uranium - which can be directed to both civil and military uses - in return for a package of incentives. Enrichment for peaceful purposes is permitted under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Iran insists it only wants to enrich uranium to levels required for civil purposes. The clerical regime also argues it does not want to be dependent on foreign fuel - a position likely to be reinforced by the difficulties encountered in negotiating Russian supplies. Enrichment is not negotiable, nuclear negotiator and top cleric Hassan Rowhani told state media on his return to Tehran from a visit to
Re: [Biofuel] global warming 101
I have no doubt about global warming only about the sources of the warming. I was fascinated by your primer and have a question. Please forgive if this is a stupid question. You said the energy absorbed must equal the energy radiated out into space. What about the energy that is used to drive the activity on the planet; the mechanical energy in the wind, chemical reactions the atmosphere and oceans and in biological activity, etc. Is this subtracted from what you expect to find radiated back out into space or is it just a negligible amount compared to the total energy flux from the sun. Feel free to tell me to go read a book if this is a simple minded question but please suggest a title. Thanks for your help, Rick bob allen wrote: There are those on this list that have questioned the reality of global warming, so lets begin at the beginning with a discussion of the phenomena: The amount of energy absorbed by the planet must equal the amount radiated out to space. So we should be able to determine the temperature of the planet from first principles. The sun radiates about 10 exp 34 joules per year. The earth receives 1370 watts per square meter. To calculate the total absorbed energy which must be equal to the total radiated, we need to account for the fact that the energy received is over an area equal to the crossectional area of the earth, but that radiated is the total surface area. Also a = 0.3 of the incident energy is reflected (albedo) hence S = (1-a)So/4 = 240 watts per square meter Employing the The Stefen-Boltzman law that says that a body radiates energy proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature we have S = kT exp 4 where k = 5.67 x 10 exp -8 watts/square meter x k exp 4 Plug it all in and the calculated surface temperature of the earth is 255 kelvins, or -18 degrees Celsius! In fact the surface of the earth is about +15 degrees Celcius, so the calculation is off by about 33 degrees. Why? The greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. The combined effect of the water vapor, CO2, and other radiatively forcing gasses provide a blanket that maintains the temperature about 33 degrees above what it would be with out the atmosphere. Now guess what happens when we increase the concentration of those greenhouse gasses? --- Just the facts Ma'am Joe Friday from Dragnet ca. 1970 - -- Bob Allen,http://ozarker.org/bob -- --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] global warming 101
Thanks so much. Rick bob allen wrote: Rick, with the exception of a very small amount of energy derived from geothermal, and tidal, all energy is solar, directly or indirectly. The heat generated when I pace about a classroom is solar derived. sunlight-- photosynthesis--- plant matter--- food---bob's motion--- heat. Same thing with wind, all biological activity(except those weird ecosystems surrounding geothermal vents in the deep oceans),wave motions of the seas, hydropower, etc. Untimely all work degrades to heat, just lower quality. (smaller delta T) Even the large amount of energy from the combustion of fossil fuels is trivially small when compared to the solar flux. so the short answer is yes, that of which you speak is accounted for. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Kyoto- nothing but a buch of crap
Thanks so much for your response. It address a question I have been curious about. You say we are at or near the peak of production of oil. Is that because the amount of oil given the present reserves can not be extracted faster or is it because it is not profitable to extract it faster i.e. the price would drop and the companies would not maximize profits if they pumped it faster. If it is the later, would not the increased demand by more countries put huge pressure, political and military as well as economic, to pump faster? My concern is that although the relation between global warming and human activity seems complex and murky, there is no doubt that fossil fuels pump huge amounts of heavy metals, acid, carcinogens, and particulate matter that irritates the lungs into the air. Using up the available oil at a faster rate would increase the concentrations of these substances which are life threatening to large numbers of people. For me this is a more immediate threat than climate change though admittedly in the long run climate change may be potentially more serious. Rick Hakan Falk wrote: Rick, Interesting, especially since many now realize that we are at, or close to, the peak of oil production. It is not possible to reach larger levels of pollution from oil, than the current levels. US who use 25% of the worlds energy resources, will not have possibility to grow and will probably have to compete with Asia on the oil market. This means that whatever growth in Asia, it is compensated by a decline in an other place, both in use and pollution. Maybe you by unsustainable mean the US use of oil, since an equal use per capita by China and US, mean that US and China would use all of the world energy resources between them. The US energy use is outrageously irresponsible and is in itself totally unsustainable, this without involving any other parties. Do not worry, the by US beloved free market forces will balance the use somewhat. We are now seeing price level of oil around the 50$ mark and I think that it will go well above that. The days of cheap oil are over and China/Asia will compete with US and Europe on equal terms, nothing wrong in this and nothing to complain about. If US can outbid China/Asia/Europe, it will not be any problems, other than an equal economical playing field. I read a research study from the depletion group at Uppsala University, that proved that the oil reserve would be finished long before we reached the worst cases of Global warming. If this is going to happen, we have to assume that it comes from something else than oil. A rapid development of the coal reserves might trigger some of the global warming scenarios. The coal reserves are more or less equally divided by the continents. As somebody rightfully mentioned, Asia have a lot of bicycles, small motorcycles and small cars. The oil use per capita is low and interest in efficiency larger. When you see a SUV with a single driver/person, you notice it as a very uncommon event and it is probably the US embassy people. LOL Hakan ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Kyoto- nothing but a buch of crap
You are right of course. I should study the whole treaty rather than rely on what I read about it. Also, my thanks to you for untangling my sentence about Republicans. I may be being a pessimist here but I don't see the world doing much about global warming in time to stop it's effects. Even if the US got on board the agreements don't seem to me to go far enough. I know, go read them OK I will. By your own figures, a 60 - 80 % cut in CO2, there would have to be a massive change in the way we generate our energy. Look at China just since the treaty was negotiated. Look at South East Asia. I think little can be done until an alternative system for producing energy that doesn't pollute and provides the same amount of energy is in place. What bothers me more than the US failure to sign the treaty is that lack of serious commitment to replacing fossil fuels. The hydrogen economy proposed by Bush is a joke. As to the effect of global; warming I think your comparison with Venus is a bit over the top. For the last few million years the major trends in climate have been controlled by the orbit of the earth around the sun and the precession or wobble in the earth's rotation. These cycles control the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun which varies by about 10% (Ice Ages: Solving the Mystery by John Imbrie and Katherine Palmer Imbrie 1979). For the last two million years or so, the period of time that can be tracked by core borings of ice, the climate has been distinguished by long periods of cold, ice ages, with short periods of warming. With respect to the cycles we should be sliding into a new ice age with the global temperature about two degrees colder than it has been over the last ten thousand years since the end of the last ice age. Apparently, human activity has forestalled this. As noted by another contributor to this group, at some point we will run out of fossil fuel to pollute with and at that point it is possible that the global temperature will crash precipitously to the point in the climate cycle we would have been at had human activity not have occurred. Global warming is expensive no doubt. So is having New York and Chicago buried under a mile thick layer of ice. I suppose the ideal would be to understand the chemistry of the atmosphere to the point where we could avoid both extremes although you can imagine the fights that would go on between nations as to where to set the thermostat. Rick Keith Addison wrote: Hello Rick Dear DB, I liked your response. Partly, I suppose, because it accords with my own thoughts. There is no doubt at this point that global warming is occurring even among some republicans. There's no doubt even among some republicans or it's occurring even among some republicans? The first, cause to rejoice (though that's been the case for awhile I think), if the second, depending who they are, if they're becoming prone to spontaneous combustion should we shed tears or consider them as an alternative energy source? (Sorry!) What drives it it the question. There are no shortage of non man made effects that could raise the global temperature. Methane produced by termite colonies world wide is more abundant than any man made green house gas. And it plays an important and complex role in the climate andd the upper atmosphere. The main problem with this sort of argument though, apart from the now-massive body of science that debunks it, is that the termites have not been working more and more overtime for the last 200 years to account for the rising temperatures. The lead contender for that, by a whole bunch of lengths, is CO2 produced by us. It seems apparent to me that what ever the cause the effect is not stoppable at this point. There is just no time left to turn the battleship before it hits the pier. How do you know that? A very premature conclusion, with little to support it that I know of. Again, at the Kyoto Protocol celebrations in Kyoto on Wednesday the speakers were talking of the need for 60-80% CO2 cuts, and these people were mostly being placatory, not provocative. Such figures have been making it into print more and more in the last couple of years. It was common parlance at the Climate Change conference in Nairobi in 1992, among those people I'd guess that 60-80% would now be seen as very conservative. So we (or some of us at least) blew it on precaution in favour of sheer greed, so now let's just accept that and give up trying to curb the damage we've done when we've hardly even begun? Is that what you're saying? Sod that. (Pardon me.) We're able to expend much greater efforts, resources and expertise on mitigation than anything that's been done so far. Mitigation is a major plank of the Kyoto Protocol which now comes into force. I really don't mean to be insulting, but I have to say that you sound a bit like former
Re: [Biofuel] Kyoto- termites CH4-and messing with the natural order of things
Thank you. I couldn't remember if it was just bacteria or a combination of bacteria and termites. I don't follow the sealed container. How did he renew the material in the container? Was the pile around the container just to supply heat for the process or was it fed into the container somehow? Thank you again, Rick Keith Addison wrote: Hello Rick Dear John, This is not so wild an idea as you suggest. I remember reading a few years back about a fellow in France who piled up a huge mound of waste wood chips and drove a pipe into the center of it. Jean Pain: France's King of Green Gold http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library.html#pain See also previous messages on this subject: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/?keywords=%22Jean+Pain%22time=6 monthsusertime=2002-12-31 As the termites went to work in the pile as well, Did they? I suppose, as bacteria, Termites are not bacteria. the methane they generated escaped through the pipe and was captures in inter tubes which would be inflated from the pressure of the gas. He claimed to be able to collect enough gas from this rather primitive system to supply his cooking stove. He supplied much more than that, including fuel for a car. I don't think it's a primitive system. Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Kyoto- nothing but a buch of crap
I think the problem is not the current levels of consumption but the change in rate of consumption. China and Southeast Asia are undergoing a huge increase in their rate of consumption of oil, a rate that in the long run is unsustainable.How long do you think over half the worlds population including China are going to be satisfied with being underdeveloped? As long as development equates with the consumption of oil and coal things will only get worse. If the overall production of greenhouse gases continues to rise does it really make a difference which country is producing it? Rick Hakan Falk wrote: Rick, You did nor read my post about this China-propaganda by US, therefore I will repeat it. 140 countries, which is around half the countries in the world and who represent more than 55% of the pollution with greenhouse gases, have signed the Kyoto protocol. US with 4+% of world population, is solely responsible for more than 25% of the worlds greenhouse gas pollution. I am very upset by the current US propaganda, who assumes that my faculties are on the level of an ignorant child. Around half of the countries in the world are not signatories of Kyoto and if we exclude the US, they represent less than 20% of the pollution. That less than 20% pollution includes many of the most populated countries and well over half the world population, among them China. How can anyone be so stupid, to assume that this would be a valid reason for US to not sign the agreement. My education in basic mathematics, tell me that the Kyoto signatories plus US is responsible for more than 80% of the green house gases. It was a very long time ago, so if my mathematics is not correct, please enlighten me. Have you actually looked at China, as you suggest others to do? If you have, what is the worrying part, in comparison with US? Are you aware of that, if the developing countries would be a part of Kyoto, it would take away any chance of future development? Are you aware of that China is not a developed country? When are you going to look on US propaganda with some critical eyes? Do you not think that if more than 80% of green house gases would be included in Kyoto, it would be a very good start? Do you not think that it is ridiculous that US seeks support in the fact that Australia did not sign also, a country that have around 6% of the population of US and a larger land mass? LOL Hakan ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Kyoto- nothing but a buch of crap
Thanks for the references and your viewpoint. Both are really helpful. Rick Keith Addison wrote: Hello Rick Dear Keith, You are right of course. I should study the whole treaty rather than rely on what I read about it. Also, my thanks to you for untangling my sentence about Republicans. Um, sorry, wearing my editor's hat in the wrong place, but I was tempted by the idea of using spontaneously combusting Republicans as an energy source. I may be being a pessimist here but I don't see the world doing much about global warming in time to stop it's effects. But do you the propose that therefore we shouldn't even try? Even if the US got on board the agreements don't seem to me to go far enough. As I said, all concerned freely acknowledge that. Nobody closely involved with the Kyoto Protocol sees it as a final document, nor as perfect, just as a first step - it enables further steps. I know, go read them OK I will. By your own figures, a 60 - 80 % cut in CO2, there would have to be a massive change in the way we generate our energy. Yup. Look at China just since the treaty was negotiated. Living in a dream. Look at South East Asia. I think little can be done until an alternative system for producing energy that doesn't pollute and provides the same amount of energy is in place. We've discussed this so much here, and other people have discussed it so much elsewhere. Have a look at Lovins's Negawatts, for instance, or at the many studies that show how appropriate energy offers jobs and prosperity along with everything else, not least to local economies. ... provides the same amount of energy? Another dream... What bothers me more than the US failure to sign the treaty is that lack of serious commitment to replacing fossil fuels. The hydrogen economy proposed by Bush is a joke. Lack of serious commitment on the part of whom? Corporations with a vested interest in fossil fuels and the status quo and the governments they own, mainly, along with those spun or sent to sleep by the PR they pay for. What's said here very often is that merely replacing fossil fuel use is no answer, nor even an option: in the OECD countries at any rate, a rational energy future requires great reductions in energy use (currently mostly waste), great improvements in energy use efficiency, and, most important, decentralisation of supply to the small-scale or farm-scale local-economy level, along with the use of all ready-to-use renewable energy technologies in combination as the local circumstances require. The powers-that-be will just love that, eh? Nonetheless, that's the context within which biofuels make sense, not in any cloud-cuckooland scenario of providing the same amount of energy, or as the US DoE and many others see it, not the same amount but more according to projections of current growth figures. Dream on! Look at these energy use figures: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_404.html#energyuse On a per capita basis, the US uses 5.4 times more than its fair share of the world's energy, the EU 2.6 times its share, Germany 2.6 times its share, France 2.8 times its share, Japan 2.7 times its share, Australia 3.8 times its share... The average American uses twice as much energy as the average European or Japanese and 155 times as much as the average Nepalese. In terms of production, Americans produce more per head than Europeans and about the same as Japanese, but they use twice as much energy as the Japanese to do it. The Japanese tend to think their use of energy is efficient, and I suppose it is by comparison, but all I see here in Japan is waste, waste, waste. Have a look at these previous messages for a different view: http://archive.nnytech.net/sgroup/BIOFUELS-BIZ/1395/ How much fuel can we grow? http://archive.nnytech.net/sgroup/BIOFUELS-BIZ/1801/ Re: Biofuels hold key to future of British farming As to the effect of global; warming I think your comparison with Venus is a bit over the top. We're discussing what's called the Greenhouse Effect, triggered by high carbon levels in the atmosphere. Venus is a greenhouse planet. If we all sit here twiddling our thumbs much longer Earth could well also be a greenhouse planet - that's what could come of doing nothing, business-as-usual. It's not over the top, it's a rational projection. For the last few million years the major trends in climate have been controlled by the orbit of the earth around the sun and the precession or wobble in the earth's rotation. These cycles control the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun which varies by about 10% (Ice Ages: Solving the Mystery by John Imbrie and Katherine Palmer Imbrie 1979). Hamaker, for one, has a different theory, more to do with biomass cycles, which is more in keeping with the Gaia theory. Some of Hamaker's conclusions might be another matter, but his work on soil mineralisation and ice ages
Re: [Biofuel] Kyoto- termites CH4-and messing with the natural order of things
This is not so wild an idea as you suggest. I remember reading a few years back about a fellow in France who piled up a huge mound of waste wood chips and drove a pipe into the center of it. As the termites went to work in the pile as well, I suppose, as bacteria, the methane they generated escaped through the pipe and was captures in inter tubes which would be inflated from the pressure of the gas. He claimed to be able to collect enough gas from this rather primitive system to supply his cooking stove. Rick John Guttridge wrote: Ahh, perhaps we could collect the methane and use it as fuel!!! imagine whole plants full of farting cows and termites harnessed to generate the worlds energy! imagine the smell! it would have to be constructed in new jersey, it already stinks there anyway. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Kyoto- nothing but a buch of crap
Dear DB, I liked your response. Partly, I suppose, because it accords with my own thoughts. There is no doubt at this point that global warming is occurring even among some republicans. What drives it it the question. There are no shortage of non man made effects that could raise the global temperature. Methane produced by termite colonies world wide is more abundant than any man made green house gas. It seems apparent to me that what ever the cause the effect is not stoppable at this point. There is just no time left to turn the battleship before it hits the pier. Would we not be better off at this point figuring out how to live in a warmer world than trying to stop a flood with a tea cup? The Kyoto protocol has considerable economic consequences. Is this the best use of the worlds resources to solve the problem? Would it not be better to determine the likely consequences of warming and figure out how best to deal with them? Rick DB wrote: Just thought I'd throw in my two cents worth on this subject. After careful study of the evidence, any non-Republican would conclude that global warming is real. It matters not whether it is man made or a natural occurence. Just as when the house is burning down you must first put out the fire. Then you can figure out what caused the fire. The Kyoto protocol is people who care trying to do what they can. If the planet is warming on it's own then it certainly would be stupid to hasten the problem.Don't you think?.DB - Original Message - From: John Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:10 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Kyoto- nothing but a buch of crap ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] methanol storage
This is probably going to be a matter of local and maybe state regulation. I would first check with your local health and fire departments to see if there are city or county regulations. They can put you on to any state regulations. As far as I know there are no federal regulations that would apply nationwide. There maybe guidelines but it would be up to states and cities to adopt them. Depending on the quantity of methanol there maybe zoning regulations as well. It's smart of you to check things out ahead of time because there can be stiff fines for violating regulations on flammable materials. Rick Jeremy Tracy Longworth wrote: Does anyone know of any restrictions on storing methanol in your garage ect. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Gardening and Compost
Another suggestion. If you are composting woody plants or tree trimmings add some ammonium nitrate or urea fertilizer. The micro organisms that break down this material take up a lot of nitrogen so if you increase the available nitrogen you can speed up the process. Also, if you mulch trees with wood chips it is a good idea to add these compounds to the mulch because the organisms breaking down the wood chips will take the nitrogen from the soil and tie it up robbing your tree. You get it back eventually when the micro organisms themselves decompose but in the mean time you will stunt your tree. Rick pan ruti wrote: Hello TIM You can accelerate by several biological methods which are weel documented as report in TV GLOBO excellent report and we have beeen studing simple water extraction process as well as inoculam recirculation process. Full DETAIL WE CAN UPLOAD AND SENT FOR ANY ONE Correct C/N from 10 t0 20 is needed for good formentation and hence correct Moisture , animal manuare content need to be carefully controlled to have good fermentation degradation. In ASIAN RURAL AREA GOOD COMPOST ARE ALWAYS MADE THANKING YOU SD PANNIRSELVAM --- Tim Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Robert, I to have the same problem but I have more plant material than animal manure to compost. I have two springs and creeks on the property with good head flow and have been pondering constructing something of a grist mill to grind the corn stalks etc prior to composting. Something similar may be done with a windmill provided enough wind is present. I may be wrong but I think it might work. Labor intensive for loading and unloading but better than what I am doing now. Best Wishes, Tim That issue aside, I have put the stalks, cuttings and other fibrous material in a heap to decay. Aside from grinding or shredding this matter with a machine, is there anything I could be doing to speed its decomposition? robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.as px?bookid=9782 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
