[biofuel] Energy

[milliontc]

Anyone for tomorrows energy today?


http://members.fortunecity.com/geoffegel/aquagen.htm

James

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[Biofuel] Energy Futures

[Keith Addison]

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/22/energy_futures.php

Energy Futures

K.C. Golden

May 22, 2006

K.C. Golden is the policy director of  Climate Solutions, which is 
devoted towards working for practical solutions to global warming and 
a new, sustainable prosperity.

The signs of a new, brighter energy future are everywhere.

Wind and solar power are the fastest growing electricity sources. 
NASDAQ just launched a clean energy index. Leading venture 
capitalists are making big bets on low-carbon energy sources. Auto 
dealers are carrying more hybrid and flex-fuel vehicles. 
Forward-looking communities are planning a future around people 
instead of cars. Farmers, entrepreneurs, investors-they're all 
planting seeds for a cleaner, more secure energy future.

But they're going too slow. Promising solutions are emerging, but our 
addiction to fossil fuels is getting worse and it's killing us. War, 
climate disruption and economic insecurity are among its symptoms.

Now that we can see real pictures of the post-fossil fuel 
future-since it seems so tantalizingly possible-what can we do to 
accelerate it?

We can start by squaring up to a simple truth, fossil fuels are very 
costly. We pay some of the tab at the pump and in our utility bills. 
But we pay much more in the form of chronic national insecurity due 
to dependence on oil. We pay in the form of climate disruption-more 
intense storms, water shortages, ocean sterilization. We pay through 
the nose, through our lungs and through our declining standing in the 
world.

The price of oil may cycle down again-after all, suppliers don't want 
to price us out of our addiction. "Peak oil " may be more like a long 
ridge, with lots of price volatility to keep us guessing. The people 
who have the most control of oil prices also have the greatest 
incentive to discourage investment in alternatives-so don't expect a 
smooth ride up the price curve. But when the price drops, it's lying.

No matter how energy prices spike or plunge, fossil fuels are 
exorbitantly expensive. Their impact on our climate alone is an epic 
heist of the planet's wealth-a hocking of our worldly treasure for a 
few decades' fix. The geopolitical costs of fossil fuel addiction are 
literally bleeding us. Whatever is driving oil prices-greed, 
economics, supply disruption, all of the above-the rising price at 
the pump is finally communicating some fraction of the truth: fossil 
fuels are a colossal rip-off.

This truth can set us free. High, truthful fossil fuel prices send a 
signal to consumers, investors, and entrepreneurs, stop pouring more 
money into the fossil fuel hole. Put it into things that won't run 
out-like the sun and the wind and more efficient vehicles and 
buildings. Put it into transportation choices. Put it into our 
endless capacity to innovate.

President Bush flirted with the truth when he said we're addicted to 
oil. But now he proposes to treat our addiction by expanding supply! 
Democrats have suggested price controls and suspending fuel taxes. 
Political consultants in both parties feed our leaders the same 
advice: people don't want to hear the truth of costly fossil fuels. 
Tell them anything, but not the truth.

One enterprising e-mail campaign proposes that consumers boycott 
Exxon-Mobil. The theory is that if we don't buy from Exxon, they'll 
have to lower prices, touching off a price war. An economist quoted 
on NPR says it won't work. The announcer asked, "Well, what can 
consumers do about gas prices?" The economist responded, "Drive less."

Won't the truth of high fossil fuel prices fall hardest on those who 
can least afford it? Yes. That's why we should invest in alternatives 
that are practical and affordable for everyone. The people who can't 
afford $3 gas are the same people who pay in blood to defend our 
access to the next fix. They're the ones who can't move to higher 
ground when the water rises. If there's one thing they can't afford 
more than the truth, it's our failure to confront the lie of "cheap" 
fossil fuels.

We can do something about high fuel prices. We can buy less. We can 
drive efficient cars and trucks. We can use biofuels-not a free 
lunch, but an increasingly attractive alternative to petroleum 
(especially with the commercialization of "cellulosic" ethanol, made 
from plant waste instead of corn). We can build communities where 
people can live, work, shop, and go to school by bike, public 
transit, or foot. We can build a prosperity that is less 
about simply producing more and more about community, health and 
quality of life-which are inversely related to fossil fuel 
consumption.

Fossil fuels don't just power our cars-they power the production and 
transportation of every material good. As consumers, we can decide 
that being consumers isn't our defining affiliation. We can 
disenthrall ourselves from Madison Avenue's formulas for profligate 
consumption: virility is not a function of horsepower; freedom is not 

[Biofuel] Energy monitor

[Joe Street]

Hey Canadian biofuelers;

Canadian Tire has a cool gadget on sale this week. It is an energy meter 
which resembles a wall wart and plugs into a 120 VAC receptacle. You can 
then plug in any 120 VAC appliance and measure volts, amps, watts and KW 
hours over a period of time, up to 1800 watts. It also measures the peak 
value of most of the aforementioned. If you enter the cost of one KW 
hour of electricity, it will calculate the cost of operating said 
appliance over a given period of time. It has a liquid crystal display 
and is powered by a couple of button batteries. It's on sale at $17.49. 
reg. $24.99, until this Friday, July 28. The CTC number is 52-8851-2.

This makes it easier to guage the energy you are putting into making fuel.

Joe


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Energy saving

[Hakan Falk]

After moving my site http://energysavingnow.com a number of times and 
changed domain names, I have finally had the time to fix most of the 
links and information. It was a mess, but I think I did catch most of 
the problems and if you like to look, it would be nice if you tell me 
about things I might have missed.

After being inactive and not worked on the site, I am surprised about 
how much useful information it was on it.

Hakan 



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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[biofuel] Energy Forever

[Keith Addison]

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/4651

THE 800-MILE LONG CHAPSTIK... 
...And Other Tales of Domestic Energy Insecurity

Amory B. Lovins is co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, an 
entrepreneurial, nonprofit organization that fosters the efficient 
and restorative use of resources to create a more secure, prosperous, 
and life-sustaining world.

America's fragile domestic infrastructure threatens her energy 
security at least as much as dependence on Mideastern oil. Replacing 
Mideastern oil with even more vulnerable domestic systems would 
therefore decrease energy security.

Extraordinarily concentrated energy flows invite and reward 
devastating attack. Even today, as our 1982 Pentagon study "Brittle 
Power: Energy Strategy for National Security" found, a handful of 
people could shut down three-quarters of the oil and gas supplies to 
the eastern states (without leaving Louisiana), cut the power to any 
major city, or kill millions by crashing an airliner into a nuclear 
power plant. Expanding such centralized and vulnerable energy systems 
would harm national security.

Fundamentally, energy security is less about foreign vs. domestic 
sources, or a shortage of giant energy facilities, than about the 
basic architecture of the energy infrastructure. A system is secure 
not because it's American or big, but because it's designed to make 
large-scale failures impossible and local failures benign. Energy 
security starts with using less energy far more efficiently to do the 
same tasks. Then it gets that energy from sources that are inherently 
invulnerable because they're dispersed, diverse, and increasingly 
renewable.

This strategy doesn't cost more; indeed, it's already winning in the 
marketplace. For example, central power stations, no matter how well 
engineered, can't supply really cheap and reliable electricity. The 
power lines that deliver the electricity cost more than the 
generators, and cause almost all power failures. Onsite and 
neighborhood micropower is cheaper, eliminates grid losses and 
glitches, and harnesses waste heat, so savvy investors favor it.

Of course, Mideastern oil is a problem. Getting oil from the unstable 
Persian Gulf leaves America less secure and tied to unattractive 
regimes. Although only 22% of oil imports come from the Gulf (67% 
come from the Western Hemisphere), decreasing that dependence is 
wise. But this requires investing in the fastest and cheapest means, 
buying the most solution with each year and every dollar. We don't 
need just another crude-oil source, but an inherently secure supply 
chain delivering useful mobility fuels all the way to customers.

Energy efficiency is the rapid-deployment energy resource. Last year, 
America used 40 percent less energy and 49 percent less oil to 
produce each dollar of GDP than in 1975. Those savings are now the 
nation's largest "source"-five times domestic oil output. Most were 
achieved in just six years, during 1979-85, when GDP grew 16 percent, 
total oil use fell 15 percent, and Gulf imports fell 87 percent. 
Maintaining that pace could have eliminated Gulf imports ever since 
1986.

Modern efficiency technologies can put another $300 billion a year 
back in Americans' pockets. Just a 2.7-mpg better light-vehicle fleet 
would eliminate Gulf imports. Saving energy is the fastest way to 
blunt OPEC's market power, beat down prices, and expand invulnerable 
sources' share of energy supply. Billions of dollars annual military 
fuel-saving opportunities just found by the Defense Science Board 
would also improve warfighting.

Then there are new ways to supply fuel that are secure, fast, and 
competitive. Done right, abundant farm, forest, and even urban wastes 
can yield clean liquid fuels while protecting topsoil, farmers, rural 
culture, climate, and prosperity. Producing such biofuels locally 
bypasses vulnerable pipelines and provides more jobs. Another 
attractive innovation is fuel cells using natural gas or renewable 
energy. (Manhattan's CondŽ-Nast Building outperformed its rivals by 
saving half its energy and incorporating the two most reliable known 
power sources -- fuel cells and solar cells -- all at no extra cost.) 
Together, these proven alternatives can displace oil promptly, 
securely, profitably -- and, in time, completely.

If pumping stations or key facilities at either end were disabled, 
nine million barrels of hot oil could congeal in one winter week into 
an 800-mile-long Chapstik.

In contrast, such options as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
decrease security. If the Refuge held economically recoverable oil 
(unlikely and a decade away according to the official data), then 
delivering that oil by its only route, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
System (TAPS), would undercut the anti-terrorist purpose of the 
pending Defense Authorization Bill. It would make TAPS the fattest 
energy-terrorist target in the country.

TAPS is American, but frighteningly insecure. It's mostly 

[biofuel] Energy Forever

[Keith Addison]

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/3/lovins-a.html

Energy Forever
By Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins
Issue Date: 2.11.02

The world is dangerous. America's energy policy makes it more so. In 
1981 we wrote for the Pentagon what is still the definitive 
unclassified study of domestic energy vulnerability. We found, and 
government and industry experts later confirmed, that a handful of 
people could shut down three-quarters of the oil and gas supplies to 
the eastern states overnight without leaving Louisiana. A similar 
group could cut electric power to any region or kill millions by 
sabotaging a nuclear power plant or crashing an airliner into it. 
Little has changed since then. Most existing U.S. energy 
supplies--and the additional ones proposed in the current House 
energy bill--are highly vulnerable to attack.

National security is also at risk because 13 percent of the oil we 
use comes from the Persian Gulf (which holds two-thirds of the 
world's petroleum reserves). Buying the fastest and cheapest 
replacements is urgent. But replacing insecure foreign oil with 
insecure new domestic energy sources doesn't help. We will have a 
secure supply of energy only when we have both displaced Mideast oil 
and shifted the basic architecture of our domestic energy 
infrastructure. Energy systems don't become secure by being located 
in this country--unless widespread failures are made impossible and 
local failures benign.

Consider the current fixation on drilling for oil in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. The 800-mile-long Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
System (TAPS), the only way to ship Refuge oil south, presents such a 
fat terrorist target--worse than the Strait of Hormuz choke 
point--that former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, a normally 
oil-favoring Oklahoman, testified against Refuge oil as too 
vulnerable. TAPS is not only accessible to attackers; it's often 
unrepairable in winter. If key pumping stations or facilities at 
either end were disabled, at least the above-ground half of the 
pipeline's nine million barrels of hot oil could congeal in one 
winter week into the world's largest Chap Stik. The U.S. Army, the 
General Accounting Office, and the Senate Judiciary Committee have 
said that TAPS is indefensible. It has already been incompetently 
bombed twice, sabotaged, and shot at on more than 50 occasions. On 
October 4, 2001, a drunk's rifle shot pierced it, interrupting 
one-sixth of U.S. oil output for 60 hours. Two years ago, a 
disgruntled engineer's sophisticated plot to profit from oil futures 
trading was luckily thwarted before he blew up three critical TAPS 
sites. Senators who have made Refuge oil the centerpiece of their 
whimsically titled National Energy Security bill have obviously not 
connected the dots.

The 24-year-old TAPS also suffers from corrosion, erosion, stress, 
and melting of the supporting permafrost--all raising maintenance 
costs, which may become unaffordable within this decade. Management 
deficiencies also persist. In 2000, TAPS suffered two serious 
accidents and its Valdez oil terminal narrowly escaped another. On 
September 22, 2001, for the seventh year in a row, a botched routine 
procedure overpressurized the pipeline, causing spills at three 
pumping stations. Even in a terrorist-free world, extended reliance 
on TAPS would be imprudent.

Fortunately, there are faster, cheaper, and surer alternatives. We 
can achieve energy security by using less energy far more efficiently 
to do the same tasks--and then by supplying what is still needed from 
sources that are inherently invulnerable because they're dispersed, 
diverse, and increasingly renewable. These options reduce the need to 
transport energy by vulnerable long-distance pipelines and 
transmission lines, and usually cost much less than expanding those 
links.

Security at a Profit

In the case of tasks now reliant on oil, the change would be 
relatively easy. Energy efficiency is the rapid-deployment resource, 
and huge amounts of it are available. Just a 2.7-mpg gain in the fuel 
economy of this country's light-vehicle fleet could displace Persian 
Gulf imports entirely, and this is no pipe dream. The National 
Academy of Sciences reported last year that the fuel economy of 
conventional cars and light trucks could be raised vastly more than 
that without compromising safety, performance, or affordability. 
Similarly, the Defense Science Board recently showed how the 
Pentagon--the world's largest oil buyer and the nation's largest 
energy user--could save billions of dollars' worth of fuel annually 
while greatly improving its war-fighting capability. Efficiency is an 
energy resource that is uninterruptible and already delivered, immune 
to both foreign potentates and terrorism. It also stabilizes prices, 
protects climate and environment, and provides good jobs nationwide.

As for new fuels to replace oil, we already know how to produce them 
cost-effectively from renewable sources. Far

[biofuel] energy modesty

[Keith Addison]

I came across this, which I cross-posted a year ago, very pertinent, 
so I thought I'd post it again. Apologies to long-term members with 
good memories.

Keith


Fwd from [EMAIL PROTECTED]

From: "Albrecht Kaupp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Hi folks,
Wandering in between three homes and living alternatively in in the USA,
India and Germany, and by my profession and believe would qualify as a
Democrat/Ecofascist as defined by Dave, I see this whole discussion a bit
more relaxed. It is a matter of being brainwashed for too long that high
energy consumption and low energy costs have something to do with quality of
life. I wonder why  there are no riots in the streets of Germany at a
gasoline price of 4 US$ per gallon with diesel,LPG and N-gas not much lower.
I also can't see the industry collapsing, people starving, or quality of
life falling apart because the country is highly energy efficient. Is the
industry and economy in the USA so weak that they can't even handle US$ 4
per gallon or doubeling LPG costs.

Here in India most of the professionals tell me every day that energy
efficiency by itself won't help anyway. It is a matter of the sum of energy
efficiency and energy modesty. At the end of the day a highly energy
efficient state-of-the-art LARGE american refrigerator will use up 2.8 kWh
per electricity while the inefficient Indian SMALL refrigerator will use up
1.8 kWh. Of course the Americans ,the Germans and a few others are madly
trying to tell the Indians how inefficient this fridge is. The trouble is
that such an advise is not very much respected and accepted from us, whom
have totally forgotten about energy modesty bragging too much about energy
efficiency.

Albrecht Kaupp
Senior Advisor
Indo-German Energy Efficiency and Environment Project, IGEEP
21 Jor Bagh, New Delhi 110 003, India
Tel +91-11-4603832-6 or +91-11-6864867 to 68
Fax +91-11-4603831 or +1-801-340-7905 (USA)
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Save on REALTOR Fees
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Xw80LD/h1ZEAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy challenges

[Hakan Falk]

Thank you for your appreciation MM and a very well balanced answer. When I 
first got it I wanted to answer immediately and expand a few things, but my 
mother in law fell sick (88 years of age and a fantastic lady) and it must 
wait a little bit. I was thinking about dismount the subject and dividing 
it to several sub subjects, then have each discussed by us and hopefully 
many others on the list. Afterwards I like to mount it and see where it 
took us.

I will start with this as soon as I can. It can be a fairly large joint 
project and I will hopefully learn a lot. Hope that I can put together 
something relevant when I come to it.

Hakan


At 09:07 AM 10/6/2002 -0700, you wrote:
 >I started out, in thinking about a posting on this, but discovered that it
 >might end up in a book. I will therefore only start with a couple of points
 >and try to expand it when I have time.

Good point.  Sometimes I or others open a topic than is bigger than we imply or
think about.  In such cases, if I see it, I feel that I want to acknowledge the
importance of the topic by responding, but it's too big and I end up feeling
obligated to spend too much time too quickly.

 >Maybe
 >we are going to see an other move from the cities to rural areas.

I've been thinking this, locally here in the city where I live, if we fail to
see further progress on dealing with local pollution, particularly of 
water, and
of time management (there is only so much sitting-in-one's-car-in-traffic 
that I
think one can take).

 >2. The electricity production is an other ball game, because they would go
 >Sun/Wind/Hydro/Nuclear on both short and long term. The major problems here
 >are peak demands and they cannot be solved without solving some usage
 >problems.

I agree that it will be very exciting to see progress on "production by
saving".  But there is another issue you allude to which is peak demand
production, and interestingly, around here, this involves diesel.  This was
much-discussed in last year's energy crisis, that some diesel generators had to
be used sometimes, as a last-ditch sort of thing.  Just a point, off-topic.

 >3. Heating should go Bio Fuels and or Bio Mass. Cooling can also do that,
 >but we should start to talk about drying instead of cooling, the human body
 >will take care of the cooling, if the air is dry enough. To change the
 >usage are several massive tasks and takes a long time, we have some
 >experiences of this. Passive solar power will also play an important part.

Your points make sense.  One of the reasons I ask about biodiesel use for
at-home or local distributed energy electricity or other immediately-useable
energy production is that if one has it ready-at-hand for transportation, I
suppose it could also serve well for other household and local energy needs,
such as electricity production, cooking, heating, cooling, drying, etc.  The
fact that it's ready-at-hand being a contributor to an argument in its favor,
with other arguments against it such as the fact that it's more dear for
transportation, and other things can be used for those other energy
requirements.

 >4. Developing countries have a chance here, if they realize that copying
 >the models and habits of the developed countries only will bring them in
 >trouble. They have the advantage of starting on a clean piece of paper and
 >have much more to loose than gain in accepting the influence from global
 >corporations and developed countries, which by the way is a threat of US
 >interests.

Although I've been a somewhat-uncaring pied-piper cheerleader for bringing US
style stock-market investing to worldwide alternative energy interests, I am
going to have to modify or change that because I do not think this is always
beneficial to the parties involved.  Bringing stock-market-mania to the latest
car invention or energy inventor or community is not necessarily the only 
way or
the best way to get a community more set up with improved and cleaner and more
convenient energy usage and access.

 >5. Efficient energy usage is key for the future, we cannot continue to use
 >energy and just wasting more than 50% for nothing more than stupidities. It
 >is much more to gain on efficient usage than improvements of efficiency in
 >energy production. The problem here is that we measure our economic
 >successes (GNP) in how much we waste, not how efficient we use energy. It
 >sounds stupid, but who said that humans were smart?

I think that *in part* our profligate wasteful attitude toward energy could be
somewhat helped by and when it becomes more financially dear.  For example, 
here
in San Diego, while the energy crisis was painful, we did get much more
conscious about conservation very quickly when our prices came up, and we made
some progress.  Not enough, to be sure.  We were set in our ways and one 
doesn't
change an already-industrialized set-in-its-ways community so easily.  But 
there
was some evidence that a pricing and supply crisis would result i

Re: [biofuel] Energy

[Dan Maker]

WARNING!!!

This site trys to install addware on your computer.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> 
> Anyone for tomorrows energy today?
> 
> 
> http://members.fortunecity.com/geoffegel/aquagen.htm
> 
> James
> 
> 
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
> 
> Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Jack of all trades, master of none.
Fiber Artist - Genealogist - Kilt Maker - Linux Geek - Piper - Woodworker
http://www.xmission.com/~redbeard


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Energy

[Keith Addison]

>Anyone for tomorrows energy today?
>
>http://members.fortunecity.com/geoffegel/aquagen.htm
>
>James

Hi James

Tomorrow's news yesterday... (Um, does "pure hydrogen" burn?)

From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 3:17 PM
Subject: [biofuel] AquaFuel

> I am writing to introduce you to the unique
> qualities of AquaFuel, a non-fossil
> alternative fuel with many applications.
>
> As you may be surprised to find out, AquaFuel
> is cheaper, safer and cleaner than acetylene,
> gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, natural gas,
> jet fuel and hydrogen. In fact, AquaFuel is
> the only known fuel that gives off oxygen when
> burned. With AquaFuel you can power plants
> and, as a free by-product, treat waste water.
>
> As you may find that you are curious to discover
> more about AquaFuel and its uses, let me suggest
> that you return this e-mail to me with your mailing
> address and we will send you a complete package.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John E. Lux
> President AquaLux Corporation
> http://www.AquaFuel.com



>How is this different from "Brown's Gas"? Which requires as much energy to
>produce as is produced so is effectively  no use!
>   Ed Service



>Really Ed, next you'll be saying that snake oil I bought won't make
>my hair grow back. Must work or it wouldn't have been so expensive. O
>ye of little faith.
>
>It was posted simultaneously to several other lists. He just
>subscribed today. What think y'all, spam or not?
>
>"A water-based fuel that burns hotter than anything except pure
>hydrogen, produces more BTU's than natural gas and produces three
>times more ENERGY than is used to create it.
>
>"See for yourself
>* Click here to see AquaFuel being made.
>* Click here to see AquaFuel in action.
>
>"It sounds impossible, but the United States Patent Office doesn't
>seem to think so. To date, they've issued six wide-ranging patents on
>an alternative ENERGY source called AquaFuel. AquaFuel is not a
>fossil fuel like coal and oil. It actually releases pure oxygen and
>water when burned. In an exclusive demonstration to BayNews9.com at
>their St. Petersburg/Clearwater Airport-area laboratory, the inventor
>and several aides showed how the inexpensive fuel is produced."
>
>Ho-hum.
>
>Keith Addison



>Yes, I think it would be good of them to show how this is of benefit since
>the electiricty for the arc has to come from somewhere, and presumably the
>gas has to be compressed to be of much use in mobile applications.
>
>Ed B.



>I would be surprised to find out that this is just bad science, instead of a
>scam.
>
>Steve Spence



>I just checked out their website and I am highly skeptical.  This smells
>like a scam to me.  They are very unclear about what AquaFuel is.  There is
>a total lack of a scientific explaination of the process by which this
>"fuel" is used.  No molecular equations are presented which explain the
>chemical reactions involved.  In any case the law of entropy insures that
>even if this device produces a useable gas the total energy available will
>be less than the amount of electricity used to produce the aquafuel.  They
>are very vague about what source of electricity should be used.
>
>I would investigate very carefully before making any agreement or purchase.
>I would want to check the Better Business Bureau and the Chamber of Commerce.
>A search of the local newspaper going back several years wouldn't be a bad
>idea either.  When it seems too good to be true it usually is.  The other
>warning sign is that they seem to be holding back information.
>
>Andrew



>Does the word "scam" mean anything to the rest of you?
>
>robert luis rabello



> > I thought that when you ran electricity through water you got 2 
>Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen, H2O. We collected it in Jr. High School 
>science class. Anyone want to comment on it?
> >
> > Greg



>The Aqua Fuel people are using carbon in the process.  It's 
>similar to arc welding under water, with dismal exergy problems 
>equal to or exceeding electrolysis, but it produces H2 and CO as the 
>gas.  Scams like this can be patented without substantiation by 
>independent laboratories.  Invest with
>care.
>
>robert luis rabello



>> Found someone who has posted their small DIY Aquafuel generator online
>> along with links to the patents.
>>
>> http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/aquagen.htm
>>
>> Ian



>Energy negative
>
>Terry



>   As these people are close to me, about 40 miles
>I'll try to reach them monday.
>   However Fla is the scam capital of the US.
>They neglect to mention that they burn carbon
>rods for fuel too. I was wondering where the C was
>coming from.
>   jerry dycus



> I went down to AquaLux tonight after work. They were packing up but I did
> meet Mr. Lux himself. They are having a demo tomorrow (Tuesday 3-20-01) at
> 7:30 PM. When I stopped by the door was unlocked so I went in and started
> wand

[biofuel] Energy needs

[MH]

Hello,  

   After reading about expanding oil supplies; 
"Hooray for the Red, White, Blue and Green" 
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/-02.htm 
now have a better understanding of the US arms buildup and notice given to 
Iran, Iraq.  

   Was reading a report about the USA's first national renewable energy summit; 
"Interior's Ulterior Motive -
Behind the scenes at the Bush administration's renewable energy summit"  
http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/maindish/scott120701.asp?source=stre 
Is anyone familiar with other news coverage?  

Thank you. 



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ACHqaB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy crops

[MH]

 I was thinking about energy from ethanol and oilseed
 yields and how it relates to each other briefly

 Ethanol from corn, sugar beets
 and Jerusalem artichokes keying off of 
 Table 2. Average yield of 99.5 percent alcohol per acre**
 
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/meCh3.html#alcoholyield

 NOTE: all based on US gallons/acre

 Corn yield about 214 ethanol gallons/acre
divide by 2.5 gal/bushel equals 85.6 bu/ac
and 1.5 (*) pounds of oil/bu divide by 7.0 lbs/gal equals
0.21 gal/bu multiply by 85.6 bu/ac equals 18 gallons of oil/ac
Yielding: Ethanol 214 gal/ac,  Corn oil 18 gal/ac 
 Sugar beet yield about 412 ethanol gal/ac
 Jerusalem artichokes yield about 1200 ethanol gal/ac
divide by 3 harvests of head per year
equals about 400 ethanol gal/ac (one harvest per year)

 Summarizing yield - about: 

 232 gal/acre corn (maize) [ethanol and oil]
 412 gal/acsugar beet [ethanol]
 400 gal/acjerusalem artichokes [ethanol] (one harvest per year)

 The following keyed off of
 http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
 Yield - about:

   18 gal/acre corn (maize) [oil] 
   48 gal/ac   soybean [oil] 
   61 gal/ac   mustard seed [oil] 
 102 gal/ac   sunflowers [oil] 
 127 gal/ac   rapeseed [oil] 
 151 gal/ac   castor beans [oil] 
 194 gal/ac   jojoba [oil] 
 635 gal/ac   palm oil [oil] 

 Note: Btu values ?

 I've heard Jerusalem artichokes grow like weeds and
 may be a healthy tuber substitute for potatoes. 
 Any further thoughts or how to's ? 

 Again thank you in advance!

 (*) www.nwicc.cc.ia.us/module2.htm 



`

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy requirement

[milliontc]

I was talking to a knowledgeable bloke yesterday about the design 
of a 1,000 litre batch BioD plant and he reckoned that to get all the 
water out of the WVO in preparation for processing you would 
need at least 50kw power and that the most practical form of heat 
transfere is steam. Any comments?
He also says that in Europe there's a new set of norms for the 
control of chemical processes known as 'Integrated Pollution 
Prevention Control' IPPC and he believes that complience with 
these norms will increase the plant cost considerably. Anyone 
come across these norms?
Regards to all James 

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy Foundation

[Keith Addison]

http://www.energyfoundation.org/
Energy Foundation -- A grant making institution endeavoring to assist 
in the nation's transition to a sustainable energy future by 
promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DlIU9C/4m7CAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] energy modesty

[Keith Addison]

Fwd from [EMAIL PROTECTED]

From: "Albrecht Kaupp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Hi folks,
Wandering in between three homes and living alternatively in in the USA,
India and Germany, and by my profession and believe would qualify as a
Democrat/Ecofascist as defined by Dave, I see this whole discussion a bit
more relaxed. It is a matter of being brainwashed for too long that high
energy consumption and low energy costs have something to do with quality of
life. I wonder why  there are no riots in the streets of Germany at a
gasoline price of 4 US$ per gallon with diesel,LPG and N-gas not much lower.
I also can't see the industry collapsing, people starving, or quality of
life falling apart because the country is highly energy efficient. Is the
industry and economy in the USA so weak that they can't even handle US$ 4
per gallon or doubeling LPG costs.

Here in India most of the professionals tell me every day that energy
efficiency by itself won't help anyway. It is a matter of the sum of energy
efficiency and energy modesty. At the end of the day a highly energy
efficient state-of-the-art LARGE american refrigerator will use up 2.8 kWh
per electricity while the inefficient Indian SMALL refrigerator will use up
1.8 kWh. Of course the Americans ,the Germans and a few others are madly
trying to tell the Indians how inefficient this fridge is. The trouble is
that such an advise is not very much respected and accepted from us, whom
have totally forgotten about energy modesty bragging too much about energy
efficiency.

Albrecht Kaupp
Senior Advisor
Indo-German Energy Efficiency and Environment Project, IGEEP
21 Jor Bagh, New Delhi 110 003, India
Tel +91-11-4603832-6 or +91-11-6864867 to 68
Fax +91-11-4603831 or +1-801-340-7905 (USA)
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy Modesty....

[Appal Energy]

> Here in India most of the professionals tell me every day that energy
> efficiency by itself won't help anyway. It is a matter of the sum of energy
> efficiency and energy modesty. 

>Albrecht Kaupp
>Senior Advisor
>Indo-German Energy Efficiency and Environment Project, IGEEP
>21 Jor Bagh, New Delhi 110 003, India
>Tel +91-11-4603832-6 or +91-11-6864867 to 68
>Fax +91-11-4603831 or +1-801-340-7905 (USA)
>email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


ENERGY MODESTY.(Light goes on!)

Now there's a term for the masses. Where have these two words been these 20 
years past?

Thank you Albrecht!

Todd Swearingen
Appal Energy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy dependence

[o2moron2002]

These statements from Exxon's chairman are expected but it's annoying 
all the same.  Particularly frustrating to me is his statement that:

"If we do not, as a nation, explore and develop energy from 
prospective areas in the U.S., and remain committed to use energy 
more efficiently, the consequence will be even greater dependence on 
energy from areas such as the Middle East," Raymond said.

I don't see much committment to energy efficiency in the US.  Tract 
housing is built with poor insulation and no attention to 
conservation principles, our automobile fleets are less efficient now 
than a decade ago...  our inefficiency IS the problem.  Here's the 
whole article:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/international/exxon_mobil.reut/

-Gordon




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> 
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
~-> 

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[Biofuel] Energy content

[james porakari]

Dear all,

Anyone can anyone help me to find information on
energy content of palm oil and Kernel oil and also
coconut oil. I am doing a research on bifuels as
alternatives in Solmon Islands (South Pacific). I am
student at University of South Pacific, Fiji.

Thanks,

James


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[biofuel] Energy Balance

[Lyle Estill]

Dear list,

My understanding is that biodiesel claims an energy balance of around 
3:1, which I understand to mean that for every btu going into its 
creation, it returns 3 btus.

If this is correct, what is the energy balance of fuel made from WVO?  
Surely I can charge the energy necessary for growing, harvesting, 
crushing and delivering to the french fry, can't I?

And my final question is that of going "off grid."  At present I use 
both electricity and propane in my production process.  If I replaced 
them with a biodeisel generator and some solar thermal, what would that 
do to my energy balance?

Is there a quick way to calculate answers to such questions?

Thanks in advance.

Lyle Estill
V.P., Stuff
Piedmont Biofuels
www.biofuels.coop




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [Biofuel] Energy monitor

[econogics]

This is a great device.  I prefer it to the Kill-A-Watt.
The unit at Canadian Tire includes a battery, so it does not lose its
memory in the event of a power glitch.  It also takes note of the amount
of time that the monitored device is actually running instead of elapsed
time - very handy information for intermittent devices like fridges,
freezers, air conditioners, etc.  Even though I already have one, I may
pick up another just to have additional capability or to loan out to
friends.  Very educational device.

Darryl McMahon

> Hey Canadian biofuelers;
>
> Canadian Tire has a cool gadget on sale this week. It is an energy meter
> which resembles a wall wart and plugs into a 120 VAC receptacle. You can
> then plug in any 120 VAC appliance and measure volts, amps, watts and KW
> hours over a period of time, up to 1800 watts. It also measures the peak
> value of most of the aforementioned. If you enter the cost of one KW
> hour of electricity, it will calculate the cost of operating said
> appliance over a given period of time. It has a liquid crystal display
> and is powered by a couple of button batteries. It's on sale at $17.49.
> reg. $24.99, until this Friday, July 28. The CTC number is 52-8851-2.
>
> This makes it easier to guage the energy you are putting into making fuel.
>
> Joe
>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Energy saving

[Joe Street]

Nice website Hakan

Joe

Hakan Falk wrote:

>After moving my site http://energysavingnow.com a number of times and 
>changed domain names, I have finally had the time to fix most of the 
>links and information. It was a mess, but I think I did catch most of 
>the problems and if you like to look, it would be nice if you tell me 
>about things I might have missed.
>
>After being inactive and not worked on the site, I am surprised about 
>how much useful information it was on it.
>
>Hakan 
>
>
>
>___
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>  
>


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Energy saving

[francisco ramos]

Haka
Your website spark insperation.
I loved small hidropower part.
Chic
Joe Street escreveu:

Nice website Hakan

Joe

Hakan Falk wrote:

  
After moving my site http://energysavingnow.com a number of times and 
changed domain names, I have finally had the time to fix most of the 
links and information. It was a mess, but I think I did catch most of 
the problems and if you like to look, it would be nice if you tell me 
about things I might have missed.


After being inactive and not worked on the site, I am surprised about 
how much useful information it was on it.


Hakan 




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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


 





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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



  


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Energy from waves

[bmolloy]

Sounds a bit Heath Robinson but nevertheless workable.

 

  _  

 

http://www.wavepartner.eu/page_1219330357093.html

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080906/17fd45c5/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

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

Re: [biofuel] Energy crops

[MH]

 Just a follow up to this (edited) prior post. 

MH wrote:
> 
>  I was thinking about energy from ethanol and oilseed
>  yields and how it relates to each other briefly
> 
>  Ethanol from corn, sugar beets
>  and Jerusalem artichokes keying off of
>  Table 2. Average yield of 99.5 percent alcohol per acre**
>  
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/meCh3.html#alcoholyield
> 
>  NOTE: all based on US gallons/acre
> 
>  Summarizing yield - about:
> 
>  232 gal/acre corn (maize) [ethanol and oil]
>  412 gal/acsugar beet [ethanol]
>  400 gal/acjerusalem artichokes [ethanol] (one harvest per year)
> 
>  The following keyed off of
>  http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
>  Yield - about:
> 
>18 gal/acre corn (maize) [oil]
>48 gal/ac   soybean [oil]
>61 gal/ac   mustard seed [oil]
>  102 gal/ac   sunflowers [oil]
>  127 gal/ac   rapeseed [oil]
>  151 gal/ac   castor beans [oil]
>  194 gal/ac   jojoba [oil]
>  635 gal/ac   palm oil [oil]
> 

 "Biofuels and Agriculture A Factsheet for Farmers"
 ftp://bioenergy.ornl.gov/pub/pdfs/farmerfactsheet.pdf PDF 4 pages
 
 Conversion factors for biofuels
 - A bushel of soybeans (60 lb or 27 kg) yields
about 11 pounds (5 kg) of soybean oil,
making 1.5 US gallons (5.7 liters) of biodiesel
 - A bushel of corn (56 lb or 25 kg) yields
about 2.5 US gallons (9.5 liters) of ethanol
 - A ton (2000 lb or 980 kg) of corn stover will yield
about 80-90 US gallons (300-340 liters) of ethanol,
 - A ton of switchgrass will yield
in the range 75-100 US gallons (285-380 liters)

 -<>-<>-<>-

 "Biofuels from Switchgrass: Greener Energy Pastures"
 http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/switgrs.html

 The Biofuels Feedstock Development Program (BFDP)
 at DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)

 [ more excerpts ]

 Test plots of switchgrass at Auburn University have produced
 up to 15 tons of dry biomass per acre, and
 five-year yields average 11.5 tons÷enough
 to make 1,150 gallons of ethanol per acre each year.

 Switchgrass is big and it's tough÷after a good growing season,
 it can stand 10 feet high, with stems as thick and strong
 as hardwood pencils.

 It grows fast, capturing lots of solar energy and turning it
 into lots of chemical energy÷ cellulose÷that can be liquified,
 gasified, or burned directly. It also reaches deep into the soil
 for water, and uses the water it finds very efficiently.

 And because it spent millions of years evolving to thrive in
 climates and growing conditions spanning much of the nation,
 switchgrass is remarkably adaptable.

 Now, to make switchgrass even more promising, researchers across
 the country are working to boost switchgrass hardiness and yields,
 adapt varieties to a wide range of growing conditions, and reduce
 the need for nitrogen and other chemical fertilizers. 

 Switchgrass can be cut and baled with standard farming equipment.

 Yield of dreams
 In the hard, shallow soil of southern Alabama, Dave Bransby is
 turning cotton fields into swatches of grassland. Some Alabama farmers
 joke that there's no soil in Alabama to farm÷two centuries of King Cotton
 and steady erosion haven't left much behind. Yet Bransby,
 a forage scientist at Auburn University, has found a crop that
 thrives there: Among the 19 research sites in the Eastern and Central
 United States raising switchgrass for the BFDP studies, Bransby's site
 holds the one-year record at 15 tons per acre. Those are dry tons weighed
 after all the moisture's been baked out. Convert that into ethanol,
 an alcohol that can fuel vehicles, and it equals
 about 1,500 gallons per acre. Bransby's 6-year average, 11.5 tons a year,
 translates into about 1,150 gallons of ethanol per acre. 

 [MH: Corn at 100 bu/ac x 2.5 gal/bu = 250 US gal/acre of ethanol ]

 An added bonus is the electricity that can be produced from
 the leftover portions of the crop that won't convert to ethanol.

 Many farmers are already experienced at raising switchgrass for forage
 or to protect soil from erosion. Besides showing great promise
 for energy production, switchgrass also restores vital organic nutrients
 to farmed-out soils.

 And it's a hardy, adaptable perennial, so once it's established in a field,
 it can be harvested as a cash crop, either annually or semiannually,
 for 10 years or more before replanting is needed. And because it has
 multiple uses÷as an ethanol feedstock, as forage, as ground cover÷a farmer
 who plants switchgrass can be confident knowing that a switchgrass crop
 will be put to good use.

 And with recent advances in the technology of gasification, switchgrass
 could yield a variety of useful fuels÷synthetic gasoline and diesel fuel,
 methanol, methane gas, even hydrogen÷as well as chemical by-products
 useful for making fertilizers, solvents, and plastics.

 But switchgrass adds organic matter÷the plants
 extend nearly as far below ground as above. 

 "Producing ethanol from corn requir

Re: [biofuel] Energy crops

[MH]

 [ Just what are energy crops, or ]

 What Is Biomass?
 http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/what_is_biomass.html

 From: 
>  Office of Transportation Technologies
>  Alternative Fuels Data Center
>  Department of Energy

 [ Some  excerpts and introductory background ] 

 - Agricultural Waste 
 - Forestry Waste 
 - Municipal Solid and Industrial Waste 
 - Energy Crops 


 Energy Crops
 In the United States, it is estimated that about 77 million hectares
 (190 million acres) of land could be used to produce energy crops. 
 Energy crops are crops developed and grown specifically for fuel. 
 These include fast-growing trees, shrubs, and grasses, such as
 hybrid poplars, willows, and switchgrass. Energy crops can be grown
 on agricultural lands not needed for food, feed, and fiber. In addition,
 farmers can plant energy crops along riverbanks, around lakeshores
 or between farms and natural forests or wetlands to create habitat
 for wildlife, renew the soils, and encourage biodiversity. Trees can
 be grown for as long as a decade, then be harvested for energy. 
 The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that there will be
 about 100 million acres available for growing energy crops
 in the 21st century. 

 Another advantage of energy crops is that they provide diversity of
 production to farmers, reducing risks from fluctuating markets and
 stabilizing farm income. The typical modern farm usually only produces
 one or two major commercial products such as corn, soybeans, milk, or
 beef. The net income of the entire operation is often vulnerable to
 fluctuations in market demand, unexpected production costs, and the
 weather, among other factors. Energy crops are also more resistant to
 disease and pests and relatively inexpensive to grow. 

 For more information on energy crops and the Biofuels Feedstock
 Development Program , visit the Bioenergy Information Network.  
 http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Take the Yahoo! Groups survey for a chance to win $1,000.
Your opinion is very important to us!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/NOFBfD/uAJEAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy Experts Directory

[Keith Addison]

FYI

Energy Experts Directory

With the Senate expected to debate major energy legislation this 
week, Environmental Media Services has updated and expanded its 
energy experts directory to help journalists find contacts on 
specific aspects of the House and Senate energy bills.

Categories:

* Political Process - Legislative Process
* Mining & Drilling - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Offshore 
Drilling, Public Lands and Nat'l Forests, Wildlife Impacts, Coal 
Mining, Coalbed Methane, Uranium Mining
* Air Pollution - Health Effects, Clean Air Act and New Source 
Review, "Clear Skies," Mercury Emissions, "Clean Coal"
* Global Warming - Global Warming Science, Carbon Dioxide 
Legislation, Carbon Sequestration
* Economics - Subsidies to Polluters, Tax Incentives for Energy 
Efficiency and Clean Energy, Energy Prices
* Energy Efficiency & Clean Energy - Energy Efficiency, Fuel 
Efficiency and CAFE Standards, Renewable Energy
* Other - Electricity Restructuring, Nuclear Power, Hydropower, 
Pipelines, Water Pollution

http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/energy_experts.html


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Energy Primer

[Keith Addison]

>Does anyone have any information on this out of print book ÎEnergy 
>Primerâ if possible?  Where can one be gotten from?
>
>Regards,
>
>Terry Wilhelm
>
>The Revenoor Co. INC

Hi Terry

This one?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/offering/list/-/091477400X 
/all/ref=dp_pb_a/104-6768948-2314351
Amazon.com: Used and New: Energy Primer, Solar, Water, Wind, and Biofuels.

Or this one?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385282478/qid=106766320 
3/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-6768948-2314351?v=glance&s=books
Amazon.com: Books: Energy Primer

Best

Keith


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/xlw.sC/XP.FAA/3jkFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] energy poll results

[stujo]

I just received a newsletter from a silicon chip site that had a 
suprising poll (to me anyway). It is asking opinions on national,USA, 
energy usage.

The results are pleasing. Check it out at 

http://www.chipcenter.com/surveys/poll.jhtml


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
Refill any ink cartridge for less!
Includes black and color ink.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Vv.L9D/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Energy needs

[J Killen]

for non main stream news that has no sacred cows www.gcnlive.com  
streaming audioexcellent audio coverage 24/7


>From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
>To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [biofuel] Energy needs
>Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 12:00:31 -0600
>
>Hello,
>
>After reading about expanding oil supplies;
>"Hooray for the Red, White, Blue and Green"
>http://www.commondreams.org/views01/-02.htm
>now have a better understanding of the US arms buildup and notice given to 
>Iran, Iraq.
>
>Was reading a report about the USA's first national renewable energy 
>summit;
>"Interior's Ulterior Motive -
>Behind the scenes at the Bush administration's renewable energy summit"
>http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/maindish/scott120701.asp?source=stre
>Is anyone familiar with other news coverage?
>
>Thank you.
>
>




_
Join the worldâs largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ACHqaB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Energy crops

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Thanks for pointing out this link, it answers some questions for me, and brings
up others.

If the yield per ton graph which is on the same page brings out that different
crops have different mass yields from different acreages, then I wonder if this
also ties in with a significant difference in the energy and fertilizer one must
invest in each of the crops to get it to harvest.  That is, you focused on the
energy yield per acre.  This gets me partway home but not all the way home.  If
I wish to focus on energy yield per energy invested, then I need to add other
data.  Then of course I can always treat it with a grain of salt, since data's
only as good as treating it with some care.  


On Sat, 04 May 2002 13:21:22 -0500, you wrote:

> I was thinking about energy from ethanol and oilseed
> yields and how it relates to each other briefly
>
> Ethanol from corn, sugar beets
> and Jerusalem artichokes keying off of 
> Table 2. Average yield of 99.5 percent alcohol per acre**
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/meCh3.html#alcoholyield
>
> NOTE: all based on US gallons/acre
>
> Corn yield about 214 ethanol gallons/acre
>divide by 2.5 gal/bushel equals 85.6 bu/ac
>and 1.5 (*) pounds of oil/bu divide by 7.0 lbs/gal equals
>0.21 gal/bu multiply by 85.6 bu/ac equals 18 gallons of oil/ac
>Yielding: Ethanol 214 gal/ac,  Corn oil 18 gal/ac 
> Sugar beet yield about 412 ethanol gal/ac
> Jerusalem artichokes yield about 1200 ethanol gal/ac
>divide by 3 harvests of head per year
>equals about 400 ethanol gal/ac (one harvest per year)
>
> Summarizing yield - about: 
>
> 232 gal/acre corn (maize) [ethanol and oil]
> 412 gal/acsugar beet [ethanol]
> 400 gal/acjerusalem artichokes [ethanol] (one harvest per year)
>
> The following keyed off of
> http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
> Yield - about:
>
>   18 gal/acre corn (maize) [oil] 
>   48 gal/ac   soybean [oil] 
>   61 gal/ac   mustard seed [oil] 
> 102 gal/ac   sunflowers [oil] 
> 127 gal/ac   rapeseed [oil] 
> 151 gal/ac   castor beans [oil] 
> 194 gal/ac   jojoba [oil] 
> 635 gal/ac   palm oil [oil] 
>
> Note: Btu values ?
>
> I've heard Jerusalem artichokes grow like weeds and
> may be a healthy tuber substitute for potatoes. 
> Any further thoughts or how to's ? 
>
> Again thank you in advance!
>
> (*) www.nwicc.cc.ia.us/module2.htm 
>
>
>
>`
>
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Biofuels list archives:
>http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
>Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Energy crops

[Harmon Seaver]

On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 01:21:22PM -0500, MH wrote:
>  I was thinking about energy from ethanol and oilseed
>  yields and how it relates to each other briefly
> 
>  Ethanol from corn, sugar beets
>  and Jerusalem artichokes keying off of 
>  Table 2. Average yield of 99.5 percent alcohol per acre**
>  
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/meCh3.html#alcoholyield
> 
>  NOTE: all based on US gallons/acre
> 
>  Corn yield about 214 ethanol gallons/acre
> divide by 2.5 gal/bushel equals 85.6 bu/ac
> and 1.5 (*) pounds of oil/bu divide by 7.0 lbs/gal equals
> 0.21 gal/bu multiply by 85.6 bu/ac equals 18 gallons of oil/ac
> Yielding: Ethanol 214 gal/ac,  Corn oil 18 gal/ac 
>  Sugar beet yield about 412 ethanol gal/ac
>  Jerusalem artichokes yield about 1200 ethanol gal/ac
> divide by 3 harvests of head per year
> equals about 400 ethanol gal/ac (one harvest per year)


   I think there might be an error here w/the jerusalem artichokes. I used to
have a small field of these, never saw much in the way of "heads" -- some small
sunflower like heads, but very small. Hard to imagine they would amount to
much. Perhaps if they used the whole tops, they grow fairly tall, about like
corn, so there's a bit of biomass available. And they might have some sugars,
the deer certainly loved them in the early Fall. But if you tried to cut the
tops several times, I doubt you'd get much of a tuber crop, and that's where the
real gold is, I think.
   Everything I've read talks about the amount of carbohydrates in the
tubers, not the tops. And at least in the northern midwest US you aren't going
to get more than one crop a year of the tubers, although they're pretty
productive. Hard to kill -- rototilling just spreads them. 
   Cattails look a lot more promising:
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/Typha.html

In Alcohol Week (October 20, 1980), there is a headline "DOE MAY FUND
CATTAILS-TO-ETHANOL TECHNOLOGY: SEES LOWER COST, BIG YIELDS". The unsolicited
proposal from a Florida Junior College suggests that one cattail crop will
produce 1,000?1,500 gals/acre/year, while two crops would bring 2,100 to 3,100,
and three crops 3,100?4,700 gals/acre, 



-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Energy crops

[Harmon Seaver]

   Check out the yeilds and energy section of this page:

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/Helianthus_tuberosus.html#Yields%20and%20Economicsus_tuberosus.html#Yields%20and%20Economics

-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Energy crops

[MH]

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> 
> Thanks for pointing out this link, it answers some questions for me, and 
> brings
> up others.
> 
> If the yield per ton graph which is on the same page brings out that different
> crops have different mass yields from different acreages, then I wonder if 
> this
> also ties in with a significant difference in the energy and fertilizer one 
> must
> invest in each of the crops to get it to harvest.  


 I wonder how you'd go about that. 

 In a book called: 
 "Consuming Power - A Social History of American Energies" (**)
 by David E. Nye (copyright 1998 reprinted 1999)
 The MIT Press 
 Cambridge, Massachusetts
 London, England

 it is written: "A man walking behind a plow traversed more than 8 miles
 to turn over an acre and more than 1300 miles to plow a quarter-section
 [160 acres].2  Tractors changed that, in conjunction with the
 Country Life Movement (which advocated the application of "scientific,
 standardized, and mechanized production which would increase food supplies
 and lower prices"3.  The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 sent extension agents
 into the countryside to educate farmers in scientific agriculture,
 but farmers were"  pg.188 

 "A two-plow tractor covered as much ground as eight horses could in a day,
 a three-plow tractor as much as eleven horses.10"  pg.188 


 Correct me but I believe a riding tractor requires 
 10 horse power per plow (dependent on plow size which 
 would vary time and energy required per acre). 
 

 ** Fascinating book mostly on USA energy expansion of the 1700's to 1990's
 from wood, wind, water, fossil fuels and nuclear. View at www.amazon.com/books 

 A chapter by chapter outline of notes from 
 http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/280/nye/

 Book review referencing noted authors with similar pursuits
 http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0113.shtml

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Energy crops

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

I guess I'd look at some sort of "average yield per acre in tons per
year" and then try to get decent numbers for "average fertilizer used
per acre" (or per ton if one can then translate via algebra) for a
given crop and "average number of gallons of fuel used in plowing per
acre (or per tone)".

I'm not knowledgable about farming, but I'm ok with numbers, so I
think it shouldn't be that hard to come up with some imperfect but
somewhat useable numbers given a variety of folks putting in where
they are knowledgable.

>> If the yield per ton graph which is on the same page brings out that 
>> different
>> crops have different mass yields from different acreages, then I wonder if 
>> this
>> also ties in with a significant difference in the energy and fertilizer one 
>> must
>> invest in each of the crops to get it to harvest.  
>
>
> I wonder how you'd go about that. 
>
> In a book called: 
> "Consuming Power - A Social History of American Energies" (**)
> by David E. Nye (copyright 1998 reprinted 1999)
> The MIT Press 
> Cambridge, Massachusetts
> London, England
>
> it is written: "A man walking behind a plow traversed more than 8 miles
> to turn over an acre and more than 1300 miles to plow a quarter-section
> [160 acres].2  Tractors changed that, in conjunction with the
> Country Life Movement (which advocated the application of "scientific,
> standardized, and mechanized production which would increase food supplies
> and lower prices"3.  The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 sent extension agents
> into the countryside to educate farmers in scientific agriculture,
> but farmers were"  pg.188 
>
> "A two-plow tractor covered as much ground as eight horses could in a day,
> a three-plow tractor as much as eleven horses.10"  pg.188 
>
>
> Correct me but I believe a riding tractor requires 
> 10 horse power per plow (dependent on plow size which 
> would vary time and energy required per acre). 


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Energy crops

[MH]

murdoch wrote:
I guess I'd look at some sort of "average yield per acre in tons per
year" and then try to get decent numbers for "average fertilizer used
per acre" (or per ton if one can then translate via algebra) for a
given crop and "average number of gallons of fuel used in plowing per
acre (or per tone)".

I'm not knowledgable about farming, but I'm ok with numbers, so I
think it shouldn't be that hard to come up with some imperfect but
somewhat useable numbers given a variety of folks putting in where
they are knowledgable.

>> If the yield per ton graph which is on the same page brings out that 
>> different
>> crops have different mass yields from different acreages, then I wonder if 
>> this
>> also ties in with a significant difference in the energy and fertilizer one 
>> must
>> invest in each of the crops to get it to harvest.  


MH wrote: 
My response reflected upon the energy and fertilizer part of the equation 
albeit shit to shine ohla.A cooperative effort of sorts 
as we equate or reflect upon the interdependence of botany and biology.
I also aqueous for the knowledge we languish for.  The list has provided 
links to many sources available at the [biofuel] library. 
Some -- time withstanding (which I have yet to read).  

> I wonder how you'd go about that. 
>
> In a book called: 
> "Consuming Power - A Social History of American Energies" (**)
> by David E. Nye (copyright 1998 reprinted 1999)
> The MIT Press 
> Cambridge, Massachusetts
> London, England
>
> it is written: "A man walking behind a plow traversed more than 8 miles
> to turn over an acre and more than 1300 miles to plow a quarter-section
> [160 acres].2  Tractors changed that, in conjunction with the
> Country Life Movement (which advocated the application of "scientific,
> standardized, and mechanized production which would increase food supplies
> and lower prices"3.  The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 sent extension agents
> into the countryside to educate farmers in scientific agriculture,
> but farmers were"  pg.188 
>
> "A two-plow tractor covered as much ground as eight horses could in a day,
> a three-plow tractor as much as eleven horses.10"  pg.188 
>
>
> Correct me but I believe a riding tractor requires 
> 10 horse power per plow (dependent on plow size which 
> would vary time and energy required per acre).
>  
> 
>  ** Fascinating book mostly on USA energy expansion of the 1700's to 1990's
>  from wood, wind, water, fossil fuels and nuclear. View at 
> www.amazon.com/books
> 
>  A chapter by chapter outline of notes from
>  http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/280/nye/
> 
>  Book review referencing noted authors with similar pursuits
>  http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0113.shtml


>> That is, you focused on the
>> energy yield per acre.  This gets me partway home but not all the way home.  
>> If
>> I wish to focus on energy yield per energy invested, then I need to add other
>> data.  Then of course I can always treat it with a grain of salt, since 
>> data's
>> only as good as treating it with some care.

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] energy modesty

[Freed]

Hi Folks,
I am new on the list. I am most interested in alcohol production since I don't
have a diesel engine. As a daily driver I have a 30 year old economy car, a
Rambler. I rebuilt the motor so the thing runs great and it is so simple with
power nothing. I have also considered converting it to LP too but that is on a
side burner.
I am on an AMC list, and on another and in both places they are crying about the
price of gas.
I just had to ask them who's fault it was Americans drove gas hogs and
consistently refused to develop alternative energy sources. Whose fault is it
that we live so far from work in oversized homes? The increase in gas prices is
a GOOD thing! Far out! The price of gas so far does not reflect the true cost.
And I think I got a 25% positive response, with more minds thinking about it.
I am still stumped on the whole economy thing. Do we really have to sell cars
and stuff that breaks so we can go to work to pay for cars and the stuff that
broke, or do we really just want to maintain a place for people to go during the
daytime?
We have enough food, soap, hot water, good books, and productive hobbies for
everyone, so what's up?
OK, so sometimes I forget what planet I am on.
Thanks for all the great posts and keep up the good work!

Jay Z. Freed
Carson City NV

Keith Addison wrote:

> Fwd from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> From: "Albrecht Kaupp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hi folks,
> Wandering in between three homes and living alternatively in in the USA,
> India and Germany, and by my profession and believe would qualify as a
> Democrat/Ecofascist as defined by Dave, I see this whole discussion a bit
> more relaxed. It is a matter of being brainwashed for too long that high
> energy consumption and low energy costs have something to do with quality of
> life. I wonder why  there are no riots in the streets of Germany at a
> gasoline price of 4 US$ per gallon with diesel,LPG and N-gas not much lower.
> I also can't see the industry collapsing, people starving, or quality of
> life falling apart because the country is highly energy efficient. Is the
> industry and economy in the USA so weak that they can't even handle US$ 4
> per gallon or doubeling LPG costs.
>
> Here in India most of the professionals tell me every day that energy
> efficiency by itself won't help anyway. It is a matter of the sum of energy
> efficiency and energy modesty. At the end of the day a highly energy
> efficient state-of-the-art LARGE american refrigerator will use up 2.8 kWh
> per electricity while the inefficient Indian SMALL refrigerator will use up
> 1.8 kWh. Of course the Americans ,the Germans and a few others are madly
> trying to tell the Indians how inefficient this fridge is. The trouble is
> that such an advise is not very much respected and accepted from us, whom
> have totally forgotten about energy modesty bragging too much about energy
> efficiency.
>
> Albrecht Kaupp
> Senior Advisor
> Indo-German Energy Efficiency and Environment Project, IGEEP
> 21 Jor Bagh, New Delhi 110 003, India
> Tel +91-11-4603832-6 or +91-11-6864867 to 68
> Fax +91-11-4603831 or +1-801-340-7905 (USA)
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] energy modesty

[Keith Addison]

Hello Jay

>Hi Folks,
>I am new on the list.

Welcome!

>I am most interested in alcohol production since I don't
>have a diesel engine. As a daily driver I have a 30 year old economy car, a
>Rambler. I rebuilt the motor so the thing runs great and it is so simple with
>power nothing. I have also considered converting it to LP too but that is on a
>side burner.
>I am on an AMC list, and on another and in both places they are 
>crying about the
>price of gas.
>I just had to ask them who's fault it was Americans drove gas hogs and
>consistently refused to develop alternative energy sources. Whose fault is it
>that we live so far from work in oversized homes? The increase in 
>gas prices is
>a GOOD thing!

Hey-hey! A rare voice indeed! Good for you, keep it up.

>Far out! The price of gas so far does not reflect the true cost.
>And I think I got a 25% positive response, with more minds thinking about it.
>I am still stumped on the whole economy thing. Do we really have to sell cars
>and stuff that breaks so we can go to work to pay for cars and the stuff that
>broke, or do we really just want to maintain a place for people to 
>go during the
>daytime?
>We have enough food, soap, hot water, good books, and productive hobbies for
>everyone, so what's up?
>OK, so sometimes I forget what planet I am on.

I'm on Planet Japan! Anyway, we both belong on this planet, but I'm 
not so sure about the people who tell us all this stuff. You have to 
ask, Who benefits, and at whose expense? The answers are usually the 
opposite of what we get told all the time. And fairly clear-cut.

I think we could add "consumption modesty" to "energy modesty". Do we 
really need more than just basic needs (which about 1.2 billion 
people don't have)? Or just want more? At whose expense? Quite a few 
billion people reckon it's at their expense. And who's telling us to 
"want"? And why? Could also be very much at our expense.

Well, you're not alone. Rather rapid growth in the Voluntary 
Simplicity movement, along with homesteading and more, same sort of 
thinking even if it might come from a different direction.

>Thanks for all the great posts and keep up the good work!

And you. All best

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Tokyo
http://journeytoforever.org/



>Jay Z. Freed
>Carson City NV
>
>Keith Addison wrote:
>
> > Fwd from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > From: "Albrecht Kaupp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Hi folks,
> > Wandering in between three homes and living alternatively in in the USA,
> > India and Germany, and by my profession and believe would qualify as a
> > Democrat/Ecofascist as defined by Dave, I see this whole discussion a bit
> > more relaxed. It is a matter of being brainwashed for too long that high
> > energy consumption and low energy costs have something to do with 
>quality of
> > life. I wonder why  there are no riots in the streets of Germany at a
> > gasoline price of 4 US$ per gallon with diesel,LPG and N-gas not 
>much lower.
> > I also can't see the industry collapsing, people starving, or quality of
> > life falling apart because the country is highly energy efficient. Is the
> > industry and economy in the USA so weak that they can't even handle US$ 4
> > per gallon or doubeling LPG costs.
> >
> > Here in India most of the professionals tell me every day that energy
> > efficiency by itself won't help anyway. It is a matter of the sum of energy
> > efficiency and energy modesty. At the end of the day a highly energy
> > efficient state-of-the-art LARGE american refrigerator will use up 2.8 kWh
> > per electricity while the inefficient Indian SMALL refrigerator will use up
> > 1.8 kWh. Of course the Americans ,the Germans and a few others are madly
> > trying to tell the Indians how inefficient this fridge is. The trouble is
> > that such an advise is not very much respected and accepted from us, whom
> > have totally forgotten about energy modesty bragging too much about energy
> > efficiency.
> >
> > Albrecht Kaupp
> > Senior Advisor
> > Indo-German Energy Efficiency and Environment Project, IGEEP
> > 21 Jor Bagh, New Delhi 110 003, India
> > Tel +91-11-4603832-6 or +91-11-6864867 to 68
> > Fax +91-11-4603831 or +1-801-340-7905 (USA)
> > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy modesty "immoral"

[Keith Addison]

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environ/20010511/t39764.html

Friday, May 11, 2001 |  Print this story

Nonprofit Shrugs at Pleas to Conserve
  Power: Ayn Rand Institute blasts calls to use less electricity. 
Utility and government officials defend conservation.

By BOB POOL, Times Staff Writer

 Their other electricity customers may be following the Southern 
California Edison Co.'s plea to conserve electricity during the 
current energy crisis.
 But don't expect anyone to be going room-to-room flipping off 
lights and turning down air conditioning in a fourth-floor suite at 
one Marina del Rey office building.
 That kind of conservation is "immoral" and "un-American," say 
those working at the Ayn Rand Institute international headquarters on 
Admiralty Way.
 The 15-year-old nonprofit group is run by devotees of novelist 
and philosopher Ayn Rand, who died in 1982. It is a clearinghouse and 
educational center for those who embrace Rand's theories of 
individualism and laissez-faire capitalism.
 Her philosophy, Rand wrote, "is the concept of man as a heroic 
being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with 
productive achievement as his noblest activity."
 Rand--whose first name rhymes with mine--is best known for the 
novels "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged," which together have 
sold 20 million copies.
 Institute leaders are blasting calls for electricity 
conservation and the executive order issued last week by President 
Bush that directs operators of federal buildings in California to 
reduce energy consumption.
 "Expecting the American people to lower their standard of living 
is an immoral idea," said Yaron Brook, the institute's executive 
director.
 "Conservation is not a long- or short-term solution to the 
energy crisis. Conservation is the un-American idea of resigning 
oneself to doing with less--like a sick person who stops seeking a 
cure and resigns himself to living with his illness." Instead, he 
said, market forces should prevail to increase power supplies and 
reduce demand.
 On Thursday, Brook's statements surprised officials pleading 
with Californians to turn off lights and reduce air conditioning to 
help prevent rolling blackouts.
 " 'Un-American?' I've never heard that before," said Tom Boyd, 
an Edison spokesman. "We and other utilities are urging our customers 
to conserve electricity and use it wisely."
 Lori O'Donley, a spokeswoman for the California Independent 
System Operator, the agency that monitors power consumption and 
orders rolling blackouts when supplies run low, said that "there are 
times we feel conservation has made a difference" in calling or not 
calling for blackouts.
 A White House spokeswoman said President Bush stands by his call 
for conservation.
 "The president believes the federal government should do its 
part. He takes the energy crisis in California very seriously and 
believes it is right and appropriate to explore how we can conserve 
energy," Claire Buchan said.
 Brook disagrees.
 The 40-year-old former Santa Clara University finance professor 
has headed the institute since last August. It has 16 staffers and 
operates on a $3-million annual budget financed by about 4,000 
contributors--all firm believers in Ayn Rand's philosophy.
 Brook said he was a teenager living in Israel when he read 
"Atlas Shrugged" and was immediately converted from the concept of 
socialism to capitalism.
 By coincidence, that novel features a countrywide blackout that 
is the result of massive government economic regulation. Rand writes 
on page 1,075 of towns "reduced to the life of those ages in which 
artificial light was an exorbitant luxury and a sunset put an end to 
human activity."
 The towns were ruined by "rations, quotas, controls and 
power-conservation rules."
 Brook said the institute's Marina del Rey headquarters has thus 
far been spared blackouts. But at his Tustin home, he and his wife 
and two children turn off lights when they aren't needed.
 "I do it because I don't want to pay higher electricity bills," 
he said with a laugh. "I don't want to pay for something I don't use."

Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] energy budget ?'s

[Freed]

Hi Folks,
Does anyone know a good source of energy statistics? I am interested
particularly in what % of US energy use is used in cars and trucks. (I
heard 75% somewhere.) How much more is used to make and service them?
Sheesh!
I had a look around but there is so much stuff to sort through. They may
not really want people to know. (The same "They" that is responsible for
our conspicuous energy use, the "Jones'"?)
Thanks,
Jay in Reno


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy & Enviro News

[Common Purpose]

During the past several weeks, The New York Times had several 
excellent news stories on Energy & The
Environment:

(1)  President Bush on Energy and Environmental Policies.  Go to:
http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/news/nytbushenergy.html

Archive stories on Bush and Energy Policy:
New York Times:  http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/news/nytbushenergy2.html
Cato Institute (criticism from a very conservative source): 
http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-29-00.html

(2)  New York Times Editorial on Bush and the Environment:  Go to:
http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/news/nytbushenergypolicy1.html

(3)  What we can expect from Gov. Whitman as head of the EPA.  Go to:
http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/news/nytwhitman.html

(4)  President Jimmy Carter OP/ED on oil drilling in Alaska:  Go to:
http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/news/nytbushvscarter.html

Archived stories on environmental problems from oil drilling:  Go to:
Alaska -- http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/nytalaskaoil1.html
Louisiana --  http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/news/LApollution1.html
Louisiana --  http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/news/LApollution2.html
Amazon Rain Forest --  http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/news/texaco.html

-
SPECIAL SECTION ON COAL MINING:

The New York Times also covered a major coal mining accident in 
Kentucky (much larger than the
Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska).  Go to 
http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/news/nytcoal1.html

We also have several excellent archive stories on environmental 
problems with coal mining:
Go to:  http://wvgazette.com/static/series/mining/index.html 
(mountain top strip mining)

National Public Radio features on coal mining (requires that you have 
Real Audio):
Go to:  http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc/19991109.atc.16.ram
Go to:  http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc/19980901.atc.13.ram

---
Unsubscribing from our mailing list is really easy, and takes about 5 
seconds.  Just go to
http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/services.html

Biofuel at Journey to Forever: 
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
To unsubscribe, send an email to: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [biofuel] Energy dependence

[MH]

> o2moron2002 wrote:
> These statements from Exxon's chairman are expected but it's annoying
> all the same.  Particularly frustrating to me is his statement that:
> 
> "If we do not, as a nation, explore and develop energy from
> prospective areas in the U.S., and remain committed to use energy
> more efficiently, the consequence will be even greater dependence on
> energy from areas such as the Middle East," Raymond said.
> 
> I don't see much committment to energy efficiency in the US.  Tract
> housing is built with poor insulation and no attention to
> conservation principles, our automobile fleets are less efficient now
> than a decade ago...  our inefficiency IS the problem.  Here's the
> whole article:
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/international/exxon_mobil.reut/
> 
> -Gordon


 Exxon Chief Says Independence from Middle East Oil a Myth -- 
 "One of Bush's favorite lines for promoting drilling in ANWR and giving
 away drilling rights to other public lands is that it will make the US
 "independent" from Middle East oil. But now an exec at Exxon Mobil
 says this line is a "myth." "We do not have the resource base to be
 energy independent," Exxon Mobil chairman Lee Raymond said Monday
 in a speech in which he outlined some of what he called the "hard
 truths" about global energy markets. Raymond said that while other
 countries, including Russia, will play a growing role in supplying oil to
 the world, the Middle East will remain the center of supply because it
 holds as much as half of the world's oil reserves. "We simply cannot
 avoid significant reliance on oil and gas from the Middle East because
 the world's supply pool [of oil] is highly dependent upon the Middle
 East." The only REAL energy independence will come from Kerry's plan
 to aggressively pursue alternative energy strategies." 

 Exxon chief dispels myth of energy independence in US
 AP , WASHINGTON 
 Wednesday, Jun 09, 2004, Page 12 
 http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2004/06/09/2003174411

 The idea of American energy independence is a myth and the US must
 maintain "constructive relationships" with oil-producing countries for
 its own prosperity, the head of petroleum giant Exxon Mobil Corp said.

 "We do not have the resource base to be energy independent," Exxon Mobil
 chairman Lee Raymond said Monday in a speech in which he outlined some of
 what he called the "hard truths" about global energy markets.

 Raymond, who runs the world's largest publicly traded oil company, said
 that while other countries, including Russia, will play a growing role in
 supplying oil to the world, the Middle East will remain the center of
 supply because it holds as much as half of the world's oil reserves.

 "We simply cannot avoid significant reliance on oil and gas from the Middle
 East because the world's supply pool [of oil] is highly dependent upon the
 Middle East," Raymond said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International
 Center for Scholars.

 The fact that the US and the rest of the world will have to depend
 increasingly for its oil and also for natural gas from Middle East,
 "is not a matter of ideology or politics," he said. "It is simply inevitable."

 Raymond scoffed at suggestions -- heard commonly among politicians in
 Washington -- of energy independence.

 "We periodically hear calls for US energy independence as if this were a
 real option," he said. "The fact is, the United States is a part of the
 world energy market and we must participate and compete in that market."

 At a time when relations with some major oil producers such as Saudi
 Arabia and Venezuela are strained, Raymond said the US must work to 
"maintain appropriate and constructive relationships with oil-rich
 countries in the future. They will be very important for our
 prosperity and our security."

 Exxon Mobil earned a record US$21.5 billion last year, nearly double the
 previous year, and also reported record earnings during the first quarter
 of this year as crude oil and gasoline prices soared.

 Raymond predicted that fossil fuels -- coal, oil and natural gas -- will
 continue to provide most of the energy for many decades.
 ---


 "Timeline of Bush Administration's Recent Interest in
 Taking the War on Terror to Malaysia/Indonesia"
 07-Jun-04
 Foreign Relations
 March 14, 2004: Huge oil field is discovered off the coast of Malaysia
   "potentially the country's most significant in years..."
   
http://www.aseanenergy.org/information/news_service/2004/march/41st_issue/news_09.htm
 
 Early May: Straits of Malacca (between Malaysia and Indonesia) accused by US of
   being hotbeds of piracy. Bush admin proposes sending troops to area. 
 May 7: Malaysian and Indonesian reject US troops in the Straits.
   http://www.unobserver.com/layout4.php?id=1660&blz=1 
 June 5: Donald Rumsfeld, at Singapore conference, pushes for
   "war on terrorism" to be carried into SE Asia. Tells US Naval
   troops he expects them to be "hunting 

RE: [Biofuel] Energy content

[Bede]

coconuts one of the best yielding and easiest to grow..
, although its worth more per liter for cosmetics (shampoo soap etc)
and cooking oil.
how ever the whole dehusking bit is some what tiresome...

I gave it a go a few weeks ago..
It does help you build up upper body strength =D

see http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of james porakari
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 5:26 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: [Biofuel] Energy content



Dear all,

Anyone can anyone help me to find information on
energy content of palm oil and Kernel oil and also
coconut oil. I am doing a research on bifuels as
alternatives in Solmon Islands (South Pacific). I am
student at University of South Pacific, Fiji.

Thanks,

James


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/




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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Energy content

[bob allen]

James, the energy content of all vegetable and animal fat/oil is about 9 
kCalories/gram or about 38 kJoules/gram.

james porakari wrote:


Dear all,

Anyone can anyone help me to find information on
energy content of palm oil and Kernel oil and also
coconut oil. I am doing a research on bifuels as
alternatives in Solmon Islands (South Pacific). I am
student at University of South Pacific, Fiji.




--
Bob Allen
http://ozarker.org/bob

"Science is what we have learned about how to keep
from fooling ourselves" — Richard Feynman

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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Energy content

[Tom Irwin]

Hi James,
 
If you are looking for oil production per hectare then I believe palm oil is at the top of the list. Check the archieves for more info.
 
Tom Irwin


From: bob allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:50:12 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Energy contentJames, the energy content of all vegetable and animal fat/oil is about 9 kCalories/gram or about 38 kJoules/gram.james porakari wrote:> Dear all,> > Anyone can anyone help me to find information on> energy content of palm oil and Kernel oil and also> coconut oil. I am doing a research on bifuels as> alternatives in Solmon Islands (South Pacific). I am> student at University of South Pacific, Fiji.> -- Bob Allenhttp://ozarker.org/bob"Science is what we have learned about how to keepfrom fooling ourselves" — Richard Feynman___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [biofuel] Energy Balance

[Tilapia]

Hello Lyle,

I've ben working on this issue for a while. Here are my conclusions.
>From the references given below, we have a methodology for calculating the 
Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI, although some folks have other 
acronyms) for soy biodiesel. The generally agreed number is 3.2, that is, the 
fuel 
yields 3.2 times the amount of energy used to make it. These are the inputs:

  Energy Input 
Process Stage  MegaJoules/t  MBTU/gal
Production of rapeseed oil  57%  16356   51.7
Tranportation 3%  5111.6
Esterification 35%  5706   18.0
Plant construction & maintenance 1%  1620.5
Storage  1%  2140.7
Distribution 3%  4981.6
   
Totals  100% 23447   74.1

For WVO biodiesel, we get to eliminate at least the first item, production. 
Using the other energy inputs, this yields an ERoEI of 5.26, which is my 
working number at this time. If one were to collect the WVO with a biodiesel 
operated truck, and use biofuels for the operation of the processing plant, 
distribution, etc, this number could be somewhat higher.


This is the web site for the short version: 
http://www.afdc.doe.gov/pdfs/3812.pdf
This is the web site for the lengthy version: 
http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/lifecycle_pdf.html

Shaine Tyson of the NREL writes
The life cycle analysis for yellow grease is based on the soy life cycle 
analysis.€žOnce the oil is produced and hydrogenated for cooking, it will be 
prorated based on the price of hydrogenated soybean oil and the price of yellow 
grease.€žThat means all the energy inputs used to produce hydrogenated soybean 
oil will be divided into two parts and only the part associated with yellow 
grease value will be used to determine the energy balance of yellow grease.€žTo 
that we will add the collection, transportation, filtering and drying, and 
esterification, biodiesel transportation, and yellow grease emissions.€žThe 
energy 
balance for yellow grease biodiesel will probably be better than that for soy 
biodiesel, not less.€‹

Hope this helps.

Tom

In a message dated 3/9/04 5:17:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


> Dear list,
> 
> My understanding is that biodiesel claims an energy balance of around
> 3:1, which I understand to mean that for every btu going into its
> creation, it returns 3 btus.
> 
> If this is correct, what is the energy balance of fuel made from WVO?€‹> 
> Surely I can charge the energy necessary for growing, harvesting,
> crushing and delivering to the french fry, can't I?
> 
> And my final question is that of going "off grid."€žAt present I use
> both electricity and propane in my production process.€žIf I replaced
> them with a biodeisel generator and some solar thermal, what would that
> do to my energy balance?
> 
> Is there a quick way to calculate answers to such questions?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Lyle Estill
> V.P., Stuff
> Piedmont Biofuels
> www.biofuels.coop
> 






-
Homestead Inc.
www.yellowbiodiesel.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




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

Biofuels list archives:
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [biofuel] Energy Balance

[Sid4Salmon]

Dear Lyle and Friends:


Some help from Homer perhaps?

www.nrel.gov/homer


Best regards,
Sid. Clouston




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

[Biofuel] Energy Policy: DOA

[Appal Energy]

  Energy Policy: DOA

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050908/energy_policy_doa.php


Michael T. Klare





September 08, 2005

/Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world-security studies at 
Hampshire College, and the author of/ Blood and Oil: The Dangers and 
Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum 
/(Metropolitan Books, 2004). This article originally appeared in the/ 
South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

*Of the many lessons to be learned* from the effects of Hurricane 
Katrina, none is perhaps more important over the long run than the 
obvious need for a new national energy strategy.

The existing strategy announced with great fanfare by President Bush in 
May 2001 has now collapsed. It's been swept away like so many 
under-strength dikes around New Orleans. As a result, every American 
will face the pain of suddenly much higher gasoline prices and home 
heating costs, along with other economic liabilities. As we strive to 
rebuild New Orleans and other Gulf Coast communities, we must also 
construct a new energy plan that will better serve our needs.

Bush's 2001 plan has one overriding goal: to increase the supply and 
consumption of petroleum through any means necessary. "The goals of this 
strategy are clear: to ensure a steady supply of affordable energy for 
America's homes and businesses and industries," Bush intoned on May 17, 
2001.

To achieve this objective, the administration called for increased oil 
drilling in the U.S., particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, the only area 
of the nation believed capable of supplying increased yields in the 
years ahead (given the anticipated decline in output from most other 
fields).

That the Gulf is a major magnet for hurricanes doesn't appear to have 
figured in this calculation.

To further boost supply, the administration has favored oil drilling in 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, and increased reliance on 
imports from the Middle East, Africa and the Caspian Sea basin. So far, 
Congress has refused to allow drilling on ANWR, so our reliance on 
imported supplies has continued to soar.

Imports now account for nearly 60 percent of our total supply. Because 
political conditions in many of the producing areas have been 
consistently turbulent, to say the least, output in these countries has 
been inadequate to meet global needs, hence the surge in gasoline prices 
seen before the Gulf Coast devastation.

While favoring increased oil drilling at home and greater reliance on 
imports from abroad, the administration plan has done virtually nothing 
to promote conservation in energy use by the American people. As Vice 
President Dick Cheney sneered in a meeting with reporters: "Conservation 
may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a 
sound, comprehensive energy policy."

If anything, the administration's plan invited increased profligacy. The 
disgracefully low fuel-efficiency standards imposed on SUVs and other 
"light trucks" were left untouched, and many super gas guzzlers, like 
the Hummer, were exempted from such standards altogether.

Astonishingly, the most recent efficiency standards proposed by the 
White House announced just one week before Katrina struck will further 
encourage the production and sale of super guzzlers.

As a result of this lack of effort to constrain demand, America's 
consumption of petroleum has risen steadily during the administration's 
term in office. It reached a record of 20.7 million barrels per day in 
early 2005. And this at a time when global oil output has begun to show 
signs of a protracted slowdown.

The causes of this slowdown are many: declining output in many older 
fields; a failure to discover any large new fields; chronic instability 
in the Middle East and other key producing regions. But one thing is 
clear: Nothing can be done, certainly not in the short run, and perhaps 
never to reverse this decline. There is only one sure way out of this 
trap: increased energy conservation. And that is precisely the path 
rejected by the White House.

Now, in Katrina's wake, we have to start over. The U.S. needs a new 
energy strategy that emphasizes conservation and the alternative fuels. 
As a first step, Congress must impose substantially higher minimum 
fuel-efficiency requirements for all vehicles, but especially for SUVs 
and light trucks (which now enjoy much lower requirements than ordinary 
cars). Other measures, like reduced speed limits and bigger incentives 
for driving hybrids and using public transit, should also be considered.

Most important, we need a long-term strategy that weans us off fossil 
fuels like oil and natural gas and moves us toward the fuels of the 
future whether derived from biomass (ethanol), hydrogen or some other 
potential source. Aside from rebuilding New

[Biofuel] energy story at oildrum

[Kirk McLoren]

++
| On Electricity (Generation)|
|   from the looking-at-tomorrow dept.   |
|   posted by Hemos on Monday January 29, @10:54 (Power) |
|   http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/29/1228200 |
++

Engineer-Poet wrote a piece a few months back that focuses on
[0]electricity production; or rather how or what we will need to do to
keep pace with people's demands while balancing that with environmental
and economic impact. Lengthy but well-reasoned and good reading.

Discuss this story at:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=07/01/29/1228200

Links:
0. http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/27/0432/3533


 
-
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go 
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Energy from waves

[Erik Lane]

It's kind of funny to me that they talk about the disadvantages of
other approaches to creating power from waves and the corrosiveness of
salt water when their system uses so many mechanical parts exposed to
the ocean. Steel cables, pulleys, pipes for the cables to run in -
doesn't sound like they'd hold up any better than any other system,
and far worse than some.

There's some research going on here in Oregon that is looking promising:

http://eecs.oregonstate.edu/wesrf/

Erik

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:54 PM, bmolloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds a bit Heath Robinson but nevertheless workable.
>
>
>
>  _
>
>
>
> http://www.wavepartner.eu/page_1219330357093.html
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080906/17fd45c5/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] Energy from waves

[Chip Mefford]

I've always been really leery of wave energy schemes.

Not that I think they are a scam, or anything like that. I've
read some of the science, lotta available power there.

However, everything I read concerning tide/wave power assumes that
the available power is going to waste if not 'harvested'.

And I mean everything.

I don't have any reason to assume a contrary position. However,
I've yet to observe /anything/ 'natural' that was a true artifact,
waste product in nature. We live pretty much in a solar powered
sealed-up system. Very little is actual waste, esp energy.

We've assumed that other energies were going to waste before.
rivers come to mind. The consequences of that assumption were
certainly predictable by a very few at the time, but for most
no one even thought about it. Free power, what else do you need
to know?

What are the consequences of this harvest? I don't even hear
anyone even asking that question.

-- 
Chip Mefford

Before Enlightenment;
   chop wood
   carry water
After Enlightenment;
   chop wood
   carry water
-
Public Key
http://www.well.com/user/cpm

___
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] Energy from waves

[Erik Lane]

> Not that I think they are a scam, or anything like that. I've
> read some of the science, lotta available power there.
>
> However, everything I read concerning tide/wave power assumes that
> the available power is going to waste if not 'harvested'.
>
> And I mean everything.
>
> I don't have any reason to assume a contrary position. However,
> I've yet to observe /anything/ 'natural' that was a true artifact,
> waste product in nature. We live pretty much in a solar powered
> sealed-up system. Very little is actual waste, esp energy.
>
> We've assumed that other energies were going to waste before.
> rivers come to mind. The consequences of that assumption were
> certainly predictable by a very few at the time, but for most
> no one even thought about it. Free power, what else do you need
> to know?
>
> What are the consequences of this harvest? I don't even hear
> anyone even asking that question.


Not that I have anything printed to point to, but I visited them down
at OSU where they are working on this since I'm planning to go to
school there. I got to chat with them for a bit and meet some of the
graduate students. At least one of the PhD candidates that I met is
studying the impact on the environment of the EMF from the buoy, and
the professors made mention of quite a few other graduate students in
other fields who were using the buoys as the subject of their PhD
work. Specifically on the environmental impacts. Ocean engineers were
studying impacts on waves as well as the impact of the anchors on the
ocean floor. There could be more, I don't know, but I was impressed
with how careful they were trying to be.

So yes, at least some of them are addressing questions about how using
this energy will impact the world around us.

If you would like I could send an email to the professors asking for
clarifications on any of these points as well as asking for
references, if possible. But right now they're busy out in the ocean
with a buoy deployment. (I believe they leave it in the water for a
few weeks and study it every day or something.) So I don't know their
exact schedule, but it might take quite a while to get an answer back.

Erik

___
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] Energy from waves

[Dawie Coetzee]

Hi Chip.

"I've yet to observe /anything/ 'natural' that was a true artifact, waste 
product in nature. We live pretty much in a solar powered sealed-up system. 
Very little is actual waste, esp energy." That's an extremely interesting 
concept, one that very few people are getting their heads around. It calls into 
question the very notion of efficiency as regards any discrete component in the 
system. The misconception is that unit-efficiencies all add up to an overall 
system stability, which they don't: the fuel-value of manure is my favourite 
example. If a water buffalo were really a paragon of "beautiful natural 
efficiency" its excrement would not burn; but a water buffalo is not that but 
rather a paragon of appropriateness to an overall systemic efficiency: for 
which it needs a specific level of efficiency and inefficiency.

My fear is that the recent drive to hitherto unheard-of technological 
efficiencies for ostensibly ecological reasons will merely dig our ecological 
hole even deeper. Note that they are always unit-efficiencies, never systemic 
efficiencies.

Best regards

Dawie Coetzee




- Original Message 
From: Chip Mefford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, 10 September, 2008 18:04:18
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Energy from waves


I've always been really leery of wave energy schemes.

Not that I think they are a scam, or anything like that. I've
read some of the science, lotta available power there.

However, everything I read concerning tide/wave power assumes that
the available power is going to waste if not 'harvested'.

And I mean everything.

I don't have any reason to assume a contrary position. However,
I've yet to observe /anything/ 'natural' that was a true artifact,
waste product in nature. We live pretty much in a solar powered
sealed-up system. Very little is actual waste, esp energy.

We've assumed that other energies were going to waste before.
rivers come to mind. The consequences of that assumption were
certainly predictable by a very few at the time, but for most
no one even thought about it. Free power, what else do you need
to know?

What are the consequences of this harvest? I don't even hear
anyone even asking that question.

-- 
Chip Mefford

Before Enlightenment;
  chop wood
  carry water
After Enlightenment;
  chop wood
  carry water
-
Public Key
http://www.well.com/user/cpm

___
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/20080911/fec2f8f9/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

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

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

Re: [Biofuel] Energy from waves

[Chandan Haldar]

Just like we are always trying to "green" the "waste"lands :-).

Chandan


Dawie Coetzee wrote:
> Hi Chip.
> 
> "I've yet to observe /anything/ 'natural' that was a true artifact, waste 
> product in nature. We live pretty much in a solar powered sealed-up system. 
> Very little is actual waste, esp energy." That's an extremely interesting 
> concept, one that very few people are getting their heads around. It calls 
> into question the very notion of efficiency as regards any discrete component 
> in the system. The misconception is that unit-efficiencies all add up to an 
> overall system stability, which they don't: the fuel-value of manure is my 
> favourite example. If a water buffalo were really a paragon of "beautiful 
> natural efficiency" its excrement would not burn; but a water buffalo is not 
> that but rather a paragon of appropriateness to an overall systemic 
> efficiency: for which it needs a specific level of efficiency and 
> inefficiency.
> 
> My fear is that the recent drive to hitherto unheard-of technological 
> efficiencies for ostensibly ecological reasons will merely dig our ecological 
> hole even deeper. Note that they are always unit-efficiencies, never systemic 
> efficiencies.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Dawie Coetzee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message 
> From: Chip Mefford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 September, 2008 18:04:18
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Energy from waves
> 
> 
> I've always been really leery of wave energy schemes.
> 
> Not that I think they are a scam, or anything like that. I've
> read some of the science, lotta available power there.
> 
> However, everything I read concerning tide/wave power assumes that
> the available power is going to waste if not 'harvested'.
> 
> And I mean everything.
> 
> I don't have any reason to assume a contrary position. However,
> I've yet to observe /anything/ 'natural' that was a true artifact,
> waste product in nature. We live pretty much in a solar powered
> sealed-up system. Very little is actual waste, esp energy.
> 
> We've assumed that other energies were going to waste before.
> rivers come to mind. The consequences of that assumption were
> certainly predictable by a very few at the time, but for most
> no one even thought about it. Free power, what else do you need
> to know?
> 
> What are the consequences of this harvest? I don't even hear
> anyone even asking that question.
> 

___
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] energy and the future

[Kirk McLoren]

http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/5627
 
great website to explore
Kirk


A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20090802/ab9bacd3/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] Energy Efficient MotorRally, anyone?

[gleemevent]

Hi everyone,  
Does anyone know of an EarthDay event somewhere in the country, like 
this one in Michigan?  

The Great Lakes Energy Efficient MotorRally ö GLEEM2003.com ö this 
delivers a clean-vehicles curriculum learning tool to middle schools, 
then wraps up the week with cruises to EarthDay events in Kalamazoo 
(on April 26) and Lansing (on April 27).  FREE event tee shirts to 
owners of hybrids, E85's, biodielsels, CNG, and Electric vehicles who 
join in one of the legs of the tour on 26th or 27th.  

I  would really like to communicate with other projects like this to 
try and build a much bigger regional event for next year.  

Douglas Black ö project coordinator




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for 
Trying!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] energy conversion data research

[murdoch]

I found a particularly interesting page in the course of attempting to
follow up on my earlier posts on the issue of energy densities per
unit volume and mass and biodiesel and #2 diesel.

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html

Some excerpts:

Note that the energy content (heating value) of petroleum products per
unit mass is fairly constant, but their density differs significantly
ö hence the energy content of a liter, gallon, etc. varies between
gasoline, diesel, kerosene. 

and also here:

Energy contents are expressed here as Lower Heating Value (LHV) unless
otherwise stated (this is closest to the actual energy yield in most
cases). Higher Heating Value (HHV, including condensation of
combustion products) is greater by between 5% (in the case of coal)
and 10% (for natural gas), depending mainly on the hydrogen content of
the fuel. For most biomass feedstocks this difference appears to be
6-7%. The appropriateness of using LHV or HHV when comparing fuels,
calculating thermal efficiencies, etc. really depends upon the
application. For stationary combustion where exhaust gases are cooled
before discharging (e.g. power stations), HHV is more appropriate.
Where no attempt is made to extract useful work from hot exhaust gases
(e.g. motor vehicles), the LHV is more suitable. In practice, many
European publications report LHV, whereas North American publications
use HHV. 


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] "Energy plan mathematics"

[Hakan]

Hi MM,

Price hikes through taxes on fossil fuel with exempt for
biofuels is a very good approach and the one that EU are
partly working on.

It is effective, but the problem is that you have to be elected
first. I do not think that a candidate for president can run on a
promise to double the fuel price by taxes and limit the Americans
to drive their precious cars. It would be a correct move, but I am
afraid that he would not be elected. It would create a large use
of biofuels and production, but to move fast it had to decentralize
the production and the oil companies would fight it.

It is many things possible to reduce the independence, but hydrogen
and higher mileage will not give any large results in a 7 or even
17 years time frame. The only thing that can impact the oil
dependence in short time frame is todays "ready for use"
technologies and the big ones are,

- Energy savings in non auto consumption.
- Reduction in driving which by price, taxes and austerity promotion.
- Aggressive shifting to higher use of biofuels
- Aggressive expansion of Solar use for hot water and electricity
- Aggressive expansion of wind power generation

A lot can be done with a good energy plan, but do you seriously
believe that the oil dependence can be cut by two thirds. Even if
you restrict this to only oil import dependence, it is a very big
task. By 2010 it is expected that US must import more than 70%
of its oil, to cut this with 2/3 is an enormous task even if you
want to do it by 2020.

What US need is a good and realistic energy plan, aimed to
benefit the nation instead of corporations.

Hakan



At 08:57 PM 5/9/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>I agree that this seems to me, at first read, to be not practicable.
>I was not into his rhetoric about what he'd "let" others do to
>Americans' wallets.
>
>Lieberman's plan seems one-sided (improve mileage, "slash"
>dependence).  Would mileage improvements (even if they occurred) lead
>to *any* cutting of overall oil use?  It has appeared to me that as we
>cut mileage a little, we can also drive a few more miles and use the
>extra gas.
>
>I'd like to see price hikes in oil, if it's really that important.  If
>importing oil is so bad (such as if it leads to permanent loss of jobs
>because the value of the cash we export is too high, in theory) then
>let that be reflected in the price, and we'd see some big slashes in
>use.  But that's just part of things.  I do not believe in one-sided
>attempts to attack this problem, as it is quite a daunting one, and we
>can use all the suggestions and ideas possible.  So, maybe Sen.
>Lieberman's ideas have *some* merit, and so I'd be willing to think
>about them, I guess.
>
>MM
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, 09 May 2003 17:39:19 +0200, you wrote:
>
> >
> >To even suggest that oil dependence could be slashed in
> >7 or even 20 years is pathetic, as both Bush and Lieberman
> >does. To get it down with two thirds in these time frames,
> >is at best dreaming and at worse political scam. Let us look
> >at facts.
> >
> >Private autos have a replacement cycle of around 10 years.
> >This mean that if we had general availability of hydrogen
> >cars today, it would take 10 years to replace existing cars.
> >
> >Transport vehicles have replacement cycle of 15 to 20 years.
> >
> >Buildings have 50 to 100 years replacement cycle and
> >20 years renovation cycle. Oil for heating and electricity
> >production is nearly as large as for transportation.
> >
> >HOW CAN ANYONE TALK ABOUT "SLASHING OIL
> >DEPENDENCE" IN 7 OR EVEN 17 YEARS
> >WHO ARE THE IDIOTS THAT BELIEVE IN THIS,
> >COULD IT BE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
> >
> >The developing countries have a golden opportunity
> >to have a sustainable growth.
> >
> >Hakan
>



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Rent DVDs from home.
Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping
& No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/BVVfoB/hP.FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] "Energy plan mathematics"

[murdoch]

>It is many things possible to reduce the independence, but hydrogen
>and higher mileage will not give any large results in a 7 or even
>17 years time frame. The only thing that can impact the oil
>dependence in short time frame is todays "ready for use"
>technologies and the big ones are,
>
>- Energy savings in non auto consumption.
>- Reduction in driving which by price, taxes and austerity promotion.
>- Aggressive shifting to higher use of biofuels
>- Aggressive expansion of Solar use for hot water and electricity
>- Aggressive expansion of wind power generation

You don't mention existing and in-development public transportation in
urban areas, the trend toward hybrids in some respects
(grid-chargeables would really blast a small part of this wide-open,
as some activists have said), EVs replacing oil-users, etc.  I believe
in staying firmly on this idea of multiple solutions, though I guess I
may have something wrong.

As to selling it to the public, by a politician, if they get on the
job and the economy stump, then while a gross oil price increase would
not get them elected, combining a modest oil price increase with a
decrease in the trade deficit and a long-term clearly-arguably benefit
to jobs and the economy would be of some political capital.

>A lot can be done with a good energy plan, but do you seriously
>believe that the oil dependence can be cut by two thirds. Even if
>you restrict this to only oil import dependence, it is a very big
>task. By 2010 it is expected that US must import more than 70%
>of its oil, to cut this with 2/3 is an enormous task even if you
>want to do it by 2020.
>
>What US need is a good and realistic energy plan, aimed to
>benefit the nation instead of corporations.

While I do not believe in the credo that "what is good for Exxon Mobil
is good for the U.S.", I do think that the fortunes of some of the
corporations *do* have a bearing on what is good for the country.  So,
I don't think it's entirely simple as you seem to present, although I
think I take your point that a realistic energy plan will cease and
desist from some of the pretexts and falseness.  A real desire to do
what's right for the people and the country is not the same, I agree,
as doing what's right for Exxon-Mobil.  Only in some ways do the paths
coincide and in some ways they clash.  It would be nice to have
leaders in place who could keep the peoples' interests *firmly* in
mind.

MM

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/YoVfrB/XP.FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] "Energy plan mathematics"

[Hakan]

Dear MM,

My point was that cuts of 2/3 in oil consumption or even in oil
imports over 7 to 17 years, must be based on "ready for use"
solutions and very aggressive implementation of them. Even
then the goals will not be met. I does not exclude pursuance
of other technologies and solutions working in parallel on a
longer time perspective. See following comments,

At 09:42 AM 5/10/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >It is many things possible to reduce the independence, but hydrogen
> >and higher mileage will not give any large results in a 7 or even
> >17 years time frame. The only thing that can impact the oil
> >dependence in short time frame is todays "ready for use"
> >technologies and the big ones are,
> >
> >- Energy savings in non auto consumption.
> >- Reduction in driving which by price, taxes and austerity promotion.
> >- Aggressive shifting to higher use of biofuels
> >- Aggressive expansion of Solar use for hot water and electricity
> >- Aggressive expansion of wind power generation
>
>You don't mention existing and in-development public transportation in
>urban areas, the trend toward hybrids in some respects
>(grid-chargeables would really blast a small part of this wide-open,
>as some activists have said), EVs replacing oil-users, etc.  I believe
>in staying firmly on this idea of multiple solutions, though I guess I
>may have something wrong.

I do not really take any position for or against any "ready to use"
technology nor any future possible technology. I am only applying
a timing places possible solutions in perspective and expose the
ignorant or deceptive attitudes of some politicians. Even a hydrogen
from coal economy cannot be implemented in those time frames.

Coal is very underutilized today and with this low usage US have
coal for 235 years or so. Both Bush and Lieberman seems to think
that the coal would last 200+ years, even if the use grow with
several multiples. It is only a politician that can show such a
complete lack of knowledge in basic mathematics. If the use
suddenly or in average grow 4 times, I learned in the first years
in school at age 8 years, that we would have to divide with 4 and
the R/P would then be around 60 years.


>As to selling it to the public, by a politician, if they get on the
>job and the economy stump, then while a gross oil price increase would
>not get them elected, combining a modest oil price increase with a
>decrease in the trade deficit and a long-term clearly-arguably benefit
>to jobs and the economy would be of some political capital.

If they cannot even divide, how could they sell this. They are most
likely going to sell the best fairy tale, that they are told by the
current energy corporations.


> >A lot can be done with a good energy plan, but do you seriously
> >believe that the oil dependence can be cut by two thirds. Even if
> >you restrict this to only oil import dependence, it is a very big
> >task. By 2010 it is expected that US must import more than 70%
> >of its oil, to cut this with 2/3 is an enormous task even if you
> >want to do it by 2020.
> >
> >What US need is a good and realistic energy plan, aimed to
> >benefit the nation instead of corporations.
>
>While I do not believe in the credo that "what is good for Exxon Mobil
>is good for the U.S.", I do think that the fortunes of some of the
>corporations *do* have a bearing on what is good for the country.  So,
>I don't think it's entirely simple as you seem to present, although I
>think I take your point that a realistic energy plan will cease and
>desist from some of the pretexts and falseness.

A good energy plan would create the business environment and
I am sure that the players will align themselves, they have always
done so. It is when one set of the player can set floating rules of the
game in their short term favor, that we arrive to the current situation.

>A real desire to do
>what's right for the people and the country is not the same, I agree,
>as doing what's right for Exxon-Mobil.  Only in some ways do the paths
>coincide and in some ways they clash.  It would be nice to have
>leaders in place who could keep the peoples' interests *firmly* in
>mind.

Believe it or not, this is what the political leaders are elected to do
and also try to get us believing that they are doing. I wonder why we
say "that it would be nice", when it actually is their major responsibility.


>MM
>
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Biofuels list archives:
>http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
>Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subjec

[biofuel] energy conference in Brazil?

[Marcelino Miranda]

Can you please tell us if there is an energy/fuels/ethanol conference in
Brazil,
during the first weeks of June? Details?
Many thanks.

Marcelino Miranda
QUIMICA NOVA S.A.




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading!
Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/aM1XQD/od7FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy and Economic Myths

[Keith Addison]

Economist and Nobel Prize winner Georgescu developed  a new 
biological or evolutionary approach to economic theory which he 
called "bioeconomics". Unlike neo-classical economics, it doesn't 
regard the world and all things in it as a mere machine. Herman Daly, 
Michael T. Klare, Robert Costanza and others have continued 
Georgescu's work, in the field of Ecological Economics, which makes 
an effort to do a realistic cost accounting of nature's 
contributions. It is probably able to distinguish the difference in 
real value(s) of a sword and plowshare.

See also the reviews at amazon of Georgescu's magnum opus, Entropy 
Law and the Economic Process:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674257812/002-5986258-3 
444824?v=glance


http://dieoff.org/page148.htm
Selections from "Energy and Economic Myths" by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen

"Energy and Economic Myths"
by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen

(Reprinted from Southern Economic Journal 41, no. 3, January 1975)

Hardly anyone would nowadays openly profess a belief in the 
immortality of mankind. Yet many of us prefer not to exclude this 
possibility; to this end, we endeavor to impugn any factor that could 
limit mankind's life. The most natural rallying idea is that 
mankind's entropic dowry is virtually inexhaustible, primarily 
because of man's inherent power to defeat the Entropy Law in some way 
or another.

To begin with, there is the simple argument that, just as has 
happened with many natural laws, the laws on which the finiteness of 
accessible resources rests will be refuted in turn. The difficulty of 
this historical argument is that history proves with even greater 
force, first, that in a finite space there can be only a finite 
amount of low entropy and, second, that low entropy continuously and 
irrevocably dwindles away. The impossibility of perpetual motion (of 
both kinds) is as firmly anchored in history as the law of 
gravitation.

More sophisticated weapons have been forged by the statistical 
interpretation of thermodynamic phenomena -- an endeavor to 
reestablish the supremacy of mechanics propped up this time by a sui 
generis notion of probability. According to this interpretation, the 
reversibility of high into low entropy is only a highly improbable, 
not a totally impossible event. And since the event is possible, we 
should be able by an ingenious device to cause the event to happen as 
often as we please, just as an adroit sharper may throw a "six" 
almost at will. The argument only brings to the surface the 
irreducible contradictions and fallacies packed into the foundations 
of the statistical interpretation by the worshipers of mechanics [32, 
ch. 6]. The hopes raised by this interpretation were so sanguine at 
one time that P. W. Bridgman, an authority on thermodynamics, felt it 
necessary to write an article just to expose the fallacy of the idea 
that one may fill one's pockets with money by "bootlegging entropy" 
[11].

Occasionally and sotto voce some express the hope, once fostered by a 
scientific authority such as John von Neumann, that man will 
eventually discover how to make energy a free good, "just like the 
unmetered air" [3, p. 32]. Some envision a "catalyst" by which to 
decompose, for example, the sea water into oxygen and hydrogen, the 
combustion of which will yield as much available energy as we would 
want. But the analogy with the small ember which sets a whole log on 
fire is unavailing. The entropy of the log and the oxygen used in the 
combustion is lower than that of the resulting ashes and smoke, 
whereas the entropy of water is higher than that of the oxygen and 
hydrogen after decomposition. Therefore, the miraculous catalyst also 
implies entropy bootlegging. *1*

With the notion, now propagated from one syndicated column to 
another, that the breeder reactor produces more energy than it 
consumes, the fallacy of entropy bootlegging seems to have reached 
its greatest currency even among the large circles of literati, 
including economists. Unfortunately, the illusion feeds on 
misconceived sales talk by some nuclear experts who extol the 
reactors which transform fertile but nonfissionable material into 
fissionable fuel as the breeders that "produce more fuel than they 
consume" [81, p. 82]. The stark truth is that the breeder is in no 
way different from a plant which produces hammers with the aid of 
some hammers. According to the deficit principle of the Entropy Law 
 even in breeding chickens a greater amount of low entropy is 
consumed than is contained in the product. *2*

Apparently in defense of the standard vision of the economic process, 
economists have set forth themes of their own. We may mention first 
the argument that "the notion of an absolute limit to natural 
resource availability is untenable when the definition of resources 
changes drastically and unpredictably over time  A limit may 
exist, but it can be neither defined nor specified in economic terms" 
[3

[biofuel] Energy articles at TomPaine.com

[Keith Addison]

New at TomPaine.com
>
http://www.TomPaine.com


PATRIOTIC ENERGY
An "All-American Energy Plan" for Economic Stimulus

President Bush and Congressional Republicans are rushing to enact their
energy plan before Americans learn how utterly bankrupt and corrupt it
is.

For them, "national energy policy" means more subsidies and freedom from
competition for top political patrons - the fossil fuel and nuclear
industries, and companies that build and operate inefficient centralized
power plants.

Bush & Company, gagged by campaign contributions, cannot acknowledge the
real path toward economic stimulus, energy independence and enhanced
national security: an immediate, aggressive investment in energy
efficiency and decentralized, home-grown, renewable power.

OP AD:
http://www.tompaine.com/img/op_ad_011031_large.jpg


THE STIMULUS THAT KEEPS ON GIVING
Energy Efficiency and the Economy
by Joseph Romm
Congress and the President just can't resist giving tax breaks and
rebates to corporations and the wealthy. Energy expert Joseph Romm has
some ideas for them -- tax breaks, rebates and investments that
encourage alternative energy and efficiency that would create jobs today
and keep stimulating the economy on into the future.
http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/30/3.html


THE 800-MILE LONG CHAPSTIK...
...And Other Tales of Domestic Energy Insecurity
by Amory Lovins
America's fragile domestic infrastructure threatens her energy
security at least as much as dependence on foreign oil. Replacing
Mideastern oil with even more vulnerable domestic systems would
therefore DECREASE energy security. A terrorist could easily turn the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline into an 800-mile Chapstik.
http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/30/5.html


LOOKING FOR JOBS IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES
Shortsightedness Prevails at Leading Labor Unions
by Jennifer Bauduy
The Teamsters think they will get more jobs by backing the GOP's
energy bill, but home-grown renewable power and efficiency programs are
the real employment goldmine.
http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/09/18/index.html


OUR DECENTRALIZED ENERGY FUTURE
On-Site Power Generation Arrives
by David Morris
"We should launch a Manhattan Project-level effort to reduce our
vulnerability to terrorist attacks and our reliance on imported fuels by
literally and figuratively empowering Americans to become energy
producers."
http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/10/30/2.html

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Cobra Gas Powered Scooter. Top speed exceeds 25 mph.
Originally $599.95.
Now $399.95 at Youcansave.com.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/K11sED/OkNDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] energy poll results

[Keith Addison]

>I just received a newsletter from a silicon chip site that had a
>suprising poll (to me anyway). It is asking opinions on national,USA,
>energy usage.
>
>The results are pleasing. Check it out at
>
>http://www.chipcenter.com/surveys/poll.jhtml

Such as this? Ulp!!

"We made a mistake when we allowed the Middle Eastern countries to 
nationalize our oil production facilituies and fields; we need to 
retake them, by foce, if necessary. A nuclear pre-emptive strike 
against the Red Chinese would keep them out of the picture during 
such activities. I believe the British and the French would support 
such an activity, and, if we do it before significantly reducing our 
nuclear stockpile, I believe the Russians will also take no 
responsive action. Hey! you want to live in fear all your life?"

http://www.chipcenter.com/surveys/poll_comment.jhtml;$sessionid$GEFMOH 
IAABXRBJ4Y5XCSFEQ?pollid=11%2F14%2F01&questionId=2
ChipCenter: The Web's Definitive Electronics Resource


Here's another one, from ENN:

RESPONSES TO "EVERYTHING FOR OIL"
As we engage in yet another war in the Middle East (the
Gulf War, Somalia), some of us turn up the volume on our
questions regarding our dependence on foreign oil. While
this particular conflict has a huge, extenuating circumstance
(Sept. 11), questioning our government's never-ending support
for oil contributes to our growth as individuals and as
a nation.In light of the war profiteering bill - in
which poor, hurting global megacorporations will not only
receive billions of dollars in tax cuts, they will actually
be paid back their past 15 years of taxes - currently
winding its way through Congress, various high-profile Americans
have been talking about our country's addiction to oil.
They are asking us not to allow our government to increase
corporate welfare, especially for the oil, natural gas,
coal, and nuclear industries, in the name of our national
state of affairs.

Source: Environmental News Network

http://enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/11/11142001/s_45565.asp




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
Refill any ink cartridge for less!
Includes black and color ink.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/bAmslD/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] energy poll results

[John Bylsma]

and I thought bill clinton had problems. Get real
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] energy poll results


>
> >I just received a newsletter from a silicon chip site that had a
> >suprising poll (to me anyway). It is asking opinions on national,USA,
> >energy usage.
> >
> >The results are pleasing. Check it out at
> >
> >http://www.chipcenter.com/surveys/poll.jhtml
>
> Such as this? Ulp!!
>
> "We made a mistake when we allowed the Middle Eastern countries to
> nationalize our oil production facilituies and fields; we need to
> retake them, by foce, if necessary. A nuclear pre-emptive strike
> against the Red Chinese would keep them out of the picture during
> such activities. I believe the British and the French would support
> such an activity, and, if we do it before significantly reducing our
> nuclear stockpile, I believe the Russians will also take no
> responsive action. Hey! you want to live in fear all your life?"
>
> http://www.chipcenter.com/surveys/poll_comment.jhtml;$sessionid$GEFMOH
> IAABXRBJ4Y5XCSFEQ?pollid=11%2F14%2F01&questionId=2
> ChipCenter: The Web's Definitive Electronics Resource
>
>
> Here's another one, from ENN:
>
> RESPONSES TO "EVERYTHING FOR OIL"
> As we engage in yet another war in the Middle East (the
> Gulf War, Somalia), some of us turn up the volume on our
> questions regarding our dependence on foreign oil. While
> this particular conflict has a huge, extenuating circumstance
> (Sept. 11), questioning our government's never-ending support
> for oil contributes to our growth as individuals and as
> a nation.In light of the war profiteering bill - in
> which poor, hurting global megacorporations will not only
> receive billions of dollars in tax cuts, they will actually
> be paid back their past 15 years of taxes - currently
> winding its way through Congress, various high-profile Americans
> have been talking about our country's addiction to oil.
> They are asking us not to allow our government to increase
> corporate welfare, especially for the oil, natural gas,
> coal, and nuclear industries, in the name of our national
> state of affairs.
>
> Source: Environmental News Network
>
> http://enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/11/11142001/s_45565.asp
>
>
>
>
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
Refill any ink cartridge for less!
Includes black and color ink.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1_Y1qC/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] energy poll results

[Keith Addison]

>and I thought bill clinton had problems. Get real

Er, sorry, who should get real? - this commenter below, ChipCenter, 
ENN, Stujo, or me?

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Tokyo
http://journeytoforever.org/

 

>- Original Message -
>From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:53 PM
>Subject: Re: [biofuel] energy poll results
>
>
> >
> > >I just received a newsletter from a silicon chip site that had a
> > >suprising poll (to me anyway). It is asking opinions on national,USA,
> > >energy usage.
> > >
> > >The results are pleasing. Check it out at
> > >
> > >http://www.chipcenter.com/surveys/poll.jhtml
> >
> > Such as this? Ulp!!
> >
> > "We made a mistake when we allowed the Middle Eastern countries to
> > nationalize our oil production facilituies and fields; we need to
> > retake them, by foce, if necessary. A nuclear pre-emptive strike
> > against the Red Chinese would keep them out of the picture during
> > such activities. I believe the British and the French would support
> > such an activity, and, if we do it before significantly reducing our
> > nuclear stockpile, I believe the Russians will also take no
> > responsive action. Hey! you want to live in fear all your life?"
> >
> > http://www.chipcenter.com/surveys/poll_comment.jhtml;$sessionid$GEFMOH
> > IAABXRBJ4Y5XCSFEQ?pollid=11%2F14%2F01&questionId=2
> > ChipCenter: The Web's Definitive Electronics Resource
> >
> >
> > Here's another one, from ENN:
> >
> > RESPONSES TO "EVERYTHING FOR OIL"
> > As we engage in yet another war in the Middle East (the
> > Gulf War, Somalia), some of us turn up the volume on our
> > questions regarding our dependence on foreign oil. While
> > this particular conflict has a huge, extenuating circumstance
> > (Sept. 11), questioning our government's never-ending support
> > for oil contributes to our growth as individuals and as
> > a nation.In light of the war profiteering bill - in
> > which poor, hurting global megacorporations will not only
> > receive billions of dollars in tax cuts, they will actually
> > be paid back their past 15 years of taxes - currently
> > winding its way through Congress, various high-profile Americans
> > have been talking about our country's addiction to oil.
> > They are asking us not to allow our government to increase
> > corporate welfare, especially for the oil, natural gas,
> > coal, and nuclear industries, in the name of our national
> > state of affairs.
> >
> > Source: Environmental News Network
> >
> > http://enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/11/11142001/s_45565.asp


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
Refill any ink cartridge for less!
Includes black and color ink.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/1_Y1qC/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

RE: [biofuel] energy budget ?'s

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Hi Folks,
>Does anyone know a good source of energy statistics? I am interested
>particularly in what % of US energy use is used in cars and trucks. (I
>heard 75% somewhere.) How much more is used to make and service them?
>Sheesh!

Another number that I have been unable to find is the energy content of a
new car.  What is the energy cost to extract and refine the metals and
plastics, energy to form and fabricate, energy to deliver, and others?  The
only figure I have come up with is an unverifiable 100,000 gallons of fresh
water to build each car.  Another figure is that there is more energy
expended in building the car than it will use in several hundred thousand
miles of driving.

The point of the figures it to prove that the rush to build energy efficient
cars using alternate fuels is just more of the same thinking that got us
here in the first place.  Much better maintenance of our existing fleet,
building fewer replacements, and more use of biofuels will save significant
amounts of fossil fuels and reduce green house gasses.

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] energy budget ?'s

[Keith Addison]

>Hi Folks,
>Does anyone know a good source of energy statistics? I am interested
>particularly in what % of US energy use is used in cars and trucks. (I
>heard 75% somewhere.) How much more is used to make and service them?
>Sheesh!
>I had a look around but there is so much stuff to sort through. They may
>not really want people to know. (The same "They" that is responsible for
>our conspicuous energy use, the "Jones'"?)
>Thanks,
>Jay in Reno

Hello Jay

You should find something here (they hate cars!):
http://www.rco.on.ca/factsheet/fs_b02.html

And maybe here:

* 70 million motor vehicles were on the world's roads in 1950.
* 630 million motor vehicles were on the world's roads in 1994.
* 1 billion motor vehicles are expected to be on the world's roads by 
2025, if the current growth rate continues.
* 50 million new cars roll off the assembly line each year -- 137,000 a day.
* 27 tons of waste are produced in the manufacture of the average new car.
* 11 million cars are junked annually in the US.
* 12,000 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted by the average car each year.
* 5% of a car's fuel can be wasted by underinflated tires.
* 2 billion gallons of gasoline could be saved annually if 65 million 
car owners kept their tires properly inflated.
* 85% of auto fuel is consumed just to overcome inertia and start the 
wheels turning.
* 2.5 times more emissions are generated by SUVs (Sports Untility 
Vehicles) and light trucks than by standard cars.
* 33,000 natural gas vehicles were in use in the US in 1993.
* 75,000 natural gas vehicles were in use in the US in 1998.

http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/counter/counter011900.stm


This is from EREN NETWORK NEWS -- May 16, 2001 (posted earlier).

DOE Energy Information Administration's "International Energy Annual 
1999" - I haven't checked it yet, should have US stats:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/

World energy production:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/table29.html

World energy consumption:
.

For good measure:
Clean Edge press release on renewable energy use:
http://www.cleanedge.com/about/press.php

The full 17-page report (PDF):
http://www.cleanedge.com/profitsandpotential.pdf

Hope this helps.

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
Handmade Projects
Tokyo
http://journeytoforever.org/

 


Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Energy efficient homes

[JOSEPH . MARTELLE]

Please respond to biofuel@yahoogroups.com

To:   biofuel@yahoogroups.com
cc:(bcc: Joseph Martelle/US/GM/GMC)
Subject:  Re: [biofuel] bio diesel in lanterns, Heaters






steve spence wrote:

> we built a log house with 10" logs. One advantage over stick built is no air
> infiltration.
> r value is not the total issue
>

>harmon replied:
 > Depends on how the log construction is done -- both the ones we lived in
>were quite old, and there was a *lot* of air infiltration. Neither had a
>foundation either, so repairs to the chinking didn't last, seasonal ground
>shifts causing cracking and even falling out of the plaster chinking. My wife
>keeps looking at log cabin plans, I keep looking at straw bale. We stayed in
>one cabin out in BC  -- also where our first cabin was -- that had logs around
>3' thick. I've always wondered what it would have been like in Winter, but we
>would have been snowed in about 10-15 miles from the nearest plowed road, so I
>couldn't talk her into it.

--
I am currently designing my new home made with insulated concrete forms.
Extremely enegry efficient. R value of walls 48+, no air infiltration. I am
planning to use hydronic radiant floor heating, with an outdoor wood fueled
boiler (www.centralboiler.com). Grid power for now, until I have time and money
for alternatives (windmill? BioD fuel cell? cold fusion? ;-) etc.)
 I looked at log homes, but decided against them (complexity, cost). They
are beautiful though. Joe








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/MDsVHB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Energy efficient homes

[jerry dycus]

 Hi Joe and All,
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --
> I am currently designing my new home made with
> insulated concrete forms.
> Extremely enegry efficient. R value of walls 48+, no
> air infiltration. I am
> planning to use hydronic radiant floor heating, with
> an outdoor wood fueled
> boiler (www.centralboiler.com). Grid power for now,
> until I have time and money
> for alternatives (windmill? BioD fuel cell? cold
> fusion? ;-) etc.)
 If you have water power availiable it would be
best. Next would be a windgenerator if your average
wind speed is over 10 mph. If neither will work use
WVO in a diesel gen well soundproofed.
 As eff as your home is you could heat it from
wind or water gens because for winds they are usually
high during winter. Just put up a larger generator. 
 jerry dycus
>  I looked at log homes, but decided against them
> (complexity, cost). They
> are beautiful though. Joe


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/47cccB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Energy efficient homes

[Harmon Seaver]

Here's another very intriguing idea -- I wonder how well it would work with 
these
insulated concrete forms?
http://www.zianet.com/papercrete


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> To:   Joseph Martelle/US/GM/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc:
> Subject:  Re: [biofuel] Energy efficient homes
>
> >  Is there a website that shows that type construction? How do you
> >get enough r-value in a concrete wall? I recall seeing plans for a
> >two-part wall with a center insulation airspace, but I don't think that
> >one would give r-48 or even close to that.
>
> --
> Harmon,
>  There are many types oOf ICF's (insulated concrete forms) on the market. 
> My
> particulate favorite is Reward walls.http://WWW.REWARDWALLS.COM/
>
> A few others:
> http://www.eco-block.com/
> http://www.greenblock.com/
> http://www.arxxbuild.com/client/arxx/arxxwebsite.nsf
>
> Enjoy.  :-)  Joe

--
Harmon Seaver, MLIS
CyberShamanix
Work 920-203-9633   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home 920-233-5820 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/47cccB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] energy sources for agriculture

[Keith Addison]

"Research also needs to focus on the development of more "current" 
energy sources for agriculture. We should prepare now, for the advent 
of depleted fossil fuel energy reserves. What opportunities for 
economic growth and farmer empowerment are waiting to be realized in 
the energy field? What is the agriculture equivalent of the new 
Toyota combined gas/electric powered car that makes 66 miles to the 
gallon?"

From: "New Directions for Ag Research" (A Position Paper of the 
Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society)
http://www.npsas.org/Research.html

Biofuel at Journey to Forever: 
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
To unsubscribe, send an email to: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Biofuel] Energy for the Poor

[Keith Addison]

ITDG - Intermediate Technology Development Group

Energy for the Poor

Access to basic, clean energy services is essential for sustainable 
development and poverty eradication, and provides major benefits in 
the areas of health, literacy and equity. However, over two billion 
people today have no access to modern energy services.


The issue of energy choice is fundamental to the great challenge 
facing the world at the beginning of the 21st century - how to 
eliminate the obscene levels of poverty without further polluting the 
planet. ITDG believes that there does not have to be a trade-off 
between human development and the environment. Millions can be lifted 
out of poverty without ruining the planet with the help of clean 
sustainable energy.


Power to the People

Three challenges face the international community if they are to meet 
the Millennium Development Goals to tackle world poverty:


Energy for cooking: there is an urgent need to address the continuing 
dependence on biomass for domestic energy, both to reduce the amount 
of time spent collecting fuel and to improve health. Respiratory 
infections caused by smoke pollution cause 1.8 million deaths each 
year.


Getting electricity to the rural poor: electricity is needed to power 
small industry and enterprise, run health clinics and light schools. 
Without it, rural poverty will not be eradicated. Decentralised 
energy options using local resources - such as wind, biogas, solar 
power or micro-hydro - offer many advantages for meeting the needs of 
the rural population.


Getting sustainable electricity to the urban poor: increasing numbers 
of the world's poor people are living in cities, and many are 
dependent on wood and charcoal for their energy needs. A long-term 
strategy is needed  for a more sustainable supply of energy to poor 
urban areas as the rural poor continue to migrate to the cities.


If these three challenges are met, then significant progress will 
have been made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. 
For this to happen, the World Summit on Sustainable Development had 
to commit to a plan of action and clear targets to get clean and 
sustainable energy to world's poorest people.


Powering Poverty Reduction
In this paper, launched at the International Conference for Renewable 
Energies in Bonn, ITDG is calling for international policies that 
consider the needs of the poor and ensure that appropriate, workable 
and renewable services are promoted.

Read online or download as PDF  ~ 344k
http://itdg.org/?id=powering_poverty_reduction

Power to the People - sustainable energy solutions for the world's 
poor, ITDG's briefing paper and agenda for change on energy and 
poverty Also available to download as a PDF file ~100Kb

http://itdg.org/?id=p2p_paper

Sustainable Energy for Poverty Reduction, ITDG and Greenpeace's joint 
Action Plan, which details the steps to be taken at every level in 
order to provide modern sustainable clean renewable energy to two 
billion of the world's poorest people.

Read a summary or download as a PDF file ~933K
http://itdg.org/?id=energy_action_plan

Two ITDG seminars, both titled Power to the People, were held in 
2002, in London in July and at the World Summit in September


Turning off the lights, GATS and the threat to community electricity 
in Sri Lanka. The US and EU should halt attempts to pressurise 
developing countries to accept electricity privatisation in the 
General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations so that 
low cost community run electricity schemes are protected.

Read online or download as a PDF file ~161K

Smoke - the Killer in the Kitchen
http://itdg.org/?id=smoke_index
Smoke in the home from cooking on wood, dung and crop waste kills 
nearly one million children a year. In its report, Smoke: the Killer 
in the Kitchen , ITDG is calling for global action to save the lives 
of 1.6 million men, women and children lost each year to lethal 
levels of household smoke.


* Summary of the report
* Read the report online
* Download the report
* Buy a copy from ITDG Publishing
* Find out more: key questions and answers

Choose Positive Energy
http://itdg.org/?id=choose_positive_energy
ITDG is lending its support to the Choose Positive Energy campaign, 
offering a development perspective on the energy problems facing the 
world today.


Two billion people have no access to modern forms of energy to supply 
basic needs such as cooking, lighting and heating. Instead they rely 
on dangerous and polluting energy sources that damage human health 
and the environment.


Choose Positive Energy is campaigning to secure a commitment from 
world leaders to deliver the funds to bring renewable energy to the 
two billion people, to benefit them and the environment.


12 reasons to exclude large hydro from renewables initiatives
http://www.irn.org/programs/greenhouse/index.asp?id=031210.12reasons.html
A report report co-published by 13 organizations working on cli

[Biofuel] Energy content of glycerin?

[Kenneth Kron]

Seems to me that it should be pretty close to that of vegetable oil 
looking at the relative energy contents of the substances going into and 
coming out of the reaction.  I don't have my references right now but 
basically veggie oil comes out around 130K BTU's (depending on the 
actual oil), BD comes out around 120K BTU's where as alcohol is around 
64K BTU's


Kenneth
___
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] Energy: Meeting soaring demand

[MH]

 Energy: Meeting soaring demand 
 The BBC's Alex Kirby looks at the challenge of
 providing the world with energy without damaging the environment,
 as part of Planet Under Pressure,
 a BBC series on environmental issues. 
 By Alex Kirby 
 BBC News website environment correspondent 
 9 November, 2004 
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3995135.stm 

 The first problem with energy is that we are running short of
 traditional sources of supply. 

 The International Energy Agency says the world will need
 almost 60% more energy in 2030 than in 2002, and
 fossil fuels will still meet most of its needs. 

 We depend on oil for 90% of our transport, and for food,
 pharmaceuticals, chemicals and the entire bedrock of modern life. 

 But oil industry experts estimate that current reserves will
 only last for about 40 years. 

 Views vary about how much more will be found or
 made economically viable to use. 

 Pessimists predict production will start declining within 15 years,
 while optimists say we won't have to worry for a century - though
 rising prices are likely to push us towards alternative energy
 sources anyway. 

 Gas, often a suitable replacement for oil,
 won't last indefinitely either. 

 There's plenty of coal, but it's still usually hard to use
 without causing high pollution. 

 Worrying signs 

 Not everyone depends on the fossil trio, though. Nearly a
 third of today's world population (6.1bn people) have
 no electricity or other modern energy supplies, and
 another third have only limited access. 

 About 2.5 billion people have only wood or other biomass
 for energy - often bad for the environment, almost
 always bad for their health. 

 That's the second problem - understandably, they want
 the better life that cheap and accessible energy offers. 

 But if everyone in developing countries used the same amount of
 energy as the average consumer in high income countries does,
 the developing world's energy use would increase more than
 eightfold between 2000 and 2050. 

 The signs are already there. In the first half of 2003
 China's car sales rose by 82% compared with the same period in 2002. 

 Its demand for oil is expected to double in 20 years. 

 In India sales of fuel-guzzling sports utility vehicles account for
 10% of all vehicle purchases, and could soon overtake car sales.
 And the developed world is not standing still. 

 In the last decade, US oil use has
 increased by almost 2.7 million barrels a day -
 more oil than India and Pakistan use daily altogether. 

 Crossing continents 

 Where our energy comes from is a third problem -
 energy sources are often long distances from the
 point of consumption. 

 Centralised energy generation and
 distribution systems are fairly new. 

 A couple of centuries ago virtually
 everyone would have depended on the
 fuel they could find within a short
 distance of home. 

 Now, the energy for our fuel, heat and
 light travel vast distances to reach us,
 sometimes crossing not only continents
 but political and cultural watersheds on
 the way. 

 These distances create a whole host of challenges from
 oil-related political instability to the environmental risks
 of long-distance pipelines. 

 But even if we could somehow indefinitely conjure up enough energy for
 everyone who wants it, without risking conflict and mayhem in bringing it
 back home, there would still be an enormous problem - how to use the energy
 without causing unacceptably high levels of damage to the natural world. 

 Counting cost 

 The most obvious threat is the prospect that burning fossil fuels is
 intensifying natural climate change and heating the Earth to dangerous levels.

 But forget the greenhouse effect if you want. There are still real costs that 
go
 with the quest for and use of energy: air and water pollution, impaired health,
 acid rain, deforestation, the destruction of traditional ways of life. 

 It's one of the most vicious circles the planetary crisis entails. 

 Cheap, available energy is essential for ending poverty: ending poverty is key
 to easing the pressures on the planet from the abjectly poor who have no
 choice but to eat the seed corn. But the tank is running dry. 

 It doesn't have to be like this. Our energy use is unsustainable, but we 
already
 know what a benign alternative would look like. 

 All we have to do is decide that we will get there, and how. 

 It will make vastly more use of renewable energy, from inexhaustible natural
 sources like the Sun and the seas. 

 Nuclear power? 

 One key fuel may well be hydrogen, which is a clean alternative for vehicles
 and is in abundant supply as it is a chemical component of water. 

 But large amounts of energy are needed to produce hydrogen from water, so it
 will not come into its own as a clean alternative until renewable energy is
 widely available for the process. 

 Some analysts suggest that nuclear power will be needed to bridge the gap
 between now and the renewable future. 

[Biofuel] Energy and advanced civilizations

[Bong Sol Cruz]

quite lengthy but a rather interesting read... 8^)

Physics of Type I, II, and III Civilizations  -Excerpts from an
article by Michio Kaku

Specifically, we can rank civilizations by their energy consumption,
using the following principles:

1) The laws of thermodynamics. Even an advanced civilization is bound
by the laws of thermodynamics, especially the Second Law, and can
hence be ranked by the energy at their disposal.

2) The laws of stable matter. Baryonic matter (e.g. based on protons
and neutrons) tends to clump into three large groupings: planets,
stars and galaxies. (This is a well-defined by product of stellar and
galactic evolution, thermonuclear fusion, etc.) Thus, their energy
will also be based on three distinct types, and this places upper
limits on their rate of energy consumption.

3) The laws of planetary evolution. Any advanced civilization must
grow in energy consumption faster than the frequency of
life-threatening catastrophes (e.g. meteor impacts, ice ages,
supernovas, etc.). If they grow any slower, they are doomed to
extinction.

This places mathematical lower limits on the rate of growth of these
civilizations.
In a seminal paper published in 1964 in the Journal of Soviet
Astronomy, Russian astrophysicist Nicolai Kardashev theorized that
advanced civilizations must therefore be grouped according to three
types: Type I, II, and III, which have mastered planetary, stellar and
galactic forms of energy, respectively. He calculated that the energy
consumption of these three types of civilization would be separated by
a factor of many billions.

But how long will it take to reach Type II and III status?

Shorter than most realize.

Berkeley astronomer Don Goldsmith reminds us that the earth receives
about one billionth of the suns energy, and that humans utilize about
one millionth of that. So we consume about one million billionth of
the suns total energy. At present, our entire planetary energy
production is about 10 billion billion ergs per second. But our energy
growth is rising exponentially, and hence we can calculate how long it
will take to rise to Type II or III status.

Goldsmith says, "Look how far we have come in energy uses once we
figured out how to manipulate energy, how to get fossil fuels really
going, and how to create electrical power from hydropower, and so
forth; we've come up in energy uses in a remarkable amount in just a
couple of centuries compared to billions of years our planet has been
here ... and this same sort of thing may apply to other
civilizations."

Physicist Freeman Dyson of the Institute for Advanced Study estimates
that, within 200 years or so, we should attain Type I status.

In fact, growing at a modest rate of 1% per year, Kardashev estimated
that it would take only 3,200 years to reach Type II status, and 5,800
years to reach Type III status. Living in a Type I,II, or III
civilization

For example, a Type I civilization is a truly planetary one, which has
mastered most forms of planetary energy. Their energy output may be on
the order of thousands to millions of times our current planetary
output. Mark Twain once said, "Everyone complains about the weather,
but no one does anything about it." This may change with a Type I
civilization, which has enough energy to modify the weather. They also
have enough energy to alter the course of earthquakes, volcanoes, and
build cities on their oceans.

Currently, our energy output qualifies us for Type 0 status. We derive
our energy not from harnessing global forces, but by burning dead
plants (e.g. oil and coal). But already, we can see the seeds of a
Type I civilization. We see the beginning of a planetary language
(English), a planetary communication system (the Internet), a
planetary economy (the forging of the European Union), and even the
beginnings of a planetary culture (via mass media, TV, rock music, and
Hollywood films).

By definition, an advanced civilization must grow faster than the
frequency of life-threatening catastrophes. Since large meteor and
comet impacts take place once every few thousand years, a Type I
civilization must master space travel to deflect space debris within
that time frame, which should not be much of a problem. Ice ages may
take place on a time scale of tens of thousands of years, so a Type I
civilization must learn to modify the weather within that time frame.

Artificial and internal catastrophes must also be negotiated. But the
problem of global pollution is only a mortal threat for a Type 0
civilization; a Type I civilization has lived for several millennia as
a planetary civilization, necessarily achieving ecological planetary
balance. Internal problems like wars do pose a serious recurring
threat, but they have thousands of years in which to solve racial,
national, and sectarian conflicts.

Eventually, after several thousand years, a Type I civilization will
exhaust the power of a planet, and will derive their energy by
consuming the entire output of their suns

Re: [Biofuel] energy story at oildrum

[Keith Addison]

>++
>| On Electricity (Generation)|
>|   from the looking-at-tomorrow dept.   |
>|   posted by Hemos on Monday January 29, @10:54 (Power) |
>|   http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/29/1228200 |
>++
>
>Engineer-Poet wrote a piece a few months back that focuses on
>[0]electricity production; or rather how or what we will need to do to
>keep pace with people's demands while balancing that with environmental
>and economic impact. Lengthy but well-reasoned and good reading.
>
>Discuss this story at:
>http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=07/01/29/1228200
>
>Links:
>0. http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/27/0432/3533
>

"What, me worry? One of the biggest threats the USA faces today is a 
serious shortage of energy."...

Waste of energy actually. Poor start. Next:

"... since the 1970's the USA has had social and economic upheaval 
due to the actions of foreign oil producers"...

I didn't get any further.

Best

Keith


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[biofuel] Energy Monopolies Attack Solar Power

[Keith Addison]

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15263

Energy Monopolies Attack Solar Power

By Peter Asmus, Faultline Magazine
February 26, 2003

One of the few success stories to emerge from California's ill-fated 
experiment with restructuring its power market is solar power. Over 
the last two years, installations of this clean non-polluting energy 
source have increased by 1,000 percent.

In poll after poll, solar energy consistently ranks as people's first 
choice when they're asked what fuel source they prefer to generate 
their electricity. Given concerns over national security and 
vulnerability of fossil fuel supplies, and the growing evidence 
confirming a link between fossil fuel burning and global climate 
change, increasing the nation's reliance upon solar power has never 
made more sense.

Last year, utilities mounted a campaign to increase the cost and 
complexity of "net metering," a policy pioneered in California that 
allows a owner of a solar energy system connected to the grid to 
barter with their utility. When the sun is shining, solar 
photovoltaics (PV) transform sunlight into electricity. If the owner 
of the solar system doesn't need the power produced by solar panels, 
the electricity can be sent back to the grid under net metering. When 
the sun isn't shining, the utility, in essence, returns the 
electricity back to the customer. The meter spins backwards and 
forwards until production and consumption is netted out on a monthly 
or annual basis.

Due to a last-minute grassroots lobbying effort by solar advocates 
and customers, proposed utility changes to net metering for 
large-scale solar systems were defeated in the closing days of the 
last legislative session. This year, the California Public Utilities 
Commission (CPUC) has proposed what amounts to a new tax on 
customer-owned solar systems that would increase the cost of this 
non-polluting electricity source by up to 40 percent.

If California's powerful private utilities - Pacific Gas & Electric 
(PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric 
(SDG&E) - have their way, charges ranging from 2 to 5 cents/kWh will 
be added to each kilowatt hour produced by solar systems that, like 
energy efficiency measures, reduce the need to purchase electricity 
from other often more polluting and sometimes more often more 
expensive sources.

Why would the CPUC increase costs of solar power that would 
effectively wipe out a 40 percent subsidy granted to solar PV under 
other existing state programs?

Large industrial customers were recently authorized to retain 
electricity purchase contracts with outside parties even though small 
consumers are still required to continue buy overpriced and dirty 
long-term power supplies purchased by the State of California during 
the height of the energy crisis in 2001. In exchange for the right to 
buy cheap and dirty power, the CPUC will require these large 
customers to pay an "exit fee" or tax to help pay their fair share of 
the state's investment in long-term fossil fuel supply.

PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E would now like to also charge individual 
customers who install a solar electric system on their facility the 
same (or higher!) charge as they levy on large industrial customers 
who entirely leave the system. This proposed charge is fundamentally 
unfair for several reasons:

Individuals, companies and government facilities that install solar 
systems still buy most of their power from utilities. Therefore they 
pay the same overall higher rates to pay off state investment in 
power supplies as all other utility customers.

Customer-owned solar power provides public benefits by delivering 
non-polluting electricity during peak demand periods, when the 
dirtiest electric generators often come on line to avoid blackouts. 
Large customers who entirely leave the system offer no comparable 
benefit.

The proposed utility "solar tax" directly contradicts existing state 
policies designed to encourage expanded use of on-site solar power. 
On top of that, implementing the new solar tax will create 
administrative costs for utilities that will likely supersede the 
miniscule amounts of money collected from solar customer/generators.

CPUC Commissioner Loretta Lynch has an alternative proposal that 
would moves in a better direction than the initial proposed CPUC 
policy. Her proposal would exempt solar customers with net metering 
arrangements from "exit fees." Though an improvement, this proposal 
still falls short of a sane way to maintain momentum on a power 
source ideally suited to California's sunny climate.

All solar customers connected to the grid should be exempt from exit 
fees. Does anyone propose to tax people who reduce their reliance 
upon grid power by being more energy efficient? Of course not! In 
fact, the customers are rewarded for that beneficial behavior with 
financial incentives. Solar customers who use all of the solar energy 
their PV panels can crank out

Re: [biofuel] Energy Efficient MotorRally, anyone?

[Steve Spence]

http://www.earthday.net/


Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "gleemevent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 4:59 PM
Subject: [biofuel] Energy Efficient MotorRally, anyone?


Hi everyone,
Does anyone know of an EarthDay event somewhere in the country, like
this one in Michigan?

The Great Lakes Energy Efficient MotorRally - GLEEM2003.com - this
delivers a clean-vehicles curriculum learning tool to middle schools,
then wraps up the week with cruises to EarthDay events in Kalamazoo
(on April 26) and Lansing (on April 27).  FREE event tee shirts to
owners of hybrids, E85's, biodielsels, CNG, and Electric vehicles who
join in one of the legs of the tour on 26th or 27th.

I  would really like to communicate with other projects like this to
try and build a much bigger regional event for next year.

Douglas Black - project coordinator





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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Get a FREE REFINANCE QUOTE - click here!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/2CXtTB/ca0FAA/i5gGAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy Department Focuses on Hydrogen

[Keith Addison]

http://ens-news.com/ens/nov2002/2002-11-13-09.asp

Energy Department Focuses on Hydrogen

DEARBORN, Michigan, November 13, 2002 (ENS) - Hydrogen is the focus 
of the Energy Department's research and development efforts to 
improve the efficiency of transportation, said Energy Secretary 
Spencer Abraham in a speech Tuesday.

Delivering the keynote address to an international audience of senior 
government, industry and academic officials at the Global Forum on 
Personal Transportation in Dearborn, Abraham unveiled a "National 
Hydrogen Energy Roadmap" and the "New Vision for the 21st Century 
Truck Partnership," which focuses on improving the energy efficiency 
and safety of trucks and buses.

The roadmap is the result of a 12 month collaborative process that 
brought together scientific and engineering experts to chart the 
course to a hydrogen economy, Abraham said. The roadmap outlines the 
research, development, demonstration, codes and standards, and 
education efforts necessary to advance hydrogen powered 
transportation solutions.

"Whether it is fusion, a hydrogen economy, or ideas that we have not 
yet explored, I believe we need to leapfrog the status quo and 
prepare for a future that under any scenario requires a revolution in 
how we produce, deliver and use energy," Abraham said.

In the coming decades, the United States will need new energy 
supplies and an upgraded energy infrastructure to meet growing 
demands for electric power and transportation fuels, the secretary 
added. Reliance on oil imports threatens the nation's economic well 
being and national security, he said.

Abraham noted that clean energy alternatives are needed to reduce air 
pollution, curb greenhouse gas emissions and offer sustainable 
solutions for increasing global economic growth, and said that an 
energy economy based on hydrogen could help satisfy these needs.

Hydrogen produced from renewable sources such as biomass or wind 
power can provide almost unlimited energy with little impact on the 
environment. Hydrogen produces near zero emissions and is based on 
diverse, domestically available resources.

Abraham said he understands that achieving the "hydrogen economy" 
will be a long term process that neither government nor industry can 
undertake on its own. Future steps will include the development of 
detailed research and development plans for hydrogen production, 
delivery, storage, conversion and end use applications.

Abraham was joined in his announcement of a "New Vision for the 21st 
Century Truck Partnership" by officials of the Departments of 
Transportation and Defense and the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, as well as industry executives from the heavy duty truck and 
bus industry.

"Our goal is to dramatically improve the energy efficiency and safety 
of trucks and buses, while maintaining a dedicated concern for the 
environment," Abraham said. "The expanded 21st Century Truck 
Partnership will center on advanced combustion engines and heavy 
hybrid drives that can use renewable fuels."

The National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap is available at: 
http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen

 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Share the magic of Harry Potter with Yahoo! Messenger
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4Q_cgB/JmBFAA/46VHAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy from Snow / Ice fall

[telewise]

 Visit: 
http://www.geocities.com/newideasfromtelewise/energy_from_snow__ice_fall 

-
Sify Mail - now with Anti-virus protection powered by Trend Micro, USA.
Know more at http://mail.sify.com

Take the shortest route to success! 
Click here to know how http://education.sify.com

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy from Snow / Ice fall

[newideasfromtelewise]

   Visit: 
http://www.geocities.com/newideasfromtelewise/energy_from_snow__ice_fa
ll 



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Kwick Pick opens locked car doors,
front doors, drawers, briefcases,
padlocks, and more. On sale now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ehaLqB/Fg5DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy Scandals and Climate Tragedies

[Keith Addison]

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13450
AlterNet --
Energy Scandals and Climate Tragedies
Michel Gelobter, AlterNet
June 24, 2002

The controversy over the recent release of the 2002 Climate Action 
Report by the Environmental Protection Agency is just the latest in a 
series of environmental controversies to hit the Bush Administration.

Before people were left to try solving the riddle of President Bush's 
actual climate change position, they witnessed a series of 
energy-related scandals that dogged Washington. Whether it was Enron, 
the California energy crisis, or the deliberations into the 
Bush-Cheney Energy Plan, troubling signals emanate from the White 
House with disturbing frequency.

Take, for example, the release of documents tying Energy Secretary 
Spencer Abraham to meetings with donors, whose campaign contributions 
to both parties since 1999 topped $29 million. The payoff from those 
meetings was almost a thousandfold: legislation embodying $27 billion 
in subsidies.

Believe it or not, this rich harvest is dwarfed by a decision the 
Bush Administration has already implemented: the U.S. withdrawal from 
the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. Had the U.S. respected our 
commitment to action on this critical issue, recent studies, 
including our own, have shown that the net cost to American fossil 
fuel industries could have been more than $45 billion a year. By 
contrast, estimates of the benefits of good climate policy to the 
economy as a whole range as high as $120 billion a year by 2020. 
While our economy took the hit, the energy industry walked away from 
the President's policy with its biggest payday ever.

So while the fossil fuel industry cashes in on our climate reversal, 
who pays? First, the vast majority of American businesses. If the 
U.S. adopted a policy to internalize the climate-related costs of 
energy use, it would spawn a vast "double dividend." Redirected 
investments would spur employment and send new investments where they 
belong, in companies fueled by workers and innovation instead of 
dependence on foreign oil.

Furthermore, the reversal of American climate policy devalues other 
industry groups relative to fossil fuel. Because fossil fuel use is 
subsidized by bad climate policy, we use more of it than we should. 
Energy industries artificially appear to be better investments than 
they really are and attract capital investment that could be used 
more productively in the rest of the economy.

A second victim of the energy industry's climate subsidy is our 
national security. Adopting the Kyoto Protocol could reduce by 2020 
our dependence on oil by over 25%. There may not be a linear 
relationship between this number and the geo-political risks created 
by our dependence on oil-producing states, but we sorely need the 
flexibility that independence would allow.

Because global warming is, after all, global, its effects threaten 
our security in the long-run as well. The U.S., which represents 4% 
of the world population, emits 25% of the carbon dioxide from fossil 
fuel, and we are historically responsible for over 35% of greenhouse 
gasses presently trapped in the atmosphere. As the impacts of our 
emissions become more clear with time, our reputation may grow from 
pariah on climate policy to responsible party for the natural 
disasters that climate change will entrain. Barring rapid action on 
our part, events like the submersion of 57% of Bangladesh in 1998 or 
last month's rapid breakup of Antarctic ice may increasingly be 
linked to American energy policy, whether or not these events are 
directly connected to climate change.

Global warming is happening right here, right now, and there is no 
shortage of impacts on our own people. The elderly trapped in 
unprecedented urban heat waves, America's arctic populations facing 
dwindling fish catches, and farmers in the South and Southwest 
dependent on an increasingly volatile climate are all paying the 
price of our delay and inaction. All told, the United Nations 
Environment Program calculates the worldwide cost of inaction at $300 
billion per year, as coastal property disappears, buildings are 
damaged, and species' habitats are irrevocably altered. These are 
costs we will now pass on to our children, our children's children, 
and the world for generations to come. The President's reversal on 
climate is the gift to the fossil fuel industry that keeps on taking 
from the rest of us.

It is a testament to our democracy that, despite their millions in 
contributions, the energy industry still faces significant legal and 
political hurdles to getting their way on many other fronts. With its 
inaction on climate change the Bush administration has scored a 
windfall for an industry with enormous clout. Unfortunately, it has 
also laid the groundwork for a human and environmental tragedy of 
unprecedented proportion.

Michel Gelobter is the Executive Director of Redefining Progress, an 
Oakland, Cali

[biofuel] Energy in Agriculture and Society

[MH]

 While I have a great deal to learn
 others might be interested in this publication --

 Energy in Agriculture and Society: Insights from the Sunshine Farm
 Marty Bender
 Updated January 14, 2002
 http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2001/03/28/3accb0712


 This report speaks about agriculture & also compares energy ratios
 e.g. "energy ratio of 1.7 to 1 for outputs to inputs, or simply 1.7"

 - National energy ratios for farming in various countries 0.3-3.1 to 1
 - Petroleum and natural gas 10
 - US Coal 9 
 - Nuclear 4
 - Renewable liquid fuels 1-3
 - Renewable solid fuels 6-13
 - Gasification of biomass 2-5
 - Flat-plate solar collectors 2-5
 - Direct combustion of crop 3-4
 - Biogas 1.4-5.6
 - Hydroelectric 10
 - Electrochemical photovoltaic arrays 8-10
 - Parabolic-thermal reflectors 8-10
 - Wind-electric turbines 16-20 ??
 - Energy conservation and efficiency
  double-pane windows 136
  ceiling insulation 61
 - Passive solar design 10-25

 Some excerpts --

 "The importance of national food security dictates that we should
 reduce farming's dependence on fossil fuels.  As part of
 The Land Institute's mission to use nature as measure for
 developing sustainable agriculture and culture, the Sunshine Farm Project
 has been exploring the possibilities of farming without fossil fuels,
 fertilizers or pesticides."

 " The purpose of the renewable energy technologies in our project is to reduce 
our
 dependence on fossil fuels but not our dependence on local energy systems."

 "Australia relies mostly on low-input crops (e.g., wheat), free-range animal 
rearing,
 and extensive use of leys (i.e., grazed legume cover crops) instead of
 commercial fertilizer for cropland nitrogen needs.  Likewise in America,
 before the tremendous increase in commercial fertilizers, pesticides and 
irrigation
 after World War II, American farming in 1940 had a national energy ratio of 
2.3 (Table 2)."

 "As documented by the US Department of Energy, during 1979-1986
 the US obtained 7 times as much new energy from savings through
 conservation and efficiency than from all net increases in
 domestic energy supplies based on fossil fuels, nuclear power,
 and renewable sources.20,21  Hence conservation and efficiency
 should be fully developed, as well as renewable energy sources."

 "By these strategies for inputs and outputs, mixed farms and US agriculture
 should be able to increase their energy ratios to 3, perhaps 4,
 the former figure already achieved by Australia (Table 2)."

 "An aggressive national program of energy conservation and efficiency
 will be required to sufficiently reduce energy consumption
 such that the US economy could be powered by renewable energy sources
 without using too much land.  Absent such measures,
 for example, if the nation's current transportation sector
 were to be fueled solely by the gross yield of ethanol from corn grain,
 then half of the entire US must be planted to corn.24.25.26"

 "Nonetheless, some energy scholars believe that energy conservation and 
efficiency
 will make it quite possible to power our current standard of living with
 renewable energy sources.30,31  Solar technologies would be particularly 
important
 in meeting US energy needs since they have much greater energy ratios and 
power densities
 than renewable fuels derived from agriculture." 

``

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy Bill Bankrupts Our Future

[Keith Addison]

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16226

Energy Bill Bankrupts Our Future

By Charles Sheehan-Miles, AlterNet
June 23, 2003

In what may be the worst piece of legislation the Senate has passed 
in decades (and they've had some whoppers), the Senate voted last 
week for a huge corporate boondoggle that will not only help bankrupt 
our country, but will guarantee long-term environmental damage, a 
rise in cancer rates and thousands of years of monitoring of toxic 
and radioactive waste. They did this without a single public hearing, 
without a debate, and without much of a conscience.

The energy bill is a major attack on our country and our world's 
future. First, it authorizes the spending of taxpayer dollars to help 
build six or more new nuclear reactors - reactors that the utilities 
couldn't afford to build on their own. The utilities and proponents 
of nuclear power would have us believe that per megawatt, nuclear 
power is both the cheapest and the cleanest form of energy available.

In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the 
last five commercial reactors cost 11 times as much to build per 
kilowatt as natural gas plants. Furthermore, they aren't at all 
responsible for the cost of long-term storage of the nuclear waste 
they create - waste that will have to be stored, monitored and 
maintained for the next 100,000 years.

Mind-boggling, considering that all of recorded human history is only 
a fraction of that time. Imagine your reaction if your annual tax 
bill carried a surcharge to maintain toxic waste left behind by 
Ptolemy II and Nebuchadnezzar.

Worse, the bill indefinitely extends the Price-Anderson Act, passing 
on the liability for accidents at nuclear plants to the very people 
who will suffer the consequences - you and me. George Woodwell, one 
of the preeminent scientists in America today, recently pointed out 
that if it weren't for Price-Anderson, there wouldn't be a single 
commercial nuclear reactor in the U.S., because they couldn't afford 
the insurance. As it stands, reactor operators are required to carry 
$200 million of liability coverage per reactor; damages beyond that 
amount are passed on to the taxpayer.

Ironically, in a 1992 study by Sandia National Labs, commissioned in 
the wake of the Three Mile Island near-meltdown, the cost of damage 
from a single nuclear accident is estimated to range as high as $560 
billion in current articles. Who pays? We do.

But that's not all. Behind curtain number three is a pilot pebble bed 
nuclear reactor. The utilities call pebble bed reactors "inherently 
safe," because if they loose their coolant, they don't melt down. In 
fact, say the utilities, they are so safe that the engineers don't 
believe they need containment structures. Of course, if the graphite 
coatings on the "pebbles" are exposed to, say, oxygen, they'll catch 
on fire, which is precisely what caused most of the radiation 
exposure from Chernobyl. But don't worry, say the utilities - it's 
"inherently safe." If so, why do taxpayers need to substantially bear 
the burden of liability in case of accidents?

Let's not forget that if the 9/11 hijackers had taken a detour and 
crashed into the Indian Point cooling pool (they flew right over it), 
they would likely have killed 100,000 people instead of 3,000 if the 
wind was blowing in the right direction.

Outraged yet? Keep reading. The bill, which must seem like a godsend 
to the utilities, authorizes the pilot construction of a nuclear 
plant to produce hydrogen for fuel cells. Forget that we can produce 
hydrogen with wind power at almost no cost; instead, the Bush 
Administration has in store a plan to build hundreds of nuclear 
plants to produce hydrogen. We'll have clean power for our cars, at 
the price of hundreds of millions of tons of nuclear waste spread all 
over the country. How helpful is that? In fact, this plan is simply a 
backdoor to build more nuclear plants while they posture at being 
environmentally friendly.

This isn't just about us. It's about our children, and their 
children, going forward to all future generations. For some 
perspective, Julius Caesar was assassinated by disgruntled senators a 
mere 2,000 years ago. By law, we have to maintain and protect the 
waste produced by these plants for fifty times that. The entire sweep 
of human history pales in comparison to the time this stuff will be 
around, leaking into the environment, causing cancer and birth 
defects and possibly extinction. It won't reach its peak 
radioactivity for another 100,000 years.

I hope those campaign contributions from the energy companies make 
the Senators who voted for this bill feel better, because countless 
future generations will be cursing them, giving this Senate its own 
brand of immortality. It's not a legacy I'd want to live with.

Charles Sheehan-Miles is executive director of the Nuclear Policy 
Research Institute and the author of "Prayer at Rumayla: A Novel of 

[biofuel] Energy Bill - Economic Reporting Review

[Keith Addison]

http://www.cepr.net/Economic_Reporting_Review/Nov_24_03.htm

Economic Reporting Review
By Dean Baker
Mon, 24 Nov 2003

Energy Bill

Accord Reached By Republicans For Energy Bill Carl Hulse
New York Times, November 15, 2003, Page A1 
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B11FE385C0C768DDDA80 
994DB404482

No Home Runs in Energy Bill
Dan Morgan and Peter Behr
Washington Post, November 16, page A10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46456-2003Nov15.html

These articles report on an agreement between House and Senate 
Republicans on an energy bill. These articles provide very few 
specifics -- such as the dollar amounts involved -- on the key 
spending or tax provisions in these bills. Therefore they provide 
readers with little basis to assess the merits of the bill.

It is worth noting that the bill will include a provision that 
prohibits lawsuits over damage from the gasoline additive MTBE. This 
fact is striking, because the prohibition of lawsuits effectively 
amounts to a government taking -- this provision means that the 
government is preventing people who have suffered damages, either to 
themselves or their property, from being compensated.

The fact that Republicans would support a taking in this instance is 
striking. When the Republicans first retook the House of 
Representatives in 1994, one of the key planks in their platform 
(the "contract with America") was a prohibition on government 
takings. At that time, Republicans were concerned about environmental 
regulations that might have the effect of reducing property values by 
limiting development.


House Approves Energy Measure
Dan Morgan
Washington Post, November 19, page A1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59440-2003Nov18.html

2 Major Unions Oppose Energy Bill on Eve of Senate Vote Dan Morgan
Washington Post, November 21, page A6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1740-2003Nov20.html

These article report on the progress of the energy bill approved by a 
House-Senate conference committee. Both articles cite Republican 
claims, without presenting any opposing views, that the bill will 
create 800,000 jobs.

It is not clear that this claim is anything other than a complete 
fabrication by the Republicans. The job claim is based on vague 
estimates of the jobs that will be generated in the energy sectors 
being subsidized (plus grossly implausible multiplier effects), 
without any job losses being subtracted for less favored sectors. 
This would be comparable to counting job gains in the airline 
industry, if the federal government provided a 10 percent tax credit 
on airline tickets, without noting any job losses due to less auto, 
bus, or train travel.

The job count also does not account for any costs associated with 
paying for the bill. Money provided as subsidies to the energy 
industry must either come from higher taxes or spending cuts 
elsewhere; both costing jobs, or raise the deficit, which can also 
cost jobs through its effect on interest rates.

A comprehensive analysis of the job impact of this bill may find that 
on net it loses jobs, but even if there are gains, they will almost 
certainly be less than one tenth the size claimed by the Republicans. 
Such an implausible claim should not have appeared unanswered.



http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/22923/newsDate/24-N 
ov-2003/story.htm
Planet Ark : FACTBOX - Oil, Coal, Power Details of Energy Bill
FACTBOX - Oil, Coal, Power Details of Energy Bill

Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version

USA: November 24, 2003

WASHINGTON - To win support from Senate Democrats on a broad energy 
bill, Republicans on Friday were considering possible changes to the 
legislation that contains about $31 billion in tax breaks, production 
incentives and new federal funding over the coming decade.

In a vote of 57-40, the Senate failed by three votes to end a 
filibuster in a procedural vote. Sixty votes were needed to cut off 
debate and proceed to a final vote.

Democrats and moderate Republicans said they opposed the bill because 
it would protect petrochemical companies from lawsuits for 
contaminating water with MTBE, a gasoline fuel additive that is 
suspected of being a carcinogen.

Any changes in the legislation would have to also be approved by the 
House of Representatives, which already voted to adopt the bill.

The following summarizes key provisions in the existing energy bill:

OIL/GAS

* Double production of ethanol blended into gasoline to 5 billion 
gallons (19 billion liters) by 2012

* Offer $1 billion to help MTBE makers convert to other lines of 
business before the chemical is banned in 2015

* Share oil royalty payments to give Louisiana and other coastal 
states $1 billion for restoration projects

* Cut royalty payments for small oil or gas wells when prices fall 
below a set threshold

* Offer $18 billion in loan guarantees to build natural gas pipeline 
from Alaska to the Midwest

* Order 

[biofuel] Energy Efficiency Could Gain Favor

[Keith Addison]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/business/01enrg.html

Energy Efficiency Could Gain Favor
By BARNABY J. FEDER

Published: December 1, 2003

ENERGY experts anticipate that 2004, like every year before it, will 
be remarkable for how much energy Americans waste. But if energy 
prices climb as high as predicted, consumers are likely to pay more 
attention than usual to the opportunities to be more efficient, and 
retailers expect the results to show up at cash registers.

"We've planned for a rush to these types of products this winter," 
said Craig Menear, senior vice president for merchandising at Home 
Depot, which recently published a catalog highlighting 
energy-efficient products.

To understand the challenges facing energy-efficiency advocates, 
though, consider lighting. Sales of energy-efficient compact 
fluorescent lights are the fastest-growing segment of the market. But 
even in states like Wisconsin, where utilities have subsidized 
purchases of energy-efficient lighting for more than a decade, cheap 
incandescent bulbs outsell the newer technology by a four-to-one 
margin.

The Energy Department estimates that if every American homeowner 
simply replaced the incandescent lighting in his or her five most 
frequently used fixtures with compact fluorescents, the nation would 
save 800 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity consumption - the 
equivalent of shutting down 21 power plants. The cost of fluorescent 
bulbs is typically 8 to 10 times that of incandescents, but that 
initial outlay would be offset over time by their much longer life 
and by lower electricity bills. (As an added benefit, the Energy 
Department estimates, utilities would emit one trillion fewer pounds 
of the types of gases that contribute to global warming.)

While earlier generations of the bulbs did not fit inside many 
lighting fixtures, the newest designs are no bigger than the average 
incandescent bulb, and the industry has improved quality as well.

But no one is betting that the American lifestyle will change anytime 
soon to capture the potential savings. For one thing, if all 
households made the change, it would take about 500 million 
fluorescent bulbs to meet the department's goal. While manufacturers 
have been expanding their capacity, the total annual production 
capacity at the moment for such lighting is probably not much more 
than 55 million bulbs, according to Steve Goldmacher, a spokesman for 
Philips Lighting USA.

According to energy experts, lighting is just one of many fields 
where engineers and designers are inventing energy-efficient products 
faster than the products are being widely embraced. Sometimes the 
best-in-class technologies roll out slowly because of manufacturers; 
Toyota , for instance, has taken a cautious approach to expanding 
production and marketing for its sold-out Prius, a hybrid gasoline 
and electric car with a fuel efficiency that far surpasses that of 
anything Detroit has offered.

Next year will be the first year that all Toyota dealers in the 
United States can sell the Prius. While company officials here hope 
that shipments from Japan will rise to 36,000 from 20,000, American 
dealers will still not be able to get as many as they want, said Wade 
Hoyt, a spokesman for Toyota Motor Sales USA. Supplies are expected 
to be tighter for the first hybrid sport utility vehicle, a Lexus 
model that Toyota expects to begin importing next fall.

More often, though, the restraints lie with consumers. Most are 
reluctant to spend the money to replace inefficient equipment, like 
older air- conditioners or furnaces, with new designs until the old 
equipment breaks down, even when told that the new unit will pay for 
itself in savings within a few years.

Still, 2004 could be a relatively strong year for many 
energy-efficient products. Energy futures markets project high prices 
this winter for the fuels used to heat homes and run cars, as well as 
higher electricity prices. When prices jump, so does interest in 
efficiency.

"I would expect a lot more consumer interest in ways to cut their 
bills," said Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council 
for an Energy Efficient Economy, a Washington-based clearinghouse. 
"There could also be more political interest."

The latter could lead to increases in the tax credits, rebate 
programs and other government subsidies that often play an important 
role in drawing business and consumer attention to energy-efficient 
products. State-mandated programs that were run through regulated 
utilities provided more than $3 billion in subsidies to customers in 
more than 30 states a decade ago, but many were cut back or 
eliminated as the power industry deregulated, according to Marc 
Hoffman, executive director of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency, 
a nonprofit group in Boston.

Mr. Hoffman said that total spending on such programs dropped as low 
as $500 million but has now climbed back above $1 billion. The state 
programs fre

[biofuel] Energy independence on the farm

[tvoivozhd]

It is not necessary as long as the fuel keeps flowing at an affordable
price.  Of course you can buy all your food at the supermarket too.  It is
my opinion that energy autonomy should rate high on anyone's priority list
since it is a basic component of everything else.

So here is a cross post from Peter Singfield---a very knowledgeable person
of the Small Is Beautiful persuasion---decentralizing power being one
aspect.


Gasifier listers -- this is a cross posting from the Belize Culture Mail
list -- a sort of culmination of a thread regarding being energy
independent should the big crash come.

Figure it might be enlightening as a practical example of how much we take
for granted out good life styles.

Since this is the end of a thread -- more than a few blank spaces in the
subject matter -- but I know you guys are good at filling in blank spaces
(and you women as well)

It certainly makes that old saying come to life.

United we stand -- divided we fall.

As in what you read below would be a humongous task for one man -- but
quite easy for one village.

And oh -- "Balche" wine is a traditional brew made from fermented cane
liquor -- great medicinal properties -- and a pleasant relaxation agent as
well. After reading this over -- I see I would be much furhter ahead to
simply double my Balche production per year so I could stay so "relaxed" I
would not need worry about having electrical power, or driving around
anywhere. I have been making Balche for years now. Probably the best
solution is sell the wine and keep buying grid power and gasoline with the
profits.

Peter / Belize

***

Abstract:

How to be energy self sufficient in Belize using a cane field -- a machete
-- and a Volks Rabbit car.



OK Ray -- regarding your quest for a lot of H2 -- your considered "perfect"
fuel to be energy self independent. Here is one way you could make it.

Goto:

http://www.plugpower.com/technology/systemcomponent.cfm

There you will see the parts breakdown and functions of the Plug-Power
device.

Use this part to make your H2 -- it is called a reformer.

"The fuel processor portion of a fuel cell system has two operating
components: the fuel reformer and the carbon monoxide (CO) cleanup unit.
The fuel reformer processes a hydrocarbon fuel, such as natural gas, into a
hydrogen-rich gas known as reformate. Reformate contains heavy
concentrations of CO so a CO cleanup system is applied to reduce the CO
concentrations to acceptable levels (under 50 ppm)."

"Plug Power's fuel cells will employ high performance fuel processors that
consistently produce the highest concentrations of H2 at the lowest levels
of CO."

*

You can tune this to "digest" many fuels and gasses.

In this case -- say ethanol -- from sugar cane.

But you could also partially combust woody biomasses (such as bagasse or
firewood) in a "Gasifier" and feed that product to the reformer -- getting
your hydrogen.

Throw the rest of this machine away -- as you are not ready for fuel cell
technology yet -- and trust running a piston engine on H2 instead.

Course -- you could always run the piston engine directly on the gasifier
product -- or directly on the ethanol -- but you said H2 -- right!!

For me -- I'd stick with the fuel cell and get me some of that 40%
efficiency.

And also -- all the hot water I'll ever want! (Or better -- the heat I need
to run my still -- vacuum distillation of course)

Ethanol is around 21,336 BTU per liter.

So 40% comes out as electrical power = 8534 btu per liter "net"

That is equal to 2.5 kwh

Say each ton of cane gives 80 liters (as reffed in the Brazil article) --
that gives 120 kwh.

For using a lot of power -- like I do -- 14 kwh per day.

Each ton of cane will supply my power needs for 8.57 days.

365 days/ 8.57 = 42.3 tons of cane per year.

I should be able to raise that much on one acre of cane here in Xaibe area.

So folks -- using modern fuel cell technology -- one acre of cane processed
per year will supply all my electrical power needs.

Earlier -- we saw how one acre of cane would supply all the ethanol
required to run my volks rabbit for 27,000 miles.

But I believe I do much less than 13,500 miles per year these days -- so
another 1/2 acre.

So for 1.5 acres of sugarcane I have all my transport needs and my
electrical power requirements -- for ever and one day.

Now -- say I can't afford the 10,000 US to get that nice "Plug Power" fuel
cell setup -- if I simply burned that alcohol in a genset -- I would need
double that figure (20% instead of 40% efficiency) -- thus 2.5 acres of
cane per year.

Figuring the cane season as 6 months per year -- and working out how much I
would have to produce per week.

6 months: 180/7 =  25.7 weeks. So we will say 26 weeks.

I must produce a total of 200 liters of alcohol during that period (the
engine genset example -- not the fuel cell)

So -- 200/26 = 7.7 gallons of distillate per week.

Or --

[Biofuel] Energy Auditing Made Simple - Book

[Keith Addison]

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "No Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Energy Auditing Made Simple - Book
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:06:49

Sub: Energy Auditing Made Simple Book by
P.Balasubramanian.

Dear Sir,

Greetings to you!

This practical Energy Conservation book is
written with the idea
that it should serve as a ready reckoner to
all the Energy Auditors.
There is a heavy demand for qualified Energy
Managers and
Energy Auditors. The book is user-friendly
and covers all that is
required to write an audit report. The
standard theories which are
available in any Energy Conservation
handbook are not presented
here. There is no practical guide at the
moment on energy audit
for preparing a reasonably good report
acceptable to the industry
and the government. The world needs many
practical Energy
Auditors.

P.Balasubramanian is a practising Energy
Auditor with a post
graduate degree in Heat Power Engineering.
He has given the
benefit of his 35 years of practical
industrial experience in India
and abroad.

By following the ready to use manual, the
College Professors,
Lecturers can be a consultant to the
Industries. Also they can
teach practical energy management to the
students.

The solutions are given for all the
energy-related problems faced
by industries in a clear, concise and
practical manner and can be
practised at all times and at all places in
any industry.

All the case studies are practical examples
and can be adopted
for all sectors with little modification.

100 Energy Conservation opportunities
applicable to all systems
and equipment in

Industries and Buildings are given in the
format required by the
Industries and Financial Institutions.

Proven, effective and safe techniques.

The only book of its kind in Energy
Auditing.

The author has conducted Energy Auditing and
Training
programmes for more than 400 industries in
India abroad

You may please visit the website
www.freewebs.com/energyaudit
for complete information .We would like to
be your visiting facuty
to teach Energy Auditing.

You might require Adobe Acrobat reader to
view the site.


Disclaimer : The information contained in
this communication is
intended solely for the individual or entity
to which it is addressed.
It may contain confidential and/or legally
privileged information.
Any review, retransmission, dissemination or
other use of, or taking
any action in reliance on the contents of
this information by
persons or entities other than the intended
recipient is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
received this
communication in error, please notify us
immediately by responding
to this email and then delete it from your
system. We attempt to
sweep e-mails and attachments for viruses,
it does not guarantee
that either are virus free and that we
accept no liability for any
damage sustained as a result of viruses. If
you do not want to
receive our Bulletins, please email to us.
We shall remove your
name from our mailing list.

Thanking
you,



Yours sincerely,


P.Balasubramanian, B.E.,M.Sc.(Engg),
F.I.E.(Ind),


Chairman and Managing Director

Contact Address:
Seperation Engineers (P) Ltd.,
13/5, Masilamani Colony
Sir P.S.Sivasamy Salai
(Near Vivekananda College)
Palur Kanniappa Street, Mylapore
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel : 24991234 / 24992473 / 24987637.
Fax:24992473


___
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] Energy Cronies Clamor For Reward

[Keith Addison]

Energy Cronies Clamor For Reward

By Amanda Griscom Little, Grist Magazine. Posted November 10, 2004.

There's a good chance the 109th Congress will enable Bush to hand his 
corporate contributors one of the most sought-after prizes of all: 
Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.


A day after winning the presidential election last week, George W. 
Bush made this now-legendary - and, to some, menacing - statement: "I 
earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend 
to spend it."


Without dwelling on the notion that conservatives are supposed to 
protect and grow capital, not fritter it away, environmentalists are 
wondering just where and how President Bush is going to spend his 
political booty in the natural resource realm.


In much the same way he spent his more limited allowance in the last 
go-round, according to U.S. EPA chief Mike Leavitt. As reported in 
Greenwire last Friday, Leavitt told the press that the Bushies will 
proudly stay the course on their environmental agenda - one widely 
condemned by environmentalists, but newly bolstered by the election. 
"We now have a clear agenda, one that's been validated and empowered 
by the people of this country," he said.


If past is indeed prologue in the Bush administration, say enviros, 
it's fair to assume that a key beneficiary of the president's 
newfound capital will be the energy industry. During Bush's first 
term, efforts to weaken clean air regulations and expedite oil and 
gas drilling were regarded as paybacks for campaign contributions. 
This time around, the energy and natural-resources sector made record 
donations to Bush's campaign - a total of $4.4 million for the 2004 
cycle, according to the latest data from the Center for Responsive 
Politics, compared with $2.8 million in the 2000 campaign.


"Right now Karl Rove is saying, 'First things first, George. These 
are the folks that floated our campaign, we need to give them our 
thanks,'" said Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global 
Warming and Energy Program.


Now that the Republicans have gained four seats in the Senate, giving 
them a 55-45 advantage, there's a good chance that the 109th Congress 
will enable President Bush to hand his corporate contributors one of 
the most sought-after prizes of all: Alaska's Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge. Bush is also better positioned to get Senate 
approval for his stalled-out energy bill, which has been widely 
criticized on both sides of the aisle as pork at its worst, with its 
billions of dollars in subsidies for fossil-fuel producers and other 
special interests.


There have been rumblings on Capitol Hill that the energy bill could 
come up for consideration during the lame-duck session that will 
begin on Nov. 16, even before the 108th Congress adjourns at the end 
of this year. Lame-duck sessions are typically more rushed and 
insulated from media scrutiny than other sessions, which could be 
advantageous when pushing forward a highly contentious and complex 
piece of legislation.


But most observers think the energy bill won't get off the ground 
until 2005. "No one expects the Republicans to go to great lengths to 
move it now when they can just rewrite it next year, and they'll have 
the advantage of a bigger margin," said Karen Wayland, legislative 
director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.


Indeed, energy-bill advocates insist that the new Republicans who'll 
be taking office in January will put them in good stead: "We have 
more than enough votes for an energy bill," Sen. George Allen 
(R-Va.), chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, 
declared at a press conference last Wednesday.


Scott Segal, a lobbyist for the industry group Electric Reliability 
Coordinating Council, shares Allen's optimism. "Things are definitely 
looking up for an omnibus energy bill," he said. "Not only is there a 
larger operating majority for Republicans, you've got to consider the 
cost of energy: We've had sustained oil prices above $50 [a barrel], 
which is a real red-flag zone, and natural gas at three times the 
historical average. This could very well stimulate the passage, 
particularly among moderate Democrats and more liberal Republicans."


A big sticking point for the energy bill, though, is its MTBE 
provision, which would indemnify producers of the gasoline additive 
MTBE against water-pollution lawsuits. "The energy bill got jammed on 
the MTBE provision and never got unstuck," said Bill Wicker, 
spokesperson for Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee. "Even though there are nine new senators coming to town 
[seven Republicans, two Democrats], nearly all of them will vote the 
same way on this issue as their predecessors."


It's true that extra support for the bill in the Senate will come 
from Richard Burr of North Carolina (replacing Democrat John 
Edwards), Mel Martinez of Florida (replacing Democrat Bob Graham), 
and Jim DeMint of South Caro

[Biofuel] Energy from rolling Ocean Waves

[william lemorande]

A young inventor named Aaron Goldin has won the Nat. Science Contest's
top prize for his invention that harnesses energy from the ocean.
Aaron says,
it generates electricity from the power of rolling ocean surface waves,"
To see the device, which is brilliant, go to the following website.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/PersonOfWeek/story?id=319677&page=1

Bill Lemorande
Milwaukee, WI
USA

- Original Message - 
From: "william lemorande" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bruce Nason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ed Riewe" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Chuck Garot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Senator Russ 
Feingold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Senator Herb Kohl" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Senator Alberta Darling" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Some Brazilian ethanol factsl



Good news today.
President Bush has announced a new energy secretary.
But the important part of his announcement was as follows.

"Bush said his priorities for the Energy Department are to "develop and 
deploy the latest technology to provide a new generation of cleaner and 
more efficient energy sources" and to "promote strong conservation 
measures."

Quoted from Yahoo News.

Hopefully this will steer the USA towards the higher use of ethanol.  In 
major citys we have a mix of 10% ethanol
to 90 gasoline.  I believe our next level should be 20% ethanol.  I have 
dubbed the idea.  "The Lemonade Fix." because it makes lemonade out of 
lemons.


Bill Lemorande
Milwaukee, WI
USA

- Original Message - 
From: "CONTACTOS MUNDIALES" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Some Brazilian ethanol factsl



Dear William and all.

The Brazilian ethanol output in 2003 was 14,000,000,000  liters =
3,703,000,000 US gallons
US production for the same year was  12,000,000,000 "
3,174,000,000   "

Other notes on Ethanol in Brazil:

* There are over 4 million cars that use 100% ethanol in their engines
* Ethanol-gasoline blends start at around 25%
* EMBRAER, the largest domestic airplanes manufacturer, will release in
about four months their model Ipanema that
will use ethanol aviation fuel, with the following consequences:  5% 
power
increase, increased climb rate, speed and altitude, lower engine 
maintenance
costs,  lower emissions (of course), 66% lower fuel costs. (Source: 
EMBRAER

Press Release)
* In Brazil ethanol is produced from Blackstrap molasses as well as from
sugar cane juice
* The sugar cane productivity is 80 Metric Tons/Hectare/Year. This
agricultural yield is equivalent to some 6,500 liters 
ethanol/Hectare/year.

* The current area planted with cane for sugar and ethanol production is
around 4.9 million Hectares.

There is a recent report by Reuters on the present and future of the
Brazilian ethanol industry, which I will be happy to mail
upon request, as well as the EMBRAER release on their ethanol-powered
Ipanema.aircraft.

There is a lot to learn from the Brazilian huge ethanol experiment wich 
they

started more than 30 yeasr ago!.

May all of you have a very nice Sunday,

Luis R. Calzadilla
Contactos Mundiales
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


- Original Message -
From: william lemorande <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Forget the Tiger, put some Mushrooms in your Tank



___
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/




___
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] Energy After Rio: Prospects and Challenges

[Keith Addison]

Full text online:

http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/contents.html

Energy After Rio: Prospects and Challenges

United Nations Development Programme
in collaboration with
International Energy Initiative
and
Energy 21
Stockholm Environment Institute
and in consultation with
Secretariat of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development

United Nations Publications
Sales No E.97 III.B.11
ISBN 92-1-12670-1

Copyright ©1997 by the
United Nations Development Programme
1 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY, 10017 USA

http://www.undp.org/seed/energy/exec_en.html
Executive Summary

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Energy from Snow / Ice fall

[studio53]

I don't think so. My days of going out anywhere on Geocities is over. Last
time I went there I got blasted by three ads before I could even move the
mouse. Then An ad came up of some actress that covered half the screen. I'm
done with them.

Jesse Parris  |  studio53  |  graphics / web design  |  stamford, ct  |
203.324.4371
www.jesseparris.com/Portfolio_Jesse_Parris/
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 12:26 AM
Subject: [biofuel] Energy from Snow / Ice fall


> Visit:
http://www.geocities.com/newideasfromtelewise/energy_from_snow__ice_fall
>
> -
> Sify Mail - now with Anti-virus protection powered by Trend Micro, USA.
> Know more at http://mail.sify.com
>
> Take the shortest route to success!
> Click here to know how http://education.sify.com
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Energy from Snow / Ice fall

[Greg and April]

Far feched. Ice and snow does not move like the inventor envisions.

Greg H.

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 22:26
Subject: [biofuel] Energy from Snow / Ice fall


> Visit:
http://www.geocities.com/newideasfromtelewise/energy_from_snow__ice_fall
>
> -
> Sify Mail - now with Anti-virus protection powered by Trend Micro, USA.
> Know more at http://mail.sify.com
>
> Take the shortest route to success!
> Click here to know how http://education.sify.com
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuels list archives:
> http://archive.nnytech.net/
>
> Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Kwick Pick opens locked car doors,
front doors, drawers, briefcases,
padlocks, and more. On sale now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ehaLqB/Fg5DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

Re: [biofuel] Energy Scandals and Climate Tragedies

[MH]

Oo  A few things I was reading today before I received this story
Oo  so as not to confuse the story line I've imbedded -  Oo input. 



> http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13450
> AlterNet --
> Energy Scandals and Climate Tragedies
> Michel Gelobter, AlterNet
> June 24, 2002
> 
> The controversy over the recent release of the 2002 Climate Action
> Report by the Environmental Protection Agency is just the latest in a
> series of environmental controversies to hit the Bush Administration.
> 
> Before people were left to try solving the riddle of President Bush's
> actual climate change position,

Oo  -input-
Oo  - White House global warming plan "cooks the books"  February 14, 2002
Oo  - Bush administration finally admits big trouble from global warming June 
03, 2002
Oo  - Bush and Whitman distance themselves from EPA global warming report June 
12, 2002
Oo  the BUSH record > Air, Energy & Glogal Warming
Oo  http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/airenergy_co2.asp


> they witnessed a series of
> energy-related scandals that dogged Washington. Whether it was Enron,
> the California energy crisis, or the deliberations into the
> Bush-Cheney Energy Plan, troubling signals emanate from the White
> House with disturbing frequency.
>
> Take, for example, the release of documents tying Energy Secretary
> Spencer Abraham to meetings with donors, whose campaign contributions
> to both parties since 1999 topped $29 million. The payoff from those
> meetings was almost a thousandfold: legislation embodying $27 billion
> in subsidies.
> 
> Believe it or not, this rich harvest is dwarfed by a decision the
> Bush Administration has already implemented: the U.S. withdrawal from
> the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. Had the U.S. respected our
> commitment to action on this critical issue, recent studies,
> including our own, have shown that the net cost to American fossil
> fuel industries could have been more than $45 billion a year. By
> contrast, estimates of the benefits of good climate policy to the
> economy as a whole range as high as $120 billion a year by 2020.
> While our economy took the hit, the energy industry walked away from
> the President's policy with its biggest payday ever.
> 
> So while the fossil fuel industry cashes in on our climate reversal,
> who pays? First, the vast majority of American businesses. If the
> U.S. adopted a policy to internalize the climate-related costs of
> energy use, it would spawn a vast "double dividend." Redirected
> investments would spur employment and send new investments where they
> belong, in companies fueled by workers and innovation instead of
> dependence on foreign oil.
> 
> Furthermore, the reversal of American climate policy devalues other
> industry groups relative to fossil fuel. Because fossil fuel use is
> subsidized by bad climate policy, we use more of it than we should.
> Energy industries artificially appear to be better investments than
> they really are and attract capital investment that could be used
> more productively in the rest of the economy.
> 
> A second victim of the energy industry's climate subsidy is our
> national security. Adopting the Kyoto Protocol could reduce by 2020
> our dependence on oil by over 25%. There may not be a linear
> relationship between this number and the geo-political risks created
> by our dependence on oil-producing states, but we sorely need the
> flexibility that independence would allow.
> 
> Because global warming is, after all, global, its effects threaten
> our security in the long-run as well. The U.S., which represents 4%
> of the world population, emits 25% of the carbon dioxide from fossil
> fuel, and we are historically responsible for over 35% of greenhouse
> gasses presently trapped in the atmosphere.

Oo  -input-
Oo  Selected Global Significant Events - May 2002 Weather MAP
Oo  http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2002/may/extremes.html


> As the impacts of our
> emissions become more clear with time, our reputation may grow from
> pariah on climate policy to responsible party for the natural
> disasters that climate change will entrain. Barring rapid action on
> our part, events like the submersion of 57% of Bangladesh in 1998 or
> last month's rapid breakup of Antarctic ice may increasingly be
> linked to American energy policy, whether or not these events are
> directly connected to climate change.

Oo  -input-
Oo  EXXONMOBIL SHAREHOLDERS SHOW GROWING CONCERN
Oo  ABOUT COMPANY'S LACK OF RENEWABLE ENERGY STRATEGY
Oo  Doubled Vote Total Boosts Efforts to Change ExxonMobil's Isolation on 
Global Warming
Oo  May 29, 2002
Oo  http://www.campaignexxonmobil.org


> Global warming is happening right here, right now, and there is no
> shortage of impacts on our own people. The elderly trapped in
> unprecedented urban heat waves, America's arctic populations facing
> dwindling fish catches, and farmers in the South and Southwest
> dependent on an increasingly volatile cl

[biofuel] Energy Bill Debates In U.S. Congress

[murdoch]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=718&e=4&u=/ap/20030905/ap_on_go_co/energy_bill

Dominici's and others' refusal to separate out some of the issues from
each other sounds like it's going to stop a lot of progress, once
again, but we'll see.

I love all this talk of the "big question" of whether we should drill
in ANWR.  Meanwhile millions of Americans, and others, could be
driving to and from work in BEVs, some charged with home solar and
wind, or in biofuel powered vehicles, others in grid-chargeable
hybrids.

But we wouldn't want that mentioned anywhere.  Best just to (waste our
time?) debating drilling for oil that would supply 5% of our present
usage and sending 20+ billion in tax breaks to those involved.  Even
if a person favors drilling in ANWR, how did this become the only
important issue on the block?  Why aren't other equally-important
solutions mentioned?  Why must the entire energy bill be yea or nay,
en masse, with all these issues lumped together?

Apparently, because Mr. Dominici et. al. insist that it be so.  I
wonder if the answer will be "nay".



 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. 
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

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

Biofuels list archives:
http://archive.nnytech.net/

Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy Department Lab Develops Cleaner Fuel

[Keith Addison]

Wonder what happened to Ginosar's famous better biodiesel method? See:

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/mar99/1999L-03-11-02.html
Environment News: Faster & Cleaner: Fry Oil Becomes Biodiesel Fuel


http://ens-news.com/ens/aug2001/2001L-08-28-09.html
Environment News Service: Environment News Service: AmeriScan: August 28, 2001
Energy Department Lab Develops Cleaner Fuel

BOISE, Idaho, August 28, 2001 (ENS) - Researchers at the U.S. 
Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 
Laboratory (INEEL) have developed an energy efficient process for 
producing alkylate - a high octane gasoline blend that is very low in 
environmental pollutants such as sulfur and benzene.

Cleaner fuels are a logical step towards reducing air pollutant 
emissions, but the petroleum industry is stymied by a technological 
catch-22. Today, making cleaner fuel means using hazardous chemicals 
and generating hazardous waste.

The INEEL researchers have found one way to solve this problem. 
Instead of using a liquid catalyst, the team uses a solid acid 
catalyst to change low octane gas into liquid alkylate.

Once the solid catalyst becomes coated with undesired hydrocarbon 
pollutants, researchers use a supercritical fluid solvent to clean 
and rejuvenate the catalyst, and then begin alkylate production again.

The researchers have been able to restore deactivated catalyst to 100 
percent effectiveness, which increases the active lifespan of the 
catalyst. INEEL researcher Dan Ginosar presented this research at the 
annual American Chemical Society meeting on Monday.

"Using supercritical fluids, we get the best solvent properties of 
liquids and the diffusivity properties of gas," said Ginosar. "Using 
this approach, we not only restored the catalyst to 100 percent of 
original activity levels, we significantly extended the length of 
time in the catalyst - increasing the operating lifespan about 20 
times."

The team has begun experiments using a commercial alkylation feed 
stream obtained from Phillips Petroleum Company - work that should be 
of great interest to the petroleum industry.

"This is the true test from industry's point of view," Ginosar 
explained. "Real world petroleum feedstock is dirtier and chemically 
more complex than the blends we use in the laboratory."

The team has already achieved comparable alkylation production and 
catalyst regeneration results using the industry grade feedstock, 
without changing any aspects of the process.

Scaling the process up to meet industrial production rates is the 
next challenge. In their almost nine day experimental run, the team 
produced 0.2 liters of alkylate - a far cry from the two million 
liters per day a refinery would produce. The catalyst regeneration 
vessels used in this research are about the length of a size 13 shoe, 
and the diameter of a garden hose.

"We'll have to scale up our equipment more than 60 million times 
their current size," said Ginosar.


 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/zoU8wD/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM
-~->

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. 
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

[biofuel] Energy Crisis Could Have Its Benefits

[Keith Addison]

http://washingtonpost.com:80/wp-dyn/articles/A14607-2001Mar29.html
(washingtonpost.com)
Energy Crisis Could Have Its Benefits

By Warren Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 30, 2001; Page C07

America needs a real energy crisis, something packed with pain.

That's the only way the country will speed up the introduction of 
needed fuel-saving technologies.

A genuine crisis would do something else. It would end the illusory, 
self-defeating search for the one and only perfect answer, 
exemplified by California's insistence that automakers start building 
electric cars and trucks -- zero- emission vehicles -- for a mass 
market that doesn't want them.

That's a heck of a mandate for a state that barely has enough 
electric power to turn on its lights.

Pain invites compromise. It renders myopia a luxury. People are more 
willing to consider the previously unthinkable -- such as the 
proliferation of diesel-powered vehicles in the United States.

Consider:

Diesel fuel contains more power per unit than gasoline, compressed 
natural gas, or liquefied natural gas. Diesel engines, depending on 
models compared, use 30 percent to 60 percent less fuel than gasoline 
engines. Diesel-electric hybrid vehicles, large and small, generally 
get better mileage than gasoline-electric hybrids. Yet, automakers 
are loath to introduce large volumes of diesel-powered passenger 
vehicles in the United States.

That's because diesel has a bad reputation here. Environmentalists, 
such as those at the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Public 
Interest Research Group, see "diesel" and "dirty" as being the same 
thing. If the auto industry's sampling of public opinion is accurate, 
most American motorists view diesel the same way.

Diesel-powered passenger vehicles are barely a blip on the 
statistical screen in this country. But 25 percent of all new 
passenger vehicles sold in Europe are diesel, according to research 
by the Diesel Technology Forum, a Virginia group representing the 
diesel fuels industry.

Why do Europeans and, for that matter, Japanese rely so much on 
diesel? It's simple. They're feeling more pain in terms of high 
gasoline prices and fuel availability.

Presumably, Europeans and Japanese care as much about breathing clean 
air as Americans. So, they've come up with ways to take the dirt out 
of diesel.

It doesn't have to be an either-or thing. Big problems such as energy 
conservation and clean air invite multiple solutions. Take the matter 
of electric vehicles.

The current generation of battery-powered cars still have problems 
that make them unacceptable to the mass market. One is price. Even 
with state and local subsidies, they could cost at least $5,000 more 
than comparable vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. 
There is also the matter of driving range -- still too short. And, of 
course, there is the business of recharging -- still too long in 
comparison to refueling times needed for internal combustion models.

Does that mean electrics should be dumped? No. It simply means that 
they should be developed and marketed with common sense, as opposed 
to mandates. For example, pure electrics would make perfect sense in 
a community such as South Padre Island, Tex. It's a strip of a place, 
about six miles long and one mile wide. There is really no need for 
conventionally powered vehicles in a place like that. Bicycles work 
fine. Battery-powered bikes work even better; and battery-powered 
cars would be ideal for moving groups of four or more around the 
island.

Similarly, battery-powered vehicles make sense in other communities, 
such as large college campuses and retirement villages.

Otherwise, consumers should be given the opportunity to drive 
hybrids. That's gasoline-electric and diesel-electric hybrids. 
Currently, in the United States, Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor 
Co. offer only gasoline-electric hybrids -- the Toyota Prius sedan 
and Honda Insight coupe.

These are wonderful little cars -- great gas mileage. (The Prius 
averaged 52 miles per gallon and the Insight pulled about 54 mpg in 
Washington Post test drives.) Both are low- emission vehicles, and 
both have a remarkable amount of pep. Essentially, they have two 
power systems -- fossil fuel and electric -- that work in tandem, or 
in parallel with one another depending on power demands.

Hybrid driving range is comparable to that of conventional models; 
and there is no need to plug them in -- which means they can be used 
in California even during one of its now-famous "rolling blackouts."

Also, there's this. All major car companies are developing hydrogen 
fuel-cell vehicles in which hydrogen is converted into electricity 
through an electrochemical process. The idea is to come up with a 
pure electric vehicle that matches or does better than conventional 
models in terms of cost, driving range, and cargo and passenger 
capacities -- but that emits no pollutants and requires no plug-in 
for rech

[Biofuel] Energy ration cards for everyone planned

[F. Desprez]

Energy ration cards for everyone planned By Charles Clover, Environment
Editor 02/07/2005 Telegraph.co.uk, UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/02/nrg02.xml&sS
heet=/portal/2005/07/02/ixportaltop.html

[Quand le ministre de l'environnement de Tony Blair évoque le rationnement
de l'énergie pour parvenir à diminuer de 2/3 les émissions de GES d'ici à
2050...]

Every individual in Britain could be issued with a "personal carbon
allowance" - a form of energy rationing - within a decade, under proposals
being considered seriously by the Government.

Ministers say that increasingly clear evidence that climate change is
happening more quickly than expected has made it necessary to "think the
unthinkable".


Elliot Morley: ‘We should have an open mind’
They believe they need to start a public debate on energy rationing now if
Tony Blair's aspiration of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds by
2050 is to be achieved.

Under the scheme for "domestic tradeable quotas" (DTQs), or personal carbon
allowances, presented to the Treasury this week, everyone - from the Queen
to  the poorest people living on state benefits - would have the same annual
carbon allocation.

This would be contained electronically on a "ration card", which could be
the  proposed ID card or a "carbon card" based on supermarket loyalty cards.

It would have to be handed over every time a form of non-renewable energy
was  purchased - at the filling station, or when buying tickets for a
flight - for  points to be deducted.

High users of energy would have to purchase points from low users, or from a
central "carbon bank", if they wanted to use more energy.

The scheme applies the principle of carbon trading already accepted for
industry.

The implications of domestic carbon trading have been studied for two years
by the Tyndall centre for climate change research, which says the scheme is
"feasible, affordable and fair".

The virtues of the scheme, according to Mr Blair's "green" advisers, the
Sustainable Development Commission, are that it would provide a "virtually
guaranteed" way of reducing fossil fuel emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.

That is the amount scientists say is necessary to avoid "unacceptable"
climate change, such as the switching-off of the Gulf Stream, the melting of
the Greenland glaciers and the die-back of the Amazon rain forest.

Domestic tradeable quotas have many advantages over carbon taxes, not least
that they are independent from political control, the commission says.

It has recommended that the Government "formally consider" domestic
tradeable  quotas, "within two years".

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Elliot Morley, the minister for
the  environment and climate change, said the Government was committed to a
review  of its policies by the end of the year.

"We should have an open mind about the kind of levers that we apply and not
be afraid to think the unthinkable," he said. "It is fair to say that for a
lot of people personal carbon allowances falls into the unthinkable
category.

"I don't think we should dismiss these approaches.

"There might be a decade of debate in it before we get anywhere with it, but
my job is to consider quite radical new approaches."

The problems were the cost and making it work as a system that prevented
cheating.

Kevin Anderson, of the Tyndall Centre, said: "Once you have accepted that we
need a reduction of 60 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 - which
it seems now that all parties have - you need to start soon.

"We saw what the public thought of carbon taxes in the protests over the
fuel  tax escalator. The beauty of personal carbon allowances is that you
only need  to make about a 1.25 per cent reduction in carbon emissions every
year.

"This is a way that enables us to make the necessary annual changes without
radical adjustments to our lives.

"It is about making the small changes year by year. It won't stop us going
on  holiday. But it might constrain how many times we fly.

"This could be up and running within four to 10 years."

A Private Member's Bill to establish DTQs and a trading system was
introduced  recently by the Labour MP Colin Challen, but this is the first
time it has  been seriously considered by ministers.


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

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

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Energy bill a special-interests triumph

[Keith Addison]

ecial_interests_triumph?pg=full
Boston.com / News / Nation /

"All we had were leaks," said Representative Edward Markey, a member 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee who was kept largely in the dark 
while the bill was crafted. "It was disrespectful of the Democrats." 
(Globe Staff Photo / Dina Rudick)


CLOSED, FOR BUSINESS

Energy bill a special-interests triumph

By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff  |  October 4, 2004

Second of three parts

WASHINGTON -- Robert Congel has grand plans and a heady vision for his upstate 
New York shopping complex. Billed as the biggest mall in the world, the 
yet-to-be-built DestiNY USA would be filled with 400 retailers, thousands of 
hotel rooms, a 65-acre glass-enclosed indoor park, a rock- and ice-climbing 
wall, and a theater suitable for Broadway shows.

And if its patrons in Congress get their way, the mega-mall would be 
partially funded through the federal energy bill, which would provide 
$100 million in public money. A fervent lobbying campaign by Congel 
paid dividends on Capitol Hill. When members of the House voted last 
winter to ramp up domestic oil production, they also voted to help 
Congel build the giant mall through tax-exempt "greenbonds."


The greenbonds initiative -- so named because the developments it 
funds are supposed to be energy efficient -- was among scores of 
items stuck into the energy bill by lawmakers meeting behind closed 
doors. These provisions had no official sponsors and weren't part of 
the original documents approved by the House and Senate, but were 
added later by unseen hands as the 816-page bill was crafted in a 
secret conference.


Intended to lay out an energy policy for the nation for the first 
time in more than a decade, the energy bill became a cash bonanza for 
corporate interests in and out of the energy arena. The bill, which 
is stalled because of a Senate filibuster but which is still one of 
President Bush's top legislative priorities, features initiatives to 
encourage production of new and existing energy sources. But it has 
also become a phonebook-sized symbol of modern Washington lawmaking, 
in which policy is driven by those who have money, power, and access 
to a relatively small group of decision-makers.


A Globe analysis of tens of thousands of pages of lobbying records 
shows that entities with a stated interest in energy policy spent 
$387,830,286 lobbying Washington last year. They also paid tens of 
millions of dollars in campaign contributions to officials putting 
together the package at the White House and on Capitol Hill.


The Globe analysis shows that the corporations and others, including 
some universities, were rewarded in the bill with tax breaks, 
construction projects, and easements of regulations that would save 
them much more than they spent making their arguments to the 
government.


In some instances, the beneficiaries were specific companies like 
Home Depot, which spent $240,000 lobbying in hopes of gaining tens of 
millions in savings. Home Depot -- whose PAC contributed the maximum 
$5,000 to Bush's 2004 campaign and whose employees have contributed 
$226,400 to Bush and the Republican National Committee this cycle -- 
benefits from a two-paragraph section in the bill to eliminate 
tariffs on Chinese ceiling fans. The change would save Home Depot and 
other companies a total of $48 million, according to the bipartisan 
Joint Committee on Taxation.


In other instances, entire industries spent tens of millions of 
dollars to leverage billions in government funding and deregulation.


The nuclear industry, which spent some $71,405,955 lobbying Capitol 
Hill, would get $7.37 billion in tax breaks and projects, including 
federal funds to construct a $1 billion nuclear plant in Idaho. The 
plant, which would be the first nuclear plant commissioned in 
decades, would also benefit the hydrogen fuels industry, because the 
nuclear facility is intended to create hydrogen fuels.


Several large power companies, which spent tens of millions lobbying, 
won a historic deregulation of their industry that would strip away 
controls dating from the Depression on how they spend their money and 
allow them to become conglomerates -- with little recourse for 
ratepayers if the companies' speculative investments go sour.


Bush's biggest supporters would profit handsomely from the bill. 
Sixty of Bush's 400 Pioneers and Rangers -- those who have committed 
to raising at least $100,000 and $200,000, respectively, for the 
Bush-Cheney reelection effort -- would benefit from the tax breaks, 
subsidies, and deregulation in the bill, according to an estimate by 
the Sierra Club.


Massey Energy of West Virginia -- whose director, James H. "Buck" 
Harless, is a major Bush fund-raiser --would get hundreds of millions 
of dollars in loan guarantees for a coal gasification plant. Harless 
served on President Bush's energy transition team, a precursor to 
Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force, 

[Biofuel] Energy Wars and a US Republican

[MH]

 Energy Wars -- Foreign and Domestic 
 by by Jim Rubens 
 Oct 25, 2004 
 http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com 

 I am a Republican who backs the war in Iraq because a
 genocidal tyrant was toppled. However, few will
 secretly disagree that oil explains why the United States
 intervened in Iraq, but unleashed only rhetoric against
 genocide in Rwanda. Oil is why we prop up Saudi princes
 even as they fund thousands of Madrasas -- Islamic schools
 which teach hatred of America and a rising generation of
 terrorists. Saudi Arabia has the world's largest proven
 oil reserves; Iraq is number two; Rwanda has zero. 

 "My party, the Republican party, is too deep in bed with
 the coal, oil and electric utility industries to remember
 its free market principles."  - Jim Rubens, RE Insider 

 In 1972, the year before the first Arab oil embargo, oil imports
 were 28 percent of our consumption. Last year we sent $122 billion
 overseas to import 62 percent of our oil. The Persian Gulf region
 now has 65 percent of world's oil reserves, a number that has
 increased over the past three decades. Gulf 65 percent,
 North America 7 percent and declining. Our economy and way of life
 are utterly dependent upon energy imports from unstable nations
 whose populations are overtly hostile. 

 The fossil fuels - oil, natural gas and coal - sully far more than
 our moral clarity. America obtains 86 percent of its energy from these
 sources. Our abject dependence on fossil fuels harms our economy,
 exports our jobs, pollutes our air and each year prematurely kills
 over 100,000 Americans. To preserve this irrational and dangerous
 addiction, we provide at least $250 billion dollars each year in
 dollar and non-dollar subsidies for fossil fuels.

 Direct and tax subsidies. The watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense,
 tabulates 16 of these special interest paybacks, at a total cost of
 $5 billion per year. The worst of these is the "synfuel" tax credit,
 costing taxpayers $1.3 billion each year. Originally intended to
 replace oil with abundant domestic coal, companies now
 finagle synfuel credits by
 spraying diesel fuel or corn starch on ordinary coal to qualify.
 Forbes quotes energy consultant Forrest Hill cackling,
 "A dog could walk by and raise his leg over a piece of coal and
 it would qualify." 

 Defense subsidy. American taxpayers subsidize the military protection of
 petroleum production and distribution from the Persian Gulf and
 Southwest Asia, money we would otherwise not spend if we and our
 close allies were not dependent upon these politically unstable regions.
 The National Defense Council Foundation estimates these
 incremental fossil fuel defense costs at $49 billion annually.
 The conservative Cato Institute places the cost at $30-$60 billion.

 Uncompensated environmental and health costs. Economists call these
 hidden costs externalities. Fossil fuels' chief environmental and
 health costs result from atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide,
 fine particulates, mercury, and the nitrogen and sulfur oxides.
 Depending upon pollutant, from 50 to 90 percent of human-caused
 air pollution results from production and combustion of fossil fuels.

 The effects include reduced agricultural and forest productivity,
 acid rain, inedible fish, learning disorders, asthma, premature death,
 building deterioration, White Mountains haze and global warming.
 Summing this category of fossil fuel costs is complex and fraught with
 methodological and values disagreements. But using the most
 conservative data I can find anywhere, then rounding aggressively downward,
 environmental and health externalities are at the very least $100 billion 
annually.

 Economic disruption cost. Our heavy dependency on oil and gas from
 hostile and unstable regions results in periodic supply disruptions,
 price shocks and OPEC oligopoly price-gouging. A U.S. Department of Energy 
study
 found that these economic disruptions have cost the American economy an 
average of
 at least $125 billion each year over the past 30 years. This is an
 intolerable annual penalty of 1 percent of our Gross Domestic Product. 

 Fortunately, we have a dramatically better option than fossil fuel dependency.
 We can accelerate economic growth and improve national security by
 terminating fossil fuel subsidies and establishing a free market system
 encouraging clean, domestically-produced, high-technology energy.
 Energy is a global $3 trillion growth industry, the world's largest.
 We have the capital and the inventiveness to lead its transformation.

 Said no less an authority than Sheikh Zaki Yamani, the Saudi oil minister
 during the 1970s, "The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the
 Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil." 

 Solar, wind and geothermal sources are each sufficiently abundant to
 supply all of current global energy demand. Technological obstacles are
 yet to be overcome, but thanks largely to American entrepreneurship,