date:20060428

This is much the same as the organic farming pioneers were saying 70 
years ago, people like Albert Howard, G.T. Wrench and others (see JtF 
Small Farms Library). The basic wealth is the soil, a local matter. 
There's a snip below of what Howard thought of agricultural 
economics. See also Wrench's Reconstruction by Way of the Soil, eg.
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#Wrench_Recon

 From For the Common Good -- Redirecting the Economy toward 
Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future, by Herman E. 
Daly and John B. Cobb, Jr., 1994. (with thanks to TradingPostPaul who 
posted the ag. bit at his Livingontheland list).

See also:
http://snipurl.com/prnd
biofuel
Search results for 'Daly'

Best

Keith

-

Modern economic theory grew up with industrialization and has 
focused attention on industrial production. Its thoroughgoing 
application to agriculture has been late. But now that it has 
occurred the effects of this application on rural community have been 
disastrous.

Policies following from present theory work in three interrelated 
ways. The commitment to productivity reduces the need for farmers and 
depopulates the rural area. The commitment to profit maximization, 
with prices not including, social and ecological costs, leads to 
unsustainable use of the land. The commitment to free trade leads to 
specialized production for export and, especially in the tropics, to 
inability of rural peoples to feed themselves.

If economics is reconceived in the service of community, it will 
begin with a concern for agriculture and specifically for the 
production of food. This is because a healthy community will be a 
relatively self-sufficient one. A community's complete dependency on 
outsiders for its mere survival weakens it. It is often unable to 
develop the policies it desires for the sake of its won members, 
since its survival depends on terms dictated by others. The most 
fundamental requirement for survival is food. Hence, how and where 
food is grown is foundational to an economics for community.

The conceptual question that must be further clarified is how much 
self-sufficiency is to be sought at what levels of community. The 
ultimate end of the new operative policies would be a self-sufficient 
world in which al less-than-global units would be dependent for their 
survival on the functioning of the global trading system. The 
opposite extreme would be a world made up entirely of subsistence 
farmers and hunters and gatherers. Their community can hardly extend 
beyond the tribe or the village. Between these extremes is an image 
of a world made up of communities of communities. The smallest 
community is the family, the next is the fact-to-face community, and 
beyond that are towns and cities, larger regions, nations, 
continents, and the world. Obviously, the degrees of self- 
sufficiency to be sought at each level vary. What guidelines can help 
determine what is appropriate?

http://www.ecobooks.com/books/comgood.htm
For the Common Good by Herman E. Daly and John B. Cobb, Jr.



Side by side with the intrusion of mathematics into agriculture, 
another branch of the subject has grown up -- economics. The need for 
reducing expenditure so that farming could yield a profit has brought 
every operation, including manuring and the treatment of disease, 
under examination in order to ascertain the cost and what profit, if 
any, results. Costings are everywhere the rule; the value of any 
experiment and innovation is largely determined by the amount of 
profit which can be wrung from Mother earth. The output of the farm 
and of the factory have been looked at from the same standpoint -- 
dividends. Agriculture joined the ranks of industry...

The invasion of economics into agricultural research naturally 
followed the use of quantitative methods. It was an imitation of the 
successful application of costings to the operations of the factory 
and the general store. In a factory making nails, for example, it is 
possible, indeed eminently desirable, to compare the cost of the raw 
material and the operations of manufacture, including labour, fuel, 
overhead expenses, wear and tear and so forth, with the output, and 
to ascertain how and where savings in cost and general speeding up 
can be achieved. Raw materials, output, and stocks can all be 
accurately determined. In a very short time a manufacturer with 
brains and energy will know the cost of every step in the process to 
the fourth place of decimals. This is because everything is 
computable. In a similar manner the operations of the general store 
can be reduced to figures and squared paper. The men in the 
counting-house can follow the least falling-off in efficiency and in 
the winning of profit. How very natural it was some thirty years ago 
to apply these principles to Mother earth and to the farmer! The 
result has been a deluge of costings and of agricultural economics 
largely based on guesswork, because

[Biofuel] A Nuclear Waste: UN Condemned for Promoting 'Peaceful' Nuclear Technology

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0426-04.htm
Published on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 by OneWorld.net

A Nuclear Waste: UN Condemned for Promoting 'Peaceful' Nuclear Technology

by Haider Rizvi

 

UNITED NATIONS - A major international environmental group is 
demanding the United Nations stop promoting nuclear technology in the 
world as a useful tool to tap energy resources.

Greenpeace International's call against the use of nuclear technology 
comes a day before the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear 
accident, considered to be the most devastating of its kind in human 
history.

Members of Greenpeace hold a banner as they stand between a nuclear 
symbol and Berlin's landmark Brandenburg Gate April 26, 2006. The 
activists reminded the 20th anniversary of the nuclear disaster in 
the former Soviet nuclear power plant Chernobyl. The banner reads: 
'Chernobyl shows: Nuclear power can kill - Switch it off !'. 
REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann
By some estimates, the April 26, 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl 
nuclear plant in Ukraine has left hundreds of thousands of people to 
suffer from cancer and various other diseases caused by radiation.

Greenpeace accuses the UN-led International Atomic Energy Agency 
(IAEA) of deliberately trying to whitewash the impacts of the 
Chernobyl accident in order to justify the use of nuclear technology 
for so called peaceful purposes.

The Vienna-based nuclear watchdog estimates that only 4,000 to 9,000 
people are still expected to die from cancer caused by the Chernobyl 
accident, but independent scientists claim that the death toll will 
be much higher.

A new study released by Greenpeace this month concludes that over 
250,000 cancers--nearly 100,000 of which will be fatal--are likely to 
be caused by the disaster that took place 20 years ago.

The study, entitled The Chernobyl Catastrophe - Consequences on 
Human Health, shows that Chernobyl radiation has not only caused 
cancer, but a variety of other diseases, including leukemia and heart 
problems.

To mark the Chernobyl anniversary, environmentalists working with 
Greenpeace delivered to the IAEA headquarters about five pounds of 
radioactive waste Monday, which they had collected from the exclusive 
zone of the site.

To ensure public safety, activists shielded the radioactive soil 
samples with four inches of concrete and a layer of lead. The samples 
examined in the laboratories of Austria and Ukraine were taken from 
locations about 30 miles away from the Chernobyl reactor.

Most worrying, according to Greenpeace, was the discovery of a 
small but highly radioactive grain of spent fuel. Scientists consider 
such a grain to be highly dangerous if inhaled or touched.

People harvest wood, mushrooms and berries from those forests, not 
knowing that they are subjecting their health to serious radiation 
risks, says Ivan Blokov, a nuclear expert at Greenpeace.

Scientists estimate that samples collected from areas close to the 
Chernobyl site are at least 10 to 25 times more radioactive than the 
limits set by the European Commission for defining a substance as 
radioactive waste.

These samples are physical evidence of how contaminated some parts 
of the Ukraine still are, says Blokov. The IAEA should stop denying 
facts and downplaying the impact of Chernobyl.

The IAEA cannot remain as the world's nuclear watchdog, he adds, 
if it cannot at least admit that nuclear power is responsible for 
the impact on those whose life it scarred forever.

Blokov and others say about seven million people are still living in 
areas contaminated with radiation linked to the Chernobyl accident.

In addition to Greenpeace, some leading European politicians are also 
raising questions about the IAEA's role in encouraging nations to 
acquire nuclear energy for non-military use.

Former environment ministers from 10 European countries, including 
Russia and Ukraine, sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan 
urging him to reform the mandate of the IAEA.

Nuclear power is no longer necessary, they said in the letter. We 
have now numerous renewable technologies available to guarantee the 
right to safe, clean, and cheap energy.

Established in 1957, the IAEA is tasked with inspecting nuclear 
facilities worldwide to make sure they are not used for making bombs, 
but its mandate also allows it to promote secure, safe, and 
peaceful nuclear technology.

Critical of this dual function of the UN agency, the former ministers 
said the IAEA has proved impotent in preventing the conversion of 
so-called peaceful nuclear programs of India, Pakistan, and North 
Korea into bomb-making activities.

By deliberately ignoring the interlock between civil and military 
nukes, the IAEA contributes to the proliferation of fissile 
material, says Dominique Voynet, a former French environment 
minister who was among those who signed the letter.

The former ministers also demanded the nuclear-armed countries--the 
United States, Russia,

[Biofuel] Filtering - was Re: Vegtable oil sources...

Hi Jesse and all

Mike
Yup, I too want to know this, please?  We are still fumbling toward our
co-op.  Naturally, I should just look at Keith's archives and SEE IT ALL!!!
Jesse

I'm not sure what all is in the archives, maybe not any definitive 
answers. There's nothing about filtering at JtF. I've been sort of 
sporadically working on a section covering filtering, as well as 
collection and so on, for SVO as well as biodiesel, and I'd like to 
finish it and get it uploaded.

So I'm also interested in what folks might have to say about 
filtering, and not filtering.

Best

Keith


  From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
  Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 09:21:41 -0400
  To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Vegtable oil sources...
 
  Build a filter system - it's not hard and use WVO...
 
  I'll tell you how mine works...
 
  Jared (RogueOP Productions) wrote:
 
  Hi! I was wondering if anyone had a good source for bulk fresh
  vegetable oil. It can be  online or local to the northeast United States.
 
  Thanks!
 
  - Jared


___
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] Hell on Earth

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0426-01.htm
Published on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 by the Guardian / UK

Hell on Earth
Chernobyl was the world's worst environmental disaster. Twenty years 
on, John Vidal reports on the clean-up, the false medical records, 
the communities that refused to leave and the continuing cost to 
people and planet

by John Vidal

 

Twenty years ago today, Konstantin Tatuyan, a Ukrainian radio 
engineer, was horrified when Reactor No 4 at Chernobyl nuclear power 
complex exploded, caught fire, and for the next 10 days spewed the 
equivalent of 400 Hiroshima bombs' worth of radioactivity across 
150,000 sq miles of Europe and beyond. He was just married, and he 
and his young family lived in the town of Chernobyl, just a few miles 
from the reactor.

Candles burn in front of a Chernobyl monument during a remembrance 
ceremony at Mitino cemetery outside of Moscow April 26, 2006. 
Mourners bearing candles marked the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl 
nuclear disaster on Wednesday, honouring those who died from its 
effects as leaders pledged to ensure it would never happen again. 
REUTER/Thomas Peter
Like 120,000 people, the family was evacuated, but Tatuyan 
volunteered to become a liquidator, to help with the clean up, 
believing that his knowledge of radiation could save not just him but 
many of the 200,000 young soldiers and others who were rushed in from 
all over the Soviet Union. We felt we had to do it, he says. Who 
else, if not us, would do it?

Tatuyan spent the next seven years in charge of 5,000 mostly young 
army reservists - drafted in from Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Chechnya, 
Kazakhstan and elsewhere in what was the Soviet Union - working 22 
days on, eight days off, digging great holes, demolishing villages, 
dumping high-level waste, monitoring hot spots, testing the water, 
cleaning railway lines and roads, decontaminating ground and 
travelling throughout some of the most radioactive regions of 
Ukraine, Belarus and southern Russia.

He survived the worst environment disaster in history, he says, 
because he knew the danger and could monitor the radioactivity that 
varied from yard to yard and from village to village depending on 
where the plume descended to ground level, and on where the deadly 
bits of graphite from the core of the reactor were carried by the 
wind.

He took precautions but he also kept meticulous - albeit illegal - 
records of his own accumulating exposure. Every year the authorities 
told him he was fit for duty, and when he left Chernobyl they gave 
him a letter saying he had received just under the safe lifetime dose 
of radiation. He knew he had received more than five times that 
amount.

What he saw in those years, he says, appalled him: young men dying 
for want of the simplest information about exposure to radiation; the 
wide-scale falsification of medical histories by the Soviet army and 
the disappearance of people's records so the state would not have to 
compensate them; the wholesale looting of evacuated houses and 
abandoned churches; the haste and carelessness with which the 
concrete sarcophagus was erected over the stricken reactor; and, 
above all, the horror of seeing land almost twice the size of Britain 
contaminated, with thousands of villages made uninhabitable.

It was sometimes surreal, he says. He had people beg him to leave 
their homes or villages contaminated because that would guarantee 
them a pension; he recalls how several carriages of radioactive 
animal carcasses travelled for five years around the Soviet Union 
being rejected by every state, returning to Chernobyl to be buried - 
train and all. He helped fill a 4 sq mile dump with radioactive 
lorries, cement mixers, trains and helicopters. He knows where the 
Chernobyl bodies are buried, he says, because he was the grave 
digger. We made up the response as we went along, he says. It was 
hell.

Optimistic

Tatuyan has now retired, an invalid. He says he surely saved many 
lives and made great parts of the Ukraine semi-habitable, but the 
price is a heart condition, an enlarged thyroid, diabetes, pains in 
the right side of his body, breathing difficulties and headaches. But 
he is optimistic and, like several million people across Ukraine, 
Belarus and southern Russia, says he now looks at his life in terms 
of the time before and after Chernobyl. Most of his team of 
liquidators are dead; the rest, like him, are ill.

Tatuyan is now 56, and his children and country are proud of him. For 
him, the effect of the radiation on the environment was shocking. 
The first thing we noticed was that many miles of trees in the 
forest turned red, he says. They had to be cut down and buried. All 
the animals left. The birds did not come back for four years. It was 
strange not hearing them.

In the winter of 1986/87, there was an infestation of mice because 
the crops had not been harvested. So the population of foxes 
increased. Most of them had rabies, and

[Biofuel] Chernobyl Kills While Bought ex-Greenpeacer Shills

See also:

http://www.prwatch.org/node/4745
Center for Media and Democracy
New Pro-Nuke Front Group Hires Whitman, Moore



http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0426-20.htm
Published on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 by the Freepress (Columbus, Ohio)

Chernobyl Kills While Bought ex-Greenpeacer Shills

by Harvey Wasserman

While children continue to die twenty years after the Chernobyl 
catastrophe, an out-of-touch (and often corrupt) fringe advocates a 
rebirth for the failed technology that is killing them.

These pro-nuke die-hards seem unable to face the solution to both 
global warming and our economic future: the exploding revolution in 
renewable energy and efficiency. Their last-gasp attempt to revive 
the dead reactor dinosaur may be the last barrier to a truly 
green-powered planet.

The 1986 explosion at the reactor outside Kiev was the world's worst 
industrial disaster. It spewed at least 200 times more radiation than 
the bombing of Hiroshima. It's a fitting tombstone for the most 
expensive technological failure in human history.

Chernobyl happened exactly 20 years ago. But it is 49 since the first 
commercial reactor opened at Shippingport, Pennsylvania, in 1957.

That day the nuke makers said it was only a matter of time before 
private insurers would protect the public from a Chernobyl or Three 
Mile Island-style accident, both of which they said were impossible.

In the meantime, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, which 
shielded reactor makers from liability against what did happen at TMI 
and Chernobyl, and what could be happening as you read this.

A half-century later, we taxpayers are still holding the bag. Not one 
private insurer will guarantee you or your family against the 
financial consequences of a reactor disaster. Check out any US 
homeowner's insurance policy and you'll see their duck and cover in 
black and white.

In pure economic terms, nukes are a horrendous investment. The 
electricity they unreliably generate is expensive, with huge hidden 
ecological costs. Their waste problems remain unsolved, meaning their 
true price tag can't really be calculated.

And further Chernobyl disasters, through error or terror, are clearly 
inevitable. No reactor can be guaranteed not to melt. Nor can any be 
protected from terrorism, by land, sea or air. Continued reactor 
operations are the equivalent of handing Osama bin Laden an arsenal 
of pre-deployed nuclear weapons. Building new ones can only be termed 
an act of treason.

In 1980 I reported extensively from central Pennsylvania on the 
consequences of the radioactive emissions at Three Mile Island, a 
year earlier. To this day it is not precisely known how much 
radiation escaped, or where it went.

But I saw the deformed animals. I spoke to the sick children and 
their dying parents. America has been fed some big lies lately, but 
the biggest ever told remains no one died at Three Mile Island.

A quarter-century later, some 2400 central Pennsylvanians still can't 
get their day in court. TMI's victims and their families have sued 
the power company that irradiated them, but the federal courts refuse 
to hear their case. Why?

Voices From Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster gives 
an indicator. Compiled by Svetlana Alexievich, this slim 
award-winning volume contains just a few of the thousands of 
heart-breaking stories from downwind of Chernobyl. They could just as 
easily come from central Pennsylvania. They make you wonder how 
humans could ever be insane enough to continue with an experiment so 
obviously, insidiously murderous. What other machine continues to 
kill its victims and their progeny generation after generation?

What's most ironic about the attempt to foist even more of these grim 
reapers on us all is that they simply cannot compete with new green 
technologies. Wind power, solar, biomass, increased efficiency and a 
myriad more Solartopian renewables are leaving nukes in the 
radioactive dust. With a level playing field, the green power 
revolution is poised to rapidly transform our global economy. 
Instead, massive subsidies feed a failed technology by gouging 
taxpayers, then irradiating them.

The true dangers of US nukes are exposed in An American Chernobyl: 
Near Misses at US Reactors Since 1986, by Jim Riccio. A widely 
respected researcher, Riccio documents the terrifying times the US 
has barely dodged reactor mega-disasters.

Riccio is a long-timer campaigner for Greenpeace, which has published 
his report, and which leads us to Patrick Moore. A bit player in the 
original founding, Moore is cashing in on his stale, marginal 
association to Greenpeace for the benefit of his polluter-employers.

There is always room for honorable debate, even on nuclear power. But 
Moore has crossed several lines. His long-ago dalliance with one of 
the world's vanguard eco-crusades does not give him the right to 
speak as one who has seen the light.

In perhaps the saddest line in the entire

Re: [Biofuel] was WVO-Water Separation: coalescer media, now electric resistance heat efficiency

Well Mike if you have been following the discussion, we've already
established that my country is the largest producer of hydroelectricity
and gets 70% of its needs from that renewable source. The heatpump CP
is cool for sure but if I wanted to pump heat from my roof to a storage
tank I would do it without any heat pump or any pump at all. I would
use the thermal energy itself to circulate the fluid through the
system. So my system would have an infinite CP according to that
definition LOL. I guess I should get working on that.

Joe

Mike McGinness wrote:
Joe,
Your claim that Electric resistance heating converts nearly 100%
of
the energy in the electricity to heat is right but:

I found the following at a US DOE site:

"Electric Resistance Heating:

Electric resistance heating converts nearly 100% of the energy
in
the electricity to heat. However, most electricity is produced from
oil, gas, or coal generators that convert only about 30% of the fuel's
energy into electricity. Because of electricity generation and
transmission
losses, electric heat is often more expensive than heat produced in the
home or business using combustion appliances, such as natural gas,
propane,
and oil furnaces.

If electricity is the only choice, heat pumps are preferable in
most
climates, as they easily cut electricity use by 50% when compared with
electric resistance heating. The exception is in dry climates with
either hot or mixed (hot and cold) temperatures (these climates are
found
in the non-coastal part of California; the southern tip of Nevada; the
southwest corner of Utah; southern and western Arizona; southern and
eastern
New Mexico; the southeast corner of Colorado; and western Texas). For
these
dry climates, there are so few heating days that the high cost of
heating
is not economically significant."

This is at:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/space_heating_cooling/index.cfm/mytopic=12520

The above sounds like a contradiction, but it is explained here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatpump.html#c2

Specifically it says:

"they (electric heat pumps) can use one unit of electric energy to
transfer
more than one unit of energy from a cold area to a hot area. For
example,
an electric resistance heater using one kilowatt-hour of electric
energy
can transfer only 1 kWh of energy to heat your house at 100%
efficiency.
But 1 kWh of energy used in an electric heat pump can "pump" 3 kWh of
energy
from the cooler outside environment into your house for heating. The
ratio
of the energy transferred to the electric energy used in the process is
called its coefficient of performance (CP). A typical CP for a
commercial
heat pump is between 3 and 4 units transferred per unit of electric
energy
supplied"

Therefore an electric heat pump can be several times more
efficient
at heating than an electric resistance heater.

This is something I learned in my sophomore chemical engineering
thermodynamics
class at U of H that really STUCK with me!

Best,

Mike McGinness

Joe Street wrote:

Yes but the electrical energy is converted to
heat
with practically 100% eff regardless of it's source of generation which
is what I meant. You are right of course, electrical generation is
not without it's environmental impact, even hydro. But what of your
emissions from burning??
J

Hakan Falk wrote:

Joe,

Electricity more efficient for heating? A lot of the electricity
production is using oil, with around 35% efficiency to make the
electricity. Heating with oil have 70 to 85% efficiency in burners. I
would not give anything for this manual, the author lacks knowledge
and understanding. A pity that it is a women who wrote it, because
now I am going to be accused of being a male chauvinist. It does
however not effect the fact that it is much more efficient to heat
with oil, than with electricity.

Hakan

At 15:16 27/04/2006, you wrote:

Getting it really cold means removing heat. Whether you remove heat
or add heat it takes time and energy. Adding heat would be a more
efficient process unless you live in the arctic and can let good old
mother nature do the work for you. BTW someone recently passed me a
manual written by a woman who shall remain nameless that is for sale
about making biodiesel. It says that heating oil for dewatering is
a very inefficient process. An electrical resistance heater is as
close to 100 percent efficient as anything I can imagine. Just be
careful about heat density. Too much power confined to too small an
area will degrade the oil at the heater surface. Better to use
several low density heaters to speed things up.

Joe

Jason Katie wrote:

what about applejack style dewatering? get it REALLY cold so the oil
solidifies, or the water freezes, whichever comes first and screen it out?
thats how the old folks used to make apple whiskey for hard cider when my

Re: [Biofuel] WVO-Water Separation: coalescer media





Do you have any information on IR absorption of common black materials,
ie flat black paint types which are resonably good? I plan to do
something with it one day but would like to make something myself of
reasonable efficiency rather than buying a turnkey solution.

Joe

Hakan Falk wrote:

  Joe,

In Israel you will see the same, but with efficient solar panels 
built together with an insulated storage. It is however an enormous 
difference in efficiency. The black cisterns have a very low 
efficiency and you can only collect some warm water at the end of 
sunny days. The main functionality of cisterns on the roof, is to 
give distribution pressure. It is also very large differences in the 
coloring methods, what is looking black to us, can have very 
different absorption factors. A Swedish company is the market leader 
in delivering the solar collection elements for solar panels. They 
deliver them in rolls of double black colored copper sheets.  Before 
mounting they are cut to size and pressurized to form the space for 
water passage. Efficient solar panel construction was researched 
around 40 years ago in Almeria, Spain,  a joint project between 
technical universities of Sweden and Spain. The Swedish part was 
managed by prof. Folke Petterson, KTH, who also used some simulation 
work with the energy transmission program that we have.

Hakan

At 00:40 28/04/2006, you wrote:
  
  
Almost every house and building has a big black cistern on the 
roof.  The are everywhere you look.

Joe

Hakan Falk wrote:


  Joe,

Yes, but Mexico it is a bit larger and more people than Israel and in
total they do not have the same density, but last time was around 15
years ago and Israel the last time was around 6 years ago, China 5
years and Brazil last time was only 2 years ago. Time goes very fast.
Still, I doubt it, considering that Israel is a export producer of
thermal solar systems also.

Hakan

At 21:03 27/04/2006, you wrote:



  
  
Hakan Falk wrote:




  Zeke,

Solar thermal hot water is the cheapest and most efficient solar use,
I do not understand that the use is so low. This except Israel, where
you can see solar for hot water on almost every house. .




  

snip

Ever been to Mexico?

Joe


___
Biofuel mailing list
mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlhttp://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


  
  


___
Biofuel mailing list
mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlhttp://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/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] was WVO-Water Separation: coalescer media, now electric resistance heat efficiency

Hey I just thought of something. If I used your heatpump and connected
the output heat exchanger to a sterling motor generator set with an
overall efficiency of lets say 50%, I could get 1.5 KW of electrical
power from the 3 KW heat energy coming out of the heatpump. Since the
heatpump has a CP of say 3 in this case then it only requires 1 KW
electical input energy and I have a net 500 watts if I run the heatpump
from the sterling generator! Ahh this sounds like a perpetual motion
machine eh? But really it is not because there is energy input on the
input heat exchanger to the tune of more than 3 KW. Not a very
efficient system and using the thermal energy directly as a motive
force is still much more eficient but a cool idea since it is
completely self powered once it gets started. Hmmm did I miss
something obvious here?

Joe

Mike McGinness wrote:
Joe,
Your claim that Electric resistance heating converts nearly 100%
of
the energy in the electricity to heat is right but:

I found the following at a US DOE site:

"Electric Resistance Heating:

This is at:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/space_heating_cooling/index.cfm/mytopic=12520

The above sounds like a contradiction, but it is explained here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatpump.html#c2

Specifically it says:

Therefore an electric heat pump can be several times more
efficient
at heating than an electric resistance heater.

This is something I learned in my sophomore chemical engineering
thermodynamics
class at U of H that really STUCK with me!

Best,

Mike McGinness

Joe Street wrote:

Hakan Falk wrote:

Joe,

Hakan

At 15:16 27/04/2006, you wrote:

Re: [Biofuel] was WVO-Water Separation: coalescer media, now electric resistance heat efficiency

2006-04-28 Thread David Miller

Joe Street wrote:
 Hey I just thought of something.  If I used your heatpump and 
 connected the output heat exchanger to a sterling motor generator set 
 with an overall efficiency of lets say 50%,  I could get 1.5 KW of 
 electrical power from the 3 KW heat energy coming out of the 
 heatpump.  Since the heatpump has a CP of say 3 in this case then it 
 only requires 1 KW electical input energy and I have a net 500 watts 
 if I run the heatpump from the sterling generator!  Ahh this sounds 
 like a perpetual motion machine eh?  But really it is not because 
 there is energy input on the input heat exchanger to the tune of more 
 than 3 KW.  Not a very efficient system and using the thermal energy 
 directly as a motive force is still much more eficient but a cool idea 
 since it is completely self powered once it gets started.  Hmmm did I 
 miss something obvious here?

Yes, you're missing some basic physics here.  Any basic textbook will 
explain that that the most efficient heat engine is the carnot cycle, 
and that the efficiency of it is 1 - (Temp-out/Temp-in).  Temperature 
here must be on the absolute scale - Kelvin or Rankine, though Kelvin 
(degrees K) is normally used.

A heat pump is a heat engine run backwards.  Instead of heat flowing and 
producing mechanical energy you use mechanical energy to move heat.  CP 
is the inverse of the efficiency of the heat engine, or 1 / (1-Tout/Tin).

The net result of that is that your heat pump in air conditioning mode 
has decreases as the temperature difference increases.
  IOW, it takes more energy to pump the exhaust up to a higher 
temperature. 

The Stirling engine, otoh, can be only as efficient as the carnot cycle 
allows.  So if, for example, the ambient temperature is 300K (17C) and 
the exhaust is 320K, your max efficiency is 1 - 300/320 or 6.25%.  
Realistically it will be hard to get any useful energy out of a 20C 
differential at all.

Sorry Joe:)

--- David


___
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] Water in recovered methanol?




Good day to all,
After splitting the 
glycerine coproduct from roughly 1200L of processed WVO, I distilled 
approximately 100L of the glycerine/methanol component. 
 The first drops of 
methanol began to fall from the condenser at 145F. As the temp rose to 150F 
there was a steady flow of clear liquid from the condenser. Throughout the day I 
turned the heat off when the flow was steady and back on when it 
slowed.
 I filled a 4.5 gal (17.7L) 
cubie with clear liquid and started a second one. At this point the temp was 
over 160F. I let the still run up to 200F. At this point the second cubie had 4 
gallons of clear liquid (and it was now 1AM) giving a total of 8.5 gal. I was 
thrilled with the result (and tired). I used the first 4.5 gal (17.7L) to run 
one batch, and while that was settling ran a second batch using the second 4 gal 
of recovered methanol.
 The first batch washed OK, 
but was a little slow to separate. It failed the methanol quality 
test.
 The second batch did not 
even pass the wash test.
I have been making consistenly high quality BD for 
several months ... thank you JtF and list members. I don't think I made 
mistakes in measurement or titration.
My question:
 As my distillation temps rose 
towards 200F (93C) could I have been including water in my distillate? (The 
methanol recovered at lower temps performed better than the methanol recovered 
at higher temps.) If so, can I use Zeolite "molecular sieves" in the future to 
remove it?

 
Thanks,
 
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/

Re: [Biofuel] Water in recovered methanol?





3A sieves will work but are normally used for getting tiny amounts of
water out of solvents to bring them into the low ppm range. They will
work of course but you might saturate them and have to do a second
stage. There is a significant energy input into regenerating the
seives as well. You have to bake them at well over 100 degrees C more
like 200, but you can get by with lower temps if you bake them out with
vacuum. Try putting a thermometer in your condenser and monitor vapour
temperature to get a better endpoint and you will have an easier time.
You have answered some of my own questions. I have recovered some
methanol but not tried to use it yet. Sounds like if straight
distillation is carefully done the methanol is dry enough to use
without further drying. Great news and thanks for the post! :)

I have some excellent references on solvent drying I can mail you if
you want. No soft copy sorry but I might be able to scan them.

Joe

Thomas Kelly wrote:

  
  
  
  Good day to all,
  After splitting the glycerine
coproduct from roughly 1200L of processed WVO, I distilled
approximately 100L of the glycerine/methanol component. 
   The first drops of methanol
began to fall from the condenser at 145F. As the temp rose to 150F
there was a steady flow of clear liquid from the condenser. Throughout
the day I turned the heat off when the flow was steady and back on when
it slowed.
   I filled a 4.5 gal (17.7L)
cubie with clear liquid and started a second one. At this point the
temp was over 160F. I let the still run up to 200F. At this point the
second cubie had 4 gallons of clear liquid (and it was now 1AM) giving
a total of 8.5 gal. I was thrilled with the result (and tired). I used
the first 4.5 gal (17.7L) to run one batch, and while that was settling
ran a second batch using the second 4 gal of recovered methanol.
   The first batch washed OK, but
was a little slow to separate. It failed the methanol quality test.
   The second batch did not even
pass the wash test.
  I have been making consistenly high
quality BD for several months ... thank you JtF and list members. I
don't think I made mistakes in measurement or titration.
  My question:
   As my distillation temps rose
towards 200F (93C) could I have been including water in my distillate?
(The methanol recovered at lower temps performed better than the
methanol recovered at higher temps.) If so, can I use Zeolite
"molecular sieves" in the future to remove it?
  
   Thanks,
   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/

[Biofuel] FFA's as Weed Killer




 I've been gardening for over 30 years 
by essentially "building dirt" and caring for my plants from the ground up. 

I've been know to chop off a weed's head now and 
again or yank them from the ground. I've squished "bugs" by the 
thousandsand lured others to deadly traps. I've never used a spray that 
has any real obvious results (dead insects or "weeds"). 
 I've been splitting my glycerine 
co-product into FFA's, potassium (and some sodium) phosphate, and crude 
glycerine.
Yesterday I sprayed FFA's on some 
weeds in an area of the garden that hasn't been turned yet. Today they appear to 
be dying. It didn't seem to discriminate ... dandelions, wild mustard, plantain, 
grass  all withering. 
 I'm a bit taken back. The sprays I 
concoct from chives, peppers, mulberry leaves etc. are intended to 
repel/discourage pests. I don't see any corpses.It's more a matter of 
faith or delusion that they are working ...I don't care which. Weeds 
involve physical removal and discouragement with thick mulch.
 The "weeds" sprayed w. 
FFA's appear to be in serious trouble only 24 hrs after spraying. What is the 
mechanism of FFA action on plants? Does it act on the lipid component of the 
cell membranes? Is it systemic or just act on the point of contact - the leaves. 
If it only acts on the leaves, will new shoots be sent up?
 If FFA's are non-toxic, 
biodegradable, and effective weed killers, it would be very good news to an 
aging gardener who turns each section of the garden by hand, meticulously 
picking outthe weeds. I don't mind the turning, countless tons of compost 
over the years has turned shallow hard-pan clay into beautiful rich soil that 
takes little effort to turn. It's the bending to pick the "weeds" that gets to 
my back.
 I believe Todd Swearingen 
and Prof. Bob Allen have both mentioned FFA's as weed killer. 
My back thanks 
you,
 
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/

Re: [Biofuel] Water in recovered methanol?

2006-04-28 Thread Appal Energy

  As my distillation temps rose towards 200F (93C) could I have been 
including water in my distillate?

Yes, and you probably did. This is why they use distillation columns in 
industry.

Zeolytes should work. Just make sure that whatever one you choose is 
capable of absorbing water. Not all zeolytes are designed for the same 
capability. While porosity may be the wrong word to define how they're 
constructed, zeolytes are engineered to absorb specific sized molecules.

Todd Swearingen


Thomas Kelly wrote:

 Good day to all,
  After splitting the glycerine coproduct from roughly 1200L of 
 processed WVO, I distilled approximately 100L of the 
 glycerine/methanol component.
  The first drops of methanol began to fall from the condenser at 
 145F. As the temp rose to 150F there was a steady flow of clear liquid 
 from the condenser. Throughout the day I turned the heat off when the 
 flow was steady and back on when it slowed.
  I filled a 4.5 gal (17.7L) cubie with clear liquid and started a 
 second one. At this point the temp was over 160F. I let the still run 
 up to 200F. At this point the second cubie had 4 gallons of clear 
 liquid (and it was now 1AM) giving a total of 8.5 gal. I was thrilled 
 with the result (and tired). I used the first 4.5 gal (17.7L) to run 
 one batch, and while that was settling ran a second batch using the 
 second 4 gal of recovered methanol.
  The first batch washed OK, but was a little slow to separate. It 
 failed the methanol quality test.
  The second batch did not even pass the wash test.
 I have been making consistenly high quality BD for several months  ... 
 thank you JtF and list members. I don't think I made mistakes in 
 measurement or titration.
 My question:
 As my distillation temps rose towards 200F (93C) could I have been 
 including water in my distillate? (The methanol recovered at lower 
 temps performed better than the methanol recovered at higher temps.) 
 If so, can I use Zeolite molecular sieves in the future to remove it?
  
 Thanks,
  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/

  



Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.4/319 - Release Date: 4/19/2006
  


___
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] Water in recovered methanol?

Joe,
Thanks for the
reply.
You wrote:
1. "There is a
significant energy input into regenerating the seives as well. You have to
bake them at well over 100 degrees C more like 200, but you can get by with
lower temps if you bake them out with vacuum."

I came across molecular
sieves while reading about ethanol purification, and was lead to believe
(mistakenly?)that they can be regenerated by drying in the sun.

"Try putting a thermometer in your condenser and monitor vapour
temperature to get a better endpoint and you will have an easier time."

I don't knowwhat this will tell
me.What wouldI be looking for in terms of vapor
temp?

3. "I have some
excellent references on solvent drying I can mail you if you want. No soft copy
sorry but I might be able to scan them."

I
would appreciate them. I am in the early stages of planning ethanol
ferment/distillation. If the permit is approved, I hope to start in the coming
months.

Thanks again,

Tom

- Original Message -

From:
Joe Street
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org

Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 10:27
AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Water in recovered
methanol?
3A sieves will work but are normally used for getting tiny
amounts of water out of solvents to bring them into the low ppm range.
They will work of course but you might saturate them and have to do a second
stage. There is a significant energy input into regenerating the seives
as well. You have to bake them at well over 100 degrees C more like 200,
but you can get by with lower temps if you bake them out with vacuum.
Try putting a thermometer in your condenser and monitor vapour temperature to
get a better endpoint and you will have an easier time. You have
answered some of my own questions. I have recovered some methanol but
not tried to use it yet. Sounds like if straight distillation is
carefully done the methanol is dry enough to use without further drying. Great
news and thanks for the post! :)I have some excellent references on
solvent drying I can mail you if you want. No soft copy sorry but I might be
able to scan them.JoeThomas Kelly wrote:

Good day to all,
After splitting
the glycerine coproduct from roughly 1200L of processed WVO, I distilled
approximately 100L of the glycerine/methanol component.
The first drops of
methanol began to fall from the condenser at 145F. As the temp rose to 150F
there was a steady flow of clear liquid from the condenser. Throughout the
day I turned the heat off when the flow was steady and back on when it
slowed.
I filled a 4.5 gal
(17.7L) cubie with clear liquid and started a second one. At this point the
temp was over 160F. I let the still run up to 200F. At this point the second
cubie had 4 gallons of clear liquid (and it was now 1AM) giving a total of
8.5 gal. I was thrilled with the result (and tired). I used the first 4.5
gal (17.7L) to run one batch, and while that was settling ran a second batch
using the second 4 gal of recovered methanol.
The first batch washed
OK, but was a little slow to separate. It failed the methanol quality
test.
The second batch did
not even pass the wash test.
I have been making consistenly high quality BD
for several months ... thank you JtF and list members. I don't think I
made mistakes in measurement or titration.
My question:
As my distillation temps
rose towards 200F (93C) could I have been including water in my distillate?
(The methanol recovered at lower temps performed better than the methanol
recovered at higher temps.) If so, can I use Zeolite "molecular sieves" in
the future to remove it?

Thanks,

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
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] Filtering - was Re: Vegtable oil sources...

Keith,
You wrote:
So I'm also interested in what folks might have to say about filtering, and 
not filtering.

 I filtered my WVO when I was doing small - 1L, 5L, 15L batches - but 
found it to be too time and energy-consuming when I began to run larger 
(91L) batches.
 Before upscaling my process, I had already set up sources for WVO, and 
was getting far more WVO than I was processing. Cubies of WVO were filling 
up my shed.
I got a few 55 gal drums to store the oil in and found that after settling 
in the cubies for a few weeks, the oil was very clear.  I now rely on 
gravity/settling and do not filter my WVO.
 I allow the WVO to settle in cubies for a week. I then pour the top 80% 
of each cubie into a barrel and consolidate the bottoms of 5 cubies into 1. 
Most of this will be ready for the barrel the next week. I have 4 WVO 
barrels. One is settled and is used for processing, two are settling, and 
one is being filled. I pump WVO out of the settled barrel from the top 3/4. 
This oil is very clear and requires very little drying.
 Tom
- Original Message - 
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 6:00 AM
Subject: [Biofuel] Filtering - was Re: Vegtable oil sources...


 Hi Jesse and all

Mike
Yup, I too want to know this, please?  We are still fumbling toward our
co-op.  Naturally, I should just look at Keith's archives and SEE IT 
ALL!!!
Jesse

 I'm not sure what all is in the archives, maybe not any definitive
 answers. There's nothing about filtering at JtF. I've been sort of
 sporadically working on a section covering filtering, as well as
 collection and so on, for SVO as well as biodiesel, and I'd like to
 finish it and get it uploaded.

 So I'm also interested in what folks might have to say about
 filtering, and not filtering.

 Best

 Keith





___
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] Soupy TDI was economist