[biofuel] Methanol usage and storage ???
x-charset ISO-8859-1Hi All I am in prosses of setting up a Biofuel set up and have been calling around for Methanol prices. The lowest cost I have found is $1.08 per gallon from Bren-Tag (800 577 7245) in Los Angeles and that is for a 55 gallon drum of the stuff deliverd to my door. Which at a 20% per gallon gives me 275 gallons of fuel. But what about storage? This is a highly combusterble item? Do I need to keep it below a certain temp? Idealy I would like to buy a lesser amount but the price zooms up. Any alternative idears or supplyers would be very welcome. Thanks Matthew Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ /x-charset
Re: [biofuel] Re: gasoline
hi, part time racer here.drag racing has a whole class of cars and events that run on nothing but ethanol.they would probably would have no problem buying locally if they could be assured of a consistant product,free of any contaminnants,all across the country.to assure a level playing field.they usually pick one supplier at the start of the season and he supplies all races.if there is any cheating it can quickly found by comparing the supplied fuel with the racers sample. murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks. I particularly like getting these first-handed accounts. Me, I used to live in Califronia. Now I live in AZ. Tie-ing this in with the racing fuel discussion, with this handy list you provide of ethanol plants, it would be nice if a racing series would take a look at it, and, if some racing events are held not too far from ethanol production, they could make a point of using locally-made (locally-grown) fuel. This would put money back into the local economies, rather than sourcing all the fuel and the processing of it from out of state and perhaps out-of-country. This could also be done with electricity of course, as a racing fuel, for hybrid racers or EV racers. On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:04:09 -, you wrote: --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What state? Did you say? Good ole Minnesota. Between Minnesota and Iowa, there is a lot of ethanol produced. The first ethanol plant I saw (and smelled) from a highway was in South Bend, Indiana about a decade ago. I figured Indiana would become a production leader, but I suspect state tax incentive policies don't promote it. Here is a listing of USA ethanol plants: http://www.distillersgrains.com/plantlisting.htm BTW, Iowa ethanol producers infrequently ship whole trainloads of the fuel to California, generally in 80 tank car lots. Ron B. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: Clean oil technology
hi, i'm new to bio diesel,so i may be out of line jumping in here. i have an industrial hydraulics background and i am i am very familar with the process you are describing.one micron is very small.the average human hair is about forty microns in dia.what you need to find out is if the filter system is one micron nominal or absolute.noninal means the filter will trap down to thatsize but may let larger particles through.absolute means just that.nothing over one micron will ever get through. the rest of the system sounds very similar to a system we used to remove water from a unit that used silver plated aircraft bearings.it worked very well but the plates would sludge up and have to be cleaned. good luck Go Hoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A company in my part of the world, Clean oil technology, has just released a system comprising of a 1 micron filter and evaporator claiming to eliminate the need for oil changes. Well, the 1 micron got my curiosity as I am determined to to use wvo in a Lucas Cav pump and I visited their site: http://www.cot.se There is an installation pdf there which explaind how it all works. Since then I have been talking to Ronny Sëâerlund who is on the RD side. He is prepared to answere any questions (but please post copies to the list, so we can all share) if anyone wants to look into this. Oil gets to the evaporator/heater after the filter and is basically sprayed onto a 120á heating plate where moisture is evaporated it then trickles on. The system requires a pump and at 3 bar will give 27 litres per hour - enough I would think for most car applications. Now I don know what the Vormax filters down to or heats up to or indeed what it costs. This thing though doeas get down to 1 micron and heats to 120á - is this too much? Anyway I thought it looked quite interesting - I have no connection to COT I'm just curious. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] biodiesel mixing
Keith, What I am referring to is when you stop mixing with the pump to let the BD settle out the BD in the pipe above and in the pump would also have it's Glycerine settle and with the pump horizontal there is a low point in the vane which I would think Glycerine would settle. That Glycerine would not be drained off and when the pump was switched back on it would mix back in with the BD. By vertically mounting the pump (and above the Gly level) there would be a flow through advantage and the settling Gly would move through the pump and would easily be removed with an addition of a valve at the base (low point) of the plumbing or if designed right flow back into the reactor and removed with the rest of the Glycerine. Because I have not done this before and do not have a processor built I am not sure if the amount of Gly I am talking about is sufficient enough to worry about. However I would like to be able to remove as much GLY as possible from the BD. My pump is a Clear Water one basically the same as you have been referring to and really! if this pump will run vertically I will mount it vertically. I was thinking on getting a Hot water heater for the reactor however the drain point to pump is at the base. You wrote that that point should be further up the side of the reactor. What are you guy's thoughts on this? Does Girl Marks processor work well? What is the best reactor? I want to make one that will do me for years and make high quality BD. Basically I want to get it right from the beginning. PeterR -Original Message- From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 10 March 2004 7:09 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [biofuel] biodiesel mixing Hello Peter Keith Wondering if the Clear water pump should be mounted vertically Not quite sure what you mean, nor if it matters, but ours and others I've seen pictures of have them mounted horizontally, with the inlet at the front and the outlet out the top. and above Glycerine? So that no Glycerine settles in the bottom of it. I don't suppose that would hurt it. Maybe if you use NaOH and the glyc solidifies it might make it hard to start again, but I doubt it. Anyway, I get the idea that the level of the mixing tank outlet to the pump relative to the bottom of the tank is quite important. With our processor (it was previously a kerosene tank, with a convex bottom shaped for optimal drainage) the mixing outlet is set somewhat higher than the level the glycerine by-product cocktail will settle at. That level will vary somewhat according to the oil (and process) you use. Now, there's no agitation in the tank, just circulation - the oil doesn't gush back in at the top in a solid 3/4-inch-thick river to plunge into the top of the oil and splash all over the place, it's gentle, no splashing. All the agitation as such takes place inside the pump. The pump pulls the oil in from the tank outlet, but that's not very violent. As a result, a lot of the glyc cocktail settles out during the processing, which is a Good Thing. I think about half of it settles out before the processing's finished. This does also remove some of the methanol, which is dissolved in the by-product. Aleks Kac's two-stage acid-base process has an optional step of draining off some of the glycerine during the base stage. (The process runs fine without it, he says. It's just a twitch to get higher yield if your processor has a bottom drain.) He said this about it: The process is running on the smallest sensible volume of alcohol. While removing a small portion of it with the byproduct would seem to slow the reaction down, the rather large mass of removed byproduct will tip the scale toward ester production. We find that's the case - the settled out glyc by-product more than offsets any methanol removed, with very satisfactory results overall. So this could be a consideration in setting the height of the tank-to-pump outlet. To test it, I attached a right-angle elbow to the inside of the outlet (inside the tank), pointing up, so the pump could only draw from higher levels of the tank, not taking in any of the settled by-product. This didn't work as well, so I removed the elbow. I wouldn't want to set the outlet any higher in the tank, nor any lower. I said above that about half the by-product settles out during the process, but I think much more than that does, but some of it is constantly being recirculated (along with its methanol content), and this seems to be about optimal. I tried to figure all this out in advance before building the processor. Presuming about 100% production (which we get, using an acid-base process as standard), and 20% total methanol v/v WVO, the amount of by-product will be 20%, or close to it. So if the depth of WVO being processed in the tank is, say, 100 whatevers, the total depth of by-product that will eventually settle at the bottom will be 20 whatevers, or
[biofuel] Re: The Building You're In Fuels Global Warming
x-charset ISO-8859-1--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, bob allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: f150_351m wrote: You can fight over that being right or wrong, or the other benefints to the world outside of the business. You might be right. But to say it won't impact the economics of the business is flat wrong. Ed Yes, and with slavery and child labor, there is full employment. Go business! Hmmm. I read your reply, and said, Huh? Then I had the urge to yell out another factoid unrelated to anything I said, following the apparent new trend. 8^) Finally I realized that, since at least in the US I believe that the unemployment rates are calculated using the numbers of people who are actively seeking employment and slaves/kids both don't count in that classification, then there would be no impact on the official employment numbers. But I'm sure that isn't what you meant. Yes, insert a 8^) again. Oh, I also see that I need to spell check better. Seriously, I'm not understanding you here. I simply stated that no matter if an idea is good or bad, that the odds are when someone says there is no economic impact they just didn't see the impact that certainly exists. Rarely are things free. It almost seems like you have a general anti-business attitude. If so, why? As for the original topic, I got the latest issue of Engineered Systems in the mail today. http://www.esmagazine.com/ It's free, and very interesting to those looking into more energy efficient buildings and building systems. It seems like a good place to see what's leading edge in actual installations. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ /x-charset
[biofuel] Re: How Bush reversed regulatory effort on polluting gas additive
x-charset ISO-8859-1Thanks for the info! I did _not_ know how the regulations were put in place before you gave me the interest to go look to see where I got the wrong idea. I looked into the topic a little more today. Yep, there was no regulation forcing MTBE. Many other chemicals could have been used. MTBE was already in gasoline in smaller percentages as an octane booster, and had the least impact on air quality (best results for the original application). MTBE gave better initial performance, but now we are discovering that it can be detected by taste in extremely small ppm quantities in water, even below what is apparently the damger level for healh issues. Ethanol, the runner-up it seems, gets the reputation of requiring changes in gasoline blending systems, changes in transport, has a high evaporation rate that supposedly causes more smog problems, and has the ability to increase the spread of chemicals like benzine when gasoling enters the water system. We've got better systems now, but back when this was being kicked around for the RFG process it apparently caused some corrosion issues in car fuel systems. Sources do not agree about the financial impact of the changes needed. I also saw differing ideas on the energy efficiency of the production process. I read the discussion here not long ago. OTOH, I found this, Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California-Berkeley, reviews all of the existing studies and provides some new data. Patzek's analysis indicates that as much fossil energy is used to produce corn ethanol as can be gained from it. (p. 9) His analysis more fully takes into account the entire energy chain than the earlier reports from Argonne National Laboratory and the Department of Agriculture did, and suggest that ethanol production and use is not a positive-energy choice. What seems to be near the bottom of the whole issue is the laws in the CAA that were written to require certain oxygen percentages in the fuel. This forces use of a chemical that meets that requirement, not any other possible system that meets the overall emissions goal in the best overall manner. I always worry when laws start to set the exact process, because laws change a lot slower than technology. I'm used to dealing with enviro. laws that require Best Available Technology (BAT). That seems to be a better way to deal with the issue. I thought the best article I found was the simple idea that if you've got an MTBE problem in water, then you have a gasoline problem. It is mmisleading to deal with it just as MTBE by itself. Does that clear up the legal issues around the MTBE fiasco for you? Not for me, either. Seems to me that it could be dealt with using the existing pollution laws. Well, hopefull a more sane set of them than what I see being used many times! If anyone wants some www links to the info I found let me know. Ed --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed, I thought the stuff was used in the first place because it was pretty much required by the federal gov't to meet emissions regulations. No. The requisite was to reduce emissions, not to use a specific product to do so. And the MTBE issue is not a matter of consequences simply as a result of normal use of gasoline. The industry chose MTBE because it met the need for emissions reductions. It also happened to be a product that they were already producing and could easily ramp up on, meaning that they would lose no market share were they to push it rather than other alternatives. And now society gets to once again reap the rewards of an industry lead charge to use a specific product that would be to its own benefit.. You do have the clean-up cost scenario down to rights though. Consumers/taxpayers foot the bill for virtually everything. Todd Swearingen Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ /x-charset
Re: [biofuel] Gas Prices Reach Record Highs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/9/2004 6:40:38 PM Central Standard Time If Battery EVs continue to be conspicuously and unfairly excluded from consideration, based on disingenuous and partly-false claims about lack of demand and lack of performance of advanced batteries and what-not, OK, suppose we mandated 1 Million EVs to be built next year. Amusing premise. I presume you mean the the United States, or some portion thereof, by we mandated. Let's see, during the decade of the 1990's, all of the world's major automakers managed to produce less than 2,000 EVs in response to the CARB mandate. Each of them made comments to the effect that this took a serious and conscientious effort on their part. Today, none of them have an on-road BEV in production. It has been reported that GM, after producing 1,000 EV-1s, have destroyed the means of producing more, and are sending many of those that were built to the crusher as they are returned from leases. In short, there is no way the automakers are going to make 1,000,000 BEVs next year, or permit it to happen. That fight is over. The automakers (and big oil) won. CARB and the planet lost. I suspect Murdoch chose the smarter path in declining to respond to your straw man, yet I can't seem to help myself from responding. They would probably have to use lead-acid batteries, as they are the only off-the-shelf technology available. Sorry, but I disagree. NiMH are available off the shelf today, and are being used by Honda and Toyota in their hybrids. NiCd are available off the shelf, and were being used by Peugeot in their EVs, at least up until last year. NiFe were a mass- produced technology almost a century ago, and are not complicated to build, so could be in mass production from a zero start sooner than the cars that would need them. NiZn are in mass production in China for export to the world and have been used in a small number of EVs. I'm sure there are others, either in production today, proven and no longer mainstream, or waiting in the wings if there were an enticing market. However, I agree that lead-acid will remain a contender for at least part of the EV market. They are already expensive, but what will happen to the price of lead when GM tries to buy another million tons? Lead-acid batteries don't fit my definition of expensive. A car's worth of deep- discharge golf-cart batteries can be had for as little as US$500 - retail. Supposing the batteries last 5 years in regular commuting use (possible with reasonable care, a good charger and reasonable use, i.e. discharge levels). That's $100/year. Probably less than the cost of oil and filter changes on a gasser. I expect the automakers might be able to negotiate a better deal than that. Interesting figure (million tons). At least double what would be required if your premise of 1,000,000 new lead-acid BEVs hit the road in a single year. However, let's suppose the automakers completely surprise me and manage to produce 100,000 on-road EVs in the next five years (requiring they produce EVs at a rate 100 times greater than they have managed at any time in the past 90 years). Further, let's suppose half of those use lead-acid batteries. Let's assume each of those vehicles using lead-acid batteries have 300 kgs of lead in them. Total annual demand - 20,000 vehicles per year x 300 kgs per vehicle = 6,000,000 kgs = 6,000 tonnes. Compared to the current world market for lead; a drop in the bucket. Consider one specific market segment for lead today; automotive accessory batteries. I don't have the accurate figures handy, but let's guess that there are over 50,000,000 new on-road vehicles built each year (world-wide). Each one has a 15 kg (or larger) starting battery, of which about 12 kg is lead. That's 600,000 tonnes, or 100 times the demand of my posited 20,000 BEVs per year. And that doesn't include replacement accessory batteries, or off-road applications (golf- carts, materials handling, airport ground support, existing on-road BEVs, UPS batteries, emergency lighting, recreational market, submarines and on and on). And that doesn't even address uses for lead outside of batteries. If you want to pursue this further, I expect the Lead Industries Association could provide some figures, but I'm not taking the time to chase them down. How will they get the permission to open new lead mines? The environmental impact statements would take years to get thrrough the courts. And the lead smelters? Worse. Not required. See figures above. Battery recycling? We already ship automobile batteries offshore for recycling, because of EPA and OSHA. What will we do with an extra half million tons a year? Same as is done today. Some will get recycled in the U.S., some will get recycled off-shore. How much space will they evacuate when a train hits an
[biofuel] Re: Electricity storage solutions.
x-charset ISO-8859-1When doing the numbers for batteries, remember to include the disposal costs! Getting rid of large battery banks is not easy or cheap. And once you get someone to take them, what are they going to do with the batteries? My experience with industrial UPS batteries is a recommended service life of 5 years. Other battery types, like NiMh, have a service life that is based on the number of charge/discharge cycles from what I can find out. I've never talked directly to the manufacturers about it, though. Perhaps for home use electricity could be stored. Industry juggles loads around so that the heavy loads fall into lower rate time periods. When you've got continuous loads measured in thousands of amps batteries for that take up LOTS of space. Ed Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ /x-charset
Re: [biofuel] Electricity storage solutions.
Hakan, I have done some superficial research, and my preliminary conclusion is that scale is the determining factor. For household-scale energy storage, batteries are the most economic solution for storing electricity. I did some rough calculations, and concluded that with realistic time-of-use pricing (low off-peak - about Cdn$0.03/kWh and high peak prices - about Cdn$0.20/kWh - reflecting hourly market rates - generation, transmission and distribution costs only), then having a day's worth of storage capacity could pay back in my situation - assuming lead-acid golf- cart batteries having a life of five years or more in this application, conventional charger, and inverter was already in place for other reasons (UPS or capturing solar or wind-generated energy). I put in the battery bank when we were promised by our politicians that the time-of- use option was coming. Of course, it never happened. Now, I stock it with batteries that are no longer of sufficient capacity to power EVs, but still have some usable capacity, and only use it as stand-by power when the grid goes away (like last August). At larger scales, if the space is available, pumped storage appears to be the technology of choice for electrical utilities. In specific circumstances, there are other technologies that may be attractive - e.g. composite (super) flywheels Some other household storage options include setback thermostats on electric water heaters (so they go to a higher temp at off-peak times, e.g. 60 C, and lower at peak times, e.g. 50 C - that way the water heater will not turn on during peak periods if no water is used). Similarly, storing heat and coolth in thermal mass during off-peak periods (notably if heat pumps/air conditioners are being used). I have also heard of people putting their refrigerators and freezers on timers so their compressors only run during off-peak periods. There is also time- shifting; running specific appliances (e.g. washing machine, dishwasher) at off- peak times. And of course, my personal favourite - EVs - battery storage on wheels. Darryl McMahon Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am preparing an article about general energy storages and wonder if anyone have calculated the costs for the battery storage part of small energy generation. The more I look at this, the more possibilities opens up, by using storage techniques. It is even more interesting when you look at combinations with renewable energy sources and heat pumps of different kinds. This especially in countries with high electricity costs, like the European ones. The reason why I ask, is to know what could be gained by only a storage solution, by utilizing rate differences. If you have low rate prices, they are normally 50-60% lower than normal rates. With a battery storage solution, would it be feasible to charge during discounted time and that way reduce over all electricity costs? Hakan Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The Building You're In Fuels Global Warming
MM, Most building codes sets minimum life span for buildings to 50 years. This to establish a minimum quality demand in legal disputes. This is on construction, not the installations. Normal renewing of buildings in peace times are between 1 to 2% of the building stock and therefore it takes 50 to 100 years to renew the building stock. It will be a remaining small portion of older buildings, but they are not effecting the average numbers (the same happens to cars). Renovations and renewal of installations, have much shorter cycles and then improvements/changes can be introduced. It seems however to be a large number of more than 50 year old heating systems, still in use in US. Hakan At 03:55 11/03/2004, you wrote: The reason for this is quite simple. Though our country's fleet of autos and light trucks could turn over within about 12 years and be replaced by more efficiently run vehicles, buildings have a lifespan (and energy consumption and emissions pattern) of 50 to 100 years. Something else I want to mention about this article: If you put $50,000 or $100,000 or $200,000 or more into building a home, it should be built to last more than 50 or 100 years, in my view. Some here may be able to amend or differ with my view and educate me. And there's probably a school of thought in sustainable building that it's not necessary to build-to-last. But building a home (or paying someone to do it and buying it from them) is the most trouble many of us go to, to buy a thing in our lives, and there are different schools of thought, it would seem, on how much quality a homebuyer rates. I've heard that wood quality may possibly have declined in some respects, overall. Now, there may be a period of transition as home builders learn or re-think new methods (such as steel), for various reasons. As buyers become more educated, I think if they insist that they rate building quality that will last, they can communicate this in their buying decisions? Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Electricity storage solutions.
Call it biofuel, energy storage, say from burning wvo. On what basis then could you discount the alternative of hot water storage in large, insulated tanks if the energy is to be spent in an hydronic system for a combination of space heating, swimming pool heating, and heating the driveway for snow and ice removal? Glenn Ellis Hakan, I have done some superficial research, and my preliminary conclusion is that scale is the determining factor. For household-scale energy storage, batteries are the most economic solution for storing electricity. I did some rough calculations [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] The Building You're In Fuels Global Warming
The reason for this is quite simple. Though our country's fleet of autos and light trucks could turn over within about 12 years and be replaced by more efficiently run vehicles, buildings have a lifespan (and energy consumption and emissions pattern) of 50 to 100 years. Something else I want to mention about this article: If you put $50,000 or $100,000 or $200,000 or more into building a home, it should be built to last more than 50 or 100 years, in my view. Some here may be able to amend or differ with my view and educate me. And there's probably a school of thought in sustainable building that it's not necessary to build-to-last. But building a home (or paying someone to do it and buying it from them) is the most trouble many of us go to, to buy a thing in our lives, and there are different schools of thought, it would seem, on how much quality a homebuyer rates. I've heard that wood quality may possibly have declined in some respects, overall. Now, there may be a period of transition as home builders learn or re-think new methods (such as steel), for various reasons. As buyers become more educated, I think if they insist that they rate building quality that will last, they can communicate this in their buying decisions? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Electricity storage solutions.
on 3/10/04 6:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Call it biofuel, energy storage, say from burning wvo. On what basis then could you discount the alternative of hot water storage in large, insulated tanks if the energy is to be spent in an hydronic system for a combination of space heating, swimming pool heating, and heating the driveway for snow and ice removal? Amory Lovins has a lot to say about all this -- let me try to paraphrase (IIRC) without doing him insult. There's low quality and hi quality energy. I think it's related to the delta-T: difference between source temp. and intended use temp. The best solution is always to use a source temp. just enough higher than the sink temp. to provide the proper SPEED of energy transfer. If hot rocks will cook yer soup in an acceptable time, concentrated solar at 2000 deg. is stupid. OTOH, if yer trying to melt zirconium, even the best geothermal might not be sufficient.. -K Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] excellent in-depth response from Darryl
Darryl: I thought this response you put forth came out nicely and that Martin's made sense too. You put some work into it, and I'm going to forward to the evworld.com group. I don't mind that some folks disagree, but I just don't react well to worthwhile ideas being dismissed wholesale without any real honest consideration. I can't field a response as good as the one you gave. An offbeat aside: while fans of faster EVs may look down their nose at most of the NEV efforts as having been obviously partly a sham put on by the car companies to get out of building faster EVs, when I spoke to a GEM rep at EVS20, it became clear that they were saying things were going quite well, and they were looking at modifying and improving things, and maybe leaving the door open for faster vehicles in the future. Their sales are not so paltry evidently a few thousand per year is enough for them to be in the black or claim to be near it, and so a few thousand more GEM EVs are (I guess) hitting the roads in the States each year. Maybe not what we had in mind when we were wowed by an EV1 or a RAV4 EV, but many are in the hands of satisfied customers nonetheless. MM On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:35:06 -0500, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/9/2004 6:40:38 PM Central Standard Time If Battery EVs continue to be conspicuously and unfairly excluded from consideration, based on disingenuous and partly-false claims about lack of demand and lack of performance of advanced batteries and what-not, OK, suppose we mandated 1 Million EVs to be built next year. Amusing premise. I presume you mean the the United States, or some portion thereof, by we mandated. Let's see, during the decade of the 1990's, all of the world's major automakers managed to produce less than 2,000 EVs in response to the CARB mandate. Each of them made comments to the effect that this took a serious and conscientious effort on their part. Today, none of them have an on-road BEV in production. It has been reported that GM, after producing 1,000 EV-1s, have destroyed the means of producing more, and are sending many of those that were built to the crusher as they are returned from leases. In short, there is no way the automakers are going to make 1,000,000 BEVs next year, or permit it to happen. That fight is over. The automakers (and big oil) won. CARB and the planet lost. I suspect Murdoch chose the smarter path in declining to respond to your straw man, yet I can't seem to help myself from responding. They would probably have to use lead-acid batteries, as they are the only off-the-shelf technology available. Sorry, but I disagree. NiMH are available off the shelf today, and are being used by Honda and Toyota in their hybrids. NiCd are available off the shelf, and were being used by Peugeot in their EVs, at least up until last year. NiFe were a mass- produced technology almost a century ago, and are not complicated to build, so could be in mass production from a zero start sooner than the cars that would need them. NiZn are in mass production in China for export to the world and have been used in a small number of EVs. I'm sure there are others, either in production today, proven and no longer mainstream, or waiting in the wings if there were an enticing market. However, I agree that lead-acid will remain a contender for at least part of the EV market. They are already expensive, but what will happen to the price of lead when GM tries to buy another million tons? Lead-acid batteries don't fit my definition of expensive. A car's worth of deep- discharge golf-cart batteries can be had for as little as US$500 - retail. Supposing the batteries last 5 years in regular commuting use (possible with reasonable care, a good charger and reasonable use, i.e. discharge levels). That's $100/year. Probably less than the cost of oil and filter changes on a gasser. I expect the automakers might be able to negotiate a better deal than that. Interesting figure (million tons). At least double what would be required if your premise of 1,000,000 new lead-acid BEVs hit the road in a single year. However, let's suppose the automakers completely surprise me and manage to produce 100,000 on-road EVs in the next five years (requiring they produce EVs at a rate 100 times greater than they have managed at any time in the past 90 years). Further, let's suppose half of those use lead-acid batteries. Let's assume each of those vehicles using lead-acid batteries have 300 kgs of lead in them. Total annual demand - 20,000 vehicles per year x 300 kgs per vehicle = 6,000,000 kgs = 6,000 tonnes. Compared to the current world market for lead; a drop in the bucket. Consider one specific market segment for lead today; automotive accessory batteries. I don't have the accurate figures handy, but let's guess that there are over 50,000,000 new on-road
Re: [biofuel] Electricity storage solutions.
Glenn, I do not think that water storage was excluded. Darryl also mentioned the building mass, which most people forget. It is solutions with storing heat in water and at the same time wasteful systems who are working on eliminating the influence of building mass. The discussion was about storing electricity and the possibility to use the difference between peak and off peak pricing to pay for an electricity storage, which then also can be used for other purposes like small solar, wind and hydro generation. Hakan At 03:52 11/03/2004, you wrote: Call it biofuel, energy storage, say from burning wvo. On what basis then could you discount the alternative of hot water storage in large, insulated tanks if the energy is to be spent in an hydronic system for a combination of space heating, swimming pool heating, and heating the driveway for snow and ice removal? Glenn Ellis Hakan, I have done some superficial research, and my preliminary conclusion is that scale is the determining factor. For household-scale energy storage, batteries are the most economic solution for storing electricity. I did some rough calculations Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Biodiesel Equipment Building workshop, Santa Cruz, CA, April 10 and 11th
x-charset ISO-8859-1I won't be surprised if she's not aware. She's in the US and you're in the Philippines. Don't forget that we're global here. regards, ct =-Original Message- =From: Romy Miranda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] =Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:44 AM =To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com =Subject: Re: [biofuel] Biodiesel Equipment Building workshop, Santa =Cruz, CA, April 10 and 11th = = =hi girl mark. are you aware of the biodiesel company? and =president arroyo signed a memorandum that all government vehicles =must use this product? any relation to that company? = =thanks. = =romy = =girl mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: =I'm running a biodiesel equipment building Intensive class two =days- April =10th and 11th, 10 am-5 pm, Santa Cruz. =To register and for location, please email me at =[EMAIL PROTECTED] = =this is a hands-on class where we'll build: = =-A `fumeless' enclosed processor which can be converted to a =methanol recovery still. Parts cost is $120-$150 for this unit = =-A standpipe wash tank built out of a drum. Parts cost: $30 = =-A utility or mixing pump built out of a washing machine motor =and an automotive oil pump. Parts cost: $10 = =-A couple of methanol recovery condensors- a counterflow heat exchanger =cooled by water, and a coil-type condensor coil built with flare =fittings. =Parts cost: $20 or so. = =-A polyethylene tube 'aerator' for use with bubblewashing in place of =breakdown-prone aquarium air stones(parts cost: $5) = =-possibly a barrel-based reactor for those unable to find a cheap =electric =water heater = =-mistwashing equipment = =-pressure testing rig for equipment experiments = =-inline electric heater = = =In addition there will be a full discussion and a demonstration of =biodiesel equipment design parameters. The syllabus will cover: = =heating (including solar heating discussion) =pumps and material handling =agitation =separation =methanol recovery =heat exchangers and heat integration =washing techniques =secondary containment =materials compatibility with the processes used in biodiesel making =welded versus non-welded designs =reactor design that can be adapted to any style of tank =dewatering of oil and washed biodiesel =beginner 5-gallon reactor ideas =elementary wiring =elementary plumbing = =This is a two-day class and both discussion and equipment building will =take place both days. = =Those who wish to build their own equipment at this workshop =should get in =touch with me now to arrange parts availability (to prevent logistical =nightmare for me later in collecting all this complicated stuff). = = I can pick up all of the hardware, but you would have to =arrange your own =vehicle to pick up of your reactor or other large piece from the =workshop site. = =Bring a pipe wrench if you have one or other plumbing/wiring tools. = =Contact instructor by April 5th if you are interested in building =your own =unit at this workshop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] = =A general biodiesel instruction manual is also available for an =additional =$7 at the workshop = =For photos of the processor designs, please see: =www.veggieavenger.com/media = = = = = = = =[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] = = = = =Biofuel at Journey to Forever: =http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html = =Biofuels list archives: =http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ = =Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. =To unsubscribe, send an email to: =[EMAIL PROTECTED] = = = =- =Yahoo! Groups Links = = To visit your group on the web, go to: =http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ = = To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: =[EMAIL PROTECTED] = = Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. = = = =- =Do you Yahoo!? =Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. = =[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] = = = = =Biofuel at Journey to Forever: =http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html = =Biofuels list archives: =http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ = =Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. =To unsubscribe, send an email to: =[EMAIL PROTECTED] =Yahoo! Groups Links = = = = = Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ /x-charset
Re: [biofuel] Electricity storage solutions.
Thanks, Hakan. Glenn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Molecular formular
Hi all. Just been on a weekend biodiesel corse at LILLI www.lowimpact.org and after reading up on the subject for about a year the hands on experiance has given me the confidence to have a go. Its the only course avalable in the uk as far as i know , it was a realy good experiance and met some really intresting people. Question. looking on chemical supply websites they offer methanol with a molecular formular CH 40. On Mike Pellys recipie he uses CH 30H. Id say it was the same stuff.Is this just an American/English terminology thing? Or is it a different grade or methanol. Cheers Myke Bristol UK. - Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Semi tractors bio or SVO
Has anyone had experience or know of anything about running semi tractors with the big 400 to 600 hp Cat, Detroit, or Cummins engines on bio diesel or SVO. Would they be any different than running a car diesel engine on bio or SVO? I only ask because it seems that semi tractors consume LARGE amounts of fuel per year. I have a friend that drives truck long haul and he is happy and brags about getting 5.7 MPG, and he runs 150K miles plus per year. Thats over 26,000 gallons of dirty, polluting diesel a year. And he's only one rig...and theres how many thousands of big rigs on the road. It would seem to make sense if those thousands of big engines can be run on bio or SVO it should be done...something that is cleaner and can be home grown in USA, instead of having to import everything from Mid East. Any thoughts, comments, or experiences would be nice. Thanks Brett - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Molecular formular
Howdy Michael, there is no difference implied or real in the two formulas. The both say that methanol is comprised of of one carbon, one oxygen and four hydrogens. The second formula, CH3OH, is merely giving information how the various atoms are connected together. The carbon atom has three hydrogens attached directly and one hydrogen is connected to the oxygen which itself is connected to the carbon. michael hicks wrote: Hi all. Just been on a weekend biodiesel corse at LILLI www.lowimpact.org and after reading up on the subject for about a year the hands on experiance has given me the confidence to have a go. Its the only course avalable in the uk as far as i know , it was a realy good experiance and met some really intresting people. Question. looking on chemical supply websites they offer methanol with a molecular formular CH 40. On Mike Pellys recipie he uses CH 30H. Id say it was the same stuff.Is this just an American/English terminology thing? Or is it a different grade or methanol. Cheers Myke Bristol UK. - Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links -- -- Bob Allen,http://ozarker.org/bob -- - The modern conservative is engaged in one of Man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness JKG --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Electricity storage solutions.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (regarding my response to Hakan's post): Call it biofuel, energy storage, say from burning wvo. On what basis then could you discount the alternative of hot water storage in large, insulated tanks if the energy is to be spent in an hydronic system for a combination of space heating, swimming pool heating, and heating the driveway for snow and ice removal? Glenn Ellis Hakan, I have done some superficial research, and my preliminary conclusion is that scale is the determining factor. For household-scale energy storage, batteries are the most economic solution for storing electricity. I did some rough calculations [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] I don't think I discounted hot water storage, however, I don't think it addresses the original topic - Electricity storage solutions - (on which I was definitely pushing the envelope already). Actually, I specifically mentioned electric hot water heaters and thermal mass. I was limiting myself to things where electricity is (at least in some cases) used and expanding on utilization techniques as forms of storage, rather than just conventional storage. The techniques you refer to are good and proven ideas for thermal energy storage, I just hadn't expanded the scope of the discussion that far. I have pasted in the original message for reference. === Hakan, I have done some superficial research, and my preliminary conclusion is that scale is the determining factor. For household-scale energy storage, batteries are the most economic solution for storing electricity. I did some rough calculations, and concluded that with realistic time-of-use pricing (low off-peak - about Cdn$0.03/kWh and high peak prices - about Cdn$0.20/kWh - reflecting hourly market rates - generation, transmission and distribution costs only), then having a day's worth of storage capacity could pay back in my situation - assuming lead-acid golf- cart batteries having a life of five years or more in this application, conventional charger, and inverter was already in place for other reasons (UPS or capturing solar or wind-generated energy). I put in the battery bank when we were promised by our politicians that the time-of- use option was coming. Of course, it never happened. Now, I stock it with batteries that are no longer of sufficient capacity to power EVs, but still have some usable capacity, and only use it as stand-by power when the grid goes away (like last August). At larger scales, if the space is available, pumped storage appears to be the technology of choice for electrical utilities. In specific circumstances, there are other technologies that may be attractive - e.g. composite (super) flywheels Some other household storage options include setback thermostats on electric water heaters (so they go to a higher temp at off-peak times, e.g. 60 C, and lower at peak times, e.g. 50 C - that way the water heater will not turn on during peak periods if no water is used). Similarly, storing heat and coolth in thermal mass during off-peak periods (notably if heat pumps/air conditioners are being used). I have also heard of people putting their refrigerators and freezers on timers so their compressors only run during off-peak periods. There is also time- shifting; running specific appliances (e.g. washing machine, dishwasher) at off- peak times. And of course, my personal favourite - EVs - battery storage on wheels. Darryl McMahon Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am preparing an article about general energy storages and wonder if anyone have calculated the costs for the battery storage part of small energy generation. The more I look at this, the more possibilities opens up, by using storage techniques. It is even more interesting when you look at combinations with renewable energy sources and heat pumps of different kinds. This especially in countries with high electricity costs, like the European ones. The reason why I ask, is to know what could be gained by only a storage solution, by utilizing rate differences. If you have low rate prices, they are normally 50-60% lower than normal rates. With a battery storage solution, would it be feasible to charge during discounted time and that way reduce over all electricity costs? Hakan Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Methanol Price correction
x-charset ISO-8859-1My quote for the Methanol price yesterday was wrong. A 55 Gallon drum of the stuff is in fact about $225 for one drum plus $25 deposit on the drum plus shiping and tax. So it ends up being about $300 per drum or $5.50 per gallon. If the mix requiers 20% methanol that makes the finished Bio Diesel product at about $1.30 per gallon, including power for distilation etc. And so do any of you intreped people out there have a cheaper source for Methanol??? And is more or less combusterble than Gas/Petrol for storage etc Any help or comments would be great. Thanks Matthew (trying in LA to preach the Bio Diesel message, harder than you think in this car town) Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ /x-charset
Re: [biofuel] Molecular formular
Thanks Bob. Thats alot clearer. Myke bob allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy Michael, there is no difference implied or real in the two formulas. The both say that methanol is comprised of of one carbon, one oxygen and four hydrogens. The second formula, CH3OH, is merely giving information how the various atoms are connected together. The carbon atom has three hydrogens attached directly and one hydrogen is connected to the oxygen which itself is connected to the carbon. michael hicks wrote: Hi all. Just been on a weekend biodiesel corse at LILLI www.lowimpact.org and after reading up on the subject for about a year the hands on experiance has given me the confidence to have a go. Its the only course avalable in the uk as far as i know , it was a realy good experiance and met some really intresting people. Question. looking on chemical supply websites they offer methanol with a molecular formular CH 40. On Mike Pellys recipie he uses CH 30H. Id say it was the same stuff.Is this just an American/English terminology thing? Or is it a different grade or methanol. Cheers Myke Bristol UK. - Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links -- -- Bob Allen,http://ozarker.org/bob -- - The modern conservative is engaged in one of Man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness JKG --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links - Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Nitromethane fuel question
spriggsbororon wrote: Back in the 1960's, I attended a few drag races (1/4 mile event) at the drag strip. The fuelers used 'nitro'. When I would get a pit pass and walk by the rails and funny cars, the odor would clean out my nostrils (Whew!). When I asked various non-racing people afterwards how much nitro was used, I got different answers from a few drops to 100% nitro. One time I went to the drag strip at the beginning of the season when the temperature was about 40-45 degrees F. The fuelers ran real rough, missing and even stalling. A bystander said that it was probably too cold outside to run the nitro fuel. Any input on nitromethane as a fuel compared to others, or is it really the same as other alcohol fuels you mention, but with a fancy name? Nitromethane is an explosive. It can also be used as monopropellant rocket fuel. As one guy put it You can put your cigarette out in it, but if you hit it with a hammer it'll explode. Top fuelers mix it with methanol to dilute it down to their desired power level according to atmospheric conditions. It's nasty stuff, and IMHO, best avoided. AP Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Biodiesel Equipment Building workshop, Santa Cruz, CA, April 10 and 11th
My mistake. =) Thanks and regards too. romy Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I won't be surprised if she's not aware. She's in the US and you're in the Philippines. Don't forget that we're global here. regards, ct =-Original Message- =From: Romy Miranda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] =Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:44 AM =To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com =Subject: Re: [biofuel] Biodiesel Equipment Building workshop, Santa =Cruz, CA, April 10 and 11th = = =hi girl mark. are you aware of the biodiesel company? and =president arroyo signed a memorandum that all government vehicles =must use this product? any relation to that company? = =thanks. = =romy = =girl mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: =I'm running a biodiesel equipment building Intensive class two =days- April =10th and 11th, 10 am-5 pm, Santa Cruz. =To register and for location, please email me at =[EMAIL PROTECTED] = =this is a hands-on class where we'll build: = =-A `fumeless' enclosed processor which can be converted to a =methanol recovery still. Parts cost is $120-$150 for this unit = =-A standpipe wash tank built out of a drum. Parts cost: $30 = =-A utility or mixing pump built out of a washing machine motor =and an automotive oil pump. Parts cost: $10 = =-A couple of methanol recovery condensors- a counterflow heat exchanger =cooled by water, and a coil-type condensor coil built with flare =fittings. =Parts cost: $20 or so. = =-A polyethylene tube 'aerator' for use with bubblewashing in place of =breakdown-prone aquarium air stones(parts cost: $5) = =-possibly a barrel-based reactor for those unable to find a cheap =electric =water heater = =-mistwashing equipment = =-pressure testing rig for equipment experiments = =-inline electric heater = = =In addition there will be a full discussion and a demonstration of =biodiesel equipment design parameters. The syllabus will cover: = =heating (including solar heating discussion) =pumps and material handling =agitation =separation =methanol recovery =heat exchangers and heat integration =washing techniques =secondary containment =materials compatibility with the processes used in biodiesel making =welded versus non-welded designs =reactor design that can be adapted to any style of tank =dewatering of oil and washed biodiesel =beginner 5-gallon reactor ideas =elementary wiring =elementary plumbing = =This is a two-day class and both discussion and equipment building will =take place both days. = =Those who wish to build their own equipment at this workshop =should get in =touch with me now to arrange parts availability (to prevent logistical =nightmare for me later in collecting all this complicated stuff). = = I can pick up all of the hardware, but you would have to =arrange your own =vehicle to pick up of your reactor or other large piece from the =workshop site. = =Bring a pipe wrench if you have one or other plumbing/wiring tools. = =Contact instructor by April 5th if you are interested in building =your own =unit at this workshop: [EMAIL PROTECTED] = =A general biodiesel instruction manual is also available for an =additional =$7 at the workshop = =For photos of the processor designs, please see: =www.veggieavenger.com/media = = = = = = = =[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] = = = = =Biofuel at Journey to Forever: =http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html = =Biofuels list archives: =http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ = =Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. =To unsubscribe, send an email to: =[EMAIL PROTECTED] = = = =- =Yahoo! Groups Links = = To visit your group on the web, go to: =http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ = = To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: =[EMAIL PROTECTED] = = Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. = = = =- =Do you Yahoo!? =Yahoo! Search - Find what you re looking for faster. = =[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] = = = = =Biofuel at Journey to Forever: =http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html = =Biofuels list archives: =http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ = =Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. =To unsubscribe, send an email to: =[EMAIL PROTECTED] =Yahoo! Groups Links = = = = = Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [biofuel] biodiesel mixing
Hello Rick Hi Keith, I want to set up a pump system like you have been talking about. Right now I am using the stir method. My tank in not completely sealed and I am slowly pouring the Methoxide (sp) in as it mixes then putting the lid back on while it stirs. Why not do it like this? http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor5.html#methadd I am making about 10 gal of finished Biodiesel at a time with this set up. My question is can you send me some pics of your set up so I can see and not just read how you are doing it? Sorry, no, I'm not ready to do that yet. I'll put it on our website eventually, when I get that far. Have a look at Mark's set-up with the $150 Fumeless Processor, similar in some ways, though not in a lot of others, but using the same pump: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor8.html Best Keith So far my way is working but I am sure your way is safer and probably a lot easier. Thanks Rick M Brownstown, Mi. Anyway, I get the idea that the level of the mixing tank outlet to the pump relative to the bottom of the tank is quite important. With our processor (it was previously a kerosene tank, with a convex bottom shaped for optimal drainage) the mixing outlet is set somewhat higher than the level the glycerine by-product cocktail will settle at. That level will vary somewhat according to the oil (and process) you use. Now, there's no agitation in the tank, just circulation - the oil doesn't gush back in at the top in a solid 3/4-inch-thick river to plunge into the top of the oil and splash all over the place, it's gentle, no splashing. All the agitation as such takes place inside the pump. The pump pulls the oil in from the tank outlet, but that's not very violent. As a result, a lot of the glyc cocktail settles out during the processing, which is a Good Thing. I think about half of it settles out before the processing's finished. This does also remove some of the methanol, which is dissolved in the by-product. Aleks Kac's two-stage acid-base process has an optional step of draining off some of the glycerine during the base stage. (The process runs fine without it, he says. It's just a twitch to get higher yield if your processor has a bottom drain.) He said this about it: The process is running on the smallest sensible volume of alcohol. While removing a small portion of it with the byproduct would seem to slow the reaction down, the rather large mass of removed byproduct will tip the scale toward ester production. We find that's the case - the settled out glyc by-product more than offsets any methanol removed, with very satisfactory results overall. So this could be a consideration in setting the height of the tank-to-pump outlet. To test it, I attached a right-angle elbow to the inside of the outlet (inside the tank), pointing up, so the pump could only draw from higher levels of the tank, not taking in any of the settled by-product. This didn't work as well, so I removed the elbow. I wouldn't want to set the outlet any higher in the tank, nor any lower. I said above that about half the by-product settles out during the process, but I think much more than that does, but some of it is constantly being recirculated (along with its methanol content), and this seems to be about optimal. I tried to figure all this out in advance before building the processor. Presuming about 100% production (which we get, using an acid-base process as standard), and 20% total methanol v/v WVO, the amount of by-product will be 20%, or close to it. So if the depth of WVO being processed in the tank is, say, 100 whatevers, the total depth of by-product that will eventually settle at the bottom will be 20 whatevers, or close to it. I decided to centre the tank-to-pump outlet (1 OD) at 30 whatevers from the bottom. It was kind of random - I didn't know how much the pump would pull nor quite a lot of other things, but by dumb luck it seems to be about right, I don't want to change it. This might not be very useful though - that works for the Harbor Freight 1 clear water pump with this particular size and shape of processor. FWIW it's a 90-litre tank, the diameter is 17.5 inches (44.5 cm) and we process 60-litre batches. (There's also a holding tank and two wash-tanks, which effectively doubles the capacity. We didn't want a bigger processor - this one's a useful size and the processor and one wash-tank can easily be loaded into our van so we can take them to demos and so on.) HTH - best Keith Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives:
Re: [biofuel] Re: How Bush reversed regulatory effort on polluting gas additive
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 06:20:35 -, you wrote: I realize that, often, the fed govt 'interferes' in state laws-constitutions. The reverse is not true. The wishes of states, are not compelling on the fed gov't. In the matter of MTBE, the US congress(or a fed agency,under congressional direction) has jurisdiction over federal policy. The states are free to act, I'm not sure that's true. Some states have been trying to rid themselves of MTBE use for a long time now if I'm not mistaken. More, they are required by federal law to meet some air quality standards. I'm not sure if that means mandating an Oxygenate or not. More, they are up against the fuel makers and distributors who by this point generally have a de facto statewide and nationwide monopoly or oligopoly situation, and who seem to have favored their own industry's product (MTBE) over being required to carry a percentage of a competing industry's product. In any event, I seem to recall some very clear efforts by Vermont or some such state many years (decades) ago to prevent MTBE infestation, that were thwarted in some way. Maybe it was lobbying, I don't know. States are seeing and are going to see costs to the MTBE problem, which they started using because of Federal laws regarding air quality. We'll see if the Federal Government picks up the tab or not. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Connecticut versus Biodiesel
Below is the text of a bill filed in Connecticut that will apparently stifle the development of biodiesel through the regulation of any production of the fuel or any biodiesel mixes that could be sold or used in the state. This is similar, but far worse than the misguided approach of the regulators in California. For motivations unknown, these people are planning to ban the sale of anything more concentrated than B20, and even that may be illegal. The problem is that any blend of diesel and biodiesel must meet the specification for diesel, which is not possible at higher concentrations of biodiesel. This shows up in the viscosity and aromatics areas, and possibly others. The details are buried in obscure California codes, and I haven't found them all out yet. Please note that homebrewers would be illegal under this regulations unless they had approximately $850 of testing on every batch they produce. If a single quart of this fuel is produced, even for one's own use, it would be illegal unless official testing was submitted to the government, certified by corporate officers, on a monthly basis. This bill has been filed and will soon be enacted. It will stop any biodiesel work in the state. STATE OF CONNECTICUT AN ACT CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BIODIESEL FUEL. Connecticut Seal Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened Effective October 1, 2004 (a) As used in this section, biodiesel fuel means a diesel fuel substitute that is produced from nonpetroleum renewable resources and blended fuel means a blend of biodiesel fuel and diesel fuel. (b) No person shall sell or offer for sale biodiesel fuel unless such fuel meets the following requirements: (1) The sulfur content standards for diesel fuel set forth in title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, section 2281; (2) The aromatic hydrocarbon content of diesel fuel set forth in title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, section 2282; (3) The requirements of the alternative fuel transportation program set forth in 10 CFR, Part 490; and (4) The specifications established by the American Society for Testing and Materials standard D6751, the Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel. (c) No person shall sell or offer for sale blended fuel unless such fuel meets the following requirements: (1) The biodiesel fuel portion of the blended fuel meets the requirements set forth in subsection (b) of this section; (2) The blended fuel meets the specifications established by the American Society for Testing and Materials standard D975, the Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils; and (3) The blended fuel does not have a sulfur content of more than five hundred parts per million. (d) Not later than the fifteenth day of each month, any person who produces biodiesel fuel or blended fuel in this state or produces biodiesel fuel or blended fuel for sale in this state shall provide to the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, on a form prescribed by the commissioner, the following information, by batch: (1) For blended fuel, the percentage of biodiesel fuel within the blend; (2) The volume of the biodiesel fuel or blended fuel; (3) For biodiesel fuel or the biodiesel fuel portion of the blended fuel, the results of the analysis for the parameters established by the American Society for Testing and Materials standard D6751, the Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel; and (4) For blended fuel, the results of the analysis of the diesel fuel portion of the blended fuel for the following parameters, as established by the American Society for Testing and Materials standard D975, the Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils: (A) Sulfur content; (B) Aromatic hydrocarbon content; (C) Cetane number; (D) Specific gravity; (E) American Petroleum Institute Gravity; and (F) The temperatures at which ten per cent, fifty per cent and ninety per cent of the diesel fuel boiled off during distillation. (e) The information contained in the form submitted pursuant to subsection (d) of this section shall be attested to as true by a corporate officer who is responsible for operations at the production facility. (f) Any person who sells or offers for sale blended fuel shall label dispensers at which the blended fuel is dispensed in such a manner to notify other persons of the percentage of biodiesel fuel in such blended fuel, by volume. This act shall take effect as follows: Section 1 October 1, 2004 Statement of Purpose: To provide standards for the regulation of biodiesel fuel and biodiesel fuel that is blended with diesel fuel. Proposed deletions are enclosed in brackets. Proposed additions are indicated by underline, except that when the entire text of a bill or resolution or a section of a bill or resolution is new, it is not underlined. - Homestead Inc. www.yellowbiodiesel.com [Non-text portions of this message
[biofuel] Iraq and the Problem of Peak Oil
x-charset ISO-8859-1http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2004/01/20040118.php No 1, 2004 08 Mar 2004, 08:29 PM Iraq and the Problem of Peak Oil by F. William Engdahl Today, much of the world is convinced the Bush Administration did not wage war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein because of threat from weapons of mass destruction, nor from terror dangers. Still a puzzle, however, is why Washington would risk so much in terms of relations with its allies and the entire world, to occupy Iraq. There is compelling evidence that oil and geopolitics lie at the heart of the still-hidden reasons for the military action in Iraq. It is increasingly clear that the US occupation of Iraq is about control of global oil resources. Control, however, in a situation where world oil supplies are far more limited than most of the world has been led to believe. If the following is accurate, the Iraq war is but the first in a major battle over global energy resources, a battle which will be more intense than any oil war to date. The stakes are highest. It is about fixing who will get how much oil for their economy at what price and who not. Never has such a choke-hold on the world economy been in the hands of one power. After occupation of Iraq it appears it is. The era of cheap, abundant oil, which has supported world economic growth for more than three quarters of a century, is most probably at or past its absolute peak, according to leading independent oil geologists. If this analysis is accurate, the economic and social consequences will be staggering. This reality is being hidden from general discussion by the oil multinationals and major government agencies, above all by the United States government. Oil companies have a vested interest in hiding the truth in order to keep the price of getting new oil as low as possible. The US government has a strategic interest in keeping the rest of the world from realising how critical the problem has become. According to the best estimates of a number of respected international geologists, including the French Petroleum Institute, Colorado School of Mines, Uppsala University and Petroconsultants in Geneva, the world will likely feel the impact of the peaking of most of the present large oil fields and the dramatic fall in supply by the end of this decade, 2010, or possibly even several years sooner. At that point, the world economy will face shocks which will make the oil price rises of the 1970's pale by contrast. In other words, we face a major global energy shortage for the prime fuel of our entire economy within about seven years. Peak oil The problem in oil production is not how much reserves are underground. There the numbers are more encouraging. The problem comes when large oilfields such as Prudhoe Bay Alaska or the fields of the North Sea pass their peak output. Much like a bell curve, oil fields rise to a maximum output or peak. The peak is the point when half the oil has been extracted. In terms of reserves remaining it may seem there is still ample oil. But it is not as rosy as it seems. The oil production may hold at the peak output for a number of years before beginning a slow decline. Once the peak is past however, the decline can become very rapid. Past the peak, there is still oil, but each barrel becomes more difficult to exploit, and more costly, as internal well pressures decline or other problems make recovery more expensive for each barrel. The oil is there but not at all easy to extract. The cost of each barrel past peak is increasingly higher as artificial means are employed to extract it. After a certain point it becomes uneconomical to continue to try to extract this peak oil. Because most oil companies and agencies such as the US Department of Energy speak not of peak oil, but of total reserves, the world has a false sense of energy supply security. The truth is anything but secure. Case studies Some recent cases make the point. In 1991 the largest discovery in the Western Hemisphere since the 1970's, was found at Cruz Beana in Columbia. But its production went from 500,000 barrels a day to 200,000 barrels in 2002. In the mid-1980's the Forty Field in North Sea produced 500,000 barrels a day. Today it yields 50,000 barrels. One of the largest discoveries of the past 40 years, Prudhoe Bay, produced some 1.5 million barrels a day for almost 12 years. In 1989 it peaked, and today gives only 350,000 barrels daily. The giant Russian Samotlor field produced a peak of 3,500,000 barrels a day. It has now dropped to 325,000 a day. In each of these fields, production has been kept up by spending more and more to inject gas or water to maintain field pressures, or other means to pump the quantity of oil. The world's largest oil field, Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, produces near 60% of all Saudi oil, some 4.5 million barrels per day. To achieve this, geologists report that the Saudis must inject 7
[biofuel] How California's energy scam was inextricably linked to a war foroil scheme
x-charset ISO-8859-1http://www.yuricareport.com/PoliticalAnalysis/FraudinWhiteHouse.htm YURICA REPORT: Fraud Traced to the White House News Intelligence Analysis Fraud Traced to the White House How California's energy scam was inextricably linked to a war for oil scheme __ By Katherine Yurica This story begins with the California energy crisis, which started in 2000 and continued through the early months of 2001, when electricity prices spiked to their highest levels. Prices went from $12 per megawatt hour in 1998 to $200 in December 2000 to $250 in January 2001, and at times a megawatt cost $1,000. One event occurred earlier. On July 13, 1998, employees of one of the two power-marketing centers in California watched incredulously as the wholesale price of $1 a megawatt hour spiked to $9,999, stayed at that price for four hours, then dropped to a penny. Someone was testing the system to find the limits of market exploitation. This incident was the earliest indication that the people and the state could become victims of fraud. The Sacramento Bee broke the story three years later, on May 6, 2001. Today, Californians are still paying the costs of the debacle while according to state officials the power companies who manipulated the energy markets reaped more than $7.5 billion in unfair profits. During those early months of the Bush administration, and even during the prior transition period, Dick Cheney was deeply involved in gathering information for a national energy policy. The intelligence he gathered would provide justification for a war against Iraq but would also place White House footprints all over a fraud scam. This is how it all happened. Enter the Lead Villain That Ken Lay, the former chairman of Enron, enjoyed a long and close relationship with George Bush senior is a well-known fact. What isn't so well known is that George W. Bush also benefited from a close relationship with Lay. No one supported the younger Bush quite like Lay. Enron executives contributed more than $2 million to George W. Bush's political campaigns since 1999, earning Lay an open door to the governor's office. Lay was also Bush's number one choice for Treasury Secretary. A study authorized by Rep. Henry Waxman reveals that Enron had 112 known contacts with the Bush administration in 2001. This figure does not include seventy-three disclosed contacts between former Army Secretary Thomas White and his former colleagues at Enron. (Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, recently fired White.) Significantly, Ken Lay was also a close friend to Dick Cheney who is a former Enron shareholder. It should come to no one's surprise that given the relationships, Ken Lay was selected to work on the Bush energy transition team under the chairmanship of Cheney. Lay's easiest assignment? He interviewed potential candidates for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, an agency that would oversee his company (and months later lead a slow, long investigation into Enron's role in the California energy debacle). The President picked Lay's nominee, Pat Wood, to serve as chairman of the agency. Ken Lay was a very useful and a very knowledgeable man to have around. He knew, for instance, of the holes in the California power market that could be exploited. He tried to warn officials about the problem in 1994 when Enron testified at a Public Utility Commission hearing. Unfortunately his advice was ignored. Enron then went with the flow. It reversed itself, endorsed the system, and lauded the politicians for setting up what Enron knew was an exploitable and faulty infrastructure. As events would unfold, the dark side of Enron got part of its comeuppance when the Justice Department began investigations of Enron's role in the California energy disaster. Along with Dynegy and other power brokering companies, Enron employees were subject to federal criminal charges. One Enron employee pleaded guilty to wire fraud while Dynegy agreed to pay $5 million in fines. Enter A Little Damning Document In April of 2001, Ken Lay handed Dick Cheney a two-page memorandum recommending national energy policy changes. The memo contained Enron's positions on specific, rather technical issues, which were presented as a fix for the California crisis. (Enron brazenly advised the administration not to place price caps on energy, which would be precisely the request California officials made to the President, and which the President and the Vice President would just as brazenly deny until public pressure forced them to capitulate.) According to a special report prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman, over seventeen energy policies recommended by Enron made their way into the official White House National Energy Policy report. Congress awoke from its somnambulism, having become alarmed at Enron's close association with the Bush administration. Congressional committees asked Dick
[biofuel] The oil coup
x-charset ISO-8859-1The Administration has no interest in appropriating Iraq's oil. This was a war for control of the world price of oil; a much more important and lucrative prize. http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=14529mode=nestedorder=0 The Smirking Chimp Michael Bryan: 'The oil coup' Wednesday, January 14 By Michael Bryan, Blog For Arizona Incremental revelations over the past months clearly indicate that the reasons given by the Administration for war on Iraq were empty lies. They were designed and fabricated to whip America into state of fear and hatred sufficient to allow this Administration to undertake a preemptive war of aggression against a largely prostrate foe. The one reason left standing that the Administration will admit is that we needed to demonstrate our strength and resolve to states in the Middle East who might harbor terrorists or try to develop WMD. However, given that Iraq had neither and was attacked anyhow, it's an ambiguous demonstration, at best. The reason was not WMD. It was not terrorism. It was not democracy. It was not human rights. It was not decade-old war crimes. It was nothing contained in any of the of the Administration's sophistry. Having cleared away the Administration's camouflage, the essential question remains: why? Why have 500 American's given their lives in Iraq? Why have 3000 Americans suffered terrible wounds and pain? Why have thousands of Iraqis been murdered? Why have Americans paid hundreds of billions for this war? Was there any sensible reason at all? By far the most important reason why Iraq is geo-strategically significant is oil. The answer is simple, but not simplistic. Those who think the Iraq war was for Iraq's oil misunderstand the dynamics of global power. The Administration has no interest in appropriating Iraq's oil. This was a war for control of the world price of oil; a much more important and lucrative prize. In this distinction lies the implications of Bush's Oil Coup for the world. I term it a coup because it overturned the Constitutional restrictions on Executive power domestically, and the international legal order internationally. Western oil companies no longer control the price of oil. This perception is an anachronism. They are marketers of oil and oil products; nothing more. They may affect the spot price of oil by stockpiling, but they lost control of the world oil market in the years prior to the OPEC crisis of 1973. They would dearly love to regain control. The current world oil system is producer based. This means the price of oil is set largely by the variable of how much oil is pumped out of the ground and into the delivery infrastructure. Sounds like a free market, but it isn't. The amount pumped is carefully limited to ensure higher prices. The exact spot price may be determined by the futures market, but it moves within a constrained range, not freely. The amount of oil available in the market is largely determined by OPEC, a cartel of oil producers that has proven quite adept at controlling production, and thereby the price, of oil. Although OPEC does not include all producers, nor are all OPEC nations in the Gulf, OPEC and the Gulf members remain the lynchpins of world productive capacity. Because producers in the Gulf have effectively nationalized their oil industries, world oil price is largely a matter of Gulf security and OPEC politics. Controlling oil prices entails either using military domination the Gulf to set production limits or leadership of OPEC by dint of one's ability to absorb major cut-backs in production to meet OPEC targets; both would be best. There currently is no regional power with the strength to take the former path. The Shah came near to performing that role for us before he fell, and Saddam aspired to that role, and may have taken it if he had invaded Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait, but contrary to our interests. But there is one who is able to lead OPEC. Currently, this role falls to Saudi Arabia, our increasingly less comfortable friend. They are the only nation in OPEC able to combine vast production capacity with the technical ability and political willingness to cut their own production on demand. Others, including Iraq, have massive reserves, but lack flexibility. The Bush Administration's goal in this war is the creation of a proxy state to militarily dominate the Gulf also having enough productive capacity to destroy Saudi Arabia's de facto control of OPEC and world oil prices. Historically, America has failed in fostering the emergence of a stable American proxy in the Gulf and no producer under our sway has the capacity to break Saudi control of OPEC. Bush hopes to defy history in one bold coup: by taking control of Iraq. The move is hoped to counter-balance an increasingly resurgent Iran, moderate Syria's policies in Lebanon and the West Bank by our proximity, lessen our reliance on an ever
[biofuel] Greasy palms - palm oil, the environment and big business
http://www.foei.org/media/2004/0803.html Friends of the Earth Rainforest Destruction In Your Shopping Basket Photos Available [1] London (UK) March 8, 2004 -- Research released today reveals that the booming trade in palm oil, used in everyday products such as chocolate, margarine, shampoo and detergents is fuelling the destruction of rainforests in South East Asia, and leading to human rights abuses and devastating pollution. In Europe, for instance, one in three food products on supermarket shelves are directly contributing to the destruction of the world's rainforests, the new report by Friends of the Earth shows [2]. Palm oil accounts for 21 per cent of the global edible oil market, and it is the most commonly used vegetable oil after soy. Large scale palm oil plantations are replacing the forests in Indonesia and Malaysia at an alarming rate, wiping out 80-100% of wildlife in the area, forcing local communities from their land and destroying their livelihoods. In Indonesia, the forests are disappearing at a rate of more than 2 million hectares a year - an area half the size of Belgium. Nearly a quarter of Indonesia's palm oil output goes to the European Union. Palm oil is one of the world's most consumed oils, and 23 per cent of the palm oil produced in Indonesia is sold to Europe. Europe also buys the 87 per cent of Indonesia's exports of palm kernel meal, used in animal feed, and 61 per cent of Indonesia's exports of palm kernel oil, used in cosmetics. Friends of the Earth is calling on the companies involved in palm oil production to take immediate steps to ensure they only use sustainably produced palm oil. They should ensure they are not involved in any forests being converted to create new palm oil plantations or using fire for clearing the land. Friends of the Earth Director Tony Juniper said:Consumers will be horrified to know that their weekly shop is destroying the rainforest, but it is all but impossible to avoid buying palm oil. Tigers, orang-utans and countless other species are being driven to extinction while governments stand idly by and allow companies to get away with it. This problem will not be solved until there are clear rules to ensure the products found in our shops are produced in a way that does not harm communities and the environment. The demand for profit from this rapidly expanding trade is leading to human rights violations against indigenous communities, who are losing their land and being forced to work on the plantations, often for less than the minimum wage. Palm oil exports from Indonesia alone have increased by 244 per cent in the past seven years, with toxic waste product from the process polluting rivers and poisoning workers. The report looks at the role of companies in several countries, including the UK and Sweden, which are heavily involved in the trade as investors, retailers and in processing palm oil. In the UK, the environmental group is calling on the Government to force UK companies to address this issue, and introduce legislation to make them accountable for the damage they cause. The global trade in palm oil is destroying some of the world's most precious wildlife, but the UK Government and the companies involved seem to be turning a blind eye. It is time this greasy supply chain was brought under control and the companies were forced to take responsibility for the damage they cause, said Friends of the Earth Director Tony Juniper. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT In London (UK) Friends of the Earth EWNI press office: Tel: +44-20-7566 1649 Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] In Indonesia: Rudy Lumuru of 'Sawit Watch': +62- 251-352171 Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] NOTES: [1] PHOTOS: To see them call the visual resources officer in London on +44-20-7566 1656 PHOTOS AVAILABLE SHOW: (i) Rainforest destruction (ii) Young oil palm plantations (iii) Mature oil palm plantations (iv) Water pollution (v) Communities living along [2] 'Greasy palms - palm oil, the environment and big business' is published by Friends of the Earth on Monday 8th March 2004. A media pack and embargoed copies of the report are available electronically from the press office at Friends of the Earth EWNI in London via email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or Tel: +44-20-7566 1649 It is available online (from 8th March) at: www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/palm_oil_summary.pdf Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address.
[biofuel] How Bush Pushed Gasoline Prices Sky High
x-charset ISO-8859-1http://www.yuricareport.com/Energy/How%20Did%20Oil%20Prices%20Get%20so %20High.htm YURICA REPORT: How Bush Pushed Gasoline Prices Sky High By Katherine Yurica On March 5, 2003, Senator Carl Levin, the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, released a report prepared by the minority staff that reveals why gasoline prices soared under the Bush administration. It has to do with the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) and some odd decisions by the Department of Energy (DOE) after consulting with White House officials. According to the Senate Report, the Bush administration added forty million barrels of oil to the nation's reserves in 2002. That wouldn't be a problem in and of itself. But the purchases represented an extreme change in energy policy; they were made in a strong market, with a tight supply of oil, which increased demand, which in turn pushed up the gasoline prices to their highest levels in twelve years. The Senate report said in a one-month period in mid 2002 the Bush administration purchases caused crude oil prices to soar, raising the cost of heating oil by 13%, jet fuel by 10% and diesel fuel by 8%. The bottom line was the Bush policy change cost citizens between $500 million and $1 billion. When crude oil jumps from $20 a barrel to $30, the Senate report says, the costs to U.S. taxpayers are an additional $1 million per day. Over three months, the additional cost of filling the SPR approached $100 million, which will ultimately be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Why did Bush do it? For one thing, he was advised to do it. It has to do with the secret National Energy Policy advisory group headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney has steadfastly refused to release the names of those who advised the administration on energy matters. However, according to an article published in the Sunday Herald in Scotland (October 6, 2002), by Neil Mackay, it was former Secretary of State, James Baker who personally carried an advisory report to Cheney in April of 2001. Assembled at the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy of Rice University, the task force consisted of oil and energy executives. The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century is referred to simply as the Baker Report or report below. The report advised the new president, At a minimum the government should aim to fill all of the nearly 700 million barrels of [reserve] capacity it currently has available. Later, the National Energy Policy report recommended that the President wait until exchanged SPR barrels were returned and then he should determine whether offshore Gulf of Mexico royalty oil deposits to the SPR should be resumed. So after September 11, 2001, George W. Bush vowed to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) to capacity. The Baker report was not irresponsible, it also warned the president, One problem with trying to refill the reserve at this time when markets are strong is that any purchases made by the U.S. government would add to the current tight supply. In other words, prices would go up! At one point, the Baker report recommended that purchases of reserve additions be accomplished through direct budgetary allocations. Trying to teach a new president the facts on SPR oil rights and wrongs must have been a heady proposition. There were many object lessons in which to point. The Baker report singled President Bill Clinton's use of his discretionary authority to lease oil to the market on a time-swap or exchange basis as an example of a no-no. First, according to the Baker experts, Clinton's exchanges reduced the size of the SPR at a time when more oil might have been needed. Next, the report chided, a president must not earn far less in interest than he could have, by using better methods. Perhaps Clinton's biggest faux pas according to the Baker experts is that he used the drain-down of the reserves to address winter heating-oil inventory concerns, which indeed reduced heating oil from $37 to $31 per barrel. That was a big no-no. The Baker report advises a president must not use the SPR as a market buffer stock to damp prices and price volatility. (Translation: A president must not help the poor to heat their homes at a reasonable price at the expense of oil company profit taking.) Hence in the National Energy Policy report, the NEPD Group recommends that the President reaffirm that the SPR is designed for addressing an imminent or actual disruption in oil supplies, and not for managing prices. (At page 8-17.) That recommendation signaled a significant policy change: it denied the president the right to withdraw oil at times when prices are unusually high due to manipulation of the market. What were the superior choices left for the President? The report advises taking advantage of the market's forward price structureif the market structure were
[biofuel] Plugging into the power of sewage
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns4761 New Scientist Plugging into the power of sewage 19:00 10 March 04 The waste you flush down the toilet could one day power the lights in your home. So say researchers at Pennsylvania State University who last week revealed they have developed an electricity generator fuelled by sewage. Even better, the device breaks down the harmful organic matter as it generates the electricity, so it does the job of a sewage-treatment plant at the same time. Penn State's microbial fuel cell (MFC) harnesses chemical techniques similar to those the body uses to break down food - but diverts the electrons liberated in the reactions to produce electrical energy. There are extraordinary benefits if this technology can be made to work, comments Bruce Rittmann, an environmental engineer at Northwestern University in Illinois. Many developing countries urgently need sewage processing plants, for example, but they are prohibitively expensive, largely because they use so much power. Offsetting this cost by producing electricity at the same time could make all the difference, says Bruce Logan, who led the development team at Penn State. Slurry of bacteria Sewage contains a slurry of bacteria and undigested food, consisting of organic matter such as carbohydrates, proteins and lipids. The bacteria found in sewage treatment works use enzymes to oxidise organic matter, in a process that releases electrons. Normally the electrons power respiratory reactions in the bacterial cells, and are eventually combined with oxygen molecules. However, by depriving the bacteria of oxygen on one side of the MFC, the electrons can be wrested from them and used to power a circuit. The MFC comprises a sealed 15-centimetre-long can with a central cathode rod surrounded by a proton exchange membrane (PEM), which is permeable only to protons. Eight anodes are arranged around the cathode (see graphic). Bacteria cluster around the anodes and break down the organic waste as it is pumped in, releasing electrons and protons. With no oxygen to help mop up the electrons, the bacteria's enzymes transfer them to the anodes, while the protons migrate through the water to the central cathode. Polarised molecules on the PEM encourage the protons to pass through to the cathode. There they combine with oxygen from the air and electrons from the cathode to produce water. It this transfer of electrons at the electrodes that sets up the voltage between them, enabling the cell to power an external circuit. Glucose solutions The Penn State team's device is the first MFC that is specifically designed to produce electricity by processing human waste. Previous designs have only run on glucose solutions. As yet his design is only producing a tenth of what he calculates its potential power output could be. Even so, if scaled up, this system would produce 51 kilowatts on the waste from 100,000 people, Logan says. He hopes to be able to boost its efficiency by increasing the surface area of the anodes or by finding more efficient anode material. Microbiologist Derek Lovley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst believes the most elegant aspect of Logan's MFC is its single-chamber design, which makes it very easy to scale up. Most glucose-powered MFCs comprise two anode and cathode chambers, separated by a PEM. However, Lovley believes generating power from waste water on a large scale is a long way off: One way to think of this technology is that it is currently at the state of development that solar power was 20 to 30 years ago - the principle has been shown, but there is a lot of work to do before this is widely used. Celeste Biever Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Bush Aims to Reverse Transportation Reforms
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/68.php Bush Greenwatch March 08, 2004 | Bush Aims to Reverse Transportation Reforms Environmentalists fought for years to divert a larger proportion of federal transportation funds away from highways -- which produced suburban sprawl and unchecked air pollution -- and toward alternatives like mass transit. In 1991, Congress finally passed the landmark ISTEA bill, which began to instill some balance in the federal transportation programs. ISTEA gave communities greater flexibility in allocating transportation dollars and greater say in public decision-making. But the Bush Administration has now proposed a new transportation bill that would tilt funding and the environmental review process in favor of highways over transit. Every six years Congress reauthorizes the federal transportation funding bill, providing billions in federal highway and transit funding. How these funds are allocated has a huge impact on society. In the 1950s and 60s, billions were poured into creating America's highway system, fueling massive sprawl, car dependence, and urban decay. In the process, one of the best passenger rail systems in the world was virtually dismantled. Community activists had to fight to save such national historic treasures as the French Quarter in New Orleans, Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, and Fort McHenry in Baltimore. President Bush's proposed transportation bill would roll back 40 years of hard-fought environmental gains and protections for communities, parks, and historic resources. The public and local elected officials would have fewer opportunities to influence transportation decisions. Under the Administration bill state and local officials would be eligible for four times more federal funds for every local dollar invested if they build roads instead of transit, rather than the equal funding available under current law. The Bush Administration bill would also set short time limits on legal challenges to environmental reviews, forcing opponents to file lawsuits instead of working through issues with agencies like the Federal Highway Administration. Finally, the Administration's bill would weaken accountability for the air quality impacts of major new road projects. The President's bill won't repeal the Clean Air Act or the National Environmental Policy Act, or the basic architecture of ISTEA, Michael Replogle, Transportation Director of Environmental Defense told BushGreenwatch. It would, however, eviscerate these laws with respect to highways. The President's plan would lift many of the safeguards that currently prevent a repeat of past abuses of communities and the environment by the road builders. ### Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] OT: Nitromethane fuel question
Since the discusion has moved to Nitromethane fuel, I thought that I would forward this on. I am not sure if it is total accurate, but it is some interesting facts about drag racing engines: One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower than the first 4 rows at the Daytona 500. Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1 gallon of nitromethane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced. A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to drive the dragster supercharger. With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a near-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock at full throttle. At the stoichiometric 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for nitromethane the flame front temperature measures 7050 degrees F. Nitromethane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen, dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust gases. Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. This is the output of an arc welder in each cylinder. Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After 1/2 way, the engine is dieseling from compression plus the glow of exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F. The engine can only be shut down by cutting the fuel flow. If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with sufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split the block in half. In order to exceed 300 mph in 4.5 seconds dragsters must accelerate at an average of over 4G's. In order to reach 200 mph well before half-track, the launch acceleration approaches 8G's. Dragsters reach over 300 miles per hour before you have completed reading this sentence. Top Fuel Engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light! Including the burnout the engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load. The redline is actually quite high at 9500rpm. The Bottom Line; Assuming all the equipment is paid off, the crew worked for free, and for once NOTHING BLOWS UP, each run costs an estimated US $1,000.00 per second. The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.441 seconds for the quarter mile (10/05/03, Tony Schumacher). The top speed record is 333.00 mph (533km/h) as measured over the last 66' of the run (09/28/03 Doug Kalitta). Putting all of this into perspective: You are driving the average $140,000 Lingenfelter twin-turbo powered Corvette Z06. Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged and ready to launch down a quarter mile strip as you pass. You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the'Vette hard up through the gears and blast across the starting line and past the dragster at an honest 200 mph. The 'tree' goes green for both of you at that moment. The dragster launches and starts after you. You keep your foot down hard, but you hear an incredibly brutal whine that sears your eardrums and within 3 seconds the dragster catches and passes you. He beats you to the finish line, a quarter mile away from where you just passed him. Think about it, from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 mph and not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the road when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long race course. That, folks, is acceleration. On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Alan Petrillo wrote: Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:07:07 -0500 From: Alan Petrillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [biofuel] Nitromethane fuel question spriggsbororon wrote: Back in the 1960's, I attended a few drag races (1/4 mile event) at the drag strip. The fuelers used 'nitro'. When I would get a pit pass and walk by the rails and funny cars, the odor would clean out my nostrils (Whew!). When I asked various non-racing people afterwards how much nitro was used, I got different answers from a few drops to 100% nitro. One time I went to the drag strip at the beginning of the season when the temperature was about 40-45 degrees F. The fuelers ran real rough, missing and even stalling. A bystander said that it was probably too cold outside to run the nitro fuel. Any input on nitromethane as a fuel compared to others, or is it really the same as other alcohol fuels you mention, but with a fancy name? Nitromethane is an explosive. It can also be used as monopropellant rocket fuel. As one guy put it You can put your cigarette out in it, but if you hit it with a hammer it'll explode. Top fuelers mix it with methanol to dilute it down to their desired power level according to atmospheric conditions. It's nasty stuff, and IMHO, best avoided. AP Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do
Re: [biofuel] Connecticut versus Biodiesel
x-charset ISO-8859-1Minor update, the bill has been proposed, but not yet filed. Still time to derail this effort. In a message dated 3/11/04 1:44:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Below is the text of a bill filed in Connecticut that will apparently stifle the development of biodiesel through the regulation of any production of the fuel or any biodiesel mixes that could be sold or used in the state. This is similar, but far worse than the misguided approach of the regulators in California. For motivations unknown, these people are planning to ban the sale of anything more concentrated than B20, and even that may be illegal. The problem is that any blend of diesel and biodiesel must meet the specification for diesel, which is not possible at higher concentrations of biodiesel. This shows up in the viscosity and aromatics areas, and possibly others. The details are buried in obscure California codes, and I haven't found them all out yet. Please note that homebrewers would be illegal under this regulations unless they had approximately $850 of testing on every batch they produce. If a single quart of this fuel is produced, even for one's own use, it would be illegal unless official testing was submitted to the government, certified by corporate officers, on a monthly basis. This bill has been filed and will soon be enacted. It will stop any biodiesel work in the state. STATE OF CONNECTICUT AN ACT CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BIODIESEL FUEL. Connecticut Seal Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened Effective October 1, 2004 (a) As used in this section, biodiesel fuel means a diesel fuel substitute that is produced from nonpetroleum renewable resources and blended fuel means a blend of biodiesel fuel and diesel fuel. (b) No person shall sell or offer for sale biodiesel fuel unless such fuel meets the following requirements: (1) The sulfur content standards for diesel fuel set forth in title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, section 2281; (2) The aromatic hydrocarbon content of diesel fuel set forth in title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, section 2282; (3) The requirements of the alternative fuel transportation program set forth in 10 CFR, Part 490; and (4) The specifications established by the American Society for Testing and Materials standard D6751, the Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel. (c) No person shall sell or offer for sale blended fuel unless such fuel meets the following requirements: (1) The biodiesel fuel portion of the blended fuel meets the requirements set forth in subsection (b) of this section; (2) The blended fuel meets the specifications established by the American Society for Testing and Materials standard D975, the Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils; and (3) The blended fuel does not have a sulfur content of more than five hundred parts per million. (d) Not later than the fifteenth day of each month, any person who produces biodiesel fuel or blended fuel in this state or produces biodiesel fuel or blended fuel for sale in this state shall provide to the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, on a form prescribed by the commissioner, the following information, by batch: (1) For blended fuel, the percentage of biodiesel fuel within the blend; (2) The volume of the biodiesel fuel or blended fuel; (3) For biodiesel fuel or the biodiesel fuel portion of the blended fuel, the results of the analysis for the parameters established by the American Society for Testing and Materials standard D6751, the Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel; and (4) For blended fuel, the results of the analysis of the diesel fuel portion of the blended fuel for the following parameters, as established by the American Society for Testing and Materials standard D975, the Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils: (A) Sulfur content; (B) Aromatic hydrocarbon content; (C) Cetane number; (D) Specific gravity; (E) American Petroleum Institute Gravity; and (F) The temperatures at which ten per cent, fifty per cent and ninety per cent of the diesel fuel boiled off during distillation. (e) The information contained in the form submitted pursuant to subsection (d) of this section shall be attested to as true by a corporate officer who is responsible for operations at the production facility. (f) Any person who sells or offers for sale blended fuel shall label dispensers at which the blended fuel is dispensed in such a manner to notify other persons of the percentage of biodiesel fuel in such blended fuel, by volume. This act shall take effect as follows: Section 1 October 1, 2004 Statement of Purpose: To provide standards for the regulation of biodiesel fuel and biodiesel fuel that is blended with diesel fuel. Proposed deletions are enclosed in brackets. Proposed additions are indicated by
Re: [biofuel] Connecticut versus Biodiesel
Reading this, I start to be proud of being an European and on the new 100 list of least corrupted countries, US must come after any of the EU countries. It is no way that US can keep the spot of being the 18th least corrupted country in the world. Even Italians on the 28th spot, are less corrupted than US under the Bush administration. It is sad to see this. Hakan At 19:11 11/03/2004, you wrote: Below is the text of a bill filed in Connecticut that will apparently stifle the development of biodiesel through the regulation of any production of the fuel or any biodiesel mixes that could be sold or used in the state. This is similar, but far worse than the misguided approach of the regulators in California. For motivations unknown, these people are planning to ban the sale of anything more concentrated than B20, and even that may be illegal. The problem is that any blend of diesel and biodiesel must meet the specification for diesel, which is not possible at higher concentrations of biodiesel. This shows up in the viscosity and aromatics areas, and possibly others. The details are buried in obscure California codes, and I haven't found them all out yet. Please note that homebrewers would be illegal under this regulations unless they had approximately $850 of testing on every batch they produce. If a single quart of this fuel is produced, even for one's own use, it would be illegal unless official testing was submitted to the government, certified by corporate officers, on a monthly basis. This bill has been filed and will soon be enacted. It will stop any biodiesel work in the state. STATE OF CONNECTICUT AN ACT CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BIODIESEL FUEL. Connecticut Seal Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened Effective October 1, 2004 (a) As used in this section, biodiesel fuel means a diesel fuel substitute that is produced from nonpetroleum renewable resources and blended fuel means a blend of biodiesel fuel and diesel fuel. (b) No person shall sell or offer for sale biodiesel fuel unless such fuel meets the following requirements: (1) The sulfur content standards for diesel fuel set forth in title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, section 2281; (2) The aromatic hydrocarbon content of diesel fuel set forth in title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, section 2282; (3) The requirements of the alternative fuel transportation program set forth in 10 CFR, Part 490; and (4) The specifications established by the American Society for Testing and Materials standard D6751, the Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel. (c) No person shall sell or offer for sale blended fuel unless such fuel meets the following requirements: (1) The biodiesel fuel portion of the blended fuel meets the requirements set forth in subsection (b) of this section; (2) The blended fuel meets the specifications established by the American Society for Testing and Materials standard D975, the Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils; and (3) The blended fuel does not have a sulfur content of more than five hundred parts per million. (d) Not later than the fifteenth day of each month, any person who produces biodiesel fuel or blended fuel in this state or produces biodiesel fuel or blended fuel for sale in this state shall provide to the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, on a form prescribed by the commissioner, the following information, by batch: (1) For blended fuel, the percentage of biodiesel fuel within the blend; (2) The volume of the biodiesel fuel or blended fuel; (3) For biodiesel fuel or the biodiesel fuel portion of the blended fuel, the results of the analysis for the parameters established by the American Society for Testing and Materials standard D6751, the Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel; and (4) For blended fuel, the results of the analysis of the diesel fuel portion of the blended fuel for the following parameters, as established by the American Society for Testing and Materials standard D975, the Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils: (A) Sulfur content; (B) Aromatic hydrocarbon content; (C) Cetane number; (D) Specific gravity; (E) American Petroleum Institute Gravity; and (F) The temperatures at which ten per cent, fifty per cent and ninety per cent of the diesel fuel boiled off during distillation. (e) The information contained in the form submitted pursuant to subsection (d) of this section shall be attested to as true by a corporate officer who is responsible for operations at the production facility. (f) Any person who sells or offers for sale blended fuel shall label dispensers at which the blended fuel is dispensed in such a manner to notify other persons of the percentage of biodiesel fuel in such blended fuel, by volume. This act shall take effect as follows: Section 1 October 1, 2004 Statement of Purpose: To provide standards for the regulation of biodiesel fuel and biodiesel fuel that is blended with
Re: [biofuel] Methanol Price correction
I just bought a drum of Methanol from my local oil dealer. I paid $126.50 plus $25.00 drum deposit. That probabaly won't help you because I am in Michigan but you should be able to find it cheaper than $300.00 Rick M Brownstown, Mi My quote for the Methanol price yesterday was wrong. A 55 Gallon drum of the stuff is in fact about $225 for one drum plus $25 deposit on the drum plus shiping and tax. So it ends up being about $300 per drum or $5.50 per gallon. If the mix requiers 20% methanol that makes the finished Bio Diesel product at about $1.30 per gallon, including power for distilation etc. And so do any of you intreped people out there have a cheaper source for Methanol??? And is more or less combusterble than Gas/Petrol for storage etc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Methanol Price correction
x-charset ISO-8859-1Matthew, You're getting tattooed on your methanol costs. Yah. Sure. It's California. The rules are different there. (Ooops. Sorry. That's Florida.) I just called Bazell Oil in central Ohio and received a price of $1.75 per gallon, FOB the distributorship. Outright purchase price of a used drum is $10.00 and $17.00 for a new drum. A 500 gallon bulk purchase brings the cost down to $1.45 delivered. MeOH runs at a higher price during winter, so those numbers are essentially conservative. You need to do some back tracking and locate a bulk distribution facility within a reasonable radius of your locale, rather than speaking with the end distributor that gave you such a jacked up price. If you have to, start at a regional production facility and track down bulk distributors, rather than trying to claw your way up the food chain. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: matshel3000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 10:35 AM Subject: [biofuel] Methanol Price correction My quote for the Methanol price yesterday was wrong. A 55 Gallon drum of the stuff is in fact about $225 for one drum plus $25 deposit on the drum plus shiping and tax. So it ends up being about $300 per drum or $5.50 per gallon. If the mix requiers 20% methanol that makes the finished Bio Diesel product at about $1.30 per gallon, including power for distilation etc. And so do any of you intreped people out there have a cheaper source for Methanol??? And is more or less combusterble than Gas/Petrol for storage etc Any help or comments would be great. Thanks Matthew (trying in LA to preach the Bio Diesel message, harder than you think in this car town) Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ /x-charset
[biofuel] (fwd) (fwd) board-notices Notice of Public Availability~Diesel Fuel
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:59:06 -0800, Alexa Malik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have posted the 15-Day Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text for the Amendments to the California Diesel Fuel Regulations. These documents and the associated formal regulatory materials can be accessed from our website at the address: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/ulsd2003/ulsd2003.htm Thank You Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Bush 2 mission accomplished in Haiti onward to Venezuela?
Bush 2 mission accomplished in Haiti onward to Venezuela? http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=16312 Photographer and multimedia developer Kurt Nimmo writes: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias, in no uncertain terms, has warned the Bushites he will use the oil weapon against the United States if Bush attacks Venezuela, America's fourth-largest oil exporter. If Mr. Bush is possessed with the madness of trying to blockade Venezuela, or worse for them, to invade Venezuela in response to the desperate song of his lackeys ... sadly not a drop of petroleum will come to them from Venezuela, Hugo Chavez recently told supporters, according to AFP/Reuters. Is Chavez paranoid? Hardly. Recall the CIA attempted coup against him in 2002. How do we know the CIA engineered the failed coup? Same way we know that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, writes Bill Blum, former US State Department employee. That's what it's always done and there's no reason to think that tomorrow morning will be any different. a.. The problem is, for the Bush 2 administration, Chavez is not part of the neoliberal New World Global plan. I consider myself a humanist, and a humanist has to be anti-neoliberal, Chavez has said. Moreover, Chavez considers himself a Bolivariano -- that is to say he takes inspiration from the Carta de Jamaica and the Discurso de Angostura, texts written by Simon Bolivar, called El Liberator because he kicked the Spaniards out of Bolivia, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. In addition to fighting against foreign invasion and economic domination, Bolivar's philosophy, as practiced by Chavez, translates into land redistribution for the poor and an increase of oil income for the government. In other words, less money for Bush's Big Oil buddies and more for the people of Venezuela. It doesn't help that Chavez also sells oil to Cuba, visited Saddam Hussein, and sacked the upper management of Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the nation's oil company, infamous for its corruption. But what really rankles Bush and Big Oil is the fact their CIA-engineered coup d'etat on April 12, 2002 did not stick. a.. Unlike the seemingly effortless removal of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti, getting rid of Chavez will not be easy. In the short time Chavez was held at a prison on the Caribbean island of La Orchila after the CIA-sponsored coup in April, 2002, Fedecamaras business lackey and oil executive Pedro Carmona Estanga dissolved the National Assembly (AN), voided the 1999 Constitution introduced under Chavez (and approved by popular vote in a national referendum), fired Supreme Court justices, repealed laws that gave the government control of the economy, and handed control of PDVSA over to General Guaicaipuro Lameda, an active military officer. a.. As Philip Reeker, US State Department spokesman, said at the time, We want to see a return to democracy in Venezuela. For Bush 2, the US State Department, and the CIA, voiding constitutions approved by popular vote is the only democracy the third world should expect. As a prime example of Bush's grotesque version of democracy, look no further than Iraq where an American proconsul and a gaggle of handpicked lackeys rule and popular elections become more and more remote by the day. No doubt the Americans would feel more at home with another Perez Jimenez, the brutal army captain, virulent anti-communist, and self-appointed dictator of Venezuela who did such an effective job eliminating progressive reforms that Eisenhower gave him the Legion of Merit. The anti-Chavistas don't equate democracy with voting, writes Greg Palast, who interviewed Chavez in 2002. With 80% of Venezuela's population at or below the poverty level, elections are not attractive to the protesting financiers. Chavez had won the election in 1998 with a crushing 58% of the popular vote and that was unlikely to change except at gunpoint. Bush, the IMF, and Venezuela's ruling elite are nostalgic for the days when the notorious embezzler of public funds, Carlos Andres Perez (CAP), and Accion Democratica (AD) ruled. In 1989, Perez sent the military to slaughter 1,000 workers and poor people from the cerros, or shantytowns, for the audacity of protesting against an IMF austerity plan. Following the slaughter, IMF Managing Director Michael Camdessus wrote to Perez and said he was profoundly moved by the loss of life but said the IMF was convinced that the economic policies were well-conceived. No word if Camdessus was profoundly moved by the further impoverishment of pensioners and the poor for the sake of US creditors holding Venezuela's debt. Chavez blamed the CIA for the failed coup, and for good reason: Charles S. Shapiro, the US ambassador in Caracas and former Deputy Chief of Mission at the US embassy in Chile at the time of the CIA-sponsored coup against Salvador Allende, admitted that
[biofuel] Senate committee backs $60 million abrupt climate changeresearch program
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-03-10/s_13855.asp Senate committee backs $60 million abrupt climate change research program Wednesday, March 10, 2004 By John Heilprin, Associated Press WASHINGTON - A $60 million program for researching sudden or unexpected changes in the climate would be created under legislation that won approval Tuesday by a Senate committee. By voice vote and with little discussion, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee sent the bill to the full Senate for consideration. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, told fellow committee members the bill was important for Alaska. He had previously expressed concern with climate warming problems in his home state such as melting permafrost, possible village relocations, receding Alaskan forests, and submerged air strips. Under the bill, the research program for studying abrupt climate change - rapid alterations that people, animals, and plants have difficulty adapting to - would be established within the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It would be run by NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. In October, the Senate rejected a plan to address global warming. Senators voted 55-43 to defeat a bill co-sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., who heads the Commerce committee, and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., that would have cut industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. All the sponsors of the abrupt climate change bill - Maine Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, Washington state Democratic Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt. - voted for the McCain-Lieberman bill, while Stevens voted against it. McCain and Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, the committee's most senior Democrat, also have asked congressional investigators to detail the effects of global warming on federally owned lands and coastal waters, an environmental group said Tuesday. San Francisco-based Bluewater Network said its 2002 report on the subject prompted the senators' request that the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, estimate the impact of global warming and predict the timing of the consequences. Source: Associated Press Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Power giants agree to report climate emissions to shareholders
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-03-10/s_13807.asp Power giants agree to report climate emissions to shareholders Wednesday, March 10, 2004 By GreenBiz.com NEW YORK, New York - In response to shareholder proposals for greater transparency on how companies are planning for potential constraints on carbon dioxide and other emissions, electric power giants American Electric Power and Cinergy have agreed to report publicly about on how they are responding to growing pressure to reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions. The company reports will assess the impacts of and potential responses to a number of policy scenarios, including various proposals in Congress and existing state legislation to limit carbon dioxide and other emissions. Both companies agreed to the shareholders' request that a committee of independent directors oversee the report. As a result, shareholders will withdraw resolutions facing the two companies. The resolutions focus on the potential risks to shareholders posed by the company's CO2 emissions, the primary greenhouse gas linked to global warming. The resolutions' proponents believe that the public reports to shareholders, which were agreed to by AEP and Cinergy following discussions with the investors, will raise the benchmark for disclosure of and action on climate change risks. They heralded the decisions as precedent-setting. These landmark agreements are an important milestone for shareholders, one that we hope will be emulated by corporate leaders across this industry, and across many industries, said Denise Nappier, treasurer of Connecticut. The consequences for companies that do not act responsibly and take steps to assess and mitigate risks posed by climate change can be just as devastating to shareholders as the corporate scandals of the past few years. We look forward to reports that will provide shareholders with essential information we need to make informed investment decisions. Bill Somplatsky-Jarman, associate for Mission Responsibility Through Investment, Presbyterian Church, said, Shareholders have been raising this issue since the early 1990s, so it's significant that we're working together to cooperate on an action plan. Cinergy made a forward-looking announcement last year with their pledge to reduce emissions; we're hoping that this report will also be a leading example of risk assessment and disclosure that can be taken up by other companies. The resolutions were filed at American Electric Power by Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds and cofiled by Christian Brothers Investment Services, Trillium Asset Management, Board of Pensions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, The Pension Boards - United Church of Christ, and the United Church Foundation and at Cinergy Corp. by the Presbyterian Church (USA). Similar resolutions have been filed at additional electric utilities and other companies by shareholders associated with the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), a coalition of 275 religious institutional investors, and CERES, a coalition of investors and environmental groups. Both companies expressed their willingness to work collaboratively with the shareholders on addressing the emissions issue. American Electric Power agreed to print the resolution in its proxy, with a statement describing the company's decision to accept and comply with the resolution. The proxy statement will also outline the parameters of the company's report. Cinergy will describe the collaborative effort on the report in the letter to shareholders in its 2003 annual report. Dale Heydlauff, senior vice president of Governmental and Environmental Affairs, AEP, said, We reviewed their proposal and concluded that their request for an emissions assessment and report was reasonable. We view it as consistent with the hard work we are doing to make environmental improvements while keeping our power plants competitive. Meanwhile, at Cinergy, Jim Rogers, CEO, said, Cinergy has undertaken several initiatives to establish its leadership in social and environmental policy. We are partnering with Environmental Defense on our greenhouse gas emissions reduction pledge and we are delighted to join with the Mission Responsibility Through Investment to produce another effective collaborative process on these crucial public policy matters. The agreements come on the heels of increasing pressure on the electric power industry to address the issue of coming carbon constraints. Similar resolutions last year garnered the support of Institutional Shareholder Services, a group that advises institutional investors on proxy voting, resulting in record high votes - an average 23 percent vote in favor - with 27 percent of shareholders voting for such disclosure at American Electric Power. Although last year's resolution was successfully challenged at the SEC, Cinergy announced in September 2002 that it would
[biofuel] A Twitch Before Dying?
http://www.alternet.org/members/story.html?StoryID=18088 A Twitch Before Dying? By Amanda Griscom, Grist Magazine March 9, 2004 U.S. oil prices jumped to their highest levels since the Iraq war this week, hitting $37.51 a barrel, for an average of about $1.74 a gallon - unwelcome news for those feeling the pinch at the pump, but great news for supporters of the newly overhauled but still-stalled energy bill. They've been waiting for something like this - a blackout, a spike in gas prices, a terrorist attack - anything to convince a majority in the Senate that they have no choice but to steamroll this energy bill through, said a staffer at the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sure enough, on Monday, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), chair of the ENR committee, announced that the energy bill would come up for consideration again at the end of this month - when high gas prices will still be fresh on senators' (or, more to the point, their constituents') minds. Right on cue, a chorus of Bush officials chimed in to play up economic fears: Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said last week that the administration is extremely concerned about gasoline prices and called on Congress to pass the energy bill. His colleague Treasury Secretary John Snow used concern about rising oil prices - expected to continue their upward trajectory through the summer - to call for greater access to reliable and dependable U.S. energy supplies like ANWR. Support for the energy bill isn't just coming from the GOP - Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) is now among its most enthusiastic proponents. The bill became more palatable to Daschle once deals were struck to remove a controversial provision that would have given liability relief to manufacturers of the fuel additive MTBE, which has contaminated water supplies throughout the nation, and to cut the corpulent $31 billion package to a comparatively lean $15 billion - though it still channels plenty of pork to polluting energy companies. Daschle not only expressed support for the new version of the bill, but anticipated bringing along up to six new Democratic yea votes. It's Sen. Daschle's belief that there's a reasonable chance that this new version will pass at the end of the month, his spokesperson, Sarah Feinberg, told Grist. Domenici is equally upbeat: We're feeling pretty confident, said his spokesperson, Marnie Funk. We've made the changes to get the bill through the Senate that will appeal to Democrats who disliked the MTBE issue and the Republicans who were worried about cost. The vote count seems promising. According to an ENR committee staff member who asked to remain anonymous, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Daschle have been getting positive feedback on the Republican side from Sens. Rick Santorum (Penn.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Don Nickles (Okla.), and John Ensign (Nev.) - all of whom had grumbled about the high costs of the original bill. But critics of the energy bill are singing a very different tune: Put your bullshit detector on high alert, said Kevin Curtis, vice president of National Environmental Trust. We're in election time, and from now to the end of this session it's less and less about passing legislation and more about emphasizing the differences between certain politicians and parties. Bill Wicker, communications director for the Democratic minority on the ENR committee, adds that he has heard nothing definitive about new votes promised since the energy bill was reworked. It's no secret that Daschle, for instance, has political reasons to put on a happy face. He's in a tight battle for his Senate seat this year, and the energy bill includes tax subsidies for ethanol production that would increase corn prices by as much as $0.50 per bushel, create an estimated 10,000 new jobs in his state, and generate $620 million for South Dakota's economy, Daschle says. Whether or not the bill is likely to pass, it behooves the senator to convince his constituency that he's making progress pushing it through Congress. Likewise, Domenici's optimism should be taken with a grain of salt: One senior Republican Senate aide confessed to a reporter at the Albuquerque Journal in Domenici's home state of New Mexico over the weekend that the bill's prospects are not so hot. The odds of getting an energy bill along the lines of what we have proposed is maybe 25 percent, the aide said. Another indication that the forecast is gloomy came in a Monday article in CongressDaily about Senate Republicans with so little faith in the energy bill's passage that they are maneuvering key portions of it onto other pieces of legislation that have better chances of making it to President Bush's desk. Senate Finance Committee Chair Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) is orchestrating the process; last month he inserted ethanol tax provisions into a transportation bill, and last week he proposed an
