Re: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy
- Original Message - From: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 13:40 Subject: 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. One problem at a time ok?L.O.L Now I'm going out a bit on a limb here. What about running the stack emissions through a condenser?Get it cold enough, and you can turn anything to a liquid or solid, which would be easier to handle and contain. Once in a easier to handle form, use various other processes to reduce toxicity of the material or for that matter, change it's form completely ( granted it would take many - many years - possibly hundred of thousands of years ) from mercury to a less toxic element?Yes, that would require a repository of some type, but, is that not what is being done in an uncontrolled manner now, by just putting it in a land fill?The way I understand that it is done now ( just putting it in a landfill - even one for hazardous waste, it does not have a chance of becoming a less toxic material at all, and it is more likely to become loose and end up in the food chain. Not trying to be dense or offend anyone, just trying to explore possible solutions to a problem. Greg H. ___ 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
Todd, Is this your first rabbit hunt? Environmentalism does not exist in a black and white world. Go beyond a 'feel-good' scope and you can see that there are many variations and nuances in which an environmentalist can be passionately in favor of one belief and another environmentalist can be radically against the same belief...EACH BELIEF BASED ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATION. Lawsuits and mud slinging battles between environmentalists occur more often than we think. Maybe you are unhappy where you live. Maybe you have become bitter with your environment. You should pack your bags and move to an environmentally friendly state like mine. I'm assuming you live in the States. We have plenty of clean air and clean water. Lots of jobs, nice housing, quality of life is in the top 1-5 depending on the polls, four real seasons, wind power everywhere, biofuel plants everywhere, recycling everywhere, CHP research big time, no smoking in restaurants where I'm at (A...) I should add that much of the clean air comes from our friends to the north...Canada. Canada is the best neighbor to have. They gave us hockey. Go Sault Ste Marie Greyhounds (Major Junior) and the former Thunder Bay Flyers (Junior A)!!! I am now digressing. With that Iâll pass. 8~) Ron B. 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. = ___ 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 Processing
Hello Jonathan, Qualified research via university, NREL, and traditional alliances is expensive. We are fortunate to have a collaborative effort with seasoned pioneers in biofuels development dating from the past 25 years. As was referenced for the group about a month ago, the Hawaii study is one of the best sited for cellulosic biomass conversion to fuel ethanol. Primarily, it is not necessary to patent or have a patent on a microbial process inherent in nature. Nature provides what we need and we can replicate certain biological functions with a basic knowledge in microbiology, botany, and physics. Fortunately, our group assembled biofuel leaders who are innovators in combining nature's benefits along with some excellent application of industrial chemical theory to provide enhancements beyond academia's published papers. I'm sorry that I am unable to quote studies that will prove what is already being practically practiced. Fortunately, I did meet with a DOE statistician who is ready and willing to quote our data to change the official doctrine via new data. First, we must be up and running beyond our pilot projects and small demonstration projects. Also, we are assembling our papers for presentation, but running so hard and fast to get our clients up and running, that we will have to address the scientific community as time allows. Right now, we are addressing need and affirmative action on a commercial scale--cellulosic processing of biomass to bring fuel ethanol into a new level of use and acceptance. Perhaps other list members can give you more material. I'll bet that the archives have numerous references. Thanks for the email. Best wishes, Peggy 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 Jonathan replied: 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Cellulosic Processing
Hellow beggy I am very glad to see your post and fully agree upon your views as I am also one of the research personel inthis field.Please see my post on organosolv pretreatment process. A noval processing are need not only on pretreatments , fermentation , distillation. By sharing knowledge in all the fields our list can have great futur to have the green bimass energy to become a reality sd Pannirselvam --- Peggy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Jonathan, Qualified research via university, NREL, and traditional alliances is expensive. We are fortunate to have a collaborative effort with seasoned pioneers in biofuels development dating from the past 25 years. As was referenced for the group about a month ago, the Hawaii study is one of the best sited for cellulosic biomass conversion to fuel ethanol. Primarily, it is not necessary to patent or have a patent on a microbial process inherent in nature. Nature provides what we need and we can replicate certain biological functions with a basic knowledge in microbiology, botany, and physics. Fortunately, our group assembled biofuel leaders who are innovators in combining nature's benefits along with some excellent application of industrial chemical theory to provide enhancements beyond academia's published papers. I'm sorry that I am unable to quote studies that will prove what is already being practically practiced. Fortunately, I did meet with a DOE statistician who is ready and willing to quote our data to change the official doctrine via new data. First, we must be up and running beyond our pilot projects and small demonstration projects. Also, we are assembling our papers for presentation, but running so hard and fast to get our clients up and running, that we will have to address the scientific community as time allows. Right now, we are addressing need and affirmative action on a commercial scale--cellulosic processing of biomass to bring fuel ethanol into a new level of use and acceptance. Perhaps other list members can give you more material. I'll bet that the archives have numerous references. Thanks for the email. Best wishes, Peggy 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 Jonathan replied: 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!? 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
Todd, Wow, excellent rant. It just melted one of those glaciers you slept under. You win. Game's over and now I will give you a bow. On the lighter side: Here's a link to Wisconsin Prof. Shakhashiri's Science is Fun home page. It's a 'Chemical of the Week'- http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/ETHANOL/ethanol.html Cheers, Ron B. Trying stowing it for a bit Ron, or at least sell it to someone else. First rabbit hunt? Hardly. Your trail is pretty clear to follow. You tried to slip in a slant against John Kerry based upon his noting hydro as renewable. That puts your remark in the ballpark of politcal commentary feigning a holier than though green wrapper, especially when you fail to offer any alternatives/solutions. Oddly enough you still haven't. By your criteria, virtually no renewable is green enough for you, as no doubt you can find virtually every flaw and discount virtually every benefit in the process. Wind? Need roads into remote places and transmission lines for that. Can't do it. Solar? Need ore and manufacturing plants for that. Too many inputs. Damn the benefits. Biomass? Too much corporate farming and mono-culture in too many sectors. Can't do that. Just bitch, snipe and then move on for another jab? My bet is that your so entranced with your little slice of heaven in the north country that you pay relatively little attention to industry and commerce around you and wouldn't notice an encroachment if it bit you on your ... well, you get the point. Who needs blinders when tall firs hide the scars and winter ices everyone in more or less six months out of each year. That doesn't leave much opportunity for paying attention. As for my choice of residencies, experience and/or happiness, you presume too much. I've wintered seven times over below Alaskan glaciers. But that doesn't prevent me from noting the destruction of incinerators globally, whether they be in Florida, Thailand or the Phillippines. And better than a decade in the sub-tropics doesn't discount note taking of the mismanagement of any lands capable of sporting blue spruce, anymore than residency anywhere else prevents anyone from understanding any issue in a comprehensive manner if they have the desire to do so. As well, you seem to express a belief that one can be happier by running, hiding and pretending that reality doesn't exist as long as it's far enough behind you. That's ludicrous. You can no more hide from environmental devastation than you can hide from your own self. Frankly? My happiness and peace of mind is rather solid and well grounded..., save for those occassions when others parade around loudly in tissue thin green wrappers blowing smoke up everyone's collective kilts. 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
Trying stowing it for a bit Ron, or at least sell it to someone else. First rabbit hunt? Hardly. Your trail is pretty clear to follow. You tried to slip in a slant against John Kerry based upon his noting hydro as renewable. That puts your remark in the ballpark of politcal commentary feigning a holier than though green wrapper, especially when you fail to offer any alternatives/solutions. Oddly enough you still haven't. By your criteria, virtually no renewable is green enough for you, as no doubt you can find virtually every flaw and discount virtually every benefit in the process. Wind? Need roads into remote places and transmission lines for that. Can't do it. Solar? Need ore and manufacturing plants for that. Too many inputs. Damn the benefits. Biomass? Too much corporate farming and mono-culture in too many sectors. Can't do that. Just bitch, snipe and then move on for another jab? My bet is that your so entranced with your little slice of heaven in the north country that you pay relatively little attention to industry and commerce around you and wouldn't notice an encroachment if it bit you on your ... well, you get the point. Who needs blinders when tall firs hide the scars and winter ices everyone in more or less six months out of each year. That doesn't leave much opportunity for paying attention. As for my choice of residencies, experience and/or happiness, you presume too much. I've wintered seven times over below Alaskan glaciers. But that doesn't prevent me from noting the destruction of incinerators globally, whether they be in Florida, Thailand or the Phillippines. And better than a decade in the sub-tropics doesn't discount note taking of the mismanagement of any lands capable of sporting blue spruce, anymore than residency anywhere else prevents anyone from understanding any issue in a comprehensive manner if they have the desire to do so. As well, you seem to express a belief that one can be happier by running, hiding and pretending that reality doesn't exist as long as it's far enough behind you. That's ludicrous. You can no more hide from environmental devastation than you can hide from your own self. Frankly? My happiness and peace of mind is rather solid and well grounded..., save for those occassions when others parade around loudly in tissue thin green wrappers blowing smoke up everyone's collective kilts. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Back at you via the Grid/CHP waste to energy Todd, Is this your first rabbit hunt? Environmentalism does not exist in a black and white world. Go beyond a 'feel-good' scope and you can see that there are many variations and nuances in which an environmentalist can be passionately in favor of one belief and another environmentalist can be radically against the same belief...EACH BELIEF BASED ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATION. Lawsuits and mud slinging battles between environmentalists occur more often than we think. Maybe you are unhappy where you live. Maybe you have become bitter with your environment. You should pack your bags and move to an environmentally friendly state like mine. I'm assuming you live in the States. We have plenty of clean air and clean water. Lots of jobs, nice housing, quality of life is in the top 1-5 depending on the polls, four real seasons, wind power everywhere, biofuel plants everywhere, recycling everywhere, CHP research big time, no smoking in restaurants where I'm at (A...) I should add that much of the clean air comes from our friends to the north...Canada. Canada is the best neighbor to have. They gave us hockey. Go Sault Ste Marie Greyhounds (Major Junior) and the former Thunder Bay Flyers (Junior A)!!! I am now digressing. With that I'll pass. 8~) Ron B. 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
RE: [Biofuel] Cellulosic Ethanol -was: US Minnesota Fuels Plan
Hello MH, We are also experimenting with an optional alternative to acid based processing via another processing innovation (fluid through electric and magnetic fields--and this is very experimental. A previous study done in New York published on glucose release from cellulosic material via the big bad use of irradiation. So now we are considering trials with alternating fields. Actually the device is our own water-cleaning apparatus that has proved 5 log reduction in microbes in a stream of water. So, I'm not real sure about your statement about acid hydrolysis. There are many steps and innovations involved. Please qualify your question. I see my message as encouragement for alternative biomass feedstock, alternative biomass processing techniques, and alternative ways to address concerns while bolstering rural economic development. It seems to me that Keith's post today highlighting Argentina's decline in individual and small community interests is a good example of what not to do. We don't want to immobilize and invigorate the masses. We want to encourage farmers to consider their alternatives. We also think that it is possible to just say no when faced with options that are not earth friendly. The masses live in cities and absorb media and become fat. (Obesity--National Geographic lead article from a couple of months ago.) The masses have been taught to be gluttonous by advertising and parental indulgence. Self-sufficiency by my standards includes community cooperation. Who do I want to invigorate??? People who can make a difference and the people who take the time to participate in this Internet exchange are a good starting point. Thanks for the email. You make us think, and that is good. Best wishes, Peggy Subject: [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/ ___ 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 preferred around World - Poll
In a message dated 9/10/2004 5:11:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So far that is THE best aregument for re-electing Bush that I've heard. America's foreign interests may well go against world opinion. if so that's just too bad I don't think that having US national security issues decided in Paris or Bejing is sound judgement the citing that in China Kerry is prefered sets off serious warning bells in my mind. If it doesn't in your mind there is something very wrong. AD That depends if the views are gleaned from the citizens that frequent the corner noodle kiosk or from military officials. ___ 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] Biodiesel Allergies?
I was just looking at From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank: The Complete Guide to Using Vegetable Oil as an Alternative Fuel an Amazon. One of the customer reviews made the point that biofuels made from vegetable oils were dangerous because people with food allergies would be sensitive to the exhaust. Does anyone on this list have any information on this aspect of biofuels? Do those portions of the oil to which people with food allergies are sensitive come out in the exhaust? Would someone who is allergic to peanuts be poisoned by inhaling burnt peanut oil? If so, does the process of converting such an oil to biodiesel prevent that? I'm just starting on the path to making my own biodiesel and using it to fuel a diesel car, but I don't want to warm my daughter's friend (who is deathly allergic to nut oils) if I were to drive said car over to her house. Is this Much Ado About Nothing? Andrew. ___ 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 to grid via WVO genset
average about 2000kWH per month. If I were to run a 30kW diesel genset on SVO for 2.5 hours a day, 30 days a month... 75Hx30kW=2250kWH ... I know that net-metering in Georgia does not pay retail rates for intertie power, but hell, even if I had to run for 3-4 hours a day, seems like I could do well. Of course using a water cooled genset, I would also use the hot water for heating applications. I have a steady supply of good SVO. And 30kw diesel genset available very affordable. I know the intertie/net metering equipment costs a fair amount, but will be applicable for future solar pv use as well. What is the flaw I am missing? -Rob ___ 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] Kyoto protocol is just the beginning
Kyoto protocol is just the beginning Fred Pearce 06 Oct 2004 http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns6494 It has been a long wait since the Kyoto protocol was signed in the early hours of 11 December 1997. Next year, if Russia sticks to the commitment it made last week, the treaty will at last come into force. And that will allow the world to get on with what really matters: drawing up the successor to Kyoto. For if ardent greens and out-and-out skeptics can agree on anything, it is that Kyoto will not even come close to solving the problem of climate change. It is, as the UN Environment Programme director Klaus Toepfer said in a statement last week, only a first step in a long journey. The clock is ticking. Every year we are releasing almost 7 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere ÷ carbon that had lain buried since the days of the dinosaurs. It will remain in the atmosphere for around a century, raising the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and trapping more of the sun's heat. Before the industrial age, the CO2 level was steady at around 280 parts per million. When the Kyoto protocol was drawn up in 1997, the CO2 level had reached 368 ppm. In 2004, it hit 379 ppm. Floods and droughts Most predictions of soaring temperatures, floods, droughts, storms and rising sea levels are based on a concentration of 550 ppm. On current trends, this figure, is likely to be reached in the second half of this century. Even if levels rose no higher, this would just be the start. Time lags in natural systems such as ice caps and ocean circulation mean that changes will continue for millennia after the CO2 level stabilises (see graphic). The bottom line is that only drastic cuts in global emissions of CO2, of two-thirds or more, can stop the concentration of the gas rising ever higher and stave off ever more severe climate change. The more quickly the world can make such cuts, the lower the level at which concentrations will eventually stabilise. The Kyoto protocol, however, involves only very modest reductions of less than 5%. The US does not support it, developing nations do not have to make any cuts and it expires in 2012. Perhaps most crucially, it does not provide a blueprint for where we want to end up and how we intend to get there. But activation of the Kyoto protocol would still be highly significant, as it would free negotiators to begin to discuss what to do next. That process is set to begin formally next year, but is also likely to be the main talking point before then, at the next meeting of the protocol's signatories in Buenos Aires in December. Activation of the protocol would also increase pressure on the US to rejoin the process. Piecemeal negotiations Climate scientists say politicians must move on from Kyoto-style piecemeal negotiations on individual national targets to a global plan to cap concentrations of critical greenhouse gases, especially CO2. Most would like to see CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere kept below 450 ppm, but many accept that 550 ppm is more realistic. I don't feel that we should be anywhere higher than 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, David King, chief scientific adviser to the UK government, said in a speech earlier in 2004. This would still lead to substantial climate change, with the temperature rising by 2¼C to 5¼C and the sea level rising by 0.3 to 0.8 metres by 2100, and by 7 to 13 metres over the next millennium. But a 550 ppm ceiling would stave off even more severe changes. It would also address the international commitment made at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 to prevent dangerous climate change. The Bush administration says it stands by that agreement, even though it disowns the Kyoto protocol. The UK could help set the agenda. The prime minister, Tony Blair, has promised to make tackling climate change the centrepiece of his presidency of the G8 group of rich industrial nations in 2005. Though he is far from finalising his contribution, one option being discussed is to propose a ceiling on atmospheric CO2 that would set a firm and scientifically coherent benchmark to measure the success of future negotiations. Agreeing on a CO2 ceiling would be the easy part. Any ceiling effectively puts an absolute limit on global emissions over the coming century, and the tricky part will be deciding who is entitled to make those emissions. Developing countries insist they can only accept quotas based on population and suggest extending the Kyoto plans for emissions trading to smooth the transition. Industrialised countries such as the US, which emits eight times as much CO2 per head of population as China and 18 times as much as India, reject such suggestions, but are having difficulty finding a fair alternative. Simple measures Assuming agreement can be reached on emissions quotas, the next step will be
Re: [Biofuel] Creating a cool room storage in a hot climate
I recently saw an electric generator powered by a solar heated stirling engine. I have no idea what it cost. http://www.stirling-motor.com/S400.shtml ___ 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
http://www.safealternatives.org/peoplesreport.html Alliance for Safe Alternatives American People's Dioxin Report The People Speak For over twelve years, the American People have waited for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to finalize their report on dioxin and human health. The American public has waited for answers from this report so that steps could be taken to protect human health from dangerous exposures. After more than a decade, the American people could no longer wait for our silent government to act to safeguard the public's health. In January, 1999, more than fifty individuals came together to write policy recommendations for twelve dioxin sources. They participated, in person, and via phone, fax and e-mail, in twelve work groups. Each work group was responsible for drafting recommendations around a specific source for the whole group to consider. In April of 1999, twenty-four leaders came to Northern Virginia to participate in a Roundtable meeting to shape these recommendations. The results of this work is the America's Choice: Children's Health or Corporate Profit, American People's Dioxin Report. The report consists of two parts. The first is the Executive Summary that contains a summary of the newest scientific research findings on the health effects of dioxin and a set of policy recommendations developed the American people. The second portion of this report is the Technical Support Document (TSD), which provides a comprehensive report on the health effects of dioxin. A number of scientists contributed to the writing of the TSD, which provides the scientific basis for this report. This document was also peer reviewed by some of this country's leading experts on dioxin. America's Choice: Children's Health or Corporate Profit, The American People's Dioxin Report * Executive Summary * The Technical Support Document * The Dioxin Report: Behind Closed Doors Government and Other Reports * US EPA Draft Dioxin Reassessment * GAO Report on EPA's SAB * GAO Report on EPA's Dioxin Reassessment's Environmental Health Risks Dioxin Resources áFact Sheets áScience Updates áPublications http://www.safealternatives.org/policy.html Policy Table of Contents The American People's Dioxin Report Science Policy Recommendations Introduction Municipal Waste Incineration Hazardous Waste Incineration Cement and Aggregate Kilns Pulp and Paper Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic Pesticides Petroleum Manufacturing Metallurgical Processes Clean Up of Contaminated Sites Coal Industrial Burning of Treated Wood Appendix A: Principles of Environmental Justice Appendix B: Principles of Just Transition Or here: http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Dioxin-Report-CEHJ.htm The American People's Dioxin Report By Center for Health Environment and Justice (CEHJ) The American People's Dioxin Report Table of Contents By Center for Health Environment and Justice (CEHJ) (It is strongly suggested that you visit the CEHJ website) * Science Policy Recommendations * Introduction * Municipal Waste Incineration * Medical Waste Incineration * Hazardous Waste Incineration * Cement and Aggregate Kilns * Pulp and Paper * Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic * Pesticides * Petroleum Manufacturing * Metallurgical Processes * Clean Up of Contaminated Sites * Coal * Industrial Burning of Treated Wood Tables 1. Inventory of Sources of Dioxin in the United States 2. Dioxin Levels in U.S. Foods 3. Dioxin Levels in Pooled Breast Milk Samples from Various Countries 4. Daily Intake of Dioxin (TEQ) Compared to Established Guidelines 5. Animal Body Burden Levels Associated with Sensitive Adverse Effects Apendix A. Principles of Environmental Justice B. Principles of Just Transition Best Keith 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,
Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel Allergies?
I was just looking at From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank: The Complete Guide to Using Vegetable Oil as an Alternative Fuel an Amazon. Bad book! http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/31729/ One of the customer reviews made the point that biofuels made from vegetable oils were dangerous because people with food allergies would be sensitive to the exhaust. Does anyone on this list have any information on this aspect of biofuels? Do those portions of the oil to which people with food allergies are sensitive come out in the exhaust? Would someone who is allergic to peanuts be poisoned by inhaling burnt peanut oil? After being combusted at those temperaures and pressures? That seems most improbable. Okay, the fatty acid chains in the original oils do survive unchanged in the biodiesel after conversion, but they certainly don't survive the combustion process, and would it be the fatty acid chains, or one or more of them that allergics were allergic to anyway, even uncombusted? Or even the oil? If so, does the process of converting such an oil to biodiesel prevent that? I'm just starting on the path to making my own biodiesel and using it to fuel a diesel car, but I don't want to warm my daughter's friend (who is deathly allergic to nut oils) if I were to drive said car over to her house. Is this Much Ado About Nothing? I do believe it is - not even Josh's book, which is known to get a lot of things wrong, but an amazon customer review of it. I reckon if there was any substance to this there'd've been at least something about it emerging in the last 20 years or so, during which there's been a very great deal of research and experience worldwide with biodiesel. In the five years that this list has been running I believe this is the first time this question has arisen. Best wishes Keith Andrew. ___ 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 to grid via WVO genset
Robert, What is the flaw I am missing? You don't use all 2,000 kWh in 2-3 hour blocks. To make your idea work without a storage system you would have to conduct all your energy consuming activities within that narrow time window. You'd probably be best served by installing a battery bank and converter and cycle your gennie as required. You've also got to depreciate your gennie. Check the manufacturer's estimated life cycle. Usually they're only 2-3 thousand hours before a rebuild is necessary, meaning that you'll be buying a new gennie or paying the rebuild costs every second or third year. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Robert Del Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:11 PM Subject: [Biofuel] Back to grid via WVO genset So looking at my power bill for my recording studio business, we use on average about 2000kWH per month. If I were to run a 30kW diesel genset on SVO for 2.5 hours a day, 30 days a month... 75Hx30kW=2250kWH ... I know that net-metering in Georgia does not pay retail rates for intertie power, but hell, even if I had to run for 3-4 hours a day, seems like I could do well. Of course using a water cooled genset, I would also use the hot water for heating applications. I have a steady supply of good SVO. And 30kw diesel genset available very affordable. I know the intertie/net metering equipment costs a fair amount, but will be applicable for future solar pv use as well. What is the flaw I am missing? -Rob ___ 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] Cellulosic Ethanol -was: US Minnesota Fuels Plan
Thanks Peg, for addressing my questions. I'll await the outcome with interest. Is there any particular plant matter you find promising? 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? Hello MH, We are also experimenting with an optional alternative to acid based processing via another processing innovation (fluid through electric and magnetic fields--and this is very experimental. A previous study done in New York published on glucose release from cellulosic material via the big bad use of irradiation. So now we are considering trials with alternating fields. Actually the device is our own water-cleaning apparatus that has proved 5 log reduction in microbes in a stream of water. So, I'm not real sure about your statement about acid hydrolysis. There are many steps and innovations involved. Please qualify your question. I see my message as encouragement for alternative biomass feedstock, alternative biomass processing techniques, and alternative ways to address concerns while bolstering rural economic development. It seems to me that Keith's post today highlighting Argentina's decline in individual and small community interests is a good example of what not to do. We don't want to immobilize and invigorate the masses. We want to encourage farmers to consider their alternatives. We also think that it is possible to just say no when faced with options that are not earth friendly. The masses live in cities and absorb media and become fat. (Obesity--National Geographic lead article from a couple of months ago.) The masses have been taught to be gluttonous by advertising and parental indulgence. Self-sufficiency by my standards includes community cooperation. Who do I want to invigorate??? People who can make a difference and the people who take the time to participate in this Internet exchange are a good starting point. Thanks for the email. You make us think, and that is good. Best wishes, Peggy ___ 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] Biodiesel Allergies? - none reported.
day. Seriously, my son has asthma and allergies. It's important to know what people are allergic to, it's generally complex molecules like proteins and since as far as I know there have been 0 reported cases of allergic reactions to biodiesel It seems that since biodiesel cannot have the same % of proteins in it that raw oils (like peanut) does, that between the catalyst reacting with the proteins and most of what's not esthers being removed from the final product, that whatever makes it into the exhaust it's not an issue for people with allergies. BTW In addition to petroluem being a significant contributor to a whole host of respiratory problems, I do know one biodiesel user who is allergic to diesel exhaust and was at the verge of selling his vehicle before he found biodiesel. Kenneth MataLiAndy NicholAllenson wrote: I was just looking at From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank: The Complete Guide to Using Vegetable Oil as an Alternative Fuel an Amazon. One of the customer reviews made the point that biofuels made from vegetable oils were dangerous because people with food allergies would be sensitive to the exhaust. Does anyone on this list have any information on this aspect of biofuels? Do those portions of the oil to which people with food allergies are sensitive come out in the exhaust? Would someone who is allergic to peanuts be poisoned by inhaling burnt peanut oil? If so, does the process of converting such an oil to biodiesel prevent that? I'm just starting on the path to making my own biodiesel and using it to fuel a diesel car, but I don't want to warm my daughter's friend (who is deathly allergic to nut oils) if I were to drive said car over to her house. Is this Much Ado About Nothing? Andrew. ___ 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: Israel continues onslaught in Gaza
Israel continues onslaught on Gaza Israeli occupation forces have continued theirÊattacks around Gaza, shelling a town in the northern Gaza Strip, killingÊa boy andÊtwo Palestinian men as well as injuring 10 children. Witnesses to the attack on Bait Lahya said a barrage of tank fire ripped through several homes early on Wednesday morning. Medics said a 15-year-old Palestinian, Abd Allah Qahtan, died immediately while two other men, Hamdan Ubaid and his son Hmud,Êwere also killed in the Israeli offensive on civilian homes. ÊÊÊ Aljazeera's correspondent reports that Ubaid was an imam of a local mosque and died as he was about to leave home for Fajr (dawn prayers). Israeli forces are still opening random fire at these areas ... the s ituationÊis absolutely disastrous ... citizens cannot leave their houses even if they are injured or sick, the correspondent added. Children wounded A shell also hit a house where families had gathered their children for safety, woundingÊnine ranging in age from six months to 12 years -Êseveral of them seriously - hospital officials said.Ê ÊÊÊ Israeli military sources said occupation troops only opened fire after an anti-tank rocket was launched from one of the houses in the town. -- Israeli forces are still opening random fire at these areas ... the s ituationÊis absolutely disastrous ... citizens cannot leave their houses even if they are injured or sick Hiba Akila, Aljazeera's correspondent in Gaza -- Tel AvivÊbegan its campaign - the biggest and bloodiest raid in the Gaza Strip in four years of conflict - after a Hamas rocket strike killed two Israeli toddlers in a border town last Wednesday. ÊÊÊ Since the beginning of the intifada in 2000, more than 100 Israeli children have been killed. More than 600 Palestinian children have died in the same period. Relentless The offensive on Bait Lahya is the latest episode in a series of attacks which have killedÊ88 Palestinians. About 48 of those who died were believed to be part of groups resisting the occupation. Three Israelis have also died.Ê Meanwhile, Israeli occupation forces shot and killedÊthree Palestinian activists whom they allege belong to the Hamas resistance group. Ê Guarding the illegal Kfar Darom settlement in southern Gaza , soldiers said they opened fire on three men who showed intent to attack the colony. Ê One of the three activists died immediately, while the other two initially managed to escape before being hunted down and shot. Ê A Thai immigrant working in the settlement's greenhouses died after being caught in the exchanges of fire between the three men and the soldiers . Demolitions Meanwhile, IsraeliÊtanks and bulldozers have continued to demolish homesÊin the south ofÊoccupied Gaza.Ê Five homesÊwere levelled in al-SitarÊal-Gharbi area after they wereÊdeemed too close to the illegal Netzer Hazani settlement. One of the demolished houses belonged to Ibrahim Hijazi, a top leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. ___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
Haka,. thanks. Nice site, clear concise info'.Retired? keep it up! 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 12:39 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 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
[Biofuel] Oil, oil, toil and trouble
Salon.com Technology | Oil, oil, toil and trouble The future won't be defined by East vs. West or Christian vs. Muslim. As Michael Klare's new book, Blood and Oil, shows, it's all about who has, and who wants, the black gold. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Andrew Leonard Oct. 4, 2004 | Of all the misinformation, spin and outright falsehoods that the Bush administration has perpetrated with regard to the war in Iraq, there is no more hair-pullingly outrageous, flat-out preposterous assertion than that the invasion had nothing to do with oil. This is wrong on so many levels that one hardly knows where to start -- even if, for argument's sake, one dismisses as conspiracy theory the claim that the U.S. invasion was directly aimed at getting control of Iraqi oil fields, and accepts the dubious assertion that by removing Hussein, the Bush administration struck a blow against terrorism. What inspired al-Qaida's attack on the United States in the first place? Was it not Osama bin Laden's outrage at the stationing of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia? And weren't those soldiers there to protect Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti oil fields from Iraqi aggression? So even by the disingenuous logic of the Bush administration, which continues to claim, against all evidence, that Saddam Hussein had strong links with al-Qaida, the struggle for control over oil fields in the Middle East is the root cause of today's conflict. Such has been the case since at least as far back as the Roosevelt administration, as Michael T. Klare calmly and inexorably explains in Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum, and such will be the case for the foreseeable future, unless U.S. leaders make vast changes in current energy policy. Every American president since then has made the issue of U.S. access to Persian Gulf oil a priority -- a priority that has put the nation in bed with corrupt, anti-democratic rulers, infuriated rank-and-file Arabs, and entailed military commitments that result in the deaths of American fighting men and women. And it's only going to get worse, writes Klare. Worldwide demand for oil will continue to rise as supply tightens. As a consequence, bloody and deadly conflicts, not just in the Persian Gulf but everywhere there are significant reserves of oil, will continue to rage. What are we going to do about it? After outlining the danger the United States is currently in -- foreign oil imports now account for more than 50 percent of total U.S. consumption, and that percentage is only going to rise -- Klare calls for a comprehensive reworking of national energy policy. Getting out of the oil dependency trap will require conservation, investment in renewable energy, and fundamental reworking of land use, zoning and public transportation priorities. It's a big job, and one quails at the prospect of any such national initiative making headway in a land as addicted to cheap energy as the United States. But one way or another, change is going to come -- the only real question is whether political leaders and individual Americans have the gumption and foresight to get ahead of the problem, or whether the global economic meltdown that will result from worldwide war over energy resources makes our choices for us. Does that sound too apocalyptic? Too scare-mongering? Too sky-is-falling? So be it. If history teaches us anything, it is that the struggle over resources is one of the most enduringly bloody occupations of humans on this planet. Oil is the most precious such resource today. And so we will continue to bleed. Michael Klare is the defense correspondent for the Nation. As such, one would expect a pretty solid left-wing approach to issues of global politics and energy resource management. But for the most part, Blood and Oil is an exercise in pragmatism, not ideology -- a sober analysis of troop movements, international diplomacy and energy-resource allocation. There is one point, near the end, however, where readers might shake their heads at what appears to be a head-in-the-clouds approach to solving the current dilemma. As a first step in coming up with a new energy policy, Klare argues that the United States needs to cut off its support of all undemocratic regimes, and to make it clear that there will be no more quid-pro-quo arrangements that trade weapon systems and defense commitments in return for access to oil. The United States must no longer agree to help defend any foreign state or regime as a condition of access to oil. Then, as a next step, Klare calls for increasing investment in alternative sources of energy and public transport, and a commitment to energy conservation. Given the circumstances that Klare so compellingly outlines -- U.S. dependence on foreign oil imports, increasing scarcity of resources, and ever-more-intense competition all over the globe for
[Biofuel] Coal: Clean, green power machine?
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Americans_for_Balanced_En ergy_Choices Americans for Balanced Energy Choices - Disinfopedia Formed in 2000 to develop astroturf support for coal-based electricity, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) promotes the interests of mining companies, coal transporters, and electricity producers... [more] http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/10/05/clean_coal/index.html Salon.com Technology | Coal: Clean, green power machine? Forget about that nasty oil or radioactive nuclear waste: If you want to breathe fresh air, says the coal industry, burn, baby, burn! - - - - - - - - - - - - By Katharine Mieszkowski Oct. 5, 2004 | The 30-second TV ad opens with a bald eagle struggling to fly through a smoggy sky. The year is 1970, and the location is a mountain in North America. But wherever this range supposedly is, you would have to wear a gas mask to hike it. After a few seconds of flapping through the soot, the wheezing eagle gives up, crash-landing on a rock. With a deep cough, like a smoker who has been puffing away for decades, the eagle sputters: Not a good day for flyin'. Cut to the next scene; the year is 2004, and the bald eagle is floating above the same mountains. But now the sky is bright blue, dotted with puffy white clouds. The eagle soars, true and proud -- God bless America! Is this a self-satisfied broadside from environmentalists celebrating the Clean Air Act? Not at all. The free-flying eagle is bringing happy tidings from a group called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, a 5-year-old nonprofit funded by the coal, rail and power industries. ABEC's primary purpose, apparently, is to promote the notion that coal is, as its Web site declares, not only affordable but also increasingly clean. A voice-over in the rehabilitated-eagle ad intones: Thanks in part to clean coal technologies, our air quality has been improving. And by 2015 emissions from coal-based power plants will be 75 percent less than they were in 1970. The claim doesn't sit well with environmentalists. What emissions are they talking about? Clearly, they're not talking about CO2 [carbon dioxide] -- there's no question, says Aimee Christensen, executive director of Environment 2004, a political group dedicated to exposing the Bush administration's anti-environmental record. Under Bush, the Environmental Protection Agency has refused to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, even though emissions of CO2 have been closely linked by scientists to global warming, and coal-fired power plants are significant producers of CO2. No Americans for Balanced Energy Choices would return calls for this article, but the eagle spot, which has been broadcast on CNN, can be seen on the Web here. It's the latest salvo in the industry group's ongoing campaign to promote clean coal as a cheap and increasingly green electricity source for the future. Environmental and corporate watchdog groups have taken pains to debunk the nonprofit front group's trumped-up Don't worry, love coal claims, but in an election year where coal-loving swing states such as West Virginia and Pennsylvania are very much in play, both presidential candidates have embraced the clean coal mantra. That's easy enough for them to do even if their positions on global warming differ, because clean coal is one of those catchphrases that mean less the closer you look at them. Ultimately, clean coal is an umbrella term for many technologies, everything from widely available scrubbers that reduce sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, to cutting-edge carbon-sequestration technologies that hold out the hope of capturing greenhouse gases and storing them under the earth in vast geologic reserves. With access to energy resources now synonymous with national security, it's not hard to see why King Coal has taken its new spin. When oil prices started spiking, they started calling themselves domestic, secure energy. They're making people think about coal as a safer alternative to oil and natural gas, says Kert Davies, research director for Greenpeace. With oil at $50 a barrel, and natural gas prices on the rise, look for more feel-good coal messages. But no matter how high that eagle flies, don't expect it to escape the consequences of global warming anytime soon, no matter how squeaky clean the coal industry claims to be. For the Bush administration, the promise of true clean coal is remarkably similar to the promise of the hydrogen fuel-cell car -- a tantalizing technological fix that's decades off, so one can endorse it happily and continue merrily polluting in the present. So the administration continues to promote its FutureGen Initiative, a research project to create a power plant that generates electricity and hydrogen while generating no emissions, including CO2, which would be captured and trapped under the ground. You can burn coal
[Biofuel] Oil: The real threat to national security
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/?keywords=klaretime=allusertim e=2002-12-31 - http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/10/04/oil_dependency/index.html Salon.com Technology | Oil: The real threat to national security Forget about terrorism -- the true enemy is American dependence on energy resources in unstable foreign countries. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Michael T. Klare Oct. 4, 2004 | As the presidential campaign draws to a close, the two major candidates are sparring over many aspects of American foreign policy -- notably Iraq, the war on terrorism, and America's fraying ties with other major powers. But there is one critical topic that both are refusing to confront frankly: America's growing dependence on imported petroleum. Rising oil dependency has many serious consequences for the United States. To begin with, it entails a mammoth transfer of national wealth to foreign oil producers: nearly $200 billion per year at current prices. These transfers represent the single largest contribution to our staggering balance-of-payments deficit and are steadily eroding the value of the dollar. Growing dependency also compels us to coddle foreign oil potentates like the royal family of Saudi Arabia -- some of whose members made lavish donations to Islamic charities linked to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Worst of all, our dependence renders us highly vulnerable to oil shocks caused by turmoil and conflict in the major producing areas abroad. These are not new concerns. The United States has been exposed to the fallout of rising oil dependency for some time. But the severity of the problem has become more pronounced over the past few years. As the United States has deepened its reliance on imported petroleum, the center of gravity of world oil production has shifted inexorably from established producers in the industrialized world to emerging suppliers in the Middle East, Africa, and the Andean region of Latin America -- war zones all. The further we look into the future, therefore, the greater the risk of international oil crises. Given the high stakes involved, oil dependency should be among the top issues discussed in the campaign. Both major candidates should be offering detailed plans for reducing our reliance on imports and developing alternative sources of energy. And, to be fair, both have made token statements in this direction: Sen. Kerry has called for greater spending on petroleum alternatives, while President Bush has touted his plan to promote energy independence by drilling in Alaska and other protected wilderness areas. But neither candidate has been willing to face the fact that American dependence on imported oil will continue to grow unless we adopt far more ambitious plans of conservation and changes in technology. The reluctance to contemplate such moves is understandable. The American economy is deeply dependent on cheap and abundant petroleum, and more and more of that energy must be acquired from foreign suppliers. Even if Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge actually contains all the oil it is said to possess -- about 10 billion barrels -- we would still be dependent on imports for an ever-growing share of our energy needs. Even the production of more hybrid vehicles will not make a real dent in our foreign oil consumption, so long as most Americans continue to drive the relatively inefficient vehicles now on the road. As things stand now, we are destined to be even more beholden to foreign producers in the future than we are at present. The fact that we have become so dependent on imported oil is scary enough. But what is truly frightening is that an ever-increasing share of our imported energy will come from countries that are chronically unstable, torn by ethnic and religious conflict, or house anti-American terrorists -- or some combination of all three. The ever-turbulent Middle East harbors 65 percent of the world's known oil reserves, while producers in Africa, Latin America and Asia possess another 20 percent. These countries or their self-appointed rulers may want to sell us their petroleum, but they lack the capacity to maintain stability in their own territory and so cannot always guarantee a safe and reliable stream of crude. As a result, supplies are curtailed, prices rise and the global economy is at risk of a slowdown or contraction -- precisely the conditions we face today. This is not a temporary worry. We may get past the current upheavals in Iraq, Nigeria and Venezuela and see lower energy prices in the year ahead. But even if these key suppliers settle down a bit, others -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, Angola, Azerbaijan -- are likely to become more restive. There simply is no escape from oil-supply disruptions and the resulting economic traumas produced by instability in producing regions abroad. The propensity toward violence in these areas is partly a result of the
[Biofuel] What's that hissing sound?
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/ Global Public Media - Internet Broadcasting In Depth Interviews with Subject Area Experts on Biosphere Destruction and Related Issues such as Peak oil, - http://www.salon.com/tech/books/2004/08/10/high_noon/index.html Salon.com Technology | What's that hissing sound? Worried about oil running out? Don't look now, but natural gas is next on the endangered hydrocarbons list. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Jeff Nachtigal Aug. 10, 2004 | Oil prices hit an all-time high Monday, topping out at $44.97 a barrel. There are a bundle of immediate reasons -- sabotage and war in Iraq, the showdown between the Yukos Oil Co. and the Kremlin in Russia, political instability in Venezuela -- but there are also fundamental long-term forces pushing prices ever upward. Demand, particularly in countries such as India and China, is growing fast, but the supply is finite. Still, among consumers in the United States, there appears to be little panic. The coming oil peak -- that moment when worldwide production of oil reaches its high point -- is in the news, but Detroit keeps turning out SUVs, freeways are perpetually jammed, and prices at the pump -- so far -- have not inspired many of us to cut back. Our devil-may-care attitude about energy is fueled in large part by an economic principle of substitutability, in which we depend on new sources of energy to take the place of the old. But when the oil spigots finally run dry -- whether in a few years or a few decades -- the next hydrocarbon on the list (and possibly the last, depending on how you count coal) will be natural gas. But if we blow through natural gas in the same reckless manner as we have oil, we're in for a serious shock, argues Julian Darley in his new book, High Noon for Natural Gas. Darley is a self-described environmental philosopher who specializes in researching non-market and non-technology-based responses to global environmental degradation. The primary thrust of High Noon for Natural Gas is that, unless we unplug as much as we can from our energy-dependent ways, we're headed off a cliff, and the crash at the bottom won't be pretty. As with oil, gauging the peak of natural gas production is an inexact science. The best estimates suggest that oil production will hit its all-time high sometime between 2008 and 2035. But already, in 2002, the world discovered fewer reserves of untapped natural gas than it consumed that year -- a clear portent of eventual production declines. Still relatively plentiful, natural gas will for some time fill the gap left by dwindling oil reserves. But if we move merrily on to the next readily available energy source without dramatically changing our gluttonous energy consumption habits, we will only be prolonging the inevitable, Darley says, and will end up throwing ourselves into the carbon chasm. Darley blames the uncontrollable growth of economies and global overpopulation as the two biggest drivers of energy consumption. His solution is to simply stop using nonrenewable energy -- to essentially opt out of the current energy infrastructure. He understands that his suggestions for dealing with the coming energy crisis will not be popular with the vast majority of Western society, nor for those living in fast-growing developing nations. But those who are aware of the problem, he argues, must start the long process of building a new, low-energy infrastructure to replace the current high-energy one we have now. The majority seems to act only when the avalanche is upon the roof; it is quite likely that no prediction, however accurate it is, will be sufficient to shift mainstream policy making or opinion, Darley writes. Thus it is only those who think that we have already gone too far who will be willing to act, make the kinds of big changes required, and more than anything start building a new infrastructure while we can. There are other problems with natural gas aside from its likely future scarcity. For example, the path from underground gas deposit to kitchen range is growing more complex, and expensive, as demand increases. In the United States, nearly 70 percent of new buildings are heated with gas. Canada and Britain have similar numbers, and most of world is following suit and converting to natural gas heat. But most gas in the future will be used to produce electricity. Because electricity is so intrinsic to our cities and life itself, Darley says, anything that threatens the electricity supply is a direct threat to the lives of billions and billions of humans. So although natural gas may seem unrelated to the electricity user, problems with it are not. Electricity is generated by coal, nuclear power, hydropower or natural gas. Natural gas currently powers about 20 percent of the United States' electricity plants, but that rate is sharply rising because low cost has made gas the fuel of choice.
[Biofuel] The end of oil? Guess again
Salon.com Technology | The end of oil? Guess again Sure, the easy-to-find black gold is getting scarce. But Big Oil has a few cards left to play -- no matter what the cost to the environment or the developing world. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Sonia Shah Sept. 15, 2004 | Are we out of gas? Is it the end of oil, as the titles of two recent books suggest? Environmentalists and human rights advocates everywhere might breathe a sigh of relief, if so! Now, finally, we can move on from rapacious, climate-clogging, Nigerian-and-Colombian-slaughtering hydrocarbons to something better. Big Oil is going down! Right? If only. Keep in mind that the $2 trillion oil industry is well-practiced at rising miraculously from the dead. In 1879, the light bulb was invented, in a stroke destroying the entire market for oil, which was premised on supplying kerosene lamps. In 1909, the world's first Big Oil company, Standard Oil, was beheaded. In 1960, OPEC was formed and oil companies were effectively shut out of more than half the world's known oil reserves. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol threatened to permanently curb global oil consumption. Now, in 2004, so many people want so much oil that it seems there just isn't going to be enough. Demand is overtaking supply. But is it? True, from the perspective of the Big Oil companies, all the good stuff -- the kind of oil that makes itself known by conveniently appearing in puddles at the surface, generously spurting out of the ground under its own pressure, and politely declining multibillion-dollar state interventions for security -- is gone. But this, arguably, has been true since the early 1970s, when the flow of oil from stable, homey places like Texas and Oklahoma sputtered out. Since then, Western oil companies have been successfully drilling for oil in progressively more hostile, unforgiving places, from the deeply frozen tundra of the north slope of Alaska and the densely populated swamps of the Niger delta, to the stormy North Sea and thousands of feet under the shifting waters of the Gulf of Mexico. And each foray has left broken communities and ecosystems in its wake. Big Oil's quest to survive in the age of diminishing oil reserves will likely intensify the trend. Although the big oil companies could easily ramp up their solar and wind power divisions in preparation for the end of oil -- for the cost of a single leg of a drilling rig, for instance, oil companies could build a solar-cell manufacturing plant that would make the price of solar power competitive with coal -- the evidence suggests they have quite different plans in mind. Over the next two decades, the U.S. oil industry plans to spend the biggest chunk of its exploration budget hunting for crude not in Alaska, California, and Scotland but in developing countries. Whatever black gold they find will be subject to fewer environmental regulations and will have ready access to cheap, expendable labor, but will be unlikely to uplift the locals. The deadly violence endured by Iraqis, Nigerians and Colombians who have the misfortune to live near Big Oil's stomping grounds testify to oil exploitation's dire consequences for those unlucky enough to live near the oil patch. After all, the business of oil extraction in countries as diverse as Algeria, Angola, Congo, Ecuador, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Peru, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Trinidad Tobago has coincided not with increased prosperity but with a sharp downward slide in living standards. Transforming unreachable unconventional fossil fuel resources into exploitable conventional reserves using technology and government subsidies is another likely tactic, one that will place a heavy burden on fragile and underprotected ecosystems. Across the bleak landscape of Alberta, Canada, for example, is a huge stretch of sludge called tar sands. Back in the 1960s, the technology to mine oil from tar sands, like the technology to extract oil from the Alaska tundra, or the churning North Sea, didn't exist. These resources were, therefore, untouchable. Slowly, the technology improved, the price of oil went up, and the Canadian government offered generous subsidies. Today, the price of extracting a barrel of oil from tar sands has fallen from around $30 in the 1980s to around $5, and in 2003, the Department of Energy redefined no fewer than 180 billion barrels of tar sands as conventional oil, increasing their assessment of the global supply of oil by a whopping 15 percent. Overnight, Canada leapfrogged over Iraq to become the country with the second-biggest oil reserves in the world. And yet, mining oil from tar sands burns up to a fifth of Canada's natural gas supply, emits no less than six times more carbon dioxide than producing a barrel of conventional oil, requires six times more fresh water than the oil it renders, and leaves behind vast, festering lakes of wastewater while Canadian
[Biofuel] Getting warmer - Kerry, global warming, and coal
Salon.com Technology | Getting warmer Environmentalists give John Kerry high marks for his views on global warming -- yet they admit that the Democratic candidate is making too nice with the coal industry. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Katharine Mieszkowski Sept. 10, 2004 | John Kerry is way ahead of George W. Bush on the global-warming issue, which frankly isn't that hard to do. Simply admitting that it's a problem caused by humans puts him light-years ahead of the president. While Bush consistently trumpets the scientific uncertainty surrounding global warming, Kerry has said global warming represents America's biggest threat since the Cold War. And, yes, he said that after 9/11. On the stump, though, Kerry has refrained from raising the specter of global warming, and struck an alliance with the coal industry, whose mines are based in swing states like West Virginia. While these are sticky issues for environmentalists, they remain loath to criticize Kerry. Instead, they are quick to point out that when it comes to global warming, Kerry and Bush are very far apart. It's like being at one end of the Grand Canyon and trying to shout down to the other -- there's a big gap, says Betsy Loyless, vice president for policy for the League of Conservation Voters, which has endorsed Kerry and gives the candidate a 96 percent score on his environmental record. As a senator, Kerry strongly advocated for increasing the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standard. He introduced legislation with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to increase the standard to 36 miles per gallon by 2015. When he challenged White House Cabinet officials to testify before the Commerce Committee about their approaches to fighting global warming, they failed to show up. Kerry knows this stuff -- he knows about climate change, says Ross Gelbspan, author of a new book about global warming, Boiling Point, which argues that Bush's inaction on the issue amounts to corruption disguised as conservatism. Kerry personally attended international climate talks, including the 1992 Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; the Kyoto, Japan, talks in 1997; and the 2000 climate talks in The Hague, Netherlands. He met his now wife Teresa Heinz Kerry at an Earth Day celebration and got to know her better at the climate talks in Rio. In her speech at the Democratic Convention, Heinz Kerry said: With John Kerry as president, global climate change and other threats to the health of our planet will begin to be reversed. While Kerry now says it's too late for the U.S. to make the Kyoto targets, which would have mandated that by 2012 the U.S. return to emission levels 7 percent below those of 1990, he has pledged as president to reenter international climate talks. One of Bush's first actions was basically to pull us out of the whole international debate on global warming, says Debbie Sease, national campaign director of the Sierra Club, which has also endorsed Kerry for president. John Kerry was a leading voice on the need to take action and the need to take immediate steps. Despite the strong differences on global warming between the two candidates, it's a subject that's been mostly absent from both campaigns. In Kerry's 14-page environmental plan, global warming gets just one paragraph. The whole issue has been reframed as an 'energy issue,' says Eban Goodstein, an economics professor at Lewis Clark College in Portland, Ore. In some sense, I think it's a code word for climate change. And that's a real problem. It's like the problem can't be named. So rather than mention global warming, Kerry focuses on other reasons to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and develop alternative fuel technologies: rising gas prices, the war in Iraq, instability in the Middle East. The Kerry campaign defends this approach: I think the policy issues that directly affect what we're going to do about climate change are issues that voters care about greatly, says Roger Ballantine, senior advisor to the Kerry campaign on energy and the environment. That doesn't mean that the voters necessarily identify the issue as climate change. John Kerry thinks that we'd be better off if we used less oil, and we need to make a national priority out of it. I think that people understand there are lots of reasons to do that other than climate change. But with the broad public support for environmental issues, shouldn't Kerry be using this as a way to highlight a key difference between him and Bush? Yes, says Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who's just written a book called Crimes Against Nature -- but Kerry can't get the message out: The press won't cover climate change, Kennedy says. It's not fast-breaking. They will cover security issues. You have to frame an issue in terms of security. Kennedy contends Gore faced the same problem when he was running for president: During the Gore campaign, people were complaining that he
[Biofuel] Bush: Global warming is just hot air
Salon.com Technology | Bush: Global warming is just hot air The planet's getting hotter, ecosystems are going haywire, government scientists know it -- and still the president denies there's a problem. Guess which industry continues to fuel his campaign? - - - - - - - - - - - - By Katharine Mieszkowski Sept. 10, 2004 | Don't expect President Bush to discuss global warming -- the world's most serious environmental problem -- on the campaign trail in the next eight weeks. The former oilman from Texas doesn't dare alienate his friends in the fossil fuel and auto industries, prime purveyors of global warming. Bush still refuses to admit that burning Chevron with Techron in our Jeep Grand Cherokees, not to mention megatons of coal in our power plants, has brought us 19 of the 20 hottest years on record since 1980. You're talking about a president who says that the jury is out on evolution, so what possible evidence would you need to muster to prove the existence of global warming? says Robert F. Kennedy Jr., author of the new book Crimes Against Nature. We've got polar ice caps melting, glaciers disappearing all over the world, ocean levels rising, coral reefs dying. But these people are flat-earthers. In fact, Bush's see-no-evil, hear-no-evil stance on global warming is so intractable that even when his own administration's scientists weigh in on the issue, he simply won't hear of it. In a report sent to Congress at the end of August, government scientists argued that the warming of the atmosphere in recent decades cannot be explained by natural causes but must include such human sources as energy consumption and deforestation. It's a conclusion that a consensus of the world's climatologists reached years ago but that Bush has ignored throughout his presidency. When the New York Times quizzed Bush about why his scientists had shifted their positions on what caused global warming, he appeared entirely ignorant that they had. I don't think we did, he said. When tipped off to the paper's coverage of the report, he added: Oh, OK, well, that's got to be true. Maybe he really doesn't read the newspapers. His aides then assured reporters that, no, this report wouldn't signal any change in his policies around climate change. In other words, Bush will continue to delay regulatory action related to global warming, while pledging to invest in more study of the issue in the name of sound science, before doing anything about it. The Bush administration has been playing whack-a-mole trying to beat back its own scientists on global warming; every once in a while they miss one, says Jeremy Symons, who worked at the Environmental Protection Agency in 2001, when the president reneged on his campaign promise to regulate global-warming pollution -- a move, Symons says, done for no reason other than to appease polluters. The strength of the science is overwhelming and it's reflected in this new report, adds Symons, now climate change program manager for the National Wildlife Federation. It doesn't leave the administration anywhere to hide about the fact that it's not doing anything. The science hasn't changed, but when it comes to policy the Bush administration still has its head in the sand. It's a repeat of a situation early in Bush's presidency, when he asked the National Academy of Sciences to look into global warming and they found that it is happening and is likely caused by such human activities as burning fossil fuels. The response? The administration just continued to call for further study and even infamously censored mentions of the harmful impact of global warming from a federal environmental report. Since the first time President Bush has marginally said global warming could be real, he has delayed, denied or tried to derail any advancements to address it, says Betsy Loyless, vice president for policy for the League of Conservation Voters, which has endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004. The Bush administration has refused to allow climate experts to even participate in climate policy discussions, asserts Rosina Bierbaum, a former director of the White House science office. Rather than consult with its own scientific advisors when devising a strategy on climate change, the White House constructed a plan primarily from conversations with the National Economic Counsel. I wasn't asked anything, says Bierbaum, now dean of the University of Michigan's School of Natural Resources and Environment. In fact, I was told to stop sending weekly science updates to the White House, as had been the tradition with the previous administration. Now that Bush is seeking reelection, he's certainly not going to bring up global warming, which he's done so little about. Bush is not mentioning it because it goes against the major interest of his supporters, says Ross Gelbspan, author of a new book on global warming called Boiling Point, which
[Biofuel] Clean Up Sakhalin Oil Spill, Not Your Image, Campaigners tell Shell
l_06102004.html Friends of the Earth: Press Releases Clean Up Sakhalin Oil Spill, Not Your Image, Campaigners tell Shell Oct 6 2004 Environmental groups expressed outrage today as oil giant Shell moved to appoint a crisis management public relations officer for its troubled multi-billion dollar Sakhalin project in Russia's Far East. Shell has posted the recruitment ad just three weeks after one of its dredging vessels ran aground causing a Category 2 oil spill at Kholmsk on Sakhalin. The spill stretched along five kilometres of coast and left local residents ill. Environmentalists had previously criticised Shell for not having an effective spill response plan and were furious when their fears proved well founded. All of Shell's spill response equipment was stored at the opposite end of Sakhalin Island, several hundred kilometres away. Spill specialists did not examine the spill until nine hours after the accident, and actual clean-up efforts began 18 hours after the spill. It was 48 hours before booms were in place to contain the spill - something which should have happened within a few hours [1]. The Crisis Management Specialist role, within the External Affairs department, requires communications skills, but no specific technical understanding of oil industry emergency procedures [2]. An increasingly common role within the international public relations industry, crisis management involves coordinating communications during a crisis such as an oil spill to protect the reputation of the company responsible for the incident. Shell and its project partners are seeking taxpayer funding from international public lenders to develop its operations on Sakhalin, including the European Bank for Reconstruction Development (EBRD). Dmitry Lisitsyn, of Sakhalin Environment Watch, said: The people of Sakhalin Island want oil operations to be made safe - not just someone to tell them they are safe. Shell has repeatedly promised that this project would be carried out to the highest environmental standards, promises which are now looking quite thin. Shell must clean up its act, not its image. Doug Norlen, of Pacific Environment, added: Adding another layer of communications is typical of Shell's approach to environmental issues. Shell has created a beautifully crafted Potemkin village of environmental responsibility: it looks great, but there's nothing of substance behind it. It is very telling that we get an oil spill spin doctor before we get an oil spill response plan. Petr Hlobil, of CEE Bankwatch Network, said: The EBRD has already expressed concerns about Shell's implementation of the Sakhalin project.It is absolutely vital that before any funding decisions take place the Bank maintains a keen eye on Shell's spin, not only on this oil spill response sticking plaster, but on other aspects such as the currently inadequate social impact provisions which offer little hope to the Sakhalin fishing industry, a crucial sector of the local economy. Notes 1: see www.bankwatch.org/publications/policy_letters/ Â 2004/sakhalin-moratorium_letter.pdf (PDF format) 2: see www.sakhalin-2.com/employment/emp_vacancies_0054.asp Sakhalin II Project Threatens Last Western Pacific Grey Whales Behind the shine - the other Shell report 2003 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/behind_shine.pdf ___ 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] Why Putin is backing Kyoto again
/Article_Type1c=Articlecid=1096886451124call_pageid=968256290204co l=968350116795 TheStar.com - Oct. 5, 2004. 01:00 AM Why Putin is backing Kyoto again GWYNNE DYER Why did Russian President Vladimir Putin decide to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change last week, only six months after his top adviser, Andrei Illarionov, called it a death treaty? One reason is that the European Union offered Russians visa-free travel within the 25-country bloc plus EU support for Russia's membership in the World Trade Organization. The other reason is that Russians aren't stupid. Only a few months ago, Russia and the EU looked light-years apart on global warming. Illarionov, speaking in St. Petersburg in April, outdid even the Bush administration, warning that the restraints put on carbon dioxide emissions by Kyoto would stifle the Russian economy like an international gulag or Auschwitz. Illarionov seemed to be in a different world from senior EU officials like Sir David King, the British government's chief scientific adviser, who said in July, We are moving from a warm period into the first hot period that man has ever experienced since he walked on the planet. While carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere over the last several million years have varied from 200 parts per million at the depth of the ice ages to 270 parts per million during the warming periods between them, he warned, we have now reached 379 parts per million - and that figure is going up by 3 ppm per year. If the current trend continues, King predicted, by the end of this century the Earth will be entirely ice-free for the first time since 55 million years ago, when Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live, and the rest of the world would not sustain human life. The positions seemed utterly irreconcilable - and now, suddenly, Russia is going to ratify Kyoto. The treaty that the Bush administration thought it had killed is alive again. Why? The Kyoto Protocol had to be ratified by countries that together accounted for 55 per cent of the industrialized world's output of carbon dioxide in 1990. So with the United States and its Australian sidekick opposed - the U.S. alone accounts for 25 per cent of the industrialized world's emissions- the assent of Russia (17 per cent) was absolutely indispensable. Once Russia does ratify, however, the Kyoto rules will be up and running in 90 days. The Bush administration was deceiving itself if it thought that Russia was really opposed to Kyoto; Moscow was simply playing hard to get. Russian scientists understand the urgent need to slow climate change as well as their counterparts elsewhere, and all the old high-emission industrial plants that Russia has closed since 1990 means that it will have less difficulty in meeting the Kyoto limits than almost any other country. In fact, Russia will probably find that it is undercutting its annual quota for carbon emissions by a wide margin. Traders on the new London carbon exchange, where the price of carbon dioxide jumped 20 per cent to more than $11 per tonne on the news of Moscow's forthcoming ratification, estimate that Russia will be able to earn around $10 billion a year by selling the unused part of its carbon quota to countries that cannot meet their own quotas. The only real reason that Moscow delayed ratification was that the Bush administration had given Russia what amounted to a veto on the treaty, which it then used to extort major concessions from the European Union. That game is over, so what happens now? The United States will not rejoin Kyoto in the near future. But in the long run, the treaty imposes a discipline on energy use on America's industrial rivals that will make them more efficient and push them into new technologies. Concerns about economic competitiveness may drive the United States back to the Kyoto table even before the tangible evidence of climate change convinces American public opinion of the need to return. And what of the charge that the cuts in emissions demanded by Kyoto don't even begin to solve the problem? This accusation is usually made by people who don't actually want limits on carbon emissions at all, and is based on the (deliberately misleading) assumption that the current Kyoto quotas are the final ones. They are not, of course. The most urgent task after the signing of the treaty in 1992 was to nail down the principle that countries have a duty to limit greenhouse gas emissions that change everybody's climate and to stop the steady rise in emissions. The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 went beyond mere stabilization and imposed a 5 per cent cut on industrial countries' emissions in the period to 2010. However, it exempted developing countries like China and India from quotas until the next bargaining round, on the grounds that the current problem was mostly caused by the developed countries. Talks on the next round of
[Biofuel] Energy bill a special-interests triumph
ecial_interests_triumph?pg=full Boston.com / News / Nation / All we had were leaks, said Representative Edward Markey, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee who was kept largely in the dark while the bill was crafted. It was disrespectful of the Democrats. (Globe Staff Photo / Dina Rudick) CLOSED, FOR BUSINESS Energy bill a special-interests triumph By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff | October 4, 2004 Second of three parts WASHINGTON -- Robert Congel has grand plans and a heady vision for his upstate New York shopping complex. Billed as the biggest mall in the world, the yet-to-be-built DestiNY USA would be filled with 400 retailers, thousands of hotel rooms, a 65-acre glass-enclosed indoor park, a rock- and ice-climbing wall, and a theater suitable for Broadway shows. And if its patrons in Congress get their way, the mega-mall would be partially funded through the federal energy bill, which would provide $100 million in public money. A fervent lobbying campaign by Congel paid dividends on Capitol Hill. When members of the House voted last winter to ramp up domestic oil production, they also voted to help Congel build the giant mall through tax-exempt greenbonds. The greenbonds initiative -- so named because the developments it funds are supposed to be energy efficient -- was among scores of items stuck into the energy bill by lawmakers meeting behind closed doors. These provisions had no official sponsors and weren't part of the original documents approved by the House and Senate, but were added later by unseen hands as the 816-page bill was crafted in a secret conference. Intended to lay out an energy policy for the nation for the first time in more than a decade, the energy bill became a cash bonanza for corporate interests in and out of the energy arena. The bill, which is stalled because of a Senate filibuster but which is still one of President Bush's top legislative priorities, features initiatives to encourage production of new and existing energy sources. But it has also become a phonebook-sized symbol of modern Washington lawmaking, in which policy is driven by those who have money, power, and access to a relatively small group of decision-makers. A Globe analysis of tens of thousands of pages of lobbying records shows that entities with a stated interest in energy policy spent $387,830,286 lobbying Washington last year. They also paid tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions to officials putting together the package at the White House and on Capitol Hill. The Globe analysis shows that the corporations and others, including some universities, were rewarded in the bill with tax breaks, construction projects, and easements of regulations that would save them much more than they spent making their arguments to the government. In some instances, the beneficiaries were specific companies like Home Depot, which spent $240,000 lobbying in hopes of gaining tens of millions in savings. Home Depot -- whose PAC contributed the maximum $5,000 to Bush's 2004 campaign and whose employees have contributed $226,400 to Bush and the Republican National Committee this cycle -- benefits from a two-paragraph section in the bill to eliminate tariffs on Chinese ceiling fans. The change would save Home Depot and other companies a total of $48 million, according to the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. In other instances, entire industries spent tens of millions of dollars to leverage billions in government funding and deregulation. The nuclear industry, which spent some $71,405,955 lobbying Capitol Hill, would get $7.37 billion in tax breaks and projects, including federal funds to construct a $1 billion nuclear plant in Idaho. The plant, which would be the first nuclear plant commissioned in decades, would also benefit the hydrogen fuels industry, because the nuclear facility is intended to create hydrogen fuels. Several large power companies, which spent tens of millions lobbying, won a historic deregulation of their industry that would strip away controls dating from the Depression on how they spend their money and allow them to become conglomerates -- with little recourse for ratepayers if the companies' speculative investments go sour. Bush's biggest supporters would profit handsomely from the bill. Sixty of Bush's 400 Pioneers and Rangers -- those who have committed to raising at least $100,000 and $200,000, respectively, for the Bush-Cheney reelection effort -- would benefit from the tax breaks, subsidies, and deregulation in the bill, according to an estimate by the Sierra Club. Massey Energy of West Virginia -- whose director, James H. Buck Harless, is a major Bush fund-raiser --would get hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees for a coal gasification plant. Harless served on President Bush's energy transition team, a precursor to Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force, which
Re: [Biofuel] Biodiesel Allergies?
inappropriate IgE mediated immune response. There are 3 distinct reasons it seems highly unlikely that peanut oil based biodiesel could cause a problem in someone with a peanut allergy: a) The peanut allergen is not typically found in peanut oil in the first place. b) The caustic/acidic environment used to produce biodiesel should denatures the brothersome protein. c)Keith hit the nail on the head; it is unlikely that the allergen could survive the combustion process. I am not an immunologist, nor do I play one on TV, but I think peanut based BD should be safe. jh Keith Addison wrote: Hello Andrew I was just looking at From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank: The Complete Guide to Using Vegetable Oil as an Alternative Fuel an Amazon. Bad book! http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/31729/ One of the customer reviews made the point that biofuels made from vegetable oils were dangerous because people with food allergies would be sensitive to the exhaust. Does anyone on this list have any information on this aspect of biofuels? Do those portions of the oil to which people with food allergies are sensitive come out in the exhaust? Would someone who is allergic to peanuts be poisoned by inhaling burnt peanut oil? After being combusted at those temperaures and pressures? That seems most improbable. Okay, the fatty acid chains in the original oils do survive unchanged in the biodiesel after conversion, but they certainly don't survive the combustion process, and would it be the fatty acid chains, or one or more of them that allergics were allergic to anyway, even uncombusted? Or even the oil? If so, does the process of converting such an oil to biodiesel prevent that? I'm just starting on the path to making my own biodiesel and using it to fuel a diesel car, but I don't want to warm my daughter's friend (who is deathly allergic to nut oils) if I were to drive said car over to her house. Is this Much Ado About Nothing? I do believe it is - not even Josh's book, which is known to get a lot of things wrong, but an amazon customer review of it. I reckon if there was any substance to this there'd've been at least something about it emerging in the last 20 years or so, during which there's been a very great deal of research and experience worldwide with biodiesel. In the five years that this list has been running I believe this is the first time this question has arisen. Best wishes Keith Andrew. ___ 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/ -- John E Hayes, M.S. Doctoral Student in Nutritional Sciences University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007 ___ 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] Cellulosic Ethanol -was: US Minnesota Fuels Plan
Peggy, Please tell me more, or tell me where to read up and learn more about this new processing. I am very interested in ethanol production, and I work for a well renown NMR research facility. The idea of using magnetic and electric fields is huge, if it can work well. How could I get involved in this research? Thank you -- JRD (Jennifer R. Doty) - Original Message - From: Peggy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:54 PM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cellulosic Ethanol -was: US Minnesota Fuels Plan Hello MH, We are also experimenting with an optional alternative to acid based processing via another processing innovation (fluid through electric and magnetic fields--and this is very experimental. A previous study done in New York published on glucose release from cellulosic material via the big bad use of irradiation. So now we are considering trials with alternating fields. Actually the device is our own water-cleaning apparatus that has proved 5 log reduction in microbes in a stream of water. So, I'm not real sure about your statement about acid hydrolysis. There are many steps and innovations involved. Please qualify your question. I see my message as encouragement for alternative biomass feedstock, alternative biomass processing techniques, and alternative ways to address concerns while bolstering rural economic development. It seems to me that Keith's post today highlighting Argentina's decline in individual and small community interests is a good example of what not to do. We don't want to immobilize and invigorate the masses. We want to encourage farmers to consider their alternatives. We also think that it is possible to just say no when faced with options that are not earth friendly. The masses live in cities and absorb media and become fat. (Obesity--National Geographic lead article from a couple of months ago.) The masses have been taught to be gluttonous by advertising and parental indulgence. Self-sufficiency by my standards includes community cooperation. Who do I want to invigorate??? People who can make a difference and the people who take the time to participate in this Internet exchange are a good starting point. Thanks for the email. You make us think, and that is good. Best wishes, Peggy Subject: [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:
Re: [Biofuel] Back to grid via WVO genset
Robert: Good idea you have and not missing too much but for smaller applications usually the cost of standby charges and the electrical switchgear cost make for an expensive proposition with unanticipated costs. I know this because of my previous fomer career in energy for both small and large co-generation applications. But it doesn't hurt to try! From a purely investment decision: My recommendation is you need to identify your usage during on-peak hours, partial-peak, and off-peak utility periods and find both the real tariff rate for each period and the average. The key is the peak rate. Therefore, let's say your average is 15 cents per kwh. 2,000 kWh/month X .15 $/kwh (avg?)= $300 per mo bill For a retail site the net-metering also means a different set of electrical switchgear at your metering box along with proper circuit protection and circuit breakers. For commercial applications by a registered electric contractor I would budget at minimum $6,000 for this work. You need to consider the cost of Diesel fuel and also you will need the Permits necessary to operate the generator. You will also need to consider the hours of operation and downtime for maintenence. Also, if you have a recording studio, the power generator will most likely generate signal noise which may impact the fidelity of your recording equipment and you will need to consider the Power Quality aspects of your decision. You need to conduct a Return on Investement calculation and also consider the amortization of your equipment if done for a business, along with the environmental costs of using traditional diesel. What impact will your decision have on your local environment? How about noise pollution? Do you need to inform you neighbors? How does your investment affect your cost of capital and revenue for your business? When all that is done you can calculate simple payback calculation by using Cost of Project divided by Savings in One Year. Regards, P. Wolfe --- Robert Del Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So looking at my power bill for my recording studio business, we use on average about 2000kWH per month. If I were to run a 30kW diesel genset on SVO for 2.5 hours a day, 30 days a month... 75Hx30kW=2250kWH ... I know that net-metering in Georgia does not pay retail rates for intertie power, but hell, even if I had to run for 3-4 hours a day, seems like I could do well. Of course using a water cooled genset, I would also use the hot water for heating applications. I have a steady supply of good SVO. And 30kw diesel genset available very affordable. I know the intertie/net metering equipment costs a fair amount, but will be applicable for future solar pv use as well. What is the flaw I am missing? -Rob ___ 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!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.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] Cellulosic Ethanol -was: US Minnesota Fuels Plan
Hello Jennifer, We welcome collaborative researchers to discuss joining in potential projects. Does your organization apply for grants and/ or have set-aside funds to do the testing. At this point we plan to use coffee grinders on cotton balls and cooking cornstarch in the kitchen to make our slurry water for testing both five and six carbon sugars. Because the potential technology offers many advantages, we want to first use it in conjunction with all our other innovations that are assisting low-cost fuel ethanol production. When testing the outcome of glucose production, we use color sensitive strips for diabetic urine glucose indication. It would be nice to afford some state-of-the art equipment that will register glucose production more accurately. Once we have simple proof-of-concept, then we begin some very focused (and expensive) test protocol development. We believe that we may be funded in the near future, but that is now viewed as the future. At this time, our treatment apparatus has undergone about eight upgrades and we are very near commercial, production manufacturing for water-cleaning specialty. Using the same in-line design can be of immense importance in peripheral application development in time and costs (providing it does the job well enough). Then we must dedicate more time to energy conservation. Because our fuel ethanol stills also come with electrical generators, we will have to do some serious cost analysis on energy use and consumption. Luckily our feedstock demands are not costly because we use total biomass processing. Please write me off list to tell me more about your personal projects, interests (vita), and your organization. Many large companies like to assume that they take the cake and lick off the icing as well, so we would need a good understanding with associates about shared rights as patents develop. Individual professors are always a joy to work with. Educational institutions have shown a tendency toward greed, especially those that have established a good reputation for receiving royalties in the past. I guess that one reason we have been slow to move forward is that too often restrictions have been placed on potential partnerships by the larger organization. Our patent holder for the core patent of the EM device is a retired physicist and also a retired university professor. I have the rights to the next add-on development patents. Previously, when writing grants that included his institution, the budgets would be so top heavy with expenses, that the total sum looked unreal in expenses. Finally, I insisted that we forge ahead individually as home-based research to progress. And we have done this costing our board members a great deal in personal funds and non-paid dedication to time investment. I guess what I am saying is that we are not ready to give anything away... but we will be very interested in an association that recognizes our past investment in time and money. Even with a non-disclosure agreement, we will take it slow in the beginning. I hope that you understand my caution about not discussing technical aspects prematurely. Thanks for your email, Peggy Peggy G Korth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Email -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jennifer Doty Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 7:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cellulosic Ethanol -was: US Minnesota Fuels Plan Peggy, Please tell me more, or tell me where to read up and learn more about this new processing. I am very interested in ethanol production, and I work for a well renown NMR research facility. The idea of using magnetic and electric fields is huge, if it can work well. How could I get involved in this research? Thank you -- JRD (Jennifer R. Doty) - Original Message - From: Peggy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:54 PM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Cellulosic Ethanol -was: US Minnesota Fuels Plan Hello MH, We are also experimenting with an optional alternative to acid based processing via another processing innovation (fluid through electric and magnetic fields--and this is very experimental. A previous study done in New York published on glucose release from cellulosic material via the big bad use of irradiation. So now we are considering trials with alternating fields. Actually the device is our own water-cleaning apparatus that has proved 5 log reduction in microbes in a stream of water. So, I'm not real sure about your statement about acid hydrolysis. There are many steps and innovations involved. Please qualify your question. I see my message as encouragement for alternative biomass feedstock, alternative biomass processing techniques, and alternative ways to address concerns while bolstering rural economic development. It seems to me that Keith's post today highlighting Argentina's decline in individual and small
Re: [Biofuel] Back to grid via WVO genset
Sounds good to me. Check out micro cogeneration at Yahoo groups Kirk Robert Del Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So looking at my power bill for my recording studio business, we use on average about 2000kWH per month. If I were to run a 30kW diesel genset on SVO for 2.5 hours a day, 30 days a month... 75Hx30kW=2250kWH ... I know that net-metering in Georgia does not pay retail rates for intertie power, but hell, even if I had to run for 3-4 hours a day, seems like I could do well. Of course using a water cooled genset, I would also use the hot water for heating applications. I have a steady supply of good SVO. And 30kw diesel genset available very affordable. I know the intertie/net metering equipment costs a fair amount, but will be applicable for future solar pv use as well. What is the flaw I am missing? -Rob ___ 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!? 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] Back to grid via WVO genset
You are assuming you will run the meter backwards. They dont allow mass inputs of power usually. But you could offset you bill during that 2.5 hours it's running. I'm in the same boat and I have a server farm at my house that uses about 2000 watts an hour 24/7/365 and I am trying to figure out how to cut energy costs, cooling, servers etc. mel -Original Message- From: Robert Del Bueno [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Back to grid via WVO genset So looking at my power bill for my recording studio business, we use on average about 2000kWH per month. If I were to run a 30kW diesel genset on SVO for 2.5 hours a day, 30 days a month... 75Hx30kW=2250kWH ... I know that net-metering in Georgia does not pay retail rates for intertie power, but hell, even if I had to run for 3-4 hours a day, seems like I could do well. Of course using a water cooled genset, I would also use the hot water for heating applications. I have a steady supply of good SVO. And 30kw diesel genset available very affordable. I know the intertie/net metering equipment costs a fair amount, but will be applicable for future solar pv use as well. What is the flaw I am missing? -Rob ___ 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/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 10/5/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 10/5/2004 ___ 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 to grid via WVO genset
At 11:51 AM 10/7/2004, you wrote: You are assuming you will run the meter backwards. They don't allow mass inputs of power usually. But you could offset you bill during that 2.5 hours it's running. I'm in the same boat and I have a server farm at my house that uses about 2000 watts an hour 24/7/365 and I am trying to figure out how to cut energy costs, cooling, servers etc. mel -Original Message- From: Robert Del Bueno [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Biofuel] Back to grid via WVO genset So looking at my power bill for my recording studio business, we use on average about 2000kWH per month. If I were to run a 30kW diesel genset on SVO for 2.5 hours a day, 30 days a month... 75Hx30kW=2250kWH ... I know that net-metering in Georgia does not pay retail rates for intertie power, but hell, even if I had to run for 3-4 hours a day, seems like I could do well. Of course using a water cooled genset, I would also use the hot water for heating applications. I have a steady supply of good SVO. And 30kw diesel genset available very affordable. I know the intertie/net metering equipment costs a fair amount, but will be applicable for future solar pv use as well. What is the flaw I am missing? -Rob ___ 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/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 10/5/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.773 / Virus Database: 520 - Release Date: 10/5/2004 ___ 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] NOV. 8th ASME EVENT: RENEWABLE ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY
Hi everyone, I thought some of you might be interested in this: NOV. 8th ASME EVENT: RENEWABLE ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY Ian M. Arbon, a professional consultant in Stamford , England , will speak at the next meeting of the New Haven Section of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, November 8th, 2004, at Donatos Restaurant in North Haven, Connecticut. Get more information at: http://www.meridianresources.net/NHASME/Arbon_Invite.htm ___ 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] Stardust soil
Hello Kim, Peggy, Jonathan, - Original Message - From: Kim Garth Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 8:41 PM Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Kerry's environmental car- yea right.(II) To the list, I tried to change the subject line but my computer won't let me. Greetings Peggy, I admire your enthusiasm, but please don't leave us to starve on empty food calories while you make fuel. Your cat tail project is great. Your produce ideas are terrible. All the organic waste needs to be returned to the land that grew it. Chemical fertilizers are killing us. Our food has about 60% of the nutrients that it had a mere 40 years ago. Food waste needs to be returned to the farmer, composted and returned to the land. Any other plan for food wastes mean that eventually we will starve. This is the real problem with biomass projects. Biomass competes with healthy soil, and of the two, we need healthy soil more than we need energy. Soil is a renewable and renewed resource. Estimates of the accretion to the earth's soil mass from extraterrestrial origins range from as little as 1,000 tons/day (300,000 metric tons/yr, Dubin and McCracken, 1962) to 55,000 tons/day (20,000,000 tons/yr, Fiocco and Colombo, 1964). However, a more recent estimate puts the accreting dust volume at approximately 78,000 tons/yr, or 214 tons/day. This roughtly translates into spreading a layer of dust 1mm thick over the entire planetary surface in 63, 900 years to 2,47, 000 years. http://www.expanding-earth.org/page_10.htm ACCRETION OF MASS External accretion of extraterrestrial mass is irrefutable. Everyone knows about meteors and meteor showers that regularly enhance the night skies at certain times each year. Meteorites, the solid remnants of meteors that land on Earth, are also known to almost everyone, even though few may have actually seen one. Every meteoroid (they come in all sizes, from small particles, to pebbles, to small rocks, and megaton meteorites) striking Earth's atmosphere at night creates a visible luminescent shooting star trail that indicates frictional ablation during its transit of the atmosphere. This is a visual signal of mass being added to Earth's surface. Whether or not a meteorite, or just its ablated dust particles, reaches the ground depends on its original size, its molecular composition, its angle of entry, and the depth and density of the atmosphere. Hard evidence of external accretion of mass is shown graphically in the Grand Canyon diagram showing successive layers of different types of sediments deposited at the rate of ~2m/Ma over ~500 Ma to a depth of one kilometer. Each layer was once exposed to the sun when it was Earth's surface, but now only the edge of each layer is exposed to the sun by erosion that created today's Grand Canyon. Similarly, worldwide coal deposits and palaeontology digs, millions of years old, are now covered by deep layers of overburden that did not accrete overnight. People overlook the obvious fact that such immense volumes of overburden must have been laid down gradually and successively in subsequent millennia. Each stratum in any geologic formation, whether a mountain range or a coal deposit deep below ground, had its own day in the sun millions of years ago before it was buried by subsequent accretion of matter from outer space. Today's atmosphere is denser and thicker than it was millions of years ago when Earth was much smaller, so fewer meteoroids result in large meteorites; most of them are converted by ablation into meteor dust that has a 75% chance of settling onto some body of water. This is the source of most of the deep sediments now covering the oceans' floors. Only the largest survive their fiery transit to become meteorites, but it happens frequently, and more often than most people realize. One of the most recent reports was of a 2.2 lb (1 kg) meteorite that fell 22 March 1998 about 40 feet from a group of boys playing basketball in Monahans, Texas. NASA is now studying the meteorite as a potential source of water because it contains halite crystals. However, it is fairly well known that rocks in general contain about 8-10% HÓO, which is the probable source of all the water now on the surface of the planet. The Moon's surface provides the best evidence we have that space is filled with fine dust particles. Neil Armstrong's boot prints at the base of the lunar lander and dust and dirt kicked up by cavorting astronauts proved that the Moon's surface is covered by very fine, powdery dust particles, particles that are not products of atmospheric ablation because the Moon has no atmosphere. The photo below of the astronaut drilling for a sample of moon rock from the large boulder in the foreground shows considerable soil atop the rock itself, and the surrounding area is covered with rocks of various sizes partially buried by fine dust and soil particles. High-resolution photos of
[Biofuel] Re: [renewable-energy] MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY
This looks like an excellent example on how the American system can be manipulated and corrupted, should be prosecuted. How can a elected official be allowed to deal with an issue that he have an interest and a bias and how can he be allowed to do an amendment that is directly and personally favorable to him. If true, it is outrageous, but I am not surprised. This kind of things should be handled by the police, not private initiatives. In some other true democracies it would also be the case. Hakan At 09:53 PM 10/7/2004, you wrote: NOW IS THE TIME TO STAND UP FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY. TODAY!!! PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE MESSAGE AND TAKE ACTION AS SOON AS YOU CAN. Yesterday Senator John Warner (R-VA) submitted a last-minute amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill currently in Conference Committee that will have the effect of stopping not only the Nantucket Sound Wind Farm but, in effect, ALL OFFSHORE WIND-BASED RENEWABLE ENERGY INITIATIVES IN THE UNITED STATES. If you care about the future of energy in this country, and are as outraged as we are about Sen. Warner's methods, please take some time to make your feelings heard. Warner, the Republican Senate Chair of the Committee, is proposing language that would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers (the approved permitting authority for offshore development) from acting on any offshore wind farm application, INCLUDING ANY CURRENTLY PENDING, until Congress specifically authorizes the use of outer Continental Shelf land for such purposes. Although this sounds benign, anyone who knows how our government works knows that this will, in reality, stop all offshore wind projects in the US. In other words, Warner, WHO OWNS A SUMMER HOME IN OSTERVILLE, is effectively sacrificing the future of renewable energy in the U.S. so that the Nantucket Sound Wind Farm will not go ahead. Worse, he is inserting this amendment into the bill at such a late stage that there will be virtually no time to debate it. In other words, he is sneaking a provision that will be harmful to the country into an inappropriate bill at the last moment to ensure its passage. Whatever ! your position on renewable energy, you may well be disgusted at these tactics, which masquerade as government of the people by the people for the people . THE FULL TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT AND ADDRESSES OF THE RELEVANT LEGISLATORS WHO NEED TO HEAR YOUR OPINION ARE INCLUDED AT THE END OF THIS MESSAGE. To put this development into context: At a time when Americans are more concerned then ever in reducing our dependence on Mideast oil with our soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq and with record oil prices, Senator Warner is attempting to block one of America's options for reducing our dependence on the Middle East - developing clean, offshore, American wind power. Senator Warner's amendment would prevent the US Army Corps of Engineers from being involved in permitting offshore wind projects, a move that would set back America's offshore wind energy projects for years if not decades. Right now, seventeen federal and state agencies are in their third year of reviewing Cape Wind's proposal to provide three quarters of the electricity for Cape Cod and the Islands from clean wind power, a region that is now heavily dependent upon oil to generate its electricity. This review process is using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the process is supported by many of America's most respected environmental organizations for being thorough, and for protecting the public interest. Senator Warner's amendment would also prevent Governor Pataki and the Long Island Power Authority from moving forward in their efforts to initiate a permitting process for an offshore wind farm south of Long Island as well as blocking any other potential for harvesting offshore wind off the coasts of the United States. Warner's amendment would directly contradict and impede President Bush's Executive Order to expedite the production of domestic energy resources. Offshore wind energy projects can significantly reduce operations at fossil fuel power plants, thereby improving air quality and the health of all Americans. Cape Wind would also offset over a million tons of greenhouse gases each year, equal to taking over 150,000 cars off the road from this one offshore wind farm alone. The 4,000 page Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the US Army Corps of Engineers on Cape Wind will thoroughly address all of the environmental and economic issues that government agencies need to consider. However, the document is currently being held up at the Pentagon, a development that is possibly related to Senator Warner's amendment. Meanwhile, the tentative decision of the Massachusetts Energy Facility Siting Board found that Cape Wind's power is needed for both regional reliability and economic reasons. Warner's amendment is predicated upon the need for offshore wind projects to have a competitive bidding process, despite the
[Biofuel] Re: [renewable-energy] MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY
This looks like an excellent example on how the American system can be manipulated and corrupted, should be prosecuted. How can a elected official be allowed to deal with an issue that he have an interest and a bias and how can he be allowed to do an amendment that is directly and personally favorable to him. If true, it is outrageous, but I am not surprised. This kind of things should be handled by the police, not private initiatives. In some other true democracies it would also be the case. Hakan At 09:53 PM 10/7/2004, you wrote: NOW IS THE TIME TO STAND UP FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY. TODAY!!! PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE MESSAGE AND TAKE ACTION AS SOON AS YOU CAN. Yesterday Senator John Warner (R-VA) submitted a last-minute amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill currently in Conference Committee that will have the effect of stopping not only the Nantucket Sound Wind Farm but, in effect, ALL OFFSHORE WIND-BASED RENEWABLE ENERGY INITIATIVES IN THE UNITED STATES. If you care about the future of energy in this country, and are as outraged as we are about Sen. Warner's methods, please take some time to make your feelings heard. Warner, the Republican Senate Chair of the Committee, is proposing language that would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers (the approved permitting authority for offshore development) from acting on any offshore wind farm application, INCLUDING ANY CURRENTLY PENDING, until Congress specifically authorizes the use of outer Continental Shelf land for such purposes. Although this sounds benign, anyone who knows how our government works knows that this will, in reality, stop all offshore wind projects in the US. In other words, Warner, WHO OWNS A SUMMER HOME IN OSTERVILLE, is effectively sacrificing the future of renewable energy in the U.S. so that the Nantucket Sound Wind Farm will not go ahead. Worse, he is inserting this amendment into the bill at such a late stage that there will be virtually no time to debate it. In other words, he is sneaking a provision that will be harmful to the country into an inappropriate bill at the last moment to ensure its passage. Whatever ! your position on renewable energy, you may well be disgusted at these tactics, which masquerade as government of the people by the people for the people . THE FULL TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT AND ADDRESSES OF THE RELEVANT LEGISLATORS WHO NEED TO HEAR YOUR OPINION ARE INCLUDED AT THE END OF THIS MESSAGE. To put this development into context: At a time when Americans are more concerned then ever in reducing our dependence on Mideast oil with our soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq and with record oil prices, Senator Warner is attempting to block one of America's options for reducing our dependence on the Middle East - developing clean, offshore, American wind power. Senator Warner's amendment would prevent the US Army Corps of Engineers from being involved in permitting offshore wind projects, a move that would set back America's offshore wind energy projects for years if not decades. Right now, seventeen federal and state agencies are in their third year of reviewing Cape Wind's proposal to provide three quarters of the electricity for Cape Cod and the Islands from clean wind power, a region that is now heavily dependent upon oil to generate its electricity. This review process is using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the process is supported by many of America's most respected environmental organizations for being thorough, and for protecting the public interest. Senator Warner's amendment would also prevent Governor Pataki and the Long Island Power Authority from moving forward in their efforts to initiate a permitting process for an offshore wind farm south of Long Island as well as blocking any other potential for harvesting offshore wind off the coasts of the United States. Warner's amendment would directly contradict and impede President Bush's Executive Order to expedite the production of domestic energy resources. Offshore wind energy projects can significantly reduce operations at fossil fuel power plants, thereby improving air quality and the health of all Americans. Cape Wind would also offset over a million tons of greenhouse gases each year, equal to taking over 150,000 cars off the road from this one offshore wind farm alone. The 4,000 page Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the US Army Corps of Engineers on Cape Wind will thoroughly address all of the environmental and economic issues that government agencies need to consider. However, the document is currently being held up at the Pentagon, a development that is possibly related to Senator Warner's amendment. Meanwhile, the tentative decision of the Massachusetts Energy Facility Siting Board found that Cape Wind's power is needed for both regional reliability and economic reasons. Warner's amendment is predicated upon the need for offshore wind projects to have a competitive bidding process, despite the
