Re: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians
Very well said... Again, something to think about. Jonathan Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim, Thank you for your qualifiers as to the unreliability of all or almost all news institutions. Your first post didn't give the same perspective. In the words of Ronald Reagan, trust, but verify is sound policy in almost every venue. As for agreeing to disagree relative to Aljazeera? They're certainly no more or less reliable than CBS and certainly no more slanted than Fox or any number of others. I think that if you were to treat all news agencies with the same criteria and candor that there would be far less cause to take exception to the perspective you print. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Tim Ferguson To: Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 10:08 AM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians Todd, I'm not saying that the beating did or did not take place. And it is not an opinion as to the credibility of the source but rather a fact. Your point would be better served and received citing several sources rather than one. Especially one that is for the most part State Run. It's not that I don't include Aljazeera in my daily diet of news sources because I do for just the reason you stated. Getting unreported stories or rather a different perspective of commonly reported stories. However, with the way the media tends to cover and spin stories to support their agendas I find it best to have some form of validation and not rely on any single source and accept what that source might state as truth. This helps to reduce the spin. And finally I hope that we can agree to disagree on the merit of Aljazeera's reporting. Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Appal Energy Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians Tim, So you're saying that the beating didn't take place, simply because you don't care for the source? How many other times have such events not been reported by your choice media? And after thousands of failures of non-reporting you would care to imply that they're far more reliable and/or less biased than any other? Aljazeera is, whether you like it or not, a news agency - a far cry above and beyond the pale of a White House press secretary. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Tim Ferguson To: Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 7:56 AM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians I can't believe that someone would actually use Aljazeera as a news source. LOL. I know it's difficult to find news sources having any degree of intergrity in reporting, but really.Aljazeera? You might as well take the White House spokesman's word as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of fox mulder Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 3:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians Jewish settlers attack US Christians By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank Thursday 30 September 2004, 2:24 Makka Time, 23:24 GMT Palestinian children fear attacks from settlers Jewish settler immigrants from North America have attacked and severely beat American Christian peace volunteers near the village of Yatta south west of Hebron. Palestinian and Israeli sources said the attack occurred on Wednesday. According to the Hebron-based Christian Peace Making Team (CPT), five settlers carrying iron chains and baseball clubs, assaulted two male and female volunteers who were escorting Palestinian schoolchildren to their school at the village of Tuba near the settlement of Maon in the southern Hebron hills. The assailants reportedly beat the two volunteers and robbed them. The pair were evacuated by an Israeli ambulance to a hospital in the southern Israeli town of Be'ir Sheva were their condition is said to be moderate. The assailants also stole a bag belonging to a female volunteer named Kim Lamberty. The bag contained a passport, money and a cellular phone. It is not clear if the settlers had wanted to attack Palestinian schoolchildren who fled to their homes. Volunteers severly beaten CPT spokesperson in Hebron, Cal Carpenter told Aljazeera.net that one of the volunteers had a collapsed lung while a woman volunteer had sustained cuts and bruises. Asked why he thought the settlers assaulted his colleagues, Carpenter said the settlers didn't like what we were doing, namely escorting Palestinian kids to their schools. They apparently were unhappy to see us stand by the kids whom the settlers want to abuse¡Ä
RE: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians
I think we can do no better than to heed the advice below from Noam Chomsky: The best thing to do is read widely and always sceptically. Remember that everyone, including me, has their opinions and their goals and you have to think them through for yourself. Regards Dermot -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Appal Energy Sent: 05 October 2004 20:12 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians Tim, Thank you for your qualifiers as to the unreliability of all or almost all news institutions. Your first post didn't give the same perspective. In the words of Ronald Reagan, trust, but verify is sound policy in almost every venue. As for agreeing to disagree relative to Aljazeera? They're certainly no more or less reliable than CBS and certainly no more slanted than Fox or any number of others. I think that if you were to treat all news agencies with the same criteria and candor that there would be far less cause to take exception to the perspective you print. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Tim Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 10:08 AM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians Todd, I'm not saying that the beating did or did not take place. And it is not an opinion as to the credibility of the source but rather a fact. Your point would be better served and received citing several sources rather than one. Especially one that is for the most part State Run. It's not that I don't include Aljazeera in my daily diet of news sources because I do for just the reason you stated. Getting unreported stories or rather a different perspective of commonly reported stories. However, with the way the media tends to cover and spin stories to support their agendas I find it best to have some form of validation and not rely on any single source and accept what that source might state as truth. This helps to reduce the spin. And finally I hope that we can agree to disagree on the merit of Aljazeera's reporting. Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Appal Energy Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians Tim, So you're saying that the beating didn't take place, simply because you don't care for the source? How many other times have such events not been reported by your choice media? And after thousands of failures of non-reporting you would care to imply that they're far more reliable and/or less biased than any other? Aljazeera is, whether you like it or not, a news agency - a far cry above and beyond the pale of a White House press secretary. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Tim Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 7:56 AM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians I can't believe that someone would actually use Aljazeera as a news source. LOL. I know it's difficult to find news sources having any degree of intergrity in reporting, but really.Aljazeera? You might as well take the White House spokesman's word as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of fox mulder Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 3:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians Jewish settlers attack US Christians By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank Thursday 30 September 2004, 2:24 Makka Time, 23:24 GMT Palestinian children fear attacks from settlers Jewish settler immigrants from North America have attacked and severely beat American Christian peace volunteers near the village of Yatta south west of Hebron. Palestinian and Israeli sources said the attack occurred on Wednesday. According to the Hebron-based Christian Peace Making Team (CPT), five settlers carrying iron chains and baseball clubs, assaulted two male and female volunteers who were escorting Palestinian schoolchildren to their school at the village of Tuba near the settlement of Maon in the southern Hebron hills. The assailants reportedly beat the two volunteers and robbed them. The pair were evacuated by an Israeli ambulance to a hospital in the southern Israeli town of Be'ir Sheva were their condition is said to be moderate. The assailants also stole a bag belonging to a female volunteer named Kim Lamberty. The bag contained a passport, money and a cellular phone. It is not clear if the settlers had wanted to attack Palestinian schoolchildren who fled to their homes. Volunteers severly beaten CPT
RE: [Biofuel] Kerry's environmental car- yea right.(II)
Hi Todd, I understand your statement about finding pieces that can adapt to the jigsaw puzzle. Many people condemn, find fault, and criticize. As the Beatles once said, there are no problems, only solutions. And that is the joy of creativity... finding solutions. I appreciate your bent towards solutions and this is the crux of what we can do in an exchange of ideas. We should be promoting each other's goodness and will to good. So, lets promote actual production of biofuels. This means the entire fun of all of the interchange... make it work for positive action. More than a mind game of wits, we need to inspire each other to action. Best wishes, Peggy ... do you offer any solutions. I wonder why. Perhaps no viable answers other than rebuilding an entire energy industry? Seems that it's a lot easier or perhaps more fun simply to isolate something and shred it to pieces rather than look a jigsaw puzzle in its totality, eh? Todd Swearingnen ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid
Thank you Don for the excellent example of a well-planned forward step. Each of our biofuels ethanol plants comes with a generator powered from fuel ethanol production. That generator frees the producer from the grid, which is what you are recommending. Moreover, in many places if the producer is also connected to a grid, then it is possible to sell the energy back to the grid... and in many areas it is mandated that the grid owner pay for this retro energy. So biofuels production has additional benefits with more to be realized. Maybe some day we can also be awarded a green apple. Ha! I'm not really aware of the green apple award and it must be a good feeling to have received this. It sounds like a good bite and a bit of juicy recognition. We are looking forward to working with a group in Scotland. When we finally work out some details, we hope to have this group represent the technological advances in other parts of Europe. Our projects are small community-based projects and not grid sensitive. Hopefully, our discussions are more collaborations than debates. Best wishes, Peggy Original post: Peggy, hakan and others, I'm not sure how much this contributes to your debate but I also suscribe to the view of using what energy we have more wisely and economically, whilst also introducing newer technologies to run in parrallel with traditional systems, but preferably generating electricity LOCALLY, and using it LOCALLY, thereby avoiding the losses inherent in national grid systems whilst generating a sense of community ownership of their own energy supply, which in turn may be more easy to divert that community ownership to recognize such responsibilities as their own waste ,etc.. The best example I know in the UK is that achieved by Alan Jones( OBE or similar), the incumbent Eneregy Manager with Woking Borough Council. He has a target that Woking should produce all its own energy locally and disconnect itself from the National Grid! He, and Woking are approaching this by a comprehensive programme which involves; 1. A linked up network of CHP PLANTS (Combined Heat Power). Each engine , or plant, produces more energy and heat than it can use in its own building so it exports the extra to a community heating and electrical system.Thislocal network just keeps expanding. 2. Here is the really exciting bit. The swimming pool and the civic offices are powered by the first operational fuel cell plant which I know of in the UK! I believe excess heat and power are also exported to their 'community grid'. I presume that this is running on hydrogen, but I do not know how he produces it, or what he pays for it. If there is an interest, I could try to find out and report back to the group. What is also really exciting is how Woking is paying for this. He asked the council for £0.25m in 1990/91, and stated that he would never ask them for any more finance, PROVIDED they also approve a policy that all financial savings realised from energy saving measures would always be reinvested in further energy saving measures, thus creating more financial savings to reinvest etc, etc you get the picture..well, guess what, it worked! They are now saving:- 1. 43% of energy and water consumption 2. saving in energy and water budgets since 1991 now are £4.9 million ( 2002/2003 figure ) 3. annual savings, reinvested each year , is now £0.885 million. Not bad from £0.25 m in 1991...can you imagine the impact if ALL councils throughout Europe and North America achieved this? Now to this image of responsible councils we add a culture of composting, and locally supporting the inception of regional biodiesel plants thus producing another element of their own fuel locally whilst providing local jobs and local markets for the local farmers. I'm beginning to feel like Martin Luther King.' I have a dream'! But seriously, it seems environmental movements, like this biofuel movement,and env. responsible councils, are clearly showing the way and if all followed we could be much more 'sustainable' in as little as 10 years. We could also shift the global perspective of politics and finance away from that dominated by oil. Remaining oil reserves could be protected and used much more wisely and sparingly. But back to reality. We in Portsmouth are building an Energy from Waste Plant to incinerate household waste. This plant will produce electricity ( to the grid- NOT LOCALLY ) and will also produce 30MW of waste heat for which so far there are absolutely no plans to utilise this 'free' energy...it will simply go up the chimney! Don Johnston Environmental Coordinator , Portsmouth City Council Chair, Solent Energy and Environment Management Group Winner ; National Champion-Science and Technology, Green Apple Awards 2002 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 023 9283 4247 -Original Message-
RE: [Biofuel] Posse Comitatus
Hello Richard, My comments about the military were actually from recalling a story about the reserves having to operate equipment during their annual duty (prior to having to actually serve in a conflict). One local commander allowed the operators skills and equipment use to be applied toward environmental service. In this case it was win-win-win. The troops served their duty, the equipment went to good use, and the community profited from a well-planned cooperative action. So as an exemplary project, it showed that men (women) in service could be more than war-based. In the mythological sense, Mars is the god of war AND the protector of the fields. Trivia, to be sure, but from whence are our beliefs born? Best wishes, Peggy In response to Peggy. Use of the Army or Air Force for Civil works is dicey from the politics of the Civil War. There is a legacy feeling that the Feds should stay out of the way for things that counties could do for themselves. But then the counties don't do those things anyway. What is a poor citizen to do? Check out this link for posse comitatus. http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/Factcards/PosseComitatus.htm l Posse Comitatus Act Source: G-OPL POSSE COMITATUS ACT (18 USC 1385): A Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of Army (later, Air Force) to execute the laws except where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. SNIP Most States are still trying to recover from Navigable Waterways laws which gave the Army Corps of Engineers defacto control of much of the land in the United States. The term execute the laws is tightly guarded by states and even more tightly interpreted. However, I think Peggy is on the right track. Beating swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks. The military academies are probably the only schools that had a curriculum to support environmental goals. But even the Academies have abandoned the environmental track. Also of interest is the Whiskey Rebellion and Advisory Boards, if you want to explore the policies. --- Peggy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Ross, The pentagon can actually do a lot of good. Please recall an ultimate task that can be assigned to a new age army (military forces)... policing environmental issues--making positive changes via engineering and brute strength to benefit citizens. __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Kerry's environmental car- yea right.(II)
Don, It was very interesting to read about Woking, although I am not the slightest surprised by the results of the decision taken. I think that it should stay on the grid and prove that they can contribute as a power plant. The returns to to the citizens of Woking can be significant, especially since I expect that the effect from many of the energy saving measures will peak after 20 to 30 years. Hakan At 06:48 PM 10/5/2004, you wrote: Peggy, hakan and others, I'm not sure how much this contributes to your debate but I also suscribe to the view of using what energy we have more wisely and economically, whilst also introducing newer technologies to run in parrallel with traditional systems, but preferably generating electricity LOCALLY, and using it LOCALLY, thereby avoiding the losses inherent in national grid systems whilst generating a sense of community ownership of their own energy supply, which in turn may be more easy to divert that community ownership to recognize such responsibilities as their own waste ,etc.. The best example I know in the UK is that achieved by Alan Jones( OBE or similar), the incumbent Eneregy Manager with Woking Borough Council. He has a target that Woking should produce all its own energy locally and disconnect itself from the National Grid! He, and Woking are approaching this by a comprehensive programme which involves; 1. A linked up network of CHP PLANTS (Combined Heat Power). Each engine , or plant, produces more energy and heat than it can use in its own building so it exports the extra to a community heating and electrical system.Thislocal network just keeps expanding. 2. Here is the really exciting bit. The swimming pool and the civic offices are powered by the first operational fuel cell plant which I know of in the UK! I believe excess heat and power are also exported to their 'community grid'. I presume that this is running on hydrogen, but I do not know how he produces it, or what he pays for it. If there is an interest, I could try to find out and report back to the group. What is also really exciting is how Woking is paying for this. He asked the council for £0.25m in 1990/91, and stated that he would never ask them for any more finance, PROVIDED they also approve a policy that all financial savings realised from energy saving measures would always be reinvested in further energy saving measures, thus creating more financial savings to reinvest etc, etc you get the picture..well, guess what, it worked! They are now saving:- 1. 43% of energy and water consumption 2. saving in energy and water budgets since 1991 now are £4.9 million ( 2002/2003 figure ) 3. annual savings, reinvested each year , is now £0.885 million. Not bad from £0.25 m in 1991...can you imagine the impact if ALL councils throughout Europe and North America achieved this? Now to this image of responsible councils we add a culture of composting, and locally supporting the inception of regional biodiesel plants thus producing another element of their own fuel locally whilst providing local jobs and local markets for the local farmers. I'm beginning to feel like Martin Luther King.' I have a dream'! But seriously, it seems environmental movements, like this biofuel movement,and env. responsible councils, are clearly showing the way and if all followed we could be much more 'sustainable' in as little as 10 years. We could also shift the global perspective of politics and finance away from that dominated by oil. Remaining oil reserves could be protected and used much more wisely and sparingly. But back to reality. We in Portsmouth are building an Energy from Waste Plant to incinerate household waste. This plant will produce electricity ( to the grid- NOT LOCALLY ) and will also produce 30MW of waste heat for which so far there are absolutely no plans to utilise this 'free' energy...it will simply go up the chimney! Don Johnston Environmental Coordinator , Portsmouth City Council Chair, Solent Energy and Environment Management Group Winner ; National Champion-Science and Technology, Green Apple Awards 2002 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 023 9283 4247 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hakan Falk Sent: 05 October 2004 16:17 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Kerry's environmental car- yea right.(II) Peggy, I am all for both tidal and wave electricity production, the connection to hydrogen is not necessary. Let us first see what we can save by efficient energy use (more than 50%) and it is the most cost efficient way to effect the current situation. Then we can reach feasible demands for renewable energy production. Hydrogen does not really fit in this picture today and with the most optimistic views, it is at least close to 20
[Biofuel] US Minnesota Fuels Plan
Governor Pawlenty Announces Plans to Double Ethanol Level in Gasoline and Reduce State Gasoline Consumption by 50% -- Sep 27, 2004 http://www.governor.state.mn.us/Tpaw_View_Article.asp?artid=1120 ~ Plan also includes greater use of hybrid vehicles ~ Saint Paul -- Governor Tim Pawlenty today declared Minnesota the renewable fuel capital of America and said Minnesota will lead the nation toward its renewable fuel future. Pawlenty announced a plan that will require gasoline be sold with twice the current amount of ethanol. He also announced an initiative that will reduce state government's use of gasoline 50% by 2015. The Governor is visiting Moorhead, St. Paul, Rochester, Mankato and Pipestone to discuss the initiatives today. The handwriting is on the wall, said Governor Pawlenty. America needs to end our unhealthy addiction to foreign oil. Utilizing common sense, homegrown renewable fuels is good for our national security, our environment and our economy. These initiatives we are announcing today will be a huge boost to our farmers and our rural Minnesota economy. The Governor's initiative has several components: á Double the level of ethanol in gasoline Currently, Minnesota law requires all gasoline sold within the state to include 10% ethanol (E-10). The Governor today announced that he will propose legislation for the 2005 session that will require gasoline with double the current level of ethanol (E-20) be sold in Minnesota. The 20% ethanol mandate will take effect when 50% or more of new model vehicles offered for sale in the state are warrantied for such a fuel or by 2010, whichever occurs first. Governor Pawlenty is sending letters to all major auto manufactures that sell vehicles in Minnesota to request that they update their warranties to include the use of E-20. In Brazil, most vehicles use ethanol blends. Prompted by the increase in oil prices in the 1970s, Brazil introduced a program to produce ethanol for use in cars. Pure ethanol (100% ethanol) is used in approximately 40 percent of Brazilian vehicles. The remaining vehicles use blends of 24% ethanol with 76% gasoline. There cars are manufactured by many major automobiles companies. A research report from the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research at Minnesota State University -- Mankato showed that there were no drivability or material compatibility problems experienced by 15 vehicles of various years, makes and models using E-30. Governor Pawlenty committed to addressing the potential concerns of gas station owners, refiners, automakers, ATV users, snowmobilers and other interested groups, before finalizing the proposed legislation. Currently, some cars use gasoline that contains 85% ethanol (E-85), but these vehicles must be specially manufactured for that purpose. á Reduce state government gasoline consumption by 50% Governor Pawlenty signed an executive order to have state government reduce its on-road fleet's use of gasoline 25% by 2010, and 50% by 2015; and petroleum-based diesel fuel 10% by 2010 and 25% by 2015. The action will reduce overall gas consumption by 950,000 gallons. These reductions in the use of petroleum-based fuels would be achieved through a combination of increased use of agricultural fuels, increased fuel efficiency of the state fleet by purchase of hybrid and more fuel efficient vehicles, and increased use of electronic government activities. By implementing these measures, the state will increase the amount of E-85 gasoline used from 68,000 gallons to 1.7 million gallons, an increase of 2500%. á Legislation to allow hybrid vehicles in HOV lanes Today, Governor Pawlenty announced he will propose legislation in the 2005 session that will immediately allow single-occupant hybrid cars to use HOV lanes in Minnesota, once the Federal government has given permission to states wishing to move forward. In July, Governor Pawlenty asked the Minnesota congressional delegation to back a proposal in Congress to open HOV lanes to single occupant hybrid vehicles. á Purchasing hybrid buses and using low sulfur fuel in other buses Governor Pawlenty announced that he is directing the Met Council to add at least 20 hybrid buses to its fleet by 2008. The Met Council currently has three hybrid buses. Hybrid buses get better gas mileage than standard buses and produce significantly fewer emissions -- reducing particulate and carbon monoxide emissions up to 90%. The Met Council has also committed to using ultra-low sulfur fuel for nearly half of its bus fleet. á Supporting U of M as National Center of Excellence for Biofuels Research In addition to these initiatives, the Governor also stated his support to establish the University of Minnesota as a National Center of Excellence for Biofuels Research. This would give the University an opportunity to seek state and federal support to come up with additional
Re: [Biofuel] Kerry's environmental car- yea right.(II)
Ron, I'm not a big fan of any new energy production when our consumption hasn't been streamlined for efficiency first. (Been working energy issues for nigh over twenty five years now.) And I'm certainly not in favor of burying archeological sites or migrating corridors or displacing millions of peoples for hydro-power. Nor am I in favor of the voluminous amounts of mercury that is released into the food chain in an expedited fashion due to the vast acreage that is submerged by such projects. I don't need to read your resources to know what the problems are with hydro and that they are real. What is more important at this juncture in history is the solutions. You aren't offering any. The question is how do you change a cut in stone infrastructure around, do it in a fortnight, make the transition without disturbing yet enhancing the overall economic infrastructure, all-the-while insuring that those implementations can meet and exceed the demands, reliability and durability of the infrastructure being replaced at a cradle to grave cost of approximately the same if not less? Answer? You're not going to do it under the present administration, or for that matter any other that doesn't have the nads to initiate a Marshal Plan on energy efficiency and conservation. Hell! We're still 20 years out from universally implementing T-8 lamps penned into EPACT in 1992. Twelve years later and T-12s and replacement ballasts continue to stream in from across the border. CAFE has gone down. Building codes remain essentially unchanged on a national basis. Everyone is programmed to whine when fuel costs go up 1/10th of a penny. Even recycling plans are corrupt in many instances, where poor planning causes needless energy expenditures. The world needs a new paradigm that is a challenge and personally profitable at every level, whether it be the redneck who throws out his Billy Beer can (the power for the electrolytic refining of aluminmu ore comes almost exclusively from hydro) to the business owner who air conditions his/her sidewalk while leaving the door open in hopes of more walk-in traffic, to lobbyists/disinformationalists who claim that bigger vehicles are safer, to consecutive presidents for a period of ~30 years who have the insight, understanding and will to turn a ship of state around before it is permanently run aground. Any discussion predicated primarily upon whining and failing to provide those types of answers is nothing more than a distraction and waste of valuable time. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Kerry's environmental car- yea right.(II) Todd, Here is my answer: I am not condemning the original implementation of hydro dams. Then again, I never said I condemned the building of the dams 60-70 years ago in my original post. But, what we now know, makes it a different story. If you had read the links posted below, you will have seen where- 1) Further implementation of hydro power 'takes away' from friendly environmental renewable INVESTMENTS. 2) When someone (politician or lobbyist) includes HYDRO ELECTRIC power as part of a clean, ECO FRIENDLY renewable resource PROMOTION, they are adding flawed material to boost the numbers. Now you might say, We are not talking about clean, eco friendly renewable resources. We are talking only about plain, vanilla renewables. Hey, that may be your perogativebut not mine. You can call burning wood logs in an inefficient fireplace as a wonderful way to implement renewables...I don't, because it pollutes the air. The same goes for Hydro dams...ask the Cree Nation. Cheers, Ron B. = You still didn't answer the questions Ron. Nor do you offer any solutions. I wonder why. Perhaps no viable answers other than rebuilding an entire energy industry? Seems that it's a lot easier or perhaps more fun simply to isolate something and shred it to pieces rather than look a jigsaw puzzle in its totality, eh? Todd Swearingnen - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 9:45 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Kerry's environmental car- yea right.(II) Or ask Ron what he would have done 50-70 years ago to bring electricity to a country? Come on Ron. What? Coal? Bunker C? Natural gas? Squirrels in cages? = Todd, They are planning right now to build more dams and I'm not talking about China- ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Kerry's environmental car- yea right.
Ron, Mark this date: Fifth October in the Year 2004 on your calendar. No more Kerry slams!!! Nobody has suggested that there shouldn't be slams. Just that if you or anyone else is going to do so about anyone, be honest about it. Put everything in its proper context and don't jaundice the topic by cherry picking whatever conveniently fits your perspective, opinion or belief. Doing so is dishonest, transparent and certainly doesn't serve anyone's best interests, not even your own. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 5:07 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Kerry's environmental car- yea right. Brian, I'm sorry if I don't want to argue with you. 1) I snip so the threads aren't 10 kilometers long. I try to keep what is relevent. If I screw up...my apologies. 2) Again, there is no apples to apples, no apples to oranges, no apples to kiwi fruit. You are trying to make this into a fruitstand. Articles get posted showing how great Kerry is and I give my opinion on Mr. Kerry's position or lack of it. I don't personally attack your opinions...at least I think I didn't. Sure, I'm not perfect by a long shot. In fact, I've crawled into the hole many times in the past. Actually, more times than I want to know. 8~) But, it looks like you think Mr. Kerry is the Cat's Meow and can't tolerate any criticism about him. So be it. Henceforth, I will not say a word about Mr. Kerrywell, until after the election. By then, it won't make any difference. Mark this date: Fifth October in the Year 2004 on your calendar. No more Kerry slams!!! And if I slip up, hogtie me, wrestle me to the ground and give me a good whipping. Regards, Ron B. == I also notice that you keep choosing interesting places to snip the thread for your replies. Do you think that changes what you are replying to? Why not keep the thread open, so that people don't have to tax their memories in order to see how you keep changing with the wind? Brian You were the one that brought up Kerry's record of attendance. When I asked you to compare apples to apples, you blew some smoke about only paying attention to those you had the ability to vote for. Well, if you're paying that much attention, as if that was YOUR issue in the first place, what's the answer? Or is it YOU that keeps trying to change the question, and then when you're called on it say that you don't want to play any more? That's the way it seems to me. Brian Sorry, I'm not going to get baited on this one. Again, if you look at the subject line, it says 'Kerry'. Oh by the way, what did you have for dinner on June 16th, 2004? Even if you knew, it doesn't have any relevence, just like your question below. Heh, heh. Ron B. = Quick, what is the voting record for YOUR Senator, who you can vote for. No, don't go off to look it up on another web site. If you're scrutinizing all of the people running for office that you have the ability to vote for, you will obviously have this information at hand, and be able to compare it to Kerry's record. Well, we're waiting... Brian ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid
Peggy,Hakan, thanks for your comments. Good luck with your project in Scotland..where about?I am Scottish. Although I work on the south coast of England, I am from Dunfermline, Fife, just north of Edinburgh, accross the forth bridges. Don Johnston Environmental Coordinator , Portsmouth City Council Chair, Solent Energy and Environment Management Group Winner ; National Champion-Science and Technology, Green Apple Awards 2002 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 023 9283 4247 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Peggy Sent: 06 October 2004 03:53 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid Thank you Don for the excellent example of a well-planned forward step. Each of our biofuels ethanol plants comes with a generator powered from fuel ethanol production. That generator frees the producer from the grid, which is what you are recommending. Moreover, in many places if the producer is also connected to a grid, then it is possible to sell the energy back to the grid... and in many areas it is mandated that the grid owner pay for this retro energy. So biofuels production has additional benefits with more to be realized. Maybe some day we can also be awarded a green apple. Ha! I'm not really aware of the green apple award and it must be a good feeling to have received this. It sounds like a good bite and a bit of juicy recognition. We are looking forward to working with a group in Scotland. When we finally work out some details, we hope to have this group represent the technological advances in other parts of Europe. Our projects are small community-based projects and not grid sensitive. Hopefully, our discussions are more collaborations than debates. Best wishes, Peggy Original post: Peggy, hakan and others, I'm not sure how much this contributes to your debate but I also suscribe to the view of using what energy we have more wisely and economically, whilst also introducing newer technologies to run in parrallel with traditional systems, but preferably generating electricity LOCALLY, and using it LOCALLY, thereby avoiding the losses inherent in national grid systems whilst generating a sense of community ownership of their own energy supply, which in turn may be more easy to divert that community ownership to recognize such responsibilities as their own waste ,etc.. The best example I know in the UK is that achieved by Alan Jones( OBE or similar), the incumbent Eneregy Manager with Woking Borough Council. He has a target that Woking should produce all its own energy locally and disconnect itself from the National Grid! He, and Woking are approaching this by a comprehensive programme which involves; 1. A linked up network of CHP PLANTS (Combined Heat Power). Each engine , or plant, produces more energy and heat than it can use in its own building so it exports the extra to a community heating and electrical system.Thislocal network just keeps expanding. 2. Here is the really exciting bit. The swimming pool and the civic offices are powered by the first operational fuel cell plant which I know of in the UK! I believe excess heat and power are also exported to their 'community grid'. I presume that this is running on hydrogen, but I do not know how he produces it, or what he pays for it. If there is an interest, I could try to find out and report back to the group. What is also really exciting is how Woking is paying for this. He asked the council for £0.25m in 1990/91, and stated that he would never ask them for any more finance, PROVIDED they also approve a policy that all financial savings realised from energy saving measures would always be reinvested in further energy saving measures, thus creating more financial savings to reinvest etc, etc you get the picture..well, guess what, it worked! They are now saving:- 1. 43% of energy and water consumption 2. saving in energy and water budgets since 1991 now are £4.9 million ( 2002/2003 figure ) 3. annual savings, reinvested each year , is now £0.885 million. Not bad from £0.25 m in 1991...can you imagine the impact if ALL councils throughout Europe and North America achieved this? Now to this image of responsible councils we add a culture of composting, and locally supporting the inception of regional biodiesel plants thus producing another element of their own fuel locally whilst providing local jobs and local markets for the local farmers. I'm beginning to feel like Martin Luther King.' I have a dream'! But seriously, it seems environmental movements, like this biofuel movement,and env. responsible councils, are clearly showing the way and if all followed we could be much more 'sustainable' in as little as 10 years. We could also shift the global perspective of politics and finance away from that dominated by oil. Remaining oil
RE: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians
--- dermot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we can do no better than to heed the advice below from Noam Chomsky: The best thing to do is read widely and always sceptically. Remember that everyone, including me, has their opinions and their goals and you have to think them through for yourself. Regards Dermot -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Appal Energy Sent: 05 October 2004 20:12 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians Tim, Thank you for your qualifiers as to the unreliability of all or almost all news institutions. Your first post didn't give the same perspective. In the words of Ronald Reagan, trust, but verify is sound policy in almost every venue. As for agreeing to disagree relative to Aljazeera? They're certainly no more or less reliable than CBS and certainly no more slanted than Fox or any number of others. I think that if you were to treat all news agencies with the same criteria and candor that there would be far less cause to take exception to the perspective you print. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Tim Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 10:08 AM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians Todd, I'm not saying that the beating did or did not take place. And it is not an opinion as to the credibility of the source but rather a fact. Your point would be better served and received citing several sources rather than one. Especially one that is for the most part State Run. It's not that I don't include Aljazeera in my daily diet of news sources because I do for just the reason you stated. Getting unreported stories or rather a different perspective of commonly reported stories. However, with the way the media tends to cover and spin stories to support their agendas I find it best to have some form of validation and not rely on any single source and accept what that source might state as truth. This helps to reduce the spin. And finally I hope that we can agree to disagree on the merit of Aljazeera's reporting. Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Appal Energy Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians Tim, So you're saying that the beating didn't take place, simply because you don't care for the source? How many other times have such events not been reported by your choice media? And after thousands of failures of non-reporting you would care to imply that they're far more reliable and/or less biased than any other? Aljazeera is, whether you like it or not, a news agency - a far cry above and beyond the pale of a White House press secretary. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Tim Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 7:56 AM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians I can't believe that someone would actually use Aljazeera as a news source. LOL. I know it's difficult to find news sources having any degree of intergrity in reporting, but really.Aljazeera? You might as well take the White House spokesman's word as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Tim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of fox mulder Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 3:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians Jewish settlers attack US Christians By Khalid Amayreh in the West Bank Thursday 30 September 2004, 2:24 Makka Time, 23:24 GMT Palestinian children fear attacks from settlers Jewish settler immigrants from North America have attacked and severely beat American Christian peace volunteers near the village of Yatta south west of Hebron. Palestinian and Israeli sources said the attack occurred on Wednesday. According to the Hebron-based Christian Peace Making Team (CPT), five settlers carrying iron chains and baseball clubs, assaulted two male and female volunteers who were escorting Palestinian schoolchildren to their school at the village of Tuba near the settlement of Maon in the southern Hebron hills. The assailants reportedly beat the two volunteers and robbed them. The pair were evacuated by an Israeli ambulance to a hospital in the southern Israeli town of Be'ir Sheva were their condition is said to be moderate. The assailants also stole a bag belonging to a female volunteer named
Re: [Biofuel] Re: Jewish settlers atttack US christians
--- Todd Hershberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim, I hope you believe that this actually happened. I know these people and this organization (CPT) and it saddens me greatly. They do great work all over the world in the midst of danger. www.cpt.org Here's more information. Actually, Al Jazeera had better coverage of the atrocities of the war in iraq than anything shown on US television. Todd CPTnet September 29, 2004 HEBRON DISTRICT: CPTers Kim Lamberty and Chris Brown badly injured by settlers in the south Hebron hills At about 7:15am on the morning of Wednesday September 29, 2004 settlers attacked Christian Peacemaker Team members Chris Brown and Kim Lamberty as they accompanied children to school. The children, from the village of Tuba, have experienced harassment from settlers in the past as they to school in the village of al-Tuwani. The five settlers, dressed in black and wearing masks, came from an outpost of the nearby Ma'on settlement and attacked Brown and Lamberty with a chain and bat. All of the children escaped injury by running back to their homes. The settlers pushed Brown to the ground, whipped him with a chain and kicked him in the chest, which punctured his lung. They kicked and beat Lamberty's legs. She is not able to walk because of an injury to her knee and has a broken arm. The settlers also stole Lamberty's waistpack, which held her passport, money and cellular phone. Lamberty and Brown were taken by ambulance to Soroka hospital in Beer Sheva for treatment. Hebron Team Support person, Rich Meyer, reports that the two CPTers told him they are receiving excellent care from Israeli doctors. Children from four small Palestinian villages walk to a central school in the village of al-Tuwani. Because settlers have harassed the children since school began in September, and the Israeli police would not intervene to prevent the attacks, the villagers have sought the protection of international accompaniment. A coalition comprising Christian Peacemaker Teams, the Israeli group Tayush and members of Operation Dove, (an Italian Christian organization that undertakes accompaniment work similar to CPT's work), set up a presence in the village of al-Tuwani beginning on September 12, 2004. The three groups initially committed themselves to six weeks of accompaniment after members of these organizations witnessed settler attacks on children each time they made exploratory visits to the area. Christian Peacemaker Teams, Operation Dove and Tayush plan to continue accompanying children to school in al-Tuwani. Journalists wishing more information may call Hebron Team Supporter person Rich Meyer at 574-202 3920. On Oct 5, 2004, at 7:56 AM, Tim Ferguson wrote: I can't believe that someone would actually use Aljazeera as a news source. LOL. I know it's difficult to find news sources having any degree of intergrity in reporting, but really.Aljazeera? You might as well take the White House spokesman's word as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Tim snip The settlers believe the Christians are disrupting their efforts to get the Palestinians to leave the area, one local told Aljazeera.net. snip ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Todd I wish there were more people like who have a balanced view about the world. the world would be a much better place if that wrere so. ___ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Hydro power in Scandinavia
Ron B, The interesting figures are electricity as a part of total energy, this especially since we have this hype about hydrogen. Then it is of course interesting too see electricity from renewable sources. Large Hydro dams will not be a large part of the solution at the end, this because they need some quite specific circumstances. In the industrialized world, most of the large capabilities are implemented. When we talk about restricting large hydro, it is the developing world that will suffer and to me it looks that they have problems enough without the developed countries defend their economic interests by saying that you should do what we say, not what we have done. Small hydro is largely untapped and is also less intrusive. It will be used more frequently and especially in developing countries. Water, wind, solar and biomass will be the only efficient and expandable electricity production for the future, renewable and it is available for all. Nuclear will not be the solution, other than if its use can be restricted. This is why US and others will allow only a few selected countries to use it fully, by limiting the enrichment capabilities for others. The excuse is weapon control. It is a limited source and the current R/P (Reserves/Production) is 60 years, it lasts and can be used very long, with high enrichment, but it is not enough for any major part of the electricity production needed in the world. When you then think that the suggestion is that we should get hydrogen/fuel cells from electrolysis, to reduce oil dependence, the numbers are quite revealing if you look at the capacity side. It is a popular tranquilizer, frequently used by politicians for more than 100 years now. They introduce it as the universal solution in cycles of about 20 years and it is still no widespread use of hydrogen. It looks like they work on a solution, but have not yet resulted in anything viable. It is amazing that most of what we talk about today, was well researched by the Germans in the 1930's. A lot of this was transferred to US after WWII and buried in the archives. There are a lot of reinventing the wheel now and it looks almost like it has been a plot by US oil interests. No numbers or timing aspects will fit, without an extensive trimming of the extremely large energy waste (more than 60%) and utilization of bio energy, water, wind and solar. It is all there and ready for use and can result in enormous improvements. It is also the best route to minimize terrorism, which is mainly a result from energy politics, from the scavenging by the industrialized world. This is my thoughts on the subject. Hakan At 11:46 PM 10/5/2004, you wrote: Hakan and all, I hope you don't mind, but I started a new thread. I believe Hakan mentioned on another thread that hydro power (not hydrogen) in Scandinavia makes up only 10%. I could be wrong, but I think Hakan meant 10% of ENERGY. Since Hydro dams produce as their primary product...electricity, lets go with hydro with relation to electricity, not hydro to energy. Can we agree on that? If not, I'm going to give you the figures anyway. 8~) For Hakan, you cornered me when I said Scandinavia. I should have just said Norway and Sweden. I thought about just naming the two countries, but I like the name- Scandinavia- it sounds peaceful. Also, a What if... What if...Sweden didn't get into the nuclear generation program? Maybe they would have percentage numbers like Norway for hydro production with relation to other forms of generation? Regardless, 50.8% of electricity produced in Sweden by hydro sources is still good. All data from December 2001 sources- Ranking Electricity Production by Hydro Source (percentage of nation's electriicity production): 1. Paraguay99.9% 2. Bhutan 99.9% 3. Congo Republic 99.7% 4. Zambia 99.5% 5. Burundi 99.4% 6. Norway 99.3% 7. Uruguay 99.1% 8. Uganda 99.1% 9. Laos98.6% 10. . . 23. Brazil 82.7% 24. Iceland82.5% . . 55. Sweden 50.8% . . 90. Finland18.7% . 99. India 14.5% Ranking Electricity Consumption by Hydro Source (in Terra Watt-Hours) 1. Canada347.3 2. Brazil284.5 . . 7. Norway129.7* . . 10. Sweden 66.7* . . 29 Finland11.1* . . 39 Iceland 7.0 . . . 51. Ireland 1.3 === Ranking Electricity Consumption by Hydro Source (Per Capita) 1. Norway 28.52 TWH per 1 million** 2. Iceland24.92 3. Canada 10.78 4. Sweden 7.51* . . 9. Finland2.13** . . 31. Germany0.31 Note: Denmark has an agreement with Norway and Sweden to
RE: [Biofuel] Hydro power in Scandinavia
Hakan, very interesting, and sounds to me, a very knowledgeable read. What do you do? What is your job? Mine is to reduce the environmental impact of Portsmouth, singlehandedly! We take it seriously here! Don Johnston Environmental Coordinator , Portsmouth City Council Chair, Solent Energy and Environment Management Group Winner ; National Champion-Science and Technology, Green Apple Awards 2002 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 023 9283 4247 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hakan Falk Sent: 06 October 2004 11:32 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Hydro power in Scandinavia Ron B, The interesting figures are electricity as a part of total energy, this especially since we have this hype about hydrogen. Then it is of course interesting too see electricity from renewable sources. Large Hydro dams will not be a large part of the solution at the end, this because they need some quite specific circumstances. In the industrialized world, most of the large capabilities are implemented. When we talk about restricting large hydro, it is the developing world that will suffer and to me it looks that they have problems enough without the developed countries defend their economic interests by saying that you should do what we say, not what we have done. Small hydro is largely untapped and is also less intrusive. It will be used more frequently and especially in developing countries. Water, wind, solar and biomass will be the only efficient and expandable electricity production for the future, renewable and it is available for all. Nuclear will not be the solution, other than if its use can be restricted. This is why US and others will allow only a few selected countries to use it fully, by limiting the enrichment capabilities for others. The excuse is weapon control. It is a limited source and the current R/P (Reserves/Production) is 60 years, it lasts and can be used very long, with high enrichment, but it is not enough for any major part of the electricity production needed in the world. When you then think that the suggestion is that we should get hydrogen/fuel cells from electrolysis, to reduce oil dependence, the numbers are quite revealing if you look at the capacity side. It is a popular tranquilizer, frequently used by politicians for more than 100 years now. They introduce it as the universal solution in cycles of about 20 years and it is still no widespread use of hydrogen. It looks like they work on a solution, but have not yet resulted in anything viable. It is amazing that most of what we talk about today, was well researched by the Germans in the 1930's. A lot of this was transferred to US after WWII and buried in the archives. There are a lot of reinventing the wheel now and it looks almost like it has been a plot by US oil interests. No numbers or timing aspects will fit, without an extensive trimming of the extremely large energy waste (more than 60%) and utilization of bio energy, water, wind and solar. It is all there and ready for use and can result in enormous improvements. It is also the best route to minimize terrorism, which is mainly a result from energy politics, from the scavenging by the industrialized world. This is my thoughts on the subject. Hakan At 11:46 PM 10/5/2004, you wrote: Hakan and all, I hope you don't mind, but I started a new thread. I believe Hakan mentioned on another thread that hydro power (not hydrogen) in Scandinavia makes up only 10%. I could be wrong, but I think Hakan meant 10% of ENERGY. Since Hydro dams produce as their primary product...electricity, lets go with hydro with relation to electricity, not hydro to energy. Can we agree on that? If not, I'm going to give you the figures anyway. 8~) For Hakan, you cornered me when I said Scandinavia. I should have just said Norway and Sweden. I thought about just naming the two countries, but I like the name- Scandinavia- it sounds peaceful. Also, a What if... What if...Sweden didn't get into the nuclear generation program? Maybe they would have percentage numbers like Norway for hydro production with relation to other forms of generation? Regardless, 50.8% of electricity produced in Sweden by hydro sources is still good. All data from December 2001 sources- Ranking Electricity Production by Hydro Source (percentage of nation's electriicity production): 1. Paraguay99.9% 2. Bhutan 99.9% 3. Congo Republic 99.7% 4. Zambia 99.5% 5. Burundi 99.4% 6. Norway 99.3% 7. Uruguay 99.1% 8. Uganda 99.1% 9. Laos98.6% 10. . . 23. Brazil 82.7% 24. Iceland82.5% . . 55. Sweden 50.8% . . 90. Finland18.7% . 99. India 14.5% Ranking Electricity Consumption by Hydro Source (in Terra Watt-Hours) 1. Canada
[Biofuel] EERE Network News -- 10/06/04
http://www.eere.energy.gov/Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The EERE Network News is also available on the Web at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/www.eere.energy.gov/news/ October 06, 2004 #newsNews and Events #8207Ford Begins Production of Fuel-Cell-Powered Fleet #8208Toyota Doubles U.S. Deliveries of the Prius Hybrid #8209Hawaii and Minnesota to Boost Ethanol Use #8210Energy Trust of Oregon Yields Big Energy Savings #8211DOE Offers Grants to Small Businesses for Energy Technologies #8212DOE to Fund Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency for Tribes #energyEnergy Connections Arizona Might be Home to First New U.S. Refinery Since 1976 News and Events Ford Begins Production of Fuel-Cell-Powered Fleet A worker installs door components on the frame of the Ford Focus FCV. The fuel cell and battery pack are built into the floor of the vehicle. Credit: Ford Motor Company Ford Motor Company celebrated the production of a fuel-cell-powered Focus sedan last week, the first vehicle in a fleet to be deployed in five cities. The Focus Fuel Cell Vehicle (FCV) features a fuel cell stack from Ballard Power Systems, a nickel metal hydride battery pack, and regenerative braking that uses a brake-by-wire electro-hydraulic system. Ford is building an evaluation fleet of Focus FCVs for demonstration programs in Orlando, Florida; Sacramento, California; and Taylor, Michigan, as part of DOE's Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project. Ford will also demonstrate the vehicle in fleets in Vancouver, British Columbia, and Berlin, Germany. Ford is working with BP to build a network of hydrogen fueling stations in these cities to support the vehicles. While some BP stations will use near-term hydrogen production technologies, like reforming natural gas, others will generate hydrogen from renewable energy resources. See the http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=19297Ford press release. While Ford is rolling out its Focus FCVs, a growing number of automakers are investigating fuel cell vehicles. That fact was clearly demonstrated when the California Fuel Cell Partnership (CaFCP) held its 2004 Road Rally in mid-September. The event featured fuel cell vehicles from DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen. According the CaFCP, Never before have so many manufacturers had their fuel cell vehicles on the road together. See the http://www.cafcp.org/news_releases-04/2004_09_28_RRIII.htmCaFCP press release. Companies are also inserting fuel cells into a wide variety of vehicles. For example, BOC, an industrial gas company, has teamed with Cellex Power Products Inc. to build a fuel-cell-powered forklift. Honda has built a scooter that uses the Honda fuel cell stack. Hydrogenics Corporation is supplying fuel cell drives for a number of projects, including groundskeeping equipment for The Toro Company, an aircraft tow tractor for the U.S. Air Force, and a van for the Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii. But topping them all is the German company Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG (HDW), which has built a submarine with a hydrogen fuel cell drive for the German Navy. According to HDW, the submarine is capable of remaining submerged for weeks at a time. See the press releases from http://www.boc.com/news/article_772_20sep04.aspBOC, http://world.honda.com/news/2004/2040824_03.htmlHonda, http://www.hydrogenics.com/ir_news.aspHydrogenics, and http://www.hdw.de/en/presse/index.hdw?c1=cpr01am1=mpr800pid=129HDW . Toyota Doubles U.S. Deliveries of the Prius Hybrid Toyota Motor Sales announced last week that it will double the number of Prius hybrid-electric vehicles for sale in the United States in 2005. Although the company has sold 100,000 of the vehicles in the United States since they first went on sale in mid-2000, the company now expects to sell 100,000 in 2005 alone. The boost in projected sales is the second for Toyota, which originally planned to sell 36,000 of its 2004 models, but increased its sales plan in December to 47,000 vehicles. Globally, Toyota has sold more than a quarter-million hybrid vehicles since it began selling the Prius in Japan in December 1997. See the http://pressroom.toyota.com/photo_library/display_release.html?id=200 40930Toyota press release. One place where the Toyota Prius has found a home is at Hoffman-La Roche Inc., which has 20 of its sales representatives using the vehicles in a pilot program. Roche plans to continually integrate the Toyota Prius, the Ford Escape Hybrid, and other clean vehicles into its 1,400-car U.S. sales force, eventually replacing the entire fleet. The effort is part of the pharmaceutical company's commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent over the next five years. See the http://www.rocheusa.com/newsroom/current/2004/pr2004092801.htmlRoche press release.
RE: [Biofuel] Hydro power in Scandinavia
Don, Look at http://energysavingnow.com/ We have been in your situation on the Swedish national level and active for more than 40 years. We are retired now and try to communicate our experiences from energy research and implementation mainly in the field of energy transmission and comfort in buildings. Hakan At 01:02 PM 10/6/2004, you wrote: Hakan, very interesting, and sounds to me, a very knowledgeable read. What do you do? What is your job? Mine is to reduce the environmental impact of Portsmouth, singlehandedly! We take it seriously here! Don Johnston Environmental Coordinator , Portsmouth City Council Chair, Solent Energy and Environment Management Group Winner ; National Champion-Science and Technology, Green Apple Awards 2002 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 023 9283 4247 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hakan Falk Sent: 06 October 2004 11:32 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Hydro power in Scandinavia Ron B, The interesting figures are electricity as a part of total energy, this especially since we have this hype about hydrogen. Then it is of course interesting too see electricity from renewable sources. Large Hydro dams will not be a large part of the solution at the end, this because they need some quite specific circumstances. In the industrialized world, most of the large capabilities are implemented. When we talk about restricting large hydro, it is the developing world that will suffer and to me it looks that they have problems enough without the developed countries defend their economic interests by saying that you should do what we say, not what we have done. Small hydro is largely untapped and is also less intrusive. It will be used more frequently and especially in developing countries. Water, wind, solar and biomass will be the only efficient and expandable electricity production for the future, renewable and it is available for all. Nuclear will not be the solution, other than if its use can be restricted. This is why US and others will allow only a few selected countries to use it fully, by limiting the enrichment capabilities for others. The excuse is weapon control. It is a limited source and the current R/P (Reserves/Production) is 60 years, it lasts and can be used very long, with high enrichment, but it is not enough for any major part of the electricity production needed in the world. When you then think that the suggestion is that we should get hydrogen/fuel cells from electrolysis, to reduce oil dependence, the numbers are quite revealing if you look at the capacity side. It is a popular tranquilizer, frequently used by politicians for more than 100 years now. They introduce it as the universal solution in cycles of about 20 years and it is still no widespread use of hydrogen. It looks like they work on a solution, but have not yet resulted in anything viable. It is amazing that most of what we talk about today, was well researched by the Germans in the 1930's. A lot of this was transferred to US after WWII and buried in the archives. There are a lot of reinventing the wheel now and it looks almost like it has been a plot by US oil interests. No numbers or timing aspects will fit, without an extensive trimming of the extremely large energy waste (more than 60%) and utilization of bio energy, water, wind and solar. It is all there and ready for use and can result in enormous improvements. It is also the best route to minimize terrorism, which is mainly a result from energy politics, from the scavenging by the industrialized world. This is my thoughts on the subject. Hakan At 11:46 PM 10/5/2004, you wrote: Hakan and all, I hope you don't mind, but I started a new thread. I believe Hakan mentioned on another thread that hydro power (not hydrogen) in Scandinavia makes up only 10%. I could be wrong, but I think Hakan meant 10% of ENERGY. Since Hydro dams produce as their primary product...electricity, lets go with hydro with relation to electricity, not hydro to energy. Can we agree on that? If not, I'm going to give you the figures anyway. 8~) For Hakan, you cornered me when I said Scandinavia. I should have just said Norway and Sweden. I thought about just naming the two countries, but I like the name- Scandinavia- it sounds peaceful. Also, a What if... What if...Sweden didn't get into the nuclear generation program? Maybe they would have percentage numbers like Norway for hydro production with relation to other forms of generation? Regardless, 50.8% of electricity produced in Sweden by hydro sources is still good. All data from December 2001 sources- Ranking Electricity Production by Hydro Source (percentage of nation's electriicity production): 1. Paraguay99.9% 2. Bhutan 99.9% 3. Congo Republic 99.7% 4. Zambia 99.5% 5. Burundi 99.4% 6. Norway 99.3% 7. Uruguay
Re: [Biofuel] Hydro power in Scandinavia
Look at http://energysavingnow.com/ That is a very good pageand very informative...hope to implement in realsome thing... Regards, Aravind ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Canadian Government Embraces Recycling
While the U.S. were presumably glued to the VP candidate debate last night, the Canadian government produced its latest throne speech (which sets the legislative agenda for the Parliamentary session). (http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/sft-ddt.asp) In this laundry list, we see a new commitment to recycling by the Liberal government, as they have made most of these commitments before, beginning in 1993. Remarkably, having had majority governments for the past 11 years, they are still in a position to re-state the same commitments, having fulfilled none of them (having been too busy giving away taxpayers money to their friends, notably Quebec- based advertising agencies). Yes, apparently the health care system still needs attention and additional funding; child care is still not adequately funded (although previous commitments to eliminate child poverty have conspicuously disappeared from this year's list of promises); support for indigenous peoples; tackling unemployment and so on, including, of course the environment (as a sop to those voters that think breathable air and drinkable water have some value). Here's the section on the environment from the Throne Speech. (Portions in brackets are my comments.) Our quality of life today, and the legacy we bequeath to future generations, demands fundamental change in the way in which we think about the environment. The Government will work with its partners to build sustainable development systematically into decision making. As the ethic and imperative of sustainability take deeper root worldwide, human ingenuity will turn increasingly to ways to produce and use energy more cleanly and efficiently; to eliminate toxins from our air, water and soil; and to build more sustainable communities. Here lie great new opportunities for the world economy. Canadaâs entrepreneurs must aim to be at the leading edge. To that end, the Government will work with the private sector to improve the commercialization of the best new environmental technologies. Major investments funded out of the proceeds of the sale of the Governmentâs Petro-Canada shares will support their development and deployment. (This is code for additional development primarily on the Hydrogen Economy. Petro- Canada was supposed to be the government's way of keeping the private sector oil industry honest, but never actually delivered on this. Now that windfall profits are in the offing due to the rising price of oil, presumably its time to sell off this public sector jewel to friends of the government so they can reap the profits.) The Government will work to get its own house in order. It will consolidate federal environmental assessments and will work with the provinces and territories toward a unified and more effective assessment process for Canada. By 2006, the Government will implement a new Green Procurement Policy to govern its purchases. It will also introduce legislation that will strengthen the focus on the ecological integrity of Canadaâs national parks. (This covers ground that the Liberal governments of the past 11 years have committed to repeatedly, so one has to wonder what has changed. After 4 attempts, it still has not passed changes to its Endangered Species Act that would actually make it effective.) Nowhere are the challenges and opportunities of sustainability more evident than in the way in which we use and produce energy. The Government will place increased focus on energy efficiency and energy research and development. It will engage stakeholders in developing comprehensive approaches to encourage increased production and use of clean, renewable energy and to promote greater energy efficiency. This will build on efforts already underway, including support for wind- power production in Canada, stimulated by a quadrupling of the Wind Power Production Incentive. (Actually, wind power falls under the area of Energy, not Environment, and both are provincial, not federal, jurisdictions. This is a government that has poured more money into off-shore drilling, e.g. Hibernia, and oil sands development than into its entire environmental agenda over the past couple of decades. The amount actually provided under the WPPI - see http://www.canren.gc.ca/programs/index.asp?CaId=107 - is pretty trivial. Oh, and small producers need not apply - 500 kW is the minimum entry level.) The Government reiterates that it will respect its commitment to the Kyoto Accord on climate change in a way that produces long-term and enduring results while maintaining a strong and growing economy. It will do so by refining and implementing an equitable national plan, in partnership with provincial and territorial governments and other stakeholders. As the Government builds a sustainable society at home, it will continue to pursue multilateral and bilateral approaches to what are ultimately global challenges. For example, it will work
Re: [Biofuel] Canadian Government Embraces Recycling
Darryl, Thanks, it was very informative. Ron B. = While the U.S. were presumably glued to the VP candidate debate last night, the Canadian government produced its latest throne speech (which sets the legislative agenda for the Parliamentary session). (http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/sft-ddt.asp) In this laundry list, we see a new commitment to recycling by the Liberal government, as they have made most of these commitments before, beginning in 1993. Remarkably, having had majority governments for the past 11 years, they are still in a position to re-state the same commitments, having fulfilled none of them (having been too busy giving away taxpayers money to their friends, notably Quebec- based advertising agencies). Yes, apparently the health care system still needs attention and additional funding; child care is still not adequately funded (although previous commitments to eliminate child poverty have conspicuously disappeared from this year's list of promises); support for indigenous peoples; tackling unemployment and so on, including, of course the environment (as a sop to those voters that think breathable air and drinkable water have some value). Here's the section on the environment from the Throne Speech. (Portions in brackets are my comments.) Our quality of life today, and the legacy we bequeath to future generations, demands fundamental change in the way in which we think about the environment. The Government will work with its partners to build sustainable development systematically into decision making. As the ethic and imperative of sustainability take deeper root worldwide, human ingenuity will turn increasingly to ways to produce and use energy more cleanly and efficiently; to eliminate toxins from our air, water and soil; and to build more sustainable communities. Here lie great new opportunities for the world economy. Canadaâs entrepreneurs must aim to be at the leading edge. To that end, the Government will work with the private sector to improve the commercialization of the best new environmental technologies. Major investments funded out of the proceeds of the sale of the Governmentâs Petro-Canada shares will support their development and deployment. (This is code for additional development primarily on the Hydrogen Economy. Petro- Canada was supposed to be the government's way of keeping the private sector oil industry honest, but never actually delivered on this. Now that windfall profits are in the offing due to the rising price of oil, presumably its time to sell off this public sector jewel to friends of the government so they can reap the profits.) The Government will work to get its own house in order. It will consolidate federal environmental assessments and will work with the provinces and territories toward a unified and more effective assessment process for Canada. By 2006, the Government will implement a new Green Procurement Policy to govern its purchases. It will also introduce legislation that will strengthen the focus on the ecological integrity of Canadaâs national parks. (This covers ground that the Liberal governments of the past 11 years have committed to repeatedly, so one has to wonder what has changed. After 4 attempts, it still has not passed changes to its Endangered Species Act that would actually make it effective.) Nowhere are the challenges and opportunities of sustainability more evident than in the way in which we use and produce energy. The Government will place increased focus on energy efficiency and energy research and development. It will engage stakeholders in developing comprehensive approaches to encourage increased production and use of clean, renewable energy and to promote greater energy efficiency. This will build on efforts already underway, including support for wind- power production in Canada, stimulated by a quadrupling of the Wind Power Production Incentive. (Actually, wind power falls under the area of Energy, not Environment, and both are provincial, not federal, jurisdictions. This is a government that has poured more money into off-shore drilling, e.g. Hibernia, and oil sands development than into its entire environmental agenda over the past couple of decades. The amount actually provided under the WPPI - see http://www.canren.gc.ca/programs/index.asp?CaId=107 - is pretty trivial. Oh, and small producers need not apply - 500 kW is the minimum entry level.) The Government reiterates that it will respect its commitment to the Kyoto Accord on climate change in a way that produces long-term and enduring results while maintaining a strong and growing economy. It will do so by refining and implementing an equitable national plan, in partnership with provincial and territorial governments and other stakeholders. As the Government builds a sustainable society at home, it
[Biofuel] Solar.....
Good day all, Anyone have info on Solar panels? I need 1000 to 5000 units at 120 or 80 Watts. Need this at wholesale. Best price so far is $2.70 per Watt. Any help would be great, Jonathan J.J.A.M., Inc. Jonathan Lynden Dunlap IS Network Systems Analyst Your PC Linux Specialist P.O. Box 4209 Inglewood, California 90309-4209 323-779-2752/Home - Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Hydro power in Scandinavia
While I agree that renewables and efficiency should be the main focus of our transition away from fossil fuels, I wonder if nuclear doesn't have at least a small role in the future power mix given that wind and PV are poorly suited to base load. Admittedly, current PWR nuclear designs need to be rethought but should we necessarily ignore more advanced designs because of an anti-nuclear sentiment in parts of the environmental movement? I can't help but draw a comparison with diesel engines and greens in the US; the problem is with the implementation, not the concept. Specifically, am I correct that the 60 R/P number you mentioned below assumes current PWR technology without considering breeders or fuel reprocessing? I am not a nuclear engineer, but I was under the impression that CANDU designs can address several of the concerns you raised. First, they use fuel more efficiently than other designs. Second, they can use unenriched fuel, which saves developing nations from needing to build expensive enrichment facilities and partially addresses proliferation issues. Third, they can breed additional fuel from thorium if uranium is not available. Forth, they can run on material extracted from decomissioned nuclear weapons. This could help run down stockpiles of weapons grade material; since we have it, why not use it for peaceful purposes. Fifth, CANDU reactors can actually burn *spent* PWR fuel; this reduces the amount of high level nuclear waste. http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/ I'm not saying we should rush ahead and build one in every other town, but I don't think we should just dismiss the idea altogether without considering that nuclear power may have some *small* role in the longterm power mix. jh Hakan Falk wrote: Ron B, The interesting figures are electricity as a part of total energy, this especially since we have this hype about hydrogen. Then it is of course interesting too see electricity from renewable sources. Large Hydro dams will not be a large part of the solution at the end, this because they need some quite specific circumstances. In the industrialized world, most of the large capabilities are implemented. When we talk about restricting large hydro, it is the developing world that will suffer and to me it looks that they have problems enough without the developed countries defend their economic interests by saying that you should do what we say, not what we have done. Small hydro is largely untapped and is also less intrusive. It will be used more frequently and especially in developing countries. Water, wind, solar and biomass will be the only efficient and expandable electricity production for the future, renewable and it is available for all. Nuclear will not be the solution, other than if its use can be restricted. This is why US and others will allow only a few selected countries to use it fully, by limiting the enrichment capabilities for others. The excuse is weapon control. It is a limited source and the current R/P (Reserves/Production) is 60 years, it lasts and can be used very long, with high enrichment, but it is not enough for any major part of the electricity production needed in the world. When you then think that the suggestion is that we should get hydrogen/fuel cells from electrolysis, to reduce oil dependence, the numbers are quite revealing if you look at the capacity side. It is a popular tranquilizer, frequently used by politicians for more than 100 years now. They introduce it as the universal solution in cycles of about 20 years and it is still no widespread use of hydrogen. It looks like they work on a solution, but have not yet resulted in anything viable. It is amazing that most of what we talk about today, was well researched by the Germans in the 1930's. A lot of this was transferred to US after WWII and buried in the archives. There are a lot of reinventing the wheel now and it looks almost like it has been a plot by US oil interests. No numbers or timing aspects will fit, without an extensive trimming of the extremely large energy waste (more than 60%) and utilization of bio energy, water, wind and solar. It is all there and ready for use and can result in enormous improvements. It is also the best route to minimize terrorism, which is mainly a result from energy politics, from the scavenging by the industrialized world. This is my thoughts on the subject. Hakan At 11:46 PM 10/5/2004, you wrote: Hakan and all, I hope you don't mind, but I started a new thread. I believe Hakan mentioned on another thread that hydro power (not hydrogen) in Scandinavia makes up only 10%. I could be wrong, but I think Hakan meant 10% of ENERGY. Since Hydro dams produce as their primary product...electricity, lets go with hydro with relation to electricity, not hydro to energy. Can we agree on that? If not, I'm going to give you the figures anyway. 8~) For Hakan, you cornered me when I said
[Biofuel] Fwd: A Mother Jones video: Conversation with a Conservative
From: Mother Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: A Mother Jones video: Conversation with a Conservative Greetings, A Mother Jones video: Conversation With a Conservative Reagan administration veteran Clyde Prestowitz on the Bush administration's radical policies http://ga3.org/ct/Kdahf0n1zBVJ/prestowitz-video-intro Economist Clyde Prestowitz, a self-described conservative, registered Republican, speaks about the Bush administration's economic, environmental, and international policies in a mini-documentary released today on MotherJones.com. The administration is not conservative, it's radical. But it uses the term 'conservative' to mask what it truly is, says Prestowitz. If you look at the Bush administration, it has given us red ink in our federal budget deficits as far as the eye can see...The Patriot Act has been a restriction of individual rights. The states have been given unfunded mandates from the federal government, which most conservatives see as completely abhorrent. And we're engaged in a war in Iraq against a country that didn't pose a threat to us...I think that we are less safe today than we were three or four years ago. Prestowitz is a former Reagan administration Commerce Department official, and is the founder and president of the Economic Strategy Institute, a Washington, DC-based trade policy think tank. He is the author of Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions. (Basic Books, 2003) View the video at: http://ga3.org/ct/Kdahf0n1zBVJ/prestowitz-video-intro A full transcript of Prestowitz's comments can be found at: http://ga3.org/ct/K7ahf0n1zBVD/transcript The interview is the first in a series of conversations with prominent conservatives to be released on MotherJones.com. http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/10/10_200.html Conversation with a Conservative: Clyde Prestowitz In the first of four conversations between Mother Jones and prominent conservatives who've become Bush critics, Reagan administration veteran Clyde Prestowitz explains that four years of Republican rule have put the country on the wrong track. October 6, 2004 I'm Clyde Prestowitz. I was a counselor to the Secretary of Commerce in the first Reagan administration. I'm author of the book Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions. I'm an elder in the Presbyterian church. I'm a conservative, a registered Republican, and an economist. I grew up in a rock-ribbed Republican family. Republicanism kind of came in the DNA. In fact, I can remember my father saying that he'd vote for a dead horse if it was a Republican. I've always had a certain idea of the United States. And it was the idea of a country that led by example, that was powerful but didn't abuse its power, that was rich but caring, and that was leading the world into a better place. Increasingly it seems like the Republican party I knew, that I learned about at my father and mother's knees, is leaving and has gone in a different direction. If you look at the Bush administration, it has given us red ink in our federal budget deficits as far as the eye can see. It has given us big government, not small government. The federal government is now spending more as a percent of our total GDP than any other government. The Patriot Act has been a restriction of individual rights. The states have been given unfunded mandates from the federal government, which most conservatives see as completely abhorrent. And we're engaged in a war in Iraq against a country that didn't pose a threat to us. We're setting as an objective in that war that we're going to democratize not only Iraq but the whole Middle East. This is exactly the kind of slaying of dragons, messianic foreign adventure that traditional conservatives have always been opposed to. And I'm frustrated by the fact that these policies are being sold as conservative. A lot of people automatically identify conservative with good, so if you sell this tax cut as a conservative tax cut, then it must be a good tax cut. Well, it's not, and don't confuse the subject by calling it conservative. The neo-conservative, radical conservative opposition to things like the Kyoto agreement, or to other measures to protect the environment, is frequently based on either a willful ignoring of evidence and facts, or a distortion of those. It seems to me that the essence of conservatism is not being guided by what you wish was the case, or what you hope was the case, but looking at the hard, cold facts. What is science telling us? The icebergs are melting. The polar ice caps are going away. The glaciers in the mountains are disappearing. Why is that happening? What are the facts? And once you've looked at the facts, then it seems to me that only a fool would not respond in some way to protect the environment. Also, typically, traditional conservatives have a sense of the need to support the welfare of
[Biofuel] Governments Need to Act to Avert Water Crisis
These tactics would all help, I think, versus our dependence on just a few crops, and crops that need a lot of fossil inputs to get any kind of yield. Yes, it's just a myth. Take something ordinary, for instance, one of the few crops, rice. It has been estimated that 700 000 t per year of rice bran oil could be extracted from the 20% world paddy production currently processed in two-stage mills. So 80% - equivalent to 2,800,000 tons - gets wasted because more efficient single-stage milling mixes the bran with the hulls. Even the 20% makes 231 million gallons a year, another 924 million gallons in the other 80%. And the bran also contains 40-50% soluble carbohydrates, for ethanol. That's the wasted potential with only current production methods. Using the SRI methods, the System of Rice Intensification developed by a French missionary in Madagascar 25 years ago, and now being enthusiastically taken up by farmers worldwide, yields can be vastly increased, inputs go right down to as low as zero, including big savings in seed, and water needs are cut by 80% or more. The establishment, however, such as IRRI (the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, one of the major perpetrators of the disastrous so-called Green Revolution), pooh-pooh it as unscientific. US rice farmers have taken no notice at all, while continuing to commandeer large amounts of scarce water in places like California, from the moral high-ground that We grow your food. Norman Uphoff at Cornell thinks otherwise: http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/ SRI Homepage/System of Rice Intensification - Keith http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=113 Governments Need to Act to Avert Water Crisis September 30, 2004 - By Michael Byrnes, Reuters SYDNEY, Australia - Strong action is needed to avert a global water crisis that has deprived 1 billion of the world's poor of drinking water and has killed millions through diarrhea, an international expert warned. A massive amount of work was required by governments to increase water efficiency in the same way they addressed the energy crisis of three decades ago, said Professor Frank Rijsberman, general manager of the multilateral government-backed International Water Management Institute in Sri Lanka. (We're) in the middle of a paradigm shift from taking water for granted to seeing it as one of the most important priorities, he said in a telephone interview from the International Crop Science Congress in Brisbane, Australia. We're not going to really run out of water, but we have our work cut out to try to use it more effectively, more efficiently. Rijsberman forecast growing conflicts for scarce water between cities and farms and between different regions and users. But he said there were solutions: water markets that rationed supplies by forcing users to pay and governments that strictly regulated water use. Water reforms now being introduced in Australia, the driest inhabited continent on Earth, offered a model for much of the rest of the world, he said. The Australian government recently announced a A$2 billion (US$1.4 billion) national water plan based on engineering works to rehabilitate river flows, conservation through capped irrigation offtakes, guaranteed access for farmers - and a national water rights trading plan. Water pricing is the key, with trading already taking place in three markets of water assets, such as licences for a year's supply of irrigated water. Rijsberman said this was a model for many other countries. Reforms in China that required farmers to pay for water in a strictly regulated system had also shown that more rice could be produced with less water, Rijsberman said. But water reform faced its greatest challenge in countries like Indonesia and India, which were less able to regulate themselves. In India, private farmers had taken the initiative of installing 20 million small pumps that were just as important for them as big government-built dams. Yet the pumps were draining the land dry, he said. In Gujarat ... farmers during their lifetime have seen the water table go down from about 10 meters to about 150 meters below the surface. There is a lot of private initiative. But farmers have ... left a lot of people high and dry and migrating to the cities to go and live in slums, he said. Rijsberman forecast that water use by cities and industry would rise rapidly, pushing water prices higher and out-competing agriculture as a high-volume, low-cost user. Water productivity - how many kilos does a farmer get per hectare out of every millimeter of either rainfall or water supplied - that is key, he said. Source: Reuters ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net
[Biofuel] China warns of 'ecological catastrophe' from Tibet's melting glaciers
TERRA.WIRE China warns of 'ecological catastrophe' from Tibet's melting glaciers BEIJING (AFP) Oct 05, 2004 An ecological catastrophe is developing in Tibet because of global warming, and most glaciers in the region could have melted away by 2100 if no efficient measures are taken, state media said Tuesday. The stark message is the result of surveys performed by a group of 20 scientists from China and the United States over a 40-month period, the China Daily reported. The full-scale glacier shrinkage in the plateau region will eventually lead to an ecological catastrophe, Yao Tangdong, China's foremost glaciologist, said according to the paper. Tibet's glaciers have been receding over the past four decades due to global warming, but the alarming development has picked up rapidly especially since the early 1990s, the paper said. The joint Sino-US scientific team said it discovered a number of separated ice island at levels above 7,500 meters (25,000 feet) from sea level that used to be connected with the glaciers. If global warming continues at its current pace, most of the plateau's glaciers will have disappeared from the face of the Earth by the turn of the next century, he warned. Yao has emerged as a main proponent for tougher measures to protect Tibet's glaciers. He was quoted in the state media this summer as saying global warming was causing China's highland glaciers, including those covering Mount Everest, to shrink by an amount equivalent to all the water in the Yellow River - China's second biggest - every year. A potential silver lining in the form of additional water for China's arid north and west has not materialized, according to earlier reports. Much of the melted glacier water vaporizes long before it reaches the country's drought-stricken farmers and again global warming is to blame. Yao previously also told local media that as many as 64 percent of China's glaciers may be history by 2050 if current trends continue. The human cost could be immense, since 300 million Chinese live in the country's arid west and depend on water from the glaciers for their survival. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Jubilant Europe hurls down gauntlet to US as Russia backs Kyoto
Jubilant Europe hurls down gauntlet to US as Russia backs Kyoto PARIS (AFP) Sep 30, 2004 Defenders of the Kyoto Protocol, led by Europe, challenged Washington to join the fight against climate change after Russia, ending years of hesitation, took steps to ratify the UN's global warming treaty. Heading the chorus of delight after the Russian cabinet approved the Protocol and sent it to lawmakers to ratify was the EU, which has been battling to save an accord mauled by a US walkout. This is a huge success for the international fight against climate change, declared European Commission chief Romano Prodi. Today [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin has sent a strong signal of his commitment and sense of responsibility. It's a very happy day for Europe and for me, said Margot Wallstroem, the EU's environment commissioner. It sends a very forceful signal to the rest of the world... It is also very much a victory for the European Union. In Bonn, Joke Waller-Hunter, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Kyoto's parent treaty, said Putin had sent an inspiring signal to the international community. In a veiled warning to holdouts Australia and the United States, Waller-Hunter said Kyoto countries would enjoy an advantage denied to non-signatories. Accelerating the development of the clean technologies that will dominate the global economy of the 21st century will earn them a competitive edge in global markets, she said. Klaus Toepfer, head of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), hailed the Russian decision as the first step in a long journey towards stabilising greenhouse gas emissions. I hope other nations, some of whom like Russia have maybe been in the past reluctant to ratify, will now join us in this truly global endeavour. French Ecology Minister Serge Lepeltier said he was delighted at the Russian cabinet move. This decision marks a historic step in the fight against climate change and the greenhouse effect, he said in a press release. There was no immediate reaction from Washington. But Greenpeace International campaigner Steve Sawyer said US President George W. Bush, whose rejection of Kyoto in 2001 had brought the agreement close to extinction, was now isolated. Friends of the Earth International's Catherine Pearce told AFP It's fantastic news. It's great to hear it, and we hope it will not take too long for the Duma [Russian parliament] to ratify. It will put pressure on the United States and also on Australia, which are refusing to ratify, she said. WWF's Jennifer Morgan reacted in similar fashion, saying the cabinet move was a decision for which the world has been waiting for two and a half years. An opposing note was sounded by Frank Maisano, a Washington lobbyist for the US utilities industry. Russian ratification is largely symbolic, Maisano said in a newsletter, describing the treaty as meaningless, ineffective and toothless. Japanese industry associations said they worried about the economic cost of meeting anti-pollution targets and some corporate figures doubted whether Kyoto was workable. It is questionable if the treaty, which commits only one third of the world's countries to obligations, will prove effective while the United States and China stay out of it, said Yuzo Ichikawa, executive director of the Japan Iron and Steel Federation. China is a Kyoto member but as a developing country does not have to meet specific targets for cutting emissions. Russia's ratification is vital for transforming Kyoto from a draft 1997 agreement into a working international treaty. Moscow had for years hedged on whether it would approve the pact. The Protocol requires industrialized signatories to trim output of six greenhouse gases by 2008-2012 compared with their 1990 levels. But by some scientific estimates, a massive 60-percent cut is needed to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. Negotiations open next year on the post-2012 Kyoto targets, and fast-growing countries like India and China will be under intensifying pressure to join industrialised countries in agreeing to targeted reductions. All rights reserved. © 2004 Agence France-Presse. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Inspector General Says E.P.A. Rule Aids Polluters
The New York Times Washington Inspector General Says E.P.A. Rule Aids Polluters By MICHAEL JANOFSKY Published: October 1, 2004 WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - In a rebuke of the Bush administration, the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency said on Thursday that legal actions against major polluters had stalled because of the agency's decision to revise rules governing emissions at older coal-fired power plants. The inspector general, Nikki L. Tinsley, took direct aim at the administration's revision of the New Source Review rule, one of the administration's most prominent - and vilified - environmental initiatives, saying that it makes it easier for power-plant operators to postpone or avoid adding technologies that reduce polluting emissions. The revised rule, made final last year, has not been put in effect yet because of legal challenges. But the report concludes that just by issuing the rule, which scuttled the enforcement approach of the Clinton administration, the agency has seriously hampered its ability to settle cases and pursue new ones. Ms. Tinsley's report serves as a sharp challenge to Jeffrey R. Holmstead, an assistant E.P.A. administrator who has been the agency's leading proponent of the new rule. Ms. Tinsley said in the report that her investigators found little basis for the new rule and suggested, This is an excellent opportunity for E.P.A. to fully consider - in an open, public, and transparent manner - the environmental impact of proposed N.S.R. changes at varying levels. Appearing before a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Public Works Committees in 2002, Mr. Holmstead said, We do not believe these changes will have a negative impact on the enforcement cases. While the language of the report is critical, the inspector general cannot force the agency to do anything. The report also showcased a split in the agency between political officials in the air quality office, which Mr. Holmstead leads, and lawyers charged with enforcement, including some who have left the agency in frustration. Responding to Ms. Tinley's questions about the reasonableness of the relaxed new rule, the air quality office defended it, saying it allowed utilities to improve efficiency, safety and reliability; enforcement officials said the rule would most likely eviscerate the air enforcement program. The E.P.A., which was expecting a critical review, released a statement that largely echoed its original response to a draft of Ms. Tinsley's report. The statement said, The report misses the mark, misleads rather than enlightens the public and portrays a superficial and inaccurate characterization of agency policies. Industry groups like the National Association of Manufacturers and the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, which strongly support the new rule, sounded similar tones. Dan Riedinger, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, a trade organization, said in a statement, It is frustrating that E.P.A.'s own inspector general could so completely misconstrue the purpose of the New Source Review requirements and, simultaneously, shortchange the agency's own success in improving air quality. But the report was applauded by environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Physicians for Social Responsibility, as well as lawmakers opposed to efforts to roll back the rules of the Clinton administration. Before the revision of the rule, the E.P.A. had reached settlements with several industrial companies that agreed to spend hundreds of millions of dollars installing modern pollution controls to reduce emissions, and many other companies were in settlement talks with the enforcement branch of agency. Once the agency set the new rules, those companies were no longer under pressure to agree to similar settlements. This report is further evidence that the Bush administration has been trying to gut the enforcement of the Clean Air Act since coming into office, said Senator James M. Jeffords, a Vermont independent who was one of several senators to ask the inspector general to review the proposed New Source Review rules. John Walke, director of the Clean Air Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the report confirms that top political officials at the agency charged with protecting public health had to have known that they were letting power plants off the hook for pollution that shortens lives and triggers asthma attacks. Before President Bush took office, the E.P.A. and the Justice Department went after dirty plant operators on a case-by-case basis when investigators determined that significant upgrades had been made without adding required cleanup technologies. Under the Bush proposal, the requirement would not be triggered until plant upgrades reached a cost of 20 percent of the value of the plant - even though agency enforcement officials recommended that the trigger be set no
[Biofuel] On world stage, Bush team's plain talk sends the wrong message
,1361613.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines baltimoresun.com Opinion op/ed On world stage, Bush team's plain talk sends the wrong message By Jeremy Jones Originally published October 5, 2004 THE BUSH administration lacks the patience for nuances of language, perhaps thinking there is an honorable tradition of plain speaking to uphold. Even if it does not see the world in black and white, as many of its opponents charge it with doing, its rhetoric often seems designed to paint it that way. Plain words play well in a culture where fancy talk has always been a little suspect. Although some attempt seems to have been made to pull back from the simplistic fantasies of the axis of evil, or a new crusade, the language of You're either with us or against us, of freedom fries and Old Europe, continues to shape the administration's communication with the public, both domestic and international. We can try to laugh off this kind of talk as just part of the Fox News world of entertainment, not serious government communication. But only up to a point. The fantasies such talk excite contaminate our culture. Within the realm of foreign policy, it is clear that the problems created by plain speaking extend beyond the short-run public relations deficits chalked up by headline speeches into tricky areas of diplomatic interchanges where a bit of thinking about language, pedantic though it might seem to the administration's action men, does not go amiss. Take the broader Middle East initiative, or, to be attentive to its various linguistic formulations in the past few months, the wider or greater Middle East initiative. Here is the administration's big idea for the Middle East: Political and economic reform in the Arab Middle East is the only way to work our way through to a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea in itself is more or less crazy, depending how much time you spend with it: completely crazy if one thinks its advocates really believe it will work, and only partially crazy if viewed as a device for putting the peace process on hold indefinitely. Either way, it has a certain moral deficiency. To demand that compliance with international law must await the completion of a process that everyone must recognize will be uncertain, gradual and possibly interminable, is effectively to legitimize a totally unacceptable status quo -- so acquiescing in the violence (on both sides) that springs from this impasse. Beyond the idea itself there is a question of language to which no one in the administration seems to be aware. Leaving aside the question of its sequential or causal relationship with the Middle East peace process, let us suppose there are Arab governments interested in engaging with the reform process. Among such governments we might find Jordan, Bahrain and Morocco. Try to hear what the administration is saying through their ears. In Arabic, the word for reform is islah. But, as ever, translation is a perilous activity, since for the Arab listener the call for islah most strongly implies that the present state of affairs is barbarism (fasad, in Arabic) -- a corrupt and irreligious condition of disorder. Is this how the administration wishes, publicly, to characterize the polities and economies of its already reluctant and anxious allies in the Arab world? If so, it is not alone, as this is precisely the kind of language used by other critics of current Arab governments -- critics such as Osama bin Laden, for example, or the various nameless and blood-spattered cells and individuals beheading American citizens in Iraq. And what if one of the governments keen to participate in the initiative, and with over 10 years of parliamentary elections behind it to boot, were Yemen's? Well, the main opposition to the Yemeni government, largely powered by religious conservatism and tribal violence, is called Islah. So perhaps, when launching its big idea, the administration might stop, think and choose its words with more precision. It's time to start talking of tahdith (modernization) and tatwir (development), words that in Arabic carry a positive and go-ahead spin, and to stop talking about islah. If the administration means what it says about its partnership with the states of the Arab Middle East, it needs to say what it means. Jeremy Jones, a British citizen, is a fellow in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Steve Chapman's column will return Friday. Copyright © 2004, The Baltimore Sun ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] US envoy accused of being the power pulling Karzai's strings
%5E2703,00.html The Australian: US envoy accused of being the power pulling Karzai's strings As Afghanistan heads to the polls, there is growing suspicion that the fix is in, writes Catherine Philp in Kabul October 05, 2004 AS Hamid Karzai stepped forward to cut the ribbon across the entrance to Kabul's rebuilt national museum, a tall grey-haired man in a sharp suit stood beside him. The same man was present when the Afghan President opened a new dormitory at Kabul university. And he was there again as Mr Karzai arrived by helicopter in a dusty northern province to open a new road. He is the US ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, who has been nicknamed The Viceroy for the influence he wields over the Karzai Government. In recent weeks, candidates in the presidential election to be held on Saturday have accused the US envoy of taking on a new role -- that of campaign manager for Mr Karzai -- in an exercise whose success is vital for the re-election hopes of George W. Bush. Mr Karzai has long been seen as the US's man, and his backers have done little to challenge that perception. In the past week, the US ambassador has appeared three times at Mr Karzai's side at the opening of US-funded reconstruction projects, even when they have not been completed. The museum's end wall stood unfinished and unplastered as the ribbon was cut. The new road to Shibarghan petered out into rubble long before it reached the town, so the ceremony was held in the middle of the desert. Rival candidates have complained to Afghanistan's election commission over the legality of the support the US provides to Mr Karzai, from Chinook helicopters to his well-armed bodyguards. Most serious of all, opposition candidates are claiming the US is pressuring them to drop out of the race or seek deals. They contend that such interference could damage the credibility of what is being hailed as the first truly democratic election in Afghanistan's troubled history. Leading candidate Mohammed Mohaqiq was preparing to launch his presidential bid when Mr Khalilzad offered him a deal to pull out of the election in return for cabinet posts for his men. Mr Mohaqiq asked the Americans to pay for a road through his tribal heartland. He said Mr Khalilzad readily agreed. When he decided against the deal, he claimed the ambassador called his party colleagues and tribal associates and asked them to help persuade him. I am not the only one he has visited -- he has done the same thing with many other candidates, he said. We all know the Americans are not interested in a real election, they just want Karzai to win. Mr Khalilzad denies claims he has offered candidates deals in return for their dropping out of the race. The candidates say that since the allegations became public, US officials have made strenuous efforts to assure them Washington has no favourites. But few are convinced, giving rise to the growing perception that the election will be a US fix. It is very shameful what the Americans are doing, said Mohammed Qasim, a vice-presidential candidate on an opposition ticket. They came here to end terrorism, not to interfere in our elections and impose their will on us. Mr Karzai's frenzy of ribbon-cutting has angered those with less tangible achievements to show off. After two years of doling out reconstruction funds, the Bush administration has pumped in an extra $US1.76billion ($2.44 billion) this election year. But Mr Karzai's image as the US's man cuts both ways with Afghans: to those who strongly resents the US presence he is Washington's stooge, to the more pragmatic, his close relations with the wealthy West are a boon. Mr Karzai would probably be a runaway favourite without any US meddling, but the perception that the election is a done deal is gaining currency among the educated elite, fuelling cynicism and apathy. It's a dangerous game the Americans are playing, Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit analyst Andrew Wilder said. The American ambassador accompanying him everywhere is undermining his credibility. It confirms to the Afghans that Khalilzad is the real power in the country and that there is more interest in the outcome than in having a meaningful process. The Times ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] France Bests U.S. In Energy Security Through Efficiency, Technology
The New York Times Business Slow Learner on Energy-Efficiency Front By JAD MOUAWAD Published: October 5, 2004 The United States, land of gas-guzzling S.U.V.'s and air-conditioned McMansions, might do well to turn to the country some Americans love to hate for lessons on how to curb its reliance on imported oil: France. Now that oil has reached roughly $50 a barrel and the world is coming to expect relatively high oil prices to last a long time, experts say that a rethinking of America's wasteful ways is once again an urgent undertaking. And like it or not, France - whose perceived diplomatic obstructionism in the run-up to the Iraq war provoked a boycott of French products by some Americans - has displayed a quality ripe for export: an impressive tenacity in waging what the French call the war on gaspi, short for gaspillage, or waste. It has also done so in a way that the United States has not been able to: over the long term. Spurred by the oil shocks of the 1970's, France embarked on a vast state-led drive to flush out as much oil from its economy as possible. With the national slogan at the time, We don't have oil, but we have ideas, it accelerated the shift of electricity production from oil-fired power plants to nuclear reactors, increased taxes on gasoline to the equivalent of $3.75 a gallon, encouraged the sale of diesel-powered cars and gave tax breaks to energy-hungry industries like aluminum, cement and paper to shift from oil to other fuels. It worked. In contrast to the United States, where oil consumption initially fell but then ended up rising by a total of 16 percent from 1973 to 2003, in France, despite some increase in recent years, oil use is still 10 percent lower today than it was three decades ago, according to the United States Energy Information Administration. (Germany also matched France's record.) Americans have completely abandoned their efforts at energy conservation over the past decade and have been incredibly care-free about oil consumption because they believed they would get access to cheap energy - through force if necessary, said Pierre Terzian, an energy specialist who runs the Paris-based consulting firm PetroStrategies. The contrast between French resolve and American abandon in recent years is sharp. The United States, too, took the high road in the 1970's and early 80's, when the combined impact of the 1973 oil embargo, the growing power of OPEC and the Iranian revolution of 1979 created long gas lines and raised the prospect of an oil producers' stranglehold over the American economy. The price of Arabian light crude rose from $1.85 a barrel in 1972 to $40 in 1981, or $80 in today's dollars. Americans responded with a nationwide speed limit of 55 miles an hour, a home-insulating boom and a blossoming of energy-technology start-ups to help businesses cut their energy bills. Vast improvements came in home appliances: refrigerators, for example, now consume a third of the energy needed 30 years ago. But slowly, the nation resumed old habits. By the late 1980's, with the economy booming and oil prices below $20 a barrel, gas guzzlers were back, cars raced along highways at 75 m.p.h. with impunity and new vehicles' average mileage per gallon, which had almost doubled to 27.5 in 1987 from 14 in 1972, slipped back to 24, compared with Europe's 36. In the 1990's, the United States, which represents roughly 24 percent of world economic output and an even lower share of industrial production, nonetheless accounted for a third of the growth in demand for global oil. A big reason for the policy divide, said Amy Jaffe, the associate director of Rice University's energy program, is a cultural contrast of two sharply opposed ways of looking at the world. In the United States, we try to control things over which we have no control, like Russia or Saudi Arabia, instead of looking at what we could do inside, Mrs. Jaffe said. We're like drug addicts. We're looking around for another dealer instead of going to detox. For now, the presidential candidates are preaching familiar themes in their campaigning, with President Bush calling for more exploration and increased domestic production and Senator John Kerry promoting alternative energies. But with oil now at $50 a barrel, double what it was two years ago, and with many analysts expecting substantially higher energy prices in the next decade than during the 1990's, some experts are saying that both government and industry are going to need to do some fundamental rethinking of some basic policies. The lack of emphasis on demand in the past 20 years in the United States has a lot to do with the predicament we're in now, said Ashok Gupta, an economist with the National Resources Defense Council. We need to look at what it will take to get manufacturers to offer technologies that people want. One obvious step, which politicians are loath
[Biofuel] New Study Examines Business Impacts of Energy and Climate Choices
New Study Examines Business Impacts of Energy and Climate Choices October 06, 2004 - By GreenBiz.com SYDNEY - Energy demand could double or triple by 2050, as population rises and developing countries expand their economies and overcome poverty, according to a new study. The study, by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), ponders whether change in technologies and policy frameworks could help companies move toward sustainable energy systems and which energy options can help reshape our energy future. Facts and Trends to 2050: Energy and Climate Change, released recently at the World Energy Congress in Sydney, Australia, is based on the practical experiences of a cross-section of industry leaders. The report explores challenges in achieving a sustainable energy situation globally and future energy options and infrastructures. Drawing from existing data, the work is meant to stimulate forward thinking and lead to concrete actions by companies. Starting the process now is a matter of urgency and business has a key role to play, said WBCSD President Bjrn Stigson at the press briefing. Change in energy supply and demand can help shift to a truly sustainable energy path. But change takes time, and laying the foundations for the future should not be delayed. Also speaking at the event, Anne Lauvergeon, chairman of the executive board AREVA and a co-chair of the WBCSD's Energy and Climate program, said, 2050 may seem far off, but it is not mere prospective. In 2050 the next generation, our children, will be driving the planet. She went on to explain that the pace of change in the energy cycle is slow. It is like a super-tanker, she said. It takes time to change direction, and you must anticipate. If you do not start on time, you cannot recover the situation, and the consequences may spiral out of control. President Stigson said, A reduction in growth is not an acceptable path to a lower carbon world. We need a decoupling of the current direct link between standards of living and energy consumption. Facts and Trends states that if the developing world is to aspire to the levels enjoyed in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, improved efficiency, diversity, and technological development in our energy systems will be the keys to achieving this without escalating emissions unsustainably. And there are already signals of change, such as an increased use of gas, the introduction of advanced forms of renewable energy, and high-efficiency vehicles offered to the consumer. Stigson concluded by saying that Facts and Trends was meant to serve as a platform to engage a broad set of stakeholders in a discussion around energy and climate change dilemmas and options. Our intent was to explore the issues without being dictatorial about the solutions, he said. Here we lay out the facts in terms that everyone can relate to, and one of our key messages is that we have today the means to act. Source: GreenBiz.com ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] World Bank, IMF Warn Security Eclipsing Poverty Alleviation
21.story?coll=la-headlines-nation October 4, 2004 IMF, World Bank Admit Barriers to Development Officials worry that security issues may eclipse anti-poverty efforts. Wealthy nations differ on debt relief to poor countries. By Warren Vieth, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON - World finance leaders wrapped up their annual meetings Sunday with renewed pledges to promote global prosperity, amid warnings that the battle against poverty had taken a back seat to the war on terrorism. We have become preoccupied with security, World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn told delegates from 184 nations attending weekend sessions of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The events took place behind concrete barricades a few blocks from the White House. The IMF and the World Bank have taken special precautions since U.S. officials warned Aug. 1 that intelligence reports indicated that Al Qaeda had targeted the financial institutions. It is absolutely right that we fight terror, Wolfensohn said. The danger is that in our preoccupation with immediate threats, we lose sight of the longer-term and equally urgent causes of our insecure world: poverty, frustration and lack of hope. In 2000, wealthy nations endorsed an ambitious set of millennium development goals, including reducing by half the number of people living in extreme poverty, achieving universal primary education and decreasing child mortality by 2015. On Sunday, IMF and World Bank officials acknowledged that beyond fast-growing China and India, most developing countries stood little chance of achieving their millennium goals. Four years ago É almost every single country signed up for a historic shared commitment to right the greatest wrongs of our time, said Gordon Brown, Britain's finance minister. Unless we take concerted action now É we will be remembered not for promises made, but for promises broken. The problems are particularly acute in sub-Saharan Africa, where many of the world's poorest countries have been ravaged by war, famine and the HIV/AIDS epidemic and haven't participated in global economic growth. Instead of attaining millennium goals by 2015, Brown said, current trends indicate that sub-Saharan Africa will not achieve universal primary education until 2130, a 50% reduction in poverty until 2150 and the elimination of avoidable infant deaths until 2165. I believe the whole world will say 150 years is too long for a people to wait for justice, Brown said. Although poor countries are expected to do their part by combating corruption, lowering trade barriers and promoting private enterprise, some delegates attributed the lack of progress in large part to the reluctance of wealthy nations to provide promised financial aid. To hold up their end of the bargain, wealthy nations need to roughly double the $50 billion a year in development assistance they provide to poor countries, according to World Bank officials. So far, they have been slow to step forward. Pakistan's Salman Shah said his country had initiated a sea change of financial reforms but would be unable to achieve its development goals without a significant increase in international aid. In countries such as Pakistan, which has been a training ground for Al Qaeda operatives, the ultimate solution to the immediate problem of terrorism is a long-term commitment to economic growth and alleviating poverty, Shah warned. Global security and prosperity are not only directly linked, but are indivisible, Shah said. We cannot have a secure world when it is full of grave imbalances, where the absolute number of poor is growing. Only if you succeed in providing hope can you win the war against terror. IMF and World Bank officials expressed their determination to deal with current risks to the global economy, including high oil prices and record trade imbalances, as well as longer-term challenges such as crisis intervention and development aid. The World Bank provides support to developing countries, while the IMF's role is to ensure the stability of the international monetary system. In some cases, the officials were putting the best faces on their failure to reach agreement before adjourning their annual meetings. The United States, for example, balked at a British proposal for wealthy nations to make big contributions to resolve the remaining debt of the world's poorest countries. Some European nations, in turn, rebuffed a U.S. plan to write off as much as 95% of Iraq's $130-billion foreign debt. I want everyone to know the United States is fully engaged with our other partners in trying to make sure we find answers to this critical problem, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said. The details aren't important. What is important is that we all embrace the objective. Wolfensohn, who has headed the World Bank since 1995, said he had met with poor people in more than 100 countries and was
[Biofuel] G-7 Should Have Cancelled Poor Countries' Debt
A column by Mark Weisbrot Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services - October 4, 2004 G-7 Should Have Cancelled Poor Countries' Debt The failure of the G-7 governments this past week to reach an agreement on debt cancellation for the poorest countries of the world shows remarkable callousness on their part. These are countries -- mostly in Africa -- where thousands of people are dying each day from AIDS and other even more treatable and preventable diseases, children are being orphaned and economies wrecked. Why should the richest countries of the world -- or the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank -- continue to take debt service payments from them? This time it was the Europeans that scuttled a reasonable proposal from the U.S. Treasury Department to cancel 100 percent of these countries' debt, and to switch to a system of grants for poor countries, rather than loans, from now on. The Europeans appeared to side with the World Bank, whose director Jim Wolfensohn argued that such a proposal would hurt the Bank in 10 years because we are expecting 40 percent repayment from those loans. But Washington has veto power in both the IMF and World Bank and has used it for 60 years on matters that are of importance to it. So the blame must fall upon all of the rich country governments for failing to cancel this debt. Economist Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, a special advisor to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, has argued that poor countries should unilaterally cancel this debt themselves if the G-7 countries fail to act. Africa should say: 'thank you very much but we need this money to meet the needs of children who are dying right now . . .' Sachs said last July. Sachs is right, and there is nothing radical or impractical about the idea of poor countries taking matters into their own hands. The idea that poor countries might ruin their credit rating for future borrowing is implausible. Their credit rating has already been ruined. And fears that other debtor countries might press similar demands are also misguided. In fact, default can sometimes be an option worth considering even for middle-income countries. This has certainly been the case in Argentina, whose economy has grown by 8.8 percent last year and a projected 7 percent this year, while failing to reach an agreement with holders of about $100 billion of defaulted foreign debt. The country's defiance of the IMF, with its credible threat to default to the Fund, has also freed it from having to accept the IMF's economic advice. This advice, which has often proved disastrous in the past, could easily have cut short the country's economic recovery. According to standard economic theory, international lending can benefit the borrowing country by allowing it to invest more and increase productive capacity. In this scenario the country has a net benefit even after paying interest and repaying the loans. But many developing countries are stuck in a situation in which their debt service payments exceed new borrowing, with no obvious reversal in sight. These countries are therefore sacrificing present consumption and investment just to pay off debt. In such a situation default can be the most practical option, rather than to continue to reduce living standards and growth simply to make debt payments. This is even more likely if, as is often the case, the IMF and financial markets enforce conditions on borrowing -- such as excessively high domestic interest rates -- which further reduce growth. Wolfensohn's worry that the Bank might have less influence in the future is also misplaced. The IMF and World Bank, which formulate policy for developing countries jointly -- with the Bank subordinate to the Fund -- have a losing track record for the last 25 years. Not only the poorest countries, but also the vast majority of low and middle-income countries have suffered a sharp slowdown in economic growth while implementing reforms promoted by these institutions. The HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Countries) initiative of the IMF and World Bank promised debt relief for poor countries eight years ago, but progress has been slow and inadequate. Debt cancellation for these countries is long overdue. Any spillover effects that lead other countries to re-evaluate the costs -- including economic conditions attached to borrowing -- and benefits of servicing their debt burdens need not be feared. Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Center for Economic and Policy Research, 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 293-5380, Fax: (202) 588-1356, Home: www.cepr.net ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net
[Biofuel] Darfur: Hitting Sudan where it hurts - its oil exports
Colin Powell already called it genocide. But none of the permanent five members of the UN are acting. The Kennedy School's Robert Rotberg calls for hitting Sudan where it hurts-its oil exports. Combined with a Western-backed African Union force, we just might be able to save the million people who are about to be killed by Khartoum. See also: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVFb=201389 Sudan: Eyewitness to Crisis - Center for American Progress http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rotberg4oct04,1,4 157875.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions October 4, 2004 COMMENTARY No More Mr. Nice Guy in Dealing With Sudan By Robert I. Rotberg, Robert I. Rotberg is director of the Kennedy School of Government's Belfer Center Program on Intrastate Conflict at Harvard University and president of the World Peace Foundation. It is no longer a secret that more than 50,000 mostly black unfortunates have been killed in Darfur, Sudan, and that several hundred thousand more are refugees, lingering in forlorn camps within the nation or in neighboring Chad. Yet the killing goes on. Even as the world watches, as many as 10,000 people are continuing to die each month from combat and disease. If the world wants to stop this continued genocide, Washington and the United Nations need to squeeze Sudan much harder. The nice-guy approach is clearly not working. The authoritarian Arab government of Sudan promised in July to rein in its marauding vigilantes, the janjaweed, but their attacks persist. A supposed cease-fire is violated daily. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has urged the Security Council to vote strong sanctions against Sudan. Never before has it been so essential, he declared, for the U.N. to be resolute. But China, Russia, Algeria and Pakistan (all members of the Security Council) prefer to bring no pressure, and the Arab League and the African Union don't want to be seen criticizing one of their member states. Recently, the Security Council approved a weakened U.S. resolution that authorized an unspecified commission to spend months determining whether Sudan had really committed genocide. It also commended the deployment of African Union monitors and threatened unspecified sanctions if Sudan continued to kill its own people in the Darfur region. This is well and good, but it provides no incentive for the Sudanese government to change its behavior. As in the Rwandan genocide 10 years ago, the U.N. is found wanting. Unless Washington obtains U.N. assent for robust action, it needs to act firmly on its own, bolstered by the moral authority that comes from combating genocide. Secretary of State Colin Powell has already declared the ongoing ethnic cleansing in Darfur, Sudan's westernmost province, genocide. Washington should immediately offer to provide logistical support for a significantly upgraded African Union force of monitors and soldiers. Having tried to give Sudanese officials ample time to act responsibly, the velvet-glove diplomatic initiatives should now be joined with the mailed fist of hard sanctions. Washington must concentrate on those who back, fund and arm the Arab janjaweed. A blockade of petroleum exports would make the government in Khartoum pay attention. U.N. Security Council approval of such a comprehensive embargo would be preferable, but the Chinese, who purchase much of Sudan's oil, might make that difficult. Oil is Sudan's only significant source of foreign exchange. It earns about $1 billion a year, pumping 250,000 barrels a day. If the U.S. can patrol the Persian Gulf, it can easily prevent tankers from taking on crude oil supplies at Port Sudan on the Red Sea. Washington should also persuade Sudan's neighbors - including Egypt and Libya - and Europe to ban overflights and landings by Sudan Airways. It could veto International Monetary Fund and World Bank assistance. It could ban travel to the U.S. from Sudan and freeze all assets of President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir and his key associates in the U.S. U.S. trade with Sudan could be halted. If blockades and other sanctions fail to turn the Sudanese government toward peace, then the U.N. and the U.S. will have to threaten intervention. A few thousand Nigerian or French troops could certainly impose the cease-fire that the Sudanese government and its janjaweed proxies now refuse to honor. The French already have Legionnaires in neighboring Chad; with American assistance, the Nigerians could fly soldiers from their own Muslim north across Chad and into Darfur. No one has really explained why Sudan launched its genocidal campaign 19 months ago, and why it has refused to curb its local militias there. But rumors of petroleum deposits are persistent, and the government does not want to share any such riches with Darfur's two rebel groups. The government is determined not to lose ground, as it did in the years-long fighting
[Biofuel] Argentina's torrid love affair with the soybean
GRAIN | Seedling | 2004 | Home Publications Seedling October 2004 Argentina's torrid love affair with the soybean Lilian Joensen and Stella Semino Soybean production in Argentina has increased from 0.01 million to more than 14 million hectares in 30 years, making it the world's third largest producer. The rise of the soybean has been accompanied by massive increases in hunger and malnutrition in a country long accustomed to producing 10 times as much food as the population required. The consequences of growing GM soya include a massive exodus from the countryside and ecological devastation. Now soya is being imposed on Argentineans as an alternative to traditional foods. Despite all indications to the contrary, the government continues to see the export of GM soya as key to servicing the country's massive debt. Argentina assumed the role of an exporter of raw materials, mainly agricultural products, and an importer of manufactured products during the 19th Century, as required by its colonial masters. In 1853 the country was unified and the process of internal colonisation accelerated, via initiatives like the conquest of the desert, which involved forcibly removing indigenous peoples from land required for agriculture. The government also adopted an economic model to facilitate exports and began to contract debt. But although Argentina was exporting agricultural produce, much of it to the UK, there were many differences between the impact then and now. Then it was mainly producing food for internal consumption, there were no toxic chemicals being applied, people were able to save their seed and make their own farming decisions, and there was plenty of employment. In 1890, the country suffered an economic collapse and the peso was devalued against the price of gold, which actually helped exports, while the entry of foreign currency ensured a rapid recovery. After 1890, UK interests in the country shifted and investment focused on the railways. Between 1880 and 1913, investment in the railways increased 30 fold and millions of railway sleepers were produced by itinerant workers from the forests of North East Argentina. Railways were not routed to facilitate the movement of Argentineans but of commodities to the ports ( Buenos Aires and Rosario ). Today's parallel is the construction of the Hidrova waterway, the massive intergovernmental project to build canals and link rivers so as to open up the whole continent to big cargo vessels to take out products. Grain and fertilisers are predicted to make up 48% of the goods carried. US companies plan to transport 70,000 tonnes of oilseeds (including soya) daily for processing at the industrial centre ROSAFE close to the port of Rosario. One of the architects of Argentina 's agricultural modernisation, Jos Martinez de Hoz, wrote a book in 1967 renewing the call for Argentina to base its economy on industrial export agriculture. The green revolution began with the importing of hybrid seed and chemical fertilisers and machinery. Most of the production was consumed internally as international prices did not favour exports. In 1984 the new democratic government sought to promote fertiliser use by exchanging fertiliser for grain. The country's debt had increased greatly under the military dictatorship of 1976-83. In spite of this the new government was able to attract loans from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Club of Paris. Rapid returns attracted investment and financial speculation on a large scale became an important part of the economy. During this period power was concentrated increasingly in the hands of a small elite. Between 1983 and 1989 there was hyperinflation, fuelled by speculation on the peso versus the dollar and not helped by low international prices for exports. In 1989 the fiscal system collapsed, together with incomes, while national industry continued to decline. The economic chaos, de-industrialisation, concentration of the economy in few hands, was the perfect context for ushering in the presidency of Carlos Menem (1989-2000). His proposal to turn Argentina into a first world country and reduce its debt through a savage neoliberal programme was welcomed as a possible way out. Menem's stated aims were to cut state expenditures and privatise as much as possible (even scientific research), to make public services more efficient. He followed the World Bank, the IMF and the Inter-American Development Bank's standard prescription. This meant monetary reform, fiscal reform, reducing taxes and restrictions on imports and exports; reform (privatisation) of the public sector, including the social support system, education and pensions. But instead of dwindling, the debt tripled, reaching $US 145,000 million in 1999, and the situation was exacerbated by capital flight on a massive scale. At the sam e time, national industry was decimated,
[Biofuel] Feeding the World under Climate Change
Science Society Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk ISIS Press Release 06/10/04 Why sustainable agriculture The debate over sustainable agriculture has gone beyond the health and environmental benefits that it could bring in place of conventional industrial agriculture. For one thing, conventional industrial agriculture is heavily dependent on oil, which is running out; it is getting increasingly unproductive as the soil is eroded and depleted. Climate change will force us to adopt sustainable, low input agriculture to ameliorate its worst consequences, and to genuinely feed the world. But in order to get there, important changes have to be made in international agencies and institutions, which have hitherto supported the dominant model of industrial agriculture and policies that work against poor countries, where farmers are also desperately in need of secure land tenure. This mini-series is a continuation of many articles that have appeared in our magazine, http://www.i- sis.org.uk/isisnews.phpScience in Society since 2002. Feeding the World under Climate Change Industrial agriculture contributes enormously to global warming, it is increasingly unproductive and heavily dependent on oil that's fast running out. Nor can it feed us once climate change really gets going. A very different agriculture is needed, says Edward Goldsmith Climate change is happening Climate change is by far and away the most daunting problem that the human species has ever encountered. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its last assessment report expect a temperature change of up to 5.8 degrees within this century. However, the IPCC did not take into account a number of critical factors including the annihilation of our tropical forests and other vegetation. These contain six hundred billion tons of carbon - almost as much as is contained in the atmosphere - much of which is likely to be released into it in the next decades by the increasingly uncontrolled activities of the giant logging companies. The Director General of the United Nations Environment Programme recently stated that only a miracle could save the world's remaining tropical forests. Nor does the IPCC take into account the terrible damage perpetrated on the planet's soils by modern industrial agriculture with its huge machines and arsenal of toxic chemicals. Our planet's soils contain one thousand six hundred billion tonnes of carbon, more than twice as much as is contained in the atmosphere. Much of this will be released in the coming decades; unless there is a rapid switch to sustainable, largely organic, agricultural practices. The Hadley Centre of the British Meteorological Organisation, by contrast, has taken these and other such factors into account in its more recent models, and concluded that the world's average temperature will increase by up to 8.8 rather than 5.8 degrees this century [1]. Other climatologists who take into account often largely neglected factors are even gloomier [2]. The IPCC says that we can expect a considerable increase in heat waves, storms, floods, and the spread of tropical diseases into temperate areas, impacting on the health of humans, livestock and crops. It also predicts a rise in sea levels up to eighty- eight centimetres this century, which will affect (by seawater intrusion into the soils underlying croplands and by temporary and also permanent flooding) something like 30% of the world's agricultural lands [3]. If the Hadley Centre is right, the implications will be even more horrifying. Melting of the secondary Antarctic, the Arctic, and in particular, the Greenland ice-shields is occurring far more rapidly than was predicted by the IPCC. This will reduce the salinity of the oceans, which in turn would weaken if not divert, oceanic currents such as the Gulf Stream from their present course [4]. And if that continues, it would eventually freeze up areas that at present have a temperate climate, such as Northern Europe (see also Global warming and then the big freeze, http://www.i- sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis20.phpSiS 20). It is indeed ironic that global warming could lead to local or regional cooling. If this were not bad enough, we must realise that even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, our planet would continue to heat up for at least 150 years, on account of the residence time of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, while the oceans will continue to warm up for a thousand years at least. All we can do is take those measures - and very dramatic ones are required to slow down the warming process - so that when our climate eventually stabilises, our planet remains partly, at least, habitable. Climate change is proceeding faster than predicted. This is becoming apparent, among other things, by the prolonged droughts in many parts of the world. Four years of drought in much
Re: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid
Dear Readers: During my energy career our team worked on distributed generation, merchant power plants, fuel cells, and CHP; both on-grid and off-grid applications. One of my clients installed a 5 MW cogeneration system for on-peak shaving, another installed a thermal energy storage system. All are excellent as Demand Side Management (DSM) strategies. The only word of caution for U.S. readers is one HUGE issue = for both on-grid and off-grid distributed generation application you need to consider the EXIT FEES and STANDBY CHARGES tariffs involved and promulgated by you local electric and gas utility distribution company; and regulated by a Utilities Commmission. The tariffs should be part of your cost/benefit ratio calculation ALONG with any backup needed if your congeneraton system shuts down for normal maintenence and/or emergency shutdown. Exit Fees and Standby Charges are part of traditional tariffs regulated. Also, you may be required to have certain switchgear and electric protection to protect your facility from the electric grid and vice versa - that is another added cost that should be in your calculus. Best Regards P. Wolfe. --- Peggy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you Don for the excellent example of a well-planned forward step. Each of our biofuels ethanol plants comes with a generator powered from fuel ethanol production. That generator frees the producer from the grid, which is what you are recommending. Moreover, in many places if the producer is also connected to a grid, then it is possible to sell the energy back to the grid... and in many areas it is mandated that the grid owner pay for this retro energy. So biofuels production has additional benefits with more to be realized. Maybe some day we can also be awarded a green apple. Ha! I'm not really aware of the green apple award and it must be a good feeling to have received this. It sounds like a good bite and a bit of juicy recognition. We are looking forward to working with a group in Scotland. When we finally work out some details, we hope to have this group represent the technological advances in other parts of Europe. Our projects are small community-based projects and not grid sensitive. Hopefully, our discussions are more collaborations than debates. Best wishes, Peggy Original post: Peggy, hakan and others, I'm not sure how much this contributes to your debate but I also suscribe to the view of using what energy we have more wisely and economically, whilst also introducing newer technologies to run in parrallel with traditional systems, but preferably generating electricity LOCALLY, and using it LOCALLY, thereby avoiding the losses inherent in national grid systems whilst generating a sense of community ownership of their own energy supply, which in turn may be more easy to divert that community ownership to recognize such responsibilities as their own waste ,etc.. The best example I know in the UK is that achieved by Alan Jones( OBE or similar), the incumbent Eneregy Manager with Woking Borough Council. He has a target that Woking should produce all its own energy locally and disconnect itself from the National Grid! He, and Woking are approaching this by a comprehensive programme which involves; 1. A linked up network of CHP PLANTS (Combined Heat Power). Each engine , or plant, produces more energy and heat than it can use in its own building so it exports the extra to a community heating and electrical system.Thislocal network just keeps expanding. 2. Here is the really exciting bit. The swimming pool and the civic offices are powered by the first operational fuel cell plant which I know of in the UK! I believe excess heat and power are also exported to their 'community grid'. I presume that this is running on hydrogen, but I do not know how he produces it, or what he pays for it. If there is an interest, I could try to find out and report back to the group. What is also really exciting is how Woking is paying for this. He asked the council for £0.25m in 1990/91, and stated that he would never ask them for any more finance, PROVIDED they also approve a policy that all financial savings realised from energy saving measures would always be reinvested in further energy saving measures, thus creating more financial savings to reinvest etc, etc you get the picture..well, guess what, it worked! They are now saving:- 1. 43% of energy and water consumption 2. saving in energy and water budgets since 1991 now are £4.9 million ( 2002/2003 figure ) 3. annual savings, reinvested each year , is now £0.885 million. Not bad from £0.25 m in 1991...can you imagine the impact if ALL councils throughout Europe and North America achieved this? Now to this image of responsible councils we add a culture of composting, and
RE: [Biofuel] US Minnesota Fuels Plan
Peggy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good luck Gov. However, we hope to change the fuel ethanol business to be total biomass production and not based on an expensive food crop. And the existing corn producers are doing a great job with their products. We salute them and look forward to joining forces toward a united effort. snip Peggy, I would like to do more of my own personal research for my own knowledge on ethanol production from cellulosic biomass. From the readings, you seem like you could point me in the correct direction. Do you know if the technology has reached this stage yet on a commercial basis? I have read some articles about companies doing small scale pilot programs, but not of any on a large scale. Thanks. Jonathan. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ - Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Solar.....
- Original Message - From: Jonathan Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 8:37 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Solar. Good day all, Anyone have info on Solar panels? I need 1000 to 5000 units at 120 or 80 Watts. Need this at wholesale. Best price so far is $2.70 per Watt. Maybe these could be of help: http://www.solarmarket.com/ http://www.cansia.ca/pressreleases.htm Luc Any help would be great, Jonathan J.J.A.M., Inc. Jonathan Lynden Dunlap IS Network Systems Analyst Your PC Linux Specialist P.O. Box 4209 Inglewood, California 90309-4209 323-779-2752/Home - Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Cellulosic Ethanol -was: US Minnesota Fuels Plan
Governor Pawlenty Announces Plans to Double Ethanol Level in Gasoline and Reduce State Gasoline Consumption by 50% -- Sep 27, 2004 http://www.governor.state.mn.us/Tpaw_View_Article.asp?artid=1120 ~ Plan also includes greater use of hybrid vehicles ~ Good luck Gov. However, we hope to change the fuel ethanol business to be total biomass production and not based on an expensive food crop. And the existing corn producers are doing a great job with their products. We salute them and look forward to joining forces toward a united effort. And its also fine for them to call their state the capital just as long as they don't regulate or control the others. Examples are good. We too expect to be an excellent example only by having many small units in operation. The current processing plants are HUGE and really pump out a substantial amount of fuel. Good job! The state's real goal, however, it to attract government research money, and if the US government follows their current tact, they will limit production to projects centered on grains. The money powers in the DOE seem to have a kind of tunnel vision when it comes to innovation. They have a twenty-year plan. How's that for stiffening creativity? It means supporting those that are entrenched in the system allowing little room for new ideas or expansion. Being a center could mean keeping the money for personal projects that tend to be focused on that state's agenda. Well, no offense meant for the good work being done. I'd just like to see the money power look around a bit more and stop trying to promote their cush researchers to always be included in remote projects. By insisting that they stay involved, they also require a stake in the project thereby keeping control of future expansion, future funding, and the future of biofuels. I'm sure that everyone knows by now that our group focuses on community cooperative efforts bootstrapping themselves from their own resources. And many non-food crops can be exceedingly productive as feedstock for fuel ethanol. Best wishes, Peggy From my understanding you want to mobilize and invigorate the masses using your acid based cellulosic ethanol fuel, correct? What was the subject line used to describe this process as well as personal cost for this endeavor? ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
RE: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy
But back to reality. We in Portsmouth are building an Energy from Waste Plant to incinerate household waste. This plant will produce electricity ( to the grid- NOT LOCALLY ) and will also produce 30MW of waste heat for which so far there are absolutely no plans to utilise this 'free' energy...it will simply go up the chimney! Don Johnston Environmental Coordinator , Portsmouth City Council Chair, Solent Energy and Environment Management Group Winner ; National Champion-Science and Technology, Green Apple Awards 2002 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 023 9283 4247 Hi Don, A nearby city/county has had a Waste-to-Energy plant in place since 1987. The plant incinerates about 200 tons of garbage per day. They are adding a third larger combustion unit to double the tonnage accepted. The plant takes in an area of about 130,000 population, a little smaller than Portsmouth (186,000?). The plant has a 1.5MW turbine/generator which produces electricity for the grid. This is in reality a spit in the ocean, but is still better than nothing at all. As a reference, the largest city (86,000 pop) in the county consumes almost 300MW on a very hot summer day. The steam produced from the facility is sent through underground pipes for about one mile (1.6 km) to the local government center and 25 other local business buildings in the downtown area. I don't have the figures for how much steam per hour is produced. The plant had the latest required pollution controls in place when built. They are now spending $33 million USD (18.5 million GBP) for further pollution upgrades. Natural gas is only used during initial start-up for a combustion unit. There is a recycling center next to the plant to separate out hazmat and recyclables. No government subsidies are used for operation except for an occasional The refuse haulers are all private companies (13 of them) and compete fiercely for service. The original purpose for building the incinerator was to reduce landfill needs. I believe the burned ash constitutes 1/20th of what plain refuse would require in a landfill. A recent article in a newspaper mentioned that the facility wanted to write up a 21 year contract (long period) with the haulers for tipping fees, so revenue would cover the length of time to pay off the new, 3rd burner proposed for installation. Here is a link to the facility (shows diagrams and discusses different parts of the plant): http://www.olmstedwaste.com/owef/facility.htm Here is a link on the proposed new combustion unit: http://www.olmstedwaste.com/owef/Unit%203%20Project.htm Hope this can be of help, Ron B. PS- The name of the city where the waste to energy facility is located was originally named after a city in England by its settlers. 8~) ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Hydro power in Scandinavia
John, No you are not correct. R/P value does not consider the usage, it is a description of the current situation of known reserves and the production from them. This means that with the current speed of mining of Uranium, the known reserves will last 60 years. As we know, the mined resources in the case of nuclear will last for many years, but it still puts a cap on the contribution from nuclear. It also put a definitive cap on how large the contribution from nuclear can be of the total electricity production and clear up the dangerous misunderstanding of that nuclear could be a silver bullet of some sort and replace all other methods of electricity generation for the whole world. Without discussing pros and cons for nuclear, it is a finite fossil resource and neither a sustainable nor a renewable energy solution. By using finite resources in a wasteful and irresponsible way, we are taking something away from future generations. Hakan At 03:50 PM 10/6/2004, you wrote: Hakan- While I agree that renewables and efficiency should be the main focus of our transition away from fossil fuels, I wonder if nuclear doesn't have at least a small role in the future power mix given that wind and PV are poorly suited to base load. Admittedly, current PWR nuclear designs need to be rethought but should we necessarily ignore more advanced designs because of an anti-nuclear sentiment in parts of the environmental movement? I can't help but draw a comparison with diesel engines and greens in the US; the problem is with the implementation, not the concept. Specifically, am I correct that the 60 R/P number you mentioned below assumes current PWR technology without considering breeders or fuel reprocessing? I am not a nuclear engineer, but I was under the impression that CANDU designs can address several of the concerns you raised. First, they use fuel more efficiently than other designs. Second, they can use unenriched fuel, which saves developing nations from needing to build expensive enrichment facilities and partially addresses proliferation issues. Third, they can breed additional fuel from thorium if uranium is not available. Forth, they can run on material extracted from decomissioned nuclear weapons. This could help run down stockpiles of weapons grade material; since we have it, why not use it for peaceful purposes. Fifth, CANDU reactors can actually burn *spent* PWR fuel; this reduces the amount of high level nuclear waste. http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/ I'm not saying we should rush ahead and build one in every other town, but I don't think we should just dismiss the idea altogether without considering that nuclear power may have some *small* role in the longterm power mix. jh Hakan Falk wrote: Ron B, The interesting figures are electricity as a part of total energy, this especially since we have this hype about hydrogen. Then it is of course interesting too see electricity from renewable sources. Large Hydro dams will not be a large part of the solution at the end, this because they need some quite specific circumstances. In the industrialized world, most of the large capabilities are implemented. When we talk about restricting large hydro, it is the developing world that will suffer and to me it looks that they have problems enough without the developed countries defend their economic interests by saying that you should do what we say, not what we have done. Small hydro is largely untapped and is also less intrusive. It will be used more frequently and especially in developing countries. Water, wind, solar and biomass will be the only efficient and expandable electricity production for the future, renewable and it is available for all. Nuclear will not be the solution, other than if its use can be restricted. This is why US and others will allow only a few selected countries to use it fully, by limiting the enrichment capabilities for others. The excuse is weapon control. It is a limited source and the current R/P (Reserves/Production) is 60 years, it lasts and can be used very long, with high enrichment, but it is not enough for any major part of the electricity production needed in the world. When you then think that the suggestion is that we should get hydrogen/fuel cells from electrolysis, to reduce oil dependence, the numbers are quite revealing if you look at the capacity side. It is a popular tranquilizer, frequently used by politicians for more than 100 years now. They introduce it as the universal solution in cycles of about 20 years and it is still no widespread use of hydrogen. It looks like they work on a solution, but have not yet resulted in anything viable. It is amazing that most of what we talk about today, was well researched by the Germans in the 1930's. A lot of this was transferred to US after WWII and buried in the archives. There are a lot of reinventing the wheel now and it looks almost like it has been a plot by
Re: [Biofuel] Hydro power in Scandinavia
I understand that current uranium reserves will run out in 60 years at the current rate of production. My question was whether more efficient fuel utilization, better use of already extracted materials (like leftover slightly enriched uranium), novel fuels (like MOX or thorium) and breeders stretch the useful lifespan of nuclear materials to the point that the 60 year number looses some of its utility. Put another way, if 10 years production produces 250 years worth of power, is the 60 years figure meaningful? That having been said, I completely agree that exhausting our supply of radioisotopes in our lifetime now for something as mundane as electricity is very shortsighted. I'd far rather have my great-great-great grandchildren have those materials available for something truly nifty like starships engines. As I implied before, I think renewables should make up the majority of our power mix. I just think we shouldn't completely rule out a limited role for nuclear power. Even if we just built a handful of new reactors to deweaponize the existing enriched materials we have, that strikes me as having merit. jh Hakan Falk wrote: John, No you are not correct. R/P value does not consider the usage, it is a description of the current situation of known reserves and the production from them. This means that with the current speed of mining of Uranium, the known reserves will last 60 years. As we know, the mined resources in the case of nuclear will last for many years, but it still puts a cap on the contribution from nuclear. It also put a definitive cap on how large the contribution from nuclear can be of the total electricity production and clear up the dangerous misunderstanding of that nuclear could be a silver bullet of some sort and replace all other methods of electricity generation for the whole world. Without discussing pros and cons for nuclear, it is a finite fossil resource and neither a sustainable nor a renewable energy solution. By using finite resources in a wasteful and irresponsible way, we are taking something away from future generations. Hakan At 03:50 PM 10/6/2004, you wrote: Hakan- While I agree that renewables and efficiency should be the main focus of our transition away from fossil fuels, I wonder if nuclear doesn't have at least a small role in the future power mix given that wind and PV are poorly suited to base load. Admittedly, current PWR nuclear designs need to be rethought but should we necessarily ignore more advanced designs because of an anti-nuclear sentiment in parts of the environmental movement? I can't help but draw a comparison with diesel engines and greens in the US; the problem is with the implementation, not the concept. Specifically, am I correct that the 60 R/P number you mentioned below assumes current PWR technology without considering breeders or fuel reprocessing? I am not a nuclear engineer, but I was under the impression that CANDU designs can address several of the concerns you raised. First, they use fuel more efficiently than other designs. Second, they can use unenriched fuel, which saves developing nations from needing to build expensive enrichment facilities and partially addresses proliferation issues. Third, they can breed additional fuel from thorium if uranium is not available. Forth, they can run on material extracted from decomissioned nuclear weapons. This could help run down stockpiles of weapons grade material; since we have it, why not use it for peaceful purposes. Fifth, CANDU reactors can actually burn *spent* PWR fuel; this reduces the amount of high level nuclear waste. http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/ I'm not saying we should rush ahead and build one in every other town, but I don't think we should just dismiss the idea altogether without considering that nuclear power may have some *small* role in the longterm power mix. jh Hakan Falk wrote: Ron B, The interesting figures are electricity as a part of total energy, this especially since we have this hype about hydrogen. Then it is of course interesting too see electricity from renewable sources. Large Hydro dams will not be a large part of the solution at the end, this because they need some quite specific circumstances. In the industrialized world, most of the large capabilities are implemented. When we talk about restricting large hydro, it is the developing world that will suffer and to me it looks that they have problems enough without the developed countries defend their economic interests by saying that you should do what we say, not what we have done. Small hydro is largely untapped and is also less intrusive. It will be used more frequently and especially in developing countries. Water, wind, solar and biomass will be the only efficient and expandable electricity production for the future, renewable and it is available for all. Nuclear will not be the solution, other than if its use can be
Re: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy
Hey Todd, Strictly out of curiosity, and the other problems/issues aside ( not to mention I don't want to raise fuss ).What about calcining ( is that the proper term? ) the ash to an inert glass/ceramic like material? Everything I have heard about the technology, says it is viable for long term issues were leaching may be a problem. Granted it is very energy intensive, but, what if the energy used was from renewable sources? Greg H. - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 11:14 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy Ron, You're not addressing the fact that ash from municipal waste incinerators is by its own chemical makeup considered to be hazardous waste requiring special handling upon disposal. Unfortunately, no incinerators are forced to comply with RICRA, leaving the ash to be landfilled, mix with the leachate and eventually disperse into the hydrology. No clay or supposedly impervious liners have ever stopped this problem. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy
Ron, You're not addressing the fact that ash from municipal waste incinerators is by its own chemical makeup considered to be hazardous waste requiring special handling upon disposal. Unfortunately, no incinerators are forced to comply with RICRA, leaving the ash to be landfilled, mix with the leachate and eventually disperse into the hydrology. No clay or supposedly impervious liners have ever stopped this problem. You're also not addressing the high levels of mercury release from municipal waste incinerators - higher than that of comparable coal fired power plants. You're also not addressing the issues of dioxin and furan release. It is a physical impossibility to mix the witches brew of materials that feeds an incinerator and control the chemical composites that are formed during combustion and even cooling prior to release. I'd strongly suggest that you and anyone else who sees solid waste incineration as a benefit take a look at the Lakeland, Florida incinerator and how much that once highly green-washed gold mine has cost tax payers to date. On top of that, don't you find it a bit of a double standard to rag on hydro for all its disbenefits and then present only the highlights or industry perspective of incineration? Is this intentionally selective or are you just unaware of the destructive capacity of waste incinerators? Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy But back to reality. We in Portsmouth are building an Energy from Waste Plant to incinerate household waste. This plant will produce electricity ( to the grid- NOT LOCALLY ) and will also produce 30MW of waste heat for which so far there are absolutely no plans to utilise this 'free' energy...it will simply go up the chimney! Don Johnston Environmental Coordinator , Portsmouth City Council Chair, Solent Energy and Environment Management Group Winner ; National Champion-Science and Technology, Green Apple Awards 2002 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 023 9283 4247 Hi Don, A nearby city/county has had a Waste-to-Energy plant in place since 1987. The plant incinerates about 200 tons of garbage per day. They are adding a third larger combustion unit to double the tonnage accepted. The plant takes in an area of about 130,000 population, a little smaller than Portsmouth (186,000?). The plant has a 1.5MW turbine/generator which produces electricity for the grid. This is in reality a spit in the ocean, but is still better than nothing at all. As a reference, the largest city (86,000 pop) in the county consumes almost 300MW on a very hot summer day. The steam produced from the facility is sent through underground pipes for about one mile (1.6 km) to the local government center and 25 other local business buildings in the downtown area. I don't have the figures for how much steam per hour is produced. The plant had the latest required pollution controls in place when built. They are now spending $33 million USD (18.5 million GBP) for further pollution upgrades. Natural gas is only used during initial start-up for a combustion unit. There is a recycling center next to the plant to separate out hazmat and recyclables. No government subsidies are used for operation except for an occasional The refuse haulers are all private companies (13 of them) and compete fiercely for service. The original purpose for building the incinerator was to reduce landfill needs. I believe the burned ash constitutes 1/20th of what plain refuse would require in a landfill. A recent article in a newspaper mentioned that the facility wanted to write up a 21 year contract (long period) with the haulers for tipping fees, so revenue would cover the length of time to pay off the new, 3rd burner proposed for installation. Here is a link to the facility (shows diagrams and discusses different parts of the plant): http://www.olmstedwaste.com/owef/facility.htm Here is a link on the proposed new combustion unit: http://www.olmstedwaste.com/owef/Unit%203%20Project.htm Hope this can be of help, Ron B. PS- The name of the city where the waste to energy facility is located was originally named after a city in England by its settlers. 8~) ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net
Re: [Biofuel] Solar.....
Jonathon, There is a San Francisco based website called Solar Buzz which does a pretty good job of tracking world solar prices and demands. Take a peek. http://www.solarbuzz.com/ Regards P. Wolfe --- Legal Eagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jonathan Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 8:37 AM Subject: [Biofuel] Solar. Good day all, Anyone have info on Solar panels? I need 1000 to 5000 units at 120 or 80 Watts. Need this at wholesale. Best price so far is $2.70 per Watt. Maybe these could be of help: http://www.solarmarket.com/ http://www.cansia.ca/pressreleases.htm Luc Any help would be great, Jonathan J.J.A.M., Inc. Jonathan Lynden Dunlap IS Network Systems Analyst Your PC Linux Specialist P.O. Box 4209 Inglewood, California 90309-4209 323-779-2752/Home - Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy
I agree that the ash waste stream is a critical issue for municipal waste incinerators. Likewise, batteries absolutely need to be removed from the waste stream. However, while my organic chemistry may be a bit rusty, I suspect that any organics, aromatics or otherwise, are completely combusted to CO2 given that modern WTE facilities have incineration temperatures over 1800F. According to a report I found, dioxin emissions from US WTE plants dropped from 4260 grams TEQ in 1990 to 12 TEQ in 2000. In fact, WTE plant now account for less than 5% of total annual dioxin emissions in the US. By way of comparision, from one graph, it appears that WTE plants now emit fewer dioxins than residential wood burning. Also, the report I was looking at stated that mercury emmissions from WTE plants were in fact lower, not higher, than coal power plants. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/papers/global_waste_to_energy.html Of course, that report could be a gross misrepresentation. Maybe you can spot some flaws I missed with your more experienced eye. jh Appal Energy wrote: Ron, You're not addressing the fact that ash from municipal waste incinerators is by its own chemical makeup considered to be hazardous waste requiring special handling upon disposal. Unfortunately, no incinerators are forced to comply with RICRA, leaving the ash to be landfilled, mix with the leachate and eventually disperse into the hydrology. No clay or supposedly impervious liners have ever stopped this problem. You're also not addressing the high levels of mercury release from municipal waste incinerators - higher than that of comparable coal fired power plants. You're also not addressing the issues of dioxin and furan release. It is a physical impossibility to mix the witches brew of materials that feeds an incinerator and control the chemical composites that are formed during combustion and even cooling prior to release. I'd strongly suggest that you and anyone else who sees solid waste incineration as a benefit take a look at the Lakeland, Florida incinerator and how much that once highly green-washed gold mine has cost tax payers to date. On top of that, don't you find it a bit of a double standard to rag on hydro for all its disbenefits and then present only the highlights or industry perspective of incineration? Is this intentionally selective or are you just unaware of the destructive capacity of waste incinerators? Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:34 AM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy But back to reality. We in Portsmouth are building an Energy from Waste Plant to incinerate household waste. This plant will produce electricity ( to the grid- NOT LOCALLY ) and will also produce 30MW of waste heat for which so far there are absolutely no plans to utilise this 'free' energy...it will simply go up the chimney! Don Johnston Environmental Coordinator , Portsmouth City Council Chair, Solent Energy and Environment Management Group Winner ; National Champion-Science and Technology, Green Apple Awards 2002 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 023 9283 4247 Hi Don, A nearby city/county has had a Waste-to-Energy plant in place since 1987. The plant incinerates about 200 tons of garbage per day. They are adding a third larger combustion unit to double the tonnage accepted. The plant takes in an area of about 130,000 population, a little smaller than Portsmouth (186,000?). The plant has a 1.5MW turbine/generator which produces electricity for the grid. This is in reality a spit in the ocean, but is still better than nothing at all. As a reference, the largest city (86,000 pop) in the county consumes almost 300MW on a very hot summer day. The steam produced from the facility is sent through underground pipes for about one mile (1.6 km) to the local government center and 25 other local business buildings in the downtown area. I don't have the figures for how much steam per hour is produced. The plant had the latest required pollution controls in place when built. They are now spending $33 million USD (18.5 million GBP) for further pollution upgrades. Natural gas is only used during initial start-up for a combustion unit. There is a recycling center next to the plant to separate out hazmat and recyclables. No government subsidies are used for operation except for an occasional The refuse haulers are all private companies (13 of them) and compete fiercely for service. The original purpose for building the incinerator was to reduce landfill needs. I believe the burned ash constitutes 1/20th of what plain refuse would require in a landfill. A recent article in a newspaper mentioned that the facility wanted to write up a 21 year contract (long period) with the haulers for tipping fees, so revenue would cover the length
Re: [Biofuel] Governments Need to Act to Avert Water Crisis
Regarding comments on Water Crisis and California Rice markets, I had the opportunity to be born and raised in the San Joaquin Valley and involved in many water, air, and foothill woodland, Sierra environmental issues. I have a Degree in Biological Science with an emphasis on Ecosystems, two years of Engineering, and an MBA in Strategic Planning. I also come from a very poor family and part of the Dust Bowl people. I have to take pardon on the comments of California rice. Because regarding California rice, all reseach indicates that a mulitpronged approach is best = Incorporate Best practices in combination to a pricing market may be the best strategy. Water pricing is the key but pricing alone compels some to Sell and trade water and or fallow the land. We all know what happened in the electric pricing market. As matter of fact, California rice farmers have levied a tax on themselves to build and maintain a successful cooperative agricultural research program. This has assured them strong scientific support to address water conservation challenges Approximately 2.23 million acre-feet per year, or about 2.6 percent of California's total water supply, is applied to rice fields as irrigation water. It is important to realize that 25 to 35 percent of this amount is returned to the water resource system. Outflow irrigation water is either reused, percolates to groundwater, or drains back into rivers, thereby conserving water that could otherwise be lost from future beneficial use. While 2.6 percent is not a large figure, it nevertheless represents a significant volume of water, and it is therefore critical that rice farmers put this resource to efficient, beneficial and justifiable use. For example, I read that Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, water application averaged about 8.9 acre-feet/acre for the 10 years prior to 1972. The average for the next decade was about 7.9 acre-feet/acre. Since 1981, the average has been estimated to be about 5.5 acre-feet/acre a 38 percent decrease from the level of water applied during the 1960s. So, during the last 30 years, these rice farmers have apparently used 38 percent less water to grow almost twice as much rice. It is also important to understand that about 2 acre-feet/acre of the applied water returns to the system as outflow into surface waters and percolation to the groundwater and is therefore available for further use. Because there is no comprehensive documentation of the unit use of water for the full California rice acreage, there is currently conducting such research. Other key strategies --Development of Early Maturing Varieties --Precision Leveling of Rice Fields --Development of Water-Conserving Irrigation Systems --Recycling and recirculation of water --reuse canals and recharge pumps The largest portion of applied water, approximately 64 percent, is evaporated or taken up by the plant and transpired. This amount cannot be easily reduced, and it will vary directly with the rice acreage. Approximately 9 percent flows out of rice fields and is reused for irrigation of other rice fields. About 27 percent percolates into the soil and recharges groundwater, and about 5.5 percent flows out of the rice field as surface water and is not reused for rice irrigation. This surface water and groundwater is reused for many purposes. References available thank you for your patience. Best Regards, P. Wolfe --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From a previous message: These tactics would all help, I think, versus our dependence on just a few crops, and crops that need a lot of fossil inputs to get any kind of yield. Yes, it's just a myth. Take something ordinary, for instance, one of the few crops, rice. It has been estimated that 700 000 t per year of rice bran oil could be extracted from the 20% world paddy production currently processed in two-stage mills. So 80% - equivalent to 2,800,000 tons - gets wasted because more efficient single-stage milling mixes the bran with the hulls. Even the 20% makes 231 million gallons a year, another 924 million gallons in the other 80%. And the bran also contains 40-50% soluble carbohydrates, for ethanol. That's the wasted potential with only current production methods. Using the SRI methods, the System of Rice Intensification developed by a French missionary in Madagascar 25 years ago, and now being enthusiastically taken up by farmers worldwide, yields can be vastly increased, inputs go right down to as low as zero, including big savings in seed, and water needs are cut by 80% or more. The establishment, however, such as IRRI (the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, one of the major perpetrators of the disastrous so-called Green Revolution), pooh-pooh it as unscientific. US rice farmers have taken no notice at all, while continuing to commandeer large amounts of scarce water in places like California,
Re: [Biofuel] Hydro power in Scandinavia
John, With the uranium reserves we will sort of secure a long term, 100's or whatever, of years base supply, but it will still only be a minor part of the electricity needs. The way it goes, only a few of the current industrialized countries will be able to take that opportunity. Deweaponize do have a merit and I am not a starch opponent to nuclear for that purpose. I do have the opinion that to present nuclear power as anything else than a minor stop gap in the energy equation is wrong and misleading. I am also of the opinion that humans cannot really be trusted and it present quite significant security risks. We are already exposed and the question should be how we can get out of this, not the further US development of nuclear weapons, as it is today. Radioisotopes also have significant values in the medical field and who knows about future valuable applications. The 60 years figure mean a lot, even if it is a significant length of the period of use. We might have a 10% part of the worlds electricity needs for 200 years, but cannot translate it to 40% over 50 years and this make it to partial and minor energy producer. A few countries might get more and many nothing and this make it less interesting for me and the world as a whole. Hakan At 06:16 PM 10/6/2004, you wrote: Hakan, I understand that current uranium reserves will run out in 60 years at the current rate of production. My question was whether more efficient fuel utilization, better use of already extracted materials (like leftover slightly enriched uranium), novel fuels (like MOX or thorium) and breeders stretch the useful lifespan of nuclear materials to the point that the 60 year number looses some of its utility. Put another way, if 10 years production produces 250 years worth of power, is the 60 years figure meaningful? That having been said, I completely agree that exhausting our supply of radioisotopes in our lifetime now for something as mundane as electricity is very shortsighted. I'd far rather have my great-great-great grandchildren have those materials available for something truly nifty like starships engines. As I implied before, I think renewables should make up the majority of our power mix. I just think we shouldn't completely rule out a limited role for nuclear power. Even if we just built a handful of new reactors to deweaponize the existing enriched materials we have, that strikes me as having merit. jh Hakan Falk wrote: John, No you are not correct. R/P value does not consider the usage, it is a description of the current situation of known reserves and the production from them. This means that with the current speed of mining of Uranium, the known reserves will last 60 years. As we know, the mined resources in the case of nuclear will last for many years, but it still puts a cap on the contribution from nuclear. It also put a definitive cap on how large the contribution from nuclear can be of the total electricity production and clear up the dangerous misunderstanding of that nuclear could be a silver bullet of some sort and replace all other methods of electricity generation for the whole world. Without discussing pros and cons for nuclear, it is a finite fossil resource and neither a sustainable nor a renewable energy solution. By using finite resources in a wasteful and irresponsible way, we are taking something away from future generations. Hakan At 03:50 PM 10/6/2004, you wrote: Hakan- While I agree that renewables and efficiency should be the main focus of our transition away from fossil fuels, I wonder if nuclear doesn't have at least a small role in the future power mix given that wind and PV are poorly suited to base load. Admittedly, current PWR nuclear designs need to be rethought but should we necessarily ignore more advanced designs because of an anti-nuclear sentiment in parts of the environmental movement? I can't help but draw a comparison with diesel engines and greens in the US; the problem is with the implementation, not the concept. Specifically, am I correct that the 60 R/P number you mentioned below assumes current PWR technology without considering breeders or fuel reprocessing? I am not a nuclear engineer, but I was under the impression that CANDU designs can address several of the concerns you raised. First, they use fuel more efficiently than other designs. Second, they can use unenriched fuel, which saves developing nations from needing to build expensive enrichment facilities and partially addresses proliferation issues. Third, they can breed additional fuel from thorium if uranium is not available. Forth, they can run on material extracted from decomissioned nuclear weapons. This could help run down stockpiles of weapons grade material; since we have it, why not use it for peaceful purposes. Fifth, CANDU reactors can actually burn *spent* PWR fuel; this reduces the amount of high level nuclear waste.
Re: [Biofuel] Governments Need to Act to Avert Water Crisis
Well, yes, very interesting, but did you even look at it? Doesn't look like you did. food. Norman Uphoff at Cornell thinks otherwise: http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/ SRI Homepage/System of Rice Intensification Do you think rice is a water plant? Do you know why rice is grown in water? Keith Regarding comments on Water Crisis and California Rice markets, I had the opportunity to be born and raised in the San Joaquin Valley and involved in many water, air, and foothill woodland, Sierra environmental issues. I have a Degree in Biological Science with an emphasis on Ecosystems, two years of Engineering, and an MBA in Strategic Planning. I also come from a very poor family and part of the Dust Bowl people. I have to take pardon on the comments of California rice. Because regarding California rice, all reseach indicates that a mulitpronged approach is best = Incorporate Best practices in combination to a pricing market may be the best strategy. Water pricing is the key but pricing alone compels some to Sell and trade water and or fallow the land. We all know what happened in the electric pricing market. As matter of fact, California rice farmers have levied a tax on themselves to build and maintain a successful cooperative agricultural research program. This has assured them strong scientific support to address water conservation challenges Approximately 2.23 million acre-feet per year, or about 2.6 percent of California's total water supply, is applied to rice fields as irrigation water. It is important to realize that 25 to 35 percent of this amount is returned to the water resource system. Outflow irrigation water is either reused, percolates to groundwater, or drains back into rivers, thereby conserving water that could otherwise be lost from future beneficial use. While 2.6 percent is not a large figure, it nevertheless represents a significant volume of water, and it is therefore critical that rice farmers put this resource to efficient, beneficial and justifiable use. For example, I read that Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, water application averaged about 8.9 acre-feet/acre for the 10 years prior to 1972. The average for the next decade was about 7.9 acre-feet/acre. Since 1981, the average has been estimated to be about 5.5 acre-feet/acre a 38 percent decrease from the level of water applied during the 1960s. So, during the last 30 years, these rice farmers have apparently used 38 percent less water to grow almost twice as much rice. It is also important to understand that about 2 acre-feet/acre of the applied water returns to the system as outflow into surface waters and percolation to the groundwater and is therefore available for further use. Because there is no comprehensive documentation of the unit use of water for the full California rice acreage, there is currently conducting such research. Other key strategies --Development of Early Maturing Varieties --Precision Leveling of Rice Fields --Development of Water-Conserving Irrigation Systems --Recycling and recirculation of water --reuse canals and recharge pumps The largest portion of applied water, approximately 64 percent, is evaporated or taken up by the plant and transpired. This amount cannot be easily reduced, and it will vary directly with the rice acreage. Approximately 9 percent flows out of rice fields and is reused for irrigation of other rice fields. About 27 percent percolates into the soil and recharges groundwater, and about 5.5 percent flows out of the rice field as surface water and is not reused for rice irrigation. This surface water and groundwater is reused for many purposes. References available thank you for your patience. Best Regards, P. Wolfe --- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From a previous message: These tactics would all help, I think, versus our dependence on just a few crops, and crops that need a lot of fossil inputs to get any kind of yield. Yes, it's just a myth. Take something ordinary, for instance, one of the few crops, rice. It has been estimated that 700 000 t per year of rice bran oil could be extracted from the 20% world paddy production currently processed in two-stage mills. So 80% - equivalent to 2,800,000 tons - gets wasted because more efficient single-stage milling mixes the bran with the hulls. Even the 20% makes 231 million gallons a year, another 924 million gallons in the other 80%. And the bran also contains 40-50% soluble carbohydrates, for ethanol. That's the wasted potential with only current production methods. Using the SRI methods, the System of Rice Intensification developed by a French missionary in Madagascar 25 years ago, and now being enthusiastically taken up by farmers worldwide, yields can be vastly increased, inputs go right down to as low as zero, including big savings in seed, and water needs are cut by 80% or more. The establishment, however, such as IRRI (the International Rice Research
Re: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy
Mr. Todd, Please pull off your attack dogs. 1) Firstly, my reply to Don Johnston was simply to 'share' information with him and others on the list, on a similar project. 2) Secondly, there is nothing mentioned in my post that said I was either promoting or...criticizing the project. It was an FYI. 3) Thirdly, as far as the Florida incident, I can't comment on it, but I will say that the state where I live has highly regarded environmental laws with tough enforcement. That may not be the case where you live. 4) Fourthly, since you inquired about the landfill issues, I may have what you want here: The landfill is divided up in separate 'specialtyâ cells' depending on the material being deposited. The facility went 'above and beyond' what is required, unlike your Florida constituent. I guess I am lucky to live in an area that cares about its residents and environment. In 1992, when the state pollution control agency issued new rules for ash landfills, the County made the decision to develop the ash cell for their landfill. Rules required a double liner consisting of a three foot thick layer of clay plus one 30 mil thick and one 60 mil thick synthetic liner. The County decided to EXCEED the rules and develop a double composite liner. The double composite liner consists of a three foot thick clay layer covered by a 60 mil thick synthetic liner and a drainage geonet, then another 2.5 foot thick layer of clay covered by 60 mil thick synthetic liner and a one foot thick sand drainage blanket. This cell utilizes the a sidewall riser technology for the removal of leachate. Leachate from the cell is pumped up and over the berm on top of the liner and into the tank versus using gravity flow with a liner penetration thus eliminating the chance of a leachate leak to the environment in that area. 5) Lastly, as for your comment on my so-called 'double standard'...I am not going to get involved debating the issue. I am going to follow what Peggy suggested on how people should quit bickering and try to be more constructive. Has this answered all your questions and issues Todd? ;~) Ron B. = Ron, You're not addressing the fact that ash from municipal waste incinerators is by its own chemical makeup considered to be hazardous waste requiring special handling upon disposal. Unfortunately, no incinerators are forced to comply with RICRA, leaving the ash to be landfilled, mix with the leachate and eventually disperse into the hydrology. No clay or supposedly impervious liners have ever stopped this problem. You're also not addressing the high levels of mercury release from municipal waste incinerators - higher than that of comparable coal fired power plants. You're also not addressing the issues of dioxin and furan release. It is a physical impossibility to mix the witches brew of materials that feeds an incinerator and control the chemical composites that are formed during combustion and even cooling prior to release. I'd strongly suggest that you and anyone else who sees solid waste incineration as a benefit take a look at the Lakeland, Florida incinerator and how much that once highly green-washed gold mine has cost tax payers to date. On top of that, don't you find it a bit of a double standard to rag on hydro for all its disbenefits and then present only the highlights or industry perspective of incineration? Is this intentionally selective or are you just unaware of the destructive capacity of waste incinerators? Todd Swearingen ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy
That's fine for the ash Greg. Even some of the incinerator heat could be robbed for that process. But then what about the stack emissions? There are no methods of preventing methyl mercury from venting save for not burning the parent stock in the first place..., and dioxins..., and furans. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Greg Harbican [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:01 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy Hey Todd, Strictly out of curiosity, and the other problems/issues aside ( not to mention I don't want to raise fuss ).What about calcining ( is that the proper term? ) the ash to an inert glass/ceramic like material? Everything I have heard about the technology, says it is viable for long term issues were leaching may be a problem. Granted it is very energy intensive, but, what if the energy used was from renewable sources? Greg H. - Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 11:14 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy Ron, You're not addressing the fact that ash from municipal waste incinerators is by its own chemical makeup considered to be hazardous waste requiring special handling upon disposal. Unfortunately, no incinerators are forced to comply with RICRA, leaving the ash to be landfilled, mix with the leachate and eventually disperse into the hydrology. No clay or supposedly impervious liners have ever stopped this problem. ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy
Batteries aren't the sole source of mercury in a waste stream John. Any construction debris from pre-1991 will contain mercury. Electrical switches, relay thermostats, fluorescent tubes, HID lamps, and all too high percentages of other instruments such as barometers, thermometers, blood pressure devices, etc. contain metallic mercury. Mercury is even incorporated in children's shoes. As for dioxin and furans? While my organic chemistry is equally as rusty, there is no such thing as a complete chemical conversion/reaction. And while I haven't visited the WTE issue in several years, I do know one thing for absolute certain. The measurements that Themelis takes come from ideal monitoring periods. They aren't taken at random. And while perhaps the data does navigate through the bureaucratic channels of respective monitoring agencies before receiving a rubber stamp, it is an undeniable fact that their is advance notice of when these inspections are to take place, essentially lending to the creation of high end data taken from periods when the WTE plants have their game face on. Always the best china and linens when guest are to arrive and the old stonewear once they're gone. It is nice to see that the industry has in some respects cleaned up part of its act in the past twenty years. But that's only been a consequence of embroiled debate, protest and public discourse - essentially a loaded gun pointed at the industry's head - certainly not a result of responsible citizenship on the part of the industry. Furthermore, better does not somehow abrogate an industry from its responsibility for its remaining waste stream which continues to poison communities, whether it be concentrated fly ash being disposed of in landfills not designed for haz-mat or entire communities miles downwind from such sites. These companies habitually pitch their plants as green and sustainable alternatives to waste problems, going out of their way to degrade Zero Waste and recycling programs as ineffective. Worse still, the contracts that are signed with such firms guaranteeing x amount of refuse for feedstock frequently preclude all possibility of community or area-wide recycling/waste-reduction in order to prevent legal damage claims from being assessed. Essentially, these companies promote elevated levels of waste by their vary existence. Perhaps for a viewpoint/reality-check that's not premised on industry spin, you might care to take a look at the works of Dr.'s Paul Connet (On the Road to Zero Waste) and Robin Gregory (Creating Wealth from Waste). Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: John Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:51 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy Todd- I agree that the ash waste stream is a critical issue for municipal waste incinerators. Likewise, batteries absolutely need to be removed from the waste stream. However, while my organic chemistry may be a bit rusty, I suspect that any organics, aromatics or otherwise, are completely combusted to CO2 given that modern WTE facilities have incineration temperatures over 1800F. According to a report I found, dioxin emissions from US WTE plants dropped from 4260 grams TEQ in 1990 to 12 TEQ in 2000. In fact, WTE plant now account for less than 5% of total annual dioxin emissions in the US. By way of comparision, from one graph, it appears that WTE plants now emit fewer dioxins than residential wood burning. Also, the report I was looking at stated that mercury emmissions from WTE plants were in fact lower, not higher, than coal power plants. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/papers/global_waste_to_energy.html Of course, that report could be a gross misrepresentation. Maybe you can spot some flaws I missed with your more experienced eye. jh Appal Energy wrote: Ron, You're not addressing the fact that ash from municipal waste incinerators is by its own chemical makeup considered to be hazardous waste requiring special handling upon disposal. Unfortunately, no incinerators are forced to comply with RICRA, leaving the ash to be landfilled, mix with the leachate and eventually disperse into the hydrology. No clay or supposedly impervious liners have ever stopped this problem. You're also not addressing the high levels of mercury release from municipal waste incinerators - higher than that of comparable coal fired power plants. You're also not addressing the issues of dioxin and furan release. It is a physical impossibility to mix the witches brew of materials that feeds an incinerator and control the chemical composites that are formed during combustion and even cooling prior to release. I'd strongly suggest that you and anyone else who sees solid waste incineration as a benefit take a look at the Lakeland, Florida incinerator and how much that once highly green-washed gold mine has cost tax payers to
Re: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy
Ron, Please pull off your attack dogs. There are no attack dogs. Essentially the inquiry was nothing more than how you could prefer a glowing report (aka one-sided information) on one green-washed industry while deriding another. Nothing personal. I'd respond the same to any instance giving such an appearance, even if it were preferred to me by me own mudder. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy Mr. Todd, Please pull off your attack dogs. 1) Firstly, my reply to Don Johnston was simply to 'share' information with him and others on the list, on a similar project. 2) Secondly, there is nothing mentioned in my post that said I was either promoting or...criticizing the project. It was an FYI. 3) Thirdly, as far as the Florida incident, I can't comment on it, but I will say that the state where I live has highly regarded environmental laws with tough enforcement. That may not be the case where you live. 4) Fourthly, since you inquired about the landfill issues, I may have what you want here: The landfill is divided up in separate 'specialty' cells' depending on the material being deposited. The facility went 'above and beyond' what is required, unlike your Florida constituent. I guess I am lucky to live in an area that cares about its residents and environment. In 1992, when the state pollution control agency issued new rules for ash landfills, the County made the decision to develop the ash cell for their landfill. Rules required a double liner consisting of a three foot thick layer of clay plus one 30 mil thick and one 60 mil thick synthetic liner. The County decided to EXCEED the rules and develop a double composite liner. The double composite liner consists of a three foot thick clay layer covered by a 60 mil thick synthetic liner and a drainage geonet, then another 2.5 foot thick layer of clay covered by 60 mil thick synthetic liner and a one foot thick sand drainage blanket. This cell utilizes the a sidewall riser technology for the removal of leachate. Leachate from the cell is pumped up and over the berm on top of the liner and into the tank versus using gravity flow with a liner penetration thus eliminating the chance of a leachate leak to the environment in that area. 5) Lastly, as for your comment on my so-called 'double standard'...I am not going to get involved debating the issue. I am going to follow what Peggy suggested on how people should quit bickering and try to be more constructive. Has this answered all your questions and issues Todd? ;~) Ron B. = Ron, You're not addressing the fact that ash from municipal waste incinerators is by its own chemical makeup considered to be hazardous waste requiring special handling upon disposal. Unfortunately, no incinerators are forced to comply with RICRA, leaving the ash to be landfilled, mix with the leachate and eventually disperse into the hydrology. No clay or supposedly impervious liners have ever stopped this problem. You're also not addressing the high levels of mercury release from municipal waste incinerators - higher than that of comparable coal fired power plants. You're also not addressing the issues of dioxin and furan release. It is a physical impossibility to mix the witches brew of materials that feeds an incinerator and control the chemical composites that are formed during combustion and even cooling prior to release. I'd strongly suggest that you and anyone else who sees solid waste incineration as a benefit take a look at the Lakeland, Florida incinerator and how much that once highly green-washed gold mine has cost tax payers to date. On top of that, don't you find it a bit of a double standard to rag on hydro for all its disbenefits and then present only the highlights or industry perspective of incineration? Is this intentionally selective or are you just unaware of the destructive capacity of waste incinerators? Todd Swearingen ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
[Biofuel] Re (Biofuel)Hydropower in Scandinavia
Nuclear DangersHi John/Hakan, The following webpage may perhaps throw some light on the nuclear energy debate. Check any of the links below or search Google under the same heading of this article. Regards, Bob. [ H E Home ] [ What Voters Want ] [ Reducing Oil Imports ] [ Sustainable Energy ] [ Bad Energy Policy ] [ Nuclear Power ] [ Ten Nuclear Lies ] [ Nuclear Dangers ] Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous By Dr. Helen Caldicott, 9/3/2001 Among the many departures from the truth by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious is that nuclear power is clean and, therefore, the answer to global warming. We heard this during the last round of talks in Bonn, and we can expect to hear more of the same as we move closer to the next round of Kyoto talks that are coming up in Marrakesh in October and November. However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet with long-lived radioactive waste, it significantly contributes to global warming. While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality is that enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself. Indeed, a nuclear power plant must operate for 18 years before producing one net calorie of energy. (During the 1970s the United States deployed seven 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants to enrich its uranium, and it is still using coal to enrich much of the worlds uranium.) So, to recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate nuclear fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades. But that is not the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the end of their 30- to 40-year operating life will require yet more vast quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece, a nuclear reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive operation: Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol, diesel, and electricity that would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be dismantled. Thats the scale were talking about. And that is not the end of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport and longterm storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor. From a medical perspective, nuclear waste threatens global health. The toxicity of many elements in this radioactive mess is long-lived. Strontium 90, for example, is tasteless, odorless, and invisible and remains radioactive for 600 years. Concentrating in the food chain, it emulates the mineral calcium. Contaminated milk enters the body, where strontium 90 concentrates in bones and lactating breasts later to cause bone cancer, leukemia, and breast cancer. Babies and children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of radiation than adults. Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth. Lasting for half a million years, it enters the body through the lungs where it is known to cause cancer. It mimics iron in the body, migrating to bones, where it can induce bone cancer or leukemia, and to the liver, where it can cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the placenta into the embryo and, like the drug thalidomide, causes gross birth deformities. Finally, plutonium has a predilection for the testicles, where it induces genetic mutations in the sperm of humans and other animals that are passed on from generation to generation. Significantly, five kilos of plutonium is fuel for a nuclear weapon. Thus far, nuclear power has generated about 1,139 tons of plutonium. So, nuclear power adds to global warming, increases the burden of radioactive materials in the ecosphere and threatens to contribute to nuclear proliferation. No doubt the Australian government is keen to assist the uranium industry, but the immorality of its position is unforgivable. NOTE: Dr. Helen Caldicott is founding president of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Table of Contents Language Translation Service (Free) Wisdom is knowing what should be done. Virtue is doing it. See also: Defending Your Family Against Biological, Chemical and Radiological Attacks Please send your comments, suggestions, and questions to Jon Traudt ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel
