[biofuels-biz] Clean Fuels Supported by $4.6 Million in Grants
http://ens-news.com/ens/jul2002/2002-07-01-09.asp ens Clean Fuels Supported by $4.6 Million in Grants WASHINGTON, DC, July 1, 2002 (ENS) - More than $4.6 million has been awarded to 24 states and the District of Columbia to help build local markets for alternative fuels and vehicles. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced the selection of awards for 55 communities that participate in the Energy Department's Clean Cities program. The winners of the competitive grants will purchase alternative fuel vehicles, develop refueling stations and infrastructure, deploy alternative fuel school buses, and develop alternative fuel vehicle platforms. These projects will assist the national Clean Cities program in its mission, Abraham said. They are consistent with President Bush's National Energy Policy because they will reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, improve the quality of air, and increase the use of alternative fuels. The Clean Cities program received 135 proposals for this competitive grant award. Clean Cities projects help establish partnerships between federal, state and local governments to promote and increase the use of alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles. The Clean Cities program, established by the Department of Energy in 1993, now includes about 80 participating communities that work together to foster the development of a sustainable alternative fuels market. More information is available at: http://www.ccities.doe.gov Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/
[biofuels-biz] Toyota to market fuel cell cars this year
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/16671/story.htm Planet Ark : Toyota to market fuel cell cars this year JAPAN: July 2, 2002 TOKYO - Toyota Motor Corp, the world's third largest automaker, said yesterday it would become the first carmaker to market a fuel cell passenger car, with a small number of vehicles to be offered from late this year. The auto giant stressed, however, that high costs meant its marketing efforts would be limited and it said only 20 vehicles would only be leased in the first 12 months to government bodies, research institutions and energy-related companies. We are still deciding the price of the vehicle, Toyota spokeswoman Shino Yamada said. Fuel cell vehicles are seen as one day being the eventual answer to most of the environmental concerns caused by cars. Emitting only heat and water as by-products, fuel cells use an electrochemical process to create electricity by mixing hydrogen with oxygen. However, hydrogen in its natural gaseous state is difficult to store and distribute, so fuel cells vehicles for the ordinary consumer are not seen likely anytime soon. Toyota said it had brought forward a plan to begin marketing a fuel cell vehicle from 2003 after successfully road testing its FCHV-4 prototype for a year in Japan and the United States. DaimlerChrysler AG first brought to market a limited series of fuel cell buses in 2000. Other automakers have pledged to begin marketing fuel cell vehicles from next year or 2004. Toyota said in a statement it expected full commercialisation of fuel cell vehicles from 2010 at the earliest, once standards were in place and the public better understood hydrogen fuel. Toyota said the vehicles available from the end of the year would be offered only in Japan and the United States, in limited areas where the company had confirmed the availability of hydrogen supply and after-sales service. Toyota, widely seen as the leader in environmentally friendly auto technology, put the first hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle, the Prius, on the market in 1997. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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: [biofuels-biz] Re: Engine makers, refiners can meet US diesel rule - EPA
Harry, fascinating stuff. Where did you get your Australian info from? I would love to see the reports. I have suggested to quite a few farmers that the introduction od LSD ULSD is going to give us farmers a bit of trouble based on every one elses woes, but no-one really thinks it will be a problem. Steven gjkimlin wrote: Although they don't have to yet, some reports have it that Queensland refineries are producing ultra low sulphur diesel. The two problems have been damage to pump seals and a loss of lubricity. So much so that adding bio gives a good 10% drop in fuel usage with apparent increases in speed despite lower energy content. Harry --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/16585/story.htm Planet Ark : Engine makers, refiners can meet US diesel rule - EPA USA: June 26, 2002 WASHINGTON - U.S. diesel engine manufacturers and petroleum refiners should have no problem in meeting new federal standards to reduce the amount of sulfur in diesel fuel, according to a new Environmental Protection Agency report. The report was a blow to the U.S. oil industry, which complained it would have a tough time complying with the EPA's goal of cutting the sulfur level in diesel fuel by 97 percent to just 15 parts per million (ppm). Refiners must begin producing the cleaner diesel by 2006. Large trucks, buses and other heavy duty vehicles must be on the market by 2007 with engines that can process the fuel. The EPA's report, which was released on Friday and is now being reviewed by an advisory panel this week, found that both industries are making significant progress in meeting the lower sulfur requirements. Some refiners are ahead of schedule and will be capable of producing the diesel fuel with the low sulfur levels as early as next year, it said. We are very encouraged by the actions some refiners have already taken in terms of announcing specific plan for low sulfur diesel fuel production, the EPA said. Nonetheless, small refiners will be given up to four additional years to meet the new standards. In addition, refiners that supply fuel to western states and Alaska will have until 2008 to produce the low-sulfur fuel. Separately, the EPA said engine makers plan to use technology that already exists to build engines with special filters that could process the cleaner diesel fuel. Although it is still early in the process, every major engine manufacturer that we visited told us that they expect to have emission-compliant products in 2007, EPA said. The oil industry and other business groups had sued the EPA in an effort to block the sulfur guidelines. Oil companies said the EPA requirements would cause them to close refiners instead of making expensive modifications to their facilities, resulting in fuel supply shortages and higher diesel prices. However, a federal court ruled last month in favor of the agency's rule making, saying technology was available to make diesel fuel that emitted fewer sulfur emissions. Story by Tom Doggett REUTERS NEWS SERVICE Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/ Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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: [biofuels-biz] The prefered FA content of oils for biodiesel production.
Harry, I think you mentioned to me the islanders drive around their diesel engined vehicles with local crushed oils with no need for conversion. What is the FA profile for these oils? Steven gjkimlin wrote: Steve and I have been discussing the breeding of the perfect oil plant. I will do some comparisions of the FA content of cultivars where the FA composition is known. Meanwhile I'll start comment with: carbon chains of between 12 and 16 preferably monounsaturates i.e. one double bond. My reasoning is that much shorter and the Cetane falls and combustion temperatures rise(more NOx)and much longer and the cloud point gets too high. Any thoughts out there? Regards from Harry. PS If you don't see it soon remind me to post the results of the use of recycled Dairy separators and the enhanced acid method for rapid conversion of FFA's. I did forget to post the graph of FA reduction /Time from the titration series on the acid catalyst method. Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/ Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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: [biofuels-biz] The prefered FA content of oils for biodiesel production.
The oil we use for SVO/WVO use is of unknown mixed sources, so FA profiles are useless for us. Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter: http://www.webconx.com/subscribe.htm Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/ Human powered devices, equipment, and transport - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/2000/humanpower.htm [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Steven Hobbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 5:46 AM Subject: Re: [biofuels-biz] The prefered FA content of oils for biodiesel production. Harry, I think you mentioned to me the islanders drive around their diesel engined vehicles with local crushed oils with no need for conversion. What is the FA profile for these oils? Steven gjkimlin wrote: Steve and I have been discussing the breeding of the perfect oil plant. I will do some comparisions of the FA content of cultivars where the FA composition is known. Meanwhile I'll start comment with: carbon chains of between 12 and 16 preferably monounsaturates i.e. one double bond. My reasoning is that much shorter and the Cetane falls and combustion temperatures rise(more NOx)and much longer and the cloud point gets too high. Any thoughts out there? Regards from Harry. PS If you don't see it soon remind me to post the results of the use of recycled Dairy separators and the enhanced acid method for rapid conversion of FFA's. I did forget to post the graph of FA reduction /Time from the titration series on the acid catalyst method. Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/ Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/ Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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: [biofuels-biz] Re: Engine makers, refiners can meet US diesel rule - EPA
Steven wrote: Harry, fascinating stuff. Where did you get your Australian info from? I would love to see the reports. I have suggested to quite a few farmers that the introduction od LSD ULSD is going to give us farmers a bit of trouble based on every one elses woes, but no-one really thinks it will be a problem. Steven Probably what will happen in USA will be the same as Europe. Early adopters of ULSD like Canada and Sweden did indeed have problems with loss of lubricity and with loss of rubber vulcanising properties. These were solved by introducing lubricity additives and by auto makers changing the type of rubber used in fuel systems. Only France is different (as usual!) where they add 5% bio to ULSD instead of synthetic lubricity restoring additive. I believe the poor lubricity is not due to loss of sulphur so much as the hydroprocessing used to remove it, which alters some of the other compounds responsible for lube properties. David T. Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/
[biofuels-biz] Re: Energy Scandals and Climate Tragedies
I know that I can be a little thick but can some one help me to get this problem with climate change. Perhaps the rapidity and direction of climate change has been affected by human intervention but so what? Nothing in nature is constant and natural systems must have evolved to cope with change. Man is probably the most adaptable of animals. With more energy in the system weather events will be more extreme but wouldn't that mean shorter droughts as well? OK moving a desert is going to alter realestate prices but does that mean that world wide productivity will be reduced? Storm surges will probably make some Islands uninhabitable but there is plenty of room in Australia for those near us and by the looks of things those Islanders with money have already come here, it's just a matter of taking the rest. I'm not in favour of the things that have caused global warming, nonrenewable resources should not be wasted but is this real or just a supporting argument for sustainability? The literature on this is so vast I can't read it all so has anyone come across the stuff I need, something that doesn't simply assume that change is bad or count the cost of moving uphill in $US. Thanks from Harry. Where've you been Harry? Real-estate?? Bangladesh, for instance, isn't some insignificant little island. A sea rise of only one metre (very conservative estimate) would turn tens of millions of Bangladeshis into refugees. They're already seeing the effects there. Judging by your current performance with Afghans, will Australia be welcoming them all with open arms and gift-wrapped new lives? What it means is highly unstable weather conditions, varying widely from place to place - shorter droughts, longer droughts, droughts in places where there've never been droughts and no strategies for surviving them, same with floods, same with heat, same with cold. That'll leave millions or billions of people out on a limb, as well as many or most of our food crops facing climates they don't know how to grow in, along with altogether new opportunities for pests and diseases, of crops, livestock, people, and everything else, to expand into new target populations that have no local immunities or defences against them. That and much more - read disaster upon disaster. Catastrophe. It's all happening already. This might help to explain your confusion: http://www.prwatch.org/prwv4n4.pdf Also these: http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/ New Scientist | Environment Report | Climate Change http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climatetrends.jsp New Scientist | Environment Report | Climate Change - Global climate trends http://climatechange.unep.net/ Climate change: UNEP.Net, the Environment Network key issues Introduction to climate change Causes and evidence Environmental impact Social and economic impact Solutions and abatement Conventions and treaties Climate Change 2001 at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change site - three sections, The Scientific Basis, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Mitigation: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/index.htm Keith --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13450 AlterNet -- Energy Scandals and Climate Tragedies Michel Gelobter, AlterNet June 24, 2002 The controversy over the recent release of the 2002 Climate Action Report by the Environmental Protection Agency is just the latest in a series of environmental controversies to hit the Bush Administration. Before people were left to try solving the riddle of President Bush's actual climate change position, they witnessed a series of energy-related scandals that dogged Washington. Whether it was Enron, the California energy crisis, or the deliberations into the Bush-Cheney Energy Plan, troubling signals emanate from the White House with disturbing frequency. Take, for example, the release of documents tying Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to meetings with donors, whose campaign contributions to both parties since 1999 topped $29 million. The payoff from those meetings was almost a thousandfold: legislation embodying $27 billion in subsidies. Believe it or not, this rich harvest is dwarfed by a decision the Bush Administration has already implemented: the U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. Had the U.S. respected our commitment to action on this critical issue, recent studies, including our own, have shown that the net cost to American fossil fuel industries could have been more than $45 billion a year. By contrast, estimates of the benefits of good climate policy to the economy as a whole range as high as $120 billion a year by 2020. While our economy took the hit, the energy industry walked away from the President's policy with its biggest payday ever. So
[biofuels-biz] California Lawmakers Vote to Lower Auto Emissions
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/02/national/02POLL.html?ex=1026273600e n=824f83cad7d2b36eei=5040partner=MOREOVER California Lawmakers Vote to Lower Auto Emissions By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr. After a long and bitter debate, lawmakers in California today passed the nation's strongest legislation to regulate emissions of the main pollutant that can cause warming of the planet's climate, a step that would require automakers to sell cars that give off the least possible amount of heat-trapping gases. By the narrowest of margins, the State Assembly passed the California Climate Bill, which for the first time gives the agency that regulates air pollution in the state the power to limit emissions of carbon dioxide, the main gas that scientists say is building up in the atmosphere and causing a warming of Earth's climate. The vote was 41 to 30, with 9 members not voting and with a majority of 41 needed to pass the bill. Democrats control the Assembly 50 to 30, and the vote was mostly along party lines, with Republicans in opposition. With the California Senate having passed the measure, 23 to 16, on Saturday, the Assembly's action seemed to signal that the bill would soon go to Gov. Gray Davis for his signature, though a few procedural hurdles might still derail it. Steven Maviglio, a spokesman for Mr. Davis, said the governor made this statement about the bill: This bill represents good public policy, but it has been subject to many amendments over the past several days. I will read all the amendments when the bill arrives on my desk before making a final decision. Environmental advocates called the bill the most significant step ever taken to control heat-trapping gases in the United States, which is the world's leading source of such pollutants but which, under President Bush, has refused to join a global pact to restrict their emissions. Automakers contend that California is taking a unilateral step to increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles, something the federal government has not done for years. Because carbon dioxide is given off whenever gasoline is burned, the only way to cut how much of it vehicles produce is to make ones that burn less gasoline or to sell ones driven by electricity or by other means. The measure would not take effect until 2005, and the first models that would come under its restrictions would be sold in 2009. Even so, environmental groups said this was the most important step to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases since global climate change first came to public attention some 20 years ago. Fred Krupp, the president of Environmental Defense, a group that lobbied hard for the bill, said it was a sign that solutions are at hand for the threat of global warming. Finally, Mr. Krupp said, somewhere in our governmental system, one state has taken action. But other states, including Massachusetts, have taken steps, though more modest, to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases. Assemblyman Dario J. Frommer, a Los Angeles Democrat who supported the bill, said today: In the long term, we'll all be served by cleaner air and reducing global warning. We have four of the dirtiest cities in the nation in this state. It is time for us to lead the nation in a responsible and measured approach, which is what we have in this bill. But Assemblyman Dennis Hollingsworth, Republican of Murrieta, who opposed the bill, said: This will cost lives. `The reason it will cost lives is that it will price people out of the market. So they will keep their older cars, which do not have the safety features of newer cars. Automakers sought to thwart the bill with a vigorous campaign of television commercials and other publicity suggesting that the measure would result in a ban on sport utility vehicles and large cars. In a compromise, the Assembly required that the bill not impose taxes or other prohibitions on large cars, and provided that automakers could pay other companies that emit heat-trapping gases to reduce their pollution, offsetting cuts that automakers would otherwise have to make. Even so, the automakers reacted negatively to the measure passed today. This is another form of regulating fuel economy, said Chris Preuss, a spokesman for the General Motors Company. That is strictly the right and authority of the federal government. There are more proactive ways of dealing with the environmental issues in California than this type of legislative approach. Environmentalists argued that while fuel economy standards were regulated only by federal laws, California had the right to regulate all forms of air pollution, and that the current bill was carefully written to limit emissions of carbon dioxide, not fuel efficiency. California is the largest market for automobiles in the United States, as well as the state with more serious air pollution problems than any other. Under federal clean air legislation, the state's air quality
[biofuels-biz] Biodiesel vs, er, loft insulation??
For a bizarre read, try this: 20/1 Evaluation of the Comparative Energy, Environmental and Social Costs and Benefits of Biodiesel (pdf ~496kb) http://www.shu.ac.uk/rru/scp20-1r.pdf Forwarded to me by a less-than-thrilled Dave Preskett. These guys have also set up a forum for discussion of their report: http://143.52.119.8/SED/RRU/Biodiesel/ There's only one message so far, from Terry de Winne, being on the ball as usual: http://143.52.119.8/SED/RRU/Biodiesel/Lists/Biodiesel%20Report/DispFor m.htm?ID=2Source=http%3A%2F%2F143%2E52%2E119%2E8%2FSED%2FRRU%2FBiodie sel%2F Valiant effort at being polite. I suggest he could use some support - this foolish report should be scotched before it does harm. Regards Keith Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/
AW: [biofuels-biz] Biodiesel vs, er, loft insulation??
I did read through it, and I can not see what is so bizzare about that study. We have seen worse. Where they fail in their efford to be transparent, is the high primary energy input given for esterification. Seems that this includes the methanol input, but this is not stated or explained. In total, a result of 0.51 MJ conventional input for 1 MJ renewable BD output is average for studies that look at rape seed Biodiesel AND it does give BD an edge over dinodiesel (where you have to put an extra 1,2 MJ dino input to deliver 1MJ dino output at the pump!). Also it is not explained why they are mad enough to transesterify refined rape seed oil. Raw will do just fine, as we all know. An intelligent system of course would use BD where ever possible in the growing of the oil seed OR used veg. oil as the clever feedstock. But they are starting, they may still learn ;-) Camillo Holecek Biodiesel Raffinerie GmbH, Austria -Ursprngliche Nachricht- Von: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Dienstag, 02. Juli 2002 18:02 An: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Cc: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Betreff: [biofuels-biz] Biodiesel vs, er, loft insulation?? For a bizarre read, try this: 20/1 Evaluation of the Comparative Energy, Environmental and Social Costs and Benefits of Biodiesel (pdf ~496kb) http://www.shu.ac.uk/rru/scp20-1r.pdf Forwarded to me by a less-than-thrilled Dave Preskett. These guys have also set up a forum for discussion of their report: http://143.52.119.8/SED/RRU/Biodiesel/ There's only one message so far, from Terry de Winne, being on the ball as usual: http://143.52.119.8/SED/RRU/Biodiesel/Lists/Biodiesel%20Report/DispFor m.htm?ID=2Source=http%3A%2F%2F143%2E52%2E119%2E8%2FSED%2FRRU%2FBiodie sel%2F Valiant effort at being polite. I suggest he could use some support - this foolish report should be scotched before it does harm. Regards Keith Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/ Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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: [biofuels-biz] Re: Energy Scandals and Climate Tragedies
How 'bout if we started at the back end of your horse and work forward? You state at the end of your message that the information that you are specifically looking for is that which doesn't ... count the cost or doesn't assume that all change is bad. First, why would you want literature that doesn't take into consideration all aspects...literature that is selective and discriminating? It's rather difficult to understand anything if it's only being looked at from one or a selective few angles, and through a prism lense at that. Second, how about altering your words to doesn't assume that change is always bad. Perhaps a wee technicality, but some changes are entirely bad, some changes are only partially negative and some changes are entirely for the better. The real questions lay in how does a singular initial change affect each and every segment of global population, either through 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or later generation consequences. What may be good for a crop or species in one bioregion may be absolutely devastating in another. And what may appear to be of initial benefit one year may prove with each consecutive year to yield increasingly detrimental consequences. Third, as you seem to have a grasp on the concept of sustainability, how is it so difficult to transpose similar logic patterns over the consequences of global warming? It shouldn't be too terribly difficult to grasp that puffins and polar bears aren't designed for, won't be able to adapt to or won't be able to evolve quickly enough to cope with the new environments being imposed upon them. Then multiply that inability by thousands, tens of thousands and millions of species of flora and fauna. But then, your questions were primarily anthropocentric...as if inhumankind is independant of the world that surrounds them. Kind of like a mechanic that comes up with a half dozen spare parts after the last valve cover has been put on...probably didn't need those parts anyway, eh? But strictly from the anthropocentric focal point, just because your stilt house is high and dry doesn't mean that everyone else can afford the stilts or afford to move should they be washed out. Not all islanders are rich. Not all Ausies are warm and welcome hearted, saying It's okay. Come pitch your tent in my back yard. Bring your family and your goats until the next ice age cometh. Hell, in this country people not only won't give back trible land whose title has been legally proven in the judicial system, they keep trying to pinch the poorest of the poor and quarantine them into domiciles that look like refrigerator boxes (some of which are). What makes you think that people in any hemisphere are going to welcome dislocated persons with open arms...at least not unless they have $20,000 credit account with VISA or MasterCard. But then they'll only be welcome until the credit runs out and doubtful if they would be welcome to marry anyone's sister. Oh...but it's not so bad. Some of us will still be able to continue with 50 gallon spritz baths twice daily. Should it really bother me if entire populations can't find enough water to boil a potato, or can't find a potato... period? Is it really so bad that some people will lose their livlihoods and their lives while others will make out quite well? Ever ask yourself what they call 6 inches of rainfall in 4 hours in comparison to 6 inches of rainfall in 4 days or 4 weeks? One is called desert and/or flood, the other is more habitable and probably arable. And finally...as if there's really not volumes more to express...even though I jumped the gun by implying the geological time frames of evolution somewhere in the middle of the horse, rather than the front, you could give some thought about how under a natural regimen of change species have the opportunity to adapt and migrate... even those tortoise like giants called Trees. No..., proportional to geological time, global warming as a result of human contribution is more akin to a moon sized meteor hitting the earth, forcing nearly overnite extinction and borderline survival for many species. There is certainly no justification for creating such havoc, even though we can and are. And there is certainly no justification for accepting such havoc simply because we can adapt. Ever asked yourself how it is that a world dies? Not much different than any animal...bit by bit and cell by cell it ceases to function, until the total balance can no longer support its own existance. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: gjkimlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 8:51 AM Subject: [biofuels-biz] Re: Energy Scandals and Climate Tragedies I know that I can be a little thick but can some one help me to get this problem with climate change. Perhaps the rapidity and direction of climate change has been affected by human intervention but so what? Nothing in nature is constant and natural systems must have evolved to cope
[biofuels-biz] Good quote from UK environment secretary...
UK... Carbon emissions Fuel from crops such as oil seed rape could cut carbon emissions by hundreds of thousands of tonnes, the environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, said: Replacement of one million tonnes of fossil diesel with biodiesel from oilseed rape would save between 500,000 and 700,000 tonnes. She added: One hectare of biomass crops yielding the equivalent of eight tonnes per annum has the potential to save about two tonnes of carbon each year. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/commons/story/0,9061,747800,00.html [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://www.webconx.com/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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] Toyota to market fuel cell cars this year
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/16671/story.htm Planet Ark : Toyota to market fuel cell cars this year JAPAN: July 2, 2002 TOKYO - Toyota Motor Corp, the world's third largest automaker, said yesterday it would become the first carmaker to market a fuel cell passenger car, with a small number of vehicles to be offered from late this year. The auto giant stressed, however, that high costs meant its marketing efforts would be limited and it said only 20 vehicles would only be leased in the first 12 months to government bodies, research institutions and energy-related companies. We are still deciding the price of the vehicle, Toyota spokeswoman Shino Yamada said. Fuel cell vehicles are seen as one day being the eventual answer to most of the environmental concerns caused by cars. Emitting only heat and water as by-products, fuel cells use an electrochemical process to create electricity by mixing hydrogen with oxygen. However, hydrogen in its natural gaseous state is difficult to store and distribute, so fuel cells vehicles for the ordinary consumer are not seen likely anytime soon. Toyota said it had brought forward a plan to begin marketing a fuel cell vehicle from 2003 after successfully road testing its FCHV-4 prototype for a year in Japan and the United States. DaimlerChrysler AG first brought to market a limited series of fuel cell buses in 2000. Other automakers have pledged to begin marketing fuel cell vehicles from next year or 2004. Toyota said in a statement it expected full commercialisation of fuel cell vehicles from 2010 at the earliest, once standards were in place and the public better understood hydrogen fuel. Toyota said the vehicles available from the end of the year would be offered only in Japan and the United States, in limited areas where the company had confirmed the availability of hydrogen supply and after-sales service. Toyota, widely seen as the leader in environmentally friendly auto technology, put the first hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle, the Prius, on the market in 1997. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Farmers Turn To Composting, Georgia, USA sulfur
Hi Keith, Hi Hoagy Thanks for this, nice... Could be quicker, could be hotter too, only 120-130F. Still, that's okay, they're doing good. Makes you think, though, eh? - all that free heat going to waste. Wonder why they don't use it? I don't know. Whadaya suggest. The Mother Earth News used it to warm water in the cooler times of the year if memory serves me. I've done it before, it's easily arranged. It's said you need bulk for composting, but it's not really true if you know how to do it. For which, you'll find everything you need to know here: http://journeytoforever.org/compost.html In Tokyo we were living in a small flat, with a very small balcony. I had a 14x14x12 wooden box, only 1.36 cubic feet, composting kitchen wastes, which stayed above 60 deg C (140F) for about 10 days or more, freeze or shine - weather made no difference. Easy to arrange it so there are two such boxes, one of them always hot. A coil of copper piping and some insulation would have given us plenty of hot water for nothing, landlord allowing (which he didn't). That's a bit of an expert project, getting that much reliable heat out of so little bulk. I guess it showed what's possible for Tokyo apartment dwellers. We usually recommend at least 8 cub ft, others say more. But most people have a lot more room and a lot more resources - maybe a garden or a yard as well as just a kitchen for two. Anyway, if you're interested in this, here's where it all started, more than 60 years ago, and still unequalled. This is the man who first put composting on a scientific basis, and much besides. I've just uploaded it: And many thanks to you! More such on the way, as I can manage it, but An Agricultural Testament is the classic of them all. I think the guys at the Gromor project are swayed by more recent ideas that full thermophilic compost - well above 55C (131F) - ain't good, for this and that reason, so they turn it a lot with that tractor thing and water it a lot while they're at it to keep the temperatures down, so it stays below 130F and takes months. That's all BS, IMNSHO - from my own experience, and also from Howard's work and that of his followers, large-scale farmers all over the world, who consistently achieved excellent results with very hot compost, with much of the temperature range well into the 60s (C). This was always with layered piles, not shredded like Gromor's. Layered piles need one turn, certainly not this constant turning and watering. Shredding stems from a method developed at Berkeley, to increase the surface area and thus hasten the process, which works very well, but doesn't need much further attention after that, not even turning. This is borne out by a study by Will Brinton of Woods End Research Laboratory: Sustainability of Modern Composting: Intensification Versus Costs Quality: http://www.woodsend.org/sustain.pdf Brinton found no benefits from extra processing such as Gromor's, and indeed some disadvantages and losses. Here are his conclusions: CONCLUSIONS These findings support the notion that intensification of composting through technology may be unnecessary, certainly if the goal is on-farm nutrient and watershed management and land-application. The needs for pathogen reduction and stabilization are fully met provided the basic requirements for moisture and texture optimization are met. With these results in mind, a low-tech form of composting can be implemented without undue economic or management pressure. Composting methods that require intensification are a curious result of modern popularity and technological development of composting, as particularly evidenced in popular trade journals. They do not appear to be scientifically supportable based on these studies. Our view of sustainability is analogous to a reduced tillage approach to maximizing soil quality. By carefully managing composting to achieve proper mixes and limited turning, the ideal of a quality product at low economic burden can be achieved. Within bio-dynamic management, as an example, low-intensive composting has generally been the norm, but has been criticized by modern composters. Based on these studies, it would appear that low-tech composting is more sustainable in view of nutrient and humus-conservation and also costs. Important factors to consider in successfully implementing low-tech minimum turning approaches are correct amount of bedding and moisture control in the compost piles. In view of these results, current approaches to composting must be re-thought in view of modern, sustainable farming practice. So, it's all just a waste of energy and time. Sod all this modern crap, back to Howard et al, thanks. Reinvented wheels prove unsatisfactory. Next Howard upload to Journey to Forever will be this one: The Waste Products of Agriculture -- Their Utilization as Humus by Sir Albert Howard and Yeshwant D. Wad, Oxford University Press,
Re: [biofuel] Farmers Turn To Composting, Georgia, USA
For those interested, this beautiful book is available online at: http://www.weblife.org/humanure/default.html __ramjee. Hello Ramjee Very interesting too how Joseph Jenkins sells hard-copies of his book AND makes a free version available online at the same website. Would that more publishers realized the two are complementary, and that giving it away for nothing doesn't eat into hard-copy sales as alleged. Quite the opposite. More humanure resources here, by the way: http://journeytoforever.org/compost_humanure.html regards Keith - Original Message - From: Christopher Witmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 7:27 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Farmers Turn To Composting, Georgia, USA A very welcome development indeed -- let us hope we shall also see wider application of the composting principles set forth in Jenkins' Humanure Handbook. MH wrote: Farmers Turn To Composting To Protect Crops, Revive Soils Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] California Lawmakers Vote to Lower Auto Emissions
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/02/national/02POLL.html?ex=1026273600e n=824f83cad7d2b36eei=5040partner=MOREOVER California Lawmakers Vote to Lower Auto Emissions By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr. After a long and bitter debate, lawmakers in California today passed the nation's strongest legislation to regulate emissions of the main pollutant that can cause warming of the planet's climate, a step that would require automakers to sell cars that give off the least possible amount of heat-trapping gases. By the narrowest of margins, the State Assembly passed the California Climate Bill, which for the first time gives the agency that regulates air pollution in the state the power to limit emissions of carbon dioxide, the main gas that scientists say is building up in the atmosphere and causing a warming of Earth's climate. The vote was 41 to 30, with 9 members not voting and with a majority of 41 needed to pass the bill. Democrats control the Assembly 50 to 30, and the vote was mostly along party lines, with Republicans in opposition. With the California Senate having passed the measure, 23 to 16, on Saturday, the Assembly's action seemed to signal that the bill would soon go to Gov. Gray Davis for his signature, though a few procedural hurdles might still derail it. Steven Maviglio, a spokesman for Mr. Davis, said the governor made this statement about the bill: This bill represents good public policy, but it has been subject to many amendments over the past several days. I will read all the amendments when the bill arrives on my desk before making a final decision. Environmental advocates called the bill the most significant step ever taken to control heat-trapping gases in the United States, which is the world's leading source of such pollutants but which, under President Bush, has refused to join a global pact to restrict their emissions. Automakers contend that California is taking a unilateral step to increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles, something the federal government has not done for years. Because carbon dioxide is given off whenever gasoline is burned, the only way to cut how much of it vehicles produce is to make ones that burn less gasoline or to sell ones driven by electricity or by other means. The measure would not take effect until 2005, and the first models that would come under its restrictions would be sold in 2009. Even so, environmental groups said this was the most important step to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases since global climate change first came to public attention some 20 years ago. Fred Krupp, the president of Environmental Defense, a group that lobbied hard for the bill, said it was a sign that solutions are at hand for the threat of global warming. Finally, Mr. Krupp said, somewhere in our governmental system, one state has taken action. But other states, including Massachusetts, have taken steps, though more modest, to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases. Assemblyman Dario J. Frommer, a Los Angeles Democrat who supported the bill, said today: In the long term, we'll all be served by cleaner air and reducing global warning. We have four of the dirtiest cities in the nation in this state. It is time for us to lead the nation in a responsible and measured approach, which is what we have in this bill. But Assemblyman Dennis Hollingsworth, Republican of Murrieta, who opposed the bill, said: This will cost lives. `The reason it will cost lives is that it will price people out of the market. So they will keep their older cars, which do not have the safety features of newer cars. Automakers sought to thwart the bill with a vigorous campaign of television commercials and other publicity suggesting that the measure would result in a ban on sport utility vehicles and large cars. In a compromise, the Assembly required that the bill not impose taxes or other prohibitions on large cars, and provided that automakers could pay other companies that emit heat-trapping gases to reduce their pollution, offsetting cuts that automakers would otherwise have to make. Even so, the automakers reacted negatively to the measure passed today. This is another form of regulating fuel economy, said Chris Preuss, a spokesman for the General Motors Company. That is strictly the right and authority of the federal government. There are more proactive ways of dealing with the environmental issues in California than this type of legislative approach. Environmentalists argued that while fuel economy standards were regulated only by federal laws, California had the right to regulate all forms of air pollution, and that the current bill was carefully written to limit emissions of carbon dioxide, not fuel efficiency. California is the largest market for automobiles in the United States, as well as the state with more serious air pollution problems than any other. Under federal clean air legislation, the state's air quality
[biofuel] Unsubscribe
Can you please unsubcribe me or tell me how to unsubcribe. Its been interesting on here but way too many emails and most of the stuff in them ain't what im looking for! Thanks for all the info anyway. _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] salty water (Todd)
Todd, Just as predicted: The mono-, di- triglycerids made another yucky emulsion after washing the crystal clear settled biodiesel. Just to confirm once again the disadvantages of including water in the reaction. I thought water only caused soaps. Putting pieces together, now it«s clear that water also prevent the completion of the reaction (forming soaps consumes sodium necessary for the transesterification) Christian - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] salty water Christian, Yup. I'm sure. Been that. Done there... in a 350 gallon batch no less. Ten gallons of what couldn't be salted out and didn't break on its own over time are still sitting in a jug one year later. If you get as high a volume of emulsion as you stated, it's an incomplete reaction and the presence of mono- and di-glycerides that caused the enormity of it, not the soap, as most of the soap drops with the glycerin. Try this for starters. Take the fluid whose emulsion was broken with the salting out and submit it to another wash. It's a safe bet that it will emulsify radically all over again. (You might also set aside a bit and submit it to a second transeserification to see how much glycerin drops out.) If you decant the fluid off the top that didn't emulsify and submit it to another wash, that might be a fair indicator as to how much of your incomplete reaction (mono- and di-glycerides) went into the emulsified layer, but would depend greatly upon the level of agitation during the initial wash. The decanted layer might emulsify every bit as severely as the original washed batch. I haven't seen any charts that can predict how heavy an emulsion will occur in the presence of x mono- or di-glycerides. But I'm sure there are some rules of thumb. A quick look at the back of a mayonaise jar or many other food products lends one to believe that it takes very little to achieve an extensive result. A few percent could be all it takes. That same few percent wouldn't even be noticeable in a test for viscosity using anything but the most advanced and electronically calibrated equipment. A good number of persons would argue over this, but I'd say pack the viscometer up in it's case and rely upon your wash characteristics as indicators of a complete reaction, in absence of a GC and or in a backyard environment. One other thing, relative to the quality of the salted out fluid. I used to point out to our chemist that Hell...diesel engines will run on straight veg oil! whenever he pointed out that we were still none too sure about the quality of our fuel. Then I tried running some of the salted out batch mentioned above. Sputter...sputtergasp!!hiss..! wheeze... Pure murder for the first 3 minutes on a cold start at 50*F. When the fuel was exhausted it was replaced with biodiesel from a less troublesome batch. The car turned around and slapped a big wet one on us in thanks for treating it better. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 8:52 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] salty water Dear Todd, Is that so? The mini batch I experimented on seemed to show a good conversion. Of course I did not run it through a gas chromatograph, but the BD seemed OK (not emulsified or mixed with oils and mono- di- glycerids). The mixture of EtOH and MeOH I used resulted in 98% alcohol, and I suppose 2% water is just in the limit of acceptance for a transesterification reaction (don«t know... I assume this out of experience). Anyhow, the ammount of water I had was too much and everything emulsified in a thick white foam. But the NaCl and a light rewash with the salty water reduced everything from the former 20% BD, 70% foam, 10% water to a 50% BD, 5% foam, 45% water... or something like that. and the BD is now settling its turbidity and taking the typical transparent pale golden colour. Viscosity seems OK (inidcating absence of glycerides?) Are you sure it«s such an incomplete reaction? Thanks again for your help, Christian - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:15 AM Subject: Re: [biofuel] salty water Christian, I believe the emulsion breaking process you are referring to is called salting out in chemistry vernacular. Unfortunately, it's not biodiesel that you are salting out. Rather, it's mono- and di-glycerides from an incomplete reaction. Anytime that you have that much of an emulsion problem, you can't bet your burrow and its saddle that's the problem. If you take the salted-out, recovered fuel and run it through the transesterification process again, you will find that a good bit more glycerin drops out. You will also find
[biofuel] Mid-California Ethanol use
Stopped at a 76 station on route 5 today midway between LA and San Francisco and noticed a sign on the pump reading that the fuel may contain ethanol. Can't recall but it may have been phrased almost as though it were a warning, though not as harsh as the MTBE warnings you see. Anyway, I don't see these signs yet in So.Cal. but I'll keep looking. Re-examination of the ethanol stories shows Philips as one of the companies going somewhat ethanol, so that makes sense. Don't know the reason for the ambivalent may contain though. I wonder if they'd just be using it as an octane enhancer or something. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Unsubscribe
go to the bottom of the message page and it tells u how to unsubscribe there. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Biodiesel vs, er, loft insulation??
Me mum would even like this one. (Figures 9 and 10, pages 7 and 8 respectively.) In summation she would say that Obviously it is more energy efficient to wash behind one's ears than it is to wash between one's toes, due to the caloric value extended from the act of bending down. Therefore, the act of washing any parts of the anatomy beyond the same distance of one's fingertips to one's ears should be necessarily eliminated due to the excessive extension of effort. No doubt over extension of caloric values must also include ergonomic variables which increase energy consumption, giving great cause to eliminate back washing. And, as the manufacture of appliances that can reduce caloric waste from such ergonomic inefficiencies also require energy, backs are altogether discounted as an efficiently washable body part with respect to energy inputs. I just want to know if 12 of loft insullation is going to get anyone's tomatos to market with less expenditure of energy or production of greenhouse gases? Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Cc: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 12:02 PM Subject: [biofuel] Biodiesel vs, er, loft insulation?? For a bizarre read, try this: 20/1 Evaluation of the Comparative Energy, Environmental and Social Costs and Benefits of Biodiesel (pdf ~496kb) http://www.shu.ac.uk/rru/scp20-1r.pdf Forwarded to me by a less-than-thrilled Dave Preskett. These guys have also set up a forum for discussion of their report: http://143.52.119.8/SED/RRU/Biodiesel/ There's only one message so far, from Terry de Winne, being on the ball as usual: http://143.52.119.8/SED/RRU/Biodiesel/Lists/Biodiesel%20Report/Di spFor m.htm?ID=2Source=http%3A%2F%2F143%2E52%2E119%2E8%2FSED%2FRRU%2FB iodie sel%2F Valiant effort at being polite. I suggest he could use some support - this foolish report should be scotched before it does harm. Regards Keith Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] heat biodiesel
I have another question. What effects does heat have on biodiesel? Is biodiesel sensitive to sunlight? My questions are regarding the use of solar on biodiesel to inhibit bacterial growth. Bill C. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] ignition retarding
In a message dated 06/06/2002 7:49:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 06:27:31PM +1000, Neil and Adele Craven wrote: Now for my Question. What is the issue if the ignition is not retarded 2-3 deg? As I live in Australia and cover many outback Klms where fuel production would not be possible (Thankfully I have 265ltrs on board capacity) I would need to keep the car suitable to run on dinodiesel. Neil Adele: Where do you live in the outback? Richard McPherson [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] what about tap water
Hi all. Can anybody tell me: Can the washing stages use ordinary tap water or do they necessarily require distilled water? I might try to run a recycling program for used oil in the city. Many restaurants sell it at around 15 cents/lt (probably reused as second quelity oil for cheap chinese restaurants and other places), but distilled water increases costs deamatically if I am to make batches of up to 200 liters and plan to use the bubble wash method. Does free chlorine in the water bring any problems? Buying the used oil already makes things expensive, and the pretended volumes of WVO aren«t big enough to reach wholesale prices for methanol (Retail methanol costs about 2.5 pesos/lt... imagine it were equivalent to 2.5 dollars/lt, which it is not.. but as salaries and cost of living have not changed since the 1peso = 1 dollar times last year, you can assume no devaluation just to picture the price in terms of % of a salary. If I had saved dollars, that would roughly be 60 cents of a dollar per liter). To consider myself in business, at least for small scale production (the intention is to sell the BD... cheaper than dino diesel of course), I need to be very careful with costs, and that includes my source of water. Regards, Christian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Mid-California Ethanol use
A few stations over here in Australia are trying the same thingbeware ethanol contains water and water it down they do. Honestly it is very bad for any vehicle and should only be used in emergencies with octane boosters. By the way has anyone seen or collected any info on structure and build-designs of ceramic engines? [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stopped at a 76 station on route 5 today midway between LA and San Francisco and noticed a sign on the pump reading that the fuel may contain ethanol. Can't recall but it may have been phrased almost as though it were a warning, though not as harsh as the MTBE warnings you see. Anyway, I don't see these signs yet in So.Cal. but I'll keep looking. Re-examination of the ethanol stories shows Philips as one of the companies going somewhat ethanol, so that makes sense. Don't know the reason for the ambivalent may contain though. I wonder if they'd just be using it as an octane enhancer or something. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. - Relive the FIFA World Cup goals with exclusive video highlights! http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/fc/en [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] heat biodiesel
William Clark wrote: I have another question. What effects does heat have on biodiesel? Is biodiesel sensitive to sunlight? My questions are regarding the use of solar on biodiesel to inhibit bacterial growth. Bill C. Bill, Neither dino nor bio diesel like heat or light; in general they contribute to deterioration of the product. Basically you are talking about using solar heat to pasteurize the biodiesel; that could probably be made to work but the resulting product won't keep as long as bug-free biodiesel that hadn't been exposed to the heat of pasteurization. The shorter product life may or may not be a problem. Also, just like with pasteurized milk, recontamination of the pasteurized product will put you more or less right back where you started, so you would have to store it in sterilized containers, etc. to make an appreciable difference for long-term storage. Bacteria will deteriorate the product, and the heat of pasteurization will tend to deteriorate the product (somewhat). The tradeoff may be worth it but I should think that would depend on the particulars of each situation. Chris Witmer Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Biodiesel - how?
Not to sound too nieve or anything, but I've only just joined this group. My questions are thus: How is biodiesel made? is it used the same as dinodiesel? does it have any disadvantages? and does it give the same power output? You may have already answered all these before, however if anyone could humor me for just a minute I would be very thankfull. - Relive the FIFA World Cup goals with exclusive video highlights! http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/fc/en [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Good quote from UK environment secretary...
UK... Carbon emissions Fuel from crops such as oil seed rape could cut carbon emissions by hundreds of thousands of tonnes, the environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, said: Replacement of one million tonnes of fossil diesel with biodiesel from oilseed rape would save between 500,000 and 700,000 tonnes. She added: One hectare of biomass crops yielding the equivalent of eight tonnes per annum has the potential to save about two tonnes of carbon each year. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/commons/story/0,9061,747800,00.html [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Isuzu 4x4 power boost for SA
Now if only we could add a U in front of that SA in the headline, we'd be getting somewhere over on this side of the pond. This sort of thing ought to be the premier SUV in North America, instead of gas hogs. Maybe someday soon, lots of deals being made on smaller diesels amongst Cummins and partners, etc., etc. http://www.news24.com/News24/Wheels24/0,3999,2-15_1204141,00.html Regards, Edward Beggs, BES, MSc Bioenergist http://www.biofuels.ca Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Mid-California Ethanol use
As it happens, I filled up with 91 Octane instead of 87 or 89. Really a 1 in 100 choice on my part. Usually I choose 87 without thinking. But I once read a discussion of the Midwest U.S. that said that even there sometimes the only ethanol is in the 91. So, maybe mine did contain ethanol. If so, it's hard to pronounce if there were problems associated with it, as my car is experiencing a problem with over-heating in traffic. I'm sure I'm misinformed on a couple of points, but it sure was nice to see that it might be in my tank, given the battle that has occurred to get it in there. Now, what's this about it being bad for my car? Are you saying generally bad, or only when there's too much water, or what? jl On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 03:42:36 +0100 (BST), you wrote: A few stations over here in Australia are trying the same thingbeware ethanol contains water and water it down they do. Honestly it is very bad for any vehicle and should only be used in emergencies with octane boosters. By the way has anyone seen or collected any info on structure and build-designs of ceramic engines? [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stopped at a 76 station on route 5 today midway between LA and San Francisco and noticed a sign on the pump reading that the fuel may contain ethanol. Can't recall but it may have been phrased almost as though it were a warning, though not as harsh as the MTBE warnings you see. Anyway, I don't see these signs yet in So.Cal. but I'll keep looking. Re-examination of the ethanol stories shows Philips as one of the companies going somewhat ethanol, so that makes sense. Don't know the reason for the ambivalent may contain though. I wonder if they'd just be using it as an octane enhancer or something. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. - Relive the FIFA World Cup goals with exclusive video highlights! http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/fc/en [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
