Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch
First Place Stella Award winner Always the first place, and a complete fabrication, hoax, and urban legend. I heard this one first back in '77, except then it was a 'custom van' and the driver went to the fridge for a beer. Check your facts please. http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20071003/2903d885/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Olive branch
Hello Dawie The thing that bothers me when I encounter reports of cases like these is the notion that, while a corporation like McDonalds can easily afford to pay out millions in damages, a mom-and-pop eatery cannot. Quite. Punitive damages, like this was supposed to be, are intended to make it too expensive to risk doing it again, so it should be proportional to what will hurt, rather than ruin. The corps tend to get such a free ride though that it seldom works that way - in this case it was reduced to what would be a slap on the wrist for McDonalds, barely a disincentive, though it would ruin a mom-and-pop eatery. At the time McDonald's made $1.35 million in coffee sales per day. The punitive damages were $2.7 million, reduced to $480,000 - all over in four hours. Similarly, McDonalds has the organizational power to ensure that its products are proof against the unpredictable behaviour of its patrons, a mom-and-pop eatery does not. If the rulings in these cases represent simple precedents the result can only be to create an environment in which mom-and-pop eateries cannot operate and which definitely favours the McDonaldses of the world. However, the facts of the matter seem to suggest that these are not simple precedents but that some cognizance is taken of the relative power of the parties involved. (In my experience the remarkable thing about legal systems, however flawed they are, is how often they are perfectly sane and rational.) Contrary to popular belief, what is legally sauce for mom-and-pop eateries is not sauce for McDonalds; and if this means one law for the former and another for the latter, that is all to the good. One law for the lion and ox, said William Blake, is tyranny. It is certainly tyranny if mom-and-pop eateries were treated like McDonalds. But it would be tyranny too if McDonalds were treated like a mom-and-pop eatery, out of the old failure to see the difference between human beings (like Mom and Pop) and corporations. Keith has never tired of saying that corporations have more human rights than human beings do, and I hope he never does unless we are so fortunate that it ceases to be true. In which case I'll get tired of it immediately! LOL! In this sense, the sort of tort reform that is proposed seems to approach a real problem from precisely the wrong end. The only purpose is corporate benefit and to hell with everything else. It's one of a range of initiatives with the same end. There is a definite advantage in litigation if, as it seems to be, it is an alternative to regulation. It is better to rap McDonalds over their knuckles, sending out a message to those selling coffee to be careful (in proportion, of course, to who they are), than to require the abovementioned eateries to file reports about men who come around with clip-boards and thermometers, on top of everything else they have to do to survive. I would like to see a society in which all people take greater responsibility for themselves. To me this is a spiritual thing, linked to my own adulthood, moral agency, and consummateness as a human being. I fully agree with that view. Though there are those for whom the ability to cast off responsibility is a luxury to be relished greatly, I cannot understand them: Nor can I. that is a slave's attitude. Yes. But if I wish that people take up responsibility readily it is necessary that taking up such responsibility be a reasonable thing to do. That means a world that is technologically understandable and a population that is educated in the range of technologies they need to use. Herein lies one more sense of the word appropriate in appropriate technology. Yes, but there's a problem here, and the richer the country the worse the problem seems to be. Our societies have been woefully deskilled, especially in the last 30 years or so, but it's been going on for longer than that. Compared with our grandparents and especially our great-grandparents we're helpless, and rather ignorant. I guess it all helps to make us obedient little consumers. I don't know how we're going to go about getting those skills back again, or replacing them, let alone changing the prevailing attitude of helplessness and dependence. Learn from the Third World maybe. Another point about this is that a more understandable kind of technology is probably much easier to adapt to the small-scale, local-industry level (as required), and even at the same overall rate of production it would probably have a smaller eco-footprint, lower eco-manufacturing costs, lower carbon emissions. Would or could have - via less built-in obsolescence, for one thing. For instance, the systemics of the Western living environment require that motor vehicles be operated by people who neither understand nor have the inclination to learn about the basics of the Otto cycle. Instead of making cars idiot-proof (and consequently technologically opaque) we
Re: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil OrPetrol
Dear all, I would really like to read this study this report in original,since the article is producing several question marks. It is well known that the exhaust emissions from fatty acid methyl esters are producing higher amounts of nitrious gases than petro diesel does , but as far as I can remember, the nitrious oxide corresponds only to a tiny part of these. It is also well known that that the higher the cetane number of the biodiesel, the lower the emissions of nitrious gases. From that point it is a little bit strange to conclude that the the emissions of nitrious gases from rape seed oil biodiesel and maize biodiesel are the same, since the iodine number of maize oil in general is higher than the corresponding value of rape seed oil. This is suggesting in its prolongment that the emissions of nitrious gases from BD out of rape seed oil should be lower than from BD of maize oil. If the article is displaying the facts from the study correctly, then there are two ways to approach this problem: 1) Further product development of the fatty acid methyl esters in order to raise the cetane number to a level where the emissions of nitrious gases become acceptably lower. 2) New diesel veichles will be equipped with an Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) system or an exhaust gas aftertreatment system which will lower the production of nitrious gases as required in Euro regulations. Information on the properties of nitrious oxide can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide No doubt has the information on the green house effects from nitrious oxide come from this sight, No matter if the conclusions from the study are right or not, it still makes sense to produce biodiesel, not in the least for forcing the development to take another path than previous. You know what I mean. Jan Warnqvist - Original Message - From: Olivier Morf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 6:40 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil OrPetrol Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece September 22, 2007 Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil Or Petrol By Lewis Smith A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests. Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and maize have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save. Other biofuels, especially those likely to see greater use over the next decade, performed better than fossil fuels but the study raises serious questions about some of the most commonly produced varieties. Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution. ³One wants rational decisions rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon because superficially something appears to reduce emissions,² said Keith Smith, a professor at the University of Edinburgh and one of the researchers. Maize for ethanol is the prime crop for biofuel in the US where production for the industry has recently overtaken the use of the plant as a food. In Europe the main crop is rapeseed, which accounts for 80 per cent of biofuel production. Professor Smith told Chemistry World: ³The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto.² It was accepted by the scientists that other factors, such as the use of fossil fuels to produce fertiliser, have yet to be fully analysed for their impact on overall figures. But they concluded that the biofuels ³can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2 O emissions than cooling by fossil-fuel savings². The research is published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, where it has been placed for open review. The research team was formed of scientists from Britain, the US and Germany, and included Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on ozone. Dr Franz Conen, of the University of Basel in Switzerland, described the study as an ³astounding insight². ³It is to be hoped that those
Re: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil OrPetrol
jan, the study was focused on NO2 released by soil microbes as the rapeseed crops grow, not on the emissions from burning the fuel. you make an excellent point, though. imo, we should *always* be searching for ways to reduce the impact of the fuels we burn. On 10/3/07, Jan Warnqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear all, I would really like to read this study this report in original,since the article is producing several question marks. It is well known that the exhaust emissions from fatty acid methyl esters are producing higher amounts of nitrious gases than petro diesel does , but as far as I can remember, the nitrious oxide corresponds only to a tiny part of these. It is also well known that that the higher the cetane number of the biodiesel, the lower the emissions of nitrious gases. From that point it is a little bit strange to conclude that the the emissions of nitrious gases from rape seed oil biodiesel and maize biodiesel are the same, since the iodine number of maize oil in general is higher than the corresponding value of rape seed oil. This is suggesting in its prolongment that the emissions of nitrious gases from BD out of rape seed oil should be lower than from BD of maize oil. If the article is displaying the facts from the study correctly, then there are two ways to approach this problem: 1) Further product development of the fatty acid methyl esters in order to raise the cetane number to a level where the emissions of nitrious gases become acceptably lower. 2) New diesel veichles will be equipped with an Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) system or an exhaust gas aftertreatment system which will lower the production of nitrious gases as required in Euro regulations. Information on the properties of nitrious oxide can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide No doubt has the information on the green house effects from nitrious oxide come from this sight, No matter if the conclusions from the study are right or not, it still makes sense to produce biodiesel, not in the least for forcing the development to take another path than previous. You know what I mean. Jan Warnqvist - Original Message - From: Olivier Morf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 6:40 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil OrPetrol Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece September 22, 2007 Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil Or Petrol By Lewis Smith A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests. Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and maize have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save. Other biofuels, especially those likely to see greater use over the next decade, performed better than fossil fuels but the study raises serious questions about some of the most commonly produced varieties. Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution. ³One wants rational decisions rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon because superficially something appears to reduce emissions,² said Keith Smith, a professor at the University of Edinburgh and one of the researchers. Maize for ethanol is the prime crop for biofuel in the US where production for the industry has recently overtaken the use of the plant as a food. In Europe the main crop is rapeseed, which accounts for 80 per cent of biofuel production. Professor Smith told Chemistry World: ³The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto.² It was accepted by the scientists that other factors, such as the use of fossil fuels to produce fertiliser, have yet to be fully analysed for their impact on overall figures. But they concluded that the biofuels ³can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2 O emissions than cooling by fossil-fuel savings². The research is published in the journal Atmospheric
Re: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas ThanOil OrPetrol
Ok, my mistake. When reading the article this is not shown very clear. But nitrous oxide is N2O and nothing else. - Original Message - From: Chris Burck [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 2:30 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas ThanOil OrPetrol jan, the study was focused on NO2 released by soil microbes as the rapeseed crops grow, not on the emissions from burning the fuel. you make an excellent point, though. imo, we should *always* be searching for ways to reduce the impact of the fuels we burn. On 10/3/07, Jan Warnqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear all, I would really like to read this study this report in original,since the article is producing several question marks. It is well known that the exhaust emissions from fatty acid methyl esters are producing higher amounts of nitrious gases than petro diesel does , but as far as I can remember, the nitrious oxide corresponds only to a tiny part of these. It is also well known that that the higher the cetane number of the biodiesel, the lower the emissions of nitrious gases. From that point it is a little bit strange to conclude that the the emissions of nitrious gases from rape seed oil biodiesel and maize biodiesel are the same, since the iodine number of maize oil in general is higher than the corresponding value of rape seed oil. This is suggesting in its prolongment that the emissions of nitrious gases from BD out of rape seed oil should be lower than from BD of maize oil. If the article is displaying the facts from the study correctly, then there are two ways to approach this problem: 1) Further product development of the fatty acid methyl esters in order to raise the cetane number to a level where the emissions of nitrious gases become acceptably lower. 2) New diesel veichles will be equipped with an Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) system or an exhaust gas aftertreatment system which will lower the production of nitrious gases as required in Euro regulations. Information on the properties of nitrious oxide can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide No doubt has the information on the green house effects from nitrious oxide come from this sight, No matter if the conclusions from the study are right or not, it still makes sense to produce biodiesel, not in the least for forcing the development to take another path than previous. You know what I mean. Jan Warnqvist - Original Message - From: Olivier Morf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 6:40 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil OrPetrol Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece September 22, 2007 Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil Or Petrol By Lewis Smith A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests. Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and maize have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save. Other biofuels, especially those likely to see greater use over the next decade, performed better than fossil fuels but the study raises serious questions about some of the most commonly produced varieties. Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution. ³One wants rational decisions rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon because superficially something appears to reduce emissions,² said Keith Smith, a professor at the University of Edinburgh and one of the researchers. Maize for ethanol is the prime crop for biofuel in the US where production for the industry has recently overtaken the use of the plant as a food. In Europe the main crop is rapeseed, which accounts for 80 per cent of biofuel production. Professor Smith told Chemistry World: ³The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought
Re: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil OrPetrol
haven't read the actual study, but to me this report simply reeks of bad intentions, and appears to ignore fundamental questions. for instance, of the production that was studied, what agricultural methods were used (e.g. petrolizers or non-petro/organic fertilizers)? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil OrPetrol
Hello Jan I think you have your answers. but here's the whole thing: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/21090701.asp Biofuels could boost global warming, finds study Chemistry World 21 September 2007 Full research paper: N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels Abstract: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.html PDF: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/7/11191/2007/acpd-7-11191-2007.pdf HTH Best Keith Dear all, I would really like to read this study this report in original,since the article is producing several question marks. It is well known that the exhaust emissions from fatty acid methyl esters are producing higher amounts of nitrious gases than petro diesel does , but as far as I can remember, the nitrious oxide corresponds only to a tiny part of these. It is also well known that that the higher the cetane number of the biodiesel, the lower the emissions of nitrious gases. From that point it is a little bit strange to conclude that the the emissions of nitrious gases from rape seed oil biodiesel and maize biodiesel are the same, since the iodine number of maize oil in general is higher than the corresponding value of rape seed oil. This is suggesting in its prolongment that the emissions of nitrious gases from BD out of rape seed oil should be lower than from BD of maize oil. If the article is displaying the facts from the study correctly, then there are two ways to approach this problem: 1) Further product development of the fatty acid methyl esters in order to raise the cetane number to a level where the emissions of nitrious gases become acceptably lower. 2) New diesel veichles will be equipped with an Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) system or an exhaust gas aftertreatment system which will lower the production of nitrious gases as required in Euro regulations. Information on the properties of nitrious oxide can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide No doubt has the information on the green house effects from nitrious oxide come from this sight, No matter if the conclusions from the study are right or not, it still makes sense to produce biodiesel, not in the least for forcing the development to take another path than previous. You know what I mean. Jan Warnqvist - Original Message - From: Olivier Morf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 6:40 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil OrPetrol Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece September 22, 2007 Rapeseed Biofuel Produces More Greenhouse Gas Than Oil Or Petrol By Lewis Smith A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests. Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and maize have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save. Other biofuels, especially those likely to see greater use over the next decade, performed better than fossil fuels but the study raises serious questions about some of the most commonly produced varieties. Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution. One wants rational decisions rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon because superficially something appears to reduce emissions, said Keith Smith, a professor at the University of Edinburgh and one of the researchers. Maize for ethanol is the prime crop for biofuel in the US where production for the industry has recently overtaken the use of the plant as a food. In Europe the main crop is rapeseed, which accounts for 80 per cent of biofuel production. Professor Smith told Chemistry World: The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto. It was accepted by the scientists that other factors, such as the use of fossil fuels to produce fertiliser, have yet to be fully analysed for their impact on overall figures. But they concluded that the biofuels can contribute as much or
[Biofuel] video - our police state
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/163.html - Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20071003/a5f6b394/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] 747 on biofuel
Just out of curiosity... what really makes the LIM any different from a two-stroke diesel? They too are blower scavenged, port exhausted closed crankcase engines... -Kurt Joe Street wrote: Damn it all to hell. My friend just bought a Moyes Dragonfly http://www.liteflite.com.au/ and I had a half baked notion to put a LIM cycle engine http://www.limtechnology.com/Pages/concept.htm on it and make the claim to be the first to go flying on biodiesel! Well I'm glad the wheels are in motion even if I can't be first. :-) Joe Dawie Coetzee wrote: They can keep their 747's, but I'm thinking what can be done with a time-expired Allison 250-series... -D - Original Message From: Bruno M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tuesday, 2 October, 2007 4:27:03 PM Subject: [Biofuel] 747 on biofuel FYI: ~~ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7017694.stm Biofuel trial flight set for 747 By Richard BlackEnvironment correspondent, BBC News website Air New Zealand says it plans to mount the first test flight of a commercial airliner partially powered by biofuel. The 747 flight, scheduled for 2008 or 2009, will not carry passengers The 747 flight is one part of a deal signed by the airline, engine producer Rolls-Royce and aircraft manufacturer Boeing to research greener flying. One of the four engines will run on a mixture of kerosene and a biofuel, and is set for late 2008 or early 2009. But Virgin Atlantic is planning to beat Air New Zealand to the punch by having its own biofuel flight early next year. Air New Zealand's chief executive Rob Fyfe said that advances in technology had made biofuels a viable possibility for use in aviation sooner than anticipated. The New Zealand government recently declared the objective of becoming carbon neutral, and climate change and energy minister David Parker said the national airline's initiative would help achieve that goal. I'm delighted that Air New Zealand has taken the lead by signing up for the first commercial trial of a biofuelled... aircraft, he said. The partnership gave no details of the type of biofuel to be used, but said that the test flight will not carry passengers. ... more, see link ... === -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20071002/d22a41e1/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] The unspoken Holocaust
Hi all, Back again, asking more questions. Read only the last paragraph if the rest enrages you. Shouldn't I just shut up? Regards, Bob. The Destruction of Ethnic Germans and German Prisoners of War in Yugoslavia, 1945-1953 Tomislav Sunic From the European and American media, one can often get the impression that World War II needs to be periodically resurrected to give credibility to financial demands of one specific ethnic group, at the expense of others. The civilian deaths of the war's losing side are, for the most part, glossed over. Standard historiography of World War II is routinely based on a sharp and polemical distinction between the ugly fascists who lost, and the good anti-fascists who won, and few scholars are willing to inquire into the gray ambiguity in between. Even as the events of that war become more distant in time, they seemingly become more politically useful and timely as myths. German military and civilian losses during and especially after World War II are still shrouded by a veil of silence, at least in the mass media, even though an impressive body of scholarly literature exists on that topic. The reasons for this silence, due in large part to academic negligence, are deep rooted and deserve further scholarly inquiry. Why, for instance, are German civilian losses, and particularly the staggering number of postwar losses among ethnic Germans, dealt with so sketchily, if at all, in school history courses? The mass media -- television, newspapers, film and magazines -- rarely, if ever, look at the fate of the millions of German civilians in central and eastern Europe during and following World War II. [1] The treatment of civilian ethnic Germans -- or Volksdeutsche -- in Yugoslavia may be regarded as a classic case of ethnic cleansing on a grand scale. [2] A close look at these mass killings presents a myriad of historical and legal problems, especially when considering modern international law, including the Hague War Crimes Tribunal that has been dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Balkan wars of 1991-1995. Yet the plight of Yugoslavia's ethnic Germans during and after World War II should be of no lesser concern to historians, not least because an understanding of this chapter of history throws a significant light on the violent breakup of Communist Yugoslavia 45 years later. A better understanding of the fate of Yugoslavia's ethnic Germans should encourage skepticism of just how fairly and justly international law is applied in practice. Why are the sufferings and victimhood of some nations or ethnic groups ignored, while the sufferings of other nations and groups receive fulsome and sympathetic attention from the media and politicians? At the outbreak of World War II in 1939, more than one and a half million ethnic Germans were living in southeastern Europe, that is, in Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Romania. Because they lived mostly near and along the Danube river, these people were popularly known Danube Swabians or Donauschwaben. Most were descendants of settlers who came to this fertile region in the 17th and 18th centuries following the liberation of Hungary from Turkish rule. For centuries the Holy Roman Empire and then the Habsburg Empire struggled against Turkish rule in the Balkans, and resisted the Islamization of Europe. In this struggle the Danube Germans were viewed as a rampart of Western civilization, and were held in high esteem in the Austrian (and later, Austro-Hungarian) empire for their agricultural productivity and military prowess. Both the Holy Roman and Habsburg empires were multicultural and multinational entities, in which diverse ethnic groups lived for centuries in relative harmony. After the end of World War I, in 1918, which brought the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg empire, and the imposed Versailles Treaty of 1919, the juridical status of the Donauschwaben Germans was in flux. When the National Socialist regime was established in Germany in 1933, the Donauschwaben were among the more than twelve million ethnic Germans who lived in central and eastern Europe outside the borders of the German Reich. Many of these people were brought into the Reich with the incorporation of Austria in 1938, of the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia in 1939, and of portions of Poland in late 1939. The German question, that is, the struggle for self-determination of ethnic Germans outside the borders of the German Reich, was a major factor leading to the outbreak of World War II. Even after 1939, more than three million ethnic Germans remained outside the borders of the expanded Reich, notably in Romania, Yugoslavia, Hungary and the Soviet Union. In the first Yugoslavia -- a monarchical state created in 1919 largely as
[Biofuel] Engine Temperature and BioDiesel
Hello List, When using a blended bio-diesel (say B30 or any blend) does engine temp. effect performance? With the Cummings 5.9 diesel, it seems that the hotter the day and warmer the engine the better the truck runs. With a B30 blend, there was much better engine performance than running straight diesel. Have other members noticed a difference too? Thanks Tony Marzolino - Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20071003/f9f47df2/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The unspoken Holocaust
Hi Bob Hi all, Back again, asking more questions. Read only the last paragraph if the rest enrages you. Shouldn't I just shut up? :-) Only if you want to. Anyway, it's certainly been very widely ignored (like the gypsy death toll) but it's not quite an unspoken Holocaust, or not anymore. The subject recently got a major airing in the mainstream press, though not in the US, as with so much else. See, eg.: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17596.htm How three million Germans died after VE Day 04/25/07 The Telegraph Nigel Jones reviews After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift by Giles MacDonogh Here's the book (different subtitle in the US version): http://snipurl.com/1rqme Amazon.com: After the Reich: The Brutal History of The Allied Occupation: Books: Giles MacDonogh The Telegraph piece is below. Thanks for posting Sunic's piece. Why are the sufferings and victimhood of some nations or ethnic groups ignored, while the sufferings of other nations and groups receive fulsome and sympathetic attention from the media and politicians? Like I said, some genocides just aren't fashionable. That's an extremely lousy answer, we badly need better answers than that, and taboos and false sacred cows won't help us get them. Best Keith -- How Three Million Germans Died after VE Day Nigel Jones reviews After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift by Giles MacDonogh 04/25/07 The Telegraph -- --- Giles MacDonogh is a bon viveur and a historian of wine and gastronomy, but in this book, pursuing his other consuming interest - German history - he serves a dish to turn the strongest of stomachs. It makes particularly uncomfortable reading for those who compare the disastrous occupation of Iraq unfavourably to the post-war settlement of Germany and Austria. MacDonogh argues that the months that followed May 1945 brought no peace to the shattered skeleton of Hitler's Reich, but suffering even worse than the destruction wrought by the war. After the atrocities that the Nazis had visited on Europe, some degree of justified vengeance by their victims was inevitable, but the appalling bestialities that MacDonogh documents so soberly went far beyond that. The first 200 pages of his brave book are an almost unbearable chronicle of human suffering. His best estimate is that some three million Germans died unnecessarily after the official end of hostilities. A million soldiers vanished before they could creep back to the holes that had been their homes. The majority of them died in Soviet captivity (of the 90,000 who surrendered at Stalingrad, only 5,000 eventually came home) but, shamingly, many thousands perished as prisoners of the Anglo-Americans. Herded into cages along the Rhine, with no shelter and very little food, they dropped like flies. Others, more fortunate, toiled as slave labour in a score of Allied countries, often for years. Incredibly, some Germans were still being held in Russia as late as 1979. The two million German civilians who died were largely the old, women and children: victims of disease, cold, hunger, suicide - and mass murder. Apart from the well-known repeated rape of virtually every girl and woman unlucky enough to be in the Soviet occupation zones, perhaps the most shocking outrage recorded by MacDonogh - for the first time in English - is the slaughter of a quarter of a million Sudeten Germans by their vengeful Czech compatriots. The survivors of this ethnic cleansing, naked and shivering, were pitched across the border, never to return to their homes. Similar scenes were seen across Poland, Silesia and East Prussia as age-old German communities were brutally expunged. Given that what amounted to a lesser Holocaust was unfolding under their noses, it may be asked why the western Allies did not stop this venting of long-dammed-up rage on the (mainly) innocent. MacDonogh's answer is that it could all have been even worse. The US Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, favoured turning Germany into a gigantic farm, and there were genocidal Nazi-like schemes afoot to starve, sterilise or deport the population of what was left of the bombed-out cities. The discovery of the Nazi death camps stoked Allied fury, with General George Patton asking an aide amid the horrors of Buchenwald: 'Do you still find it hard to hate them?' But the surviving inmates were soon replaced by German captives - Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen and even Auschwitz stayed in business after the war, only now with the Germans behind the wire. It was Realpolitik, not humanitarian concern, that caused a swift shift in western attitudes towards their former foes. Fear of Communism spreading into the heart of Europe, and the barbarities of the Russians - who kidnapped and killed hundreds of their perceived enemies from the western zones of Berlin and Vienna - belatedly made the
