Re: [Biofuel] Pollution Is Called a Byproduct of a 'Clean' Fuel
Hi Olivier This is big business. There's a lot of money involved. Small is beautifuel, said Pagandai. Big is agrofuel, not beautifuel. I have a niggling feeling that 10 years from now, the environmentalists will be fighting the ethanol industry tooth and nail. Anything can be done badly, and I expect the ADM's of the world will be successful in turning a clean renewable resource into a dirty unsustainable one, said Steve Spence seven years ago (Biofuel list, 26 Jul 2001). Indeed - same goes for biodiesel. Maybe we should call it agrodiesel instead. Note that in the past the industrial guys have accused backyarders of sewering the by-product, based on sheer prejudice and no evidence. Best Keith http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/us/11biofuel.html?pagewanted=all March 11, 2008 Pollution Is Called a Byproduct of a 'Clean' Fuel By BRENDA GOODMAN MOUNDVILLE, Ala. - After residents of the Riverbend Farms subdivision noticed that an oily, fetid substance had begun fouling the Black Warrior River, which runs through their backyards, Mark Storey, a retired petroleum plant worker, hopped into his boat to follow it upstream to its source. It turned out to be an old chemical factory that had been converted into Alabama's first biodiesel plant, a refinery that intended to turn soybean oil into earth-friendly fuel. I'm all for the plant, Mr. Storey said. But I was really amazed that a plant like that would produce anything that could get into the river without taking the necessary precautions. But the oily sheen on the water returned again and again, and a laboratory analysis of a sample taken in March 2007 revealed that the ribbon of oil and grease being released by the plant - it resembled Italian salad dressing - was 450 times higher than permit levels typically allow, and that it had drifted at least two miles downstream. The spills, at the Alabama Biodiesel Corporation plant outside this city about 17 miles from Tuscaloosa, are similar to others that have come from biofuel plants in the Midwest. The discharges, which can be hazardous to birds and fish, have many people scratching their heads over the seeming incongruity of pollution from an industry that sells products with the promise of blue skies and clear streams. Ironic, isn't it? said Barbara Lynch, who supervises environmental compliance inspectors for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. This is big business. There's a lot of money involved. Iowa leads the nation in biofuel production, with 42 ethanol and biodiesel refineries in production and 18 more plants under construction, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. In the summer of 2006, a Cargill biodiesel plant in Iowa Falls improperly disposed of 135,000 gallons of liquid oil and grease, which ran into a stream killing hundreds of fish. According to the National Biodiesel Board, a trade group, biodiesel is nontoxic, biodegradable and suitable for sensitive environments, but scientists say that position understates its potential environmental impact. They're really considered nontoxic, as you would expect, said Bruce P. Hollebone, a researcher with Environment Canada in Ottawa and one of the world's leading experts on the environmental impact of vegetable oil and glycerin spills. You can eat the stuff, after all, Mr. Hollebone said. But as with most organic materials, oil and glycerin deplete the oxygen content of water very quickly, and that will suffocate fish and other organisms. And for birds, a vegetable oil spill is just as deadly as a crude oil spill. Other states have also felt the impact. Leanne Tippett Mosby, a deputy division director of environmental quality for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, said she was warned a year ago by colleagues in other states that biodiesel producers were dumping glycerin, the main byproduct of biodiesel production, contaminated with methanol, another waste product that is classified as hazardous. Glycerin, an alcohol that is normally nontoxic, can be sold for secondary uses, but it must be cleaned first, a process that is expensive and complicated. Expanded production of biodiesel has flooded the market with excess glycerin, making it less cost-effective to clean and sell. Ms. Tippett Mosby did not have to wait long to see the problem. In October, an anonymous caller reported that a tanker truck was dumping milky white goop into Belle Fountain Ditch, one of the many man-made channels that drain Missouri's Bootheel region. That substance turned out to be glycerin from a biodiesel plant. In January, a grand jury indicted a Missouri businessman in the discharge, which killed at least 25,000 fish and wiped out the population of fat pocketbook mussels, an endangered species. Back in Alabama, Nelson Brooke of Black Warrior Riverkeeper, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the Black Warrior River and its tributaries, received a report in
[Biofuel] Pollution Is Called a Byproduct of a Clean ¹ Fuel
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/us/11biofuel.html?pagewanted=all March 11, 2008 Pollution Is Called a Byproduct of a Clean¹ Fuel By BRENDA GOODMAN MOUNDVILLE, Ala. After residents of the Riverbend Farms subdivision noticed that an oily, fetid substance had begun fouling the Black Warrior River, which runs through their backyards, Mark Storey, a retired petroleum plant worker, hopped into his boat to follow it upstream to its source. It turned out to be an old chemical factory that had been converted into Alabama¹s first biodiesel plant, a refinery that intended to turn soybean oil into earth-friendly fuel. ³I¹m all for the plant,² Mr. Storey said. ³But I was really amazed that a plant like that would produce anything that could get into the river without taking the necessary precautions.² But the oily sheen on the water returned again and again, and a laboratory analysis of a sample taken in March 2007 revealed that the ribbon of oil and grease being released by the plant it resembled Italian salad dressing was 450 times higher than permit levels typically allow, and that it had drifted at least two miles downstream. The spills, at the Alabama Biodiesel Corporation plant outside this city about 17 miles from Tuscaloosa, are similar to others that have come from biofuel plants in the Midwest. The discharges, which can be hazardous to birds and fish, have many people scratching their heads over the seeming incongruity of pollution from an industry that sells products with the promise of blue skies and clear streams. ³Ironic, isn¹t it?² said Barbara Lynch, who supervises environmental compliance inspectors for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. ³This is big business. There¹s a lot of money involved.² Iowa leads the nation in biofuel production, with 42 ethanol and biodiesel refineries in production and 18 more plants under construction, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. In the summer of 2006, a Cargill biodiesel plant in Iowa Falls improperly disposed of 135,000 gallons of liquid oil and grease, which ran into a stream killing hundreds of fish. According to the National Biodiesel Board, a trade group, biodiesel is nontoxic, biodegradable and suitable for sensitive environments, but scientists say that position understates its potential environmental impact. ³They¹re really considered nontoxic, as you would expect,² said Bruce P. Hollebone, a researcher with Environment Canada in Ottawa and one of the world¹s leading experts on the environmental impact of vegetable oil and glycerin spills. ³You can eat the stuff, after all,² Mr. Hollebone said. ³But as with most organic materials, oil and glycerin deplete the oxygen content of water very quickly, and that will suffocate fish and other organisms. And for birds, a vegetable oil spill is just as deadly as a crude oil spill.² Other states have also felt the impact. Leanne Tippett Mosby, a deputy division director of environmental quality for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, said she was warned a year ago by colleagues in other states that biodiesel producers were dumping glycerin, the main byproduct of biodiesel production, contaminated with methanol, another waste product that is classified as hazardous. Glycerin, an alcohol that is normally nontoxic, can be sold for secondary uses, but it must be cleaned first, a process that is expensive and complicated. Expanded production of biodiesel has flooded the market with excess glycerin, making it less cost-effective to clean and sell. Ms. Tippett Mosby did not have to wait long to see the problem. In October, an anonymous caller reported that a tanker truck was dumping milky white goop into Belle Fountain Ditch, one of the many man-made channels that drain Missouri¹s Bootheel region. That substance turned out to be glycerin from a biodiesel plant. In January, a grand jury indicted a Missouri businessman in the discharge, which killed at least 25,000 fish and wiped out the population of fat pocketbook mussels, an endangered species. Back in Alabama, Nelson Brooke of Black Warrior Riverkeeper, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the Black Warrior River and its tributaries, received a report in September 2006 of a fish kill that stretched 20 miles downstream from Moundville. Even though Mr. Brooke said he found oil in the water around the dead fish, the state Department of Environmental Management determined that natural, seasonal changes in oxygen levels in the water could have been the culprit. The agency did not charge Alabama Biodiesel. In August, Black Warrior Riverkeeper, in a complaint filed in Federal District Court, documented at least 24 occasions when oil was spotted in the water near the plant. Richard Campo, vice president of Alabama Biodiesel, did not respond to requests for an interview, but Clay A. Tindal, a Tuscaloosa lawyer representing the refinery, called the suit¹s claims ³sheer speculation, conjecture, and
[Biofuel] Pollution Poisons Children
http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_pollution_poisons_children.061109.htm From: Daily Telegraph (UK), Nov. 9, 2006 Pollution Poisons Children By John von Radowitz Millions of children worldwide may have suffered brain damage as a direct result of industrial pollution, scientists say. An explosive report talks of a silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental disorders caused by toxic chemicals spilling into the environment. They include conditions such as autism, attention deficit disorder, mental retardation and cerebral palsy. All are common and can result in lifelong disability, but their causes are largely unknown. The scientists, from Holland and the US, identified 202 industrial chemicals with the potential to damage the human brain, and said they were likely to be the tip of a very large iceberg. More than 1,000 chemicals are known to be neurotoxic in animals, and are also likely to be harmful to humans. The researchers made an urgent call for much tighter worldwide controls on chemicals, and a http://www.precaution.org/lib/pp_def.htmprecautionary approach to testing. Dr Philippe Grandjean, from the Department of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark in Winslowparken, one of the study's two authors, said: The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ. And because optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even limited damage may have serious consequences. Even if substantial documentation on their toxicity is available, most chemicals are not regulated to protect the developing brain. Only a few substances, such as lead and mercury, are controlled with the purpose of protecting children. The 200 other chemicals that are known to be toxic to the human brain are not regulated to prevent adverse effects on the foetus or a small child. Grandjean and co-author Professor Philip Landrigan, from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, trawled a range of scientific data sources to compile their evidence. Five substances for which sufficient toxicity evidence exist were examined in detail -- lead, methylmercury, arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and toluene. In each case, the dangers came to light the same way. First, there was a recognition of high dosage toxicity in adults, and records of isolated episodes of poisoning among children. This was followed by a growing body of epidemiological evidence that lower levels of exposure in children led to neurobehavioral defects. Pinning down the effects of industrial chemical pollution is extremely difficult because they may not produce symptoms for several years or even decades, said the scientists. This was why the pandemic is silent. The damage caused by individual toxic chemicals is not obviously apparent in available health statistics. But the extent of the sub-clinical risk to large populations is illustrated by the legacy of lead. Virtually all children born in industrialised countries between 1960 and 1980 must have been exposed to lead from petrol, said the researchers. Based on what is known about the toxic effects of lead, this may have reduced exceptional IQ scores of above 130 by more than half, and increased the number of scores less than 70. Other results of lead exposure included shortened attention span, slowed motor coordination and heightened aggressiveness. In later life, early damage from lead can increase the risk of Parkinson's and other neurodegenerative diseases. Today, it is estimated that lead poisoning in children costs the US economy $A55 billion each year. One in six children is thought to have some kind of developmental disability, usually involving the nervous system. Developing brains are much more susceptible to toxic chemicals than those of adults, pointed out the scientists. Interference with complex changes taking place in the developing brain can have permanent consequences. And research had shown that this vulnerable period lasts from the foetal stage of life through infancy and childhood to adolescence. Writing in the online version of The Lancet medical journal, the scientists conclude: The combined evidence suggests that neurodevelopmental disorders caused by industrial chemicals has created a silent pandemic in modern society. Although these chemicals might have caused impaired brain development to millions of children worldwide, the profound effects of such a pandemic are not apparent from available health statistics. Additionally... only a few chemical causes have been recognised, so the full effects of our industrial activities could be substantially greater than recognised at present. In the EU, 100,000 chemicals were registered for commercial use in 1981, and in the US, 80,000 are registered. Yet fewer than half had been subjected to even token laboratory testing, said the report, and in 80 per cent of cases there was no information about potential danger to children. Although
Re: [Biofuel] Pollution: Where have all the baby boys gone?
Wow. Okay, I'm on it. Geoffrey Lean, wasn't he our boy in Washington for the Independant? What's he doing in Sarnia, not to be nosey. Jesse From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 01:15:48 +0900 To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Pollution: Where have all the baby boys gone? http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article355200.ece Independent Online Edition Environment Pollution: Where have all the baby boys gone? Every year, thousands of British babies who should be boys are born girls. The answer to this mystery could lie in a small town in Canada. Geoffrey Lean reports Published: 02 April 2006 Something very strange is happening in a small but highly polluted Canadian community. And it may explain why every year thousands of British babies who should be boys are born as girls instead. Young boys are becoming hard to find on the Chippewa Indian reservation in the gritty town of Sarnia, in Ontario's Chemical Valley. It boasts four children's softball teams, but three of them are made up entirely of girls. Research shows that the number of boys being born to the community has been dropping precipitously for the past 13 years, while the proportion of baby girls has risen. Now there are twice as many female births as male ones, though nature normally keeps the sexes in balance. Scientists increasingly believe that pollution is to blame and that what has happened here - and among some other highly contaminated groups of people in other countries - may solve an enduring mystery of missing boys in maternity units throughout the industrialised world. Normally, and with remarkable consistency around the globe, 106 boys are born for every 100 girls; the excess is thought to be nature's way of compensating for the fact that males were more likely to be killed through hunting and conflicts. But this figure has been slowly declining in rich countries over the past quarter of a century. In Britain it has fallen to about 105 since 1977 -which suggests that every year more than 3,000 babies are born as girls instead boys. Studies have revealed much the same story in the US, Canada, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. Suggested explanations have included increasing stress and rising numbers of single mothers; women in difficulties, it has been found, produce more girls than boys. But what is happening in Sarnia, on the US Canadian border, is increasingly turning the spotlight on pollution. The Chippewa Indians of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation Community have long lived in the area, on the southern tip of Lake Huron, not far from Detroit. Their right to the land was confirmed in 1827, but much of it was taken over by industry in the 1960s. Now their woods and homes are entirely surrounded by one of the world's most extensive petrochemical complexes, producing 40 per cent of Canada's entire output of plastics, synthetic rubber and other chemical compounds. The air stinks, and the ground is contaminated with high levels of dangerous pollutants. It was those softball teams that first got the 870 people of the community thinking that many more girls than boys were being born. Among them was Ada Lockridge, a 42-year-old home help aide, who sits on the community's council. She and her sister had eight daughters between them, and only one son. She started counting all the babies born to the community since 1984, Until 1993 girls and boys were in normal balance, but then the number of male births started plummeting. I felt like I wanted to throw up, she says. I did a lot of crying. And then I got angry. She joined up with researchers from the University of Ottawa and together they published an article in a leading scientific journal. It reported a significant ongoing decrease in the number of male births beginning in the early 1990s. Only 35 per cent of babies now are boys, and there is no sign of the decline levelling off. The study could not prove a cause, but pointed the finger at multiple chemical exposures over the years. Other, non-native communities downwind of the complex also have less dramatic reductions in male births, while those upwind do not. And many studies have shown sex changes in fish and wildlife in the lake nearby. Ada Lockridge points to a fire and chemical release at one of the chemical plants in 1993 as a possible culprit. The findings tally with other research around the world. People exposed to high levels of dioxin in the 1976 accident in Seveso, Italy, also have twice as many girl as boy children. The same is true for Russian men exposed to pesticides containing the chemical. And Brazilian scientists have reported that the proportion of boy babies fell in the most polluted parts of the city of São Paulo. Professor Shanna Swan of the University of Ro chester, New York - not far from
Re: [Biofuel] Pollution: Where have all the baby boys gone?
Hi Jesse Wow. Okay, I'm on it. Geoffrey Lean, wasn't he our boy in Washington for the Independant? I don't think so, IIRC he used to cover environment for the Guardian. What's he doing in Sarnia, not to be nosey. Chasing girls? :-) Jesse Here's the whole report: http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/8479/8479.html Research Declining Sex Ratio in a First Nation Community Constanze A. Mackenzie,1 Ada Lockridge,2 and Margaret Keith3 Best Keith From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 01:15:48 +0900 To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Pollution: Where have all the baby boys gone? http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article355200.ece Independent Online Edition Environment Pollution: Where have all the baby boys gone? Every year, thousands of British babies who should be boys are born girls. The answer to this mystery could lie in a small town in Canada. Geoffrey Lean reports Published: 02 April 2006 Something very strange is happening in a small but highly polluted Canadian community. And it may explain why every year thousands of British babies who should be boys are born as girls instead. Young boys are becoming hard to find on the Chippewa Indian reservation in the gritty town of Sarnia, in Ontario's Chemical Valley. It boasts four children's softball teams, but three of them are made up entirely of girls. Research shows that the number of boys being born to the community has been dropping precipitously for the past 13 years, while the proportion of baby girls has risen. Now there are twice as many female births as male ones, though nature normally keeps the sexes in balance. Scientists increasingly believe that pollution is to blame and that what has happened here - and among some other highly contaminated groups of people in other countries - may solve an enduring mystery of missing boys in maternity units throughout the industrialised world. Normally, and with remarkable consistency around the globe, 106 boys are born for every 100 girls; the excess is thought to be nature's way of compensating for the fact that males were more likely to be killed through hunting and conflicts. But this figure has been slowly declining in rich countries over the past quarter of a century. In Britain it has fallen to about 105 since 1977 -which suggests that every year more than 3,000 babies are born as girls instead boys. Studies have revealed much the same story in the US, Canada, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. Suggested explanations have included increasing stress and rising numbers of single mothers; women in difficulties, it has been found, produce more girls than boys. But what is happening in Sarnia, on the US Canadian border, is increasingly turning the spotlight on pollution. The Chippewa Indians of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation Community have long lived in the area, on the southern tip of Lake Huron, not far from Detroit. Their right to the land was confirmed in 1827, but much of it was taken over by industry in the 1960s. Now their woods and homes are entirely surrounded by one of the world's most extensive petrochemical complexes, producing 40 per cent of Canada's entire output of plastics, synthetic rubber and other chemical compounds. The air stinks, and the ground is contaminated with high levels of dangerous pollutants. It was those softball teams that first got the 870 people of the community thinking that many more girls than boys were being born. Among them was Ada Lockridge, a 42-year-old home help aide, who sits on the community's council. She and her sister had eight daughters between them, and only one son. She started counting all the babies born to the community since 1984, Until 1993 girls and boys were in normal balance, but then the number of male births started plummeting. I felt like I wanted to throw up, she says. I did a lot of crying. And then I got angry. She joined up with researchers from the University of Ottawa and together they published an article in a leading scientific journal. It reported a significant ongoing decrease in the number of male births beginning in the early 1990s. Only 35 per cent of babies now are boys, and there is no sign of the decline levelling off. The study could not prove a cause, but pointed the finger at multiple chemical exposures over the years. Other, non-native communities downwind of the complex also have less dramatic reductions in male births, while those upwind do not. And many studies have shown sex changes in fish and wildlife in the lake nearby. Ada Lockridge points to a fire and chemical release at one of the chemical plants in 1993 as a possible culprit. The findings tally with other research around the world. People exposed to high levels of dioxin
[Biofuel] Pollution: Where have all the baby boys gone?
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article355200.ece Independent Online Edition Environment Pollution: Where have all the baby boys gone? Every year, thousands of British babies who should be boys are born girls. The answer to this mystery could lie in a small town in Canada. Geoffrey Lean reports Published: 02 April 2006 Something very strange is happening in a small but highly polluted Canadian community. And it may explain why every year thousands of British babies who should be boys are born as girls instead. Young boys are becoming hard to find on the Chippewa Indian reservation in the gritty town of Sarnia, in Ontario's Chemical Valley. It boasts four children's softball teams, but three of them are made up entirely of girls. Research shows that the number of boys being born to the community has been dropping precipitously for the past 13 years, while the proportion of baby girls has risen. Now there are twice as many female births as male ones, though nature normally keeps the sexes in balance. Scientists increasingly believe that pollution is to blame and that what has happened here - and among some other highly contaminated groups of people in other countries - may solve an enduring mystery of missing boys in maternity units throughout the industrialised world. Normally, and with remarkable consistency around the globe, 106 boys are born for every 100 girls; the excess is thought to be nature's way of compensating for the fact that males were more likely to be killed through hunting and conflicts. But this figure has been slowly declining in rich countries over the past quarter of a century. In Britain it has fallen to about 105 since 1977 -which suggests that every year more than 3,000 babies are born as girls instead boys. Studies have revealed much the same story in the US, Canada, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. Suggested explanations have included increasing stress and rising numbers of single mothers; women in difficulties, it has been found, produce more girls than boys. But what is happening in Sarnia, on the US Canadian border, is increasingly turning the spotlight on pollution. The Chippewa Indians of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation Community have long lived in the area, on the southern tip of Lake Huron, not far from Detroit. Their right to the land was confirmed in 1827, but much of it was taken over by industry in the 1960s. Now their woods and homes are entirely surrounded by one of the world's most extensive petrochemical complexes, producing 40 per cent of Canada's entire output of plastics, synthetic rubber and other chemical compounds. The air stinks, and the ground is contaminated with high levels of dangerous pollutants. It was those softball teams that first got the 870 people of the community thinking that many more girls than boys were being born. Among them was Ada Lockridge, a 42-year-old home help aide, who sits on the community's council. She and her sister had eight daughters between them, and only one son. She started counting all the babies born to the community since 1984, Until 1993 girls and boys were in normal balance, but then the number of male births started plummeting. I felt like I wanted to throw up, she says. I did a lot of crying. And then I got angry. She joined up with researchers from the University of Ottawa and together they published an article in a leading scientific journal. It reported a significant ongoing decrease in the number of male births beginning in the early 1990s. Only 35 per cent of babies now are boys, and there is no sign of the decline levelling off. The study could not prove a cause, but pointed the finger at multiple chemical exposures over the years. Other, non-native communities downwind of the complex also have less dramatic reductions in male births, while those upwind do not. And many studies have shown sex changes in fish and wildlife in the lake nearby. Ada Lockridge points to a fire and chemical release at one of the chemical plants in 1993 as a possible culprit. The findings tally with other research around the world. People exposed to high levels of dioxin in the 1976 accident in Seveso, Italy, also have twice as many girl as boy children. The same is true for Russian men exposed to pesticides containing the chemical. And Brazilian scientists have reported that the proportion of boy babies fell in the most polluted parts of the city of São Paulo. Professor Shanna Swan of the University of Ro chester, New York - not far from Sarnia - says that levels of contamination on the reservation are incredible and that the first assumption must be that they are to blame. She believes that changing sex ratios may often provide an indication of dangerous pollution, and that low levels of exposure to such ubiquitous chemicals as dioxins and PCBs may explain the decline in boys in industrialised countries. Additional reporting by
[Biofuel] Pollution-free ship? Designers try their hand
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8037087/ Pollution-free ship? Designers try their hand Cargo concept relies on solar panels, wind and wave power Wallenius Wilhelmsen This computer-generated image shows the near-zero emission concept cargo ship designed by Wallenius Wilhelmsen. By Simon Johnson Updated: 12:03 p.m. ET May 31, 2005 STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Will technological advances, fuel costs and environmental concerns bring back commercial sailing for cargo ships? Shipping firm Wallenius Wilhelmsen has designed a high-tech back to the future freighter powered solely by wind and waves in the expectation that increasing regulation and shipping costs over the next 20 years will force the industry to come up with greener vessels. In part it is legislation, in part that we want to be seen as innovators, said Lena Blomqvist, WW's vice president with responsibility for the environment. We realize that we are part of the problem and we want to be part of the solution. The design envisions near-zero emissions while allowing such a ship to carry up 10,000 cars and trucks. Propulsion for the five-hulled concept would come from high-tech sails and a set of pods below the water line that would trap the energy of the waves. Additionally, solar cells in the sails would charge fuel cells to power electric motors. 'Almost limitless access to energy' When we are on the ocean we have almost limitless access to energy, but a modern vessel fights the elements, said Per Brinchmann, the naval architect who designed the ship to turn the power of mother nature into motion on the ocean. The albatross gets 98 percent of its energy for flight from the wind and two percent from its wings. Concern for the bottom line has already pushed WW to cut the fuel use of its existing fleet by 10 percent over the last few years and reduce nitrogen and sulfur dioxide emissions. Sulfur dioxide causes acid rain and nitrogen emissions upset the balance of nutrients in the ocean, both big problems in the Baltic Sea where WW is based. Regulators are also stepping up pressure. The International Maritime Organization will introduce rules to cut sulfur in fuels for some ocean regions in 2006. WW said its low sulfur fuels costs around $20 dollars per ton more than the standard fuel. Tighter rules on oil emissions in bilge water, anti-fouling paints and recycling are also likely to follow. At the same time, companies that transport goods by ship need to reassure increasingly concerned investors that they are taking green issues in their supply chain seriously. One of the firm's major clients, an auto manufacturer, now audits the emissions of shipping firms. Other customers will come and ask for it as part of their own corporate responsibility work, said Blomqvist. It is not just pollution from marine diesel - higher in sulfur and worse for the environment than more refined types of fuel - which the new ship would eliminate. No place for invasive species to hide Clever design eliminates the need for ballast water, which can contain up to 7,000 marine species that have a huge impact when dumped outside their native ecosystem. Ballast water is a huge, huge problem, said Dr Simon Walmsley, head of the World Wide Fund for Nature's British marine program. It affects biodiversity and has the potential to wipe out indigenous species which are sensitive. Areas like the Arctic are particularly at risk, he said. Between 3 billion and 5 billion tons of ballast water is transported around the world by ships each year, not far behind the 6 billion tons of cargo carried in 2003. IMO rules on ballast water should be introduced in 2009. No promise to build Wallenius Wilhelmsen is showing off its design at the World Expo in Japan, which opened at the end of March. Although the design may never to be built, WW believes that like a concept car, much of the technology showcased on the ship will find its way into vessels over the next 20 years. This vessel is a demonstration of what is feasible, what could be feasible and what should be feasible, said Brinchmann, who began his career designing lifeboats. The WWF, which partnered with WW on the project, backs the move but wants shipping companies to go even further. It is a step in the right direction, said the WWF's Walmsley. But the whole shipping industry need to be looked at at every level from design through to decommissioning. Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. ___ 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 full Biofuel list archives (46,000 messages):
[Biofuel] pollution theories
On 2004-11-25 05.04, Ken Riznyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought it was interesting too. For years the bigwigs have been telling us that most of the pollution comes from automobiles and not from power plants. I guess this proves what liars they are. Ken --- John Guttridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'prolly old news to those that have been paying attention but I thought it was pretty interesting Just one oil refinery owned by Preem in Lysekil on the west coast of Sweden accounts for 3,5% of the countries total carbon dioxide emission. The remaining sludge is sold as bunker oil/asphalt to ships which continue to pollute around the world. ___ 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] Pollution: now cars set to be cleaner than rail
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waste/story/0,12188,1148613,00.html Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Pollution: now cars set to be cleaner than rail Juliette Jowit Sunday February 15, 2004 The Observer Battered by criticism of high fares and poor services, Britain's railways could at least claim to be more environmentally-friendly than cars, producing lower levels of pollution. But not any more. Shocking new figures show that Britain's railways are losing their environmental advantage over the car, as cleaner, more efficient engines and fuel mean that, by at least one measure, diesel trains create more pollution. The news has alarmed rail industry chiefs, who fear that a Government already impatient with high costs and poor performance could cut support for the industry. 'Both cars and trucks are getting cleaner and the railway hasn't made very much progress at all over the same period,' said Malcolm Fergusson, senior fellow at the Institute of European Environmental Policy in London. 'There's no doubt road is catching up in terms of emissions and by some standards it could even have over taken it. Over the next decade it's very possible to argue road will be as good, possibly better.' In the past decade, toxic emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates and sulphur from the British car fleet have halved as pollution from new cars has been slashed by 97 per cent due to advances in petrol, diesel and engines, driven by regulations to force the industry to 'green up'. At the same time, the European car industry has cut carbon dioxide by 13 per cent, and has promised to double that figure - although it may not meet that target because of the popularity of 'people carriers' and other bigger models. Longer term the motor industry hopes to introduce 'clean' engine vehicles: hybrid petrol-electric cars are already gaining popularity. Improvements on rail, however, have been much slower. Tougher European new engine regulations come into force in two years, but it would take decades to replace existing dirtier rolling stock. 'I don't think rail will ever completely lose its way... but old assumptions in rail [that] we were massively ahead in the emissions debate is no longer going to be the case,' said Adrian Lyons, director general of the Railway Forum industry lobby group. David Waboso, technical director of the government's Strategic Rail Authority, said the industry took the threat seriously. 'On carbon dioxide we're good, but on other issues we have got to look at the new generation of engines,' he said. 'What we have got to do is consistently remain competitive.' 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] Pollution may act as antifreeze in high clouds
http://www.enn.com/news/2003-01-23/s_12379.asp Pollution may act as antifreeze in high clouds Friday, January 23, 2004 By Randolph E. Schmid, Associated Press WASHINGTON - Those wispy cirrus clouds that float high in the sky may be thinning out due to nitric acid pollution, a change that scientists say could affect climate. Airborne measurements of the high clouds taken in the summer of 2002 showed increased humidity in the clouds and found nitric oxide, which is a pollutant that comes from jet exhaust, combustion on the ground, and other sources, according to a paper in Friday's issue of the journal Science. Clouds are a major factor in climate, said Ru-shan Gao of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Aeronomy Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. Gao, lead author of the study, said the impact of changes in these clouds, drifting 9 miles above the ground, still must be assessed. The clouds will be thinner, he said. That could mean more sunlight is allowed in, warming the Earth. It also could mean more infrared radiation from the ground escapes into space, resulting in a cooling. The nitric acid appears to act a bit like antifreeze, preventing the ice crystals that it coats from growing to their full size by absorbing water vapor from the air. That results in smaller ice crystals in the clouds and higher humidity. They found the effect at temperatures lower than 96 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. Further sampling of high cirrus clouds is planned to confirm the findings, Gao said. Thomas P. Ackerman, chief scientist in atmospheric radiation at the Energy Department's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, welcomed the report as the beginning of the discussion. However, he noted that high relative humidity has also been reported in cirrus clouds at somewhat warmer temperatures - minus 70 degrees or so - which he said cannot be explained by the same method the researchers propose for their colder readings. It's an interesting study, but it has to be extended to higher temperatures to explain the observations, he said. Clouds are constantly changing, and a lot more needs to be known about how ice crystals grow and shrink, added Ackerman, who was not part of the research group. Source: Associated Press 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] 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] pollution
it was a bogus test. bad science. pay it no mind. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/ Human powered devices, equipment, and transport - http://24.190.106.81:8383/2000/humanpower.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 11:40 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] pollution I wish that they would make up there minds, not enough ozone or to much. Greg H. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 21:19 Subject: [biofuel] pollution this is not a promising thought. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9546 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 -~-- 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] pollution
junk science. ignore it. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/ Human powered devices, equipment, and transport - http://24.190.106.81:8383/2000/humanpower.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 11:19 PM Subject: [biofuel] pollution this is not a promising thought. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9546 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 -~-- 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] pollution
If you see the dateline on this story it is over a year old.. It was discussed widely on this forum and others at the time. See the archives for a full meltdown - the testing was flawed . note the paragraph In the study, scientists burned rapeseed oil at temperatures equivalent to those in a combustion engine and compared the emissions with those formed when burning a superior grade of diesel oil, SEC1. The oil was burned at similar temperature but not in an engine - bad science- The full report is on the Journey to forever site I think. Engine emission testing gives greatly reduced pollution levels . The are any number of studies on this available from a good search engine. Regards JohnH - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, 1 February 2002 12:19 Subject: [biofuel] pollution this is not a promising thought. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9546 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 -~-- 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] pollution
this is not a promising thought. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9546 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] pollution
I wish that they would make up there minds, not enough ozone or to much. Greg H. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 21:19 Subject: [biofuel] pollution this is not a promising thought. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9546 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] pollution
Last year's news. Thoroughly debunked. Forget it. Olsson's own university issued a retraction on this little gem of story. Maybe it'll go away some day. Basically: - the burner they used does not represent the reality of combustion in a diesel engine. - the baseline diesel fuel was Swedish city diesel, a specialty product available only in Sweden, and probably the cleanest burning diesel fuel in the world - hardly the stuff most countries are using. Edward Beggs www.biofuels.ca From: Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 21:40:42 -0700 To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] pollution I wish that they would make up there minds, not enough ozone or to much. Greg H. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 21:19 Subject: [biofuel] pollution this is not a promising thought. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9546 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 -~-- 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] Pollution deadlier than traffic crashes, researchers say
http://inq.philly.com:80/content/inquirer/2001/08/17/national/POLLUTE17.htm Friday, August 17, 2001 Pollution deadlier than traffic crashes, researchers say They estimated thousands could be saved if just four cities cleaned their air. Others said such a direct link was unproven. By Paul Recer ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON - More people are being killed by pollution from cars, trucks and other sources than by traffic crashes, researchers estimate in a report that says cleaning up would prolong the lives of thousands of people. The researchers, in a study in the journal Science, said that cutting greenhouse gases in just four major cities - Sao Paulo, Brazil; Mexico City; Santiago, Chile; and New York City - could save 64,000 lives over the next 20 years. Greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide or ozone, are those pollutants that tend to trap the sun's heat in the atmosphere or to affect solar radiation. The gases have been blamed for causing global warming, but the study's lead author, Devra Lee Davis, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz School in Pittsburgh, said the effects were not just long term. The message in our study is that there are real and immediate health benefits in reducing greenhouse gases, she said. She said that burning fossil fuels, such as gasoline in cars or coal in power plants, can create air pollutants such as ozone, airborne particles small enough to be inhaled, carbon dioxide and other gases. The pollutants, Davis said, can cause people to die prematurely from asthma, breathing disorders and heart disease. It is our best estimate that more people are being killed by air pollution . . . than from traffic crashes, Davis said. There are more than a thousand studies from 20 countries all showing that you can predict a certain death rate based on the amount of pollution. Some experts say that the direct connection between air pollution and death is not that clear, even in cities. Russell V. Luepker, a cardiologist and professor at the University of Minnesota, said that air pollution was not recognized as a significant cause of heart disease in the United States. It is not a major factor in developing heart disease, but it does play a role in acute episodes that can kill you, said Luepker, an expert designated by the American Heart Association as a spokesman. More people either come to emergency rooms or die of heart disease during pollution episodes, but the pollution did not start the disease, he said. Marian Frieri, a professor of medicine and an asthma expert at State University of New York at Stony Brook, said air pollution can contribute to asthma inflammation but is only one factor on top of another condition. Davis and four coauthors said that adopting greenhouse-gas abatement technologies now available could prevent thousands of cases of chronic bronchitis and save millions of days of restricted or lost work. Davis said although the study concentrated on just four cities, the conclusions probably could be applied to cities worldwide. The data are consistent with a World Health Organization study that estimated that air pollution would cause about eight million deaths worldwide by 2020, she said. Dr. Jonathan Patz of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health said the study by Davis and her coauthors shows that there are significant health benefits to be had from reducing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide and other gases from the burning of coal and oil have been blamed by many researchers for climate warming. Some predict long-term global effects, including rising sea levels and recurring weather extremes. 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] Pollution-free car
you are correct on the units, although my point is still valid. batteries absorb and release more net electric than the whole electrolysis process. with electrolysis, 1 kwh into the electrolyzer, gives you less than 1/3 out of the fuel cell. batteries are 70%+ (at the c20 rate, with 50% DOD) Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. -- - Original Message - From: F. Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel List biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 7:09 AM Subject: [biofuel] Pollution-free car Steve wrote: the point is, if you generate 1kw from solar, shouldn't you store 80% in a battery (ev) instead of 30% in a hydrogen tank (fuel cell ev)? That should be kilowatt-hours, rather than kilowatts, since we're talking energy rather than power. 1. You'd be darned lucky to actually store 80% of the generated juice in a battery - or rather, you might store 80%, but you won't get that much back and still have reasonable battery life. That's in addition to the weight and cost penalties of batteries, which still have very low energy storage densities. 2. Electrolysis units can be run up to .90+ efficiency if the current density is kept low - it's a tradeoff between capital cost of the electrolysis plant and efficiency, as a more efficient plant is more expensive to build. Of course there's a penalty for compression or whatever you do with the hydrogen (best is a fuel bladder at or near atmospheric pressure, but that appeals only to airship maniacs like myself), but even that doesn't drop you to 30% net. based on heat. If your goal is electricity, you can run hydrogen through a fuel battery and recover as much as 85% of input energy in a practical road machine. In terms of capital cost, electrolytic hydrogen makes very good sense as an energy storage medium for power plants with intermittent output (solar and wind) if stored in gasometers or bladders, especially if there's a market or a profitable use for the oxygen (an oxygen-enriched gasifier, for example). With compression ...? Best, Marc de Piolenc 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 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] Pollution-free car
I don't think autos even run at c10. They load like crazy with resultant loss. c/2 if range done in 1 hour right? Kirk -Original Message- From: steve spence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 8:25 AM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Pollution-free car you are correct on the units, although my point is still valid. batteries absorb and release more net electric than the whole electrolysis process. with electrolysis, 1 kwh into the electrolyzer, gives you less than 1/3 out of the fuel cell. batteries are 70%+ (at the c20 rate, with 50% DOD) Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.com Palm Pilot Pages - http://www.webconx.com/palm X10 Home Automation - http://www.webconx.com/x10 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (212) 894-3704 x3154 - voicemail/fax We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. -- - Original Message - From: F. Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel List biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 7:09 AM Subject: [biofuel] Pollution-free car Steve wrote: the point is, if you generate 1kw from solar, shouldn't you store 80% in a battery (ev) instead of 30% in a hydrogen tank (fuel cell ev)? That should be kilowatt-hours, rather than kilowatts, since we're talking energy rather than power. 1. You'd be darned lucky to actually store 80% of the generated juice in a battery - or rather, you might store 80%, but you won't get that much back and still have reasonable battery life. That's in addition to the weight and cost penalties of batteries, which still have very low energy storage densities. 2. Electrolysis units can be run up to .90+ efficiency if the current density is kept low - it's a tradeoff between capital cost of the electrolysis plant and efficiency, as a more efficient plant is more expensive to build. Of course there's a penalty for compression or whatever you do with the hydrogen (best is a fuel bladder at or near atmospheric pressure, but that appeals only to airship maniacs like myself), but even that doesn't drop you to 30% net. based on heat. If your goal is electricity, you can run hydrogen through a fuel battery and recover as much as 85% of input energy in a practical road machine. In terms of capital cost, electrolytic hydrogen makes very good sense as an energy storage medium for power plants with intermittent output (solar and wind) if stored in gasometers or bladders, especially if there's a market or a profitable use for the oxygen (an oxygen-enriched gasifier, for example). With compression ...? Best, Marc de Piolenc 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 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/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.264 / Virus Database: 136 - Release Date: 7/2/2001 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] Pollution-free car
Hi Marc and All, - Original Message - From: F. Marc de Piolenc [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1. You'd be darned lucky to actually store 80% of the generated juice in a battery - or rather, you might store 80%, but you won't get that much back and still have reasonable battery life. Yes you will. Even if you only get 80% out at high discharge rates if you wait a while the power comes back as the chems get to the batt plates surface. Battery life of lead batts only gets hurt if you discharge more than 80%. With ni-cads is much better than this and they last 20+ years. That's in addition to the weight and cost penalties of batteries, which still have very low energy storage densities. Have you checked out the weight of fuel cells and NiMH H2 storage? They are not very good, little differance.. 2. Electrolysis units can be run up to .90+ efficiency if the current density is kept low - it's a tradeoff between capital cost of the I've never heard of eff this high. 60% is the best I've seen. electrolysis plant and efficiency, as a more efficient plant is more expensive to build. Of course there's a penalty for compression or whatever you do with the hydrogen (best is a fuel bladder at or near atmospheric pressure, but that appeals only to airship maniacs like myself), but even that doesn't drop you to 30% net. based on heat. If your goal is electricity, you can run hydrogen through a fuel battery and recover as much as 85% of input energy in a practical road machine. I'd like to see this info. Looks much to high. 50% maybe for fuel cell/ H2 production. In terms of capital cost, electrolytic hydrogen makes very good sense as an energy storage medium for power plants with intermittent output (solar and wind) if stored in gasometers or bladders, especially if there's a market or a profitable use for the oxygen (an oxygen-enriched gasifier, for example). With compression ...? How much does your Fuel cell cost? jerry dycus Best, Marc de Piolenc __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ 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] Pollution-free car
Steve wrote: the point is, if you generate 1kw from solar, shouldn't you store 80% in a battery (ev) instead of 30% in a hydrogen tank (fuel cell ev)? That should be kilowatt-hours, rather than kilowatts, since we're talking energy rather than power. 1. You'd be darned lucky to actually store 80% of the generated juice in a battery - or rather, you might store 80%, but you won't get that much back and still have reasonable battery life. That's in addition to the weight and cost penalties of batteries, which still have very low energy storage densities. 2. Electrolysis units can be run up to .90+ efficiency if the current density is kept low - it's a tradeoff between capital cost of the electrolysis plant and efficiency, as a more efficient plant is more expensive to build. Of course there's a penalty for compression or whatever you do with the hydrogen (best is a fuel bladder at or near atmospheric pressure, but that appeals only to airship maniacs like myself), but even that doesn't drop you to 30% net. based on heat. If your goal is electricity, you can run hydrogen through a fuel battery and recover as much as 85% of input energy in a practical road machine. In terms of capital cost, electrolytic hydrogen makes very good sense as an energy storage medium for power plants with intermittent output (solar and wind) if stored in gasometers or bladders, especially if there's a market or a profitable use for the oxygen (an oxygen-enriched gasifier, for example). With compression ...? Best, Marc de Piolenc 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] Pollution Reducing Diesel Fuel Additive
BAT International Signs Exclusive Distribution Agreement to Market Pollution Reducing Diesel Fuel Additive in the US and Eight Other Countries Story Filed: Thursday, November 02, 2000 9:30 AM EST CHULA VISTA, Calif., Nov 2, 2000 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- BAT International (OTC:BAAT) ( www.baat.com) signed an agreement with a chemical company overseas to market a diesel fuel additive that dramatically reduces major diesel fuel pollutants even at very low concentration levels. The additive has no harmful effects on diesel engine life or performance and can be added to diesel fuel for a very low cost (pennies per gallon). BAT plans to initiate a major marketing campaign for the product starting in early 2001 in nine countries where it has obtained exclusive rights including the US, Mexico, France, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Hungary and India. BAT and its affiliated companies have undergone extensive testing of the fuel additive in its own labs and at independent labs to verify emission benefits. Independent lab testing was conducted by Emission Testing Services (ETS) in Costa Mesa, California, a lab using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved emissions testing equipment and testing protocols. ETS is recognized by California Air Resources Board (CARB) as an independent lab capable of conducting acceptable testing to CARB standards. ETS testing involved the additive mixed with a 10% concentration of biodiesel. The test results showed that both particulates (PM 10) and opacity (black smoke) could be reduced substantially while simultaneously reducing nitrogen oxides (NOX). These two pollutants are the major contributing causes of air pollution from operation of diesel engines. The results of the tests were as follows: Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) reduction: 7% Particulate Matter (PM 10) reduction: 30% Opacity (smoke) reduction: 80% The ability to reduce both NOX and particulates/opacity is a major breakthrough for an additive because it helps address a major engineering challenge faced by diesel engine manufacturers and air pollution regulators. In an SAE Conference in 1999, Dr. Magdi Khair, Staff Engineer at Southwest Research Institute noted that it is difficult for diesel engines to meet projected nitrogen oxide (NOX) and particulate matter (PM 10). Traditionally measures aimed at reducing one of these two exhaust species has led to increasing the other. This physical characteristic, which is known as the NOX / PM tradeoff, remains the subject of an intense research effort. The results above were particularly encouraging because the same testing showed that biodiesel alone actually increased NOX emissions by about 2-3%. Thus overall NOX reductions were closer to 9-10%. Control of NOX and particulate matter from diesel engines is one of the biggest air pollution challenges faced by air quality regulators worldwide. Improvements to the emissions of gasoline engines has led to much lower pollution levels from automobiles in many parts of the world. At the same time, there has been an increasing contribution of pollution from trucks, buses, marine vessels and other diesel engines because of the large number of miles traveled by each vehicle or vessel and limited pollution control measures on these engines. Recent evidence linking cancer to particulate matter has led to propose regulations in the US, California and around the world. A fuel-based approach to achieving particulate matter and NOX reductions has significant advantages over new engine emission standards because it addresses pollution from both on-road vehicles and new engines. Since diesel engines have a very long life (500,000 to 1 million miles), engine based approaches take a long time to achieve emission reductions. Fuel additives provide immediate emission benefits as soon as they are added to diesel fuel in a country or state. Various regulations are now under consideration to lower sulfur levels in diesel fuel to 15 parts per million to allow new catalysts to work properly. This presents an opportunity to propose more comprehensive approaches that include addition of additives to the fuel to quickly and effectively reduce NOX and PM 10. BAT plans to introduce the additive to each of the countries listed above through a program of cooperative testing with private sector partners, government agencies and government and private transportation fleets. This will include both laboratory and field testing on buses, trucks, stationary sources and marine vessels. BAT has developed extensive contacts in the US regulatory community as a result of prior development of electric vehicles, super-efficient vehicles and engines, electric bikes and scooters and other technologies. BAT has also developed government and private industry contacts in the target countries through its participation in military industrial offset programs. The military company's Industrial
