Re: [Biofuel] Dark Biodiesel

[JJJN]

Hi Tom,
Awhile back I made some that was much darker too, it washed fine and 
everything but I didn't trust it. I followed JtF test for excess 
glycerin by re treating a liter like virgin oil.  It had 0 glycerin fall 
out and I have confidence that it is good Bio. Just has Dark straw color.

Luck
Jim

Thomas Kelly wrote:

 Hello To All,
  I get very dark WVO from a Chinese restaurant. I tested a sample 
 and found virtually no water. It titrated at 1.3g/L. Usually my WVO 
 gets mixed together, but I ran a 20gal. batch using only this oil. It 
 washed (stir-washed) very easily. The finished BD was clear down to 
 below 40F, but was very dark. I reprocessed a .5L sample   NO 
 glycerine dropped out. A 25ml. sample dissolved completely in 225ml 
 methanol. It appeared to be very high quality BD. I've been running it 
 in my car and I responded to a question by Danislov K. regarding dark 
 BD. I told him that if it passed these quality tests it should be OK 
 to use.
BUT: In going back over the Quality Tests described at JtF .  
 #Alex Kac wrote: Deeper color biodiesel has a lot of glycerine in it 
 in the form of various glycerids. Not good for standard engines. 
 Remedy: If the diesel is too dark and you are sure that you used the 
 correct quantitie(s) of catalyst(s), add a pinch more alcohol -- you 
 could be losing it due to evaporation.
  
  - Did I give Danislov the wrong advice???
 - If glycerine in the form of various glycerids was present in 
 the finished BD wouldn't it show up upon reprocessing?
 - Is it possible to have high quality BD that is very dark in color?
   Tom
 
  
  




___
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] Also starting out

[Kenji James Fuse]

I had a little meeting last year about renewable fuels with Oaf-icials of
the Alberta
ministries of Environment, Agriculture and Energy, with only the
agriculture guy having alot of useful input.
He thought it wasn't a problem to distill for fuel purposes (after all,
Canada did ratify Kyoto Acc!) but all the oaf-icial paperwork I've
obtained includes miles of red-tape (way more than in the US)and seems to
imply that a Canada Customs oaf-icial must be present when operating - as
if! It would be an interesting precedent-making court case, for anyone
caring to tackle
it...


K Fuse
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Ken Provost wrote:


 On Oct 28, 2005, at 9:40 PM, robert luis rabello wrote:

 
  It's illegal for individuals to distill ethanol in Canada.  Sorry to
  burst your bubble, but I've looked into this and if I could have
  obtained a permit, I would have done so already.  Ethanol
  would be a  wonderful fuel for a little hot rod truck like mine!
 

 Are Canadians typically a very law-abiding people? Just curious.
 Many US citizens would not think twice about skipping the permit,
 if they had some reason to believe they wouldn't  get caught.

 -K

 ___
 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] US Montana’s energy future

[JJJN]

Hi MH, 

I do like the excerpt

 “Montana does not have to become a national sacrifice area
 for a faulty federal energy policy.”

I guess when Americans are hooked like winos on cheap fuel the fastest 
way to get them a fix is the stance most politico's take.  Coal is a 
loser. Gov. Schweitzer understands this and would like to push harder 
but remember it is like selling bibles in a bar room.  I think the grass 
roots movement that we are involved in with Biofuels will effect more 
change.  It is nice to see them talking though and it never hurts to 
write a guy like Brian a letter. 

Thanks for the interesting post
Jim


MH wrote:

 Peering into Montana’s energy future
 By WILBUR WOOD For The Outpost 
 http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=18357issue=289

 Coal filled the headlines of Montana newspapers last week during the
 Governor’s Energy Summit – officially called “The Montana Symposium:
 Energy Future of the West” – but the real news was how much brighter
 our future will be when we turn our attention away from coal toward
 energy conservation and renewable energy. 

 The symposium went on for two days, Oct. 18-19, on the campus of
 Montana State University in Bozeman – 740 registered participants
 (not counting the press), 27 “breakout sessions” punctuated
 by panels and speeches – but the coal headlines around the state
 during those two days did not emerge solely from the Energy Symposium. 

 One coal story turned out to be a new chapter in the ongoing saga of
 the beleaguered coal mine in the Bull Mountains south of Roundup.
 The state Department of Environmental Quality was upset that
 operators of this mine, while scraping away a ridgetop meadow,
 ostensibly to level a site for a proposed generating plant – a plant
 whose air quality permit, DEQ says, is no longer valid because it
 expired in June – encountered an eight-foot-thick vein of sub-bituminous
 coal and dug through it. They needed, they said, to get to solid ground.
 DEQ looked at the resultant pile of coal and called this strip mining.
 The mine is an underground mine and has no permit for strip mining. 

 The mine was upset that DEQ was upset, and claims it never intended to
 sell the coal from the site for the power plant, whose air quality
 permit should still be valid. 

 A second coal story came out of Great Falls, where the City Council
 voted 4-1 to spend $2 million of that city’s funds on “preparations”
 for the proposed 250 megawatt Highwood coal-burning power plant east
 of the city. Five rural electric cooperatives forming the Southern
 Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative are
 partnering with Great Falls on this project because they need the
 city’s rights to water from the Missouri River. Running a coal-fired
 generating plant takes a lot of water. 

 Water is a dominant issue with coal development in our semi-arid region.
 One reason that a 780-megawatt coal-fired generating complex seems
 unlikely ever to poke its smokestacks into the sky between Roundup and
 Billings is a lack of sufficient water, either in the Bull Mountains or
 in the Musselshell River 15 miles north. Nor do the developers have the
 right to pipe any water out of the Yellowstone River 35 miles to the south.
 So they are proposing to drill down 8,000 feet into the Madison Aquifer
 and pump up water that is very hot (about 180 degrees Fahrenheit) and
 full of salts that would have to be removed. 

 Water is also a huge issue with the kinds of coal development that were
 trumpeted at the Energy Symposium. Extracting methane gas from coal seams
 means pumping out the water that holds it there - in other words,
 dewatering the aquifer. Do you then dump this untreated, often very salty
 water down the nearest stream, potentially ruining pastures and irrigated
 croplands? Do you dig reservoirs (a bit more expensive) and stash this
 pumped out water there, waiting for some of this water to seep back into
 the ground, some to be consumed by livestock and wildlife, and the
 rest to evaporate and fall – elsewhere – as rain? 

 You could, of course, treat the water, remove the salts, before dumping
 it down a stream, but this is expensive and does not address the
 dewatered aquifer and drying up wells and springs. You could re-inject
 the water back into the coal seam, but this is even more expensive – although
 not so expensive that gas producers would not reap enormous profits anyway. 

 Coal bed methane is a crucial issue for Montana, but other coal technologies –
 either gasifying or liquefying coal – are what Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer
 lately has been promoting. Prodigious amounts of water are used (or abused)
 in both of these, also. 

 The chief push to create liquid fuel from coal seems to be coming from the
 Department of Defense - one of the major consumers of oil on the planet -
 and indeed, Ted Barna, an assistant under secretary of the DOD was there
 to endorse that concept. 

 Another federal agency official was 

Re: [Biofuel] US Montana’s energy future

[Mike Weaver]

Only quibble with that is that we don't really have an energy policy.
It's just consume consume consume, and damn the cost.

JJJN wrote:
 Hi MH, 
 
 I do like the excerpt
 
  “Montana does not have to become a national sacrifice area
  for a faulty federal energy policy.”
 
 I guess when Americans are hooked like winos on cheap fuel the fastest 
 way to get them a fix is the stance most politico's take.  Coal is a 
 loser. Gov. Schweitzer understands this and would like to push harder 
 but remember it is like selling bibles in a bar room.  I think the grass 
 roots movement that we are involved in with Biofuels will effect more 
 change.  It is nice to see them talking though and it never hurts to 
 write a guy like Brian a letter. 
 
 Thanks for the interesting post
 Jim
 
 
 MH wrote:
 
 
Peering into Montana’s energy future
By WILBUR WOOD For The Outpost 
http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=18357issue=289

Coal filled the headlines of Montana newspapers last week during the
Governor’s Energy Summit – officially called “The Montana Symposium:
Energy Future of the West” – but the real news was how much brighter
our future will be when we turn our attention away from coal toward
energy conservation and renewable energy. 

The symposium went on for two days, Oct. 18-19, on the campus of
Montana State University in Bozeman – 740 registered participants
(not counting the press), 27 “breakout sessions” punctuated
by panels and speeches – but the coal headlines around the state
during those two days did not emerge solely from the Energy Symposium. 

One coal story turned out to be a new chapter in the ongoing saga of
the beleaguered coal mine in the Bull Mountains south of Roundup.
The state Department of Environmental Quality was upset that
operators of this mine, while scraping away a ridgetop meadow,
ostensibly to level a site for a proposed generating plant – a plant
whose air quality permit, DEQ says, is no longer valid because it
expired in June – encountered an eight-foot-thick vein of sub-bituminous
coal and dug through it. They needed, they said, to get to solid ground.
DEQ looked at the resultant pile of coal and called this strip mining.
The mine is an underground mine and has no permit for strip mining. 

The mine was upset that DEQ was upset, and claims it never intended to
sell the coal from the site for the power plant, whose air quality
permit should still be valid. 

A second coal story came out of Great Falls, where the City Council
voted 4-1 to spend $2 million of that city’s funds on “preparations”
for the proposed 250 megawatt Highwood coal-burning power plant east
of the city. Five rural electric cooperatives forming the Southern
Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative are
partnering with Great Falls on this project because they need the
city’s rights to water from the Missouri River. Running a coal-fired
generating plant takes a lot of water. 

Water is a dominant issue with coal development in our semi-arid region.
One reason that a 780-megawatt coal-fired generating complex seems
unlikely ever to poke its smokestacks into the sky between Roundup and
Billings is a lack of sufficient water, either in the Bull Mountains or
in the Musselshell River 15 miles north. Nor do the developers have the
right to pipe any water out of the Yellowstone River 35 miles to the south.
So they are proposing to drill down 8,000 feet into the Madison Aquifer
and pump up water that is very hot (about 180 degrees Fahrenheit) and
full of salts that would have to be removed. 

Water is also a huge issue with the kinds of coal development that were
trumpeted at the Energy Symposium. Extracting methane gas from coal seams
means pumping out the water that holds it there - in other words,
dewatering the aquifer. Do you then dump this untreated, often very salty
water down the nearest stream, potentially ruining pastures and irrigated
croplands? Do you dig reservoirs (a bit more expensive) and stash this
pumped out water there, waiting for some of this water to seep back into
the ground, some to be consumed by livestock and wildlife, and the
rest to evaporate and fall – elsewhere – as rain? 

You could, of course, treat the water, remove the salts, before dumping
it down a stream, but this is expensive and does not address the
dewatered aquifer and drying up wells and springs. You could re-inject
the water back into the coal seam, but this is even more expensive – although
not so expensive that gas producers would not reap enormous profits anyway. 

Coal bed methane is a crucial issue for Montana, but other coal technologies –
either gasifying or liquefying coal – are what Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer
lately has been promoting. Prodigious amounts of water are used (or abused)
in both of these, also. 

The chief push to create liquid fuel from coal seems to be coming from the
Department of Defense - one of the major consumers of oil on the planet -
and indeed, Ted Barna, an assistant under 

Re: [Biofuel] US Montana’s energy future

[JJJN]

OK Mike,
 I went to,  http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/
and it says we do have a  policy National Energy Policy to be exact, 
but you must be referring to hopelessly pathetic message it contains, if 
not that then perhaps the cryptic coded quote by our great leader that 
we can still have Yellowstone Park while we find more oil (who me 
worry?), or perhaps if we manipulate our clocks some more we can save 
the world,or or or well ok Mike your right We really don't have an 
energy policy, not even a failed one. ;-)

Jim

Mike Weaver wrote:

Only quibble with that is that we don't really have an energy policy.
It's just consume consume consume, and damn the cost.

JJJN wrote:
  

Hi MH, 

I do like the excerpt

 “Montana does not have to become a national sacrifice area
 for a faulty federal energy policy.”

I guess when Americans are hooked like winos on cheap fuel the fastest 
way to get them a fix is the stance most politico's take.  Coal is a 
loser. Gov. Schweitzer understands this and would like to push harder 
but remember it is like selling bibles in a bar room.  I think the grass 
roots movement that we are involved in with Biofuels will effect more 
change.  It is nice to see them talking though and it never hurts to 
write a guy like Brian a letter. 

Thanks for the interesting post
Jim


MH wrote:




Peering into Montana’s energy future
By WILBUR WOOD For The Outpost 
http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=18357issue=289

Coal filled the headlines of Montana newspapers last week during the
Governor’s Energy Summit – officially called “The Montana Symposium:
Energy Future of the West” – but the real news was how much brighter
our future will be when we turn our attention away from coal toward
energy conservation and renewable energy. 

The symposium went on for two days, Oct. 18-19, on the campus of
Montana State University in Bozeman – 740 registered participants
(not counting the press), 27 “breakout sessions” punctuated
by panels and speeches – but the coal headlines around the state
during those two days did not emerge solely from the Energy Symposium. 

One coal story turned out to be a new chapter in the ongoing saga of
the beleaguered coal mine in the Bull Mountains south of Roundup.
The state Department of Environmental Quality was upset that
operators of this mine, while scraping away a ridgetop meadow,
ostensibly to level a site for a proposed generating plant – a plant
whose air quality permit, DEQ says, is no longer valid because it
expired in June – encountered an eight-foot-thick vein of sub-bituminous
coal and dug through it. They needed, they said, to get to solid ground.
DEQ looked at the resultant pile of coal and called this strip mining.
The mine is an underground mine and has no permit for strip mining. 

The mine was upset that DEQ was upset, and claims it never intended to
sell the coal from the site for the power plant, whose air quality
permit should still be valid. 

A second coal story came out of Great Falls, where the City Council
voted 4-1 to spend $2 million of that city’s funds on “preparations”
for the proposed 250 megawatt Highwood coal-burning power plant east
of the city. Five rural electric cooperatives forming the Southern
Montana Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative are
partnering with Great Falls on this project because they need the
city’s rights to water from the Missouri River. Running a coal-fired
generating plant takes a lot of water. 

Water is a dominant issue with coal development in our semi-arid region.
One reason that a 780-megawatt coal-fired generating complex seems
unlikely ever to poke its smokestacks into the sky between Roundup and
Billings is a lack of sufficient water, either in the Bull Mountains or
in the Musselshell River 15 miles north. Nor do the developers have the
right to pipe any water out of the Yellowstone River 35 miles to the south.
So they are proposing to drill down 8,000 feet into the Madison Aquifer
and pump up water that is very hot (about 180 degrees Fahrenheit) and
full of salts that would have to be removed. 

Water is also a huge issue with the kinds of coal development that were
trumpeted at the Energy Symposium. Extracting methane gas from coal seams
means pumping out the water that holds it there - in other words,
dewatering the aquifer. Do you then dump this untreated, often very salty
water down the nearest stream, potentially ruining pastures and irrigated
croplands? Do you dig reservoirs (a bit more expensive) and stash this
pumped out water there, waiting for some of this water to seep back into
the ground, some to be consumed by livestock and wildlife, and the
rest to evaporate and fall – elsewhere – as rain? 

You could, of course, treat the water, remove the salts, before dumping
it down a stream, but this is expensive and does not address the
dewatered aquifer and drying up wells and springs. You could re-inject
the water back into the coal seam, but this is even more expensive – 

[Biofuel] Portents of the upcoming Big One

[bmolloy]

  Hi All,
   
  This latest report from Pilger. Does this portend theBig One - a 
  criminal trial of Western war leaders that would outshine 
  Nuremberg?
  Bob.
  
  Date: Saturday, 29 October 2005 7:20 pm
  THE EPIC CRIME THAT DARES NOT SPEAK ITS NAME: 
  John Pilger
  
  A Royal Air Force officer is about to be tried before a 
  military court for refusing to return to Iraq because the war is illegal. 
  Malcolm Kendall-Smith is the first British officer to face criminal 
  charges for challenging the legality of the invasion and occupation. He is 
  not a conscientious objector; he has completed two tours in Iraq. When he 
  came home the last time, he studied the reasons given for attacking Iraq 
  and concluded he was breaking the law. His position is supported by 
  international lawyers all over the world, not least by Kofi Annan, the UN 
  secretary general, who said in September last year: "The US-led invasion 
  of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN Charter."
  
  The question of legality deeply concerns the British 
  military brass, who sought Tony Blair's assurance on the eve of the 
  invasion, got it and, as they now know, were lied to. They are right to 
  worry; Britain is a signatory to the treaty that set up the International 
  Criminal Court, which draws its codes from the Geneva Conventions and the 
  1945 Nuremberg Charter. The latter is clear: "To initiate a war of 
  aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme 
  international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it 
  contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
  
  At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, counts one 
  and two, "Conspiracy to wage aggressive war and waging aggressive war", 
  refer to "the common plan or conspiracy". These are defined in the 
  indictment as "the planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of 
  aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, 
  agreements and assurances". A wealth of evidence is now available that 
  George Bush, Blair and their advisers did just that. The leaked minutes 
  from the infamous Downing Street meeting in July 2002 alone reveal that 
  Blair and his war cabinet knew that it was illegal. The attack that 
  followed, mounted against a defenceless country offering no threat to the 
  US or Britain, has a precedent in Hitler's invasion of Sudetenland; the 
  lies told to justify both are eerily similar.
  
  The similarity is also striking in the illegal bombing 
  campaign that preceded both. Unknown to most people in Britain and 
  America, British and US planes conducted a ferocious bombing campaign 
  against Iraq in the ten months prior to the invasion, hoping this would 
  provoke Saddam Hussein into supplying an excuse for an invasion. It failed 
  and killed an unknown number of civilians.
  
  At Nuremberg, counts three and four referred to "War crimes 
  and crimes against humanity". Here again, there is overwhelming evidence 
  that Blair and Bush committed "violations of the laws or customs of war" 
  including "murder... of civilian populations of or in occupied territory, 
  murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war".
  
  Two recent examples: the US onslaught near Ramadi this month 
  in which 39 men, women and children - all civilians - were killed, and a 
  report by the United Nations special rapporteur in Iraq who described the 
  Anglo-American practice of denying food and water to Iraqi civilians in 
  order to force them to leave their towns and villages as a "flagrant 
  violation" of the Geneva Conventions.
  
  In September, Human Rights Watch released an epic study that 
  documents the systematic nature of torture by the Americans, and how 
  casual it is, even enjoyable. This is a sergeant from the US Army's 82nd 
  Airborne Division: "On their day off people would show up all the time. 
  Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show 
  up at the PUC [prisoners'] tent. In a way it was sport... One day a 
  sergeant shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over 
  and broke the guy's leg with a mini Louisville Slugger that was a metal 
  [baseball] bat. He was the fucking cook!"
  
  The report describes how the people of Fallujah, the scene 
  of numerous American atrocities, regard the 82nd Airborne as "the 
  Murdering Maniacs". Reading it, you realise that the occupying force in 
  Iraq is, as the head of Reuters said recently, out of control. It is 
  destroying lives in industrial quantities when compared with the violence 
  of the resistance.
  
  Who will be punished for this? According to Sir Michael Jay, 
  the permanent under-secretary of state who gave evidence before the 
  Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee on 24 June 2003, "Iraq was on the 
  agenda of each cabinet meeting in the nine months or so until the conflict 
  broke out in April". How is it possible 

Re: [Biofuel] US Montana’s energy future

[Keith Addison]

OK Mike,
 I went to,  http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/
and it says we do have a  policy National Energy Policy to be exact,
but you must be referring to hopelessly pathetic message it contains, if
not that then perhaps the cryptic coded quote by our great leader that
we can still have Yellowstone Park while we find more oil (who me
worry?), or perhaps if we manipulate our clocks some more we can save
the world,or or or well ok Mike your right We really don't have an
energy policy, not even a failed one. ;-)

Paying for the next election is top of the list for the politicians, 
cutting a bigger slice in the interdepartmental budget wars and 
office-politics territory battles is uppermost for the bureaucrats 
and oaf-icials, and for the corporations that own them all the next 
board meeting, the AGM and the bottom-line are all that count, and 
you want policy?? It would be quite nice I suppose.

Japan doesn't do policy either, no actual policy on anything anywhere 
to be seen, policy is what emerges from mostly invisible 
horse-trading among powerful fiefdoms constantly jostling for 
position and defending their share of the spoils, whose thinking and 
goals are in no way representative of those of the community. The EU 
does policy, good or bad or both, so do China, India, Brazil, South 
Africa and a few others, and people like Chavez and Castro. Saudi 
Arabia et al's policy turns out to be a sham - having helped deliver 
the US election as promised it now emerges that the rumours are true 
that they haven't got the reserves anyway and neither has anyone else 
(like Shell), their policy's just a big slice of pie-in-the-sky. (See 
Matt Simmonds in the list archives.) Most of the rest of the world is 
just trying to survive, not enough options for much policy as such. 
Which leaves a whole bunch of rich industrialised countries with lots 
of window-dressing on the policy front but it's just a puppet show, 
like the US and Japan.

Methinks this is no longer a good survival model, there seem to be 
several meteorites headed its way. Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don't get 
meteorites on a Flat Earth do you, lots of dinosaurs, no meteorites 
(according to the dinosaurs).

Best

Keith


Jim

Mike Weaver wrote:

 Only quibble with that is that we don't really have an energy policy.
 It's just consume consume consume, and damn the cost.
 
 JJJN wrote:
 
 
 Hi MH,
 
 I do like the excerpt
 
  “Montana does not have to become a national sacrifice area
  for a faulty federal energy policy.”
 
 I guess when Americans are hooked like winos on cheap fuel the fastest
 way to get them a fix is the stance most politico's take.  Coal is a
 loser. Gov. Schweitzer understands this and would like to push harder
 but remember it is like selling bibles in a bar room.  I think the grass
 roots movement that we are involved in with Biofuels will effect more
 change.  It is nice to see them talking though and it never hurts to
 write a guy like Brian a letter.
 
 Thanks for the interesting post
 Jim
 
 
 MH wrote:
 
 
 
 
 Peering into Montana’s energy future
 By WILBUR WOOD For The Outpost
 http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=18357issue=289

snip


___
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: Montana's energy future - was [Biofuel] US Montana’s energy future

[Keith Addison]

Hi MH,

I do like the excerpt

But I hate the subject title, and it sure won't make archives 
searches any more chic either. US =?windows-1252?Q? ??? (Well, 
maybe it does, who knows these days anyway.) I think it's these 
little “ and ” thingies that do it, yuk.

Please set emailer defaults to ASCII plain text mode! It's Be Kind To 
Your Friendly Neighbourhood List Server Week this week (and all 
weeks).

Thanking you.

Keith


 “Montana does not have to become a national sacrifice area
 for a faulty federal energy policy.”

I guess when Americans are hooked like winos on cheap fuel the fastest
way to get them a fix is the stance most politico's take.  Coal is a
loser. Gov. Schweitzer understands this and would like to push harder
but remember it is like selling bibles in a bar room.  I think the grass
roots movement that we are involved in with Biofuels will effect more
change.  It is nice to see them talking though and it never hurts to
write a guy like Brian a letter.

Thanks for the interesting post
Jim


MH wrote:

snip


___
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] Portents of the upcoming Big One

[Robert Carr]

Correct me if I am wrong, but history shows us that 
that following any war, you only get war crime trials for the leaders of the 
losing side. As the Anglo/US coalition can be deemed to have effectively won the 
war against Iraq, there will sadly be no war crime trials of it's 
leaders.

Reg'ds
Bob

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  bmolloy 

  To: Biofuel 
  Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 4:19 
  AM
  Subject: [Biofuel] Portents of the 
  upcoming Big One
  
  
Hi All,
 This 
latest report from Pilger. Does this portend theBig One - a criminal 
trial of Western war leaders that would outshine Nuremberg?
Bob.

Date: Saturday, 29 October 2005 7:20 pm
THE EPIC CRIME THAT DARES NOT SPEAK ITS NAME: 
John Pilger

A Royal Air Force officer is about to be tried before a 
military court for refusing to return to Iraq because the war is 
illegal. Malcolm Kendall-Smith is the first British officer to face 
criminal charges for challenging the legality of the invasion and 
occupation. He is not a conscientious objector; he has completed two 
tours in Iraq. When he came home the last time, he studied the reasons 
given for attacking Iraq and concluded he was breaking the law. His 
position is supported by international lawyers all over the world, not 
least by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, who said in September 
last year: "The US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that 
contravened the UN Charter."

The question of legality deeply concerns the British 
military brass, who sought Tony Blair's assurance on the eve of the 
invasion, got it and, as they now know, were lied to. They are right to 
worry; Britain is a signatory to the treaty that set up the 
International Criminal Court, which draws its codes from the Geneva 
Conventions and the 1945 Nuremberg Charter. The latter is clear: "To 
initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it 
is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes 
in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the 
whole."

At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, counts one 
and two, "Conspiracy to wage aggressive war and waging aggressive war", 
refer to "the common plan or conspiracy". These are defined in the 
indictment as "the planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars 
of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international 
treaties, agreements and assurances". A wealth of evidence is now 
available that George Bush, Blair and their advisers did just that. The 
leaked minutes from the infamous Downing Street meeting in July 2002 
alone reveal that Blair and his war cabinet knew that it was illegal. 
The attack that followed, mounted against a defenceless country offering 
no threat to the US or Britain, has a precedent in Hitler's invasion of 
Sudetenland; the lies told to justify both are eerily 
similar.

The similarity is also striking in the illegal bombing 
campaign that preceded both. Unknown to most people in Britain and 
America, British and US planes conducted a ferocious bombing campaign 
against Iraq in the ten months prior to the invasion, hoping this would 
provoke Saddam Hussein into supplying an excuse for an invasion. It 
failed and killed an unknown number of civilians.

At Nuremberg, counts three and four referred to "War 
crimes and crimes against humanity". Here again, there is overwhelming 
evidence that Blair and Bush committed "violations of the laws or 
customs of war" including "murder... of civilian populations of or in 
occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of 
war".

Two recent examples: the US onslaught near Ramadi this 
month in which 39 men, women and children - all civilians - were killed, 
and a report by the United Nations special rapporteur in Iraq who 
described the Anglo-American practice of denying food and water to Iraqi 
civilians in order to force them to leave their towns and villages as a 
"flagrant violation" of the Geneva Conventions.

In September, Human Rights Watch released an epic study 
that documents the systematic nature of torture by the Americans, and 
how casual it is, even enjoyable. This is a sergeant from the US Army's 
82nd Airborne Division: "On their day off people would show up all the 
time. Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration 
you show up at the PUC [prisoners'] tent. In a way it was sport... One 
day a sergeant shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend 
over and broke the guy's leg with a mini Louisville Slugger that was a 
metal [baseball] bat. He was the fucking cook!"

The report describes how the people of Fallujah, the scene 
of 

Re: [Biofuel] Methanol substitution

[Chris Tan]

Hydrocarbons are relatively inert. They only undergo reaction at
vigorous conditions such high pressure and/or high temperature, i.e.
with a spark(kaboom!). A reactant would need to have what is called a
functional group to react at less vigorous condition. With alcohols,
the functional group is -OH which makes it react.

Best, 
Chris

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JJJN
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 7:00 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Methanol substitution

How would you react the solution with the gas?

Teoman Naskali wrote:

Just a thoght bu would it be possible to use methane or propane or
buthane instead of methanol? One would have to have some methanol for
the methroxide but still... that would save a lot of money.

Has anynone experimented? Any good reason why I shouldn't?


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

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.or
g

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] Portents of the upcoming Big One

[Kurt Nolte]

of pure aggression, considering Saddam Hussein was already on the UN's
bad list and was already being actively targeted by economic
sanctions and other punitive measures. Plus, wars of aggression don't
usually result in the winning side voluntarily and immediately giving
the country back over to its inhabitants; usually you fight an
aggressive war to expand your own borders. 

If anything it might be ruled an inappropriate military action, but not a pure war of aggression.

Just my two cents, anyway.

Peace
-Kurt

___
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] Portents of the upcoming Big One

[Keith Addison]

Hello two Bobs

Correct me if I am wrong, but history shows us that that following 
any war, you only get war crime trials for the leaders of the losing 
side.

There's a whole new court of opinion to be considered this time 
round. It's worldwide, it can't be swayed, it doesn't care what 
leaders think, and it's already deeply involved in this issue. There 
may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and 
world public opinion, said The New York Times. Indeed, and it's the 
Other Superpower and the way it networks via the Internet that's 
proving unstoppable, across a very broad front.

Chief non-allies of the Anglo/US coalition are the entire world with 
the exception of Israel, and not excluding most Americans:

... On the brink of the war no public but the Israeli one supported 
it under the conditions in which it was being launched--that is, 
without UN support. Public-opinion polls showed that in most 
countries opposition to the war was closer to unanimity than to a 
mere majority. A Gallup poll showed that in neutral (and normally 
pro-American) Switzerland the figure was 90 percent, in Argentina 87 
percent, in Nigeria 86 percent, in Bosnia (recently the beneficiary 
of NATO intervention on its behalf) 91 percent. In all of the 
countries whose governments supported the war except Israel's, the 
public opposed it. The coalition of the willing was a coalition of 
governments alone.

See:
The Other Superpower
March 27, 2003
by Jonathan Schell
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030414s=schell

Most of the governments that opposed public opinion to support the 
invasion either fell or quickly learnt their lesson and pulled out 
their troops and support.

The Other Superpower is likely to be implacable about the Iraq war 
crimes issue. They're 9we're) proving implacable about quite a lot of 
things, and about time too.

As the Anglo/US coalition can be deemed to have effectively won the 
war against Iraq,

You mean like the US won the war in Vietnam?

Yes they're not the same but they're comparable nonetheless, and, uh, 
I think we heard about the victory and the war being over some time 
ago already. Actually you first have to get the other side to admit 
they're beaten so they stop killing your guys, and there aren't a lot 
of signs that they're quite getting that message just yet, or ever.

there will sadly be no war crime trials of it's leaders.

I'm not sure some of them would agree with you right now quite as 
much as they might've done a year or so ago.

Best

Keith


Reg'ds
Bob

- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]bmolloy
To: mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 4:19 AM
Subject: [Biofuel] Portents of the upcoming Big One

Hi All,
   This latest report from Pilger. Does this portend the Big 
One - a criminal trial of Western war leaders that would outshine 
Nuremberg?
Bob.

Date: Saturday, 29 October 2005 7:20 pm

THE EPIC CRIME THAT DARES NOT SPEAK ITS NAME: John Pilger

A Royal Air Force officer is about to be tried before a military 
court for refusing to
return to Iraq because the war is illegal. Malcolm Kendall-Smith is 
the first British
officer to face criminal charges for challenging the legality of the 
invasion and
occupation. He is not a conscientious objector; he has completed two 
tours in Iraq.
When he came home the last time, he studied the reasons given for 
attacking Iraq
and concluded he was breaking the law. His position is supported by 
international
lawyers all over the world, not least by Kofi Annan, the UN 
secretary general, who
said in September last year: The US-led invasion of Iraq was an 
illegal act that
contravened the UN Charter.

The question of legality deeply concerns the British military brass, 
who sought Tony
Blair's assurance on the eve of the invasion, got it and, as they 
now know, were lied
to. They are right to worry; Britain is a signatory to the treaty 
that set up the
International Criminal Court, which draws its codes from the Geneva 
Conventions
and the 1945 Nuremberg Charter. The latter is clear: To initiate a war of
aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme 
international crime,
differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within 
itself the accumulated
evil of the whole.

At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, counts one and two, 
Conspiracy to
wage aggressive war and waging aggressive war, refer to the common plan or
conspiracy. These are defined in the indictment as the planning, 
preparation,
initiation and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in 
violation of
international treaties, agreements and assurances. A wealth of 
evidence is now
available that George Bush, Blair and their advisers did just that. The leaked
minutes from the infamous Downing Street meeting in July 2002 alone 
reveal that
Blair and his war cabinet knew that it was illegal. The attack that 
followed, mounted
against a 

Re: [Biofuel] Oil and democracy -was-Scientific method

[KinsleyForPrez08]

- Original Message - 
From: Chip Mefford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Oil and democracy -was-Scientific method


 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1

 Paul S Cantrell wrote:
 The last 2 elections would
 have probably gone the other way if it were simple majority. I think the
 concerns over time zones and the like could be worked out and we might 
 have
 more than 2 twin parties.

 Personally, I think some simple changes would fix a lot of what
 is currently borked in the US political system. Debates for
 instance, pretty much all public debating (meaning televised)
 is done of, by and for the Twin Partys. This should cease
 immediately. This much of the system process would be
 well served by true open debate, including by design
 third or fringe party candidates. I think this alone
 would be easy to handle under law. I think it could
 make a huge difference.


In the last Presidential election, both the Libertarian Party candidate 
(Mike Badnarick) and the Consitutional Party Candidate (Mike Peroutka) filed 
a lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates to allow fringe 
candidates access to the debate held in Arizona.  The judge ruled against 
them, stating that they waited too long to file  and there wasn't enough 
time to allow for a thorough review of the case.  Basically, better luck 
next time.

Both candidates proceeded to crash the debates anyway, and were arrested 
trying to get in the building.  These Presidential candidates spent a night 
in jail trying to defend open debates, and the mainstream new outlets didn't 
even mention it.

When the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum Parties (you decide which one is which) 
finally succumb to letting the rabble in on their choreographed debates, 
they would be acknowledging that there really are more than two parties in 
the U.S.  And that would be a bad thing for them.

Thanks,

Earl Kinsley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government 
owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To 
destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between 
corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmen of 
today.
 - President Theodore Roosevelt - 1906 


___
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] Methanol substitution

[Teoman Naskali]

Any known functional groups?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Tan
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 1:58 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Methanol substitution

Hydrocarbons are relatively inert. They only undergo reaction at
vigorous conditions such high pressure and/or high temperature, i.e.
with a spark(kaboom!). A reactant would need to have what is called a
functional group to react at less vigorous condition. With alcohols,
the functional group is -OH which makes it react.

Best, 
Chris

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JJJN
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 7:00 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Methanol substitution

How would you react the solution with the gas?

Teoman Naskali wrote:

Just a thoght bu would it be possible to use methane or propane or
buthane instead of methanol? One would have to have some methanol for
the methroxide but still... that would save a lot of money.

Has anynone experimented? Any good reason why I shouldn't?


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

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.or
g

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.or
g

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] US Montana�s energy future

[MH]

 JJJN wrote:
 Thanks for the interesting post
 Jim

 Your welcome. 
 I thought it might interest our group
 and its not something I normally hear
 about when it comes to US media news or 
 maybe I just don't get up early enough
 in the morning or I'm just out of tune. 

  MH wrote:
  
  Peering into Montanaâs energy future
  By WILBUR WOOD For The Outpost
  http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=18357issue=289
 
  Coal filled the headlines of Montana newspapers last week during the
  Governorâs Energy Summit ö officially called ãThe Montana Symposium:
  Energy Future of the Westä ö but the real news was how much brighter
  our future will be when we turn our attention away from coal toward
  energy conservation and renewable energy. 
 snip

___
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] Portents of the upcoming Big One

[Michael Redler]

Remember this...?

Ari Fleischer Saying, "Think about the implications of what you are saying. You are saying that the leaders of other nations are buyable, and that is not an acceptable proposition." Then getting laughed off the stage.

http://wrybread.com/gammablablog/featured/ari-laughed-off.shtml
To me, this represents the "other" superpower getting some air time (in its own peculiar way) from the remnants of our "free press".

IMHO, when you have logic, reason, and common sense on your side, you must also have time on your side. Our vigilance will keep that timeto a minimum.

Mike
Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello two BobsCorrect me if I am wrong, but history shows us that that following any war, you only get war crime trials for the leaders of the losing side.There's a whole new court of opinion to be considered this time round. It's worldwide, it can't be swayed, it doesn't care what leaders think, and it's already deeply involved in this issue. "There may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion," said The New York Times. Indeed, and it's the Other Superpower and the way it networks via the Internet that's proving unstoppable, across a very broad front.Chief non-allies of the Anglo/US coalition are the entire world with the exception of Israel, and not excluding most Americans:... On the brink of the war no public but the Israeli one supported i!
 t under
 the conditions in which it was being launched--that is, without UN support. Public-opinion polls showed that in most countries opposition to the war was closer to unanimity than to a mere majority. A Gallup poll showed that in "neutral" (and normally pro-American) Switzerland the figure was 90 percent, in Argentina 87 percent, in Nigeria 86 percent, in Bosnia (recently the beneficiary of NATO intervention on its behalf) 91 percent. In all of the countries whose governments supported the war except Israel's, the public opposed it. The "coalition of the willing" was a coalition of governments alone.See:The Other SuperpowerMarch 27, 2003by Jonathan Schellhttp://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030414s=schellMost of the governments that opposed public opinion to support the invasion either fell or quickly learnt their lesson and pulled out their troops and
 support.The Other Superpower is likely to be implacable about the Iraq war crimes issue. They're 9we're) proving implacable about quite a lot of things, and about time too.As the Anglo/US coalition can be deemed to have effectively won the war against Iraq,You mean like the US won the war in Vietnam?Yes they're not the same but they're comparable nonetheless, and, uh, I think we heard about the victory and the war being over some time ago already. Actually you first have to get the other side to admit they're beaten so they stop killing your guys, and there aren't a lot of signs that they're quite getting that message just yet, or ever.there will sadly be no war crime trials of it's leaders.I'm not sure some of them would agree with you right now quite as much as they might've done a year or so ago.BestKeith
___
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] Starting at Square One

[Zeke Yewdall]

I asked him if I could pull my car up and at least see if it would
still crank, or at least turn over. Well, you can, but if it still
runs it's worth more and I'm gonna charge you more for it.

Geesh.He's tryin to sell a car that he doesn't even know whether
it runs or not?  What a lazy bastard.

I would expect to pay between $2,500 and $5,000 here for an older merc
in running condition.

___
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] Jatropha Curcas

[marilyn]

Biofuel@sustainablelists.org wrote:
We are thinking of planting Jatropha Curcas trees  using earth 
worms tocompost waste, the compost we get from the worms 
we will use for the Jatropha trees.

This URL has a very good article on jatropha's benefits as a fuel 
and for other things.

http://www.ecoworld.org/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=356http://w
ww.ecowor  ld.org/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=356 

Europe Adopts Biodiesel CAN AN AFRICAN BEAN CRACK 
EUROPE'S BIODIESEL BLOCKAGE? By Candida Jones A row of 
Jatropha trees - plants with potential to alleviate fuel shortages

Editor's Note: Jatropha is an example of a plant that could be 
grown  even if it didn't yield biofuel. It is useful for restoring soil,  
combatting desertification, and providing fertilizer. It requires  
minimal inputs of water and grows in extremely poor soil.

Any plant that is a cash crop anyway and costs almost nothing to 
grow  can't be a bad candidate for an economically viable biofuel. 

(See URL above for the rest.)
 

___
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] Starting at Square One

[Buck Williams]

iff u examiane the seller satament, u can see thattt he is advertiisiang 
an autoo that he exapects not t be able to run,,, if he found out 
diffeanernt, then it is plalinly worth more,,, you are dealin with a man 
who is plainly dishonest to his fouandation, no statemeant can be taken at 
face valuee froam this kind of person.. no action to sell is beneath hisss 
digniaty,, he will sell what is nottt his, will tell aany sstoyry, best 
nooot ot conduct any transactoin with this kind of person,,, usually one way 
or anaoahter , u will alwaysss  be sorry,, buck


From: Zeke Yewdall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Starting at Square One
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:41:46 -0700

 I asked him if I could pull my car up and at least see if it would
still crank, or at least turn over. Well, you can, but if it still
runs it's worth more and I'm gonna charge you more for it.

Geesh.He's tryin to sell a car that he doesn't even know whether
it runs or not?  What a lazy bastard.

I would expect to pay between $2,500 and $5,000 here for an older merc
in running condition.

___
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/


_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


___
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] Oil and democracy -was-Scientific method

[Jason and Katie]

 Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government
 owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To
 destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between
 corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmen
of
 today.
  - President Theodore Roosevelt - 1906

Hey Mr. Kinzley, do you know where i can get that quote in a soundbyte? we
have a DJ here at home who is paying ungodly FCC fines because he doesnt
really care, and i bet he would play this as a bump for his Church of
Lazlo rant session. i wonder how many people have actually heard or read
that, that are still alive...

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]


___
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/