Re: [Biofuel] Loving Nuclear Power
The fact that Republicans can call for more nuclear power with a straight face is truly an outrage, given the GOP constant calls for free markets. There has never been a more subsidized, socialized power technology as nuclear. Funny indeed. It has been a long time since either the republicans or democrats have actually stood up for free markets in the US. Promoting yet more subsidized socialized companies of any sort is exactly what I'd expect given their history. Yet apparently there are still people out there who believe they believe in free markets. Amazing how well the spin machine works... On 12/23/05, Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.alternet.org/story/29596/ Loving Nuclear Power By Peter Asmus, AlterNet. Posted December 21, 2005. Why are growing numbers of 'green' visionaries hopping on the bandwagon of the most ill-conceived and dangerous energy source in the world? One would think that environmentalists these days would be giddy over the high price of fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas. It has long been the prediction that when these finite and polluting fuels increased in cost due to supply shortages, that we as a society would finally make the transition to the renewable, sustainable energy system that has always seemed to lie just out-of-reach, beckoning to us just over the horizon. But then something shocking happened. Growing numbers of green visionaries started beating the drum for more nuclear power, a technology that in the past has been a lightening rod to spur on activists to protest and demand for a greater reliance upon efficiency and solar, wind and other renewable energy technologies. Among those endorsing the process of splitting atoms to generate the majority of our future electricity are the following environmentalists: * James Lovelock, the fellow from London who came up the Gaia theory of the earth being a self-regenerating organism, proclaimed that nuclear power was the only green solution to our power supply woes, maintaining that there wasn't enough time to allow renewable energy technologies to fill the gap. * The Bay Area's Stewart Brand, the utopian thinker behind the Whole Earth Catalog, echoed Lovelock's claims, adding that the nuclear power industry's half century of experience rendered concerns about safety and waste as obsolete. * Patrick Moore, co-founder of the radical Greenpeace activist group, has proclaimed: There is now a great deal of scientific evidence showing nuclear power to be an environmentally sound and safe choice. Nuclear power is suddenly in vogue. Even the alternative LA Weekly newspaper has a two-part feature touting nuclear power by author Judith Lewis, whose blog is entitled Another Green World. In essence, she argues the good outweighs the bad when it comes to nuclear power. Is it possible that we have come to this: a choice between a catastrophic warming trend and the most feared energy source on earth? she asks in the first of a two part series entitled How I tried to stop worrying and love nuclear power. Our federal government has now launched a Nuclear Power 2010 program that hopes to jump-start a nuclear industry that has not constructed a new power plant in two decades. Certainly, the biggest push for nuclear has come from the Bush Administration. While visiting a Maryland nuclear power plant earlier this year, President Bush proclaimed: There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner, safer nation. It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again. But you can add Democratic Senators Joe Liebermann of Connecticut and Barack Obama of Illinois to the growing list of federal lawmakers calling for the construction of new nuclear power plants. I first learned about nuclear power in my own backyard when I was living in Sacramento, California in the late 1980s. A laundry list of safety, environmental and economic issues resulted in a ballot initiative vote to close the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant in 1989. Energy experts across the country predicted that the owner of this nuke -- the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) -- would be in dire straits once such a large portion of its power supply portfolio went away. Interestingly enough, SMUD's closure of its nuclear power plant was the best thing to happen as it was forced to launch major solar, wind and energy efficiency programs. Instead of being viewed as one of the biggest losers among electric utilities, SMUD's embracing of clean power sources helped this troubled municipal utility turn around, gaining it respect from around the world. SMUD is now in the process of expanding its service territory due, in part, to its progressive and attractive clean power plans. The underlying assumption of those now clamoring for a major expansion of nuclear power is that the threat of global climate change is so great, that we have
Re: [Biofuel] NaOH vs. KOH - Start to end
For now I'm living in the jungle, my friend. I'm sure the day when I'll take care about the environment will come soon, but when, nobody knows. BTW explain me please (for a future use) if I do my batches with KOH and live in white country how I can save some money. Exactly difference between NaOH and KOH for 1m3 fresh oil is 7.14kg vs. 10kg. In money this means, 5BGN vs. 25BGN. Divide to 1000 liter I get 0,02 BGN extra cost per liter or about 1.5% up in final price. To cover this extra charge I should have: 1. Fast reaction time. Electricity costs money and no small money. or 2. Somebody who are ready to pay for waste products. I don't know exactly where is the difference between waste products from sodium and potassium. Ideas how to reach something from these points? At 06:03 25.12.05, you wrote: You've still got to find end uses for your co-/waste-products. Sodium generates an environmental cost. Potassium generates a monetary and environmental savings. You might care to see how much the savings in fertilizer offsets the higher cost of the catalyst before you make a final decision. Todd Swearingen Vaklin Hristov wrote: Hi! Difference is only in total cost of the product. I'll try to save every cent because the price of biodiesel produced here is very close to bulk price of dynodiesel. I mean biodiesel produced from fresh not refined vegetable oils. So, my decision is NaOH. At 19:06 24.12.05, you wrote: John, Later in the entire process am I missing something that would make using KOH more complicated? KOH makes nothing more complicated. Quite the opposite. See other post on this thread. Todd Swearingen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everyone seems to use more NaOh in the process. At this point I plan on using KOH even though I must use more. I can purchase 90% KOH for .725/lb and NaOH beads for 51/lb. The time savings and ease in mixing KOH is worth the extra cost. Later in the entire process am I missing something that would make using KOH more complicated? I would be left with Pot Ash. Is there more value to glycerine than pot ash? I have used NaOH so far, but want to switch when my account is finalized. I have been reading the archives but 58,000 messages may take a while to get through. Currently designing my system to do 175 gallons of WVO per batch, 35 gallons Methanol ($2.89 gl). I have access to good supply of stainless cone bottom tank for all tanks. John Frey ___ 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.7/214 - Release Date: 23.12.2005 ã. Vaklin Hristov CAR DIAGNOSE Ltd. P.O. Box 79 3320 Kozloduy Bulgaria ___ 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.7/214 - Release Date: 23.12.2005 _. Vaklin Hristov CAR DIAGNOSE Ltd. P.O. Box 79 3320 Kozloduy Bulgaria ___ 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):
Re: [Biofuel] Lay low in the high grass
Hi Mary Lynn I just saw this, sorry, I missed it before: snip Keith is doing it right by publishing exactly the what and how in making biodiesel .. he's not holding back information, he isn't making it to sell .. and although I'd think that he does, also I'm a late arrival to the list .. I'd have to check but I think less than a year .. I don't believe I've ever read that he does make his own. Yes indeed, we do make our own biodiesel. We've been making our own biodiesel for years, we use biodiesel all the time, we demonstrate it and promote it at Energy Fairs and in other ways, we hold regular seminars on making it, we spread the technology far and wide, our diesel TownAce hasn't been to gas station in three years. I say every few days or so in some way or another that we make it, I must've said so scores of times in the last year. Yesterday, eg: -- There are some glycerine by-product sawdust logs burning in our woodstove right now. Previously we used sawdust logs made with NaOH by-product, there's no difference. In another message yesterday: -- We used NaOH for years and switched to KOH more than two years ago, we've used a lot of it since then, we live in a humid place and we haven't seen any difference in absorption. A couple of days earlier: -- I had to drive about 30 miles [on SVO, in the cold], do some stuff and come back again, so I did that without switching off, and then added 40 litres of biodiesel treated with Wintron CFPP depressant. No problems since then, easy starts. A few days before that: - Along with the process itself, it might have quite a lot to do with this: How do you manage to make such clean biodiesel out of waste oil? a puzzled GC technician asked Midori in Tokyo yesterday at the university lab that's doing tests for us. It said so on the test results too in a comment at the end: Very clean biodiesel!! And so on and on. It says all over the Biofuels section of our website that we do indeed make our own biodiesel, it's hands-on stuff, it couldn't be anything else. The Biodiesel section starts that way, right at the top of the first page: - Email to Journey to Forever friends, Friday 23 April 1999: We turned our kitchen into a sort of illicit still and made a hell of a mess in there brewing biodiesel fuel out of about 60 litres of yukky waste cooking oil we got from behind McDonald's one night... It's totally obvious that we make biodiesel, I just don't see how you could reach the strange conclusion that maybe we don't. You think it's all just armchair stuff? Sorry, I just think that's very weird. Keith (somewhat gobsmacked) 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] The Anglo-American War of Terror
--- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michel Chossudovsky: The Anglo-American War of Terror The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. In the largest display of military might since the Second World War, the United States and its indefectible British ally have embarked upon a military adventure, which threatens the future of humanity. http://tinyurl.com/btj3v http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticlecode=CHO200 51221articleId=1576 The Anglo-American War of Terror: An Overview by Michel Chossudovsky December 21, 2005 GlobalResearch.ca Paper presented at the Perdana Global Peace Forum 2005 Putra World Trade Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 14-17 December 2005 The debate regarding war and Militarization raises the broad issue of national sovereignty. I am particularly gratified as an economist to participate in this important event in the Nation's capital, in Malaysia, a country which at a critical moment in its history, namely at the height of the 1997 Asian crisis, took the courageous stance of confronting the Washington Consensus and the international financial establishment. Under the helm of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, carefully designed financial measures were taken to avoid the collapse of the ringgit, thereby foreclosing a scenario of economic dislocation, bankruptcy and impoverishment, as occurred in Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea. These 1997 measures forcefully confronted the mainstream neoliberal agenda. In retrospect, this was a momentous decision, which will go down in the Nation's history. It constitutes the basis for an understanding of what is best described as economic and financial warfare. Today we have come to understand that war and macro-economic manipulation are intertwined. Militarization supports economic warfare. Conversely, what is referred to euphemistically as economic reform supports a military and geopolitical agenda Introduction The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. In the largest display of military might since the Second World War, the United States and its indefectible British ally have embarked upon a military adventure, which threatens the future of humanity. An understanding of the underlying historical background is crucial. This war agenda is not the product of a distinct neo-conservative project. From the outset of the Cold War Era, there is a consistent thread, a continuum in US military doctrine, from the Truman doctrine to Bush's war on terrorism. Foreign Policy adviser George F. Kennan had outlined in a 1948 State Department brief what was later described as the 'Truman doctrine. What this 1948 document conveys is continuity in US foreign policy, from Containment to Pre-emptive War. In this regard, the Neo-conservative agenda under the Bush administration should be viewed as the culmination of a post World War II foreign policy framework. The latter has been marked by a succession of US sponsored wars and military interventions in all major regions of the World. From Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, to the CIA sponsored military coups in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the objective has been to ensure US military hegemony and global economic domination, as initially formulated under the Truman Doctrine at the outset of the Cold War. Despite significant policy differences, successive Democratic and Republican administrations, from Harry Truman to George W. Bush have carried out this global military agenda. Moreover, Kennan's writings pointed to the formation of an Anglo-American alliance, which currently characterizes the close relationship between Washington and London. This alliance responds to powerful economic interests in the oil industry, defense and international banking. It is, in many regards, an Anglo-American extension of the British Empire, which was officially disbanded in the wake of the Second World War. The Truman doctrine also points to the inclusion of Canada in the Anglo-American military axis. Moreover, Kennan had also underscored the importance of preventing the development of a continental European power that could compete with the US. With regard to Asia, including China and India, Kennan hinted to the importance of articulating a military solution: The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better Weakening the United Nations From the outset of the Cold War, the objective was to undermine and ultimately destroy the Soviet Union. Washington was also intent upon weakening the United Nations as a genuine international body, an objective that has largely been achieved under the Bush
Re: [Biofuel] NaOH vs. KOH - Start to end
Hello Vaklin Hi! At 18:29 24.12.05, you wrote: Hello Vaklin My personal opinion, not sure I'm right or not... + KOH dissolves in seconds in CH3OH Some of it does, but it takes about 10 minutes or more to dissolve what you'd use to make a batch. o The process has not faster than one with NaOH No, and also it's not slower. - KOH here is 3 times expensive than NaOH Are you sure? People have said such things but when they had a better look they usually managed to get it for about the same unit price (though you use more), including at least one person in East Europe. Will give prices in BGN (native currency $1.64 = 1BGN) NaOH 0.70 BGN without VAT; KOH 2.50 BGN without VAT. Have found the place where can buy for approx 1.50 BGN, but should drive 300km. Keep trying, I'm sure you'll get there in the end, everyone else did. - You should use approximately 1.5 times (in grams) more KOH Why give only an approximate figure for how much catalyst to use? If it's not accurate it's useless, or worse. You need to use 1.4 times as much (1.4025), and you also have to adjust it for purity. For accurate information please see: More about lye http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make2.html#lye I have wrote approximately. Exactly the value is as you said. If all you have is an approximate value for such a thing then find an accurate value before you post it, otherwise you're just being lazy, and it doesn't help anyone. For 250 ml fresh rape oil I have used 2.5g KOH or 1.78 gram NaOH. With these values I have got excellent esterification in 1 hour and 30 minutes. Every time I'm awaiting 30 minutes more. Temperature is constant, 58 degrees Celsius. That doesn't mean anything because you don't state the purity of the KOH you used. Since it's probably not 99%+ pure you probably used the wrong amount. We can't accept your claims of excellent esterification [sic] unless you base it on something real. Why do you think it was excellent? What quality tests did you use? - Washing after KOH is more difficult. For me 4-5 washes vs. 3. I think most people have the opposite experience, easier washes. Maybe .. Probably they use better water than mine from kitchen pipe. We use water from the kitchen pipe. People use all kinds of water. They get easier washes because washing after KOH is easier, not more difficult. - KOH accepts very faster H2O from the air. From this comes more expensive holding. We used NaOH for years and switched to KOH more than two years ago, we've used a lot of it since then, we live in a humid place and we haven't seen any difference in absorption. And you know every day real water contents? I'm sure KOH is useable too... Come off Vaklin, if there was any significant difference I'd have noticed it and I'd have said so. I said years, not just a couple of virgin test batches. - I have expected 100% esterification with KOH, but unfortunately I have got the same ester/glycerin ratio as with NaOH. Conversion never reaches 100% completion. I know, but have read some documents where in closed reactor with 70 degrees Celsius and KOH they has reached 100%. I might believe you if you provide a reference for the documents you've read, otherwise I won't believe you. So KOH doesn't cover my hopes. But you seem to have hoped for some odd things. No, just better self value for the product. Sorry, you're demanding some weird and unreasonable things from a catalyst and then giving it the thumbs-down when it doesn't deliver, and apparently blind-eyeing what it does deliver. That's up to you of course, but don't expect people to agree with you. All this I get from few 200 ml test batches from fresh rape oil. Hm. Best Keith Keep going, good luck. Best Keith Thank you. At 04:12 24.12.05, you wrote: Everyone seems to use more NaOh in the process. At this point I plan on using KOH even though I must use more. I can purchase 90% KOH for .725/lb and NaOH beads for 51/lb. The time savings and ease in mixing KOH is worth the extra cost. Later in the entire process am I missing something that would make using KOH more complicated? I would be left with Pot Ash. Is there more value to glycerine than pot ash? I have used NaOH so far, but want to switch when my account is finalized. I have been reading the archives but 58,000 messages may take a while to get through. Currently designing my system to do 175 gallons of WVO per batch, 35 gallons Methanol ($2.89 gl). I have access to good supply of stainless cone bottom tank for all tanks. John Frey ___ 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):
Re: [Biofuel] NaOH vs. KOH - Start to end
Vaklin, For now I'm living in the jungle, my friend. I'm sure the day when I'll take care about the environment will come soon, but when, nobody knows. I really hope I didn't hear that right. Just what do you propose to do with the glyc cocktail after it settles out of the reaction? Dump it and then the stormwater runoff take it downstream? Wouldn't that be in someone else's drinking water? BTW explain me please (for a future use) if I do my batches with KOH and live in white country White country? Only whities have access to KOH? I really hope I didn't hear that right either how I can save some money. Exactly difference between NaOH and KOH for 1m3 fresh oil is 7.14kg vs. 10kg. In money this means, 5BGN vs. 25BGN. This math doesn't quite fit. A 100% compliment of NaOH per liter of oil costs 5 monetary units and an amount of KOH that performs the same function costs 400% more? Double perhaps (1.4 x 1.0 plus a markup for inventory of a perhaps less widely used status). You need to search out your sources whenever and wherever possible, especially if your monetary resources are tight. KOH is a market standard almost anywhere. Divide to 1000 liter I get 0,02 BGN extra cost per liter or about 1.5% up in final price. To cover this extra charge I should have: 1. Fast reaction time. Electricity costs money and no small money. Reaction times are equal. or 2. Somebody who are ready to pay for waste products. I don't know exactly where is the difference between waste products from sodium and potassium. The recovered NaOH is in the form of sodium phosphate, or worse yet, sodium sulfate. Realistically, neither have any retrievable value. The recovered KOH would be in the form of potassium phosphate, or at worst, potassium sulfate. The former is a fertilizer. How much it's worth per pound is determined by your own marketplace. As for any perception of increased cost by including FFA using phosphoric acid? You have to ask yourself just what price you're already paying for petroleum fuel. If a $20.00 expense can net a 25 gallon savings...? I'll let you do the math. Ideas how to reach something from these points? Yes. A cradle-to-grave cost/benefit analysis using the best prices that can be found from your markets.. Todd Swearingen At 06:03 25.12.05, you wrote: You've still got to find end uses for your co-/waste-products. Sodium generates an environmental cost. Potassium generates a monetary and environmental savings. You might care to see how much the savings in fertilizer offsets the higher cost of the catalyst before you make a final decision. Todd Swearingen Vaklin Hristov wrote: Hi! Difference is only in total cost of the product. I'll try to save every cent because the price of biodiesel produced here is very close to bulk price of dynodiesel. I mean biodiesel produced from fresh not refined vegetable oils. So, my decision is NaOH. At 19:06 24.12.05, you wrote: John, Later in the entire process am I missing something that would make using KOH more complicated? KOH makes nothing more complicated. Quite the opposite. See other post on this thread. Todd Swearingen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everyone seems to use more NaOh in the process. At this point I plan on using KOH even though I must use more. I can purchase 90% KOH for .725/lb and NaOH beads for 51/lb. The time savings and ease in mixing KOH is worth the extra cost. Later in the entire process am I missing something that would make using KOH more complicated? I would be left with Pot Ash. Is there more value to glycerine than pot ash? I have used NaOH so far, but want to switch when my account is finalized. I have been reading the archives but 58,000 messages may take a while to get through. Currently designing my system to do 175 gallons of WVO per batch, 35 gallons Methanol ($2.89 gl). I have access to good supply of stainless cone bottom tank for all tanks. John Frey ___ 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free
Re: [Biofuel] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'
You have good points. They can be applied to many sports. Final conclusion maybe be as brief as following It is the human race polluting the world while wasting resources whatever the reason is And you are not far from the truth. It comes down to the personal choices of the individual not to join or take part. Regards Burak Actually, It's not the racing vehicles themselves that are so polluting as it is the balance of the industry. Think about all the billions of miles logged by race fans to go see their superheros every race weekend or bubblegum card signing. Think about all the millions of metric tons of cheap plastic crap, u-h-h-h-e-m-m-m, memorabilia, that is cranked out for consumers to adorn their environs with. Think about all the energy used to mine and manufacture all that crap. Then think about all the energy used to transport it. Then think about all the energy consumed to go purchase it or is used in all the other supportive sectors of that industry. Tired of thinking yet? The energy equation goes far beyond how many gallons get churned up by a bevy of bubbas every weekend. So you see, supporting racing supports fossil fuel consumption, which in turn increases the United States #1 export - cash in the form of petrol dollars. And many of those petrol-dollars help fund endeavors that are counter to the best interests of the US. All that makes racing a rather unpatriotic and un-American endeavor. Pursuing such folly in turn makes a race fan candidate for NSA monitoring and perhaps eventual internment as an enemy combatant, thereby having no recourse, legal or otherwise, but to rot in the musty dungeons of the super riche until one's flesh rots off while they enjoy daily tea and crumpets on the ninth fairway. No better reason not to wear a baseball cap with a number on it if you ask me. Todd Swearingen Happy Humbug... :-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well I am not against racing, but my point is if these researchers look at the racing starting from F1 down to Nascar the picture is not rosy. As you have written in your e-mail F1 team burns a lot (200.000lt per year per team). So if you add them all its more than a drop in the bucket. Let's hope that the technology developped in those races reflects to the daily cars. If you consider that bikes are 4 strokes, fuel injected and have catalytic converters, they can be a good solution to help with clogging cities and air pollution. I believe the better solution in the big cities would be public transportation, and electric vehicles. Lets hope they would also research the effect of using biofuel in busses as public transportation. Regards Burak Burak_l wrote: And finally I hope they do not research how much is waisted in car races like formula-1, Lemans endurance etc... Those machines are loud and very very thirsty. Probabily one of them during 1 race pollutes more than a typical rider can manage whole year. With regard to racing, it isn't that black and white. First, you seem to be conflating wasting resources (eg burning lots of fuel) with the amount of pollution produced. They aren't necessarily the same thing. You can burn 10 liters dirtily or you can burn 100 liters cleanly - they are different issues. Second, even if a single team in a single race uses more fuel or pollutes more that a single private individual in an entire year, you're still comparing (for F1) 10 teams (2 cars each) by 19 races to millions of riders/drivers every day over the course of a year. You're talking about a drop in the bucket. On the plus side, racing drives innovation. Consider the FSI engine technology Audi developed for the their R8 LMP (LeMans Prototype) car. Now you can buy lean burning FSI powered cars at Audi dealers. Likewise, the brand new Audi R10 LMP has a V12 TDI powerplant that gets over a 100 hp per liter. That kind of performance out of reliable diesel is amazing. An I expect those advances in diesel technology will show up in VW and Audi dealerships within 5 or 6 years. Racing also has the ability to prove to people that renewables aren't just some crunchy granola lefty tree-hugger pipedream. Demonstrating that renewables can perform is critical in the PR battle with the oil lobby. For example, the IndyRacingLeague - and thus by default, the Indy500 - is switching from methanol to renewable ethanol for the 2007 season. That's a huge win for renewables. As mentioned above, the Audi factory team is running a diesel powered LMP in ALMS this year, although I suspect Audi will be using petrodiesel, at least to start. However, that won't be the only diesel in ALMS this season - D1 Oils plc is sponsoring a biodiesel powered Lola LMP that will run b5, b20 and b50 blends. But yes, on the negative side, racing does waste resources. According to formula1.com, During a typical season a Formula One team will use over 200,000 litres of fuel for testing and racing. That's a lotta fuel. And
[Biofuel] Run for your livees!!
Too good not to share, or, is this why people think we are crackpots? http://cgi.ebay.com/BioDiesel-Made-Easy-Manual-Book-Make-your-own-from-home_W0QQitemZ4599779724QQcategoryZ378QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem Or, look up item 4599779724 on ebay. Too funny Happy Holidays, 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] NaOH vs. KOH - Start to end
I would...consider NaOH flakes over beads, usually cheaper...and dbl check that 90% pure KoH is good enough.I'm a fan of the NaOH method because it leaves you with a byproduct that can be used in waste fuel furnaces. ___ 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] Ashes from Glycerin sawdust logs
I have been burning Glycerin sawdust logs to heat my little laboratory and now I am wondering if I put the wood ashes in my compost pile will I be messing anything up or will the byproducts that remain in the ashes be good for the compost bugs. I searched the archive but did not find anything specific to ashes from glycerin. Any help here? ___ 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/
