Re: [Biofuel] Dream Farms
Quite so. Though there are many ways of doing it. - Keith See also, eg: http://ecosyn.us/ecocity/Ecosyn/IBS_Math.html A simple MATH view of Integrated Biological Systems (IBS) Microfarming Productivity Increases: How Synergy Emerges from Linked Foodchains. Or Ken Hargesheimer: http://www.minifarms.com/ Minifarms Network - Organic, Biointensive, Raised Bed Agriculture Or John Jeavons: http://www.growbiointensive.org/biointensive/GROW-BIOINTENSIVE.html The GROW BIOINTENSIVE Food-Raising Method Also: http://journeytoforever.org/JTF/iirr.html Bio-intensive gardening cuts malnutrition in the Philippines Background: http://journeytoforever.org/keith_phsoil.html Nutrient Starved Soils Lead To Nutrient Starved People It's what Bio-Dynamics farmers do: http://www.biodynamics.com/ Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association (BDA) http://www.biodynamic.net/ Biodynamic and Organic Gardening Resource Site In fact it's just organic farming properly done - see especially the Soil and Health section in our online library: http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html Small Farms Library - Journey to Forever And especially the works of Sir Albert Howard. It's what we're doing here in Tamba, and what we'll be doing all along our route. Anyone can do it. Best wishes Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ - The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 09/06/05 Dream Farms Abundantly productive farms with zero input and zero emission powered by waste-gobbling bugs and human ingenuity Sustainable development is possible mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Dr. Mae-Wan Ho Environmental engineer meets Chinese peasant farmers Doesn't it sound like a dream to be able to produce a super-abundance of food with no fertilizers or pesticides and with little or no greenhouse gas emission? Not if you treat your farm wastes properly to mine the rich nutrients that can support the production of fish, crops livestock and more, get biogas energy as by-product, and perhaps most importantly, conserve and release pure potable water back to the aquifers. That is what Professor George Chan has spent years perfecting; and he refers to it as the Integrated Food and Waste Management System (IFWMS). Chan was born in Mauritius and educated at Imperial College, London University in the United Kingdom, specializing in environmental engineering. He was appointed director of two important US federal programmes of the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Energy in the US Commonweath of the Northern Mariana Islands of the North Pacific. On his retirement, Chan spent 5 years in China among the Chinese peasants, and confessed he learned just as much there as he did in University. What he learned was a system of farming and living that inspired him and many others including Gunter Pauli, the founder and director of the Zero Emissions Research Initiative (ZERI) (http://www.zeri.org/www.zeri.org). Chan left China in 1989, and continued to work with Gunter and others in ZERI through consultancy services. This work has taken him to nearly 80 countries and territories, and contributed to evolving IFWMS into a compelling alternative to conventional farming. The integrated farm typically consists of crops, livestock and fishponds. But the nutrients from farm wastes often spill over into supporting extra production of algae, chickens, earthworms, silkworms, mushrooms, and other valuables that bring additional income and benefits for the farmers and the local communities. Treating wastes with respect The secret is in treating wastes to minimize the loss of valuable nutrients that are used as feed to generate further nutrients from algae, fish, etc., that feed a variety of crops and livestock. At the same time, greenhouse gases emitted during the first phase of waste treatment are harvested for use as fuel, while the oxygen required in the second phase of waste treatment - which gets rid of toxins and pollutants - is generated by photosynthetic algae, so fish stocks are not suffocated through lack of dissolved oxygen in the nutrient-rich water entering the ponds. Livestock wastes are first digested anaerobically (in the absence of air) to produce biogas (mainly methane). The partially digested wastes are then treated aerobically (in the presence of air) in shallow basins that support the growth of green algae. By means of photosynthesis, the algae produce all the oxygen needed to oxidise the wastes to make them safe for fish. This increases the fertilizer and feed value in the fishponds without robbing the fish of dissolved oxygen. All the extra nutrients, therefore, go to improve productivity. Biogas is used as a clean energy source for cooking, and also enables farmers to process their produce for preservation and added value, reducing spoilage and
Re[2]: [Biofuel] General Motors Layoffs
Hallo Tim, Thursday, 09 June, 2005, 10:08:33, you wrote: TB Gustl Steiner-Zehender wrote: [snip] No one owns the truth. Not the Christians, or the Muslims, or the Jews, or the Hindus, or the Buddhists, or any religious group, or the philosophers, or the economists, or the politicians. No one. Each have bits and pieces and snatches of the truth and many claim to have and own the whole thing but that is an illusion or an outright lie. [snip] TB If this is true, then why are you complaining? It looks like you are TB making an appeal that justice is not being done and thereby implicitly TB point to a universal standard of justice. If it (the standard of TB justice) isn't universal, then there's no point in complaining to anyone TB else with the expectation of a) being understood, or b) having any TB validity of claim (at least that can speak to the inner man -- without TB this, justice becomes merely whatever is done by the one with the TB biggest gun). TB Best regards... Tim No, I'm not making an appeal that justice be done. I'm not much big on justice preferring mercy. I am wondering how people let themselves get sucked into the us/them game and how they let themselves get manipulated. I wonder why, for so many people, enough is not sufficient and more is so important. I wonder why a good many people believe emoting is the same as critical thinking. I wonder why the many allow their will to be imposed upon them by the few. I wonder why greed has taken precedence over love. I wonder how we have allowed an artificial construct (money/mammon) to become more important than the welfare of we humans and the world in which we live. Justice doesn't hold much value for me. It changes from here to there, from time to time, from place to place. Love however is universal and grows. Justice only grows with the influx of money. It can be bought. Ask anyone from Bhopal about justice. Justice seems to me to be a dead word. We get justify from justice and, as I have said before, only that which is wrong requires justification and that which is good stands on its own. Justice is what is done by those with the most money. They don't need guns because they hire others to pick up the weapons and use them. Justice is not a concept which is understood by everyone. Love is. Justice has conditions. Love doesn't, and when conditions are imposed then it isn't love any longer it is a mutation. When people's actions are done out of love then they do no harm. If harm is done then the actions are not proceeding from love and that is when justice and justification come in. It looks to me like you didn't understand my meaning. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I certainly don't get how you connected truth with justice. To quote a Canadian jurist named Blaise, The truth is no defense. I can see how you might be confused about the concepts if you are not a lawyer. But then that is why we have lawyers. How else would we manipulate justice without them? The truth is no defense. I would never call for justice because all too many of us would end up on the gallows.Self-restraint, -responsibility, -discipline, which are some of the fruits of love and mercy, are what I would call for however. These things lead to the service of the entire community and this world, despite what those with political and economic power would have us believe, is one community. Happy Happy, Gustl -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. We can't change the winds but we can adjust our sails. The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Straße liegen, daß sie gerade deshalb von der gewöhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
The argument that coal is used in the production of uranium therefore nuclear power contributes to green house gases is a bit ludicrous. If we wanted to eliminate the use of coal we would essentially have to do nothing at all. The automobile engine that you are running your biodiesel in was manufactured using large amounts of coal to produce the steel and to power all the assembly plants. If you are using a thermometer to check you biodiesel batch or turning on a light to see it better you are using coal. Myself I have vowed to stop my bathroom use since the water used to flush the toilet was pumped to my house using electricity that was generated by coal. Ken Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous - and Uneconomic By Dr. Helen Caldicott Among the many departures from the truth by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious is that nuclear power is clean and, therefore, the answer to global warming. However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet with long-lived radioactive waste, it significantly contributes to global warming.While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality is that enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself. Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. (During the 1970s the United States deployed seven 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich much of the world's uranium.) So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades. But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece, a nuclear reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive operation: Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be dismantled. That's the scale we're talking about. And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor. From a medical perspective, nuclear waste threatens global health. The toxicity of many elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived. Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the body, where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth. Lasting for half a million years, it enters the body through the lungs where it is known to cause cancer. It mimics iron in the body, migrating to bones, where it can induce bone cancer or leukemia, and to the liver, where it can cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the placenta into the embryo and, like the drug thalidomide, causes gross birth deformities. Finally, plutonium has a predilection for the testicles, where it induces genetic mutations in the sperm of humans and other animals that are passed on from generation to generation. Significantly, five kilos of plutonium is fuel for a nuclear weapon. Thus far, nuclear power has generated about 1,139 tons of plutonium. So, nuclear power adds to global warming, increases the burden of radioactive materials in the ecosphere and threatens to contribute to nuclear proliferation. No doubt the Australian government is keen to assist the uranium industry, but the immorality of its position is unforgivable. NOTE: Dr. Helen Caldicott is founding president of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Regards, Bob. ___ 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): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Search the Biofuels-biz list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuels-biz/ __ Discover Yahoo! Get
Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel tank specs.
I guess that it might also depend on the business, and the contents.I know of one place that keeps it's kerosene in multiple 55 gal drums. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Gene Rotter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 09:14 Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Biodiesel tank specs. Greg, In the US... Above ground fuel storage tanks have specific requirements to meet depending on the local jurisdiction mandates. Filling a vehicle from an above ground tank, at least in most of the US, requires this gas or diesel tank to be UL2085 listed (be fire rated and impact resistant). These guidelines or regulations are relaxed for rural situations (farms). One may get away with a tote at home, again check local codes as may be able to store a max of XX gallons. A business getting checked by a fire department for safety will get in trouble quickly. Essentially the fire department wants to know if there is a LARGE potential ignition source before they get hurt fighting a fire. Adequate signage and building to tank separation is a must so the fire fighters and occupants are not needlessly in danger. Gene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Greg Harbican Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 7:24 AM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel tank specs. Use a couple of 275 gal IBC tote tanks.As seen here ( near the bottom of the page ): http://www.longnow.org/rhino/BioDiesel.htm They are cheep, and you can station them at different places to fuel 2 vehicles at the same time. Greg H. - Original Message - From: Chuck Elsholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 06:47 Subject: [Biofuel] Biodiesel tank specs. Hello, Are the specifications on fuel containers the same for diesel and biodiesel? We are having a 500 gal. tank built outside of our business to fuel our fleet. Any suggestions? Thanks Chuck ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
Ken, Are you saying that the refining of uranium and nuclear power in general does not contribute to greenhouse gases? Seems as if you glossed over this part: Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. How many years must a photo-voltaic panel or solar thermal collector operate before it produces one net calorie of energy? A wind turbine? A hydro project? As for having to give up all human activities (you said do nothing)due to human dependancy upon coallet's see...human unkind has been around how many millenia? And we've been mining coal for how long? Maybe you should give up the coal-fired water pump in lieu of a horse-driven bellows pump? Just think!!! Double the bang for the buck, 'cause the horse doesn't eat coal either!!! I don't think the point was from an all or none perspective, only from a relative gain/loss perspective. Perhaps if you could lead a list to some reliable number sources on energy ratios for different mediums there could be more constructive discussion/comparison? There are bound to be a few life cycle studies out there for diferent types of power generation that include energy inputs/outputs and emissions. Todd Swearingen Ken Riznyk wrote: The argument that coal is used in the production of uranium therefore nuclear power contributes to green house gases is a bit ludicrous. If we wanted to eliminate the use of coal we would essentially have to do nothing at all. The automobile engine that you are running your biodiesel in was manufactured using large amounts of coal to produce the steel and to power all the assembly plants. If you are using a thermometer to check you biodiesel batch or turning on a light to see it better you are using coal. Myself I have vowed to stop my bathroom use since the water used to flush the toilet was pumped to my house using electricity that was generated by coal. Ken Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous - and Uneconomic By Dr. Helen Caldicott Among the many departures from the truth by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious is that nuclear power is clean and, therefore, the answer to global warming. However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet with long-lived radioactive waste, it significantly contributes to global warming.While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality is that enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself. Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. (During the 1970s the United States deployed seven 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich much of the world's uranium.) So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades. But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece, a nuclear reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive operation: Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be dismantled. That's the scale we're talking about. And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor. From a medical perspective, nuclear waste threatens global health. The toxicity of many elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived. Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the body, where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth. Lasting for half a million years, it enters the body through the lungs where it is known to cause cancer. It mimics iron in the body, migrating to bones, where it can induce bone cancer or leukemia, and to the liver, where it can cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the placenta into the embryo and, like the drug thalidomide, causes gross birth deformities. Finally, plutonium has a predilection for the testicles,
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
Ken, I do not find it ludicrous at all. 25 to 50% saving of energy nullifies the need to build nuclear power stations. The potential saving of energy, without noticeable effect on living standard is 60 to 70%, that is the size of the energy waste. Considering the 5 to 10 years it take to build a nuclear power station, a program for energy saving will always outperform the nuclear alternative in time, return of investment and job creation. The problem is that it would add less to GDP, in the way we now is measuring GDP. This is one example of the flaws with including energy in GDP. Regarding health risks, energy efficiency will make true improvements, compared to a shifting of problems with nuclear. It is a question of investment priorities and it should be a moratorium on investment in nuclear, until the investment opportunities in energy efficiency and renewable are no longer available. Hakan At 04:35 PM 6/10/2005, you wrote: The argument that coal is used in the production of uranium therefore nuclear power contributes to green house gases is a bit ludicrous. If we wanted to eliminate the use of coal we would essentially have to do nothing at all. The automobile engine that you are running your biodiesel in was manufactured using large amounts of coal to produce the steel and to power all the assembly plants. If you are using a thermometer to check you biodiesel batch or turning on a light to see it better you are using coal. Myself I have vowed to stop my bathroom use since the water used to flush the toilet was pumped to my house using electricity that was generated by coal. Ken Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous - and Uneconomic By Dr. Helen Caldicott Among the many departures from the truth by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious is that nuclear power is clean and, therefore, the answer to global warming. However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet with long-lived radioactive waste, it significantly contributes to global warming.While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality is that enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself. Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. (During the 1970s the United States deployed seven 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich much of the world's uranium.) So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades. But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece, a nuclear reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive operation: Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be dismantled. That's the scale we're talking about. And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor. From a medical perspective, nuclear waste threatens global health. The toxicity of many elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived. Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the body, where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth. Lasting for half a million years, it enters the body through the lungs where it is known to cause cancer. It mimics iron in the body, migrating to bones, where it can induce bone cancer or leukemia, and to the liver, where it can cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the placenta into the embryo and, like the drug thalidomide, causes gross birth deformities. Finally, plutonium has a predilection for the testicles, where it induces genetic mutations in the sperm of humans and other animals that are passed on from generation to generation. Significantly, five kilos of plutonium is fuel for a nuclear weapon. Thus far, nuclear power has generated about 1,139 tons of plutonium.
[Biofuel] Question
How is kerosene and home heating fuel differ from Diesel fuel at the pumps? Is it the octane? Just asking because other people have asked me. I know diesel fuel is taxed and home heating oil is not, therefore it is illegal to use. Thanks for any answers. Don No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.6 - Release Date: 6/8/2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] How would any of you answer this one?
Ken wrote, "Myself I have vowed to stop my bathroom use..." DON'T DO THAT! You'll be sorry. :-) Mike Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ken,I do not find it ludicrous at all. 25 to 50% saving ofenergy nullifies the need to build nuclear powerstations. The potential saving of energy, withoutnoticeable effect on living standard is 60 to 70%,that is the size of the energy waste.Considering the 5 to 10 years it take to build anuclear power station, a program for energy savingwill always outperform the nuclear alternative intime, return of investment and job creation. Theproblem is that it would add less to GDP, in the waywe now is measuring GDP. This is one exampleof the flaws with including energy in GDP.Regarding health risks, energy efficiency will maketrue improvements, compared to a shifting of problemswith nuclear.It is a question of investment priorities and it shouldbe a moratorium on investment in nuclear, until theinvestment opportunities in energy efficiency andrenewable are no longer available.HakanAt 04:35 PM 6/10/2005, you wrote:The argument that coal is used in the production ofuranium therefore nuclear power contributes to greenhouse gases is a bit ludicrous. If we wanted toeliminate the use of coal we would essentially have todo nothing at all. The automobile engine that you arerunning your biodiesel in was manufactured using largeamounts of coal to produce the steel and to power allthe assembly plants. If you are using a thermometer tocheck you biodiesel batch or turning on a light to seeit better you are using coal. Myself I have vowed tostop my bathroom use since the water used to flush thetoilet was pumped to my house using electricity thatwas generated by coal.Ken Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous - and Uneconomic By Dr. Helen Caldicott Among the many departures from the truth by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious is that nuclear power is "clean" and, therefore, the answer to global warming. However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet with long-lived radioactive waste, it significantly contributes to global warming.While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality is that enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself. Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. (During the 1970s the United States deployed seven 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich much of the world's uranium.) So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades. But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece, a nuclear reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive operation: Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be dismantled. That's the scale we're talking about. And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor. From a medical perspective, nuclear waste threatens global health. The toxicity of many elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived. Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the body, where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth. Lasting for half a million years, it enters the body through the lungs where it is known to cause cancer. It mimics iron in the body, migrating to bones, where it can induce bone cancer or leukemia, and to the liver, where it can cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the placenta into the embryo and, like the drug thalidomide, causes gross birth deformities. Finally, plutonium has a predilection for the testicles, where it induces genetic mutations in the sperm of humans and other animals that are passed on from generation to generation. Significantly, five kilos of plutonium is fuel for a nuclear weapon.
[Biofuel] Sugar Beat Yield for Ethanol Production
"The average auto uses 800 gallons of fuel per year and a single acre of sugar beats for example would yield about 1200 gallons of alcohol." http://www.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/makingethanol.htm Can anyone substantiate this? I have a couple of other questions too. If this is a good crop for ethanol, do I have to take care of what's taken out of the soil? Will I need to rotate if I do this every year? In general, am I missing anything? If this is true, I think I know what my summer project is going to be. :-) Mike___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
RE: [Biofuel] Sugar Beat Yield for Ethanol Production
You only get an estimated sugar recovery of 10,000 pounds per acre from sugar beet in a good year. I cannot see that making 1200 gallons of alcohol. Chris Wessex Ferret Club (http://www.wessexferretclub.co.uk) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.6 - Release Date: 08/06/2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Where has all the renewable fuels money gone?
Want to know where all the money for renewable fuels and efficiency is going? Read on McDuff* http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050610/twothirds_on_defense.php * Two-Thirds On Defense Jurgen Brauer and Nicholas Anglewicz June 10, 2005 *Many Americans believe that 19 cents on defense* for every 81 cents on non-defense is a reasonable way to spend a tax dollar. But by another calculation, the tax dollar splits 68 cents for defense and 32 cents on everything else. It is a common misconception that U.S. defense expenditure is equivalent to the Department of Defense outlays. Instead of $436.4 billion of defense expenditure, as Congressional budgeteers count, government statisticians in the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) counted $548.0 billion for calendar year 2004a whopping $112 billion difference. And by our own calculations, U.S. defense expenditure is much higher than even the BEA's numbers suggest, namely $765.6 billion in calendar year 2004about $330 billion or 75 percent more than the Department of Defense outlays. *http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050610/twothirds_on_defense.php* ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] US New Apollo Energy Act
U.S. New Apollo Energy Act contrasts sharply with 'Jurassic' GOP energy bill --- House Democrats Introduce New Apollo Energy Act June 09, 2005 http://www.greencarcongress.com U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) and fourteen other House Democrats today introduced the New Apollo Energy Act as a clean energy policy in counterpoint to the current House Energy Bill (H.R. 6 - earlier post). On April 21, Congress stepped back in geologic time when the House of Representatives passed an energy policy of the dinosaurs, by the dinosaurs, and for the dinosaurs. This energy bill is truly a Jurassic piece of legislation that relies on a limited energy source derived from creatures and plants that died millions of years ago. In fact, 93 percent of the $8 billion in tax incentives in the bill go to oil, gas, and other traditional energy industries. -- Rep. Inslee in Grist Magazine Inslee has been championing the New Apollo concept for at least the last two years, and had offered it as an amendment (which was defeated) replacing much of the current House Energy Bill . Key features of the New Apollo Energy Act include: Fuel Efficiency. New Apollo includes incentives for American consumers to drive fuel-efficient vehicles, including tax credits for the purchase of hybrid, alternative-fuel, low-emission advanced diesel, and fuel-cell vehicles. It also provides $11.5 billion in tax credits for the automotive and aerospace industries to develop new fuel efficient automobiles and planes, retool existing plants, and construct new plants to manufacture energy-efficient vehicles. Other provisions in the bill include an alternative fuel vehicle purchase requirement for government agencies; tax credits for the installation of alternative refueling properties and for the retail sale of alternative fuels; a renewable fuels standard set at 8 billion gallons by 2013; modification of the tax credit for qualified electric vehicles; and loans for schools to buy high-efficiency vehicles. Clean Energy. New Apollo provides $49 billion in government loan guarantees for the construction of clean-energy generation facilities that will produce power from wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, oceans, coal with carbon-sequestration technology, and other sources. The legislation also commits $10.5 billion to research-and-development and investment tax credits for clean energy-producing operations. In addition, it includes a 10-year extension of the current tax credit for electricity generated from clean sources. Oil Savings. New Apollo calls for reductions in daily domestic oil consumption of 600,000 barrels a day by 2010; 1,700,000 barrels by 2015; and 3,000,000 barrels by 2020. Global Warming and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. New Apollo enacts a proposal similar to the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act by capping US emissions of greenhouse gases while allowing companies to purchase and trade credits among themselves to ensure the most cost-effective reductions, and funding research to help industries make the shift to cleaner operations. The bill targets one of the biggest greenhouse-gas offenders - coal - by providing $7 billion in loan guarantees for the development of clean coal power plants. Clean Energy Jobs. New Apollo invests billions of dollars in new federal research into advanced clean technologies, and creates a government-funded risk pool to help start-up clean-energy companies commercialize their products. One study by the Apollo Alliance has found that a substantial federal commitment to clean energy could yield up to 3.3 million jobs nationally. Renewable Portfolio. New Apollo contains a Renewable Portfolio Standard requiring all utilities, by 2021, to produce 10% of their electricity from renewable energy sources. Energy Transmission. New Apollo creates national net-metering and interconnection standards that allow homeowners who generate clean energy to reduce their energy bills by feeding surplus electricity back into the grid. New Apollo additionally increases regulatory oversight of energy trading markets, which was a problem during Enron's manipulation of the West Coast energy crisis. The sponsors claim that the legislation is revenue-neutral, paying for its provisions by reducing corporate tax shelters and loopholes, and through auctioning off some of the allowances under the carbon dioxide trading program. The New Apollo Energy Act Original Co-sponsors in Congress are: Jay Inslee (D-WA); Rush Holt (D-NJ); Chris Van Hollen (D-MD); Steve Israel (D-NY); Mike Honda (D-CA); Jim McDermott (D-WA); Rick Larsen (D-WA); Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL); Jan Schakowsky (D-IL); James Langevin (D-RI); Raul Grijalva (D-AZ); Rahm Emanuel (D-IL); Tammy Baldwin (D-WI); George Miller
[Biofuel] Hydrogen - Cleaning up production
Hydrogen: The Next Generation Cleaning up production of a future fuel Jessica Gorman From Science News, Vol. 162, No. 15, Oct. 12, 2002, p. 235 http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/hydrogen_next_generation.html Today's world might run on fossil fuel, but many people predict that hydrogen will fuel the futurein cars, houses, and countless handheld electronic devices. Hydrogen-powered fuel cells (SN: 9/7/02, p. 155: http://www.sciencenews.org/20020907/bob10.asp) can generate electricity much more efficiently than fossil fuel can and without spewing polluting byproducts such as nitrous oxides, which contribute to smog, and carbon dioxide, the most prevalent gas behind global warming. All you do is generate water, says engineer Bruce E. Logan of the Pennsylvania State University in State College. Who can argue with water coming out of tailpipes? Yet there's a big cloud hanging over this sunny image of the fossil-fuel-free future: The main source of hydrogen at the moment is the hydrocarbon molecules in fossil fuel. That has to change, says Logan. Not only does the use of fossil fuel for making hydrogen create pollution, but fossil fuel eventually will run out. Right now, we can produce hydrogen, says Logan. Can we do it with a sustainable method? No. That's why Logan and others are trying to find alternative sources of hydrogen. Among these are renewable fuels, such as crops, agricultural detritus, and factory wastewater. Some researchers are even turning to dirt containing hydrogen-generating microbes. The success of the search could well determine whether hydrogen's promise as the clean fuel of the future will be fully realized. Hydrogen world The first and simplest element on the periodic table, hydrogen is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It's the most common element in the galaxy, but frustratingly difficult to make on Earth without using fossil fuel. Nature is rich in hydrogen. It turns up throughout animal and plant tissue and fossil fuel, but breaking the element free is generally difficult. Water, for example, can split into hydrogen and oxygen when electricity passes through it. Unfortunately, on large scales, this seemingly straightforward process isn't yet economical. And we are far, far, far away from it, says chemical engineer Jens Rostrup-Nielsen at Haldor Topsoe in Lyngby, Denmark. Of course, the ideal would be to split water, but you need energy to split water, and where do you get the energy from? says Rostrup-Nielsen. Today, no doubt, the most economic way of producing hydrogen is from fossil fuels. Producers generate some 45 million metric tons of hydrogen globally each year from fossil fuel. Almost half of this hydrogen goes to making ammonia, NH3, a major component of fertilizer and a familiar ingredient in household cleaners. Refineries use the second largest chunk of hydrogen for chemical processes such as removing sulfur from gasoline and converting heavy hydrocarbons into gasoline and diesel fuel. Food producers use a small percentage, adding hydrogen to some edible oils in a process called hydrogenation. To make hydrogen, Haldor Topsoe and other companies usually employ a method called steam reforming. Vaporized fossil fuels, primarily natural gas, mix with steam at high pressures and temperatures with assistance from a nickel-based catalyst. The reforming technique yields hydrogen, but it also gives off carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas. Such hydrogen generation from fossil fuel is the first step toward a new hydrogen economy, says Rostrup-Nielsen. Logan explains that although this approach still generates the pollution people are trying to avoid, those gases are released in a potentially more manageable wayin the reforming plant rather than in millions of mobile car engines. Nonetheless, shedding the habit of fossil fuel entirely is the only way a wholesale shift to hydrogen will work in the long term, Logan says. One approach to this goal is to apply steam-reforming methods to alternative renewable materials, says Esteban Chornet, who works at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. Such materials might be derived from crops. Other scientists are experimenting with ponds of algae that use sunlight-driven reactions to make hydrogen (SN: 2/26/00, p. 134: http://www.sciencenews.org/2226/fob6.asp). Yet others are considering innovative ways of electrolyzing water for large-scale hydrogen generation. Logan thinks that converting biological waste, such as the sugar and starch in candy- or soda-factory wastewater, is a good way to go. Chemical engineer James A. Dumesic of the University of Wisconsin Madison is focusing on the byproducts of his state's corn, cheese, and paper production to make hydrogen. Not only do these biomass-conversion schemes turn trash into a valuable product, but the researchers say there's
[Biofuel] ExxonMobil Sounds Silent Peak Oil Alarm
ExxonMobil Sounds Silent Peak Oil Alarm Source: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists http://www.thebulletin.org/print.php?art_ofn=mj05cavallo [May 29, 2005] http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communiquenewsid=8563 SYNOPSIS: The fine print of The Outlook for Energy: A 2030 View report downplays the potential of oil shale, a misnomer, and Canadian tar sands. Without any press conferences, grand announcements, or hyperbolic advertising campaigns, the Exxon Mobil Corporation, one of the world's largest publicly owned petroleum companies, has quietly joined the ranks of those who are predicting an impending plateau in non-OPEC oil production. Their report, The Outlook for Energy: A 2030 View, forecasts a peak in just five years. In the past, many who expressed such concerns were dismissed as eager catastrophists, peddling the latest Malthusian prophecy of the impending collapse of fossil-fueled civilization. Their reliance on private oil-reserve data that is unverifiable by other analysts, and their use of models that ignore political and economic factors, have led to frequent erroneous pronouncements. They were countered by the extreme optimists, who believed that we would never need to think about such problems and that the markets would take care of everything. Up to now, those who worried about limited petroleum supplies have been at best ignored, and at worst openly ridiculed. Meanwhile, average consumers have taken their cue from the market, where rising prices have always been followed by falling prices, leading to the assumption that this pattern will continue forever. In truth, the market price of crude oil is completely decoupled from and independent of production costs, which average about $6 per barrel for non-OPEC producers and $1.50 per barrel for OPEC producers. This situation has nothing to do with a free market, and everything to do with what OPEC believes will be accepted or tolerated by the United States. The completely affordable market price--what consumers pay at the gasoline pump--provides magisterial profits to the owners of the resource and gives no warning of impending shortages. All the more reason that the public should heed the silent alarm sounded by the ExxonMobil report, which is more credible than other predictions for several reasons. First and foremost is that the source is ExxonMobil. No oil company, much less one with so much managerial, scientific, and engineering talent, has ever discussed peak oil production before. Given the profound implications of this forecast, it must have been published only after a thorough review. Second, the majority of non-OPEC producers such as the United States, Britain, Norway, and Mexico, who satisfy 60 percent of world oil demand, are already in a production plateau or decline. (All of ExxonMobil's crude oil production comes from non-OPEC fields.) Third, the production peak cited by the report is quite close at hand. If it were twenty-five years instead of five years in the future, one might be more skeptical, since new technologies or new discoveries could change the outlook during that longer period. But five years is too short a time frame for any new developments to have an impact on this result. Also noteworthy is the manner in which the Outlook addresses so-called frontier resources, such as extra-heavy oil, oil sands, and oil shale. The report cites the existence of more than 4 trillion barrels of extra heavy oil and oil sands--producing potentially 800 billion barrels of oil, assuming a 20-25 percent extraction efficiency. The Outlook also cites an estimate of 3 trillion barrels of oil shale. These numbers have figured prominently in advertisements that ExxonMobil and other petroleum companies have placed in newspapers and magazines, clearly in an attempt to reassure consumers (and perhaps stockholders) that there is no need to worry about resource constraints for many decades. However, as with all advertisements, it's best to read the fine print. ExxonMobil's world oil production forecast shows no contribution from oil shale even by 2030. Only about 4 million barrels of oil per day from Canadian oil sands are projected by 2030, accounting for a mere 3.3 percent of the predicted total world demand of 120 million barrels per day. What explains this striking disconnection between the magnitude of the frontier resources and the minimal amount of projected oil production from them? Canadian oil sands are actually deposits of bitumen (tar), which are the result of conventional oil degradation by water and air. Tar sands are of a completely different character than conventional oil deposits; making tar sands usable is a capital-intensive venture that requires special procedures such as heating to separate the tar from the sand, mixing the tar with a diluting agent for pipeline transport, and constructing specially equipped refineries
[Biofuel] US biomass adds to ethanol debate
Groschen said that commercial companies have been cautious in their approach toward biomass-to-ethanol technology. Everyone is waiting to be the second one in line to build a plant for processing cellulose, he said. --- Biomass Adds to Ethanol Debate By John Gartner Jun. 02, 2005 http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,67691,00.html Federal subsidies have made growing corn for ethanol a profitable venture for Corn Belt farmers while irking free-market advocates. Now, new technology for processing biomass from widely available plant and tree residue could increase Beltway bickering over ethanol funding. Nearly all of the ethanol in the United States is currently produced by fermenting the sugars in corn grain, according to Robin Graham, the group leader of ecosystem and plant sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Most of that corn is produced in the Corn Belt of the upper Midwest, an area that benefits from the 52 cents per gallon federal tax credit for producing ethanol. Free-market enthusiasts such as the Cato Institute's Alan Reynolds and the Heritage Foundation have decried subsidizing ethanol production that otherwise would not be economically viable. There is no ethanol industry in the USA, but simply a subsidies industry, said Rogério de Cerqueira Leite, a professor at Brazil's University of Campinas, in an e-mail. Corn productivity is low and the energy balance is poor. Corn is the favored feedstock for ethanol today because it is dense and full of energy, and it is grown all over the country, according to Ralph Groschen, senior marketing specialist for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. He said that corn is easy to transport while biomass is fluffy and takes a larger area for storage. Groschen said that commercial companies have been cautious in their approach toward biomass-to-ethanol technology. Everyone is waiting to be the second one in line to build a plant for processing cellulose, he said. The economics of ethanol could soon change, as Oak Ridge National Lab's Graham said that producing ethanol from the cellulose of plants is less costly than using corn grain. The cost of raw materials for biomass-based ethanol could be much lower, since tree and plant residue from clearing lots can be obtained for free, and switchgrass (a perennial crop that grows everywhere east of the Rocky Mountains) and corn stovers (dried leaves and stalks) are inexpensive to acquire, according to Graham. Using corn grain to produce ethanol is relatively energy-inefficient when compared to utilizing biomass, Graham said. Producing ethanol from corn grain generates about 1.4 times as much energy as the process consumes, when pesticides and fossil fuels are factored in, she said. The energy yield from cellulosic materials is like 10-to-1. Iogen of Ottawa, Canada, and Danish company Novozymes are close to commercializing biomass technologies. The companies use enzymes to break down the cellulose found in the leaves, stalks and walls of plants into simple sugars that are then converted into ethanol. Iogen will break ground later this year on a demonstration power plant for converting wheat straw and switchgrass into ethanol, according to spokeswoman Tania Glithero. She said Iogen's current test facility is processing ethanol that powers a fleet of about 90 vehicles. In April, Novozymes completed a four-year project in conjunction with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory that reduced the cost of using enzymes to convert corn stovers thirtyfold. According to the company, the technology will be tested next year at a processing facility in York, Nebraska. Unlike corn, biomass can be harvested in quantity throughout the United States, according to Burt English, a professor in the agricultural economics department at the University of Tennessee. English said agricultural waste that comes from yard clippings and clearing trees could be collected from any urban area. Producing ethanol from switchgrass would take some land out of food production and would have the impact of increasing farm prices and reducing government payments, he said. English said the federal government should fund biomass ethanol that could be produced throughout the United States. The facts point to the conclusion that biomass is a better use of resources, English said. In April, a group of 33 governors -- including those from Corn Belt states -- released a report (.pdf) recommending that the federal government spend $800 million over the next 10 years on biomass research. Biomass could be converted into ethanol in commercial quantities at a cost equivalent to $25 per barrel of crude oil, or roughly half the current price of imported oil, according to E. Kyle Datta, co-author of Winning the Oil Endgame and managing director of research and consulting at the Rocky Mountain Institute, an energy policy group. Datta said
Re: [Biofuel] Smart Car - DaimlerChrysler sees growth above average
H, what's process through customs for buying a car in Canada and driving it back to the US anyone? --- robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Redler wrote: HOW CAN I GET ONE THROUGH CUSTOMS? Buy one in Canada. They're all over the place up here now. My boys make a game of spotting them, like I used to do with oval window VWs when I was a kid. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782 Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] -= question: filter for SVO conversion? =-
Hello- I'm trying to get all my ducks in a row so I can convert my 95 Chevy to SVO in the coming month. What type and micron rating would you all recommend for the filter? And where's the best place to purchase it? I would like something good quality... something that my truck will like. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. best- Mel ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
RE: [Biofuel] Sugar Beat Yield for Ethanol Production
Perhaps not quite, but the originally reference http://www.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/makingethanol.htm says that it takes 1 pound of sugar to make ½ pound of ethanol, so your 10,000 pounds of sugar from an acre makes 5000 pounds ethanol. Not sure of exact weight of ethanol, but I can believe a 6.7 pounds/gallon number I found, gives you 750 gallons of ethanol, not too bad. Of course you might want to burn some of that to cook the mash and fire the still. So this is interesting, but I am personally more excited by enzyme processes that use wood waste, farm waste, grass, other cellulose. Here in Massachusetts there is not large scale farming to produce corn or beets to make into ethanol, nor soy or canola to make into biodiesel, so there are maybe 1-2 places in the state to fill up with commercial biodiesel, and NO places I know of to fill up with E85. Opportunity! Jack From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Lloyd Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 2:37 PM To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Sugar Beat Yield for Ethanol Production You only get an estimated sugar recovery of 10,000 pounds per acre from sugar beet in a good year. I cannot see that making 1200 gallons of alcohol. Chris Wessex Ferret Club (http://www.wessexferretclub.co.uk) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.6 - Release Date: 08/06/2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] US biomass adds to ethanol debate
Bioengineering Resources, Inc. (infromation attached) has patents for converting synthesis gas (CO and H2) into ethanol which eliminates the lignin by-product problem and produces a high yield ethanol. Why is BRI not widely accepted when it is longer required to hydrolyze the hemicelluloses and cellulose and dispose of thelignin. Sincerely, R.J."Jim"Robinson Bioengineering Resources, Inc..doc Description: Binary data ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Sugar Beat Yield for Ethanol Production
How old isyour information regarding Sugar Beet yields? I think it could be substantially higher but still fooling around with it. Yield will have to be much higher to make it profitable for the producer.Any information related to Sugar Beets that anyone might have or have knowledge of would be very much appreciated, points of contact, studiesand etc. Thank you all. golferdad - Original Message - From: Michael Redler To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 12:27 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Sugar Beat Yield for Ethanol Production "The average auto uses 800 gallons of fuel per year and a single acre of sugar beats for example would yield about 1200 gallons of alcohol." http://www.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/makingethanol.htm Can anyone substantiate this? I have a couple of other questions too. If this is a good crop for ethanol, do I have to take care of what's taken out of the soil? Will I need to rotate if I do this every year? In general, am I missing anything? If this is true, I think I know what my summer project is going to be. :-) Mike ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Smart Car - DaimlerChrysler sees growth above average
Mike wrote: H, what's process through customs for buying a car in Canada and driving it back to the US anyone? Talk to U.S. Customs and your State Department of Motor Vehicles. I'm confident they will give you the most accurate info. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782 Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] Reprocessing Biodiesel
Hi All, I posed this question back on the 5th and didn't get any responses. I was hoping someone out there would have some idea on how to proceed. I've been pouring all the little bits of biodiesel and soap or water into a 55 gallon drum. The soap and water have settled to the bottom and there is several gallons of biodiesel floating on top. The bioD looks pretty good but I'd feel better if it was reprocessed. I can dewater it with heat but then I will need to figure out how much methanol and lye to use for reprocessing. Does anyone have any idea how to figure the amount of each to use? Thanks -Richard ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Sugar Beat Yield for Ethanol Production
Hi Mike The average auto uses 800 gallons of fuel per year and a single acre of sugar beats for example would yield about 1200 gallons of alcohol. http://www.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/makingethanol.htmhttp://www .green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/makingethanol.htm Can anyone substantiate this? I have a couple of other questions too. If this is a good crop for ethanol, do I have to take care of what's taken out of the soil? As with all crops. Not a problem. Will I need to rotate if I do this every year? In general, am I missing anything? Avoid monocrops. Don't be too tempted by yield data, yield might not be the most important factor. Have another look at this: http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200 5-June/000429.html [Biofuel] Dream Farms IMHO. Sugarcane, jerusalem artichokes, sweet sorghum... or an acre of fruit and nut trees a la Russell Smith and a few pigs: http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#treecrops How about this? 100 tons per acre and 14% sugar content: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg19404.html Re: [biofuel] Burbank Cactus Catalog (The whole thread's linked at the end of the message.) Best wishes Keith If this is true, I think I know what my summer project is going to be. :-) Mike ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
