Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post

[Kim & Garth Travis]

Todd,

I did not say you said those things, I said there were posted in the 
original message on the thread.  And yes some of it is implied, but how 
else does one interpret: "For example, Jet Air Travel. I am amazed at the 
number of so-called
environmentalists that refuse to give up this particular bad habit."

I don't know why you think I am missing the impact of my choices when I 
admit that life is a matter of trade-offs and balance.  I run a sustainable 
farm, it requires daily attendance.  My family is scattered to the 
winds.  Balance for me is to keep my small share of petroleum resources to 
go and see my family.  Driving or train or any other slower method of 
travel means selling the farm!  Or are you volunteering to look after it 
for several months while this decreped old body slowly moves across a 
continent and back.  Yes I have a friend who will do my chores for 2 weeks, 
but she does not weed gardens, or start new plants or breed my rabbits or 
any of the other things that need to be done for the future.  She does 
basic maitainance for the farms survival.

I have chosen the lowest impact lifestyle I can.  To choose, generally 
means to understand what the choices are.

Aristotle said it thousands of years ago:  Happiness is the greatest 
Good.   What is wrong with pleasure?  Pleasure does not equal greed.  I do 
not see how we are going to get anyone to live more environmentally sound 
if we treat pleasure as evil.  How many and what resources do you need to 
give you pleasure?  My pleasure is not about accumulating things, but 
enjoying the natural world.  It is the joy of finding more and more earth 
worms in my soil.  Of watching the lambs play.  Of watching the baby 
bunnies play.  Of eating good food that was grown in healthy soil.  Maybe 
this is why I don't owe any money?

While I had to post and run; If you wish to continue this, it will have to 
be after I return.  I am going no mail for 2 weeks.

Bright Blessings,
Kim





At 08:21 AM 5/7/2004, you wrote:
>Kim,
>
>Do you know how difficult it is to communicate with someone who distorts
>what another says in order to try and make their point?
>
>Where did I say "point blank that [your] choices are wrong?" Where did I say
>"that [you] cannot do what brings [you} great joy?"
>
>What I did imply is that you were missing or omitting the total
>impacts/consequences/externalities of some choices. I don't know why. You
>certainly are able to understand the costs/benefits of other choices. Maybe
>you have already considered those consequences most fully. But you were only
>painting the rosy upside of the majority of your other consumer and
>lifestyle choices in your posts.
>
>I mean let's get real. If people are going to make decisions, it's not a bad
>practice to have contemplated all the peripheral issues, not just those that
>cast shadow in one particular direction or another. And since this is a
>public forum, it's not a bad practice to present all three sides of a coin.
>
>As for trying to "win anyone to environmentalism?" Sure, millions could be
>"won" rather easily by glossing over negative realities and focusing
>primarily on the positive. Unfortunately, that doesn't make the negatives
>disappear. Nor does it make their consequences evaporate.
>
>However, I believe you summed up the matter rather nicely when you point out
>that pleasure is what a high number of decisions are predicated upon.
>
>Therein lays much of the problem, right alongside problems rising out of
>people not having enough resources to afford what brings them stability,
>much less pleasure.
>
>Under full illumination, principle tends to lose out all too frequently to
>pleasure and poverty.
>
>Todd Swearingen
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Kim & Garth Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 7:20 AM
>Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post
>
>
> > Todd,
> > I am well aware that we are not the only 2 people on this planet, but do
> > you really expect to get people to listen when you tell them point blank
> > that their choices are wrong?  My response is to figure out how much
>energy
> > we are entitled to and then let us spend it where we choose.  I am working
> > hard to learn enough to go completely off grid and not use any petroleum
> > products in my daily life.  I am not there yet, and it will take a few
>more
> > years, but that is how I balance my airplane tickets.  The original post
> > asked how we expect the public to pay any attention to the environment
>when
> > we, the environmentalists, use airplanes etc., ourselves.  I do not expect
> > to win anyone to voluntary environmental responsibi

Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post

[Appal Energy]

Kim,

Do you know how difficult it is to communicate with someone who distorts
what another says in order to try and make their point?

Where did I say "point blank that [your] choices are wrong?" Where did I say
"that [you] cannot do what brings [you} great joy?"

What I did imply is that you were missing or omitting the total
impacts/consequences/externalities of some choices. I don't know why. You
certainly are able to understand the costs/benefits of other choices. Maybe
you have already considered those consequences most fully. But you were only
painting the rosy upside of the majority of your other consumer and
lifestyle choices in your posts.

I mean let's get real. If people are going to make decisions, it's not a bad
practice to have contemplated all the peripheral issues, not just those that
cast shadow in one particular direction or another. And since this is a
public forum, it's not a bad practice to present all three sides of a coin.

As for trying to "win anyone to environmentalism?" Sure, millions could be
"won" rather easily by glossing over negative realities and focusing
primarily on the positive. Unfortunately, that doesn't make the negatives
disappear. Nor does it make their consequences evaporate.

However, I believe you summed up the matter rather nicely when you point out
that pleasure is what a high number of decisions are predicated upon.

Therein lays much of the problem, right alongside problems rising out of
people not having enough resources to afford what brings them stability,
much less pleasure.

Under full illumination, principle tends to lose out all too frequently to
pleasure and poverty.

Todd Swearingen


- Original Message - 
From: "Kim & Garth Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post


> Todd,
> I am well aware that we are not the only 2 people on this planet, but do
> you really expect to get people to listen when you tell them point blank
> that their choices are wrong?  My response is to figure out how much
energy
> we are entitled to and then let us spend it where we choose.  I am working
> hard to learn enough to go completely off grid and not use any petroleum
> products in my daily life.  I am not there yet, and it will take a few
more
> years, but that is how I balance my airplane tickets.  The original post
> asked how we expect the public to pay any attention to the environment
when
> we, the environmentalists, use airplanes etc., ourselves.  I do not expect
> to win anyone to voluntary environmental responsibility by telling them
> that they can not do what brings them great joy.  Instead, point out the
> price tag and ask what are they willing to pay to be able to do what they
> really want to.
> Bright Blessings,
> Kim
>
> At 03:12 PM 5/6/2004, you wrote:
> >Well, actually Kim,
> >
> >You and I are not the only two people on the planet. There happen to be
well
> >over 6 billion others, several billion who are perfectly comfortable
living
> >within the norm of excess and avarice.
> >
> >And you can probably bet that out of every 20 trips that you take by
> >airliner, you would still be hard pressed to find yourself seated next to
> >the first person who lives as do you.
> >
> >Which, rather sadly and simply, makes you the exception, not the rule.
> >
> >But then again, every time you take one of those air trips you become
"the
> >rule," with your energy consumption for each day of travel probably
> >increasing 30-40 fold in comparison to what you consume an an average day
in
> >your sphere of influence And, if you wanted to get into a "spitting
match,"
> >those annual airline flights on your part probably put you over the top
in
> >comparison to a lot of other people as far as your average energy
> >consumption, making their energy path considerably softer in comparison
to
> >what your's might appear to be on the surface.
> >
> >I know. It's a bit distressing. But we can't pick and choose what parts
of
> >our personal energy equation we want to turn a blind eye to.
> >
> >As for
> >
> > > Sometimes you just need to hug your children!
> >
> >That's what the family horse, dog, goats and two cats are for.
> >
> >Just kidding.
> >
> >Todd Swearingen
> >
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Kim & Garth Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 12:47 PM
> >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post
> >
> >
> > > Todd,
> > >
> > > Actually these action

Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post

[Kim & Garth Travis]

Todd,
I am well aware that we are not the only 2 people on this planet, but do 
you really expect to get people to listen when you tell them point blank 
that their choices are wrong?  My response is to figure out how much energy 
we are entitled to and then let us spend it where we choose.  I am working 
hard to learn enough to go completely off grid and not use any petroleum 
products in my daily life.  I am not there yet, and it will take a few more 
years, but that is how I balance my airplane tickets.  The original post 
asked how we expect the public to pay any attention to the environment when 
we, the environmentalists, use airplanes etc., ourselves.  I do not expect 
to win anyone to voluntary environmental responsibility by telling them 
that they can not do what brings them great joy.  Instead, point out the 
price tag and ask what are they willing to pay to be able to do what they 
really want to.
Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 03:12 PM 5/6/2004, you wrote:
>Well, actually Kim,
>
>You and I are not the only two people on the planet. There happen to be well
>over 6 billion others, several billion who are perfectly comfortable living
>within the norm of excess and avarice.
>
>And you can probably bet that out of every 20 trips that you take by
>airliner, you would still be hard pressed to find yourself seated next to
>the first person who lives as do you.
>
>Which, rather sadly and simply, makes you the exception, not the rule.
>
>But then again, every time you take one of those air trips you become "the
>rule," with your energy consumption for each day of travel probably
>increasing 30-40 fold in comparison to what you consume an an average day in
>your sphere of influence And, if you wanted to get into a "spitting match,"
>those annual airline flights on your part probably put you over the top in
>comparison to a lot of other people as far as your average energy
>consumption, making their energy path considerably softer in comparison to
>what your's might appear to be on the surface.
>
>I know. It's a bit distressing. But we can't pick and choose what parts of
>our personal energy equation we want to turn a blind eye to.
>
>As for
>
> > Sometimes you just need to hug your children!
>
>That's what the family horse, dog, goats and two cats are for.
>
>Just kidding.
>
>Todd Swearingen
>
>
>----- Original Message -
>From: "Kim & Garth Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 12:47 PM
>Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post
>
>
> > Todd,
> >
> > Actually these actions are not duplicated at my house, my toilets don't
> > flush, you add leaves then dump the bucket on the compost pile.  The yard
> > is mowed by the cows and sheep, I use a solar oven most of the time, there
> > is no satellite hooked up to the television so it is only on for the
> > occasional movie.  Music comes out of a piano, etc.  I also don't wash the
> > sheets every day like a hotel does, my meals don't travel any miles as I
> > grow 85% of my food.  I have a serious non-electric kitchen.  My clothes
> > dry on a line, much better than a commercial dryer.  I am serious about
> > doing my bit for the environment.
> >
> > Do with out air travel  I have one daughter and family in London,
> > England.  I have another one with family in Edmonton, Alberta, a son about
> > to get married in Vancouver, British Columbia and I live near Houston,
> > Texas.  Yes, we use Internet to keep in touch but Weddings, Funerals and
> > family get togethers once in a while are also a necessity of
> > life.  Sometimes you just need to hug your children!
> >
> > Each of us uses their share of energy in their own way.  My vehicles are
> > parked most of the time.  I do not have a big truck and car, I drive the
> > smallest, most efficient vehicle that will do the job.
> >
> > And yes, the mortgage is paid in full.  As is everything else.
> >
> > Bright Blessings,
> > Kim
> >
> > At 11:59 AM 5/6/2004, you wrote:
> > >Kim,
> > >
> > >The 58,000# cargo capacity for the airliner is inclusive of human cargo.
> > >
> > >Private residence energy consumption vs commercial hotel industry?
>Everytime
> > >you open the fridge, take a shower, flush a toilet, crank up the oven,
>mow
> > >the yard, go to the grocery, etc., etc.
> > >
> > >All these actions are duplicated in each environment - "vacation days" or
> > >home days.
> > >
> > >To know how much more fuel is consumed on a "vacation day" vs a day at
>home,
&g

[biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post

[Brian]

Hey Keith,

I spent several months after high school, in the 70s, in Europe with 
a backpack.  Travel was all by train and foot.  It wasn't too much 
of a departure from the culture in which I was raised, but enough to 
raise my awareness that not everyone in the world lived or thought 
the way that I do.  Since that time, visiting other lands/cultures 
and watching people has been my favorite activity.  In my current 
situation, it is not done slowly the way that I did as a teenager.  
I am able to stretch things to have 11 or 12 days at a time, not 3 
or 4 months.  I therefore wouldn't be able to travel if I didn't fly 
to where I want to go and then slow down from there.  I don't do 
luxury hotels and such, though.  One thing that I learned in Europe 
is that if you want to have any inkling of an idea of the people 
whose land you are visiting, you need to stay where they stay.  I 
also don't find any people that I enjoy traveling with or learn much 
from at the local 5 star hotel.  I could afford it if that was what 
I wanted, but I just find a lot more life in the lower rent 
districts.  I guess that life is what I'm looking for.

Brian

--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Brian, Tim and all
> 
> >Tim,
> >
> >I couldn't agree more on the need to drive more sanely, with a 
good
> >portion of that being to conserve.  If you come to Indiana, you'll
> >recognize me as the other guy not exceeding the speed limit.  I
> >haven't had the luck that you have with staying in the right lane,
> >but I figure that when folks get irritated with me being so slow,
> >it's their problem not mine.
> >
> >I wasn't aware of air travel being so fuel costly.  I guess I 
always
> >thought that since so many people were moving at once, it made up
> >for the large amounts of fuel used to move them.  Part of what I
> >enjoy in life is to visit other parts of the world and try to get 
a
> >look at how others live their lives.  To give up air travel
> >completely would mean giving up one of the few things I truly 
enjoy,
> >as well as something that changes the way that I view the world,
> >hopefully for the better.  Personally, I think that if more
> >Americans took advantage of the opportunity to see that we aren't
> >the only culture on the planet, the world would be a much better
> >place.
> 
> I'm sure you're right about that, but I'm sure it applies to 
> everybody, not just Americans. But especially to Americans? Well, 
yes 
> or no, I won't argue about that. The trouble is that air travel at 
> current levels with current practices isn't very sustainable, the 
> "externalisations" are horrendous. The externalisations of the 
> tourist industry are also horrendous. The local externalisations 
of 
> just a single airport are horrendous (there's something in the 
> archives about that). I guess the WW2 British slogan "Is your 
journey 
> really necessary?" applies, or should do, and the answer a lot of 
the 
> time has to be "No", whether it's a business trip or a package 
> holiday. For a family visit like Kim's, family visits are 
necessary 
> and good, and the time restrictions are real enough, but I don't 
> think it'd be like that if air-travel wasn't just assumed and 
> automatically factored in by the powers-that-be who calculate how 
> much "free" time we're to be granted. As for "holidays":
> 
> "The average 15,000 cubic metres of water needed to irrigate one 
> hectare of high-yielding modern rice is enough for 100 nomads and 
450 
> cattle for three years, or 100 rural families for three years, or 
100 
> urban families for two years. The same amount can supply 100 
luxury 
> hotel guests for just 55 days." (UN Food and Agriculture 
Organization 
> -- FAO.) Tip of the iceberg.
> 
> It's arguable whether many tourist holidays do anything to broaden 
> the mind. They're just another consumable these days, but it 
didn't 
> used to be that way, and that wasn't very long ago. People used to 
> travel from Hong Kong to Britain and back by flying boat if they 
were 
> in a hurry. It took a few days, but nobody complained. (Ah, but 
the 
> pace of life is faster now - is it really? Not just a delusion?) 
When 
> they weren't in such a hurry they went by ship. They used to 
travel 
> from South Africa or Australia to Britain and Europe by ocean 
liner. 
> Now there are no such ships, just cruise-liners, another 
consumable.
> 
> Tim mentioned US subsisides for air-travel as opposed to trains 
(18 
> times), and there's no good reason that trains should be a poor 
> cousin. Not for goods transport either - I agree with Todd about 
> airfreight. In Europe (and China) huge amounts of goods go by 
canal, 
> it doesn't seem to render their economies uncompetitive, not 
> everything has to be there yesterday. The system's rigged all 
wrong 
> where what must be large amounts of non-urgent goods go by air 
> anyway. As for people, I had a friend who said jet-lag was a myth, 
> that's no

[biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post

[Keith Addison]

Hi Brian, Tim and all

>Tim,
>
>I couldn't agree more on the need to drive more sanely, with a good
>portion of that being to conserve.  If you come to Indiana, you'll
>recognize me as the other guy not exceeding the speed limit.  I
>haven't had the luck that you have with staying in the right lane,
>but I figure that when folks get irritated with me being so slow,
>it's their problem not mine.
>
>I wasn't aware of air travel being so fuel costly.  I guess I always
>thought that since so many people were moving at once, it made up
>for the large amounts of fuel used to move them.  Part of what I
>enjoy in life is to visit other parts of the world and try to get a
>look at how others live their lives.  To give up air travel
>completely would mean giving up one of the few things I truly enjoy,
>as well as something that changes the way that I view the world,
>hopefully for the better.  Personally, I think that if more
>Americans took advantage of the opportunity to see that we aren't
>the only culture on the planet, the world would be a much better
>place.

I'm sure you're right about that, but I'm sure it applies to 
everybody, not just Americans. But especially to Americans? Well, yes 
or no, I won't argue about that. The trouble is that air travel at 
current levels with current practices isn't very sustainable, the 
"externalisations" are horrendous. The externalisations of the 
tourist industry are also horrendous. The local externalisations of 
just a single airport are horrendous (there's something in the 
archives about that). I guess the WW2 British slogan "Is your journey 
really necessary?" applies, or should do, and the answer a lot of the 
time has to be "No", whether it's a business trip or a package 
holiday. For a family visit like Kim's, family visits are necessary 
and good, and the time restrictions are real enough, but I don't 
think it'd be like that if air-travel wasn't just assumed and 
automatically factored in by the powers-that-be who calculate how 
much "free" time we're to be granted. As for "holidays":

"The average 15,000 cubic metres of water needed to irrigate one 
hectare of high-yielding modern rice is enough for 100 nomads and 450 
cattle for three years, or 100 rural families for three years, or 100 
urban families for two years. The same amount can supply 100 luxury 
hotel guests for just 55 days." (UN Food and Agriculture Organization 
-- FAO.) Tip of the iceberg.

It's arguable whether many tourist holidays do anything to broaden 
the mind. They're just another consumable these days, but it didn't 
used to be that way, and that wasn't very long ago. People used to 
travel from Hong Kong to Britain and back by flying boat if they were 
in a hurry. It took a few days, but nobody complained. (Ah, but the 
pace of life is faster now - is it really? Not just a delusion?) When 
they weren't in such a hurry they went by ship. They used to travel 
from South Africa or Australia to Britain and Europe by ocean liner. 
Now there are no such ships, just cruise-liners, another consumable.

Tim mentioned US subsisides for air-travel as opposed to trains (18 
times), and there's no good reason that trains should be a poor 
cousin. Not for goods transport either - I agree with Todd about 
airfreight. In Europe (and China) huge amounts of goods go by canal, 
it doesn't seem to render their economies uncompetitive, not 
everything has to be there yesterday. The system's rigged all wrong 
where what must be large amounts of non-urgent goods go by air 
anyway. As for people, I had a friend who said jet-lag was a myth, 
that's not what happened at all she said. "My body might go by jet, 
but my spirit goes by train, and it takes a whole week to catch up. I 
think I'll stay with my spirit and take the train." Which in her case 
happened to be the Trans-Siberian Express. I think she's right, but 
I'd take it further - air-travel is a myth. You can't travel on a 
Boeing - you might be going somewhere but any travelling you might 
get to do won't start until after you arrive, if you're in any 
condition for it. How can an airborne cattle-truck with no leg-room 
compare with the Trans-Siberian Express? Or an ocean liner? I like 
flying, if it's in a Cessna or something, but Boeings remind me of 
those old-fashioned office communications systems powered by 
compressed air - you get shoved into a capsule and stuck in a pipe, 
there's a whooshing sound and then you're spat out the other end all 
crumpled up. What fun. The transportation used to be an integral part 
of your travelling adventures, now we've cashed that bit in for a bit 
of "saved" time while the planet takes heavy damage for it.

So what to do? Something, surely. What's wrong with flying boats 
anyway? You and Tim do slow driving, we have slow food, a good 
movement growing not slowly, here in Japan we've helped start a "slow 
fuel" movement with biodiesel (it translates better in Japanese, 
loses the potential "less power" implicat

Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post

[Appal Energy]

Well, actually Kim,

You and I are not the only two people on the planet. There happen to be well
over 6 billion others, several billion who are perfectly comfortable living
within the norm of excess and avarice.

And you can probably bet that out of every 20 trips that you take by
airliner, you would still be hard pressed to find yourself seated next to
the first person who lives as do you.

Which, rather sadly and simply, makes you the exception, not the rule.

But then again, every time you take one of those air trips you become "the
rule," with your energy consumption for each day of travel probably
increasing 30-40 fold in comparison to what you consume an an average day in
your sphere of influence And, if you wanted to get into a "spitting match,"
those annual airline flights on your part probably put you over the top in
comparison to a lot of other people as far as your average energy
consumption, making their energy path considerably softer in comparison to
what your's might appear to be on the surface.

I know. It's a bit distressing. But we can't pick and choose what parts of
our personal energy equation we want to turn a blind eye to.

As for

> Sometimes you just need to hug your children!

That's what the family horse, dog, goats and two cats are for.

Just kidding.

Todd Swearingen


- Original Message - 
From: "Kim & Garth Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post


> Todd,
>
> Actually these actions are not duplicated at my house, my toilets don't
> flush, you add leaves then dump the bucket on the compost pile.  The yard
> is mowed by the cows and sheep, I use a solar oven most of the time, there
> is no satellite hooked up to the television so it is only on for the
> occasional movie.  Music comes out of a piano, etc.  I also don't wash the
> sheets every day like a hotel does, my meals don't travel any miles as I
> grow 85% of my food.  I have a serious non-electric kitchen.  My clothes
> dry on a line, much better than a commercial dryer.  I am serious about
> doing my bit for the environment.
>
> Do with out air travel  I have one daughter and family in London,
> England.  I have another one with family in Edmonton, Alberta, a son about
> to get married in Vancouver, British Columbia and I live near Houston,
> Texas.  Yes, we use Internet to keep in touch but Weddings, Funerals and
> family get togethers once in a while are also a necessity of
> life.  Sometimes you just need to hug your children!
>
> Each of us uses their share of energy in their own way.  My vehicles are
> parked most of the time.  I do not have a big truck and car, I drive the
> smallest, most efficient vehicle that will do the job.
>
> And yes, the mortgage is paid in full.  As is everything else.
>
> Bright Blessings,
> Kim
>
> At 11:59 AM 5/6/2004, you wrote:
> >Kim,
> >
> >The 58,000# cargo capacity for the airliner is inclusive of human cargo.
> >
> >Private residence energy consumption vs commercial hotel industry?
Everytime
> >you open the fridge, take a shower, flush a toilet, crank up the oven,
mow
> >the yard, go to the grocery, etc., etc.
> >
> >All these actions are duplicated in each environment - "vacation days" or
> >home days.
> >
> >To know how much more fuel is consumed on a "vacation day" vs a day at
home,
> >one must be subtracted from the other.
> >
> >In theory, the economies of scale relative to fuel consumption for many
> >aspects of the support industries of "vaction days" should be more
> >efficient - more efficient boilers, mass transit in cities, fewer
laborers
> >per whatever task performed (meaning reduced trasportation fuels for
those
> >laborers).
> >
> >There's a big difference in energy inputs per pound for a 500# industrial
> >washing machine vs your residential unit of choice. And the example can
be
> >transferred to hundreds of other mediums.
> >
> >It'd drive you crazy trying to calculate it all. Much easier just to do
> >without, keep your sanity and your hair and get the mortgage paid off a
bit
> >earlier rather than paying for some financier's $75,000 diamond wedding
band
> >set.
> >
> >Todd Swearingen
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Kim & Garth Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: 
> >Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 11:44 AM
> >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post
> >
> >
> > > Todd,
> > >
> > > I don't see where you are taking into account the number of people on
the

Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post

[Kim & Garth Travis]

Todd,

Actually these actions are not duplicated at my house, my toilets don't 
flush, you add leaves then dump the bucket on the compost pile.  The yard 
is mowed by the cows and sheep, I use a solar oven most of the time, there 
is no satellite hooked up to the television so it is only on for the 
occasional movie.  Music comes out of a piano, etc.  I also don't wash the 
sheets every day like a hotel does, my meals don't travel any miles as I 
grow 85% of my food.  I have a serious non-electric kitchen.  My clothes 
dry on a line, much better than a commercial dryer.  I am serious about 
doing my bit for the environment.

Do with out air travel  I have one daughter and family in London, 
England.  I have another one with family in Edmonton, Alberta, a son about 
to get married in Vancouver, British Columbia and I live near Houston, 
Texas.  Yes, we use Internet to keep in touch but Weddings, Funerals and 
family get togethers once in a while are also a necessity of 
life.  Sometimes you just need to hug your children!

Each of us uses their share of energy in their own way.  My vehicles are 
parked most of the time.  I do not have a big truck and car, I drive the 
smallest, most efficient vehicle that will do the job.

And yes, the mortgage is paid in full.  As is everything else.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 11:59 AM 5/6/2004, you wrote:
>Kim,
>
>The 58,000# cargo capacity for the airliner is inclusive of human cargo.
>
>Private residence energy consumption vs commercial hotel industry? Everytime
>you open the fridge, take a shower, flush a toilet, crank up the oven, mow
>the yard, go to the grocery, etc., etc.
>
>All these actions are duplicated in each environment - "vacation days" or
>home days.
>
>To know how much more fuel is consumed on a "vacation day" vs a day at home,
>one must be subtracted from the other.
>
>In theory, the economies of scale relative to fuel consumption for many
>aspects of the support industries of "vaction days" should be more
>efficient - more efficient boilers, mass transit in cities, fewer laborers
>per whatever task performed (meaning reduced trasportation fuels for those
>laborers).
>
>There's a big difference in energy inputs per pound for a 500# industrial
>washing machine vs your residential unit of choice. And the example can be
>transferred to hundreds of other mediums.
>
>It'd drive you crazy trying to calculate it all. Much easier just to do
>without, keep your sanity and your hair and get the mortgage paid off a bit
>earlier rather than paying for some financier's $75,000 diamond wedding band
>set.
>
>Todd Swearingen
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Kim & Garth Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 11:44 AM
>Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post
>
>
> > Todd,
> >
> > I don't see where you are taking into account the number of people on the
> > flight into the cost per mileage per person or per pound, since I have not
> > seen an empty seat on an airplane for years.  Also, what energy usage at
> > home, some of use manage to use almost none so the amount of energy usage
> > on the road is way huge in comparison.  I don't know anyone who drive
> > Houston to Vancouver in 3 days, the truckers call it 5 and I can not do 14
> > hours a day in a vehicle so I would be looking at closer to 7 days of
> > travel.  The biggest factor I can see is the cost of lives of people on
>the
> > highways that are too tired to be there, accidents do tend to happen to
> > tired people.
> >
> > For long trips, air travel is a reasonable alternative when all the costs
> > are added up.  There is a lot of support for the roads, the rail lines or
> > any form of transportation and they all cost energy.  Yes you can spin
>this
> > any way you want, but in some cases it is the best method.
> >
> > Air freight is expensive to the pocket book and the environment.  I never
> > use it if I have a choice.  Some companies don't give you that choice,
>when
> > you order from them.  I believe in telephones, conference calling, video
> > cams on computers and many other methods of communicating that will
> > eliminate the need for travel.  But there are day when you just want to
>hug
> > your kids!
> >
> > Bright Blessings,
> > Kim
> >
> > At 11:25 AM 5/6/2004, you wrote:
> > >Kim,
> > >
> > >Flight, just because it's quick, certainly isn't energy efficient.
> > >
> > >It takes a bit more fuel to propel a Boeing 727 (~152,000#s empty with
> > >~58,000#s cargo capacity) and one pound of body fat 

Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post

[Appal Energy]

Ooops Kim,

US gov says that the Boeing 727-200 consumes 1,844 gallons per hour fully
loaded, not the 1,678 that I reported. I accidentally took that figure off
the Airbus-300-600.

http://api.hq.faa.gov/economic/742SECT7.pdf

But there is good news. When you get up to the Airbus and the Boeing
767-2/ER wide body jets, you can put another 150,000 #s in the air and
consume 200-400 gallons per hour less respectively.

Sometimes bigger is better. Sometimes it's not.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message - 
From: "Kim & Garth Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post


> Todd,
>
> I don't see where you are taking into account the number of people on the
> flight into the cost per mileage per person or per pound, since I have not
> seen an empty seat on an airplane for years.  Also, what energy usage at
> home, some of use manage to use almost none so the amount of energy usage
> on the road is way huge in comparison.  I don't know anyone who drive
> Houston to Vancouver in 3 days, the truckers call it 5 and I can not do 14
> hours a day in a vehicle so I would be looking at closer to 7 days of
> travel.  The biggest factor I can see is the cost of lives of people on
the
> highways that are too tired to be there, accidents do tend to happen to
> tired people.
>
> For long trips, air travel is a reasonable alternative when all the costs
> are added up.  There is a lot of support for the roads, the rail lines or
> any form of transportation and they all cost energy.  Yes you can spin
this
> any way you want, but in some cases it is the best method.
>
> Air freight is expensive to the pocket book and the environment.  I never
> use it if I have a choice.  Some companies don't give you that choice,
when
> you order from them.  I believe in telephones, conference calling, video
> cams on computers and many other methods of communicating that will
> eliminate the need for travel.  But there are day when you just want to
hug
> your kids!
>
> Bright Blessings,
> Kim
>
> At 11:25 AM 5/6/2004, you wrote:
> >Kim,
> >
> >Flight, just because it's quick, certainly isn't energy efficient.
> >
> >It takes a bit more fuel to propel a Boeing 727 (~152,000#s empty with
> >~58,000#s cargo capacity) and one pound of body fat through the air at
> >30,000 feet than it does to propel a 2,500 pound car (on the ground, of
> >course) and one pound of body fat.
> >
> >The 727- 200, burns ~1,678 gallons per hour when cruising at ~580 mph.
> >
> >If you started with a 3,000 mile trip, divide by 580 mph, multiply by
1,678
> >gallons per hour and then divide by the 58,000#s of cargo and passenger
> >weight, you come up with a fuel consumption of ~19.154 fluid ounces of
fuel
> >per pound for the 3,000 mile trip.
> >
> >If you duplicated that equation using a four seat VW Golf diesel, with a
> >maximum payload of 900#s  and having a rated fuel economy of 48 mpg, you
> >come up with a fuel consumption of 8.889 fluid ounces of fuel per pound
for
> >the 3,000 mile trip.
> >
> >That equates to passenger car travel consuming less than half the fuel as
> >does air travel, at least when comparing a VW Golf diesel to a Boeing
> >727-200 - hardly numbers that can be transferred across the board when
you
> >consider that not every vehicle on the road is rated at 48 mpg, nor is
every
> >airliner or commuter airplane rated at 1,678 gallons per hour of flight.
> >
> >There are boatloads of other variables that can be piled onto such a
quick
> >calculation and massaged to give whatever spin someone would like. Both
> >industries have monumental support infrastructures that consume massive
> >amounts of fuel and it would probably take a year of doctoral work to
come
> >anywhere close to a relatively ambiguous comparison.. After all, 4 people
> >would sleep three nights on the Golf side of the equation and 160
passengers
> >and crew would sleep 1 night on the 727 side. But then you would have to
> >subtract the energy that would have been consumed at the primary
residences
> >of all passengers from that consumed when using the same services on the
> >road. And then, well, you get the picture.
> >
> >Anyway, the raw transportation fuel comparison for each of the two
vehicles
> >above is largely sound.
> >
> >Mind you that truck and rail traffic can get fuel/payload ratios down
even
> >further, giving all the more reason for energy conscious business persons
> >and consumers to never ship a package airfreight.
> >
> >UPS air, Airborne and Fed Ex air

Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post

[Appal Energy]

Kim,

The 58,000# cargo capacity for the airliner is inclusive of human cargo.

Private residence energy consumption vs commercial hotel industry? Everytime
you open the fridge, take a shower, flush a toilet, crank up the oven, mow
the yard, go to the grocery, etc., etc.

All these actions are duplicated in each environment - "vacation days" or
home days.

To know how much more fuel is consumed on a "vacation day" vs a day at home,
one must be subtracted from the other.

In theory, the economies of scale relative to fuel consumption for many
aspects of the support industries of "vaction days" should be more
efficient - more efficient boilers, mass transit in cities, fewer laborers
per whatever task performed (meaning reduced trasportation fuels for those
laborers).

There's a big difference in energy inputs per pound for a 500# industrial
washing machine vs your residential unit of choice. And the example can be
transferred to hundreds of other mediums.

It'd drive you crazy trying to calculate it all. Much easier just to do
without, keep your sanity and your hair and get the mortgage paid off a bit
earlier rather than paying for some financier's $75,000 diamond wedding band
set.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message - 
From: "Kim & Garth Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post


> Todd,
>
> I don't see where you are taking into account the number of people on the
> flight into the cost per mileage per person or per pound, since I have not
> seen an empty seat on an airplane for years.  Also, what energy usage at
> home, some of use manage to use almost none so the amount of energy usage
> on the road is way huge in comparison.  I don't know anyone who drive
> Houston to Vancouver in 3 days, the truckers call it 5 and I can not do 14
> hours a day in a vehicle so I would be looking at closer to 7 days of
> travel.  The biggest factor I can see is the cost of lives of people on
the
> highways that are too tired to be there, accidents do tend to happen to
> tired people.
>
> For long trips, air travel is a reasonable alternative when all the costs
> are added up.  There is a lot of support for the roads, the rail lines or
> any form of transportation and they all cost energy.  Yes you can spin
this
> any way you want, but in some cases it is the best method.
>
> Air freight is expensive to the pocket book and the environment.  I never
> use it if I have a choice.  Some companies don't give you that choice,
when
> you order from them.  I believe in telephones, conference calling, video
> cams on computers and many other methods of communicating that will
> eliminate the need for travel.  But there are day when you just want to
hug
> your kids!
>
> Bright Blessings,
> Kim
>
> At 11:25 AM 5/6/2004, you wrote:
> >Kim,
> >
> >Flight, just because it's quick, certainly isn't energy efficient.
> >
> >It takes a bit more fuel to propel a Boeing 727 (~152,000#s empty with
> >~58,000#s cargo capacity) and one pound of body fat through the air at
> >30,000 feet than it does to propel a 2,500 pound car (on the ground, of
> >course) and one pound of body fat.
> >
> >The 727- 200, burns ~1,678 gallons per hour when cruising at ~580 mph.
> >
> >If you started with a 3,000 mile trip, divide by 580 mph, multiply by
1,678
> >gallons per hour and then divide by the 58,000#s of cargo and passenger
> >weight, you come up with a fuel consumption of ~19.154 fluid ounces of
fuel
> >per pound for the 3,000 mile trip.
> >
> >If you duplicated that equation using a four seat VW Golf diesel, with a
> >maximum payload of 900#s  and having a rated fuel economy of 48 mpg, you
> >come up with a fuel consumption of 8.889 fluid ounces of fuel per pound
for
> >the 3,000 mile trip.
> >
> >That equates to passenger car travel consuming less than half the fuel as
> >does air travel, at least when comparing a VW Golf diesel to a Boeing
> >727-200 - hardly numbers that can be transferred across the board when
you
> >consider that not every vehicle on the road is rated at 48 mpg, nor is
every
> >airliner or commuter airplane rated at 1,678 gallons per hour of flight.
> >
> >There are boatloads of other variables that can be piled onto such a
quick
> >calculation and massaged to give whatever spin someone would like. Both
> >industries have monumental support infrastructures that consume massive
> >amounts of fuel and it would probably take a year of doctoral work to
come
> >anywhere close to a relatively ambiguous comparison.. After all, 4 people
> >would sleep three nights on the 

Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post

[Kim & Garth Travis]

Todd,

I don't see where you are taking into account the number of people on the 
flight into the cost per mileage per person or per pound, since I have not 
seen an empty seat on an airplane for years.  Also, what energy usage at 
home, some of use manage to use almost none so the amount of energy usage 
on the road is way huge in comparison.  I don't know anyone who drive 
Houston to Vancouver in 3 days, the truckers call it 5 and I can not do 14 
hours a day in a vehicle so I would be looking at closer to 7 days of 
travel.  The biggest factor I can see is the cost of lives of people on the 
highways that are too tired to be there, accidents do tend to happen to 
tired people.

For long trips, air travel is a reasonable alternative when all the costs 
are added up.  There is a lot of support for the roads, the rail lines or 
any form of transportation and they all cost energy.  Yes you can spin this 
any way you want, but in some cases it is the best method.

Air freight is expensive to the pocket book and the environment.  I never 
use it if I have a choice.  Some companies don't give you that choice, when 
you order from them.  I believe in telephones, conference calling, video 
cams on computers and many other methods of communicating that will 
eliminate the need for travel.  But there are day when you just want to hug 
your kids!

Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 11:25 AM 5/6/2004, you wrote:
>Kim,
>
>Flight, just because it's quick, certainly isn't energy efficient.
>
>It takes a bit more fuel to propel a Boeing 727 (~152,000#s empty with
>~58,000#s cargo capacity) and one pound of body fat through the air at
>30,000 feet than it does to propel a 2,500 pound car (on the ground, of
>course) and one pound of body fat.
>
>The 727- 200, burns ~1,678 gallons per hour when cruising at ~580 mph.
>
>If you started with a 3,000 mile trip, divide by 580 mph, multiply by 1,678
>gallons per hour and then divide by the 58,000#s of cargo and passenger
>weight, you come up with a fuel consumption of ~19.154 fluid ounces of fuel
>per pound for the 3,000 mile trip.
>
>If you duplicated that equation using a four seat VW Golf diesel, with a
>maximum payload of 900#s  and having a rated fuel economy of 48 mpg, you
>come up with a fuel consumption of 8.889 fluid ounces of fuel per pound for
>the 3,000 mile trip.
>
>That equates to passenger car travel consuming less than half the fuel as
>does air travel, at least when comparing a VW Golf diesel to a Boeing
>727-200 - hardly numbers that can be transferred across the board when you
>consider that not every vehicle on the road is rated at 48 mpg, nor is every
>airliner or commuter airplane rated at 1,678 gallons per hour of flight.
>
>There are boatloads of other variables that can be piled onto such a quick
>calculation and massaged to give whatever spin someone would like. Both
>industries have monumental support infrastructures that consume massive
>amounts of fuel and it would probably take a year of doctoral work to come
>anywhere close to a relatively ambiguous comparison.. After all, 4 people
>would sleep three nights on the Golf side of the equation and 160 passengers
>and crew would sleep 1 night on the 727 side. But then you would have to
>subtract the energy that would have been consumed at the primary residences
>of all passengers from that consumed when using the same services on the
>road. And then, well, you get the picture.
>
>Anyway, the raw transportation fuel comparison for each of the two vehicles
>above is largely sound.
>
>Mind you that truck and rail traffic can get fuel/payload ratios down even
>further, giving all the more reason for energy conscious business persons
>and consumers to never ship a package airfreight.
>
>UPS air, Airborne and Fed Ex air aren't exactly fuel
>efficienct/environmental bargains.
>
>Todd Swearingen
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Kim & Garth Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: 
>Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 7:26 AM
>Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post
>
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Would you care to figure our time into that equation?  Yes, I am serious
> > about the environment and yes, I do travel by plane.  If I am traveling
> > from Houston, Texas to Vancouver, British Columbia it is the best method
> > since you also have to figure in all our meals and the energy and cost
>that
> > they incur, as well as the travel.  I would like more than 3 hours out of
>a
> > 2 week trip to actually get to know my future daughter-in-law, on this
> > trip, which is about what I would get if I traveled by train.
> >
> > While I can understand your point with the daily shuttles between major
> > cities,

Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post

[Appal Energy]

Kim,

Flight, just because it's quick, certainly isn't energy efficient.

It takes a bit more fuel to propel a Boeing 727 (~152,000#s empty with
~58,000#s cargo capacity) and one pound of body fat through the air at
30,000 feet than it does to propel a 2,500 pound car (on the ground, of
course) and one pound of body fat.

The 727- 200, burns ~1,678 gallons per hour when cruising at ~580 mph.

If you started with a 3,000 mile trip, divide by 580 mph, multiply by 1,678
gallons per hour and then divide by the 58,000#s of cargo and passenger
weight, you come up with a fuel consumption of ~19.154 fluid ounces of fuel
per pound for the 3,000 mile trip.

If you duplicated that equation using a four seat VW Golf diesel, with a
maximum payload of 900#s  and having a rated fuel economy of 48 mpg, you
come up with a fuel consumption of 8.889 fluid ounces of fuel per pound for
the 3,000 mile trip.

That equates to passenger car travel consuming less than half the fuel as
does air travel, at least when comparing a VW Golf diesel to a Boeing
727-200 - hardly numbers that can be transferred across the board when you
consider that not every vehicle on the road is rated at 48 mpg, nor is every
airliner or commuter airplane rated at 1,678 gallons per hour of flight.

There are boatloads of other variables that can be piled onto such a quick
calculation and massaged to give whatever spin someone would like. Both
industries have monumental support infrastructures that consume massive
amounts of fuel and it would probably take a year of doctoral work to come
anywhere close to a relatively ambiguous comparison.. After all, 4 people
would sleep three nights on the Golf side of the equation and 160 passengers
and crew would sleep 1 night on the 727 side. But then you would have to
subtract the energy that would have been consumed at the primary residences
of all passengers from that consumed when using the same services on the
road. And then, well, you get the picture.

Anyway, the raw transportation fuel comparison for each of the two vehicles
above is largely sound.

Mind you that truck and rail traffic can get fuel/payload ratios down even
further, giving all the more reason for energy conscious business persons
and consumers to never ship a package airfreight.

UPS air, Airborne and Fed Ex air aren't exactly fuel
efficienct/environmental bargains.

Todd Swearingen

- Original Message - 
From: "Kim & Garth Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post


> Greetings,
>
> Would you care to figure our time into that equation?  Yes, I am serious
> about the environment and yes, I do travel by plane.  If I am traveling
> from Houston, Texas to Vancouver, British Columbia it is the best method
> since you also have to figure in all our meals and the energy and cost
that
> they incur, as well as the travel.  I would like more than 3 hours out of
a
> 2 week trip to actually get to know my future daughter-in-law, on this
> trip, which is about what I would get if I traveled by train.
>
> While I can understand your point with the daily shuttles between major
> cities, and yes there is some abuse, there is far more to the equation
than
> you have presented.  There are things like driving fatigue accidents to
> consider for business trips.  The cost in energy of running motels, where
> the sheets have to be washed everyday because there are different people
in
> the bed everyday.  Meals in restaurants are really abusive of energy and
> not very healthy.  And the biggy, time with family that the slower methods
> of travel eat up.
>
> I agree conservation is something to go after, but tele-confrencing not
> travel should be used more.  If travel is really necessary, the planes do
> have saving to offer sometimes.
>
> Bright Blessings,
> Kim
>
> At 12:15 AM 5/6/2004, you wrote:
> >Hi Lyle,
> >
> >What I am saying is that it is socially irresponsible to promote
> >biofuels without at least an equal effort to promote a SIGNIFICANT
> >reduction in consumption on the order of 1/5th the current amount,
> >BY ALL OF US.
> >
> >For example, Jet Air Travel. I am amazed at the number of so-called
> >environmentalists that refuse to give up this particular bad habit.
> >Here we have an industry subsidized with over 18 times the amount
> >allowed for super efficient train travel.
> >
> >Average BTU consumed Per Passenger mile by mode of travel:
> >
> >SUV: 4,591
> >Air: 4,123
> >Bus: 3,729
> >Car: 3,672
> >Train: 2,138
> >
> >Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
> >http://199.79.179.77/publications/nts/index.html
> >
> >Another example, folks insist on racing from red light to red light

[biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post

[Brian]

Tim,

I couldn't agree more on the need to drive more sanely, with a good 
portion of that being to conserve.  If you come to Indiana, you'll 
recognize me as the other guy not exceeding the speed limit.  I 
haven't had the luck that you have with staying in the right lane, 
but I figure that when folks get irritated with me being so slow, 
it's their problem not mine.

I wasn't aware of air travel being so fuel costly.  I guess I always 
thought that since so many people were moving at once, it made up 
for the large amounts of fuel used to move them.  Part of what I 
enjoy in life is to visit other parts of the world and try to get a 
look at how others live their lives.  To give up air travel 
completely would mean giving up one of the few things I truly enjoy, 
as well as something that changes the way that I view the world, 
hopefully for the better.  Personally, I think that if more 
Americans took advantage of the opportunity to see that we aren't 
the only culture on the planet, the world would be a much better 
place.

Brian

--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Lyle,
> 
> What I am saying is that it is socially irresponsible to promote 
> biofuels without at least an equal effort to promote a SIGNIFICANT 
> reduction in consumption on the order of 1/5th the current amount, 
> BY ALL OF US. 
> 
> For example, Jet Air Travel. I am amazed at the number of so-
called 
> environmentalists that refuse to give up this particular bad 
habit. 
> Here we have an industry subsidized with over 18 times the amount 
> allowed for super efficient train travel. 
> 
> Average BTU consumed Per Passenger mile by mode of travel:
>  
> SUV: 4,591
> Air: 4,123
> Bus: 3,729
> Car: 3,672
> Train: 2,138
>  
> Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
> http://199.79.179.77/publications/nts/index.html
> 
> Another example, folks insist on racing from red light to red 
light 
> as fast as possible, and when on highways and freeways routinely 
> speed 20 to 30 mph above posted speed limits. The cops have given 
up 
> trying to enforce speed limits (a whole other rant) so the race is 
> on. Now everyone knows the faster one goes the more fuel is 
> consumed, yet bring up the idea of restoring the 55 MPH speed 
limit, 
> and enforcing existing speed limits, and watch the so-called 
> environmentalists scurry for cover like roaches when the lights 
come 
> on. 
> 
> This one simple measure could reduce consumption, emmissions & 
> reliance on imported oil 20% to 50%! Visit the Drive 55 
Conservation 
> website to read several reports and articles in support of this 
> claim: http://drive55.org/pn/index.php
> 
> 
> So, all that said, and seeing as you "fundamentally agree" with 
> my "conservation message" - what commitments are you prepared to 
> make to reduce your personal consumption of energy?
> 
> I refuse to fly in jet airplanes now. I plan better and stick to 
> surface transportation. 
> 
> When I drive my 78 300D, I obey speed limits, rarely exceeding 55 
> MPH. By staying in the right lane I have found this very easy as 
> that is the maximum for trucks here in California. Guess what, 
> McDonalds BRAGS about sticking to 55 MPH with stickers on their 
> trucks! 
> 
> I have replaced every light bulb in my home with 13 watt 
> flourescents and installed dual pane windows among the ongoing 
> efforts.
> 
> I ride my bike whenever possible for most trips to the store, 
bank, 
> and other errands. I even take it on the light rail when I go 
> downtown. 
> 
> When I shop I pay close attention to the source of the products I 
> buy, and always choose locally produced goods if possible.
> 
> I share this message with everyone I meet, along with the 
> information I have about cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and other 
> types of biofuel as a PART of the equation. 
> 
> I will say this very plainly again now: It is socially 
irresponsible 
> to promote biofuels without AT LEAST an equal effort made to 
promote 
> conservation. The offense is compounded when someone claiming 
> concern for the environment refuses to acknowledge this in their 
own 
> life, and joins in the funding of petroleum warlords.
> 
> Peace,
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Lyle Estill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Tim,
> > 
> > I fundamentally agree with your conservation message, and your 
> mantra 
> > of social responsibility and sustainability,
> > but I think questioning feedstock capacities at this point is a 
> straw 
> > argument.
> > 
> > Saying we can't grow enough to meet our fuel needs is a little 
> like 
> > saying we shouldn't make electricity from wind--after all, the 
> wind 
> > doesn't always blow.
> > 
> > Lyle Estill
> > V.P., Stuff
> > Piedmont Biofuels
> > www.biofuels.coop




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 uns

Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post

[Kim & Garth Travis]

Greetings,

Would you care to figure our time into that equation?  Yes, I am serious 
about the environment and yes, I do travel by plane.  If I am traveling 
from Houston, Texas to Vancouver, British Columbia it is the best method 
since you also have to figure in all our meals and the energy and cost that 
they incur, as well as the travel.  I would like more than 3 hours out of a 
2 week trip to actually get to know my future daughter-in-law, on this 
trip, which is about what I would get if I traveled by train.

While I can understand your point with the daily shuttles between major 
cities, and yes there is some abuse, there is far more to the equation than 
you have presented.  There are things like driving fatigue accidents to 
consider for business trips.  The cost in energy of running motels, where 
the sheets have to be washed everyday because there are different people in 
the bed everyday.  Meals in restaurants are really abusive of energy and 
not very healthy.  And the biggy, time with family that the slower methods 
of travel eat up.

I agree conservation is something to go after, but tele-confrencing not 
travel should be used more.  If travel is really necessary, the planes do 
have saving to offer sometimes.

Bright Blessings,
Kim

At 12:15 AM 5/6/2004, you wrote:
>Hi Lyle,
>
>What I am saying is that it is socially irresponsible to promote
>biofuels without at least an equal effort to promote a SIGNIFICANT
>reduction in consumption on the order of 1/5th the current amount,
>BY ALL OF US.
>
>For example, Jet Air Travel. I am amazed at the number of so-called
>environmentalists that refuse to give up this particular bad habit.
>Here we have an industry subsidized with over 18 times the amount
>allowed for super efficient train travel.
>
>Average BTU consumed Per Passenger mile by mode of travel:
>
>SUV: 4,591
>Air: 4,123
>Bus: 3,729
>Car: 3,672
>Train: 2,138
>
>Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
>http://199.79.179.77/publications/nts/index.html
>
>Another example, folks insist on racing from red light to red light
>as fast as possible, and when on highways and freeways routinely
>speed 20 to 30 mph above posted speed limits. The cops have given up
>trying to enforce speed limits (a whole other rant) so the race is
>on. Now everyone knows the faster one goes the more fuel is
>consumed, yet bring up the idea of restoring the 55 MPH speed limit,
>and enforcing existing speed limits, and watch the so-called
>environmentalists scurry for cover like roaches when the lights come
>on.
>
>This one simple measure could reduce consumption, emmissions &
>reliance on imported oil 20% to 50%! Visit the Drive 55 Conservation
>website to read several reports and articles in support of this
>claim: http://drive55.org/pn/index.php
>
>
>So, all that said, and seeing as you "fundamentally agree" with
>my "conservation message" - what commitments are you prepared to
>make to reduce your personal consumption of energy?
>
>I refuse to fly in jet airplanes now. I plan better and stick to
>surface transportation.
>
>When I drive my 78 300D, I obey speed limits, rarely exceeding 55
>MPH. By staying in the right lane I have found this very easy as
>that is the maximum for trucks here in California. Guess what,
>McDonalds BRAGS about sticking to 55 MPH with stickers on their
>trucks!
>
>I have replaced every light bulb in my home with 13 watt
>flourescents and installed dual pane windows among the ongoing
>efforts.
>
>I ride my bike whenever possible for most trips to the store, bank,
>and other errands. I even take it on the light rail when I go
>downtown.
>
>When I shop I pay close attention to the source of the products I
>buy, and always choose locally produced goods if possible.
>
>I share this message with everyone I meet, along with the
>information I have about cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and other
>types of biofuel as a PART of the equation.
>
>I will say this very plainly again now: It is socially irresponsible
>to promote biofuels without AT LEAST an equal effort made to promote
>conservation. The offense is compounded when someone claiming
>concern for the environment refuses to acknowledge this in their own
>life, and joins in the funding of petroleum warlords.
>
>Peace,
>
>Tim
>
>
>--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Lyle Estill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Tim,
> >
> > I fundamentally agree with your conservation message, and your
>mantra
> > of social responsibility and sustainability,
> > but I think questioning feedstock capacities at this point is a
>straw
> > argument.
> >
> > Saying we can't grow enough to meet our fuel needs is a little
>like
> > saying we shouldn't make electricity from wind--after all, the
>wind
> > doesn't always blow.
> >
> > Lyle Estill
> > V.P., Stuff
> > Piedmont Biofuels
> > www.biofuels.coop
>
>
>
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Biofuels list archives:
>http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
>
>Please do NOT send

Re: [biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post

[Hakan Falk]

Tim,

I agree with you and it is a lot of space to do it, especially in 
residential and tertiary buildings. Sweden have the highest average living 
standard and still their energy use per capita is one third of Americans 
and one quarter of Canadians. This with a climate that is comparable to the 
Canadians. The Europeans in general. use less in transportation. Reductions 
with 25% in both buildings and transport, are very realistic goals and can 
be achieved in a 10 to 20 years time frame. Especially since it does not 
mean giving up on living standard in any way.

It will probably freeze or lower GDP for a while, like in Sweden, but in 
reality have no adverse effects on the society. This happened in Sweden.
If it is combined with a rise in production of biofuels, the GDP will 
probably not be affected and total costs for energy will offset decline in 
energy consumption. Biofuels will give job growth and reductions in trading 
deficit. The transition to biofuels with parallel energy conservation, can 
be done with no adverse effects on economy or standard of living for US and 
Canada.

EU as a whole, is in a better situation than US. They have a much better 
efficiency in fuel use and in private sector the use of efficient diesel 
vehicles is around 35 times higher than US and growing. The addition of the 
new member states give a golden opportunity for transition to biofuels, 
combined with energy savings in buildings, it will give the necessary job 
creation and growth.

Hakan

At 07:15 06/05/2004, you wrote:
>Hi Lyle,
>
>What I am saying is that it is socially irresponsible to promote
>biofuels without at least an equal effort to promote a SIGNIFICANT
>reduction in consumption on the order of 1/5th the current amount,
>BY ALL OF US.
>
>For example, Jet Air Travel. I am amazed at the number of so-called
>environmentalists that refuse to give up this particular bad habit.
>Here we have an industry subsidized with over 18 times the amount
>allowed for super efficient train travel.
>
>Average BTU consumed Per Passenger mile by mode of travel:
>
>SUV: 4,591
>Air: 4,123
>Bus: 3,729
>Car: 3,672
>Train: 2,138
>
>Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
>http://199.79.179.77/publications/nts/index.html
>
>Another example, folks insist on racing from red light to red light
>as fast as possible, and when on highways and freeways routinely
>speed 20 to 30 mph above posted speed limits. The cops have given up
>trying to enforce speed limits (a whole other rant) so the race is
>on. Now everyone knows the faster one goes the more fuel is
>consumed, yet bring up the idea of restoring the 55 MPH speed limit,
>and enforcing existing speed limits, and watch the so-called
>environmentalists scurry for cover like roaches when the lights come
>on.
>
>This one simple measure could reduce consumption, emmissions &
>reliance on imported oil 20% to 50%! Visit the Drive 55 Conservation
>website to read several reports and articles in support of this
>claim: http://drive55.org/pn/index.php
>
>
>So, all that said, and seeing as you "fundamentally agree" with
>my "conservation message" - what commitments are you prepared to
>make to reduce your personal consumption of energy?
>
>I refuse to fly in jet airplanes now. I plan better and stick to
>surface transportation.
>
>When I drive my 78 300D, I obey speed limits, rarely exceeding 55
>MPH. By staying in the right lane I have found this very easy as
>that is the maximum for trucks here in California. Guess what,
>McDonalds BRAGS about sticking to 55 MPH with stickers on their
>trucks!
>
>I have replaced every light bulb in my home with 13 watt
>flourescents and installed dual pane windows among the ongoing
>efforts.
>
>I ride my bike whenever possible for most trips to the store, bank,
>and other errands. I even take it on the light rail when I go
>downtown.
>
>When I shop I pay close attention to the source of the products I
>buy, and always choose locally produced goods if possible.
>
>I share this message with everyone I meet, along with the
>information I have about cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and other
>types of biofuel as a PART of the equation.
>
>I will say this very plainly again now: It is socially irresponsible
>to promote biofuels without AT LEAST an equal effort made to promote
>conservation. The offense is compounded when someone claiming
>concern for the environment refuses to acknowledge this in their own
>life, and joins in the funding of petroleum warlords.
>
>Peace,
>
>Tim
>
>
>--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Lyle Estill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Tim,
> >
> > I fundamentally agree with your conservation message, and your
>mantra
> > of social responsibility and sustainability,
> > but I think questioning feedstock capacities at this point is a
>straw
> > argument.
> >
> > Saying we can't grow enough to meet our fuel needs is a little
>like
> > saying we shouldn't ma

[biofuel] Re: Tim Castleman's Post

[Tim]

Hi Lyle,

What I am saying is that it is socially irresponsible to promote 
biofuels without at least an equal effort to promote a SIGNIFICANT 
reduction in consumption on the order of 1/5th the current amount, 
BY ALL OF US. 

For example, Jet Air Travel. I am amazed at the number of so-called 
environmentalists that refuse to give up this particular bad habit. 
Here we have an industry subsidized with over 18 times the amount 
allowed for super efficient train travel. 

Average BTU consumed Per Passenger mile by mode of travel:
 
SUV: 4,591
Air: 4,123
Bus: 3,729
Car: 3,672
Train: 2,138
 
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
http://199.79.179.77/publications/nts/index.html

Another example, folks insist on racing from red light to red light 
as fast as possible, and when on highways and freeways routinely 
speed 20 to 30 mph above posted speed limits. The cops have given up 
trying to enforce speed limits (a whole other rant) so the race is 
on. Now everyone knows the faster one goes the more fuel is 
consumed, yet bring up the idea of restoring the 55 MPH speed limit, 
and enforcing existing speed limits, and watch the so-called 
environmentalists scurry for cover like roaches when the lights come 
on. 

This one simple measure could reduce consumption, emmissions & 
reliance on imported oil 20% to 50%! Visit the Drive 55 Conservation 
website to read several reports and articles in support of this 
claim: http://drive55.org/pn/index.php


So, all that said, and seeing as you "fundamentally agree" with 
my "conservation message" - what commitments are you prepared to 
make to reduce your personal consumption of energy?

I refuse to fly in jet airplanes now. I plan better and stick to 
surface transportation. 

When I drive my 78 300D, I obey speed limits, rarely exceeding 55 
MPH. By staying in the right lane I have found this very easy as 
that is the maximum for trucks here in California. Guess what, 
McDonalds BRAGS about sticking to 55 MPH with stickers on their 
trucks! 

I have replaced every light bulb in my home with 13 watt 
flourescents and installed dual pane windows among the ongoing 
efforts.

I ride my bike whenever possible for most trips to the store, bank, 
and other errands. I even take it on the light rail when I go 
downtown. 

When I shop I pay close attention to the source of the products I 
buy, and always choose locally produced goods if possible.

I share this message with everyone I meet, along with the 
information I have about cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and other 
types of biofuel as a PART of the equation. 

I will say this very plainly again now: It is socially irresponsible 
to promote biofuels without AT LEAST an equal effort made to promote 
conservation. The offense is compounded when someone claiming 
concern for the environment refuses to acknowledge this in their own 
life, and joins in the funding of petroleum warlords.

Peace,

Tim


--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Lyle Estill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim,
> 
> I fundamentally agree with your conservation message, and your 
mantra 
> of social responsibility and sustainability,
> but I think questioning feedstock capacities at this point is a 
straw 
> argument.
> 
> Saying we can't grow enough to meet our fuel needs is a little 
like 
> saying we shouldn't make electricity from wind--after all, the 
wind 
> doesn't always blow.
> 
> Lyle Estill
> V.P., Stuff
> Piedmont Biofuels
> www.biofuels.coop



 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/