Hello Bob First, PLEASE adjust your emailer so it works properly. There's no way of knowing who said what in your posts, your responses and bits of previous messages are all mixed up. I've fixed this one, but who's got the time? Not me! Please follow the universal protocol of using >'s to denote previous matter. Thanks.
Anyway, pardon me, or not, but I think this is a right load of twaddle. >Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Hello Bob > >>I wonder why you sent this message direct to me as well as to the >>list? Did you think I wouldn't see it here maybe? For emphasis? To >>emphasize what? > >Emphasize?? Whatever you think, but my answer was direct to you as >an individual. How you take it is up to you. I said it was sent direct to me and asked why, you don't answer. So I'll take it that there was no good reason. I see all messages on the Biofuel list. I get up to 800 emails a day, I can do without excess posts sent direct to me with no reason. >> >Yes, but what does that have to do with the point I was trying to make? >> > >> >The point to be seen here is get ready for a price spike that will >> >equal or exceed 2000-2001 winter. > >>Well, so what? > >So what makes a lot of difference to a lot of people. > >Whether or not you agree with the price that is being paid by >Americans or for that matter anyone anywhere is something you have a >right to speak about. I certainly do have that "right" yes. You seem to have difficulty hoisting this aboard, but the list is not only for Americans, not even primarily for Americans, who are a minority here. It might make a difference to a lot of people, but it makes no difference to many more people (other than that, as just noted, when America sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold). So you can dismiss the content of three messages and a lengthy report by a well-respected energy specialist as irrelevant to your immediate concern (though you failed to establish that), but that's no criterion of whether the messages should have been posted or not, which seems to be your gripe - other people have other concerns. >>So what on two counts - first, American fuel and energy prices are >>way too low anyway. Who says? The OECD does, quite loudly, and so do >>I, and so do quite a lot of the Americans on this list. >> >>Second - see below. >> >> >There will not be any hydrogen vehicles or other hydrogen uses like >> >heating out there for a while that will be anything the average >> >person can use. It is simply too new. >> >>Too new for what? To be of any use in solving the immediate problem >>within your deadline of 3 or 4 years? Lovins says "as soon as 2007", >>will that do? > >May I suggest another view posted today by Todd Swearingen and >inserted at the bottom of this post. No need - I did read it, and if you want to refer to it an archives link would have done. Todd, however, isn't going to get narked with me if I tell him that there is an LNG infrastructure of some sort, here in Japan, in Europe, even in Hong Kong, to an extent, and I don't know about America. Whether or not it's as big as previously hyped is another matter. It can be done, a great deal can be done within your apparent deadline of 3 or 4 years. There's rather a wide variety of reasons for a technology being adopted or not adopted and all shades between, and that picture can change radically very fast, also for a wide variety of reasons. Not a simple matter, and not a straightforward comparison. >Actually you're coming very close to the dismissive technique that's >used a lot against biofuels - it can't solve the whole problem, or it >can't solve enough of the problem soon enough, and therefore abandon >the whole idea. It's a spurious argument, any rational energy future >will require a mix of technologies deployed as and where appropriate, >and indeed power generation especially has always been that way. >Hydrogen certainly has a future, and it oughtn't to be dismissed on >these grounds, nor even on the rather more valid grounds that Big >Oil/Washington has hijacked it as a ploy. > >I disagree with the word dismissiveness as being in my vocabulary >when it comes to alternative anything. Disagree as much as you want, but you dismissed it. It "makes little difference at this point in time", and the rest of your message didn't refer to it at all. Dismissed. And you did come very close to the ploy I mentioned above, and you still are. >The main purpose of my being here is to see and get knowledge >reguarding alternative energys of all kinds. > >I also feel it appropriate to discuss the near term as well as the >long term. It is my opinion from your posts that you are not >interested in the near term. That is your right. WHAT???? Good grief! How on earth or off it did you manage to form such a ludicrous opinion? You arrive at this gem because it seems I'm not losing a lot of sleep over your impending natural gas crisis? Or how, quite? Have you been to our website ever? It's linked at the bottom of every message you receive. If you haven't, then you've certainly been rather lazy or at least very unenterprising in your purpose for being here of gaining knowledge of all kinds of alternative energy. So is the archives linked at the bottom of every message. It's a huge treasure-trove of biofuels and alternative energy information. I think you should spend a bit of time browsing around the archives and try to learn something of what this list is all about. Both Hakan and I pointed out a few things to you which much needed saying, but you didn't respond, and it seems you took no notice. >>Lovins also says this: "The potential cost-effective windpower in the >>Dakotas could make as much hydrogen as the world now uses-enough, if >>used in efficient fuel-cell vehicles, to displace all oil now used by >>U.S. highway vehicles." >> >>That won't do, but this will? > >That statement you refer to above is hippicritical. "as the world >now uses-enough" Is a finite statement. This world with it's ever >increasing population will never be able to acheive that one either. What are you talking about? You can't take a few words out of a paragraph and put them in a different context where they don't at all fit and then damn them as hypocritical - THAT is hypcritical. There are TWO "now's" in that paragraph, and they relate to each other. WHAT has "this world with it's ever increasing population" got to do with "all oil now used by U.S. highway vehicles"??? Don't get tortuous please - I could make some strong links about profligate US and OECD energy wasting and 3rd World hunger, but that's not what this is about and would just obfuscate this now-strange discussion even further. And answer the question please, without obfuscation this time: >>That won't do, but this will? > > >... we have new better ways; solar, biofuels, wind, > > >water, tides, you name it and that's the goal we need to acheive. > >>Those aren't going to solve the whole problem or solve enough of the >>problem soon enough either, so if you're going to dismiss what Lovins >>says as irrelevant you should dismiss these too. > >Why? I have the right to form my own opinion in this reguard just >the same as you do. You keep talking about your "right" and my "right". I think if you weren't being so over-defensive you might have made a little more sense, because you sure didn't make much. Including this - sod "rights", just try to be logical and consistent, eh? It is neither of those things to dismiss Lovins's case according to criteria that you then refuse to apply to your own recommendations. That too is hypocritical. >> > >Those who are wise enough to see through this will be able to supply >> > >themselves with alternate energy systems, reguardless of the type, >> > >to coast through this next 3 or 4 years. Those who don't will pay a >> > >hefty price for any energy they want or need for themselves. >> >>Each man for himself is not a very worthy sentiment. It's the poor >>who'll suffer, whether they're "wise" or not - they're suffering >>already. See: >> >>Fwd: Rising Transportation Costs Hurt Working Families / Hydrogen >>http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?view=26602&list=BIOFUEL > >I see advice in my statement but I fail to see any refrence to Each >man for himself. Look again - you're talking of individuals finding solutions or not, with those who do being the "wise" ones, pity about the rest, without any apparent acknowledgement that real solutions will require the full involvement of society as a whole. >>Anyway, if you're discounting hydrogen and Lovins's arguments because >>it's not doable on a backyard scale then why did you include tides? > >I fail to see why it has to be doable on a backyard scale or that I >even suggested such an idea. It's implicit in your approaching it on the level of individual action. >I am though discounting the statement; "as the world now >uses-enough" as being a reasonable or even obtainable goal to be met. Yes yes - see above. >I fail to understand why you think tides are not a usable energy >source or that they must be used in one's back yard. Of course they're a usable energy source but not by an individual, or not that I know of. >>I don't necessarily agree with Lovins, but he has some serious >>arguments that deserve consideration. To dismiss them out of hand >>because you see them as not relevant to a forthcoming energy crunch >>in the US won't do, it's a much bigger issue than that. > >As I stated as well, I don't agree with some of his thoughts either. >I do agree that some of his idea's and arguments have merit and >should be considered. I don't think you referred to him or his ideas at all except to complain that they had nothing to do with the point you were trying to make. (So what?) >We agree that it is a much bigger issue than just the US. Ah! Progress at last. >The subject of my statements were short term in nature and were >directed in what appears to be the most pressing issue within that >short term. ... in the US. But even with this limited focus I think you'll have to do a bit better in trying to foresee what might or might not be possible within 3 to 4 years. >If there are others out there that short term, they will come up and >be discussed as well. > >>The other reason I said "So what?" is that your point only applies to >>Americans, perhaps, and most of the people here aren't Americans. Do >>you think it applies to Japan, for instance? Quite a lot of us in >>Japan on the list. > >I fail to see your point. The point I brought out was American >because I am one. Does that mean that a Japanese citizen cannot >reply or offer suggestions or solutions to the problem? Of course not - but then if you posted some information about energy in the US a Japanese citizen wouldn't dismiss it as pointless, even were it pointless to him in his situation - but that's what you did. >I thought this kind of crap was behind us and we all worked for the >betterment of the entire world. That's the first hint of a broader view from you. Keep working on it. If your posts weren't repeatedly a good example of "this kind of crap" not being behind us and a failer to take the entire world and its concerns into account you'd have had no argument from me. And at least I wasn't rude. >>Prospect of summer blackouts in Tokyo stoke unease about nuclear power >>06 May 2003 >>http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?view=24715&list=BIOFUEL >> >>You think that's less important than your forthcoming natural gas >>crisis in the US? Too soon to tell. > >The prospects of blackouts in the west coast of the USA were in the >news just last week. I don't want to see them here and I don't want >to see them in Tokyo either. So then don't dismiss something that may not (maybe) be relevant to the west coast of the USA but may well be relevant to Tokyo, for all you know, eh? And everywhere else. >>How about this? >> >>The Japan Times Online >>Biomass recycling program planned for launch in 2010 >> >>Japan is targeting 2010 for the introduction of an ambitious program >>to recycle leftover food, livestock manure and scrap wood as biomass >>energy to fuel cars, ships and power plants, according to a report >>obtained Thursday. >> >>A final government draft of the Biomass Nippon strategy, obtained by >>Kyodo News, says the government will designate some 500 communities >>as model areas for intensively implementing projects to utilize >>biomass energy. >> >>Biomass fuel, made from animal, plant and other organic wastes, is >>expected to contribute to fighting global warming through cutting the >>use of fossil fuels and thereby reducing the amount of carbon dioxide >>in the atmosphere, according to the document. >> >>The United States and the European Union have both set targets of >>tripling the use of biomass energy by 2010. >> >>According to the final Biomass Nippon draft, the government will >>launch by March 31 a study to assess the quality of diesel fuel made >>from used rapeseed oil and other food waste, and test the fuel in >>cars and ships. >> >>The strategy also includes building biomass power plants to be fueled >>by scrap wood and methane gas originating from animal droppings, >>promoting usage of biomass products made from manure, and using >>ethanol abstracted from plants as automobile fuel. >> >>The projects are expected to generate 260 billion yen in the economy >>in 2010 if they are carried out as stipulated, officials said. The >>government hopes the biomass-related technology and products will >>develop into a new strategic industry, they said. >> >>The government is expected to unveil the Biomass Nippon strategy by >>the end of the year and start work on related legislation early next >>year, according to the officials. >> >>The Japan Times: Dec. 20, 2002 >>http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?view=19390&list=BIOFUEL >> >>They'll do it too, not just lip-service like your guys - in fact >>we're doing it right now: >>http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?view=19391&list=BIOFUEL >>Re: Japan: Environment Ministry High on Alcohol-Fueled Vehicles >> >>Japan already has hydrogen-fuelled cars, and something of an >>infrastructure. They'll beat you to it, as usual - like the hybrids. >>What happened to the excellent hybrid technology developed in the >>PNGV program with billions of US taxpayers' dollars, and then >>shelved? Those are Lovins's "quintupled-efficiency vehicles", after >>all. Just left to rot now that they've found a new milch cow? >> >>If you accept that, and if you're going to rely on your Big Three and >>a White House awash with Big Oil, then you're probably right to say >>there won't be any hydrogen vehicles for a while that the average >>person can use and so on. Too new? Twelve years' work on those >>hypercars. > >Reguarding all the above; They are all good idea's and it is hoped >that those of them that prove beneficial to mankind and the >environment will come to pass soon. Uh-huh... I said we're doing it right now, and much besides - but you reckon we're "not interested in the near term"?? What exactly are you doing about all this stuff right now? >>Re this: >> >> > >Remember years back for most of us when we went out and gathered our >> > >winter's supply of wood for heat? >> >>Not years back - three billion people rely on woodfires right now. >>http://journeytoforever.org/at_woodfire.html >>Wood fires that fit - Appropriate technology: Journey to Forever > >Appropriate technology? in other countrys perhaps but not in the >area I live in. I bet you're wrong. Got any biofuellers there, as only one of many possible examples? You think AT is just for poor 3rd World countries? Actually it was devised as a necessary adjunct to Schumacher's appropriate economics - "Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered", and was intended for everyone, but primarily for the industrialized countries. That it's become a 3rd World matter is only because the industrialized countries' economies are so well defended by the powers-that-be (to whom - or maybe to which - people DON'T matter). In fact the need for Appropriate Technology is much greater in a country like the US than somewhere like Tanzania or Nepal. The time will come. Think a bit about what "appropriate" means (not necessarily "simple" or "primitive"). I see though that you're talking specifically about woodfires - you don't know about Appropriate Technology then, or Schumacher either maybe? Yet you pontificate (inappropriately) about world population growth. Hm. >Government has dictated for the last 20 years that when a home is >sold to a new owner, any and all wood burning appliances must be >removed prior to the closing of the escrow. In the immediate area >where I live, there are only 2 out of 40 homes that have the >capability to use this energy source today. I am one of them. > >For better or worse, the reasoning behind this rule stated above was >done because of the bad winter air quality in a relatively small >valley in the north end of California's Sacramento valley. The rule >did improve the air quality considerably and is still today >considered by most to have been the right path to take. Perhaps you didn't go to the "Wood fires that fit" link above, much there about the devastation caused by indoor smoke pollution, with millions killed every year and the health of many times more ruined. In comparison with which the Sacramento valley story rather fails to impress. You can find out a lot about Appropriate Technology there too. Here: http://journeytoforever.org/at.html If you're interested in alterative energy you most definitely need to know about Appropriate Technology. Keith Addison Journey to Forever >Best > >Keith > > > >Bob > > > >Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Hello Bob, MM > > > > >Real one; spoof version; it makes little difference at this point in time. > > > >It was posted as one of three linked messages - did you read the other two? > > > >Experts Disagree on Promise of Hydrogen Fuel Cells > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/message/26546 > > > >and > > > >Amory B. Lovins's Hydrogen Primer > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/message/26548 > > > >Best > > > >Keith > > > > > > > > >There is only one goal presently in mind by those who hold the > > >product. Adjust the price to a proper place to adequately supply me > > >with the profit I want!! > > > > > >Those who are wise enough to see through this will be able to supply > > >themselves with alternate energy systems, reguardless of the type, > > >to coast through this next 3 or 4 years. Those who don't will pay a > > >hefty price for any energy they want or need for themselves. > > > > > >Every individual will have varying and different needs when it comes > > >to energy. Preparing one's self to cover the biggest majority and > > >purchase the smaller needs will win. > > > > > >Remember years back for most of us when we went out and gathered our > > >winter's supply of wood for heat? OK, that's not a good thing for > > >the air today but we have new better ways; solar, biofuels, wind, > > >water, tides, you name it and that's the goal we need to acheive. > > > > > >Bob > > > > > > > > >murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 > > >00:13:44 +0900, you wrote: > > > > > > >The real one, not the spoof version - the Science Magazine link is here: > > > >http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/301/5631/315 > > > > > >Since Hydrogen is presently made from Natural Gas, although > > >theoretically in the future we will have a better diversity of > > >sources, I wonder how the short-term looks for it, since we are lining > > >up to have a crisis in Natural Gas supply. > > > >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com >From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | This is spam | Add to >Address Book >Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:39:25 -0500 >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Experts Disagree on Promise of Hydrogen Fuel Cells > > > > >Disagree or not... The whole world is still waiting for the LNG >infrastructure that was touted so highly in the late '70s to appear. <snip> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Toner for Your Printer or Fax at LaserTonerSuperstore.com-Save 55%! We have your brand: HP, IBM, Canon, Xerox, Apple and many more for less! http://www.LaserTonerSuperstore.com http://us.click.yahoo.com/YmQqWC/qicGAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
